United States Department of Agriculture

Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, 

and Hidalgo County, New Mexico 

Volume 1: Summary and Chapters 1 through 4 

Forest Service Southwestern Region MB-R3-05-16 April 2018
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not 

all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (such as 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Note: We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; 

however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document 

from being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, 

please contact the Coronado National Forest at (520) 388-8300. 

Front cover photos (clockwise from upper left): Upper Kielberg in the Galiuro Mountains, Sky Island 

Scenic Byway, Ak Chin Basketmakers, Rustler Park, Parker Canyon Lake, adobe building at Kentucky 

Camp, poppies in the Santa Rita Mountains, and Mexican spotted owl.

Printed on recycled paper.
Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement

for Revision of the

Coronado National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan 

Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona

Hidalgo County, New Mexico

Responsible Official: Regional Forester

Southwestern Region 

333 Broadway Boulevard, SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 842-3292 

For Information Contact: Forest Planner 

Coronado National Forest

300 West Congress, FB 42 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

(520) 388-8300 

TTY 711

coronado-plan@fs.fed.us

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared 

this programmatic environmental impact statement to disclose the potential effects of a proposed 

action to revise the “Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (1986, as 

amended). The Coronado comprises 1,717,934 acres, most of which are located in southeastern 

Arizona, and 65,823 acres of which are in southwestern New Mexico. 

This document reports the results of an effects analysis of management direction in a no-action 

alternative (the existing 1986 forest plan); the proposed action (the revised forest plan) and two 

alternatives that specify the same management direction as the proposed action with the following 

exceptions: alternative 1 proposes 147,018 more acres be designated as wilderness; and alternative 2 

proposes 40,255 more acres of lands to be managed for motorized recreation, provides limited 

direction regarding managing resources during climate change, and recommends no new special areas 

for designation. The proposed action is the preferred alternative. 

i 

Summary

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Coronado National Forest (also referred 

to as “the Coronado”), prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) to comply with the 

environmental review and disclosure requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

of 1969 (Public Law (P. L.) 91-190). The environmental impact statement reports the potential 

impacts of a proposed action to revise the 1986 Coronado National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as amended (“1986 forest plan”). The revised forest plan was developed according 

to provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, as authorized in transition direction in the 2012 Forest 

Service planning rule.1

The Coronado National Forest covers 1,717,934 acres, most of which are in southeastern Arizona; a 

small portion of the Coronado (65,823 acres) is located in the Peloncillo Mountains of southwestern 

New Mexico.

This environmental impact statement discloses the potential effects of a no-action alternative; a 

revised forest plan (proposed action); alternative 1, which provides the same management direction as 

the proposed action and recommends additional forest land for wilderness designation; and alternative 

2, which provides most of the same management direction as the proposed action, with the exception 

that it contains limited direction regarding management of disturbances resulting from climate change; 

recommends no new special areas designations (e.g., wilderness, research natural areas, zoologicalbotanical areas); and allocates forest lands specifically for motorized recreational use, including 

related facilities. 

Three alternatives were considered but dismissed from further consideration: (1) no grazing, 

(2) recommendation of 31 areas for wilderness designation, and (3) recommendation of parcels that do 

not meet the need for change for designation as wilderness. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

and Environmental Effects 

Table 9 in chapter 2 provides a comprehensive summary of the differences in general plan direction 

among the alternatives. Table 10 through table 27 provide a detailed comparison of their potential 

environmental effects. For a full description of effects, refer to chapter 3. 

 

1 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3)

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

iii

Contents

Summary ......................................................................................................................................... i

Comparison of Alternatives and Environmental Effects ............................................................. i

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................ 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Summary of Changes from the Proposed Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 2

Location of the Coronado National Forest .................................................................................. 4

Background ................................................................................................................................. 4

Overview of National Forest Management ............................................................................. 4

Forest Plan Content ..................................................................................................................... 8

Plan Decisions ......................................................................................................................... 8

Other Plan Content ................................................................................................................ 10

Environmental Analysis for Plan Revision ............................................................................... 10

Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................................ 11

Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................ 12

Decision Framework ................................................................................................................. 13

Public Involvement and Collaboration ...................................................................................... 13

Development of Revised Forest Plan .................................................................................... 13

National Environmental Policy Act Review Scoping Process .............................................. 16

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ......................................................... 19

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 19

Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................. 19

No Action .............................................................................................................................. 19

Proposed Action .................................................................................................................... 20

Alternatives 1 and 2 ............................................................................................................... 20

Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 21

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration .............................................................. 40

No Grazing ............................................................................................................................ 40

Thirty-one Areas Recommended for Wilderness .................................................................. 40

Potential Wilderness Areas Requested for Consideration ..................................................... 40

Maximize Certain Resources ................................................................................................. 40

Minimal or No Management ................................................................................................. 41

Reduced Grazing ................................................................................................................... 41

No New Road Construction ................................................................................................... 41

Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................... 93

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 93

Plan Decisions and Site-specific Projects and Activities .......................................................... 93

Environmental Analyses ........................................................................................................... 93

Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative ................................................................... 94

Revision Topic 1: Ecosystem Restoration and Resiliency .................................................... 94

Revision Topic 2: Visitor Experiences ................................................................................ 329

Revision Topic 3: Access to National Forest System Lands ............................................... 378

Revision Topic 4: Preservation of Open Space ................................................................... 383

Revision Topic 5: Communities, Collaboration, and Partnerships...................................... 389

Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ................................................................... 435

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................................................................................. 435

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .................................................. 435
Contents

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

iv

Other Required Disclosures ................................................................................................. 435

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................. 437

State Agencies and Officials ................................................................................................... 437

Local Agencies and Officials .................................................................................................. 437

Tribes ...................................................................................................................................... 437

O’odham .............................................................................................................................. 437

Western Apache................................................................................................................... 437

Chiricahua Apache .............................................................................................................. 437

Pueblo People ...................................................................................................................... 437

Yaqui People ....................................................................................................................... 437

List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................... 437

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................. 442

Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 443

References .................................................................................................................................. 452

Index ........................................................................................................................................ 471

Tables

Table 1. Wilderness and wilderness study areas included in the no-action alternative .................................23

Table 2. Specially designated areas included in the no-action alternative.....................................................23

Table 3. Land use zones allocated by the proposed action............................................................................29

Table 4. Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas allocated by the 

proposed action ...............................................................................................................................30

Table 5. Special management areas* allocated by the proposed action ........................................................30

Table 6. List of streams on the Coronado National Forest that are eligible for wild, scenic, and 

recreational river designation. These are common to the proposed action, alternative 1 

and alternative 2. .............................................................................................................................34

Table 7. Areas recommended for wilderness designation in alternative 1 ....................................................38

Table 8. Acres allocated to Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in each ecosystem management 

area, by alternative ..........................................................................................................................39

Table 9. Primary differences in various elements of the revised forest plan among the four 

alternatives......................................................................................................................................42

Table 10. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on vegetation communities.................................44

Table 11. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on soils................................................................53

Table 12. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on water ..............................................................54

Table 13. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on air quality.......................................................55

Table 14. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on climate change ...............................................56

Table 15. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on species diversity and viability with a 

focus on federally listed species......................................................................................................57

Table 16. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on species diversity and viability with a 

focus on regionally designated sensitive species.............................................................................72

Table 17. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on species diversity and viability with a 

focus on management indicator species..........................................................................................73

Table 18. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on species diversity and viability with a 

focus on migratory birds and eagles................................................................................................75

Table 19. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 1: Ecosystem 

Restoration and Resiliency..............................................................................................................75

Table 20. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on various forest uses and resources 

under Need for Change Topic 2: Visitor Experiences.....................................................................76

Table 21. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on various forest uses and resources 

under Need for Change Topic 2: Visitor Experiences, with a focus on wilderness, other 

special areas, and climate change ...................................................................................................79

Table 22. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 2: Visitor Experiences.............80
Contents

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

v 

Table 23. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on Need for Change Topic 3: Access to 

National Forest System Lands.........................................................................................................81

Table 24. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 3: Access to National 

Forest System Lands.......................................................................................................................81

Table 25. Comparison of alternatives potential effects on various forest resources related to Need 

for Change Topic 4: Preservation of Open Space ...........................................................................82

Table 26. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 4: Preservation of Open 

Space ...............................................................................................................................................83

Table 27. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on various forest resources or uses under 

“Need for Change” Topic 5: Communities, Collaboration, and Partnerships.................................84

Table 28. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 5: Communities, 

Collaboration, and Partnerships ......................................................................................................91

Table 29. Major vegetation communities within the Coronado National Forest boundary*.........................95

Table 30. Vegetation condition class (VCC) and departure for each vegetation community*......................96

Table 31. Objectives for vegetation treatment specified under the proposed action and alternatives 

1 and 2 (in acres).............................................................................................................................97

Table 32. The acreage of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone proposed under the proposed 

action, alternative 1, and alternative 2...........................................................................................102

Table 33. Acreage of desert communities in each recommended wilderness..............................................107

Table 34. Acreage of grasslands within recommended wilderness.............................................................113

Table 35. Current conditions versus desired conditions within the interior chaparral*...............................114

Table 36. Acreage of interior chaparral within recommended wilderness ..................................................116

Table 37. The current and desired conditions for the Madrean encinal woodland ......................................118

Table 38. Acreage of Madrean encinal woodland within recommended wilderness...................................122

Table 39. The current and desired (reference) conditions in the Madrean pine-oak woodland...................123

Table 40. The 20-year projected change in structural class under the proposed action based on 

VDDT modeling results1 ...............................................................................................................125

Table 41. The 20-year projected change in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel abundance 

under the proposed action for Madrean pine-oak woodland .........................................................126

Table 42. Acreage of Madrean pine-oak woodland within recommended wilderness................................127

Table 43. The distribution of structural classes in ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub for both current 

and desired conditions...................................................................................................................129

Table 44. Projected structural class changes under the no action (5-year) alternative and the 

proposed action (10-year) for ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub based on VDDT modeling 

results* (USDA FS 2009b) ...........................................................................................................130

Table 45. The projected change in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel abundance under the 

no-action alternative (5-year) and the proposed action (10-year) for ponderosa pineevergreen shrub .............................................................................................................................131

Table 46. Acreage of ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub within recommended wilderness...........................133

Table 47. The distribution of structural classes in dry mixed-conifer for both current and desired 

conditions......................................................................................................................................135

Table 48. The distribution of structural classes in wet mixed-conifer for both current and desired 

conditions......................................................................................................................................137

Table 49. Structural class 10-year projected changes for dry mixed-conifer under the proposed 

action alternative based on VDDT modeling results*...................................................................138

Table 50. The projected change after 10 years in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel 

abundance under the proposed action for dry mixed-conifer........................................................139

Table 51. Acreage of dry mixed-conifer within recommended wilderness.................................................140

Table 52. Structural class 10-year projected changes expected for wet mixed-conifer under the 

no-action and proposed action alternatives based on VDDT modeling results*...........................141

Table 53. The projected 10-year change in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel abundance 

under the no-action alternative and the proposed action for wet mixed-conifer ...........................141

Table 54. Acreage of wet mixed-conifer within recommended wilderness.................................................143

Table 55. Distribution of structural classes for the spruce-fir forest under current and desired 

conditions......................................................................................................................................145
Contents

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

vi

Table 56. Structural class 10-year projected changes for spruce-fir under the no-action and 

proposed action alternatives based on VDDT modeling results....................................................145

Table 57. The 10-year projected change in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel abundance 

under the no-action alternative and the proposed action for spruce-fir forests..............................146

Table 58. Acres of riparian area (as designated by the RMAP) in wilderness areas recommended 

by alternative 1 listed by ecological management area .................................................................155

Table 59. The acreage and percentage on the Coronado National Forest and the spatial 

contribution to Bailey’s ecological sections..................................................................................158

Table 60. The acreage and percentage on the Coronado National Forest and the spatial 

contribution to Bailey’s ecoregion provinces................................................................................159

Table 61. Management plans for other lands considered in cumulative effects for vegetation and 

fire .................................................................................................................................................159

Table 62. Proportion under Federal, State, private, and tribal ownership within the cumulative 

effects boundary in Arizona and New Mexico..............................................................................164

Table 63. Average yearly fuels treatment accomplishments by Department of the Interior agencies 

and Forest Service within the State of Arizona from 2003 to 2011 ..............................................165

Table 64. Average yearly fuels treatment accomplishments by Department of the Interior agencies 

and Forest Service within the State of New Mexico from 2003 to 2011 ......................................165

Table 65. General characteristics of predominant general ecosystem survey (GES) units on the 

Coronado National Forest .............................................................................................................169

Table 66. Common general ecosystem survey (GES) units by Coronado National Forest ecosystem 

management area...........................................................................................................................169

Table 67. Percentage of soils in satisfactory condition in ecosystem management areas on the 

Coronado National Forest, based on pre- and post-1986 surveys* ...............................................171

Table 68. Fourteen submitted applications for instream flow water rights..................................................181

Table 69. Results of a 2011 watershed condition assessment of 6th HUC watersheds on the 

Coronado National Forest .............................................................................................................183

Table 70. Climatic data from Tucson International Airport and Palisades Ranger Station on the 

Coronado National Forest .............................................................................................................191

Table 71. Federally listed species and occupied critical habitat on the Coronado National Forest1............218

Table 72. Explanation of codes used throughout the wildlife section .........................................................221

Table 73. Fine-filtered regionally sensitive species and occupied habitat on the Coronado National 

Forest1 ...........................................................................................................................................252

Table 74. Fine-filtered other forest planning species for the Coronado National Forest1............................254

Table 75. Federally listed species threats and plan components to address threats.....................................261

Table 76. Acres of jaguar critical habitat within recommended wilderness areas under alternative 1 ........266

Table 77. Jaguar trends and determinations by alternative..........................................................................268

Table 78. Ocelot trends and determinations by alternative..........................................................................268

Table 79. Mexican gray wolf trends and determinations by alternative......................................................268

Table 80. Mount Graham red squirrel trends and determinations by alternative.........................................271

Table 81. Lesser long-nosed bat trends by alternative.................................................................................274

Table 82. Mexican long-nosed bat trends by alternative .............................................................................276

Table 83. Acres of Mexican spotted owl critical habitat within recommended wilderness areas ...............278

Table 84. Mexican spotted owl population and critical habitat trends, and determinations by 

alternative......................................................................................................................................278

Table 85. Western yellow-billed cuckoo trends and determinations by alternative ....................................281

Table 86. Northern Aplomado falcon (nonessential, experimental population) trends by alternative.........281

Table 87. Sonora tiger salamander trends and determinations by alternative..............................................284

Table 88. Chiricahua leopard frog and critical habitat trends and determinations by alternative................285

Table 89. New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake trends and determinations by alternative........................286

Table 90. Northern Mexican gartersnake trends and determinations by alternative....................................287

Table 91. Gila chub trends and critical habitat and determinations by alternative ......................................290

Table 92. Yaqui chub trends and determinations by alternative..................................................................290

Table 93. Yaqui catfish trends and determinations by alternative...............................................................290

Table 94. Gila topminnow trends and determinations by alternative ..........................................................291

Table 95. Sonora chub trends and critical habitat and determinations by alternative..................................291
Contents

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

vii

Table 96. Desert pupfish trends and determinations by alternative.............................................................292

Table 97. Gila trout trends and determinations by alternative.....................................................................292

Table 98. Apache trout trends and determinations by alternative................................................................293

Table 99. Spikedace trends and determinations by alternative....................................................................293

Table 100. Loach minnow trends and determinations by alternative ..........................................................293

Table 101. Roundtail chub trends and determinations by alternative..........................................................294

Table 102. Pima pineapple cactus trends and determinations by alternative...............................................295

Table 103. Huachuca water umbel trends and determinations, by alternative.............................................296

Table 104. Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses trends and determinations by alternative .......................................298

Table 105. Sensitive species threats and plan components to address threats.............................................299

Table 106. Other forest planning species threats and plan components to address threats..........................303

Table 107. Management indicator species and their associated ecological communities for the 

Coronado National Forest .............................................................................................................316

Table 108. Summary of effects to management indicator species habitat quality and population by 

alternative......................................................................................................................................318

Table 109. Priority migratory birds and habitat...........................................................................................321

Table 110. Percent of Coronado National Forest in recreation opportunity spectrum classes1 ...................331

Table 111. Actions and plans that could affect recreation on the Coronado National Forest......................337

Table 112. Visual quality objectives in the 1986 forest plan.......................................................................343

Table 113. Scenic integrity objectives in the revised forest plan under the proposed action ......................344

Table 114. Scenic integrity objectives under alternative 1..........................................................................347

Table 115. Scenic integrity objectives under alternative 2..........................................................................347

Table 116. Actions and plans that may contribute to cumulative effects on scenic quality on the 

Coronado and adjacent landscapes................................................................................................349

Table 117. Population growth, 1990-2010, for counties in the Coronado National Forest planning 

area................................................................................................................................................390

Table 118. Median age in the planning area of the Coronado National Forest ...........................................391

Table 119. Educational attainment by county in Coronado National Forest planning area (percent 

of persons age 25+, 2010).............................................................................................................392

Table 120. Percentage of participation in various activities on the Coronado National Forest...................392

Table 121. Poverty rate, 2010, in the Coronado National Forest planning area ..........................................394

Table 122. Race and ethnicity in the Coronado National Forest planning area and at larger 

geographic scales ..........................................................................................................................394

Table 123. Median household income by county in the Coronado National Forest planning area .............395

Table 124. Percent contribution of labor and nonlabor income to total personal income, 1970 and 

2009, in the Coronado National Forest planning area ...................................................................395

Table 125. Economic contribution by sector in the Coronado National Forest planning area ....................397

Table 126. Payments to states and counties in the planning area by the Coronado National Forest ...........400

Table 127. Comparison of total Forest Service-related jobs by alternative and resource area ....................402

Table 128. Comparison of Forest Service-related income by alternative and resource area* .....................402

Table 129. Expected annual revenue and expenditures from Coronado National Forest 

management ..................................................................................................................................403

Table 130. Summary of present net value, present-value benefits, and present-value costs by 

alternative......................................................................................................................................403

Table 131. Nonmarket value areas of the Coronado National Forest, acres by alternative .........................404

Table 132. Average annual quantities of forest product removal on the Coronado (5-year average) .........414

Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Coronado National Forest ...................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Location of five ranger districts on the Coronado National Forest and the ecosystem 

management areas (EMAs) contained within them.......................................................................... 7

Figure 3. The ecological sections (Bailey 1983) and North American provinces represented on the 

Coronado and considered for the cumulative effects analysis.......................................................158

Figure 4. Airsheds, nonattainment areas, and class I areas in Arizona........................................................193
Contents

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

viii

Figure 5. Wilderness areas and recommended wilderness area under the no-action alternative .................360

Figure 6. Wilderness areas and recommended wilderness areas under the revised forest plan ...................363

Figure 7. Wilderness areas and recommended wilderness areas under alternative 1 ..................................366

Figure 8. Wilderness areas and recommended wilderness area under alternative 2 ....................................370

Figure 9. Land ownership in southeastern Arizona, including the Coronado National Forest (see 

also figure 1) .................................................................................................................................384

Figure 10. Employment by industry in the Coronado National Forest planning area .................................398

Figure 11. Employment specialization in the Coronado National Forest planning area..............................399

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2: Appendix, Sections A through G (separate 

document)

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3: Appendix, Sections H through L (separate 

document)

Maps in Appendix L

Figures 12-23 Maps of Ecosystem Management Areas for the No-action Alternative (1986 Forest 

Plan)

Figures 24-35 Maps of Ecosystem Management Areas for the Proposed Action 

Figures 36-47 Maps of Ecosystem Management Areas for Alternative 1 

Figures 48-59 Maps of Ecosystem Management Areas for Alternative 2
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

ix

List of Acronyms

ADEQ Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish 

Department

ASLD Arizona State Trust Lands 

Department

ASP Arizona State Parks

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DEIS draft environmental impact 

statement

DOD Department of Defense

EIS environmental impact statement

EMA ecosystem management area

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS final environmental impact 

statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

HUC hydrologic unit code 

LUZ Land use zone 

MA management area

MIS management indicator species

MRLUZ Motorized recreation land use 

zone 

MSO Mexican spotted owl

NAAQS national ambient air quality 

standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy 

Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NMDGF New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish

NMED New Mexico Environment 

Department

NMSLO New Mexico State Land Office

NPS National Park Service

NWR national wildlife refuge

OHV off-highway vehicle

PDEQ Pima County, Department of 

Environmental Quality

PM particulate matter

PNVT potential natural vegetation type

RNA research natural area

TMDL total maximum daily load

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VCC vegetation condition class 

VDDT Vegetation Dynamics 

Development Tool 

WSA wilderness study area

ZBA zoological botanical area

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

1 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest prepared this 

environmental impact statement to comply with the environmental review and disclosure requirements 

of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This final programmatic environmental impact 

statement discloses the potential effects of a proposed revision of the 1986 forest plan. It is organized 

as follows:

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action. This section discusses the background of the 

proposal, explains the purpose of and need for revising the forest plan, and briefly describes the 

action proposed to satisfy the purpose and need. It summarizes public participation in the National 

Environmental Policy Act review process and lists preliminary environmental and social issues 

identified during the scoping period. 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action. This section discusses the proposed 

action (revised forest plan), no action, and a range of reasonable alternatives. It also explains why 

other alternatives were dismissed from further consideration. It includes a summary table in which 

the consequences of implementing each alternative are compared.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This section reports the 

results of a multiple resource analysis of the environmental consequences of implementing the 

proposed action and alternatives. It describes the affected environment, by resource areas, as a 

baseline against which the impacts of alternatives are measured. The description of the 

environment is followed by disclosure of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 

implementing the proposed action and each of the alternatives. 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination. This section lists the credentials of those who 

prepared this environmental impact statement and identifies the agencies, government officials, 

and selected other parties who were consulted regarding the proposed action. 

Glossary. This section provides a glossary of terminology. 

References. This section reports full citations for the sources cited in the text.

Appendices. Consisting of multiple parts, these sections provide detailed information that 

supports the analyses presented in the environmental impact statement, such as an index, public 

comments and responses, maps, and other information as necessary. 

This final environmental impact statement and supporting documents, which comprise the 

administrative record of the National Environmental Policy Act review (also referred to as the project 

record), are on file at the Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 300 West Congress Street, 

Tucson, Arizona. Electronic copies of the environmental impact statement and other planning 

documents are posted online at The Coronado National Forest web page 

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coronado/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fswdev7_018702). The 

Coronado National Forest point-of-contact regarding the review is Rose Robinson, Forest Planner, at 

(520) 388-8491. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

2 

Summary of Changes from the Proposed Plan

and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Changes made in the final plan and this environmental impact statement were driven by specific 

comments from the public, employees, other government agencies, and tribes on the proposed plan 

and draft environmental impact statement. 

Changes made to the forest plan include the following:

• Added a watershed section to better describe the connections between the forest plan goals and 

the land management intent. 

• Updated timber suitability analysis using new sample data that will improve the accuracy of the 

analysis and modeling for management outcomes. 

• Updated range suitability analysis to provide information that will explain the difference between 

range capability versus suitability and how to meet range capability goals that are conducive to 

the management direction within the forest plan. 

• Updated recreation section to reflect current recreation management. 

• Updated the “Range Management” section and “Santa Catalina Ecosystem Management Area” 

section by adding an additional standard regarding the use of domestic sheep and/or goats for 

grazing or packing will not be permitted due to the risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep. 

• Modified the “Tribal Relations” section by adding an additional management approach to include 

the development of a Memorandum of Understanding with neighboring tribes based on public 

input. 

• Updated tables and figures based on updates to information between the draft and final 

documents. 

• Made other relatively minor changes, including factual corrections. 

• Clarified language throughout the plan. 

• Modified scenery guideline to account for safety hazards. 

• Updated chapter 4, which includes maps associated with each ecosystem management area.

• Updated draft environmental impact statement appendix F (now appendix K) to include Forest 

Service manual and handbook direction and additional publications providing guidance. 

• Modified vegetation guidelines to support old growth characteristics and snag retention.

• Modified montane meadows, wetlands, and riparian area guidelines to better clarify the intent and 

provide a higher level of resource protection. 

• Updated glossary. 

• Removed wilderness guidelines associated with research; approval for research falls under a 

special use permit which is issued on a case by case basis therefore is not within the scope of the 

forest plan; duplication of existing wilderness direction and guidance. 

• Removed cultural resource objective to complete Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of items collected prior to 1990; this objective has been accomplished. 

• Removed management approach in tribal relations section to document traditional and cultural 

importance of the Santa Rita Mountains; this management approach has been accomplished 

• Updated references cited. 

• Modified recommended wilderness areas to include Chiricahua Addition North and Whetstone in 

addition to the recommended wilderness areas identified in the proposed plan, Ku Chish and the 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area; based on public input and evaluation process as outlined 

in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 70. Modified Chiricahua Addition North and 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

3 

Whetstone recommended wilderness areas to remove roaded areas from inclusion and maintain a 

reasonable distance from the proposed Arizona Sun Trail. 

• Modified a portion of the Santa Catalina Ecosystem Management Area in the Redington Pass area 

from roaded backcountry to motorized recreation; based on public input to provide management 

direction consistent with existing area activities. 

Changes made to thefinal environmental impact statement include the following:

• Updated and expanded appendix B, which includes coordination with other planning efforts. 

• Added appendix A, which includes responses to public comments on the proposed plan and the 

draft environmental impact statement. 

• Added appendix H: “Crosswalk Between Key Direction from the 1986 forest plan and the revised 

forest plan to help the reader identify the changes between the two documents and to provide 

transparency on the framework of an analysis. 

• Updated tables and figures based on updates to information between the draft and final 

documents. 

• Made other relatively minor changes, including factual corrections. 

• Clarified language throughout the final environmental impact statement based on three qualifiers: 

new analysis, updated information, or response to comments. 

• Updated the map appendix (now appendix L), which includes maps associated with each 

alternative. 

• Added appendix I, which includes comment letters received from Federal and State agencies, 

local governments and Native American tribes. 

• Considered four additional alternatives in response to public comment. These alternatives were 

not analyzed in detail because they didn’t meet the goals or objectives of the purpose and need

(see chapter 2). 

• Updated the proposed action to include two additional recommended wilderness areas: Chiricahua 

Addition North and Whetstone. 

• Updated the proposed action to reflect changes to the Santa Catalina Ecosystem Management 

Area in the Redington Pass area from roaded backcountry to motorized recreation based on new 

motorized travel land use zone maps. 

• Modified Chiricahua Addition North and Whetstone recommended wilderness areas to remove 

roaded areas from inclusion and maintain a reasonable distance from the proposed Arizona Sun 

Trail.

• Added recommended wilderness maps for each alternative.

• Updated effects analysis for mixed conifer forest vegetation communities to better reflect current 

treatment information.

• Updated and modified portions of the final environmental impact statement (and the revised forest 

plan) regarding wildlife species affected by the proposed action: 

♦ Updated species information to be consistent with analyses and effects determinations in 

the biological assessment.

♦ Eight species were removed from the fine-filtered federally listed species affected 

environment and environmental consequences sections of the final environmental impact 

statement. Two species, southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and 

masked bobwhite (Colinus virginianus ridgewayi), were removed from the final 

environmental impact statement as they are not included in the biological assessment 

because neither the species nor their habitat are known to occur on the Coronado. The 

Stephan’s riffle beetle (Heterelmis stephani) was a candidate for listing under the 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

4 

Endangered Species Act but was recently withdrawn as a candidate for listing because it is 

believed to be extinct. The following five species were removed due to status change from 

candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act to not warranted for listing: 

 Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) 

 Arizona tree frog (Huachuca/Canelo DPS) (Hyla wrightorum) 

 Sonora Desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) 

 Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thompsoni) 

 Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii) 

♦ Stephan’s riffle beetle, Arizona tree frog, and Huachuca springsnail have been moved to the 

regionally sensitive species section.

♦ Five species were added to the fine-filtered federally listed species affected environment 

and environmental consequences sections of the final environmental impact statement. Four 

species, Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), Yaqui catfish (Ictalurus pricei), 

spikedace (Meda fulgida), and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), have been added as they are 

listed in the biological assessment but were previously overlooked for inclusion in the final 

environmental impact statement. Finally, roundtail chub (Gila robusta) has been added 

because its status changed from candidate to proposed as threatened and it is included in the 

biological assessment. 

♦ Two snails, the pungent talussnail and the heart vertigo snail, were included in table 74 but 

were inadvertently overlooked for inclusion in table 106. Those additions to the table have 

been made.

Location of the Coronado National Forest

The Coronado National Forest (also referred to as “the Coronado”) consists of 1,717,938 acres of 

National Forest System land, most of which is located in southeastern Arizona. A small portion of the 

total (65,823 acres) is located in the Peloncillo Mountains of southwestern New Mexico (figure 1). 

Elevations on the Coronado range from 3,000 to 10,720 feet above mean sea level across 12 widely 

scattered mountain ranges, referred to as “sky islands” because they rise dramatically from the desert 

floor and contain unique and geographically isolated ecosystems. Figure 2 shows the locations of the 

five ranger districts that make up the Coronado National Forest and the ecosystem management areas 

within them.

Background

Overview of National Forest Management

Regulatory Framework

Legal mandates governing the management of national forests in the United States originated with the 

Organic Act of 1897, which directed they be managed for the dual purposes of protecting and 

conserving water flows and providing a continuous supply of timber for the American public. Decades 

later, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act (1960) was enacted. It authorized and directed the 

Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, water, 

recreation, and wildlife on national forests for multiple uses and sustained yield of forest products and 

services. This was the first law that addressed these five major uses of national forests on an equal 

basis. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

5 

In 1976, Forest Service units were directed by the National Forest Management Act2 (NFMA) to 

develop land and resource management plans (also called forest plans) and use the direction in them to 

manage the natural resources and human uses of each national forest. A key requirement of the act is 

that forest plans be revised when environmental conditions, social conditions, or both have 

significantly changed. The act recommends revision occur at least every 15 years (the National Forest 

Management Act, section 6 (f)(5)). Today, many forest plans are over 20 years old and have not been 

revised within the recommended period for various reasons. This includes the Coronado National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, which was completed in 1986 and has been amended 12 

times.

Since 2005, an interdisciplinary group of Forest Service resource specialists has been developing a 

proposed revision of the 1986 plan. In 2012, the Forest Service issued a new planning rule that 

incorporates transition language at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), which allows national forests to use 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule to amend or revise plans. The revised forest plan addressed in 

this environmental impact statement was prepared using the 1982 provisions. 

In addition to the National Forest Management Act, there are many other laws and regulations that 

apply to management of the national forests including, but not limited to, the Clean Air Act, Clean 

Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. These laws are generally 

not repeated or referenced in a forest plan unless there is an issue that merits citing direction in the 

law. Additional direction and policy for management of national forests are provided in executive 

orders, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and the Forest Service directives system, the latter of 

which consists of Forest Service manuals and Forest Service handbooks. Such direction is also not 

repeated in a forest plan.

 

2 http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

6 

Figure 1. Location of the Coronado National Forest
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

7 

Figure 2. Location of five ranger districts on the Coronado National Forest and the ecosystem management 

areas (EMAs) contained within them
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

8 

Forest Plan Content 

The revised forest plan includes plan decisions and other content. Once the forest plan is approved, 

any substantive changes to plan decisions will require an amendment. A change to other content may 

be made using an administrative correction process. In an administrative correction, nonsubstantive 

errors, (for example, misspelled words or typographical mistakes) are corrected or information (such 

as data and maps) is updated. The public is notified of all plan amendments and administrative 

corrections before they become effective. Plan decisions are displayed in the revised forest plan with a 

grey border to provide clear differentiation from other plan content. 

Plan Decisions

Plan decisions include goals (hereafter referred to as desired conditions), objectives, standards, 

guidelines, special areas, management areas, suitability, and monitoring and evaluation. 

Desired conditions set forth the desired social, economic, and ecological attributes of the Coronado 

National Forest. They attempt to paint a picture of what we (the public and Forest Service) want the 

forests to look like, the goods and services we want them to provide, or both. Desired conditions are 

normally expressed in broad, general terms and are timeless in that there is no specific date by which 

they are to be completed. Desired conditions may only be achievable over a long timeframe (in some 

cases several hundred years). In some cases, a desired condition matches the current condition and the 

goal is to maintain it. Desired conditions are aspirations and not commitments or final decisions to 

approve projects. 

To be consistent with the desired conditions of the plan, a project or activity, when assessed at the 

appropriate spatial scale described in the plan (e.g., landscape scale), must be designed to meet one or 

more of the following conditions: 

• Maintain or make progress toward one or more of the desired conditions of a plan without 

adversely affecting progress toward, or maintenance of, other desired conditions 

• Be neutral with regard to progress toward plan desired conditions 

• Maintain or make progress toward one or more of the desired conditions over the long term, even 

if the project or activity would adversely affect progress toward or maintenance of one or more 

desired conditions in the short term 

• Maintain or make progress toward one or more of the desired conditions over the long term, even 

if the project or activity would adversely affect progress toward other desired conditions in a 

negligible way over the long term 

The project documentation should explain how the project is consistent with desired conditions and 

describe any short-term or negligible long-term adverse effects the project may have on the 

maintenance or attainment of any desired condition. 

Objectives are concise, time-specific statements of measurable planned results that make progress 

toward or maintain desired conditions. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the 

precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving desired conditions. The objectives 

represent just some of the expected outcomes or actions required for the Forest Service to make 

progress toward desired conditions. Not every action or objective the Coronado National Forest may 

initiate is identified in the plan, just the primary ones.

Variation in achieving objectives may occur during the next 15 years because of changes in 

environmental conditions, available budgets, and other factors. Objectives are strongly influenced by 

recent trends, past experiences, anticipated staffing levels, and short-term budgets. 

A project or activity is consistent with the objectives of the plan if it contributes to or does not prevent 

the attainment of any of those that apply to it. The project documentation should identify any 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

9 

applicable objective(s) to which the project contributes and document that the project does not prevent 

the attainment of any objectives. If there are no applicable objectives, the project must be consistent 

with the objectives decisions of the plan, and the project document should state that fact. 

Standards are constraints upon project and activity decision making. A standard is an absolute 

requirement to be met in the design of projects and activities. A project or activity is consistent with a 

standard when its design is in accord with the explicit provisions of the standard; variance from a 

standard is not allowed except by plan amendment. 

Guidelines are components with which a project or activity must be consistent, in either of two ways: 

1. The project or activity is designed exactly in accord with the guideline; or 

2. The project or activity design varies from the exact words of the guideline, but is as effective 

in meeting the purpose of the guideline to contribute to the maintenance or attainment of the 

relevant desired conditions and objectives. 

Guidelines must be followed, but they may be modified somewhat for a specific project if the intent of 

the guideline is followed and the deviation is addressed in a decision document with supporting 

rationale. When deviation from a guideline does not meet the original intent; however, a plan 

amendment is required. 

Special areas are lands that have designations by Congress or another delegated authority. Special 

areas are designated because of their unique or special characteristics. The revised forest plan provides 

direction for the following special areas: scenic byways, national recreation trails, eligible and suitable 

wild and scenic rivers, botanical areas, zoological areas, recommended and designated research 

natural areas, and recommended and designated wilderness.

Where the plan provides decisions specific to a special area, a project or activity must be consistent 

with area-specific decisions. The project documentation should describe how the project or activity is 

consistent with the area-specific decisions of the plan. 

Management areas are spatially defined areas for which a unique set of plan components are defined. 

The Coronado revised forest plan proposes three types of management areas: special areas, land use 

zones, and ecosystem management areas (otherwise known as “geographic areas”). Special areas are 

established at a national level either through legislation (congressional designation) or at a regional or 

local level through administrative action (administrative designation). The forest plan may 

recommend the establishment of new special areas. Land use zones are defined by the types of uses 

and desired settings that would occur in them under the revised forest plan. They occur across 

districts, mountain ranges, and ecosystems but have commonalities that make their overarching land 

uses similar. Ecosystem management areas are defined geographically to include one or more 

mountain ranges. These mountain ranges are used to distinguish the ecosystem management area’s 

unique social and ecological issues with appropriate plan components. 

Suitability describes the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices (uses) to 

a particular area of land. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined uses. 

A project with the purpose of timber production may only occur in an area identified as suitable for 

timber production (16 U.S.C. 1604(k)). The documentation for the project should confirm the project 

area meets the suitability requirements.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

10

Except for projects with a purpose of timber production, a project or activity can be consistent with 

plan suitability determinations in two ways:

1. The project or activity is a use identified in the plan as suitable for the location where the 

project or activity is to occur; or

2. The project or activity is not a use identified in the plan as suitable for the location (the plan is 

silent on the use or the plan identifies the use as not suitable), but the responsible official 

determines the use is appropriate for the location’s desired conditions and objectives. 

The project documentation should describe that the project or activity is either (1) a use for which the 

area is specifically identified in the plan as suitable or (2) not a use for which the area is specifically 

identified in the plan as suitable, but is nonetheless appropriate for that location. 

Monitoring and evaluation consists of key elements that will be monitored as implementation of the 

forest plan progresses (i.e., future site-specific actions). Monitoring is part of an adaptive management 

process that measures the performance of plan implementation against the goals and desired 

conditions and objectives to which it aspires. It also evaluates whether the implementation of 

standards and guidelines are producing the desired results. 

Other Plan Content

Other content in the plan includes the contents of chapter 1, certain sections of chapters 2 through 6 

(background, other sources of direction, related plan content) and all appendices. Also included are 

general descriptions and management approaches, which are described below. 

General Descriptions: Explanatory narrative, descriptions of place, and other important 

information that supports the understanding of, or gives context to, plan decisions are described 

throughout the forest plan under this heading. General descriptions help managers and the public 

apply the direction within each of the plan components. 

Management Approaches: Most sections of the forest plan include this additional content, which 

briefly describes the principal approaches to management that the responsible official is inclined to 

take. Management approaches do not make commitments of resources. They may illustrate 

suggestions as to how desired conditions and/or objectives could be met, convey a sense of priority 

among objectives, or indicate a possible future course of change to a program; partnership 

opportunities and collaborative arrangements may be discussed, as well as potential processes such 

as further analysis or inventory. The wording structure of management approaches is characterized 

with a verb ending in “ing” (e.g., managing, cooperating, conducting, or collaborating). 

Environmental Analysis for Plan Revision

The 1982 Planning Rule requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared as National 

Environmental Policy Act compliance documentation for the proposed action of revising a forest plan. 

An environmental impact statement that discloses the effects of a proposed policy, plan, or program, 

any of which is intended to provide direction for the design of future site-specific actions, is referred 

to as “programmatic.”

This programmatic environmental impact statement discloses the potential environmental effects of 

the policy and direction established by the revised forest plan prior to a decision to proceed with its 

approval. It does not report the impacts of site-specific actions. Each future proposed action will be 

designed to follow direction in the revised forest plan, and each must be consistent with specific 

standards and guidelines expressed in the revised plan and its amendments, if any. More importantly, 

future site-specific actions will undergo a site-specific National Environmental Policy Act compliance 

review as they are proposed. This environmental impact statement will provide information that may 

be incorporated by reference in future site-specific National Environmental Policy Act documents, but 

the environmental impact statement is not a decision document for future site-specific actions.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

11

The analyses in this environmental impact statement consider the effects of implementing the revised 

forest plan or one of the alternatives. Comments submitted during public involvement that are beyond 

the scope of the plan revision process are not addressed in the revised forest plan; therefore, they are 

not evaluated in this environmental impact statement. Examples include concerns regarding hunting 

regulations, which while important, are beyond the authority or control of the Forest Service; and wild 

and scenic river suitability determinations, which are the result of a specific screening process apart 

from this National Environmental Policy Act review.

Purpose of and Need for Action

The proposed action evaluated in this environmental impact statement is a revision of the 1986 forest 

plan. Revision of the 1986 plan is needed to update or replace 1986 plan direction in light of changing 

resource conditions, visitor uses, and administrative needs during the past 30 years. Revision of the 

plan is also necessary to comply with the National Forest Management Act and the 1982 Planning 

Rule, the latter of which recommends that forest plans be updated about every 10 to 20 years. 

Updating will ensure that plan direction for forest management evolves as resource conditions and 

public uses change, so we can best achieve the Forest Service motto of “caring for the land and 

serving people.” 

The need for plan revision is directly correlated to five overarching “needs for change” we identified 

during iterative pre-revision collaborative dialogues, meetings, focus groups, studies, and assessments. 

These efforts involved our forest plan revision team of interdisciplinary resource specialists and many 

public groups, organizations, agencies, officials, and individuals.3

 

Two preliminary plan revision documents presented an analysis of the collaborative reports3

: the 

“Coronado National Forest Social and Economic Sustainability Report” (USDA FS 2008c) and 

“Coronado National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report” (USDA FS 2009b). The analyses in the 

two documents were the basis of the final needs for change reported in “Coronado National Forest 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report” (comprehensive evaluation report) (USDA FS 2009c)4

 and 

supplement (USDA FS 2010a). Of these, five priority needs for change in plan direction were 

identified in the comprehensive evaluation report. These included ecosystem restoration, safety and 

information, public access and travel patterns, preservation of open space, and collaboration and 

partnerships. The priority needs were then used as the basis for five topic areas to which the proposed 

action (revised forest plan) responds. A brief discussion of why they are needed follows: 

1. Ecosystem restoration and resiliency: various aspects of a resilient ecosystem require both 

new and updated individual and integrated direction regarding habitat conservation and 

restoration, species conservation, management of vegetative fuels, management of wildfire 

and ecological responses to it, management of invasive species, and dealing with the effects 

of climate change.

 

3 Initial collaborative assessments defining the needs for change include the “Southwest Forest Assessment,” The 

Nature Conservancy and Forest Service (2005); “Socio-Economic Assessment of the Coronado National Forest,”

University of Arizona (2005); and “Coronado National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Trends Analysis, 1986-

2011” (2012). Needs for change were refined in future forums documented in “Values, Attitudes and Beliefs Toward 

National Forest System Lands: The Coronado National Forest,” John C. Russell and Peggy A. Adams-Russell 

(2005); and “Topics, Threads and Themes: A Catalog of Results from June 2006,” “Collaboration Meetings; 

Engagement Report from September 2006,” “and Collaboration Meetings; and Engagement Analysis Report: 

Desired Conditions: Fall 2007,” by John C. Russell. Conclusions and information from all the preceding reports are 

incorporated herein by reference.

4 The comprehensive evaluation report and a supplemental comprehensive evaluation report also provide an “analysis 

of the management situation” as required by the 1982 Planning Rule.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

12

2. Visitor experiences: updated direction is needed to balance competing uses (e.g., supporting 

both quiet recreation areas and areas that accommodate noisy or other incompatible uses and 

activities), and new direction is needed to address public safety issues related to illegal 

activities across the Coronado.

3. Access to National Forest System lands: updated direction is needed to guide cooperation 

and collaboration with private and other agency land managers to acquire or restore public 

and administrative vehicular access to areas of the Coronado where it is currently unavailable 

or compromised and to maintain access for future users. 

4. Preservation of open space: new direction is needed to support the retention of the “rural” 

character of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, while at the same time 

accommodating rapidly growing populations and municipalities. Important to achieving this 

objective is direction that encourages the sustainability of undeveloped landscapes within the 

national forest boundary and emphasizes coordination with private land owners and other 

governments to protect open space within and adjacent to the Coronado National Forest. 

5. Communities, collaboration, and partnerships: new direction is needed with regard to the 

use of collaboration and partnerships as tools for attaining both forest and community goals, 

existing and future social and working relationships among the Coronado and leaders in the 

communities it serves, including Native American nations. Positive relationships will require 

a mutual understanding of direction in the revised forest plan and its compatibility with the 

regulations, plans, and interests of other entities.

Proposed Action

The proposed action (the revised forest plan) has been developed to provide strategic, program-level 

guidance for management of the Coronado National Forest, including its natural resources and uses, 

over the next 15 years. For each need for change topic, the forest plan revision team, in collaboration 

with the public and other agencies, developed a vision of a revised Coronado forest plan that: 

• provides the basis for future site-specific, project-level decisions that will be made based on 

additional detailed environmental impacts analyses and additional public involvement; 

• provides a context for future, project-level planning; 

• identifies strategies to maintain or achieve goals and desired conditions over time; 

• identifies land areas as generally suitable or unsuitable for various uses; 

• identifies standards and guidelines to guide the planning of projects and activities; 

• identifies areas with special or unique characteristics;

• provides monitoring and evaluation requirements; and 

• emphasizes the use of the best available science and adaptive management.

Specific details of the revised forest plan, as it evolved from the public collaborative process and 

internal evaluations that have occurred since the comprehensive evaluation report was published, are 

provided in chapter 2. A copy of the most recent revised forest plan and a wilderness evaluation report 

are provided as companion documents to this environmental impact statement. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

13

Decision Framework

The regional forester for the Southwestern Region (also referred to as Region 3) of the Forest Service 

is the responsible agency official who will decide whether to approve the proposed action or an 

alternative to the proposed action. As required by Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 

section 1505.2, the regional forester will disclose the following information in a record of decision 

that will be released to the public:

1. the decision (alternative selected) and supporting rationale; 

2. alternatives considered and evaluated in the environmental impact statement; 

3. public involvement in the National Environmental Policy Act review;

4. mitigation and monitoring factored into the decision and rationale; 

5. the environmentally preferred alternative;

6. findings required by other laws; 

7. administrative review and appeal opportunities; and 

8. the date on which the action may be implemented. 

Public Involvement and Collaboration

Development of Revised Forest Plan

Public Meetings Regarding Plan Revision

Since 2005, the Coronado National Forest staff has offered many opportunities for public involvement 

in the development of a revised forest plan. The following is a chronology of public meetings held to 

date as part of the forest plan revision effort.

Spring 2005: Focus groups were conducted at locations in proximity to the five ranger districts of 

the Coronado as part of a Forest Service, Region 3, initiative to identify and/or quantify attitudes 

toward and values and beliefs related to national forest lands. A Forest Service consultant, John 

Russell, Ph.D., summarized the results of these group interactions in “Values, Attitudes, and 

Beliefs toward National Forest System Lands: Coronado National Forest.” 

April 2006: Regional Forester Harv Forsgren hosted public presentations and question-andanswer sessions in Tucson, Phoenix, and Flagstaff, Arizona, to initiate the plan revision process 

for all national forests in Arizona.

June 2006: A series of six public workshops was held across the Coronado to establishing social 

and working relationships with the public and to elucidate the “needs for change” based on the 

content of the 1986 forest plan. Workshop goals were to provide equitable geographic area 

representation, afford all participants an equal opportunity to express views, and facilitate 

productive dialogue among participants. Each workshop began with an orientation that was 

followed by small (8 to 10 person) group discussions. After each small group met, the content of 

each group’s discussion was shared with all attendees. The small group discussions were hosted 

by Forest Service employees having formal training in facilitation. Four hundred individuals 

participated in the workshops in 39 small work groups. Forty topics related to the “Need for 

Change” were identified as a result of these workshops. 

September 2006: To prioritize the 40 need for change topics, 6 workshops were held across the 

Coronado’s service area. A format similar to that of June 2006 was used. Attendance was 

approximately 250, and there were 30 small work groups. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

14

September and October 2007: Seven workshops, again geographically distributed, were held to 

begin the development of desired condition statements, based on the prioritized needs for change. 

Using the same format as previous workshops, the Coronado hosted 152 attendees and 20 small 

work groups. 

November 2008: Seven open houses were held in geographic locations across the Coronado’s 

service area to present the first draft revised forest plan products to the public, including some 

based on public input to date, as well as others derived from revision team input. There was a total 

of 240 attendees, some of whom indicated an affiliation with a group, and 56 different groups or 

organizations were represented. Each open house was structured to provide flexibility to 

attendees, in that they did not need to commit a specific or large block of time to participate. 

March 2010: Six open houses were held in the same localities and format as the November 2008 

meetings. At these meetings, draft plan related documents and a preliminary working draft revised 

forest plan were shared with the public. The working draft described desired conditions, 

objectives, guidelines, standards, and suitability of uses. Comments from the public meetings 

were used to modify the working draft. Evaluations of potential wilderness areas were also shared 

to elucidate public input on the need for new wilderness areas. Approximately 200 individuals 

attended, representing 54 groups and organizations. 

2010 – 2013: After the intense fire season of 2011, forest plan revision efforts were suspended 

while conditions were reassessed and the results incorporated into the draft environmental impact 

statement. Collaboration with the public has continued during this interim period in the form of 

planning team participation in academic forums and meetings with other groups. A major 

collaborative effort underway is the Integrated Lands Assessment Project Sky Islands project, 

which is testing revised forest plan objectives for vegetation treatments.

November 2013: Following the release of the draft environmental impact statement on November 

22, 2013, a notice of availability was published in the Federal Register that initiated the formal 

90-day comment period on the draft environmental impact statement and proposed forest plan, as 

required by Forest Service National Forest Management Act regulations at 36 CFR 219. The 

formal 90-day comment period was later extended to 104 days. It provided additional 

opportunities for public involvement in the review and plan revision processes. During the 

comment period, the planning team hosted public meetings in Arizona at the following locations, 

Douglas on December 2, 2013; Rio Rico on December 3, 2013; Sierra Vista on December 17, 

2013; Safford on January 9, 2014; and Tucson on January 13, 2014. In May of 2014, Coronado 

personnel hosted a wilderness workshop seeking input on individuals’ and organizations’ 

priorities on specific areas under consideration for recommendation for wilderness designation. 

2014 – Present: Since the release of the draft environmental impact statement, the forest 

supervisor and other management team members have engaged organizations and partner groups 

as well as local and state agencies disseminating additional information and status updates 

regarding the revised plan. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

15

Public Presentations Regarding Plan Revision

In addition to public meetings, representatives of the forest plan revision team presented information 

about the plan revision process or the working draft revised forest plan to the following groups on one 

or more occasions:

• Arizona Planning Partnership

• Chiricahua Regional Council

• Coronado Planning Partnership

• Hidalgo County Public Lands Advisory 

Committee

• Southeastern Arizona Cattle Protection 

Association

• Cochise County Public Lands Advisory 

Committee

• Graham-Cochise Cattlegrowers Association

• Huachuca Prospectors’ Association

• Arizona Access Coalition

• Arizona Game and Fish Department

• Hidalgo County Board of Supervisors 

• Malpai Borderlands Group 

• Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership

• Cienega Corridor Conservation Council 

• Friends of Redington Pass 

• Mountain Empire Action Alliance 

• Four Southern Tribes Cultural Resource 

Working Group

• Fort Huachuca Conservation Committee 

• Sonoita Valley Homeowners

• Winkleman Natural Resource Conservation 

District

• Tucson Chapter, Society of American 

Foresters

Native American Participation in Plan Revision

Also involved in the development of a revised forest plan were the following federally recognized 

tribes having traditional ties to natural, historical, and cultural resources of the Coronado: 

• Ak-Chin Indian Community 

• Fort Sill Chiricahua-Warm Springs 

Apache Tribe 

• Gila River Indian Community

• Hopi Tribe

• Mescalero Apache Tribe

• Pascua Yaqui Tribe

• Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community 

• San Carlos Apache Tribe

• Tohono O’odham Nation

• White Mountain Apache Tribe

• Yavapai-Apache Nation

• Pueblo of Zuni 

In meetings sponsored by the Southwestern Region, tribal representatives expressed the need for the 

Forest Service to: 

• better accommodate their traditional ties and cultural uses in decision making and planning; 

• integrate the role of cultural and other noneconomic values in decision making, particularly, the 

traditional cultural property of Mount Graham; 

• incorporate traditional knowledge in forest management and planning; protect the privacy of 

cultural sites when managing cultural resources; and 

• cooperate in the management of resources of mutual interest to tribes and the Forest Service 

(Russell and Adams-Russell 2006).

In meetings and field trips subsequent to the Southwestern Region meetings, tribal representatives 

contributed to the development of desired conditions, objectives, and management approaches for the 

revised forest plan and reviewed working draft revised plan components. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

16

National Environmental Policy Act Review Scoping Process

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

Since inception of the plan revision process in 2005, the Coronado has received 3,673 comments and 

suggestions. Many of them (2,950) were received in response to either a notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement, which was published on January 27, 2010, in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 4340); an environmental impact statement scoping notice that was publicly distributed 

concurrently with the notice of intent; or the release of a working draft revised forest plan in March 

2010. All comments are filed in the administrative record of the plan revision process and National 

Environmental Policy Act review.

The notice of intent provided a general description of the proposed action and asked for public 

comment about the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act analysis, such as identifying 

potential issues and concerns and recommending alternatives to the proposed action. The notice of 

intent presented the public with the following details about the revised forest plan: 

• a list of the five “need for change” topics

• a description of changes in direction necessary to address each revision topic 

• a general description of revised plan content that would address each need for change topic

Neither the notice of intent nor the scoping notice provided a complete working draft of the revised 

forest plan or a summary of the desired conditions developed with the public prior to release of the 

notice of intent, although the latter was available on the Coronado website at the time of scoping. 

Leaders of 12 Native American tribes having traditional ties to southeastern Arizona and southwestern 

New Mexico were notified of the National Environmental Policy Act scoping period in a governmentto-government letter from the forest supervisor. Letters were also sent to the Governors of Arizona 

and New Mexico. Concurrent with publication of the notice of intent, the project was listed on the 

Coronado’s schedule of proposed actions on its public website. 

Among the comments received during public scoping were 2,567 identical form letters. Each 

addressed multiple topics that were not specific to the National Environmental Policy Act review or 

the content of the working draft revised forest plan. Generally, the form letter expressed advocacy for 

climate change mitigation and aquatic-habitat conservation; increased protection for wildlife, 

including population monitoring at the programmatic and project levels; a plan alternative that 

comprises the gradual elimination of livestock grazing on the Coronado; and restoration of natural fire 

regimes.

In addition, the Coronado received 222 comments related to one or more potential wilderness area 

evaluation reports prepared by the forest plan revision team. These expressed advocacy or opposition 

to specific recommendations for wilderness areas, a general increase in additional wilderness acreage 

on the Coronado, and/or the restriction on mountain bike access that would result from a wilderness 

designation. 

The remaining 161 comments were submitted by individuals or organizations and included 2 

responses from tribal entities. Each of these submittals was unique in content and addressed many 

topics, including some relevant to potential wilderness areas or additional wilderness acreage. Several 

of the unique comments were site specific in nature or beyond the scope of the forest plan revision 

effort.

On November 22, 2013, the Coronado made the draft revised plan and draft environmental impact 

statement available for a 104-day comment period ending on March 6, 2014. During the extended 

104-day comment period for the draft revised plan and draft environmental impact statement, 

comments were received from 2,274 individuals, organizations, agencies, and tribes. Eligibility to 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

17

appeal the regional forester’s decision regarding the proposed action is limited to individuals and 

organizations that commented on the draft environmental impact statement or otherwise expressed an 

interest in the project during the formal comment period. Appendix A summarizes comments received 

during the 104-day comment period and provides the Coronado National Forest’s response to these 

comments. Appendix I provides copies of comment letters received from governmental entities. 

Issues Resulting From the Scoping Process

Many public comments and concerns received during the plan revision process contributed to the 

development of the proposed action (the revised forest plan). Of those comments and concerns, we 

identified three unresolved public conflicts, or “issues,” regarding the proposed action. These issues 

reflect similar comments received about the content of the 2010 working draft revised plan: 

1. Allocation of additional acreage to wilderness

2. Allocation of additional acreage to motorized recreation

3. Management of resources during climate change 

During an environmental analysis, issues arising from unresolved conflicts may be addressed by 

proposing reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, or by modifying the proposed action. To be 

responsive to issues 1 and 2, the Forest Service proposed two different alternatives, alternative 1 and 

alternative 2, the impacts of which are evaluated in this environmental impact statement along with 

those of the proposed action and no action. Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively, allocate acreage for 

wilderness and motorized recreation differently than the proposed action. 

To address issue 3, the proposed action was revised to include new direction to move the Coronado 

toward achieving the desired conditions of resilience and adaption to the effects of climate change for 

each resource potentially affected. In addition, alternative 1 includes the same direction as the revised 

forest plan regarding climate change. For the purpose of providing different options to the decision 

maker, alternative 2 does not include specific desired conditions and management approaches 

regarding climate change. It does, however, incorporate the strategies for climate change management 

on the Coronado, which are described in appendix A of the revised forest plan. 

Some public comments requested that the forest plan recommend substantially larger parcels than the 

proposed action for wilderness designation. In response, the Forest Service revisited its potential 

wilderness inventory and evaluated 31 parcels that met the criteria in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12, chapter 70 (Land Management Planning, Wilderness Evaluation). Evaluation of this new 

inventory generated alternative 1, which recommends 16 parcels for recommendation as designated 

wilderness, in comparison to only 2 parcels recommended by the proposed action. 

Other comments requested that the forest plan allocate parcels for specific multiple uses, with an

emphasis on motorized recreation. Hence, the establishment of Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones 

of larger acreage than the proposed action, which were originally proposed in the March 2010 

working draft plan, formed the basis for alternative 2. In addition, alternative 2 constrains designations 

of special areas in these zones and does not call for new wilderness to be recommended for 

designation, aside from what is stated in the 1986 plan. As mentioned earlier, alternative 2 also does 

not include plan components for forest management in light of climate change. It does, however, 

incorporate the strategies for climate change management on the Coronado, which are described in 

appendix A of the revised forest plan. 

Comments beyond the scope of these National Environmental Policy Act review issues, which include 

those that are not significant or have been covered by prior environmental review (see 40 CFR 

1501.7(a)(3) and 1506.3) are documented in the administrative record of this environmental impact 

statement. 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

19

Chapter 2. Alternatives,

Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes the revised forest plan (proposed action), no action, and other alternatives that 

satisfy the purpose of and need for plan revision. It also briefly discusses alternatives dismissed from 

further evaluation. At the end of the chapter is a tabular comparison of the consequences of 

implementing each alternative.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Four alternatives are analyzed in detail in this environmental impact statement: no action, the 

proposed action, alternative 1 (identical to the proposed action but with the addition of acreage 

proposed to be managed as wilderness), and alternative 2 (similar to the proposed action but with the 

addition of acreage proposed for motorized recreation and other differences, as noted below). The 

following sections briefly describe the content of each alternative and, as applicable, how each was 

developed. 

No Action

The no-action alternative is included in this environmental impact statement in accordance with the 

Council on Environmental Quality regulation at 40 CFR 1501 Section 1502.14(d), which requires the 

alternatives analysis “include the alternative of no action.”

The Council on Environmental Quality interprets no action depending on the nature of the proposal 

being evaluated. In the case of an action such as this one (updating a land management plan), for 

which ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations will continue even as new 

plans are developed, the Council on Environmental Quality equates no action with no change from 

current management direction or level of management intensity. In its responses to 40 frequently 

asked questions about National Environmental Policy Act reviews,

5 the Council on Environmental 

Quality states:

To construct an alternative that is based on no management at all would be a useless 

academic exercise. Therefore, the “no action” alternative may be thought of in terms of 

continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed. Consequently, in 

the environmental impact statement, the results of an analysis of the impacts of 

alternative management scenarios would be compared in the environmental impact 

statement to those impacts associated with the existing plan.

 

5 http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/1-10.HTM
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

20

Proposed Action

The proposed action encompasses the total content of the revised forest plan (a companion document 

to this environmental impact statement) which was developed using an iterative process (i.e., this 

alternative was modified and offered for public review several times) based on guidance and 

recommendations from the public, tribes, other agencies, and government officials. The basic steps in 

this process were as follows:

1. Between 2005 and 2008, a series of public forums were held, each of which generated 

discussion and ideas concerning direction for forest management, priorities for management, 

and goals of management in the1986 plan. Between each forum was a period of analysis by a 

Forest Service team of resource specialists. Results of each analysis period were reported to 

the public at the next engagement. 

2. In January 2010, a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register, accompanied by a summary of the proposed action and 

process to date. A 30-day period was provided for public comment about the scope of the 

National Environmental Policy Act analysis, including the identification of potential issues, 

concerns, and recommendations for alternatives to the proposed action. 

3. In March 2010, a working draft revised forest plan, which was developed after consideration 

of all comments received to date, was released to the public. Another comment period 

followed, and changes to the working draft revised forest plan were made based on public 

comments, resulting in the draft revised forest plan (i.e., the proposed action). 

4. In November 2013, the draft revised forest plan and draft environmental impact statement

were released for public comment through March 6, 2014. Changes to the draft revised forest 

plan were made based on public comments, resulting in the revised forest plan and final 

environmental impact statement. 

Several scoping comments received regarding the National Environmental Policy Act review were 

mirrored or augmented by comments submitted about the content of the working draft plan and draft 

plan. Together, scoping comments, working draft plan comments, and draft plan comments 

recommended changes or refinement of plan components which led to the proposed action evaluated 

in this environmental impact statement. 

Alternatives 1 and 2

As reported in chapter 1, the revised forest plan addresses five needs for change that dominated the 

public dialogue. Based on comments submitted during scoping of this National Environmental Policy 

Act review and in response to the release of the working draft plan, other unresolved conflicts became 

evident. These included contrasting user perspectives about the acreage that should be allocated to 

specific quiet recreation and motorized recreation areas; additional special area designations, 

including the addition of acreage in two parcels recommended for management as wilderness; and 

management direction to ensure sustainability of forest ecosystems, including adaptation to climate 

change.

To address the unresolved conflicts, the Coronado National Forest personnel developed two 

alternatives. Under alternative 1, more acreage would be managed for wilderness character than the 

proposed action; in all other plan direction, alternative 1 would be the same as the proposed action. In 

effect, alternative 1 would increase the opportunity for quiet recreation on the Coronado. 

The content of direction under alternative 1 would be the same as that of the proposed action with 

regard to plan components. It would differ only in that it recommends much more additional acreage 

for designation as wilderness. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

21

Alternative 2 differs from the proposed action and alternative 1 primarily because of its allocation of 

more acreage to be managed for motorized recreation (Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone). In 

addition, alternative 2 does not propose the new wilderness and research natural areas that the 

proposed action and alternative 1 recommend. Further, it does not include the plan components related 

to climate change that are contained in the revised forest plan under the proposed action and 

alternative 1. It does, however, incorporate the strategies for climate change management on the 

Coronado, which are described in appendix A of the revised forest plan. 

Description of Alternatives

For each of the alternatives, the following sections: 

1. provide a general description of what is proposed; 

2. describe existing management areas, proposed management areas (MAs), or both; the acres of 

land and percentage of Coronado National Forest in each, and the concepts that led to their 

identification, by alternative; and

3. assess the manner in which each alternative meets the “needs for change” defined in 

collaboration with the public during the process of plan revision. 

Revised Plan Content Common to All Alternatives

The plan components established by the four alternatives evaluated in this environmental impact 

statement have the following objectives in common. All of the alternatives:

• comply with laws, regulations, and policies; 

• conserve soil and water resources;

• cause no significant or permanent loss of productivity of the land; 

• maintain air quality that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State, and/or local standards or 

regulations; 

• provide for and maintain a diversity of plant and animal communities to meet multiple-use 

objectives;

• provide suitable, well-distributed habitat across the Coronado to ensure species viability; 

• include measures for preventing the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for 

threatened and endangered species;

• protect heritage resources;

• recognize and respect the unique status of Native American tribes and their rights conveyed by 

trust and treaty with the United States;

• require consultation with tribes about traditional resources, ties, and interests about site-specific 

proposed actions; 

• sustain environmentally acceptable multiple uses of, products from, and services on the Coronado, 

which include special uses for various purposes, including the right to access and develop leasable 

and locatable minerals; harvest fuelwood and other forest products, graze livestock and produce 

forage; and engage in various recreational activities, such as hunting, hiking, camping, and 

fishing; 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

22

• recommend the current Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area for congressional wilderness 

designation;6

• continue to protect specially designated areas (e.g., wilderness, eligible wild and scenic rivers, 

research natural areas); and

• recommend a boundary change for the Santa Catalina Research Natural Area.

In addition to the above, each alternative land management plan must respond to and incorporate 

program objectives from the Renewable Resource Planning Act, in accordance with 1982 Planning 

Rule regulations at 219.12(f)(6). The last Renewable Resource Planning Act program was developed 

in 1995. In lieu of the program, the Forest Service Strategic Plan 2015-2020 provides broad, 

overarching national guidance for forest planning and national objectives for the Agency as required 

by the Government Performance Results Act. All of the alternatives in this environmental impact 

statement address these broad strategic objectives.

The proposed action, alternative 1, and alternative 2 each include management direction that preserves 

the undeveloped character of inventoried roadless areas on the Coronado. The no-action alternative

does not, because the 1986 forest plan became effective prior to the designation of inventoried 

roadless areas. 

No Action

General Overview – No Action

In an environmental impact statement, the no-action alternative generally serves as a baseline to which 

the effects of the proposed action and other alternatives can be compared. In this environmental 

impact statement, the definition of the no-action alternative is the management direction provided in 

the 1986 forest plan. No action is interchangeably referred to as the 1986 forest plan and the 1986 plan 

in this document. An electronic copy of the 1986 forest plan is provided in its entirety on the 

Coronado National Forest website at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coronado/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fswdev7_018702. 

Direction in the 1986 forest plan lists management goals for the following eight “resource elements”: 

(A) recreation, (B) wilderness, (C) wildlife and fish, (D) range, (E) timber, (F) water, (G) minerals, 

and (H) human and community development. It also provides goals for four support elements: (J) 

lands, (K) soils, (L) facilities, and (P) protection. The plan describes objectives, standards, and 

guidelines, the latter of which are collectively referred to as “plan components” for each element.

The 1986 forest plan allocates and designates 15 geographically specific parcels of forest land 

(management areas or MAs), each of which is to be managed according to its intended use(s). It also 

recommends the Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area be designated as a wilderness and that several 

other special areas be designated (table 1). The locations of these areas are shown on figures 12 

through 23 in appendix L. 

Management Areas – No Action

In the 1986 forest plan, as amended, National Forest System lands are categorized as the following 

management areas: 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 7A, 7B, 8, 8A, 9, 14, and 15. These designations are primarily 

based on physical and biological characteristics of each area. Numeric designators 5, 6, and 10 

 

6 The Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area was formally established by Congress in 1984. The same area was 

recommended for wilderness designation in the 1986 plan, but that recommendation was never acted on by 

Congress. All alternatives for plan revision carry forward the recommendation to designate this wilderness study 

area as a formal wilderness area. The area will continue to be managed as a wilderness study area until Congress 

takes action on this recommendation.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

23

through 13 were never assigned to National Forest System lands but rather retained as placeholders for 

future designation as needed. 

Management Area 1

Management Area 1 provides direction for management of visual resources and semiprimitive 

dispersed recreation. Forest lands designated as Management Area 1 comprise 111,284 acres of steep, 

rugged terrain (7 percent of the national forest) that has slopes greater than 40 percent. These lands 

may be highly visible from primary motorized travel routes. All vegetation communities are 

represented in Management Area 1 except for major riparian. This management area is unsuitable for 

timber production and livestock grazing. 

Management Area 2 

Management Area 2 provides direction related to management of dispersed recreation; special uses 

such as electronic communication sites and observatories; and sawtimber or fuelwood gathering, if 

these activities enhance recreation, visual quality, and wildlife values. Forest lands designated as 

Management Area 2 comprise 32,430 acres (2 percent of the Coronado National Forest) of coniferous 

forest that has slopes less than 40 percent. These areas are located in the Chiricahua, Pinaleño, Santa 

Rita, and Santa Catalina Mountain ranges and are suitable for a wide variety of recreational and 

special uses. About 5,000 acres are suitable for timber production in the Chiricahua and Santa Catalina 

Mountains combined; all other acres in Management Area 2 are unsuitable for this use. 

Management Area 2A 

Management Area 2A provides direction for management of old-growth forest dependent species such 

as the Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis), and operation and 

maintenance of Mount Graham astrophysical facilities (a special use). These lands in the Pinaleño 

Mountains comprise 3,071 acres (less than 1 percent of the Coronado National Forest) of coniferous 

forest, in which slopes are generally less than 40 percent in the spruce-fir community and greater than 

40 percent in the mixed-conifer community. 

Table 1. Wilderness and wilderness study areas included in the no-action alternative

Management Area

Acres Allocated by No 

Action**

Wilderness 338,318 

Recommended Wilderness: Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area* 61,315

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Area 19,062

Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Area 12,163

* Hereafter to be referred to as Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area (see page 21 for more information)

** Not all acres shown are consistent with estimates from the 1986 plan; however, the acres were generated using more 

advanced mapping and analysis (GIS) and are, therefore, considered more accurate.

Table 2. Specially designated areas included in the no-action alternative

Management Area

Acres Allocated by No 

Action**

Butterfly Peak Research Natural Area 1,058

Elgin Research Natural Area 245

Pole Bridge Research Natural Area 460

Gooding Research Natural Area 540

Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch 1,746
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

24

Management Area

Acres Allocated by No 

Action**

Goudy Canyon Research Natural Area 558

Santa Catalina Research Natural Area 4,040

Wet Canyon Talus Snail Zoological Area 1,218

Mount Graham Astrophysical and Biological Research Area 2,937

Wild Chile Botanical Area 2,836

Sabino Canyon Recreation Area 1,423

Bighorn Sheep Management Area 21,184

Guadalupe Canyon Zoological-Botanical Area 3,436

South Fork of Cave Creek Zoological-Botanical Area 786

** Not all acres shown are consistent with estimates from the 1986 plan; however, the acres were generated using more

advanced mapping and analysis (GIS) and are, therefore, considered more accurate.

Management Area 2B

Management Area 2B provides direction for management of unique plant and animal species found on 

these designated lands, especially the Wet Canyon talussnail (Sonorella macrophallus). Direction 

allows for dispersed and developed recreation and special uses of Management Area 2B as long as 

measures are taken to protect the area’s unique resource values. Management Area 2B comprises 220 

acres (less than 1 percent of the Coronado) in the Pinaleño Mountains, including the Wet Canyon 

watershed downstream to the mouth of Twilight Creek but not Twilight Creek or its watershed. All 

acres are unsuitable for timber production. 

Management Area 3

Management Area 3 provides direction related to management of a wide range of recreational 

activities, including measures to conserve each parcel’s unique physical, biological, and cultural 

resources. This management area comprises 14,772 acres (less than 1 percent of the Coronado) of 

undeveloped grasslands, woodlands, coniferous forest, and riparian areas, none of which is suitable for 

timber production. Lands designated as Management Area 3 have a wide range of slopes and provide 

essential habitat for threatened and endangered plants and animals. 

Management Areas 3A and 3B 

Management Areas 3A and 3B provide management direction for a variety of developed recreation 

activities, including preservation of each area’s unique physical, biological, and cultural resources. 

These management areas are suitable for, and capable of, supporting developed recreation sites. They 

comprise 4,165 acres (less than 1 percent of the national forest) of lands that have an average slope of 

less than 15 percent. 

Management Area 4 

Lands designated as Management Area 4, which are predominantly desertscrub, grassland, and 

chaparral on slopes up to 40 percent, make up 1,128,269 acres (63 percent of the Coronado National 

Forest). Management Area 4 follows direction regarding the sustained harvest of livestock forage and 

fuelwood as well as maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat. None of the land in this 

management area is suitable for timber production. Dispersed recreation is allowed on these lands. 

Management Area 7, Prescription A

Management Area 7, Prescription A, provides management direction intended to ensure the 

sustainability of unique plants and wildlife in the management area, and to improve and manage 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

25

riparian areas for the benefit of riparian-dependent resources. Dispersed recreation activities and other 

specific uses are allowed in this management area, including facilities that protect and conserve each 

parcel’s unique resources. 

This management area comprises 24,423 acres (1 percent of the Coronado) of undeveloped lands that 

support flora and fauna associations in various riparian ecotypes and deciduous and coniferous forest 

types, and habitat for threatened and endangered species, each of which is sufficiently unique to 

require special management. None of the land in this management area is suitable for timber 

production. 

Management Area 7, Prescription B

Management Area 7, Prescription B, provides management direction intended to ensure the 

sustainability of unique plant and animal species and habitat in the management area concurrent with 

its use for livestock foraging and fuelwood harvest. Management allows recreation activities and other 

specific uses in this management area, including facilities that protect and conserve each parcel’s 

unique resources. 

This management area comprises 17,124 acres (1 percent of the Coronado National Forest) of 

undeveloped lands that support flora and fauna associations in nonriparian drainages, such as oak and 

mesquite bottoms, and habitat for threatened and endangered species, each of which is sufficiently 

unique so as to require special management. None of the land in this management area is suitable for 

timber production. 

Management Area 8 

Management Area 8 is designated for nondisturbing research and education on parcels that have been 

evaluated and either designated, proposed, or determined to be suitable for designation as a research 

natural area. This management area comprises 3,805 acres (less than 1 percent of the Coronado); none 

of the parcels in this management area is suitable for timber production. No harvest of forest products 

or grazing by livestock is allowed in Management Area 8. 

Management Area 8A 

Management Area 8A follows management direction to ensure that wilderness character and uses are 

maintained and that nondisturbing research and education can occur on parcels determined to be 

suitable for either wilderness or research natural area designation. Management direction does not 

allow the harvest of forest products (including fuelwood) and livestock grazing in Management Area 

8A. This management area comprises 3,805 acres (less than 1 percent of the Coronado National 

Forest) of designated and proposed research natural areas within wilderness areas, none of which are

suitable for timber production. It includes lands determined to be suitable for both wilderness and 

research natural area designation.

Management Area 9

Management Area 9 provides management direction on lands intended to preserve wilderness 

character concurrently with compatible livestock grazing and recreation uses. This management area 

comprises 397,505 acres (22 percent of the Coronado) of designated and recommended wilderness 

areas, none of which is suitable for timber production. The management area includes all vegetation 

and landform types that have been determined to be suitable for wilderness area designation. 

Management Area 14 

Management Area 14 provides management direction intended to ensure the sustainability of unique 

plant and animal species and habitat, including riparian areas, in and along the South Fork of Cave 

Creek (Chiricahua Mountains) and Guadalupe Canyon (Peloncillo Mountains). Special conservation 

practices, such as formal designation as a zoological or botanical area, are an option in Management 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

26

Area 14. Management direction allows recreation activities and other specific uses, including facilities 

that protect and conserve each parcel’s unique resources. This management area comprises 

4,240 acres (less than 1 percent of the Coronado), none of which are suitable for timber production. 

Management Area 15 

Management Area 15 is designated as the Wild Chile Botanical Area. Direction in the forest plan for 

Management Area 15 is intended to protect and conserve wild relatives of the economically important 

chile (i.e., chiltepin, Capsicum annuum var. glabriusculum). Management Area 15 comprises 2,836 

acres (less than 1 percent of the Coronado National Forest) of lands within the Rock Corral Canyon 

subwatershed that have unique vegetation and wildlife requiring special management practices. 

Vegetation consists of 2,344 acres of oak woodland, 421 acres of desert grassland, and 71 acres of 

deciduous riparian habitat. Slopes are less than 15 percent on 74 acres; from 15 to 40 percent on 814 

acres; and greater than 40 percent on 1,948 acres. The Wild Chile Botanical Area has about 3.5 miles 

of unpaved roads. About 1,125 acres of the management area is suitable for livestock grazing, and 

none are suitable for timber production. 

Meeting the Needs for Change – No Action

How well the 1986 plan meets the five needs for change is dependent on the type of management 

direction it contains and the degree of success that the Forest Service has had to date in implementing 

that direction. The following sections discuss 1986 plan direction as it relates to each of the current 

need for change. Full details about the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines discussed below 

can be found in the 1986 plan, which is available on the Coronado National Forest website at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coronado/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fswdev7_018702. 

Ecosystem Restoration and Resiliency

An ecosystem is a community of living organisms (plants and animals) and the nonliving components 

of their environment (air, water, and mineral soil) with which they interact. The organisms and 

nonliving components are linked by nutrient cycles and energy flows. Various types of ecosystems are 

defined by their uniqueness in geographic location and components. 

The plan revision process identified a need for specific integrated direction regarding “ecosystem 

restoration and suitability.” The focus of such direction is habitat conservation and restoration, species 

and habitat conservation, management of vegetative fuels, management, and ecological responses to 

the wildfire, management of invasive species, and planning for resiliency to the effects of climate 

change.

In 1986, plan components were established to manage ecosystems toward achieving desired 

conditions that maintain and/or improve species composition, habitat, and function. Direction 

reflected the best scientific data and information available at that time. Since then, certain aspects of 

this direction have been updated by amendment or change notice. However, much of the 1986 plan 

direction was developed to manage specific elements of specific ecosystems that have evolved 

markedly over the past 26 years. 

Today, because of changes in ecosystems and newly arisen issues that affect them, 1986 plan direction 

does not ensure future ecosystem restoration and sustainability. For example, it has no components 

that address how to manage resources to ensure ecosystem resilience and adaptation to climate 

change.

General goals were set in the 1986 plan for ecosystem maintenance and improvement for the resource 

elements of range, wildlife and fish, timber, soil, and water. Management emphasis for Management 

Areas 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, and 15 is listed as ecosystem protection or improvement. A 2006 amendment to 

the plan specifically references the goal of restoring an important ecosystem function, the natural fire 

cycle, under the support element of “protection.” 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

27

Specific references to ecosystem restoration are made in the 1986 plan under the “range” element as 

well as under “wildlife and fish.” The wildlife and fish element specifies forestwide standards and 

guidelines for management of the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), which is listed as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), a 

migratory raptor that is listed as a Forest Service sensitive species in the Southwestern Region. 

Adherence to the plan’s Mexican spotted owl and goshawk standards and guidelines has contributed 

to the conservation of the two species on the Coronado. 

To manage unique species, special status species, or both for sustainability in various ecosystems on 

the Coronado, the 1986 plan designates specific areas where special management practices are 

required. These include Management Areas 2A, 2B, 7 (prescriptions A and B), 8, 8A, 14, and 15 (see 

discussion above). The special designation of these management areas has been relatively successful 

in protecting populations of unique species as well as providing opportunities for field research for the 

same.

In addition to the conservation afforded special-status species in individual management areas, the 

1986 plan provides direction for general management of species across the Coronado by requiring that 

each site-specific proposal be evaluated for potential adverse effects on what are designated as 

“management indicator species.” A management indicator species is selected because its welfare is 

presumed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species in the same habitat, and its condition can 

be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular habitat. On the Coronado, 33 

management indicator species were designated for this purpose. 

Implementation of 1986 plan direction for species management has not been fully successful because 

the management indicator species list itself was flawed in that it listed species as management 

indicators despite the fact that there was no habitat for them on the Coronado or the species no longer 

existed there (nonextant). The management indicator species list also included guilds7 of species. 

However, the grouping of certain species in the guilds was inaccurate in some cases, because many of 

those co-listed in a guild do not have the same habitat requirements. 

With regard to the 1986 plan goals of restoration and sustainability of vegetation, the Coronado has 

managed ecosystem components across all vegetation communities by annually treating 2,000 acres 

using mechanical thinning and mastication and 16,400 acres using prescribed fire. In addition, 

invasive (nonnative) species eradication efforts have, on average, treated 625 acres annually.

Management of watersheds (water and soil) is governed by 1986 plan direction that requires proposals 

for vegetation manipulation, range management, and habitat improvement at the project (site-specific) 

level; and adherence to best management practices defined in Forest Service directives. The plan sets 

goals for restoration of degraded watersheds, including hydrologic function; however, few projects 

have been implemented to date toward achieving this goal. 

7 A guild is a group of organisms that exhibit similar habitat requirements and that respond in a similar way to changes 

in their environment.

Visitor Experiences

The plan revision process identified a need for direction to balance competing uses (supporting quiet 

recreation areas and areas that accommodate noisy or other incompatible uses and activities) as well as 

direction to address public safety issues related to illegal activities across the Coronado.

Management goals in the 1986 plan related to visitor experiences include: 

1. maintaining a wide spectrum of recreational activities;

2. improving communication with the public about recreational opportunities and their impacts; 

 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

28

3. increasing understanding of the adverse impacts of recreational use; and

4. nurturing partnerships. 

The plan lists standards and guidelines toward achieving these goals. However, it does not provide 

direction regarding illegal activities on the Coronado. At the time the plan was developed, illegal 

activities on the Coronado were not nearly as great a public and occupational safety concern as they 

are today.

With regard to the need to balance competing recreational uses, the 1986 plan established 

Management Area 2 and 3, in which developed recreation is emphasized, and Management Areas 1 

and 9, in which nonmotorized, nonmechanized activities are emphasized. The 1986 plan recommends 

the Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area for wilderness designation within Management Area 9. 

The majority of the Coronado comprises Management Area 4, where dispersed recreation is permitted. 

However, the 1986 plan does not recommend any new developed recreation sites. There is little 

direction in the 1986 plan regarding management of dispersed recreation. 

Access to National Forest System Lands

The plan revision process identified a need for direction on how to foster cooperation and 

collaboration with private and other agency land managers so that user access can be restored in areas 

where it is currently unavailable or compromised. 

The 1986 plan includes a goal for establishing public access for recreation under the resource element 

“recreation.” In addition, the support element “lands” sets a goal for obtaining rights-of-way for 

resource management activities, with a focus on existing access points. 

Preservation of Open Space

The 1986 plan includes a low-priority guideline that recommends attempted acquisitions of land from 

willing private owners to provide open space for recreation. It also emphasizes consolidation of small, 

private landholdings into economically viable units, therefore, encouraging development, rather than 

preservation of open space, within the Coronado National Forest boundary. 

The 1986 plan does not address open space in terms of its ecological and social values; however, it 

does acknowledge that undeveloped lands provide a high degree of visual quality and to preserve that, 

the plan establishes a goal to maintain or enhance visual resources provided by open space. 

In addition, the plan requires the application of a visual management system for assessing projectlevel effects.

Communities, Collaboration, and Partnerships 

The 1986 plan identified a need for direction that emphasizes collaboration and partnerships as tools 

for attaining both forest management and community goals. This is presumed to infer continuing and 

future social and working relationships among forest staff and leaders in the communities it serves, 

including Native American nations. 

The 1986 plan identifies several goals and objectives for collaboration, partnerships, and service to 

communities. Under the resource element “recreation,” the 1986 plan establishes goals for working in 

partnership with others for recreation access and cave protection. In terms of service to communities, 

the plan allocates 5,000 acres for timber production. All land in Management Areas 4 and 7 and 

portions of Management Areas 2, 3, 9, 14, and 15 are available for livestock use.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

29

Proposed Action: Revised Forest Plan

General Overview – Proposed Action

The revised forest plan (a companion document to this environmental impact statement) is the 

proposed action and is referred to in this draft environmental impact statement environmental impact 

statement as the “revised forest plan” or “revised plan.” Plan components include goals (expressed as 

“desired conditions”), objectives, standards, and guidelines. 

Like the 1986 plan, the proposed action establishes forestwide management goals (desired conditions); 

however, they differ from the 12 elements (8 resource and 4 support elements) specified in the 1986 

plan. Instead, the revised forest plan sets goals for 25 natural resource and social elements: (1) climate, 

(2) vegetation, wildland-urban interface, (3) montane meadows, (4) wetlands, (5) riparian areas, (6) 

biophysical features, (7) watershed (8) natural water sources, (9) constructed waters, (10) soils, (11) 

air quality, (12) wildlife, (13) fish and rare plants, (14) invasive species management, (15) forest 

products, (16) minerals, (17) public access, (18) motorized transportation system, (19) recreation, (20) 

scenic quality, (21) special use management, (22) heritage resources, (23) tribal relations, (24) range 

management, and (25) land ownership and boundary management. For each resource element, the 

revised plan describes general conditions necessary to support sustainable ecosystems, biodiversity, 

and sustainable social and economic interactions between the Coronado and surrounding 

communities. It also describes desired outcomes for anticipated tradeoffs or conflicts among 

resources. In addition to resource and social elements, the revised plan defines desired conditions for 

specific places (i.e., management areas).

Also established in the revised plan are objectives, standards, and guidelines for management 

activities related to many (but not all) specific elements, management areas, or both. There are 

suggested management approaches for achieving desired conditions. This combination of direction is 

intended to give a complete picture of desired outcomes and the tools to attain them. It provides 

direction for ways to address threats such as invasive species, excessive fuel loading, and climate 

change, within the authority of the Forest Service. 

Certain direction in the 1986 plan is reiterated in the revised plan under the proposed action, with the 

intent to: (1) protect special-status species, including northern goshawks and Mexican spotted owls; 

(2) protect caves and cultural resources; (3) recognize fire as a beneficial natural disturbance; and (4) 

provide for a full range of recreational opportunities. While the intent of the 1986 goals is the same in 

the revised plan, its components may not be identical because they are also intended to respond to the 

needs for change.

Management Areas – Proposed Action

In the revised forest plan, the following management areas are assigned based on administrative and 

user needs and comments received during the planning process. Table 3 through table 5 show the 

allocations of land by the proposed action and figures 24 through 35 in appendix L show the locations 

of land use zones and special areas in each ecosystem management area. Detailed descriptions of each 

ecosystem management area are provided in the revised forest plan.

Table 3. Land use zones allocated by the proposed action

Management Area

Allocated by 

Proposed Action

Roaded Backcountry 595,497

Wild Backcountry 596,127

Developed Recreation 37,264

Motorized Recreation 4,862
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

30

Table 4. Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas allocated by the 

proposed action

Management Area

Allocated by 

Proposed Action

Wilderness 338,318 

Recommended Wilderness 

(includes Ku Chish, Mount Graham, Whetstone and Chiricahua Addition North)

108,890

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Area 19,062

Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Area 12,163

Table 5. Special management areas* allocated by the proposed action

Management Area

Allocated by 

Proposed Action

Proposed Cave Creek Canyon Birds of Prey 25,764 

South Fork of Cave Creek Zoological-Botanical Area 786 

Pole Bridge Research Natural Area 460 

Pole Bridge Research Natural Area Extension 123 

Guadalupe Canyon 3,436 

Wild Chile Botanical Area 2,836 

Gooding Research Natural Area 540 

Gooding Research Natural Area Extension North 201 

Gooding Research Natural Area Extension South 1,472 

Elgin Research Natural Area 245 

Proposed Canelo Research Natural Area 386 

Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch 1,746 

Goudy Canyon 558 

Wet Canyon Talus Snail Area 1,218 

Mount Graham Astrophysical & Biological Research Area 2,937 

Bighorn Sheep Management Area 21,184 

Butterfly Peak Research Natural Area 1,058 

Proposed Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area 1,103 

Santa Catalina Research Natural Area (proposed reduction from original 4,040 

acres)

634 

*Acres do not include private inholdings or lands of other ownerships

Land Use Zones

Wild Backcountry

The proposed action would designate a Wild Backcountry Land Use Zone of 596,127 acres 

(35 percent of the national forest) to accommodate various nonmotorized uses while concurrently 

providing for limited motorized access to the area on National Forest System roads designated as 

maintenance level 2.8 The zone comprises inventoried roadless areas, areas adjacent to designated 

 

8 The service level of a road is determined by its maintenance level. See glossary for a list of maintenance levels.

Refer to http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/05771205.pdf for more information.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

31

wilderness areas, and other relatively pristine areas. Desired conditions are described, and guidelines 

are established to maintain desired conditions and visitor experiences. 

Suitable uses specified for the Wild Backcountry Land Use Zone are livestock grazing, harvesting of 

timber for restoration purposes, mountain biking, and collection of forest products and fuelwood. 

Developed recreational facilities, and timber production are not suitable uses. 

Roaded Backcountry

A proposed 595,497acre (35 percent of the Coronado National Forest) Roaded Backcountry Land Use 

Zone would accommodate a range of dispersed uses and motorized access, with an emphasis on quiet 

recreation. This area would be managed to retain its natural character and to limit the degree and type 

of development. Desired conditions are described, and guidelines are established to maintain 

conditions and visitor experiences. 

Suitable uses specified for the Roaded Backcountry Land Use Zone include livestock grazing, 

motorized access on designated roads, motorized dispersed camping, mountain biking, recreation 

facilities, harvesting of timber in conjunction with restoration projects, and collection of forest 

products and fuelwood. This zone is not suitable for timber production. 

Developed Recreation

A proposed 37,264-acre (2 percent of the Coronado) Developed Recreation Land Use Zone would 

serve major public access corridors into the national forest. Roads in this zone would typically be 

paved (maintenance level 3 to 5; see footnote 8 and glossary) and used as popular sightseeing routes. 

In some cases, main roads are designated as scenic byways. Primarily day use activities occur in these 

areas, with visitor destinations such as campgrounds, picnic areas, vista points, visitor centers, and 

lakes. Organization camps and recreational residences are located in the Developed Recreation Land 

Use Zone. Many trailheads and hiking trails provide access to Wild Backcountry Land Use Zones, 

Roaded Backcountry Land Use Zones, and wilderness areas. Desired conditions are described, and 

guidelines are established to maintain conditions and visitor experiences. 

The Developed Recreation Land Use Zone is designated as suitable for motorized access, dispersed 

motorized camping, recreation facilities, and harvesting of timber in conjunction with restoration 

projects, and the collection of forest products and fuelwood. Activities for which it is not suitable 

include off-highway vehicle recreation, timber production, harvesting of commercial forest products, 

and livestock grazing (except for vegetation management, where appropriate).

Motorized Recreation

Approximately 4,862 acres of the Coronado (less than 1 percent) are designated for management as a 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone. This zone includes areas that currently experience heavy use by 

motorized recreational vehicles. Management direction is focused on providing a wide variety of 

recreational experiences, including off-highway vehicle use and vehicular sightseeing, while 

mitigating effects of motorized use and minimizing conflicts with other users. Desired conditions are 

described, and guidelines are established to maintain conditions and visitor experiences. Most forest 

uses, except for timber production, are suitable in this management area.

Special Areas

Existing Wilderness Areas

Eight designated wilderness areas, which add up to 338,318 acres (20 percent of the Coronado 

National Forest), are included in the revised plan. Generic desired conditions (goals), objectives, 

standards, and guidelines are defined for the following resource and social elements of designated 

wilderness areas: wilderness character, scenic quality, vegetation, wildlife, soil and water, recreation 

and education, trails and signage, fire, insects and disease, and research. In addition, the revised forest 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

32

plan defines desired conditions, objective, guidelines, standards, and suggested management 

approaches that are specific to individual wilderness areas.

In the revised plan, wilderness areas are suitable for livestock grazing, nonmechanical harvesting of 

traditional forest products, and outfitter and guide services compatible with wilderness character. 

Selected activities not suitable in wilderness areas include motorized and mechanized use, recreation 

facilities, timber harvest, fuelwood harvest, and commercial uses that are not wilderness dependent 

(see chapter 4 of revised forest plan).

Recommended Wilderness Areas

Recommended wilderness areas are comprised of lands recommended for wilderness designation as a 

result of the potential wilderness area evaluation process. The purpose of this evaluation was to 

identify all areas within the Coronado National Forest not yet designated as wilderness that satisfy the 

definition of wilderness found in the 1964 Wilderness Act. The Coronado National Forest followed a 

3-step process for identifying potential wilderness areas that included inventory and evaluation of 

potential areas and a determination of which areas would be included in this plan. The intent of this 

management area is to provide direction that would retain or improve the wilderness values of these 

areas if and until they are established by Congress. 

The Coronado National Forest is recommending four potential wilderness areas for wilderness 

designation: Ku Chish, Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition 

North. This includes a total of 108,890 acres, or 6 percent of the national forest. Two potential 

wilderness areas are located on the Douglas Ranger District: Ku Chish and Chiricahua Addition North 

(totaling approximately 26,245 and 5,013 acres, respectively). Ku Chish, named for the Apache word 

meaning Cochise, has a boundary of high ridgelines and natural features. This potential wilderness 

area shares a boundary with the existing Chiricahua National Monument to the south. The Chiricahua 

Addition North, an extension of the designated Chiricahua Wilderness, is comprised of six irregularly 

shaped areas that are each approximately one to four miles wide in an east-west direction and one to 

two miles wide in a north-south direction. The Whetstone Potential Wilderness Area, located in the 

Whetstone Mountains, is part of the Sierra Vista Ranger District. The Whetstone Potential Wilderness 

Area encompasses approximately 16,317 acres and is known for limestone outcrops in a band 

covering approximately 20 square miles. The fourth recommended wilderness area is Mount Graham, 

currently an established wilderness study area located on the Safford Ranger District. This potential 

wilderness area is approximately 61,315 acres and has been consistently managed to maintain its 

wilderness characteristics since it was designated as a wilderness study area in the Arizona Wilderness 

Act of 1984. 

The proposed recommended wilderness areas have stimulated a high degree of public interest because 

of their wilderness characteristics, the refugia they provide for threatened and endangered species, and 

their outstanding opportunities for recreational use. Each would be managed to maintain wilderness 

character (i.e., no motorized vehicle use and no use of mechanized equipment) preserving the area as 

“untrammeled, natural, and undeveloped, with outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation” (Wilderness Act of 1964). 

Wilderness Study Areas

In 1984, Congress established three wilderness study areas on the Coronado National Forest: Mount 

Graham, Bunk Robinson, and Whitmire Canyon. The proposed action carries forward the 1986 forest 

plan recommendation for Mount Graham (61,315 acres) to be designated as a wilderness area. Bunk 

Robinson (19,062 acres) and Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Areas (12,163 acres) would 

continue to be managed to preserve wilderness characteristics. The revised forest plan describes 

desired conditions for these areas as well as guidelines to protect wilderness character.

Suitable uses of these areas are livestock grazing, nonmechanical harvesting of traditional forest 

products, and compatible outfitter and guide and other uses. Activities that are not suitable in 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

33

wilderness study areas include construction of new roads, mechanized and motorized uses, vehicle 

trails, recreation facilities, timber harvest, fuelwood harvest, and any commercial uses that would have 

a long-term impact on wilderness character.

Research Natural Areas 

The Coronado National Forest has six research natural areas designated in the 1986 plan that will 

continue to be managed as such with the revised plan. The 1986 plan also recommends extending the 

boundaries of the Goodding and Pole Bridge Research Natural Areas, decreasing the size of the Santa 

Catalina Research Natural Area, and establishing the Canelo Research Natural Area. These 

recommendations are reiterated in the revised plan. In addition, the revised plan under the proposed 

action recommends designation of the Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area on the Santa 

Catalina Ranger District. Desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines are stated for 

management of all. Until decisions are made by the Rocky Mountain Research Station director and the 

regional forester to decrease the size of the Santa Catalina Research Natural Area, it will continue to 

be managed at its current size.

Other Special Areas

Special areas designated and recommended in the 1986 forest plan as Management Areas 8 and 8A 

would be managed as such. These include the Wet Canyon Talussnail Area, Wild Chile Botanical 

Area, Mount Graham Astrophysical and Biological Area (formally the Mount Graham Red Squirrel 

Refugium), and proposed Guadalupe Canyon Zoological Area from the 1986 plan. A new special area 

is recommended by the revised plan: the Cave Creek Canyon Birds of Prey Zoological-Botanical Area 

in the Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area (see figure 2). This area encompasses the South Fork 

Cave Creek Zoological-Botanical Area that was recommended in the 1986 plan. For each of these 

designated and recommended special areas, the revised plan establishes a unique set of plan 

components to meet management needs.

In addition, the revised plan recognizes two national natural landmark sites within the Coronado 

National Forest: Onyx Cave and Barfoot Park. National natural landmark sites are designated by the 

Secretary of the Interior in recognition of the site’s nationally significant natural features. In 1974, 

within the Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Area, roughly 50 acres surrounding Onyx Cave were 

designated in recognition of the cave’s numerous and beautifully-developed shield formations. It is 

considered one of the finest caves in Arizona. Similarly, designated in 2011, Barfoot Park is located in 

the Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area and provides one of the best Madrean-influenced 

ponderosa pine forests in the United States, and it includes high plant diversity. Within the 680 

designated acres is also one of the largest concentrations of well-developed talus slopes, supporting 

plants and animals not found elsewhere at this site. 

The plan also recognizes the Bighorn Sheep Management Area, a special area in the Santa Catalina 

Ecosystem Management Area established in coordination with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. The latter area differs from other special areas designated by the Coronado because it 

establishes rules for public behavior, rather than national forest management actions.

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

This management area is newly added in the revised forest plan. It was not included in the 1986 plan, 

because eligibility of forest streams for designation as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers had not yet 

been determined. It comprises 16 river segments that meet eligibility criteria for future designation as 

wild, scenic, or recreational rivers (table 6). Wild, scenic, and recreational rivers management areas 

are depicted in the revised plan on the ecosystem management area maps as an overlay across areas in 

which they occur (see figures 5, 9, 12, 13, and 16 in the revised plan). For example, if a wild, scenic, 

or recreational river is located in a Wild Backcountry Land Use Zone, it is shown on the map as an 

overlay on the Wild Backcountry Land Use Zone. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

34

Table 6. List of streams on the Coronado National Forest that are eligible for wild, scenic, and recreational river designation. These are common to the 

proposed action, alternative 1 and alternative 2.

Eligible River Segment Classification Outstandingly Remarkable Values

Area 

(acres)

Length 

(miles)

Ecosystem 

Management 

Area

Ash Creek Recreation Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, historic, cultural, and ecological 2,019 6.2 Pinaleño

Grant Creek Recreation Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, historic, cultural, and ecological 1,800 5.0 Pinaleño

Lower Cañada del Oro Recreation Scenic, wildlife, fish, and historic 1,329 3.4 Santa Catalina

Lower Cave Creek Recreation Scenic, recreation, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, ecological, and riparian 2,329 7.0 Chiricahua

Lower Romero Canyon Recreation Recreation, wildlife, fish, historic, and cultural 728 2.2 Santa Catalina

Lower Sabino Canyon Recreation Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, historic, and cultural 1,094 3.2 Santa Catalina

Cima (Winn Falls) Creek Wild Scenic, recreation, wildlife, historic, cultural, and riparian 844 2.5 Chiricahua

Upper Cañada del Oro Wild Scenic, wildlife, and fish 2,060 6.0 Santa Catalina

Upper Romero Canyon Wild Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, and cultural 2,163 6.1 Santa Catalina

Upper Sabino Canyon Wild Scenic, recreation, wildlife, historic, and cultural 2,629 8.0 Santa Catalina

Upper South Fork Cave Creek Wild Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, historic, and riparian 2,227 6.2 Chiricahua

Rucker Creek Wild Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, and geologic 2,048 5.9 Chiricahua

Lower South Fork Cave Creek Scenic Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, geologic, cultural, riparian, and ecological 439 1.4 Chiricahua

Post Creek Scenic Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, and cultural 785 2.2 Pinaleño

Redfield Canyon Scenic Scenic and wildlife 2,159 9.1 Galiuro

Sycamore River Scenic Scenic, recreation, wildlife, fish, historic, cultural, and ecological 1,759 5.0 Tumacacori

Total Acres 26,412 79.4 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

35

Desired conditions are given for each classification (wild, scenic, or recreational) to guide their 

management. The revised forest plan incorporates a standard requiring that conditions and outstanding 

remarkable values be preserved in those segments that qualify for wild, scenic, or recreational river 

classification. All other plan direction for specific land use zones or special areas in which these 

eligible rivers occur applies in addition to direction related to wild, scenic, or recreational eligibility.

Geographic Areas

Each of the 12 mountain ranges on the Coronado is designated as a specific ecosystem management 

area. The revised plan lists the same ecosystem management areas as the 1986 plan. Forest plan 

components for each ecosystem management area are included in the revised plan to direct 

management toward achieving desired conditions. 

Meeting the Needs for Change – Proposed Action

The following sections discuss revised plan direction under the proposed action as it relates to the 

needs for change.

Ecosystem Restoration and Resiliency

In general, the revised plan includes components to facilitate the restoration and/or remediation of 

degraded resources and sustain healthy ecosystems into the future. These were developed based on the 

best available scientific information to date.

The forest plan includes various components that address the resource threats posed by invasive, 

nonnative plants and animals and emphasizes the need for management to reduce threats to aquatic 

species. It recommends additional wilderness and other special management areas that would prohibit 

the use of motor vehicles and mechanized equipment, except in special circumstances, thereby 

decreasing the potential for adverse effects on resources from such activities. In addition, facilities that 

support off-highway vehicle recreation (loading ramps and trails limited to off-highway vehicle use) 

or other activities that inherently have a high potential to disrupt ecosystem structure and function are 

deemed unacceptable across all but 4,857 acres (the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone) of the 

national forest. No areas are identified as suitable for commercial timber production. 

Specifically, the revised plan includes the following content for meeting the need for ecosystem 

restoration and resiliency.

Vegetation: Detailed desired conditions are established for 10 communities, based on a thorough 

review of literature and the current scientific understanding of the historic range of variation in 

composition, structure, and ecological processes represented in these communities. The desired 

conditions are reckoned to be sustainable over time and resilient to disturbances.

Objectives are identified by ecosystem management area for situations where management action is 

needed to attain desired conditions, especially for landscapes at risk from uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Standards and guidelines are established to guide future site-specific project design so that 

vegetation will be protected from the potential effects of future site-specific management 

actions.Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants: Detailed desired conditions are identified and objectives 

are stated for achieving them when management action is needed to sustain and/or improve (restore) 

resource conditions. Standards and guidelines are defined to protect species from the potential 

effects of future site-specific management actions.

Physical Resources: Desired conditions are specified for air, water, and soil resources, and 

objectives are stated for achieving them when management action is needed to sustain and/or 

improve conditions. Standards and guidelines are established to protect physical resources from the 

potential effects of future site-specific management actions.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

36

Biophysical Habitat: Detailed desired conditions are identified for biophysical habitats, including 

caves, abandoned mines, and adits9, and objectives are stated for attaining them when management 

action is needed to sustain and/or improve conditions. Standards and guidelines are defined to 

protect them from the potential effects of future site-specific management actions.

Climate Change: The revised plan specifies desired conditions for resources vulnerable to the 

effects of climate change and recommends specific management approaches toward their 

developing adapting and becoming resilient. Current scientific information regarding the effects of 

climate change was used to develop guidance in the revised plan. It is presented as a general 

description of anticipated changes in conditions as they are known to a reasonable level of certainty. 

In addition, desired conditions are identified for affected resources toward improving their 

resiliency and increasing their capacity to adapt to changing biological, chemical, and physical 

conditions, including, but not limited to, drought and atmospheric warming. 

9 An adit is an entrance to an underground mine which is horizontal or nearly horizontal.

Visitor Experiences

The revised forest plan provides detailed desired condition statements for forestwide recreation, 

motorized transportation, and scenery. Management areas that satisfy visitor expectations and provide 

a wide range of visitor experiences are designated across the Coronado. 

Quiet recreation is emphasized on about 60 percent of forest lands, motorized access on 38 percent, 

and less than 1 percent for developed facilities that support off-highway vehicle recreation, such as 

loading ramps and loop trails. The proposed action provides less area emphasized for motorized 

recreation than alternative 2.

The Coronado National Forest would continue to manage eight areas as designated wilderness. The 

revised plan recommends congressional designation of four areas as wilderness: Mount Graham 

(61,315 acres), Ku Chish (26,245 acres), Chiricahua Addition North (5,013 acres), and Whetstone 

(16,317 acres) Recommended Wilderness Areas. The need for quiet recreation experiences is 

addressed by the plan’s recommended wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and other special 

management areas, as these areas emphasize naturalness and solitude. 

Unique management challenges presented by illegal activities that occur on forest lands along the 

international border with Mexico are addressed by the revised plan. A desired condition is expressed 

regarding visitor safety across the Coronado, with emphasis on management of high-traffic smuggling 

areas. An objective is established in the plan for the removal of trash that accumulates on the national 

forest from illegal activities.

Access to National Forest System Lands

The proposed action includes detailed desired condition statements for the establishment and 

maintenance of reasonable motorized and nonmotorized access to the Coronado. Objectives, 

guidelines, standards, and management approaches are established to facilitate progress toward 

achieving desired conditions. The plan also identifies geographic areas where improved access is 

necessary, but currently very limited or nonexistent. In this regard, it specifies plan components for 

land ownership adjustments and boundary management in support of increasing acquisition of rightsof-way for establishing and maintaining permanent legal access. 

Those wilderness areas recommended by the proposed action would not interfere with legal motorized 

access to the Coronado. 

 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

37

Preservation of Open Space

The proposed action emphasizes preservation of open space in components that address range 

management, wildlife, and scenery. A desired condition statement for range management is dedicated 

to managing “working landscapes” (e.g., grazing allotments) as open space. Plan components for 

wildlife management emphasize wildlife habitat linkages that extend across land ownership 

boundaries. Scenic quality components emphasize the aesthetic and recreational benefits of vast, open 

natural landscapes. The proposed action also recognizes the interconnected nature of recreation 

activities on National Forest System lands and adjacent open space, such as trails.

The revised plan asserts that private lands within and adjacent to the Coronado are valuable as natural 

open space, toward the goal of encouraging adjacent land owners to consider managing their land for 

this purpose, rather than developing it. Direction in this regard also recommends that management of 

open space by Coronado National Forest staff be compatible with, and complementary to, the context 

of the surrounding landscape in order to preserve open space and ecosystem functions. The plan 

identifies key wildlife corridors that benefit from the preservation of open space in specific areas. The 

plan addresses the complications posed by attempting to manage wildfire in developed settings by 

encouraging such management in natural settings that are resilient to all disturbances. 

Communities, Collaboration, and Partnerships 

The revised forest plan emphasizes collaboration as an effective management strategy for most 

resource and social elements. In terms of service to communities, the proposed action includes plan 

components specific to tribal relations, special use management, collection of forest products, range 

management, recreation, and tourism, with emphasis on productive and positive partnerships with 

communities that depend on the Coronado for cultural or economic well-being. 

The emphasis on collaboration is designed to address the need for more effective management and for 

accomplishing work with the help of others through improved relationships. The well-defined goals, 

objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability determinations will serve as management direction 

for the mutual benefit of partners and the Forest Service.

Alternative 1: Emphasis on Wilderness

General Overview – Alternative 1

Alternative 1 contains the same components as the proposed action with one exception: in response to 

public interest, alternative 1 recommends that 255,908 acres be designated as wilderness under the 

heading “Wilderness Study Areas and Recommended Wilderness” (see table 7 and figures 36 through 

47 in appendix L). Additional wilderness parcels under alternative 1 were chosen after they and 

several other parcels were screened against Forest Service wilderness criteria and the results 

documented in the “Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report” (USDA FS 2013). 

Important criteria for selection include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• identified currently as a wilderness study area 

• an area of high public interest for wilderness designation 

• a manageable addition of land to a current wilderness 

• an area currently managed for wilderness character because of its relative inaccessibility

• an area that rated highly for both capability and need in the Potential Wilderness Evaluation 

Report 

The Coronado National Forest leadership team approved parcels listed in table 7 to be recommended 

by alternative 1 for congressional designation as wilderness. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

38

Table 7. Areas recommended for wilderness designation in 

alternative 1

Parcel Name Alternative 1 Acres

Dragoon 14,211

Ku Chish* 26,245

Bunk Robinson WSA 19,062

Whitmire Canyon WSA 12,163

Chiricahua Addition West 2,731

Chiricahua Addition North* 5,013

Jhus Canyon 10,219

Tumacacori 37,330

Mount Wrightson Addition 14,395

Mount Fagan 6,256

Whetstone* 16,317

Winchester 7,207

Galiuro Addition 16,891

Mount Graham WSA* 61,315

Santa Teresa Addition North 3,415

Santa Teresa Addition South 3,138

Total 255,908

* Areas also recommended by the proposed action

Meeting the Needs for Change – Alternative 1

Alternative 1 responds to the five needs for change topics in the same manner as reported for the 

proposed action and, further, it better addresses the need for management direction regarding 

ecosystem restoration and resiliency by proposing 147,018 acres of wilderness more than the 

proposed action, and 194,593 more than alternative 2. Under alternative 1, management of these lands 

would be dominated by natural processes. Mechanized and motorized uses would be permitted on a 

limited case-by-case basis to serve management purposes only and would not be permitted to alter the 

landscape permanently. 

Alternative 1 would better address the need for change regarding visitor experiences by increasing 

opportunities for quiet recreation and other nonmotorized uses of the Coronado. However, this 

alternative would provide fewer areas for motorized recreation than alternative 2. The needs for 

change related to access to National Forest System lands, preservation of open space, and 

communities, collaboration, and partnerships would be the same as described above for the 

proposed action. 

Alternative 2: Emphasis on Motorized Recreation

General Overview – Alternative 2

Alternative 2 emphasizes motorized recreation beyond what is specified in the plan under the 

proposed action and alternative 1. Alternative 2 proposes a Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone of 

45,117 acres―that is 40,255 more than the proposed action and alternative 1 (see table 8 and figures 

48 through 59 in appendix L). Alternative 2 does not recommend any additional wilderness or 

research natural areas, but carries forward the 1986 plan recommendations. Unlike the proposed action 

and alternative 1, this alternative does not contain plan components (desired conditions and 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

39

management approaches) for managing resources in response to climate change. Alternative 2 does, 

however, incorporate potential strategies for response to climate change on the Coronado (see

appendix A, revised forest plan). 

Table 8. Acres allocated to Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in each ecosystem management 

area, by alternative

Ecosystem 

Management Area

No Action 

(Acres)

Proposed Action 

(Acres)

Alternative 1 

(Acres)

Alternative 2 

(Acres)

Chiricahua 0 0 0 0 

Dragoon 0 0 0 0 

Peloncillo 0 0 0 0

Santa Rita 0 824 824 23,478

Tumacacori 0 0 0 0

Huachuca 0 619 619 677

Whetstone 0 0 0 0

Galiuro 0 0 0 0 

Pinaleño 0 883 883 4,821

Santa Teresa 0 0 0 0

Winchester 0 0 0 0 

Santa Catalina 0 2,537 2,537 16,141

Total* 0 4,863 4,863 45,117 

*Acres are approximate and may not sum the exact total due to rounding.

In proposing alternative 2, the Forest Service is being responsive to input provided during the plan 

revision public involvement process that requested increased motorized recreation opportunities. With 

a dedicated and sizeable Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone, motorized recreational facilities, such 

as off-loading ramps, courses for different skill levels, and trails, could be concentrated in areas where 

such use is already prevalent and where sensitive resources are minimal.

Alternative 2 recognizes the eight previously designated wilderness areas on the Coronado and three 

previously designated wilderness study areas (Mount Graham, Bunk Robinson, and Whitmire) (see 

“Proposed Action” section). It carries forward only one additional area from the 1986 plan 

recommendation for designation, the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area (61,315 acres), 

identified in the proposed action and alternative 1. 

Like the proposed action and alternative 1, alternative 2 carries forward the 1986 plan 

recommendations for the six existing research natural areas (including reduction of the Santa Catalina 

Research Natural Area); one new research natural area (Canelo Hills); and two extensions (Goodding 

and Pole Bridge). Unlike the proposed action, alternative 2 does not recommend designation of the 

Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area and the Cave Creek Canyon Birds of Prey ZoologicalBotanical Area.

Meeting the Needs for Change - Alternative 2

Alternative 2 responds to the five needs for change topics in the same manner as reported for the 

proposed action. In addition, it responds to the need for management direction regarding ecosystem 

restoration and resiliency by localizing the impacts of motorized recreation in previously developed 

settings designated for such use. Increasing the size of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone will 

allow areas to recover where resource damage has occurred because of irresponsible vehicle use. In 

these areas, alternative 2 encourages infrastructure to channel recreational uses to support both 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

40

motorized and quiet recreation. While alternative 2 would enhance visitor experiences by increasing 

forestwide motorized recreational use areas and minimizing the number of recommended wilderness 

designations it provides fewer areas for quiet and nonmotorized recreation compared to the proposed 

action and alternative 1. The needs for change related to access to National Forest System lands, 

preservation of open space, and communities, collaboration, and partnerships would be the same 

as described above for the proposed action and alternative 1. 

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration

Federal agencies are required by Council of Environmental Quality regulations to rigorously explore 

and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating 

any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received up 

until the release of this environmental impact statement suggested several alternative options for 

satisfying the purpose of and need for agency action. The following alternatives were considered but 

dismissed from further evaluation in this environmental impact statement for the reasons summarized 

below. 

No Grazing 

A “no grazing” alternative was recommended as an alternative based on concerns about conservation, 

the recovery of native biological diversity, and the need for restoration of natural processes that shape 

forest ecosystems and allow them to adjust to climate change. This alternative would eliminate all 

livestock grazing on the Coronado. Currently, grazing is permitted on approximately 82 percent of the 

national forest and managed in accordance with individual allotment management plans. This 

alternative was dropped from further consideration because, given that the range resource is already 

actively used on the Coronado, this alternative would violate the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act 

and the National Forest Management Act.

Thirty-one Areas Recommended for Wilderness

In the Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report, 33 parcels were evaluated against Forest Service 

criteria for recommendation as wilderness. Sixteen of these were recommended as wilderness under 

alternative 1. Although all areas met the evaluation criteria, 17 of them did not fully meet the 

Coronado’s needs for change; therefore, they were excluded from detailed consideration in this 

environmental impact statement. 

Potential Wilderness Areas Requested for Consideration

During planning for the plan revision, the Coronado staff received various maps from members of the 

public with requests that specific areas be considered for recommendation as wilderness. Although 

portions of some mapped areas met Forest Service criteria for potential wilderness, none of them in 

their entirety was considered viable. Where feasible, portions of mapped areas were incorporated into 

wilderness recommendations under alternative 1. 

Maximize Certain Resources

Comments supported developing an alternative that maximizes ecological systems for protection of 

wildlife, vegetation, riparian areas, watershed, soils, and range while also incorporating the effects of 

climate change on ecosystems. Focusing an alternative on ecological climatic changes it would not 

meet the legal requirements of the National Forest Management Act or Multiple Use-Sustained Yield 

Act, which require forests to be managed using multiple use, sustained yield principles. Further, given 

that the purpose of this analysis is to revise a current forest plan that is designed to continue to meet 

the multiple use mandate, maximization of ecological systems at the expense of other resources does 

not meet the purpose and need. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

41

Minimal or No Management

Some comments favored an alternative that involves minimal or no management on the Coronado 

National Forest; to let natural processes dominate without human intervention. Active management is

needed to maintain or move toward desired conditions of restoring forest ecosystems; maintaining

recreation opportunities; reducing the threat of uncharacteristic wildfires to communities, and 

maintaining the availability of forest products. This alternative was not considered in detail because it 

would not meet the purpose and need identified in chapter 1 nor would it meet legal requirements of 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. Taking a “hands-off approach” would not meet our current needs for 

change and did not meet the needs for change in the development of the 1986 plan (see “Purpose and 

Need,” chapter 1) therefore, this topic did not drive alternative development. 

Reduced Grazing

There was a request that two alternatives be developed in which a 25 and 50 percent reduction in 

actual stock numbers would be analyzed. The forest plan does not specify stock numbers or stocking 

rates, so these alternatives were not analyzed in detail. Further, in response to the issue that “Livestock 

grazing by cattle causes watershed, stream, and grassland degradation,” the forest considered a 

reduced grazing alternative, but concluded that the livestock grazing program has multiple 

mechanisms to evaluate, review, and adapt management as needed to effectively protect resources and 

respond to changing conditions. The effects from grazing in each range allotment are evaluated and 

adjusted (1) throughout the season, particularly when pasture rotation is being determined; (2) in detail 

at the beginning of the season when the annual operating instructions are determined; and (3) 

comprehensively on 10- to 15-year intervals, or more frequently when needed, as grazing is 

periodically reauthorized through the environmental analysis process. This allows for any needed 

adjustments to be made on a site-specific basis to maintain and move toward desired conditions for 

watersheds, wildlife habitat, and other resources. For these reasons, an alternative that would have a 

reduced level of grazing across the forest was not studied in detail. 

No New Road Construction

Some public comments requested that, during the plan revision process, no new roads or unauthorized 

routes be added to the transportation system. The land management plan provides a framework to 

guide new road construction to reduce impacts to sensitive resources. Potential changes or additions to 

the forests’ transportation system are not plan level decisions and would be evaluated in separate 

analysis through implementation of the Travel Management Rule (73 Federal Register 74689). As a 

result, this alternative was dropped from detailed consideration. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

42

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 9. Primary differences in various elements of the revised forest plan among the four alternatives

Distinguishing Elements of 

Draft Revised Plan No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Developed 

Zone

Recreation Land Use NONE1 37,264 acres 35,986 acres 36,784 acres

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone 

NONE 4,862 acres 4,862 acres 45,117 acres

Roaded Backcountry Land Use 

Zone

NONE 595,497 acres 582,172 acres 557,039 acres

Wild Backcountry 

Land Use Zone

NONE 596,127 acres 489,975 acres 594,810 acres

Potential Natural Vegetation 

Types2

Desert: 175,452

Grasslands: 407,477

Interior chaparral: 151,181

Madrean encinal woodland: 738,693

Madrean pine-oak woodland: 142,047

Ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub: 39,477

Mixed-conifer (wet and dry): 55,451

Spruce-fir: 3,014

Montane meadows, wetlands and riparian 

areas: 5,142

All potential natural vegetation 

types same as no action

All potential natural 

vegetation types same as no 

action

All potential natural 

vegetation types same as no 

action

Suitable Timber 5,000 acres 0 0 0

Allowable Sale Quantity Unknown 0 0 0 

Long-term Sustained Yield Unknown 0 0 0 

Total Wilderness3 430,858 acres4 478,433 acres4 599,189 acres4 539,748 acres4

Designated Wilderness Areas (8 areas) 338,318 acres 338,318 acres 338,318 acres 338,318 acres

Designated Wilderness Study 

Areas

(3 areas) 92,540 acres 92,540 acres 92,540 acres 92,540 acres

Recommended Wilderness 

Areas 

(1 area) 61,315 acres (4 areas) 108,890 acres (16 areas) 255,908 acres (1 area) 61,315 acres 5

Total Research Natural Areas 9,082 acres6 10,184 acres7 10,184 acres7 9,082 acres6

Designated Research Natural 

Areas8

(6 areas) 6,900 acres 6,900 acres 6,900 acres 6,900 acres
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

43

Distinguishing Elements of 

Draft Revised Plan No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Recommended Research 

Natural Areas9

(3 areas) 2,182 acres (4 areas) 3,284 acres10 (4 areas) 3,284 acres10 (3 areas) 2,182 acres

Total Zoological-Botanical 

Areas

9,062 acres 34,040 acres 34,040 acres 9,062 acres

Designated Zoological-Botanical 

Areas

(3 areas) 4,840 acres 4,840 acres 4,840 acres 4,840 acres

Recommended ZoologicalBotanical Areas

(2 areas) 4,222 acres (3 areas) 29,200 acres11 (3 areas) 29,200 acres (2 areas) 4,222 acres

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational Rivers

NONE 79.4 miles (26,412 acres) 79.4 miles (26,412 acres) 79.4 miles (26,412 acres)

Resource Direction Regarding 

Response to Climate Change12

NO DIRECTION FULL DIRECTION

(Includes Plan Components)

FULL DIRECTION

(Includes Plan Components)

LIMITED DIRECTION

(No Plan Components)

Present Net Value13 - $46,144,923 Same as no action Same as no action Same as no action

1. The 1986 forest plan did not have land use zones

2. See table 29 in chapter 3

3. Includes Coronado National Forest designated wilderness, designated wilderness study areas, and recommended wilderness areas

4. Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area is also recommended wilderness across alternatives, therefore it is only counted once for total wilderness acres

5. Proposes no new wilderness, but carried forward 1986 plan recommendation to designate the designated Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area as a wilderness area

6. Proposed reduction of Santa Catalina Research Natural Area to 634 acres would change this total to 5,676 acres

7. Proposed reduction of Santa Catalina Research Natural Area to 634 acres would change this total to 6,778 acres

8. Butterfly Peak, Elgin, Gooding, Goudy, Pole, and Santa Catalina (includes 4,040 acres for the Santa Catalina Research Natural Area since this area was never reduced following the 1986 plan) 

9. Carried forward from the 1986 plan are recommendations for the Goodding and Pole Bridge Research Natural Area Extensions (Douglas Ranger District) and the new Canelo Research Natural 

Area (Sierra Vista Ranger District)

10. These include the three proposed research natural areas in footnote 9 and a proposed new research natural area, Finger Rock Canyon, on the Santa Catalina Ranger District

11. Guadalupe Canyon, South Fork Cave Creek Zoological-Botanical Area, and South Fork Cave Creek Birds of Prey (which encompasses the South Fork Cave Creek Zoological Botanical Area)

12. See table footnote 1 on page 56

13. Expenditures exceed revenues
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

44

The following tables provide a comparison of the potential effects of alternatives on various forest resources under Need for Change Topic 1: Ecosystem Restoration 

and Resiliency. This topic is focused on the need for updated direction, improved direction, or both regarding habitat conservation and restoration, species 

conservation, management of vegetative fuels, management of and ecological responses to wildfire, management of invasive species, and responding to the 

effects of climate change.

Table 10. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on vegetation communities

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Desert 

(9.6% of Coronado 

National Forest)

No treatments

• No plan components for 

management of desert vegetation.

• No buffelgrass management 

direction.

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area: 

reduction in direct damage, less 

vectors for invasive plants, less 

adverse effects from exhaust.

• Least successful alternative in 

developing resource adaptation 

and resiliency to conditions that 

result from climate change. 

Results in decreased health and 

vigor of vegetation, increased 

plant susceptibility to insects and 

disease; and lower overall 

productivity as available water 

and soil nutrients decline, among 

other negative effects.

Treatment = 10,000 to 15,000 acres

every 10 years.

• Includes plan components to 

manage desert vegetation.

• Specifies targets for buffelgrass 

treatments (see acres above).

• Potential positive effects (see 

“No Action” heading) from 

restriction on motorized and 

mechanized uses in four 

recommended wilderness areas. 

• Includes desired conditions and 

management approaches for 

climate change.

• Includes plan components for 

other resources to develop 

adaptation and resiliency to 

climate change. Positive benefit 

on desert vegetation.

Treatment = 10,000 to

15,000 acres every 10 years.

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends 16 wilderness 

areas.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects (see “No Action” 

heading) because of restriction 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in 16 recommended 

wilderness areas.

Treatment = 10,000 to 15,000 acres

every 10 years.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but larger 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Greatest negative impact on desert 

vegetation from potential increased 

motorized recreation 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

and less adverse effects from 

vehicle exhaust.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

45

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Grasslands

(24.7% of Coronado 

National Forest)

Treatment = 36,000 acres

• No plan components for 

management of grassland

• Manages grassland for range 

(i.e., forage) purposes. 

• Treatments focus on invasive 

species, not structure, 

composition, and function of 

grasslands.

• Resulting shrub encroachment 

and loss of herbaceous cover 

adversely affects water 

infiltration and increases erosion 

and runoff.

• Effects of designating one 

recommended wilderness area 

and lack of climate change 

direction would be the same as 

described for “No Action” under 

“Desert.”

Treatment = 72,500 acres every 

10 years

• Includes plan components to 

manage grasslands.

• Manages grasslands to create an 

open community and restore

historic low-intensity fire to the 

ecosystem.

• Fire improves nutrient cycling. 

Growth of herbaceous cover (i.e., 

forage) results. 

• Results in improved water 

infiltration and resiliency to 

natural disturbances.

• Same effects of new 

recommended wilderness and 

climate change direction same as 

described under “Proposed 

Action” for “Desert.” 

Treatment = 72,500 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended 

wilderness are reduction in 

direct damage, less 

introduction of invasive 

plants, and less adverse effects 

from vehicle exhaust.

Treatment = 72,500 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Greatest negative impact on 

grasslands from increased

motorized recreation in the 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone. 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

and less adverse effects from 

vehicle exhaust.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

46

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Interior Chaparral

(8.7% of Coronado 

National Forest)

Treatment = 0 acres

• No plan components for 

management of chaparral

• Manages chaparral for range (i.e., 

forage) purposes.

• Direction encourages conversion 

of interior chaparral to grassland 

for range purposes.

• Negative result is decreased 

short-term water yield and 

availability to plants.

• Effects of designating one 

recommended wilderness area 

and lack of climate change 

direction would be the same as 

described for “No Action” under 

“Desert.”

Treatment = 5,000 acres every 

10 years 

• Includes plan components to 

manage interior chaparral

• Manages chaparral for canopy 

closure to increase cover for 

wildlife.

• Decreased water yield in the long 

term because of canopy closure

• Effects of new recommended 

wilderness areas and climate 

change direction same as those 

described under “Proposed 

Action” for “Desert.”

Treatment = 5,000 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended 

wilderness are reduction in 

direct damage, less 

introduction of invasive 

plants, and less adverse effects 

from vehicle exhaust.

Treatment = 5,000 acres every 

10 years

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Greatest negative impact on 

chaparral from increased motorized 

recreation in the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone. 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

and less adverse effects from 

vehicle exhaust. 

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1 

but better than no action but better 

than no action. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

47

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Madrean Encinal 

Woodland

(42.9% of Coronado 

National Forest)

Treatment = 67,000 acres

• No plan components for 

management of Madrean encinal 

woodland. 

• Treatments with mechanical and 

planned ignitions insufficient to 

reduce overabundant late-seral 

and very low mid-seral stages.

• Results in dense mid-story that 

decreases wildlife forage and 

browse; and crowding, which 

degrades plant health and vigor, 

including response to climate 

change.

• Effects of designating one 

recommended wilderness area 

and lack of climate change 

direction same as those described 

for “No Action” under “Desert.”

Treatment = 367,000 acres every 

10 years

• Includes plan components to 

manage Madrean encinal 

woodland.

• Treatments promote growth of 

understory grasses and forbs, 

increasing browse and forage.

• Positive benefit is return of 

historic low-intensity fire.

• Shrub encroachment declines as 

fire treatments progress, which 

improved habitat quality and 

availability for certain species.

• Decreased mid-story density 

increased growing space and 

promoted health and vigor.

• Effects of new recommended 

wilderness areas and climate 

change direction same as those 

described under “Proposed 

Action” for “Desert.”

Treatment = 367,000 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended 

wilderness are reduction in 

direct damage, less 

introduction of invasive 

plants, and less adverse effects 

from vehicle exhaust.

Treatment = 367,000 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Greatest negative impact on 

Madrean encinal woodland from 

increased motorized recreation in 

the Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone. 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

and less adverse effects from 

vehicle exhaust.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1, 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

48

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Madrean Pine-Oak 

Woodland

(8.0% of Coronado 

National Forest)

Treatment = 21,000 acres

• Current departure from desired 

conditions is significant (74%). 

• Less treatment in this community 

compared to the proposed action 

continues dense overstory with 

closed canopy and decreased 

grass and forbs in understory.

• Results in decreased forage, 

limited nutrient cycling, and 

increased threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

• Plant crowding from density that 

decreases plant health and vigor.

• Effects of designating one 

recommended wilderness area 

and lack of climate change 

direction same as those described 

for “No Action” under “Desert.”

Treatment = 25,000 acres every 

10 years 

• Includes plan components to 

manage Madrean pine-oak 

woodland.

• Includes desired conditions for 

coarse-woody-debris, snag, and 

large tree components important 

to wildlife habitat.

• Proposes mechanical and fire 

treatments to reduce current 

departure from 74 to 55%.

• Results in decreased tree density 

and increased structural classes 

with understory cover. 

• Increased understory cover 

improves forage and promotes

the return of historic fire.

• Decreased overstory density 

decreases plant crowding and 

promotes plant health and vigor.

• Effects of new recommended 

wilderness areas and climate 

change direction same as 

described under “Proposed 

Action” for “Desert.”

Treatment = 25,000 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended 

wilderness are reduction in 

direct damage, less 

introduction of invasive 

plants, and less adverse effects 

from vehicle exhaust.

Treatment = 25,000 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Greatest negative impact on 

Madrean pine-oak woodland from 

increased motorized recreation in 

the Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone. 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

and less adverse effects from 

vehicle exhaust.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

49

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Ponderosa PineEvergreen Shrub

(2.2% of Coronado 

National Forest)

Treatment = 10,000 acres

• Non-specific plan direction based 

on habitat needs of Mexican 

spotted owl and northern

goshawk.

• Desired condition for habitat are 

unattainable. 

• Proposes treatments to reduce 

departure from 77% to 60%.

• Shrub component would decrease 

with increased canopy closure, as 

would understory cover that 

supports northern goshawk 

habitat.

• Continued dense overstory would 

increase the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire, 

proliferation of invasive 

southwest dwarf mistletoe, and 

crowding.

• Recommended wilderness 

contains 58% of ponderosa pineevergreen shrub on the Forest. 

Restrictions on mechanized and 

motorized uses may slow 

treatments, but would not prevent 

them from occurring.

• Effects of designating one 

recommended wilderness area 

and lack of climate change 

direction same as those described 

for “No Action” under “Desert.” 

Treatment = 12,500 acres every 

10 years

• Plan components for ponderosa 

pine-evergreen shrub include

desired conditions at wildlandurban interface.

• Mechanical treatments and 

unplanned and planned ignitions 

open the canopy and decrease 

departure from 77% to 46%.

• Open canopy improves growing 

conditions of understory and 

herbaceous cover.

• Supports development and 

maintenance of large trees, multistoried structure, snags, and 

downed woody debris as 

integrated components of an 

uneven-aged forest.

• Effects of new recommended 

wilderness areas and climate 

change direction same as those 

described under “Proposed 

Action” for “Desert.”

• .Recommended wilderness 

contains 58% of ponderosa pineevergreen shrub on the Forest. 

Restrictions on mechanized and 

motorized uses may slow 

treatments, but would not prevent 

them from occurring.

Treatment = 12,500 acres every 

10 years

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended 

wilderness are reduction in 

direct damage, less 

introduction of invasive 

plants, and less adverse effects 

from vehicle exhaust. 

Treatment = 12,500 acres every 

10 years

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction

• Ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub is

not present in the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone;

therefore, adverse effects from 

vehicle use would not occur. 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

and less adverse effects from 

vehicle exhaust.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

50

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Mixed-Conifer, Wet and 

Dry (3.1% of Coronado 

National Forest)

Treatment = 16,200 acres

• Non-specific plan direction and 

unattainable desired conditions 

based on habitat needs for 

Mexican spotted owl and 

northern goshawk.

• Direction is not specific to dry 

and wet mixed conifer.

• Effects of designating one 

recommended wilderness area 

and lack of climate change 

direction same as those described 

for “No Action” under “Desert.”

Treatment = 16,200 acres every 

10 years 

• Plan components established for 

both wet and dry mixed conifer. 

• Dry mixed conifer 

• Treat by prescribed thinning and 

planned and unplanned ignitions. 

Reduces crowding, which 

improves plant health and vigor, 

resiliency, and resistance to 

insects and disease. Results in 

increased and higher quality 

Mexican spotted owl and 

northern goshawk habitat. 

• Increased understory improves 

forage.

• Recommended wilderness has 

10% of dry mixed conifer on 

Forest. Restrictions may impede 

progress of pheromone 

treatments of insect infestation.

• Wet mixed conifer

• Plan components support 

development and maintenance of 

integrated old growth and large 

trees, multi-storied structure, 

snags and downed woody debris.

• Recommended wilderness has 

9% of wet mixed conifer on 

Forest. Use restrictions may 

impede progress of treatments.

• Effects of climate change 

direction same as those described 

under “Proposed Action” for 

“Desert.”

Treatment = 16,200 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended 

wilderness are reduction in 

direct damage, less 

introduction of invasive 

plants, and less adverse effects 

from vehicle exhaust. 

Treatment = 16,200 acres every 

10 years 

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Mixed conifer is not present in the 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone; therefore, adverse effects 

from vehicle use would not occur. 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

less adverse effects from vehicle 

exhaust.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

51

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Spruce-Fir Forest

(0.2% of Coronado 

National Forest)

Treatment = 0 acres

• Non-specific plan direction and 

unattainable desired conditions

based on habitat needs of Mount 

Graham red squirrel and northern 

goshawk. 

• Completed fuel treatments have 

only been near facilities and 

structures. 

• Effects of designating one 

recommended wilderness area 

and lack of climate change 

direction same as those described 

for “No Action” under “Desert.”

• One recommended wilderness 

area has 7% of spruce-fir forest 

on the Forest.

Treatment = 0 acres

• Plan components support 

development and maintenance of 

old growth and large trees, multistored structure, snags and 

downed woody debris.

• Direction for old growth is 

updated to follow current forestry 

practices 

• More open conditions at WUI are 

desired conditions that will 

moderate fire behavior and 

protect high-value sites.

• Effects of new recommended 

wilderness areas and climate 

change direction same as those 

described under “Proposed 

Action” for “Desert.”

Treatment = 0 acres

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended 

wilderness are reduction in 

direct damage, less 

introduction of invasive 

plants, and less adverse effects 

from vehicle exhaust. 

Treatment = 0 acres

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Spruce-fir is not present in the 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone; therefore, adverse effects 

from vehicle use would not occur. 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

and less adverse effects from 

vehicle exhaust.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1, 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

52

Vegetation 

Communities No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Riparian Areas2

(0.2% of Coronado 

National Forest) 

Treatment = 0 acres

• Recommends no treatments of 

upland vegetation, soils, or 

watersheds. This slows progress 

toward reference conditions.

• Uses an outdated riparian 

vegetation classification system; 

this affects how well areas are 

managed for riparian values and 

prioritized for protection, 

restoration, and treatment.

• Effects of designating one 

recommended wilderness area 

and lack of climate change 

direction same as those described 

for “No Action” under “Desert.”

Treatment = 2,500 to 10,000 acres

every 10 years

• Plan components for riparian 

areas management include 

desired conditions for channels, 

flood plains, vegetation, soils, 

water resources, aquatic biota, 

and fire.

• Proposes a range of treatments 

and guidelines that address 

effects of road construction, other 

vegetation treatments, and 

livestock grazing.

• As recommended by Region 3, 

the RMAP riparian classification 

system would be adopted.

• Effects of new recommended 

wilderness areas and climate 

change direction same as those 

described under “Proposed 

Action” for “Desert.”

• Four recommended wilderness 

areas; includes 107 acres of 

riparian vegetation.

Treatment = 2,500 to

10,000 acres every 10 years

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Management for wilderness 

values would move resources 

toward attainment of desired 

conditions for riparian areas.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in recommended 

wilderness are reduction in 

direct damage, less 

introduction of invasive 

plants, and less adverse effects 

from vehicle exhaust. There 

are 346 acres of riparian areas 

among the recommended 

wilderness.

Treatment = 2,500 to 10,000 acres

every 10 years

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate change direction.

• Development of trails and facilities 

in Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zones, which may include 

vegetation removal, soil 

compaction, erosion, sediment 

runoff to streams, alteration of 

channel morphology, and

introduction and spread of invasive 

plant species, has the potential to 

adversely affect 65 riparian acres. 

• On the other hand, motorized 

recreation in a Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone may 

reduce damage and destruction of

riparian resources elsewhere on the 

Coronado.

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area 

include reduction in direct damage, 

less introduction of invasive plants, 

and less adverse effects from 

vehicle exhaust.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1, 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

53

Table 11. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on soils

Soils No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Plan direction and effects 

to soils

• Plan components for managing 

disturbances and improving soil 

conditions where unsatisfactory.

• Sets targets for soil treatments. 

• No direction related to 

managing motorized recreation 

to minimize effects of ground 

disturbances.

• Restrictions in one 

recommended wilderness would 

protect soils from the effects of 

ground-disturbing vehicles and 

equipment.

• Effects from the lack of climate 

change direction are the same as 

those described for “No Action” 

under “Desert.”

• Desired conditions for soils are 

linked to desired conditions for 

vegetation types they support to 

ensure optimum soil function 

and productivity. 

• Desired conditions for ground 

cover and coarse woody debris 

to ensure optimum soil function.

• Desired conditions address uses 

and activities that impact soils, 

such as grazing.

• Potential positive effects on soils 

from restrictions on mechanized 

and motorized uses in four 

recommended wilderness areas 

because of reduction in grounddisturbing activities.

• Progress of soil, watershed, and 

vegetation treatments may be 

hindered by wilderness 

restrictions.

• Direction to manage responses 

to climate change would 

decrease potential effects on soil 

structure and productivity.

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects on soils because of 

restrictions on mechanized and 

motorized uses in 

recommended wilderness 

because of reduction in grounddisturbing activities.

• Progress of proposed treatments 

of soils, vegetation, and 

watersheds may be hindered by 

restrictions on motorized uses 

and equipment in wilderness.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Greatest potential negative effects 

on soils in Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zones include increased 

compaction and erosion and runoff 

resulting from vehicle use and 

ground disturbance.

• Potential positive effect on soil, 

watershed, and vegetation 

treatments in areas of Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zones only 

accessible by off-highway 

vehicles. 

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1, 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

54

Table 12. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on water

Water No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation Emphasis)

Plan direction and effects 

to water

• Plan direction does not reflect 

current water resource 

management objectives and 

practices.

• Plan lists no objectives for 

treating water resources to 

improve water quality.

• Plan has no desired conditions 

for future watershed quality and 

function.

• Direction applies to improving 

individual water resources 

rather than each entire 

watershed.

• Watershed function is static.

• Wilderness restrictions would 

increase protection of water 

resources from grounddisturbing effects.

• Least effective at managing 

effects on water resources from 

atypical temperatures and 

rainfall patterns associated with 

climate change. Water quality 

could be degraded by increased 

erosion, runoff, and 

sedimentation and water yield 

and availability may decrease 

with warmer, drier conditions.

• Desired conditions for 

attainment of all state and 

federal water quality standards, 

retention of wetlands and 

floodplains, and meeting Forest 

and public needs.

• Desired conditions for both 

individual waters and entire 

watersheds are basis for 

treatments.

• Goals for acquiring in-streamflow water rights, improving 

springs, and restoring streams 

for riparian habitat and 

recreational uses.

• Recommends total maximum 

daily loads for streams.

• Management direction regarding 

climate change would decrease 

potential effects on water 

resources and help develop their 

resiliency to specific stressors.

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects on water resources 

because of wilderness 

restrictions that decrease 

ground-disturbing activities.

• Proposed treatments of soils, 

vegetation, and watersheds may 

be slowed by wilderness 

restrictions.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Greatest potential negative effects 

on water resources within and 

downstream of Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zones from 

erosion and runoff resulting from 

vehicle use and ground 

disturbance.

• Potential positive effect on 

watershed treatments in areas of 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zones only accessible by offhighway vehicles.

• Potential positive effects from 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses in one 

recommended wilderness area.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

55

Table 13. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on air quality

Air Quality No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Plan direction and effects 

to air quality

• Direction tiered to Clean Air 

Act and amendments.

• Does not manage air-qualityrelated values class I areas.

• Use restrictions in one 

recommended wilderness would 

reduce vehicle exhaust and 

fugitive dust emissions.

• Least successful at managing 

responses to climate change. 

Sources of air pollutants that 

contribute to climate change are 

not managed. 

• Establishes desired conditions 

for both air quality and airquality-related values, including 

public health and visibility.

• Recommends approaches for 

managing emissions from 

wildfire and planned fire 

ignitions.

• Use restrictions in four 

recommended wilderness areas 

would reduce vehicle exhaust 

and fugitive dust emissions. 

• Manages sources of emissions 

that contribute to global 

warming. 

• Same plan components and 

effects as reported for the 

proposed action, but 

recommends more wilderness.

• Greatest potential positive 

effects on air quality because of 

wilderness restrictions that 

decrease ground-disturbing 

activities and exhaust 

emissions, but may impede 

progress of soil, vegetation, and 

watershed projects.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but largest 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, no new wilderness and 

special area designations, and 

limited climate-change direction.

• Air quality degradation would be 

greatest in Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zones where vehicle use 

would be concentrated.

• Wilderness restrictions in one

recommended wilderness reduce

vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust 

emissions.

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than the 

proposed action and alternative 1 

but better than no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

56

Table 14. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on climate change

Climate Change1 No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Plan direction and effects 

from climate change

• Plan does not provide direction 

for managing resources to 

develop adaptation and 

resiliency to the effects of 

climate change. Least effective 

alternative in addressing the 

potential negative effects of 

climate change on Forest 

resources.

• Does not recommend Finger 

Rock Canyon Research Natural 

Area, where climate change 

research could occur.

• Establishes desired conditions 

and management approaches for 

individual resources and uses or 

activities.

• Resources benefit from acquired 

adaptation and resiliency to 

stressors created by climate 

change, e.g., decreased water 

availability, susceptibility to 

insect and disease, increased 

temperatures, atypical rainfall, 

flooding, wildfire.

• Recommends the Finger Rock 

Canyon Research Natural Area, 

where climate change research 

could occur.

• Same plan direction and effects 

as the proposed action, but 

would benefit the most 

recommended wilderness. 

• Less successful at fostering 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change than 

the proposed action and 

alternative 1 but better than no 

action.

1. The 1986 plan (no action) contains “no direction” regarding the management of Coronado National Forest resources to develop resiliency and adaptation to the potential effects of climate 

change, which was much less well defined in 1986 than today.

The proposed action and alternative 1 include both (1) “plan components” in the body of the revised forest plan and (2) an overarching strategy for responding to disturbances resulting from 

climate change in appendix A of the plan. Plan components include “desired conditions” for developing resiliency and adaptation in resources to anticipated warmer and drier conditions in the 

Southwest and “management approaches” to move resources toward attaining desired conditions. 

Alternative 2 does not include “plan components” in the revised plan. It does incorporate the overarching strategy for responding to disturbances resulting from climate change in appendix A of 

the revised plan.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

57

Table 15. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on species diversity and viability10 with a focus on federally listed species11

10 The effects of climate change on wildlife are dependent on individual resource health within suitable habitat, by species. See the discussions under each resource in this table.

11 Species listed under the Endangered Species Act

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Jaguar (endangered) • Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Negative

• Endangered Species Act (ESA)

determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• No plan components for this 

species

• Proposed vegetation and 

watershed management project 

may reduce available cover

• Treatments would improve prey 

base because of increased plant 

vigor

• Restriction on motorized uses in 

new recommended wilderness 

area would reduce the potential 

for jaguar mortality from vehicle 

collisions in recommended 

wilderness

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan components integrate 

current science and the strategy 

for jaguar recovery plan

• Proposed treatments and new 

recommended wilderness area

recommendations would have 

the same effects as no action

• Proposed action has three more 

recommended wilderness areas

than no action, therefore, the 

area where motorized uses 

would be restricted would be 

larger, and jaguar-vehicle 

collisions would likely decrease 

proportionately

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Same components and effects as 

proposed action

• The decrease in jaguar mortality 

from vehicle collisions would be 

greater than the other 

alternatives because of the 

increased acreage of wilderness 

recommended by alternative 1

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Same components and effects as 

proposed action

• The increased allocation of land 

for motorized recreation zones 

by alternative 2 would 

temporarily displace animals in 

the vicinity of these activities

• The effect of new recommended 

wilderness would be the same as 

no action

Ocelot (endangered) Same as reported for Jaguar

(except there is no designated 

critical habitat)

Same as reported for Jaguar

(except there is no designated 

critical habitat)

Same as reported for Jaguar

(except there is no designated 

critical habitat)

Same as reported for Jaguar

(except there is no designated 

critical habitat)

 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

58

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Mexican gray wolf 

(endangered, 

experimental population)

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = not likely 

to jeopardize in proposed 10(j) 

area

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• No plan components for this 

species

• Proposed vegetation and 

watershed management project 

may reduce available cover

• Treatments would improve prey 

base because of increased plant 

vigor

• Restriction on motorized uses in 

new recommended wilderness 

area would reduce the potential 

for wolf mortality from vehicle 

collisions in recommended 

wilderness

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = not likely 

to jeopardize in proposed 10(j) 

area

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan components integrate 

current science and the strategy 

for wolf recovery program

• Proposed treatments and new 

recommended wilderness area 

recommendations would have 

the same effects as no action

• Proposed action has three more 

recommended wilderness areas 

than no action, therefore, the 

area where motorized uses 

would be restricted would be 

larger, and wolf-vehicle 

collisions would likely decrease 

proportionately

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = not likely 

to jeopardize in proposed 10(j) 

area

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Same components and effects as 

proposed action

• The decrease in wolf mortality 

from vehicle collisions would be 

greater than the other 

alternatives because of the 

increased acreage of wilderness 

recommended by alternative 1

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = not likely 

to jeopardize in proposed 10(j) 

area

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Same components and effects as 

proposed action

• The increased allocation of land 

for motorized recreation zones 

by alternative 2 would 

temporarily displace animals in 

the vicinity of these activities

• The effect of new recommended 

wilderness would be the same as 

no action
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

59

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Mount Graham red 

squirrel (endangered)

• Population trend = Positive

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Numerous standards and 

guidelines specific to 

management of mixed conifer 

and spruce fir as squirrel habitat

• Does not overly limit restoration 

activities within Mount Graham 

red squirrel habitat so as to 

increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire or impede 

habitat improvement necessary 

to sustain the Mount Graham red 

squirrel population

• Population trend = Positive

• Habitat trend = Positive 

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan components integrate 

current science and Mount 

Graham red squirrel recovery 

plans

• Direction includes a hierarchy 

among species for site-specific 

decision-making, with Mount 

Graham red squirrel needs above 

all others

• Other direction relates to 

mitigating effects of recreation 

and protecting middens

• No new recommended 

wilderness area in Mount 

Graham red squirrel habitat

• Population trend = Positive

• Habitat trend = Positive 

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan direction is same as 

proposed action

• No new recommended 

wilderness area in Mount 

Graham red squirrel habitat

• Population trend = Positive

• Habitat trend = Positive 

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan direction is same as 

proposed action

• Proposed motorized recreation 

zone in Stockton Pass is far 

enough from Mount Graham red 

squirrel habitat to not be a threat 

to the population or habitat
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

60

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Lesser long-nosed bat 

(endangered, proposed 

for delisting) 

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Provides direction regarding 

management of caves and roosts 

and protection of food sources 

(agaves and saguaros), such as 

excluding grazing in foraging

habitat

• Does not provide desired 

conditions for lesser long-nosed 

bat foraging habitat

• Vegetation in lesser long-nosed 

bat habitat would remain similar 

to current conditions because 

grasslands and other types would 

continue to be managed for 

range purposes that also suit the 

lesser long-nosed bat

• Bat habitat in new recommended 

wilderness area would benefit 

from use restrictions

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Direction based on current 

science would result in 

vegetation trends toward desired 

conditions, improving lesser 

long-nosed bat habitat quality, 

decreasing threats, and 

protecting food sources (e.g., 

agave, saguaro)

• Addresses bat habitat more fully 

than no action by including both 

roosting and foraging areas

• Bat habitat in new recommended 

wilderness areas would benefit 

from use restrictions.

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan direction is same as 

proposed action

• Additional areas recommended 

as wilderness support lesser 

long-nosed bat habitat. Positive 

effects on bat habitat would be 

greatest under alternative 1.

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan direction is same as 

proposed action

• Bat disturbance would increase 

over the other alternatives 

because foraging habitat is 

within the additional land 

allocated to a motorized 

recreation zone. Because bats are 

nocturnal, foraging would not be 

disturbed significantly.

• Bat habitat in new recommended 

wilderness area would benefit 

from use restrictions
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

61

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Mexican long-nosed bat 

(endangered)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Provides direction regarding 

management of caves and roosts 

and protection of food sources 

(agaves and saguaros), such as 

excluding grazing in foraging 

habitat

• Does not provide desired 

conditions for Mexican longnosed bat foraging habitat

• Vegetation in Mexican longnosed bat habitat would remain 

similar to current conditions 

because grasslands and other 

types would continue to be 

managed for range purposes that 

also suit the Mexican long-nosed 

bat

• Bat habitat in new recommended 

wilderness area would benefit 

from use restrictions

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Direction based on current 

science would result in 

vegetation trends toward desired 

conditions, improving Mexican 

long-nosed bat habitat quality, 

decreasing threats, and 

protecting food sources (e.g., 

agave, saguaro)

• Addresses bat habitat more fully 

than no action by including both 

roosting and foraging areas

• Bat habitat in new recommended 

wilderness areas would benefit 

from use restrictions 

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan direction is same as 

proposed action

• Additional areas recommended 

as wilderness support Mexican 

long-nosed bat habitat. Positive 

effects on bat habitat would be 

greatest under alternative 1

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan direction is same as 

proposed action

• Bat disturbance would increase 

over the other alternatives 

because foraging habitat is 

within the additional land 

allocated to a motorized 

recreation zone. Because bats are 

nocturnal, foraging would not be 

disturbed significantly.

• Bat habitat in new recommended 

wilderness area would benefit 

from use restrictions.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

62

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Mexican spotted owl 

(threatened)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Direction for Mexican spotted 

owl mixed-conifer habitat 

originates in the Mexican spotted 

owl recovery plan

• Plan components are 

problematic because they apply 

equally to areas of very 

divergent topography and forest 

form and structure

• Habitat in one new 

recommended wilderness would 

benefit from use restrictions

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive12

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Like no action, direction tiers to 

current recovery plan 

conservation measures

• Habitat in four new 

recommended wilderness areas 

would benefit from use 

restrictions because of decreased 

vehicle damage and emissions

• Use restrictions would impede 

vegetation management in four 

new recommended wilderness 

areas, which would increase 

stand density, canopy closure, 

and basal area. This buildup may 

result in uncharacteristic wildfire 

in the Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area.

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as proposed action

• Among the 16 new 

recommended wilderness areas, 

some would provide excellent 

refugia for Mexican spotted owl. 

Other are poor candidates 

because of their moderate to 

high viability risk associated 

with relatively high fuel loads 

and limited ability of the Forest 

to move vegetation toward 

desired conditions.

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as proposed action

• Only 227 acres of the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone has 

primary constituent elements of 

Mexican spotted owl habitat. 

These are randomly scattered in 

relatively small non-contiguous 

parcels, with the closest Mexican 

spotted owl protected activity 

center at least one mile away.

• Noise from motorized recreation

may disturb Mexican spotted 

owl in nearby areas, but would 

not at significant levels

• Habitat in one new 

recommended wilderness would 

benefit from use restrictions

 

12 This is positive relative to the other alternatives. Alternative 1 is negative because several poor selections of potential wilderness areas trump the general benefits of wilderness areas that do not 

need active management. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

63

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo (threatened) 

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification

• No desired conditions that 

support foraging habitat.

• Would continue treatments of 

grasslands for forage and control 

of shrub invasion.

• One new recommended 

wilderness may provide some 

cuckoo habitat.

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification

• Standards and guidelines for 

southwestern willow flycatchers 

are based on current science and 

relate to management of natural 

waters and riparian habitat.

• New recommended wilderness 

areas may provide additional 

riparian habitat for the cuckoos. 

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification

• Direction is the same as 

proposed action.

• New recommended wilderness 

may provide the greatest amount 

of protected habitat for the 

cuckoo among the alternatives.

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification

• Direction is the same as 

proposed action.

• There are 31 acres of riparian 

habitat in the motorized 

recreation zone allocated by 

alternative 2. The cuckoo may 

use this habitat.

• One new recommended 

wilderness may provide cuckoo

habitat. The cuckoo may use the 

riparian acreage in the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone

Northern Aplomado 

falcon (experimental 

population)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA Determination = not likely 

to jeopardize

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for 

western yellow-billed cuckoo

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA Determination = not likely 

to jeopardize

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for 

western yellow-billed cuckoo

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA Determination = not likely 

to jeopardize

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for 

western yellow-billed cuckoo

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA Determination = not likely 

to jeopardize

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for 

western yellow-billed cuckoo

• The falcon may use the riparian 

acreage in the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

64

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Sonora tiger salamander 

(endangered)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect13

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Riparian habitat would decline 

because of lack of management 

direction

• Effects of recreational use, 

runoff and sedimentation in 

Sonora tiger salamander habitat 

are not addressed

• Little direction on management 

of Sonora tiger salamander in 

plan

• Upland watershed projects 

would occur only as 

opportunities arise

• Sonora tiger salamander does not 

occur within the new 

recommended wilderness area

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Direction regarding management 

of natural waters (quality and 

quantity), vegetation, riparian 

areas, and rangeland are related 

to the Sonora tiger salamander 

and its habitat

• Includes new guidelines for 

management of upland grassland 

habitats to reduce the threat of 

severe wildfire and its effects

• Standards and guidelines address 

the threats related to availability 

of high quality water and loss of 

habitat quality that could further 

imperil the Sonora tiger 

salamander

• Sonora tiger salamander does not 

occur within the new 

recommended wilderness areas

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for 

proposed action

• Sonora tiger salamander does not 

occur within the 16 new 

recommended wilderness areas 

proposed for designated under 

alternative 1

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for 

proposed action

• There are 31 acres of riparian 

habitat in the motorized 

recreation zone allocated by 

alternative 2

• The Sonora tiger salamander 

does not occur in this habitat

 

13 The no-action alternative is “likely to adversely affect” because there are no components in the 1986 forest plan addressing this species or its habitat and threats.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

65

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Chiricahua leopard frog 

(threatened)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for 

Sonora tiger salamander

• In addition, bank vegetation is 

also addressed in new standards 

and guidelines for provision of 

shade and hibernacula for frogs

• Direction restricts activities In 

designated Chiricahua leopard 

frog critical habitat to conserve 

primary constituent elements

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for 

Sonora tiger salamander

• An additional 346 acres (total) of 

habitat would be available to the 

Chiricahua leopard frog within 

nine potential wilderness areas; 

however, the Tumacacori and 

Galiuro Addition Recommended 

Wilderness Areas are not in a 

condition that would sustain 

natural processes, particularly 

fire, and so their 

recommendations would not 

benefit the Chiricahua leopard 

frog, if any are present

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for 

Sonora tiger salamander

• There are 31 acres of riparian 

habitat among the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zones 

allocated by alternative 2

• The Chiricahua leopard frog 

occurs near the zones in the 

northern Santa Rita Mountains

• Adverse effects on the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and its 

habitat are unlikely if recreation 

is restricted to non-riparian areas 

within the zones

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for 

Sonora tiger salamander

• In addition, bank vegetation is 

also addressed in new standards 

and guidelines for provision of 

shade and hibernacula for frogs

• Direction restricts activities In 

designated Chiricahua leopard 

frog critical habitat to conserve 

primary constituent elements
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

66

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

New Mexico ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake (threatened)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may 

affect, likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Grazing within the Peloncillo 

Mountains, where the New 

Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake 

is currently known to occur, is 

primarily managed at forage use 

levels and requires higher 

density water developments and 

interior fencing. Loss of ground 

cover may cause snakes to move 

less during foraging or mating, 

as well as increasing their risk of 

predation. 

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may 

affect, likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Desired conditions are based on 

the current science for desert 

communities and provide 

management objectives and 

guidelines for designing sitespecific projects to conserve the 

New Mexico ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake and their habitat

• It is unknown if any rattlesnake 

habitat is available in the Ku 

Chish Recommended Wilderness 

Area

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may 

affect, likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Same plan direction as proposed 

action

• There are 20,576 acres, or 12% 

of Forest desert communities, 

within the new recommended 

wilderness areas, but it is 

unknown how many acres of 

suitable habitat exists for the 

rattlesnake

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may 

affect, likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Same plan direction as the 

proposed action

• None of the land proposed to be 

allocated to motorized recreation 

land use zone is within 

rattlesnake habitat

Northern Mexican 

gartersnake (threatened) 

• Population trend = Negative 

(Downward trend a result of 

surface water loss through 

diversion and pumping, loss in 

prey, and an increase in 

predators, particularly American 

bullfrog)

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification 

• Effects same as reported for 

New Mexico ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification

• Effects same as reported for 

New Mexico ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification

• Effects same as reported for 

New Mexico ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake

• Population trend = Negative 

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse 

modification

• Effects same as reported for 

New Mexico ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

67

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Gila chub (endangered) • Population trend = Stable 

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may 

affect, likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan direction regarding stream 

habitat conditions does not 

distinguish between native fish 

and sports fish habitat

• Direction for management of 

riparian resources is adequate to 

support habitat for a diversity of 

species and not result in the loss 

of riparian habitat extent

• Plan would maintain species 

viability but would not increase 

trends in individual populations 

of Gila, Yaqui and Sonora chub

• Population trend = Stable 

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may 

affect, likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• All species are addressed by new 

standards and guidelines, which 

are important for the control of 

invasive species that could 

decimate population

• New standards and guidelines 

address retention of high water 

quality and protection of pools 

from the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire

• Many plan components address 

upland habitat management to 

reduce the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire

• Proposed development of 

springs and stream restoration 

projects would provide or 

improve aquatic habitat and 

restore proper functioning of the 

ecosystem

• Population trend = Stable 

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may 

affect, likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan direction same as the 

proposed action

• Habitat would benefit in 

unaltered landscapes provided 

by many new recommended 

wilderness areas, but not in those 

where vegetation conditions 

elevate the threat of 

uncharacteristic fire, which 

adversely affects aquatic habitat 

and species because of increased 

runoff and sedimentation

• Population trend = Stable 

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may 

affect, likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan direction same as the 

proposed action

• There are 31 acres of riparian 

habitat in the acreage allocated 

for Motorized Recreation Land 

Use Zones. 

• The Gila chub and all other 

aquatic species listed here do not 

occur in these areas.

Yaqui chub (endangered) • Population trend = Dynamic

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Dynamic

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Dynamic

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Dynamic

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

68

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Yaqui catfish 

(endangered)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

Gila topminnow 

(endangered)

• Population trend = Positive

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Positive

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Positive

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Positive

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

Sonora chub (threatened) • Population trend = Stable

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Stable

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Stable

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Stable

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

Desert pupfish 

(endangered)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect Critical 

habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect Critical 

habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect Critical 

habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

Gila trout (threatened) • Population trend = Stable

• Habitat trend = Positive

• Population trend = Stable

• Habitat trend = Positive

• Population trend = Stable

• Habitat trend = Positive

• Population trend = Stable

• Habitat trend = Positive
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

69

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

Apache trout (threatened) • Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

Spikedace (endangered) • Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

Loach minnow 

(endangered)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

70

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Roundtail chub (proposed 

threatened)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = not likely 

to jeopardize 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = not likely 

to jeopardize 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = not likely 

to jeopardize 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = not likely 

to jeopardize 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Effects same as reported for Gila 

chub

Pima pineapple cactus 

(endangered)

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Lacks direction on managing 

invasive species that encroach in 

Pima pineapple cactus habitat

• Plan recommends fire for 

management of grasslands, but 

does not mitigate for effects to 

Pima pineapple cactus in these 

areas

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Unknown

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• New plan components apply to 

management of vegetation that 

comprises Pima pineapple cactus 

habitat

• Proposes specific acres for 

treatment of invasive species, 

including buffelgrass

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Unknown

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan direction same as proposed 

action

• There are 20,576 acres, or 12% 

of Forest desert communities, 

within the new recommended 

wilderness areas, but it is 

unknown how many acres 

support Pima pineapple cactus

• Population trend = Negative

• Habitat trend = Unknown

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan direction same as proposed 

action

• Pima pineapple cactus does not 

occur in any of the proposed 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zones 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

71

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Federally Listed Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Huachuca water umbel 

(endangered)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Not addressed in plan

• Direction regarding riparian 

habitat is applicable

• Specific management areas 

address the sensitivity of 

important riparian areas, 

including perennial streams that 

comprise umbel habitat

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• New plan components are 

provided to guide management 

activities involving ground 

disturbance and/or vegetation 

management to incorporate, sitespecific design features to 

benefit habitat for, or mitigate 

impacts to, rare plant 

populations

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan direction same as proposed 

action

• None of the new recommended

wilderness areas support water 

umbel habitat

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = may affect, 

likely to adversely affect

• Plan direction same as proposed 

action

• No water umbel habitat occurs in 

the proposed Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zones 

Canelo Hills ladies’ 

tresses (endangered)

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Negative

• ESA determination = may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Ladies’ tresses are not 

specifically addressed, but 

riparian habitat is protected from 

activities in several plan 

components

• Management areas in the plan 

also address the sensitivity of 

important riparian areas

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Several new plan components 

provide management direction 

for ladies’ tresses habitat in 

cienegas

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan direction same as proposed 

action

• None of the recommended 

wilderness areas occur within the 

range of the Canelo Hills ladies’ 

tresses

• Population trend = Unknown

• Habitat trend = Positive

• ESA determination = may affect, 

not likely to adversely affect 

• Critical habitat = not applicable

• Plan direction same as proposed 

action

• No ladies tresses occur in 

proposed Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zones 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

72

Table 16. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on species diversity and viability with a focus on regionally designated sensitive species14

Species Diversity and 

Viability No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, 

sensitive species

• Direction is not based on 

updated scientific information 

and knowledge of species and 

does not specifically address 

threats associated with their 

viability and habitat needs.

• One new recommended 

wilderness area would not have 

active management and/or 

human interference, which 

would decrease threats to species 

viability.

• Plan components emphasize 

objectives (actions), many of 

which were designed to achieve 

long-term restoration goals 

(desired conditions), so that 

population viability requirements 

are met for all species.

• New recommended wilderness 

areas would not have active 

management or human 

interference, which would 

decrease threats to species 

viability.

• Plan direction same as proposed 

action

• New recommended wilderness 

areas would not have active 

management and/or human 

interference, which would 

decrease threats to species 

viability more than any of the 

other alternatives.

• Plan direction same as proposed 

action

• The increased Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zones 

would not change effects on 

population viability.

• One new recommended 

wilderness area would not have 

active management and/or 

human interference, which 

would decrease threats to species 

viability.

 

14 Coronado National Forest Regional Forester, Southwestern Region (Region 3), October 2013
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

73

Table 17. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on species diversity and viability with a focus on management indicator species

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Management Indicator 

Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Acorn woodpecker • Species is not specifically 

addressed.

• Direction addresses wood structure 

(standing, prostrate, and live trees) 

used by the species.

• No objectives for restoration of the 

woodpecker’s Madrean pine-oak 

woodland habitat, which is very 

much departed from reference 

conditions, increasing the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

• One new recommended wilderness 

area would increase the 

conservation of woodpecker 

habitat.

• Plan components are not 

specific to the species, but rather 

to its Madrean pine-oak 

woodland habitat.

• Plan objective is to treat 

25,000 acres in the next 

10 years, which would benefit 

acorn woodpecker populations 

by increasing the herbaceous 

understory in young and old 

pine-oak.

• Four new recommended 

wilderness areas would benefit 

the species and habitat because 

of restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses.

• Same plan direction as proposed 

action.

• Proposal for 16 new 

recommended wilderness areas 

would most benefit the acorn 

woodpecker populations among 

the other alternatives because of 

use restrictions.

• Same plan direction as 

proposed action.

• There are 625 acres of 

Madrean pine-oak woodland 

habitat in new Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zones, 

the use of which would add to 

the disturbance of woodpeckers 

by noise and human presence 

and the potential for damage to 

vegetation.

• One new recommended 

wilderness area would benefit 

the species and habitat because 

of restrictions on motorized 

and mechanized uses.

Mexican spotted owl • Plan components based regionally 

standardized guidance not Forest 

topographic and vegetation 

features 

• Plan guidance for silvicultural 

treatments is too restrictive and 

hinders restoration

• No objectives for restoration of 

mixed-conifer forests

• One new recommended wilderness 

area has 9% of Forest mixedconifer, which would benefit from 

use restrictions on motorized use.

• Same plan direction as reported 

for Mexican spotted owl above 

under “Federally Listed 

Species.”

• Same plan direction as reported 

for Mexican spotted owl above 

under “Federally Listed Species.”

• Same plan direction as reported 

for Mexican spotted owl above 

under “Federally Listed 

Species.”
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

74

Species Diversity and 

Viability 

Management Indicator 

Species No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Sonoran mud turtle • Plan provides little guidance for 

management of native aquatic 

species.

• Frequent references to making 

water available for livestock and 

that the presence of stock ponds 

benefits Sonoran mud turtles.

• No objectives for making waters 

available to native species such as 

the Sonoran mud turtle, which can 

tolerate limited drying, but cannot 

use developed waters (concrete or 

metal drinkers).

• No specific desired conditions or 

objectives for improving

watersheds.

• This alternative would not focus 

treatments to improve watershed 

functions where they are most 

needed, resulting in reduced 

watershed function than may 

otherwise occur. These factors 

combined would result in lower 

quality of habitat for, and lower 

populations of Sonoran mud 

turtles.

• One new recommended wilderness 

area may impede the progress of 

upland watershed projects as well 

as maintenance of stock ponds, but 

it would also conserve turtle 

habitat because of use restrictions 

that prevent damage and effects 

caused by vehicles.

• Objectives and guidelines 

directly benefit the mud turtle.

• Specific plan components for 

improving overall conditions of 

watershed, moving watersheds 

toward proper function and 

prioritizing treatments where 

needed would benefit Sonoran 

mud turtle habitat and 

populations.

• Four new recommended 

wilderness areas may impede 

the progress of upland 

watershed projects as well as 

maintenance of stock ponds.

• Same plan direction as proposed 

action.

• Sixteen new recommended 

wilderness areas would most limit 

the implementation of upland 

watershed improvement projects 

among the alternatives because of 

use restrictions.

• The ability to maintain stock 

ponds would also be impeded by 

wilderness restrictions.

• Therefore, alternative 1 would be 

the least beneficial alternative for 

Sonoran mud turtle and its habitat.

• Same plan direction as 

proposed action.

• Stock ponds in desert grassland 

and Madrean oak woodland 

areas within the expanded 

Motorized Recreation Land 

Use Zones may experience 

increased sedimentation as a 

result of increased 

development and recreational 

traffic on roads and trails.

• This would result in a lower 

capacity for water storage in 

stock ponds and higher 

probabilities of stock ponds 

completely drying up, with 

consequent effects on the 

turtle.

• One new recommended 

wilderness area may impede 

the progress of upland 

watershed projects as well as 

maintenance of stock ponds, 

but it would also conserve 

turtle habitat because of use 

restrictions that prevent 

damage and effects of motor 

vehicles.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

75

Table 18. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on species diversity and viability with a focus on migratory birds and eagles

Species Diversity and 

Viability No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Migratory birds • Direction is provided for 

managing habitats of migratory 

birds in all but desert and 

grassland communities.

• One new recommended 

wilderness area would improve 

conservation of migratory bird 

habitat.

• Plan components address all 

vegetation types that provides 

migratory bird habitat and follow 

the requirements of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

Executive Order 13186, and 

actions agreed upon in a 

Memorandum of Understanding 

between the Forest Service and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service regarding migratory 

birds.

• Plan direction is same as 

proposed action.

• Among the alternatives, the new 

recommended wilderness areas 

under alternative 1 would best 

conserve migratory bird habitat 

and protect birds from effects of 

motorized and mechanized uses.

• Plan direction is same as 

proposed action.

• Additional Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zones would add to 

the disturbance of migratory 

birds by noise and human 

presence.

• One new recommended 

wilderness area would improve 

conservation of migratory bird 

habitat.

Bald and golden eagles • Guidance for compliance with 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Act is 

applied at the project level for 

minimization of disturbance. 

• Individual projects require a take 

permit from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service if it is expected 

to occur.

• Management of a new 

recommended wilderness area 

would decrease the likelihood of 

take.

• Guidance for compliance with 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Act is 

applied at the project level for 

minimization of disturbance. 

• Management of new 

recommended wilderness areas 

would decrease the likelihood of 

take.

• Guidance for compliance with 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Act is 

applied at the project level for 

minimization of disturbance. 

• Management of 16 new 

wilderness areas would provide 

the greatest decrease in the 

likelihood of take of eagles as 

compared to the other 

alternatives.

• Guidance for compliance with 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Act is 

applied at the project level for 

minimization of disturbance. 

• Additional use of Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zones

would slightly increase the 

potential for take in these areas, 

but it is likely that noise and 

human presence would keep 

birds from using the areas and 

thus, out of harm’s way.

• Management of a new 

recommended wilderness area 

would decrease the likelihood of 

take.

Table 19. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 1: Ecosystem Restoration and Resiliency

Alternative Comparison 

Summary No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

How well alternative meets 

Topic 1 Need for Change Poor Very good Very good Good
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

76

The following tables provide a comparison of the potential effects of alternatives on various forest uses under Need for Change Topic 2: Visitor Experiences. This 

topic focuses on direction needed to balance competing uses (e.g., supporting both quiet recreation areas and motorized recreation) and to address public safety 

compromised by U.S.-Mexico border issues.

Table 20. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on various forest uses and resources under Need for Change Topic 2: Visitor Experiences

Forest Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Recreation • No desired conditions for recreation 

settings and features.

• Unnecessary or unrealistic 

standards and guidelines.

• Outdated strategies for assessing 

and meeting visitor needs, 

managing funding, and improving 

recreation settings and visitor 

satisfaction

• Limited guidance for resolution of 

unmanaged recreation and user 

conflicts.

• Recommends one wilderness 

designation, which would conserve 

resources and offer quiet recreation 

opportunities. 

• Least effective alternative with 

regard to managing climate change. 

No direction to guide development 

of adaptation and resiliency to 

effects of changes in temperature 

and rainfall patterns. Adverse 

effects on natural resources could 

affect the recreational experience 

(e.g., water resources may no longer 

support popular uses). 

• Desired conditions based on a 

long-term vision for recreational 

settings and uses.

• Establishes recreational land use 

zones to reflect contemporary 

public use patterns and activities.

• Provides direction for trails 

management and use, including 

the Arizona National Scenic 

Trail.

• Conserves resources and offers 

quiet recreation opportunities 

through four recommended 

wilderness areas.

• Defines locations suitable for 

specific special uses, which 

decreases conflicts between 

recreation and special uses, such 

as siting of utility infrastructure. 

• Proposed vegetation treatments 

would reduce the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire and its 

effects on recreational settings.

• Direction on achieving adaptation 

and resiliency to climate change 

would conserve Forest resources 

and natural settings, which 

maintain the quality of the 

recreational visitor experience.

• Same plan components and 

effects as the proposed action, but 

more recommended wilderness. 

• Greatest positive effects on quiet

recreational experience because 

of wilderness use restrictions (see 

discussion under “Proposed 

Action”).

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but recommends 

bigger Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone and provides 

limited climate-change direction.

• Positive effect on motorized 

recreation because it increases 

acreage areas where facilities and 

trails may be developed.

• Use restrictions in one new 

wilderness would conserve 

resources and offer quiet 

recreation opportunities. 

• Less successful than the proposed 

action and alternative 1 in 

fostering adaptation and 

resiliency to the effects of climate 

change, which maintain the 

quality of the recreational user 

experience, but better than no 

action. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

77

Forest Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Scenery • No desired conditions for 

management of scenery.

• Includes standards and guidelines 

for mitigating effects of 

disturbances on landscape.

• Direction does not reflect current 

use patterns.

• No direction regarding management 

of visually intrusive special uses, 

such as power lines.

• Uses outdated visual quality 

objectives to assess site-specific 

effects of projects.

• Recommends one wilderness 

designation, which enhances 

protection of scenic quality because 

of restrictions on uses. 

• Least effective alternative with 

regard to managing climate change. 

No direction to guide development 

of adaptation and resiliency to 

effects of changes in temperature 

and rainfall patterns. Adverse 

effects on natural resources could 

degrade scenic quality. 

• Plan components address scenic 

quality issues such as offhighway vehicle use, illegal 

border activities, and visually 

intrusive special uses, such as 

power lines.

• Scenic integrity objectives, would 

replace visual quality objectives

for effects assessments. These 

reflect current use patterns, 

landscape conditions, and 

vegetation mapping.

• Restrictions on uses in four 

recommended wilderness areas 

would conserve resources that 

contribute to scenic quality (e.g., 

vegetation, riparian areas).

• Proposed vegetation treatments 

would improve Forest health and 

mitigate disturbances, improving 

long-term scenic quality.

• Defines areas suitable for specific 

special uses, locating visually 

intrusive uses to sites where there 

would be fewer impacts to scenic 

quality.

• Direction on achieving adaptation 

and resiliency to climate change 

would conserve Forest resources 

and natural settings, which would 

improve scenic integrity and 

augment visitor experiences.

• Same plan components and 

effects as the proposed action, but 

more recommended wilderness. 

• Greatest positive effects on 

scenic quality because of 

wilderness use restrictions (see 

discussion under “Proposed 

Action”).

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but recommends 

bigger Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone and provides 

limited climate-change direction.

• Greatest potential for negative 

effects on scenic quality 

(vegetation damage, exposure of 

bare soils) due to motorized 

recreation emphasis. 

• Siting of recommended 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zones mitigates this potential by 

choosing areas where scenic 

quality would not be 

compromised as much as in other 

areas.

• Use restrictions in one new 

wilderness would enhance 

protection of scenic quality. 

• Less successful than the proposed 

action and alternative 1 in 

fostering adaptation and 

resiliency to the effects of climate 

change, which maintain the 

quality of the resources that 

contribute to scenic quality and 

the visitor experience, but better 

than no action. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

78

Forest Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Public safety and 

illegal activities

• Establishes a goal to cooperate with 

law enforcement.

• Establishes standards and guidelines 

for protecting caves and cultural 

resources from vandalism and other 

human disturbances.

• No management approaches are 

recommended for border issues.

• Except for pursuit of a crime, use 

restrictions in one recommended 

wilderness would constrain law 

enforcement actions.

• Establishes plan components to 

ensure Forest public and 

occupational safety, especially in 

border areas. 

• Recommends four wilderness 

areas in which restrictions on 

motorized and mechanized uses 

would constrain law enforcement 

more than no action and 

alternative 2, but less than 

alternative 1.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but recommends 

additional wilderness.

• Greatest potential for 

constraining law enforcement 

activities because of use 

restrictions in 16 recommended 

wilderness areas.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but recommends 

bigger Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone, designates no 

new wilderness and special area, 

and provides limited climatechange direction.

• Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zones could enhance the 

opportunity for law enforcement 

to use off-highway vehicles in 

patrolling areas inaccessible to 

vehicles, except for wilderness. 

Motorized activities • Plan was amended to follow 

direction in the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule.

• No management of motorized 

activities with regard to 

fragmentation of habitat, noise, 

erosion and sedimentation, risk of 

vandalism and looting of artifacts 

and pottery.

• No direction for resolving issues 

related to incompatibility of 

motorized recreation with other 

uses.

• No direction for managing off-road 

motorized travel and creation and 

repeated use of non-Forest System 

roads.

• Recommends one new wilderness 

where use restrictions on motorized 

activities would apply. This would 

improve opportunities for quiet 

recreational experience and mitigate 

effects of motorized use on natural 

resources. 

• Plan components specific to road 

construction, realignment, 

decommissioning, closure, and 

resolution of issues related to 

unauthorized off-road travel.

• Objectives for removing specific 

miles of non-Forest System roads 

annually and realigning or 

removing Forest System roads in 

areas having sensitive resources 

(e.g., wetlands).

• Permanent road development 

would be prohibited in all 

wilderness areas, which would 

enhance quiet recreation 

opportunities, protect resources 

from vehicle-related damage, and 

allow resources to recover. 

• Recommends four new 

wilderness areas. Benefits the 

same as those under “No Action” 

heading.

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action, but more 

recommended wilderness.

• Greatest benefit to resources from 

prohibition on permanent road 

development in wilderness areas.

• Access to remote recreation sites 

in wilderness would require nonmotorized means, which could be 

problematic for users with 

mobility issues.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, except for those 

related to Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zones, special area 

designations, and climate change.

• Alternative 2 increases the 

allocation of land for motorized 

uses, which would increase the

potential for ecosystem impacts 

and reduces the degree of quiet 

recreation available.

• Effects of a new recommended 

wilderness area recommendation 

are the same as those described 

for “No Action.”
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

79

Table 21. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on various forest uses and resources under Need for Change Topic 2: Visitor Experiences, with a focus on 

wilderness, other special areas, and climate change 15

Forest Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Designated 

wilderness 

• Maintains direction in outdated 

Wilderness Management Plans for

each of 8 previously designated 

wilderness areas. 

• No plan components related to 

management of designated 

wilderness

• Establishes plan components for 

management of 8 previously 

designated wilderness areas. 

• Natural and recreational 

resources and settings better 

conserved than no action and 

alternative 2, especially habitat 

connectivity, scenery, and visitor 

experiences.

• Same components and benefits as 

proposed action.

• Same components and benefits as 

proposed action.

Areas recommended 

for wilderness 

designation

• Recommends one area for 

wilderness designation

• No plan components related to 

management of recommended 

wilderness

• Recommends four areas for 

wilderness designation (one 

carried forward from 1986 forest 

plan).

• Plan components for previously 

designated wilderness would 

apply to recommended 

wilderness

• Same benefits as described for 

previously designated wilderness

• Recommends 16 areas for 

wilderness designation (one 

carried forward from 1986 forest 

plan, and 15 others)

• Same plan components as 

proposed action.

• Greatest benefit to resource 

conservation and user 

opportunities in wilderness

• Recommends one wilderness area 

(carried forward from 1986 forest 

plan).

• Same plan components and 

benefits as proposed action

Wilderness study 

areas 

• Maintains direction for 3 designated 

wilderness study areas

• No plan components related to 

management of wilderness study

areas

• Plan components for management 

of previously designated 

wilderness would apply to 3 

designated wilderness study 

areas.

• Same benefits as described for 

previously designated wilderness.

• Same plan components and 

benefits as proposed action.

• Same plan components and 

benefits as proposed action.

 

15 The Wilderness Act requires that designated wilderness, areas recommended for designation, and wilderness study areas be managed to conserve natural resources and wilderness values. 

Recommended wilderness areas would add resource protection from effects of motorized and mechanized uses and increase opportunities for quiet recreation. Motorized recreation emphasis 

has no effects on wilderness because of restrictions on motorized and mechanized uses.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

80

Forest Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Research Natural 

Areas

• Carries forward 1986 plan 

recommendation for 1 new research 

natural area and two extensions of 

research natural areas.

• Recommends no new research 

natural areas.

• Same recommendations carried

forward as no action.

• Recommends one new research 

natural area (Finger Rock 

Canyon), which could be used for 

research into the effects and 

response to climate change. 

Studies would benefit resources 

and resource management across 

the Coronado. 

• Same recommendations carried 

forward as no action.

• Recommends one new research 

natural area (Finger Rock 

Canyon). Same benefit as 

proposed action.

• Same recommendations carried 

forward as no action.

• Recommends no new research 

natural areas.

Zoological-Botanical 

Areas 

• Recommends designation of South 

Fork Cave Creek ZoologicalBotanical area

• Recommends designation of 

South Fork Cave Creek Birds of 

Prey Zoological-Botanical area

• Same as proposed action. • No recommended ZoologicalBotanical areas.

Climate change • No direction regarding developing 

resource adaptation and resiliency 

to climate change. Least effective in 

managing resource responses and 

effects on uses in wilderness and 

other special areas.

• Direction on climate change is 

provided to develop adaptation 

and resiliency of resources in 

wilderness and other special 

areas.

• Same climate-change direction as 

proposed action.

• Greatest positive effects because 

of additional wilderness areas 

recommended by alternative 1.

• Less effective in managing 

resource responses to effects of 

climate change than proposed 

action and alternative 1 but more 

effective than no action.

Table 22. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 2: Visitor Experiences

Alternative Comparison 

Summary No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

How well alternative meets 

Need for Change Topic 2 Poor Very good Very good Good
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

81

The following tables provide a comparison of the potential effects of alternatives on various forest uses under Need for Change Topic 3: Access to National Forest 

System Lands. This topic focuses on the need for updated direction that will guide national forest managers’ cooperation and collaboration with other land managers 

and private owners toward acquiring or restore public and administrative vehicular access to areas where it is currently unavailable or compromised and to maintain 

future access.

Table 23. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on Need for Change Topic 3: Access to National Forest System Lands

Issue No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Access to National Forest 

System lands

• No desired conditions for acquiring 

access in areas where lacking. 

• Plan standards and guidelines are 

no longer relevant because of 

changes in user demand, public 

interest, and Forest use patterns. 

• Plan contains outdated information 

about access needs, including 

locations.

• Conflicting uses not considered 

when planning to acquire access. 

Access issues affect public uses, 

such as grazing, exploration for 

mineral deposits, recreation, and 

special; and administrative uses, 

such as fire suppression and 

resource management.

• Developing access to one 

recommended wilderness area is 

complicated by restrictions on 

motorized and motorized uses.

• Establishes desired conditions 

for achieving a level of access 

that will accommodate all 

essential administrative uses 

and most public uses.

• Provides a strategic vision for 

permanent legal vehicular 

access at up to 200 locations 

where it is presently lacking. 

• Access to new recommended 

wilderness areas would be 

nonmotorized and 

nonmechanized, which would 

favor quiet recreation users and 

present access problems for 

those with mobility issues.

• Resolution of access issues 

would benefit ranchers, mining 

claimants, recreational users 

and administrative staff, the 

latter for the purpose of fire and 

resource management.

• Same direction and effects as 

the proposed action, but more 

recommended wilderness.

• Greatest benefits to quiet 

recreation because of use 

restrictions

• Greatest negative effects on 

access to quiet recreation by 

users who have mobility issues.

• Same plan components and 

effects as the proposed action, 

except for those related to 

Motorized Recreation Land 

Use Zones, special area 

designations, and climate 

change.

Table 24. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 3: Access to National Forest System Lands

Alternative Comparison 

Summary No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

How well alternative meets 

Need for Change Topic 3 Poor Very good Very good Very good
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

82

The following tables provide a comparison of the potential effects of alternatives on various forest uses under Need for Change Topic 4: Preservation of Open Space. 

This topic focuses on the need for new direction to support the retention of the “rural” character of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, while at the 

same time accommodating rapidly growing populations and municipalities. 

Table 25. Comparison of alternatives potential effects on various forest resources related to Need for Change Topic 4: Preservation of Open Space

Issue No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2 (Motorized 

Recreation Emphasis)

Land ownership patterns 

and land uses 

• Outdated maps do not show 

land ownership adjustments 

over time.

• Changed priorities for land 

acquisitions are not reflected

• Values of open space are not 

recognized. 

• Plan identifies open space as a 

desired condition.

• Plan supports livestock production on 

working landscapes where lowimpact land use helps preserve large 

areas of unfragmented open space.

• Offers a management approach for 

working with landowners, 

communities, local governments, and 

partners to promote voluntary open 

space conservation, consistent with 

the Forest Service Open Space 

Conservation Strategy.

• Plan components emphasize habitat 

linkages (i.e., reduced fragmentation) 

beyond Forest boundary. 

• Scenic quality plan components 

emphasize the aesthetic and 

recreational values of vast, open 

natural landscapes.

• Plan is proactive in conserving open 

space using explicit goals and 

management approaches.

• Same direction and effects 

as the proposed action, but 

more recommended 

wilderness.

• Additional wilderness 

would have no effect on 

land ownership patterns and 

land uses.

• Same plan components and 

effects as the proposed action, 

except for those related to 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, special area designations, 

and climate change.

• Additional Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone would have no 

effect on land ownership 

patterns and land uses.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

83

Issue No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2 (Motorized 

Recreation Emphasis)

Land ownership 

adjustments and boundary 

management

• Plan does not address open 

space values.

• Provides a low-priority 

guideline recommending 

private land acquisitions to 

provide recreational open 

space.

• Plan has outdated land 

classification system and land 

availability list.

• Boundary and landline

direction is not reflective of 

Forest budget and priorities.

• Increase potential for damage 

or destruction of Forest 

resources where illegal 

encroachment by vehicles and 

road and trail building is 

happening because of 

boundary and ownership 

inaccuracies.

• Plan specifies explicit goals, 

guidelines, and management 

approaches related to open space.

• Guidelines describe characteristics of 

lands that need to be acquired or 

conveyed, based on specific 

resources they offer.

• Plan provides flexibility in 

considering opportunities for land 

exchanges as they arise, by allowing 

this without plan amendment.

• Plan identifies open space values to 

be retained as a desired condition of 

acquisition and conveyance.

• Plan does not restrict resource 

management activities on parcels 

identified for conveyance. 

• Plan encourages fuel treatments and 

other management actions on parcels 

near communities to achieve 

vegetation and/or community wildfire 

protection plan objectives.

• Plan allows for conveyance of lands 

to meet community and public needs, 

e.g., allowing loss of wildland 

character as acceptable for 

conveyances. 

• Same direction and effects 

as the proposed action, but 

more recommended 

wilderness.

• Additional wilderness 

would have no effect.

• Same plan components and 

effects as the proposed action, 

except for those related to 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, special area designations, 

and climate change.

• Motorized recreation emphasis 

would have no effect.

Table 26. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 4: Preservation of Open Space

Alternative Comparison 

Summary No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

How well alternative meets 

Need for Change Topic 4 Poor Very good Very good Very good
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

84

The following tables provide a comparison of the potential effects of alternatives on various forest uses under Need for Change Topic 5: Communities, Collaboration 

and Partnerships. This topic focuses on the need for direction regarding the use of collaboration and partnerships as tools for attaining both Forest Service and 

community goals, existing and future social and working relationships among the Forest Service and leaders in the communities it serves, including Native American 

nations. 

Table 27. Comparison of potential effects of alternatives on various forest resources or uses under “Need for Change” Topic 5: Communities, Collaboration, and 

Partnerships

Resource or Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Communities

Economy • No significant change in jobs and 

income.

• Same as no action. • Same as no action. • Same as no action

Financial efficiency 

(cost-benefit analysis)

• Will not alter expenditure stream.

• Type of expenditures may change 

but the amount will not.

• Same as no action. • Same as no action. • Same as no action

Social impact • Lowest non-market value with 

regard to additional primitive 

recreation opportunities and/or 

the protection of forest resources.

• Second highest non-market value 

with regard to additional 

primitive recreation opportunities 

and/or the protection of forest 

resources.

• Greatest non-market value with 

regard to additional primitive 

recreation opportunities and/or 

the protection of forest resources.

• Third highest non-market value 

additional primitive recreation 

opportunities and/or the 

protection of forest resources

Environmental justice 

impact

• Will not exacerbate the poverty 

rate or disproportionately worsen 

the economic well-being of lowincome or racial and/or ethnic 

minority individuals.

• Same as no action. • Same as no action. • Same as no action.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

85

Resource or Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Special uses • Lacks plan components for 

managing special uses. 

• Accepts special uses without 

capacity limits. Overuse could 

increasingly stress resources, 

especially wildlife, recreation, 

scenic integrity.

• In recommended new wilderness 

area, special uses would be 

constrained to non-motorized, 

non-mechanized uses.

• Establishes plan components for 

managing special uses. 

• Limits special uses in new 

recommended wilderness areas to 

nonmotorized, nonmechanized 

uses.

• Decreases potential for adverse 

effects from special uses because 

of restrictions in four 

recommended wilderness areas.

• Includes determinations of areas 

suitable for specific special uses 

to avoid user conflicts and avoid 

adverse effects on sensitive 

resources.

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action, but with more 

recommended wilderness areas.

• Greatest effect on special uses 

because of motorized and 

mechanized use restrictions in 16 

new recommended wilderness 

areas. 

• Natural and recreation settings in 

wilderness would be better 

conserved by their designation 

than all other alternatives.

• Same plan components and 

effects as the proposed action, 

except for those related to 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, special area designations, 

and climate change.

• Additional land allocated for 

motorized recreation increases 

the potential intensity of effects 

of motorized special uses, 

including outfitter guide transport 

of clients and motorized 

recreation, on natural resources.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

86

Resource or Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Forest products • Lacks plan components regarding 

forest products. 

• Encourages forest product 

availability and harvest during 

timber management activities. 

• Recommends designation of one 

wilderness area, where motorized 

and mechanized uses are 

restricted. This may constrain 

collection of forest products, but 

on the other hand, may increase 

their availability because the 

adverse resource effects of 

prohibited uses would not occur.

• Least effective in managing 

resources to develop adaptation 

and resiliency to the effects of 

climate change. This would 

negatively affect the availability 

of forest products more than the 

other alternatives.

• Establishes plan components for 

managing forest products. 

• Proposes vegetation treatments to 

restore forest health and return 

natural fire cycle on the 

landscape, which would reduce 

the threat of uncharacteristic 

wildfire and improve the 

sustainability of certain forest 

products.

• Access to forest products may 

decrease proportionately with 

management of four 

recommended wilderness areas 

where motorized and mechanized 

will ultimately be restricted. 

Sustainability of products may 

improve because these 

restrictions would decrease in 

effects from motorized and 

mechanized uses.

• Direction regarding management 

of resources in regard to climate 

change would help maintain their 

availability.

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action, but with more 

recommended wilderness areas. 

• Access to forest products would 

decrease proportionately with 

management of 16 recommended 

wilderness areas, where 

motorized and mechanized uses 

will ultimately be restricted. 

• Restrictions in wilderness, 

however, would enhance the 

protection of vegetation and other 

forest products and allow for an 

increase in their availability.

• Same plan components and 

effects as the proposed action, 

except for those related to 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, special area designations, 

and climate change.

• Additional land allocated for 

motorized recreational use 

increases the potential intensity 

of adverse effects on resources 

from which forest products are 

obtained. 

• Conversely, the availability of 

increased areas for motorized 

recreation may improve visitor 

access to forest products in areas 

inaccessible without off-road 

vehicles.

• Effects of a new recommended 

wilderness area would be the 

same as those described for “No 

Action.”

• Less effective than the proposed 

action and alternative 1 in 

managing resources during 

climate change, but more 

effective than no action. 

Availability of Forest products 

may decline as a result.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

87

Resource or Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Minerals, general • Plan direction replicates mining 

laws and regulations.

• Manages mineral-related 

activities using operating plans, 

bonds, and reclamation.

• Recommends one new wilderness 

area where restrictions on 

motorized and mechanized uses 

would constrain mineral 

development.

• No restrictions on development 

of mineral potential on “scenic” 

and “recreational”-eligible

streams and segments, but not 

allowed on “wild”-eligible 

streams or segments. 

• Establishes desired conditions 

that support administration of 

mineral activities in accordance 

with current laws and regulations.

• Establishes desired conditions to 

protect unique or limited 

resources in specially designated 

areas that are not protected by 

law or policy. 

• Recommends four new 

wilderness areas. This constrains 

mineral resource development 

more than no action and 

alternative 2 and less than 

alternative 1.

• Same management of mineral 

potential in eligible wild, scenic, 

and recreational rivers as no 

action. 

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action, but with more 

recommended wilderness. 

• New recommended wilderness 

areas account for the greatest 

acreage among all alternatives. 

Restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses would have the 

greatest negative impact on 

mineral resource development 

than the other alternatives, 

• Same management of mineral 

potential in eligible wild, scenic,

and recreational rivers as 

“No Action.”

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but recommends 

bigger Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone, designates no 

new wilderness and special area, 

and provides limited climatechange direction.

• This alternative increases the 

acreage available for motorized 

recreation. Areas that have 

mineral potential but are not 

accessible by conventional 

vehicles may be accessible by 

off-road vehicles.

• Effects of new recommended 

wilderness would be the same as 

those described for “No Action.”

• Same management of mineral 

potential in eligible wild, scenic, 

and recreational rivers as “No 

Action.”

Locatable minerals • Plan recommends withdrawal of 

Mount Graham Wilderness if and 

when it is congressionally 

designated.

• Locatable minerals development 

in proximity to recommended 

wilderness could be constrained 

by access issues related to 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses.

• Alternative 1 would have the 

greatest negative impact on 

locatable minerals resource 

development because there is 

high mineral potential in some of 

the 16 recommended wilderness 

areas.

• The emphasis of alternative 2 on 

providing zones for motorized 

recreation would open more 

acreage to locatable minerals 

entry than the other alternatives. 

These areas would not be subject 

to mineral withdrawal.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

88

Resource or Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Salable minerals • No salable minerals may be 

removed from 3 designated 

management areas (2A, 8, 8A, 

14).

• Economic effects of this 

restriction would depend on the 

resource potential in area.

• Salable minerals extraction will 

not be allowed in recommended 

wilderness, but may be allowed 

in RNAs if site-specific resource 

protection is provided. Four new 

recommended wilderness areas 

would be affected.

• Salable minerals extraction will 

not be allowed in recommended 

wilderness, but may be allowed 

in research natural areas if sitespecific resource protection is 

provided.

• Greatest potential among the 

alternatives to prohibit salable 

mineral development because of 

its recommended wilderness 

areas.

• Salable minerals extraction will 

not be allowed in recommended 

wilderness, but may be allowed 

in research natural areas if sitespecific resource protection is 

provided.

• Motorized recreation emphasis 

would open additional acreage in 

areas that may be accessed only 

by off-highway vehicles. 

Leasable minerals • Plan direction is outdated. 

• Standards and guidelines prohibit 

structures and facilities serving 

leasable mineral resources (i.e., 

surface occupancy) in MA 8 and 

recommend no surface occupancy 

in MA 14 and MA 15 (Wild 

Chile Botanical Area). 

• Potential loss of leasable mineral 

resources potential because 

leasing in recommended 

wilderness is discretionary.

• Discourages leasable mineral 

resource development in research 

natural areas because of 

management restrictions that 

protect the special area’s unique 

resources.

• Alternative 1 could result in the 

greatest loss of leasable mineral 

potential because of its 16 

recommended wilderness areas, 

where development of leasable 

minerals is discretionary. 

• Loss of leasable minerals 

resource potential because of the 

legislative prohibition on leasing 

in wilderness.

• The emphasis of alternative 2 on 

providing zones for motorized 

recreation may facilitate access to 

some areas for mineral entry if 

they are inaccessible by 

conventional vehicles.

Abandoned mines • Plan direction has no effect on 

proposed remediation activities.

• Plan establishes management 

objectives and guidelines for 

reclamation of abandoned mines.

• Emphasizes public safety and 

opportunities to benefit wildlife

habitat.

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action, but with more 

recommended wilderness areas.

• Abandoned mines are less 

accessible because of restrictions 

on motorized and mechanized 

uses in the 16 recommended 

wilderness areas.

• Same plan components and 

effects as the proposed action, 

except for those related to 

Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone, special area designations, 

and climate change.

• Improved access to some 

abandoned mine sites in areas 

where off-highway vehicles are 

needed.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

89

Resource or Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Cultural resources • Provides direction regarding 

project clearance procedures; site 

protection; and enhancement and 

interpretation, research, and 

curation of collections.

• Outdated direction regarding 

issues and mandates for cultural 

resource preservation and 

management. 

• Plan pre-dates recent laws 

regarding management of cultural 

artifacts, traditional cultural 

properties, and repatriation of 

burials.

• Recommendation for one 

wilderness area would provide 

protective benefits to cultural 

sites and resources as a result of 

use restrictions. Sites would be 

less accessible, therefore, less 

prone to defacement, littering, 

and illegal collection of artifacts.

• Least effective alternative in 

managing resources for 

adaptation and resiliency to the 

effects of climate change. 

Greatest negative effect on 

resources that are sacred natural 

places and traditional cultural 

properties that are vulnerable to 

effects on vegetation and forest 

products.

• Plan components for management 

of cultural resources.

• Direction emphasizes restoration 

of vegetation to historic reference 

condition, which is responsive to 

sentiment expressed by tribes.

• Recommends four wilderness 

areas, where motorized and 

mechanized uses are restricted. 

One is within a traditional 

cultural property, the other within 

the Chiricahua Apache homeland. 

Restrictions would have similar 

benefits to those listed under the 

“No Action” heading.

• Provides direction for managing 

resources in response to climate 

change. Cultural sites are 

typically not vulnerable to the 

effects of climate change, except 

for natural features (waterfalls, 

specific vegetation types) 

considered by tribes as sacred 

places or a traditional cultural 

property. 

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action, but with more 

recommended wilderness. 

• Greatest benefits on cultural 

resources (see “Proposed Action” 

heading) because of 16 new 

recommended wilderness areas, 

one of which is within a 

traditional cultural property, the 

other within the Chiricahua 

Apache homeland.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but recommends 

bigger Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone, designates no 

new wilderness and special areas, 

and provides limited climatechange direction.

• Increased land motorized 

recreation has the potential to 

predispose cultural sites to 

damage by vehicles and road 

maintenance equipment and 

make them more accessible for 

looting, vandalism, and illegal 

collection of artifacts. However, 

the Motorized Recreation Land 

Use Zones are not within areas 

known to have cultural sites 

present.

• Less effective in managing 

resources in regard to climate 

change than alternative 1 and the 

proposed action but more 

effective than no action. Effects 

could include those listed under 

the “No Action” heading.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

90

Resource or Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

Native American 

interests

• Lacks management direction 

regarding consideration of tribal 

interests. Instead, it defers 

consideration to project-specific 

reviews. 

• Plan pre-dates several laws 

requiring management of cultural 

artifacts, traditional cultural 

properties, and repatriation of 

burials. 

• Recommends Mount Graham 

wilderness area in the Western 

Apache traditional cultural 

property, which, because of 

restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses, will preserve 

natural settings, facilitate 

restoration of vegetation to 

historic reference conditions, and 

protect its value as a traditional 

cultural property. 

• Plan has no components for 

managing resources to develop 

adaptation and resiliency to 

climate change. Because of this, 

no action has the greatest 

potential to threaten the integrity 

of sacred natural places, 

availability of forest projects, and 

loss of areas for traditional uses 

because of the adverse effects of 

climate change.

• Provides direction regarding 

preservation and continued use of 

forest resources by tribes. 

• Plan components emphasize 

restoration of vegetation to 

historic reference conditions in 

response to sentiment expressed 

by tribes. 

• Recommends Ku Chish 

wilderness in the Chiricahua 

Apache homeland and Mount 

Graham wilderness in a Western 

Apache traditional cultural 

property. Use restrictions help 

preserve natural settings, 

facilitate restoration of vegetation 

to historic reference conditions, 

and protect and enhance the 

values of Mount Graham to the 

Western Apache and Ku Chish to 

the Chiricahua Apache. 

• Provides direction on climate

change that will help sustain the 

availability of forest, minimize 

effects of invasive species on 

plants of value to Native 

Americans, and preserve the 

integrity of natural resources and 

settings for traditional uses. 

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action, but more 

recommended wilderness.

• Greatest benefit to Native 

American interests because of16 

new recommended wilderness 

area, among which are Ku Chish 

in the Chiricahua Apache 

homeland and Mount Graham in 

a Western Apache traditional 

cultural property. 

• Vegetation and forest product 

availability would benefit more 

than all alternatives because of 

wilderness use restrictions. This 

will help preserve natural settings 

and facilitate restoration of 

vegetation to historic reference 

conditions, protecting and 

enhancing the values of the Ku 

Chish area to the Chiricahua 

Apache.

• Same plan components as the 

proposed action, but recommends 

bigger Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone, designates no 

new wilderness and special areas, 

and provides limited climatechange direction.

• Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zones are not be sited in areas of 

known Native American cultural 

interests and values.

• Recommends a new 

recommended wilderness area in 

the Western Apache traditional 

cultural property, where use 

restrictions would preserve its 

integrity by limiting accessibility. 

• Less effective in managing 

resources in regard to climate 

change than alternative 1 and the 

proposed action but more 

effective than no action. Effects 

could include those listed under 

the “No Action” heading.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

91

Resource or Use No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

International relations • No direction or management 

emphasis with regard to further 

enhancement of Forest relations 

with Mexico. 

• Current relationship with Mexico 

would continue to be fostered, 

especially with regard to border 

issues and wildlife management.

• Establishes goals for managing 

values and resources shared with 

Mexico.

• Sets desired conditions for clean, 

safe Forest recreation near 

border, high scenic quality 

viewsheds, and unimpeded 

movement of wildlife in nonfragmented habitats among both 

nations.

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action, but more 

recommended wilderness.

• Same direction and effects as the 

proposed action.

Partnerships • No direction provided. 

• Current positive relationships 

would continue to be fostered. 

• Recognizes the value of 

partnerships and collaboration. 

• Encourages continued 

partnerships that improve and 

maintain the integrity and 

condition of each forest resource. 

Effects would be positive.

• Greatest benefit because of its 

recommendation for more 

wilderness than the other 

alternatives. This may foster new 

partnerships with wilderness 

advocacy, quiet recreation, and 

other environmental 

organizations. Effects would be 

positive.

• Emphasis on more land allocated 

to motorized recreation may 

increase opportunities for 

partnerships with user groups. 

• Positive outcome may be realized 

in cooperative efforts to restore 

areas where resource damage has 

occurred.

Table 28. Summary of how well alternatives meet Need for Change Topic 5: Communities, Collaboration, and Partnerships

Alternative Comparison 

Summary No Action

Proposed Action

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 1 

(Wilderness Emphasis)

Alternative 2

(Motorized Recreation 

Emphasis)

How well alternative meets 

Need for Change Topic 5 Poor Very good Very good Good

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

93

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

and Environmental Consequences

Introduction 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the planning 

area and the environmental consequences that may occur by implementing each alternative in that 

environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives 

presented in chapter 2. More detailed information, including methodology, assumptions, and effects 

analyses, are available in appendix F and in resource specialists’ reports in the administrative records 

of the plan revision process and the National Environmental Policy Act review.

Plan Decisions and Site-specific Projects and 

Activities 

Direction under each of the action alternatives does not authorize implementation of management 

activities described in each resource analysis. Rather, the plan provides a programmatic framework 

that guides the design of site-specific actions but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or 

activity. 

Because the revised forest plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities 

(including ground-disturbing actions), there can be no direct effects. However, there may be 

implications, or longer-term environmental consequences, of managing the Coronado under this 

programmatic framework. 

The revised forest plan sets the stage for future management actions needed to achieve desired 

outcomes (desired conditions, objectives, special areas), and provides the sideboards (suitability, 

standards, guidelines) under which future activities may occur in order to manage risks to ecological, 

social, and economic environments. Before site-specific projects may be implemented, project- and 

activity-level planning, environmental analysis, and decisions must occur. For example, the revised 

plan contains direction to treat vegetation by mechanical means or with fire to achieve desired 

conditions; however, a future site-specific analysis and decision must be made for each proposal that 

involves every future site-specific vegetation treatment.

Environmental Analyses

The environmental analyses of each alternative, which are disclosed in the following sections, focus 

on effects related to need for change topics and conflict-based issues raised in public comments during 

the plan revision process and preparation of this environmental impact statement. The best available 

scientific and commercial data and information were used to estimate potential indirect and 

cumulative effects of the forest plan specified by each alternative. More detailed information, 

including methodology, assumptions, and effects analyses, are available in appendix F and in resource 

specialists’ reports in the administrative records of the plan revision process and the National 

Environmental Policy Act review.

To estimate the consequences of alternatives for a programmatic action like plan revision, the 

assumption is made that resource management activities will occur as necessary to achieve the 

objectives and move toward or achieve the desired conditions for each resource. Such an analysis is 

useful in comparing and evaluating revised plan alternatives on a forestwide basis, but is not 

appropriate for evaluating and comparing site-specific actions on the Coronado.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

94

Several assumptions were made in the analyses of alternatives, including:

• Plan components (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, special areas, suitability, 

and monitoring) would be followed as site-specific projects and activities are designed and 

implemented. 

• Implementation of the land management plan would facilitate progress toward the attainment of 

desired conditions for each resource. 

• Law, policy, regulations, and applicable best management practices would be followed when 

planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities. 

• Monitoring will occur to measure the effectiveness of plan direction, and the land management 

plan will be amended, as needed, if changes in plan direction are needed. 

• The planning period is 10 to 20 years; other timeframes may only be used to compare expected 

future trends.

Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative

All relevant resources were analyzed for anticipated environmental consequences from implementing 

each alternative. Specialist reports containing further documentation of the analyses and resulting 

consequences are filed in the administrative record at the Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office in Tucson, Arizona. This section examines, in detail, three alternatives for revising the 1986 

forest plan, the latter of which serves as the no-action alternative.

Revision Topic 1: Ecosystem Restoration and Resiliency

Vegetation Communities, Fuels and Fire – Affected Environment 

The vegetation of the Coronado is unique in both diversity and arrangement. It occupies 12 mountain 

ranges at the intersection of the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Madre Occidental of Mexico. The 

convergence of both temperate and subtropical influences combined with an elevation change of about 

7,720 feet and changes in aspect create an impressive diversity of vegetation communities with a wide 

variety of plant species. 

The highly diverse topographic nature of the sky islands impacts the spatial arrangement of vegetation 

of the Coronado. Vegetation communities exist as discontinuous bands along elevation gradients on 

each mountain range. Almost no vegetation community is monotypic at a coarse scale. Instead, 

vegetation communities intergrade with communities at lower and higher elevations. For example, 

interior chaparral intermixes with the Madrean encinal woodlands above and the grasslands and 

deserts below, creating an environment where natural and human disturbances are impacted by the 

overlap of vegetation communities. This distinctive spatial arrangement often responds to 

management differently than the same vegetation communities in other locations in the Southwest. 

(See the “Environmental Consequences” section below.) 

Nine major vegetation communities are represented in different proportions across the Coronado 

(table 29). Madrean encinal woodland covers the most land area, while spruce-fir forest, montane 

meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas each represent the least area. Montane meadows and wetlands 

occur as fine-scale patches within much larger vegetation communities. Because of this, mapping used 

to define vegetation communities does not recognize the fine-scale montane meadows or wetlands. 

For the purpose of analysis, descriptions of montane meadows and wetlands are included with the 

vegetation communities in which they occur, piñon-juniper woodlands are discussed with Madrean 

encinal woodland, and riparian areas are discussed separately.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

95

Table 29. Major vegetation communities within the Coronado National Forest boundary*

Vegetation Community Percent Composition Acres**

Desert communities 10.2% 175,452

Grasslands 23.7% 407,477

Interior chaparral 8.8% 151,181

Madrean encinal woodland 43.0% 738,693

Madrean pine-oak woodland 8.3% 142,047

Ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub 2.3% 39,477

Mixed-conifer (dry and wet) 3.2% 55,451

Spruce-fir forest 0.2% 3,014

Montane meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas 0.2% 5,142

Total 100.0% 1,717,934

** This table reflects the Coronado National Forest boundary acres instead of the Potential Natural Vegetation Type

acres. When Potential Natural Vegetation Type was developed, the boundaries were different and it caused some 

errors in acreages.

The Coronado manages just 8 percent of total National Forest System lands in Arizona and New 

Mexico, but larger percentages of specific vegetation communities than all other national forests in 

both states. The largest percentage of all Madrean encinal woodlands (approximately 26 percent) in 

Southwestern Region national forests is found on the Coronado. In addition, the Coronado manages 

25 percent of grasslands, 17 percent of deserts and Madrean pine-oak woodlands, and 11 percent of 

interior chaparral on National Forest System lands in both states. Although riparian communities are 

much less than 1 percent of the Coronado, the montane willow and cottonwood willow riparian forests 

on the Coronado account for 12 and 27 percent, respectively, of those on National Forest System lands 

in Arizona and New Mexico (see the “Riparian Areas” section on page 148 for more information). 

The Coronado also manages larger percentages of certain vegetation communities when compared 

with other land ownership entities in Arizona and New Mexico. The Coronado manages the second 

largest portion (11 percent) of Madrean encinal woodlands relative to other land managers throughout 

Arizona and New Mexico. Conversely, the Coronado manages only a tiny fraction of desert plant 

communities compared to surrounding land ownership entities (USDA FS 2009b).

Table 30 reports the vegetation condition class for each community on the Coronado and the degree to 

which they differ from reference conditions (departure). Most vegetation communities on the 

Coronado have experienced widespread change in composition and structure since the Euro-American 

settlement of the Southwest. Livestock grazing, fire suppression, selective logging, fuelwood harvest, 

nonnative species introduction, and fragmentation have altered vegetation communities from their 

natural state to a current condition that is unlike either reference or desired conditions.

Most of the vegetation on the Coronado is adapted to wildfire—some to frequent low-intensity fire, 

others to high-severity crown fire. Both types are present on the Coronado and both are very different 

in nature. Further, humans have affected each differently and to varying degrees. Over the years, as 

changes in fuels and fuel connectivity, livestock grazing, wood harvest, and fragmentation have 

occurred, the natural role of fire in managing the landscape has diminished. Active fire suppression by 

early settlers, and later, by the Forest Service, further contributed to a reduction in the occurrence of 

natural fires. The effect of fire suppression differs by vegetation community and is discussed in more 

detail for each of the individual vegetation community analyses.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

96

Table 30. Vegetation condition class (VCC) and departure for each vegetation community*

Vegetation Community Departure VCC Description

Desert 59% 2 Moderate departure

Grassland 81% 3 High departure

Interior chaparral 78% 3 High departure

Madrean encinal woodland 35% 2 Low to moderate departure

Madrean pine-oak woodland 50% 2 Moderate departure

Ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub 81% 3 High departure

Dry mixed-conifer 69% 3 Moderate to high departure

Wet mixed-conifer 58% 2 Moderate departure

Spruce-fir 34% 2 Low to moderate departure

Montane meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas 60% 2 Moderate departure

* Vegetation condition class departure was calculated from a weighted-average, based on each vegetation community 

and the acreage represented on the ecosystem management areas.

Woody vegetation, in the form of shrub encroachment or small trees, has increased in many Coronado 

vegetation communities. This correlates to a corresponding increase in the probability of 

uncharacteristic wildfire in these areas. In some cases, woody species encroachment has been 

observed to be contributing to a compositional shift to shrubland in grassland communities. In most 

cases, the seeding in of small trees has increased structural homogeneity across the landscape, 

heightening the risk of uncharacteristic fires and uncharacteristic insect and disease outbreak in these 

communities.

Today, the Coronado contains uncharacteristically dense forests with many more young and mid-aged 

trees than were historically present. Forested types are deficient in grasses, forbs, and shrubs due to 

tree competition and shading from the denser canopy; these are at high risk for uncharacteristic 

wildfires because of an accumulated buildup of live and dead woody material, increased crown bulk 

density, and increased canopy continuity. 

While shrub and tree encroachment have altered the composition and structure of grassland and 

woodland communities, in communities not adapted to fire (i.e., desert communities), nonnative 

species introduction is the driving factor for departure from reference conditions. Particularly, the 

pervasiveness of buffelgrass in the deserts has forced fire into a community where it historically 

occurred very infrequently, and where it is now threatening native vegetation.

Table 31 shows the expected treatments under the proposed action, and alternatives 1 and 2, all of 

which are the same. The 1986 forest plan does not state treatments specifically. Therefore, for the 

purpose of analysis, expected treatment type and acreage were estimated based on past and 

foreseeable future treatments. However, due to the complexity of these estimates, treatments under the 

no-action alternative were not summarized in a table, but rather discussed in the text of each 

vegetation community.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

97

Table 31. Objectives for vegetation treatment specified under the proposed action and alternatives 1 

and 2 (in acres)

Vegetation Community Treatment

Acres Treated 

(10 years)

Desert communities Suppress/eradicate buffelgrass 10,000–15,000

Grassland communities Wildland fire, thinning, and mastication 72,500

Interior chaparral Wildland fire and mechanical 5,000

Madrean encinal woodland Wildland fire, thinning, and mastication 367,000

Madrean pine-oak woodland Wildland fire, thinning, and mastication 25,000

Ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub Wildland fire, thinning, and mastication 12,500

Mixed-conifer (dry and wet) Wildland fire and thinning 16,200

Riparian Upland restoration for watershed stability 2,500–10,000*

Spruce-fir No treatment specified 0**

* The only vegetation type that does not have an associated treatment method is riparian. Treatment of upland areas 

would be used to improve riparian soils and vegetation. Treatment acreage would vary with the size of riparian areas 

to be improved.

** Management will allow for natural and artificial regeneration where needed.

Vegetation Communities,

Fuels and Fire – Environmental Consequences 

The methodology used in the vegetation analysis is explained in appendix G of this environmental 

impact statement.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Direction provided by the alternatives would maintain or improve the ecological integrity of 

vegetation communities across the Coronado. Under all alternatives, vegetation would continue to be 

managed in accordance with laws and regulations. For most vegetation communities, their departure 

from desired condition vegetation structure would continue. Modeling results indicate that no 

alternative would achieve desired conditions fully during the modeling period (VDDT analysis16); 

however, varying degrees of progress are expected among alternatives in the movement toward 

desired conditions.

Under all alternatives, unplanned fire ignitions would continue to be managed to treat fire-adapted 

vegetation. The degree to which the effects of fire are positive depends largely on the seasonality, 

severity, and extent of the fire, and the ecology of the vegetation community. Fire can accelerate 

nutrient cycling, increase soil fertility, and enhance plant productivity. On the other hand, because it 

removes vegetation, fire often increases erosion of soils and sedimentation in the short term. It also 

creates hydrophobic (water repellent) soils within areas where severity is high. This, in turn, decreases 

water infiltration to soils, which may cause flash flooding and a public and user safety hazard 

downstream, and impede germination of vegetation.

The proposed action and alternatives 1 and 2 provide wildland-urban interface guidance specific to the 

vegetation communities. For each vegetation community, treatments in the wildland-urban interface 

would create vegetation structure, composition, and fuel loadings that support low-intensity surface 

fire to reduce the impacts of wildfire on communities. Although the no-action alternative does not 

contain plan components that specifically address treatments at the wildland-urban interface, 

management would be similar to that of the proposed action, alternatives 1 and 2.

 

16 VDDT is a model called the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

98

Wilderness Areas

Designated wilderness and wilderness study areas that already exist on the Coronado would be 

managed by all alternatives under guidelines designed to meet specific desired conditions. Because 

none of the action alternatives proposes to change the acres of existing designated wilderness, effects 

would be the same for all alternatives.

Under all alternatives, wilderness study areas and recommended wilderness would be managed as 

wilderness (i.e., maintenance of wilderness character). For ease of analysis, management of both 

recommended wilderness and wilderness study areas is discussed under the umbrella of “wilderness” 

management. For more specific information regarding the consequences related to wilderness, see the 

“Wilderness and Other Special Areas” section on page 356.

Direction under all alternatives would call for wilderness to be managed in accordance with Forest 

Service policy that is tiered to the Wilderness Act. This includes requirements that must be addressed 

before a vegetation treatment may be initiated (i.e., completion of a minimum requirements decision 

guide and a National Environmental Policy Act review) and restrictions on motorized and mechanized 

uses. An exception is made for unplanned ignitions, which require an emergency response. Actions 

related to these do not require a minimum requirements decision guide. 

There would be no direct effects on vegetation from the administrative action of either designating or 

recommending designation of wilderness under any of the alternatives. However, effects on vegetation 

may result from vegetation treatments and disturbances that take place on the landscape within 

wilderness. 

Planned fire ignitions may be used in wilderness to reduce unnatural buildups of fuels only if they are 

necessary to meet at least one of the wilderness fire-management objectives set forth in Forest Service 

Manual 2324.21. Other activities that are often part of vegetation management projects, such as the 

use of motorized equipment (chainsaws, pumps) or mechanical transport (ground-based vehicles and 

aircraft), must follow the minimum requirements decision guide process in order to identify the 

“minimum tool” (activity, method, or equipment) necessary to implement the project. If the 

“minimum tool” is determined to be mechanical and/or motorized, the level of approval specified in 

the Forest Service manual is required. Potential limitations on mechanical and/or mechanized options 

could constrain the feasibility of treatment and impede the movement of a community toward or 

attainment of desired conditions.

Past management practices have altered vegetation composition and structure on the Coronado. The 

potential limitations on vegetation management in wilderness may decrease the options for, and 

feasibility of, pre-treating departed vegetation prior to reintroduction of fire. If treatments do not 

occur, the result may be uncharacteristic fire behavior if a wildfire was to occur. The effects 

associated with uncharacteristic fire include eradication of native (nonfire adapted) vegetation, 

increase in nonnative invasive plants, further departure of vegetation structure and composition, and 

increased erosion and runoff.

Recommended Wilderness Areas

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area is proposed as a recommended wilderness area under all 

alternatives. Its management for retention of wilderness character would be the same under all 

alternatives. Effects on the area would be the same under all alternatives.

No Action

The no-action alternative provides minimal guidance specific to the diverse vegetation communities 

found on the Coronado. While incomplete guidance does not hinder the movement toward, or 

achievement of, vegetation toward desired conditions for each community, it limits the effectiveness 

of management. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

99

Although the1986 plan recognizes a need to restore natural ecological processes in fire-dependent 

ecosystems, it does not address vegetation communities individually nor does it provide guidance in 

the form of desired conditions or objectives. Instead, vegetation management guidance is given under 

the resource elements for range, wildlife and fish, timber, and fire and fuels. This means that the 

guidance is output based, that is, with success measured in game and wildlife habitat, rangeland and 

livestock forage, and forest products.

Because the 1986 plan addresses vegetation communities in the context of other resource elements 

and does not provide desired conditions for vegetation, it does not account for more holistic ecological 

outcomes, such as structure, composition, and function of healthy communities. This may result in 

different interpretations of plan direction at the project level and may limit a manager’s ability to

effectively move each vegetation community toward a more ecologically sustainable system, such as 

one defined by community-specific guidance. 

Standards and guidelines are established in the 1986 plan to guide project implementation and prevent 

adverse impacts to vegetation communities from management activities; however, it is difficult to 

determine the difference between these plan components.

In terms of old-growth conditions within forested vegetation communities, the 1986 plan supports the 

development and maintenance of large trees, snags, and down woody debris. It does this by 

advocating for these components in the form of habitat for Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, 

and Mount Graham red squirrel. Additionally, the 1986 forest plan dictates at least 20 percent of the 

naturally forested area by vegetation type be managed for the development and retention of old growth 

and old-growth function. Although these plan components promote old growth across the Coronado

vegetation communities, the treatment of old growth as a relatively static and discrete homogenous 

stand instead of considering its dynamic and integrated, fine scale attributes does not incorporate this 

important element of healthy forest communities and its relative success as wildlife habitat.

Old-growth conditions under the 1986 forest plan are treated as if they occur in a static system without 

disturbance. This is of concern because most forested acres on the Coronado are represented by 

uneven-aged forest structures, where old growth occurs as large and old trees, large snags, and 

multistoried structure throughout the vegetation community, and often at a fine scale. Current 

guidance on managing old growth is more appropriate when applied to forested vegetation 

communities that trend toward more even-aged characteristics (i.e., wet mixed-conifer and spruce-fir). 

In these communities, old-growth components occur in larger, more homogenous patches. However, 

because of the spatial arrangement of the vegetation communities on the Coronado, the trend within 

these forests toward even-aged characteristics is somewhat diminished when compared to other 

occurrences of these forest communities across the region.

Proposed Action

The proposed action addresses nine diverse vegetation communities and provides detailed desired 

condition statements for each community. It establishes specific objectives for achieving desired 

conditions where management actions are needed to attain them. Specific objectives are set for 

management actions needed in each forest ecosystem management area, with consideration of the 

large landscapes at risk of experiencing uncharacteristic wildfire. Standards and guidelines are 

established to guide project implementation and prevent adverse impacts to vegetation communities 

from management activities.

Current scientific information regarding the effects of climate change on forest resources is 

incorporated in the revised forest plan. It is presented as a general description of anticipated changes 

in conditions as they are known to a reasonable level of certainty. It also outlines desired conditions 

for all vegetation communities to promote their increasing resiliency and adaptation capacity to 

changing conditions and other stressors, such as extended drought and warmer temperatures, which 

are projected to occur in the Southwest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

100

For most vegetation communities, the objectives of the revised forest plan are to progress further 

toward desired conditions in terms of vegetation structure when compared to the 1986 plan. 

Sometimes these changes in structure are limited, and do not result in substantial positive change 

throughout the community.

Recommended Wilderness Areas

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North. 

Approximately 108,890 acres would be allocated in the recommended wilderness areas. Management 

in recommended wilderness is more restrictive than nonwilderness and may increase planning time 

and project costs and limit options for treatment. 

The Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area contains about 61,315 acres, which are entirely 

within an inventoried roadless area. The impacts of recommending the Mount Graham Recommended 

Wilderness Area for wilderness designation are common to all alternatives and are discussed in more 

detail in the “Vegetation Communities, Fuels and Fire,” “Effects Common to All Alternatives” section 

on page 98.

Portions of the Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Area recently experienced uncharacteristic fire, 

which reduced fuel loading and consequent fire hazard, but left the area moderately departed from 

reference vegetation structure. This area is also included in current landscape planning efforts, and 

wilderness designation would affect these projects. About 26,245 acres would be managed as the Ku 

Chish Recommended Wilderness Area, of which 22,450 acres (86 percent) are in an inventoried 

roadless area. Future treatments to maintain desired conditions across the vegetation communities may 

be hindered by recommending this area. The Ku Chish area is discussed in more detail under 

“Alternative 1” below.

Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Area. The Whetstone Potential Wilderness Area 

encompasses 16,317 acres. This area is located in the Whetstone Mountain Range, which is part of the 

Sierra Vista Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona. The Whetstone 

Potential Wilderness Area is overlapped by 13,619 acres of the Whetstone Inventoried Roadless Area, 

comprising 83 percent of the potential wilderness area.

Chiricahua Addition North Recommended Wilderness Area. The Chiricahua Addition North 

Potential Wilderness Area is 5,013 acres. The area is located adjacent to the existing Chiricahua 

Wilderness. This area would be an expansion of the Chiricahua Wilderness that is now 87,700 acres, 

bringing the overall acres to 92,712 if designated. This area is located in the Chiricahua Mountains, 

which is part of the Douglas Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona. 

The Chiricahua Addition North Potential Wilderness Area is overlapped by 1,624 acres of the 

Chiricahua Inventoried Roadless Area, comprising 32 percent of the potential wilderness area.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to vegetation 

communities would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided 

for each vegetation community. Alternative 1 proposes that 16 land parcels be managed for wilderness 

character. Approximately 255,908 acres, or 15 percent, of the vegetation communities would be 

recommended to wilderness designation under alternative 1. Recommendation of the Ku Chish and 

Mount Graham areas for wilderness designation would result in identical effects when compared to 

the proposed action, as each would be recommended as part of the revised forest plan. 

When an area that is highly or moderately departed from the desired conditions is recommended as 

wilderness, the limitation on vegetation treatments due to the restricted use of mechanized and 

motorized equipment can increase the risk of uncharacteristic fire in the recommended wilderness and 

surrounding area. Because a prerequisite for becoming an inventoried potential wilderness area is a 

lack of recent mechanized and motorized vegetation treatments, recommended wilderness areas may 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

101

have more departed conditions than the vegetation community forestwide. Fifty-eight percent of the 

total wilderness acreage recommended by alternative 1 is at least moderately departed and trending 

away from desired conditions. As a result, vegetation conditions in these areas may be more 

vulnerable to uncharacteristic fire. The recommended wilderness areas with lower vegetation 

departure or recent wildfire activity are less likely to need treatment and, therefore, less likely to have 

effects in addition to those discussed under the proposed action. Recommended wilderness areas with 

topographic or accessibility constraints where treatments would be impractical, would also be less 

likely to have additional effects.

Recently burned (in 2011) recommended wilderness areas include Ku Chish, Chiricahua Additions 

West and North, Jhus Canyon, and Tumacacori. Portions of these areas burned with higher severities 

than would be expected under reference conditions, and the resulting vegetation structure may still be 

departed due to this. Recommending these areas would not increase the immediate risk of 

uncharacteristic fire because the fuel loading and associated hazard has been reduced. Future 

treatments to maintain desired conditions may be slower than nonwilderness treatments because of the

additional management limitations and complexities associated with managing these areas as 

wilderness.

The Dragoon and Galiuro Recommended Wilderness Areas are moderately to highly departed from 

their reference vegetation composition and structure. The potential limitations associated with 

wilderness management could decrease the ability to conduct vegetation treatments in these areas 

prior to a wildfire occurring, which could result in uncharacteristic fire behavior.

The Santa Teresa Additions (north and south), Whetstone, and Winchester Recommended Wilderness 

Areas have moderate to high vegetation departure. The potential limitations associated with 

wilderness management could decrease in the ability to conduct vegetation treatments in these areas 

prior to a wildfire occurring, which could result in uncharacteristic fire behavior. However, due to lack 

of roads and steep slopes, treatments other than unplanned ignitions are not a priority or are 

impractical in these areas.

The Mount Fagan and Mount Wrightson Addition Recommended Wilderness Areas have low to 

moderate departure as a result of past fire occurrence. The potential for uncharacteristic fire behavior 

in these areas is reduced as a result of past wildfires. Recommendations of these areas would not 

increase the risk of uncharacteristic fire in these areas because the fuel loading and associated hazard 

has been reduced. No current or future treatments are planned for these areas.

Current wilderness study areas recommended for wilderness under alternative 1 include Bunk 

Robinson, Whitmire, and Mount Graham. (See “Vegetation Communities, Fuels and Fire,” “Effects 

Common to All Alternatives” section on page 98). 

Alternative 2

Because alternative 2 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the vegetation 

communities would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided 

for each vegetation community. However, approximately 45,117 acres are included in the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone specified by alternative 2. This is an increase of approximately 40,255

acres over that of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone specified by the proposed action and 

alternative 1 (see table 32). In addition, under alternative 2, only the Mount Graham Wilderness Study 

Area (61,315 acres) would be recommended for wilderness. However, as the wilderness study areas 

and recommended wilderness area would be managed under the direction of the revised forest plan, 

management for wilderness characters of the Mount Graham, Whitmire, and Bunk Robinson 

Wilderness Study Areas would continue.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

102

Table 32. The acreage of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone proposed under the proposed 

action, alternative 1, and alternative 2

Vegetation Community Alternative 2

Proposed Action and 

Alternative 1

Desert communities 5,801 1,039

Grasslands 21,459 2,517

Interior chaparral 2,282 280

Madrean encinal woodland 14,853 953

Madrean pine-oak woodland 627 59

Ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub 0 0

Mixed-conifer (dry and wet) 0 0

Spruce-fir forest 0 0

Montane meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas 95 14

TOTAL 45,117 4,862

Additionally, alternative 2 provides no plan components related to management of vegetation 

resources under climate change. It does incorporate the strategies in appendix A of the revised forest 

plan, which provides several approaches to address key climate change factors (caused by insects, 

disease, and fire) that exacerbate the effects of climate change. Therefore, alternative 2 would be 

slightly less effective in managing the effects of climate change than the proposed action and 

alternative 1.

Under alternative 2, there is an increased potential for new construction of off-highway vehicle trails 

and other facilities for motorized recreation, which could result in a net loss of the vegetation 

communities on the Coronado. Construction of off-highway vehicle facilities in the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone would result in vegetation removal, soil compaction, erosion, and 

sedimentation. In areas that could accommodate parking, detrimental effects to the soil resource may 

extend beyond the footprint of roads. Increased fragmentation may negatively affect the natural fire 

spread across the landscape. The additional roads may also increase the feasibility of treatment by

increasing holding features for planned ignitions and improving access for mechanical treatment. 

By expanding the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone, alternative 2 better meets the need for 

motorized recreation and concentrates the negative impacts to vegetation associated with the activity. 

This may provide more effective protection to the vegetation communities across the Coronado. When 

considering the vegetation communities broadly, alternative 2 would result in similar impacts when 

compared to the proposed action. Because the additional acres of the Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone are concentrated at the lower elevations, alternative 2 would impact the vegetation communities 

disproportionately (see table 32). The impacts particular to each vegetation community are discussed 

in the community specific “Environmental Consequences” section later in the document.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are discussed collectively for all vegetation communities. This section appears 

on page 157 following the discussion of each vegetation community.

Desert Communities – Affected Environment

Both the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert are represented on the Coronado. At its lowest elevations, 

the desert community on the Coronado is a transition zone between the two. Desert communities 

comprise 9 percent of the Coronado and 17 percent of the desert communities on national forests in 

the Southwestern Region. The Coronado manages the fewest desert plant communities among other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

103

land ownership entities (USDA FS 2009b) in the Southwest; the Bureau of Land Management 

manages the most (Schussman and Smith 2006).

Desert communities on the Coronado range in elevation from 2,600 to 3,200 feet, although they may 

extend beyond this range on steep southern exposures. Annual precipitation averages from 10 to 13 

inches. Gravel and rock cover ranges from 5 to 65 percent in flood plains, and 35 to 85 percent on 

upland sites. Bedrock outcrops can be as high as 10 percent in upland areas. Active erosion and 

sedimentation occurs in channels on floodplains.

Vegetation types and their density in desert communities on the Coronado vary with geology, 

geographic location, precipitation, and topography. Some areas are barren and have an abundant 

surface cover of sand, rock, and gravel. Others have sparse to dense vegetation cover that includes 

succulent species, desert grasses, desertscrub, and some herbaceous cover (USDA FS 2009b). 

Seasonally, cover of annual forbs and grasses is often extensive after exceptionally wet winter or 

summer monsoon seasons, but it is short lived (Robinett 2010).

Predominant vegetation includes shrubs, desert trees, and succulents; the desert community has lesser 

amounts of grasses and forbs. Common species include catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), triangleleaf 

bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea), white bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), desert 

ironwood (Olneya tesota), saltbush (Atriplex spp.), creosote (Larrea tridentata), iodine bush 

(Allenrolfea occidentalis), splitleaf brickellia (Brickellia laciniata), desert broom (Baccharis 

sarothroides), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), cheesebush 

(Hymenoclea salsola), barrel cactus (Ferocactus spp.), hedgehog cacti (Echinocereus spp.), cholla and 

prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), saguaro (Carnegia gigantea), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), rice grasses 

(Oryzopsis spp.), and dropseed grasses (Sporobolus spp.). 

Wildlife species that depend on desert communities as habitat are typical of both the Chihuahuan and 

Sonoran Deserts. Relatively few forest planning species17 are associated with the terrestrial habitat 

provided by desert communities, because the Coronado is located on the fringe of these arid habitats 

and they are, for the most part, managed by other agencies. Sonoran Desert species include the 

following special-status species: Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai), cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. 

robustispina), and red-backed whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis xanthonota). Chihuahuan Desert specialstatus species include the northern Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis) and Arizona striped whiptail 

lizard (Aspidoscelis arizonae). 

Drought is the primary natural disturbance in the desert community that desert plants are uniquely 

adapted to survive. Succulents have unique water storage capabilities and opportunistic germination 

and flowering strategies that take advantage of moisture when it is available. Many desert species are 

drought deciduous, dropping their leaves when water levels are very low. One of the foremost humancaused disturbances in the desert community is livestock grazing, which reduces plant cover primarily 

in the spring, when good forage annuals, such as filaree (Erodium circutarium), Indian wheat 

(Plantago spp.), and fiddle-neck (Amsinckia spp.), are available.

The reference vegetation condition of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts is represented by plant 

communities that are typically sparse, with few grasses in the understory. Because they evolved 

without fire as a natural ecological occurrence, most of the plants of the desert community, including 

the iconic saguaro cactus, cannot survive fire. A vegetation condition class (VCC) analysis of the 

Coronado’s desert communities indicates an overall moderate departure (vegetation condition class 2) 

from the reference condition. The departure of vegetation composition and structure is attributed to 

 

17 Forest planning species are those species identified as threatened, endangered, sensitive, or of conservation concern. 

Across the forest, 437 species (terrestrial, aquatic, and plant) were identified as forest planning species and include: 

36 mammals, 32 birds, 8 amphibians, 19 reptiles, 73 insects, 4 other invertebrates, 16 fish, 56 mollusks, 7 fungilichen, 5 mosses-liverworts, and 181 plants.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

104

increased shrub cover and effects of increasing populations of invasive plant species. Refer to table 30

for detailed information regarding the vegetation condition class analysis data for this community.

The proliferation of nonnative, invasive grasses poses the greatest threat to plants native to the desert 

community. Nonnative desert grasses self-perpetuate when fire reduces native vegetation and 

promotes grass cover. Invasive grasses that burn easily have increased in quantity in deserts, which 

has contributed to a corresponding increase in fire frequency. 

Nonnative buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare) is a significant threat in Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert 

ecosystems. It was introduced in Arizona in the 1930s by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for 

erosion control and livestock forage. Buffelgrass occurs primarily on southwest-facing slopes of the 

Santa Catalina Mountains below 4,500 to 5,000 feet in elevation. In addition, buffelgrass is also 

widespread in the Tumacacori Mountains along the international border with Mexico. In Mexico, it is 

still widely seeded for livestock forage. Fountain grass (P. setaceum) has also become invasive in the 

Sonoran Desert, occurring with buffelgrass on slopes and especially in dry washes. Although they are 

not as much a threat as buffelgrass with respect to extent or ecological consequences, other nonnative 

species also degrade desert ecosystems and can become invasive, especially in riparian areas.

Current research indicates that buffelgrass is spreading at exponential rates in the Santa Catalina 

Mountains, including the Pusch Ridge Wilderness (Olsson et al. 2012, USDA FS 2009b). The 

invasion of buffelgrass is already so extensive in the Santa Catalina Mountains and in southeast 

Arizona, in general, that its full eradication from the Coronado is probably not a realistic goal. 

However, with a strong commitment by the Forest Service, other regional land management entities, 

and concerned private citizens to control of buffelgrass infestation in high-value, high-priority areas 

and prevent its spread, it is possible to sustain the vegetation community of the Sonoran Desert on the 

Coronado in the long term. High-priority areas are characterized by unique Sonoran Desert vegetation 

and associated wildlife, wilderness, important viewsheds and recreation opportunities, and the 

wildland-urban interface. Most of these areas are in large canyons that run from the Pusch Ridge 

Wilderness on the Santa Catalina District to the wildland-urban interface.

In addition to providing fuel for uncharacteristic wildfire, buffelgrass is successful at outcompeting 

native plants for moisture and nutrients and occupying their germination sites (Olsson et al. 2012, 

USDA FS 2009b). Buffelgrass and other nonnative grasses have the potential to change the fire 

regime in the desert community from one that rarely experiences fire to one that frequently burns. 

Wildfires are also a major hazard at the wildland-urban interface, where buffelgrass-fueled fires could 

endanger life and property. In addition, fires in the lower elevations may provide an ignition source 

and continuous fuels that carry fire into woody vegetation at higher elevations. 

Invasion of buffelgrass can alter the desert ecosystem as a whole (Olsson et al. 2012), reducing native 

wildlife habitat quantity and quality, including that of desert bighorn sheep and the Sonoran Desert 

tortoise (Gray and Steidl 2012). Also, loss of the desert vegetation community may lead to conversion 

to an exotic grassland community, which would alter watershed dynamics, including ephemeral and 

perennial streamflows, riparian ecosystems, soil infiltration, and aquifer recharge.

A 2008 helicopter survey inventoried 5,000 acres of buffelgrass distributed at varying densities across 

40 sections (25,600 acres) in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness. Given known exponential rates of spread in 

the Santa Catalina Mountains, a reasonable approximation of current infestation would be 7,500 acres. 

Further, a 2013 helicopter survey in a section of Sonoran Desert on the Mexican border inventoried 

1,500 acres of buffelgrass distributed across 24 sections (15,360 acres).

Currently, the Coronado treats invasive species at a rate of approximately 625 acres per year. Most 

treatments are focused on buffelgrass removal using a combination of herbicide applications by 

licensed contractors and manual removal by Arizona Department of Corrections crews and volunteers. 

Of these, contracted herbicide treatments are the most effective and efficient for treating large 

acreages. It is important to note that contracted crews are paid for the number of infested acres 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

105

traversed, not just the number of acres sprayed, as they search out patches and individual plants spread 

across slopes and canyons. 

In addition to ground-based herbicide treatments, aerial herbicide applications would enable the 

Coronado to address buffelgrass infestations that are on steep, rugged, inaccessible terrain that is not 

safe for ground crews. After an initial treatment, areas must be retreated during the subsequent 2 or 3 

years in order to deplete the persistent seedbank and prevent reinfestation. After 3 years, a monitoring 

and maintenance schedule would become effective in managing invasive grasses on treated sites.

An increased financial investment will be needed in order to better manage and control the infestation 

and spread of buffelgrass on the Coronado and ameliorate the risk of conversion to an exotic grass 

monoculture. At least 15 percent of a jurisdiction’s total weed acreage must be treated annually to 

keep pace with the rates of spread and reduce infestation levels (Beck 2013). For the Coronado, this 

would require that between 1,000 and 1,500 acres of buffelgrass be treated annually with herbicide at 

an annual cost of approximately $200,000 to $375,000, depending on competitive contractor rates and 

assuming treatment of dense infestations where acres sprayed are equal to acres traversed. 

Overall, the threats and stressors described above have the potential to negatively affect the 

sustainability of desert communities on the Coronado. The impacts of buffelgrass on the greater desert 

system include the reduced health and vigor of individual native plants (Olsson et al. 2012), which, in 

turn, would impact the health and resiliency of the community. The diminished resiliency of the desert 

would inhibit the community’s response to the detrimental effects of climate change, namely increases 

in water stress, insect and disease outbreak, and mean annual temperature. Although the desert is well 

adapted to hot and dry conditions, a stressed ecosystem has a limited capacity to absorb increases in 

stress.

On the other hand, with scientific climate change projections for the Southwest that favor hotter, drier 

conditions, desert communities may have an opportunity to thrive. Unfortunately, climate change may 

concurrently increase the susceptibility of desert vegetation to insect attack, increased colonization of 

invasive species, longer and more severe fire seasons, and altered frequency, intensity, timing, and 

spatial extent of disturbance events (droughts, fires, flash floods, landslides, and wind storms; see 

appendix A of the revised forest plan).

Desert Communities – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Potential adverse effects on desert communities are attributed to natural occurrences, such as drought, 

wildfire, insects, and disease; and human activities, such as livestock grazing and the introduction of 

nonnative invasive species. Invasive species are the primary threat to the sustainability of the desert 

community.

Under all alternatives, manual removal of buffelgrass would continue to cause localized ground 

disturbances, which increase the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation on steep sites. However, 

the manual removal of buffelgrass would be quite localized, and adverse effects are likely to be 

minimal. Chemical treatments would also continue, with targeted applications on individual plants and 

areas and the use of low-risk herbicides.

No Action

The 1986 plan does not specifically address desert community ecosystems and, where mentioned, 

guidance on how to manage these communities focuses on using fire and chemicals to control native 

species such as amole (Agave schottii), burrobrush (Hymenoclea spp.), snakeweed (Gutierrza

sarothrae), catclaw, and mesquite in order to improve livestock forage. Under the direction of the 

1986 forest plan, over 10,000 acres of desert communities have been treated by planned fire ignitions, 

and over 28,000 acres have burned in wildfire. Fire is not a natural disturbance in this vegetation 

community and poses a threat to certain plant species unique to the Sonoran Desert. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

106

Under the no-action alternative, there would continue to be no explicit plan guidance on how to 

address the effects and threats of invasive species in desert communities, including the unique 

problems associated with controlling the spread of buffelgrass, which also increases the likelihood of 

uncharacteristic fire in this vegetation community. The long-term health of the Sonoran Desert and 

riparian ecosystems in the lower elevations of the Santa Catalina Mountains would be negatively 

affected if no action is taken and buffelgrass is permitted to continue increasing at current exponential 

rates.

Proposed Action

The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the reference conditions for desert 

communities and provides management objectives and guidelines that provide a framework for 

implementing site-specific projects to move toward desired conditions. These desired conditions 

account for the diversity of soils, topography, and precipitation that occurs within the desert 

community. The presence of plan language specific to the desert community provides a useful guide 

for managers and does more to protect the ecosystem health and sustainability than the no-action 

alternative. 

Forest plan components stated for the desert community would guide management and treat 10,000 to 

15,000 acres of buffelgrass every 10 years using chemicals and manual removal to control infestations 

on high-priority areas and reduce the spread of this invasive species. The explicit goals and desired 

conditions stated in the revised forest plan would facilitate more effective project level planning 

compared to the 1986 plan, which lacks explicit goals and desired conditions. Forest plan components 

would also restrict the use of planned fire ignitions in deserts to the control of nonnative invasive 

vegetation in specific situations, where fire could reduce senescent biomass and stimulate new growth 

in preparation for herbicide treatments, and native vegetation could be protected.

Approximately 2,873 acres, or about 1.7 percent, of the desert communities would be allocated within 

these recommended wilderness areas. The impacts of recommending the Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area are common to all alternatives and are discussed in more detail on 

page 98. Portions of the Ku Chish and Chiricahua Addition North Recommended Wilderness Areas 

recently burned, which reduced fuel loading and consequent fire hazard, but left the area moderately 

departed from reference vegetation structure. The Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Area is 

largely inaccessible and would have limited impact on management of desert communities. The 

effects of recommending the four areas as wilderness under the proposed action would be similar to 

those described under alternative 1 (page 100 and below) except that fewer acres would be affected.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the desert 

community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided. 

Alternative 1 proposes that 16 land parcels be recommended for wilderness designation, including the 

Mount Graham and Ku Chish areas recommended under the proposed action, and expansions of the 

Chiricahua Addition North and Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Areas described under the 

proposed action. Approximately 10,695 acres, or 12 percent, of the desert communities would be 

allocated within these 16 recommended wilderness areas. Less than 1 percent is included in the Mount 

Graham and the Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Areas, which are also recommended under the 

proposed action. Therefore, effects in those areas from alternative 1 would be similar to the proposed 

action.

The remaining acres of desert communities that may be included under alternative 1 are represented in 

all but two of the recommended wilderness areas (see the “Alternative 1” section on page 100 for 

more detailed description of the recommended areas and page 98 for a discussion of the effects of 

wilderness management).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

107

Wilderness recommendation would reduce the likelihood of invasive species detection and slow 

response time; however, wilderness management would also limit the introduction and spread of 

nonnative species. Furthermore, the limitation on activities within wilderness may impact the control 

and removal of other nonnative species found in the desert, such as Sahara mustard and Malta starthistle, which are now present across the Coronado in small patches. However, the reduced human 

traffic and vegetation manipulation within wilderness would limit the vectors for invasive species 

spread. The majority of the desert community in recommended wilderness is within the Tumacacori 

area (just over 6 percent). Because buffelgrass has been found in the Tumacacori Mountains, 

designation of the recommended area may restrict needed future treatment. 

Table 33 shows the desert community represented in each of the recommended wildernesses. The 

success of invasive species eradication is dependent on early detection and rapid response. However, 

the immediate impacts of designating any or all of the recommend wilderness areas would not be 

significant in the desert community. Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts when compared to 

the proposed action.

Table 33. Acreage of desert communities in each recommended wilderness

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of 

Desert Communities

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Area 844

Chiricahua Addition North 171

Chiricahua Addition West 126

Dragoon 1,204

Galiuro Addition 10

Jhus Canyon 337

Ku Chish 1,591

Mount Fagan 1,915

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 42

Mount Wrightson 967

Tumacacori 10,886

Whetstone 1,368

Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Area 108

Winchester 1,126

Alternative 2

Because alternative 2 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the desert 

community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided. 

See the “Desert Communities” section, “Effects Common to all Alternatives” on page 105 for a more 

detailed discussion of these effects. Effects specific to the expansion of the Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone for the desert community are similar, with a few differences, to those discussed under 

“Alternative 2” on page 101. 

Approximately 5,801 acres desert communities are present in the Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone specified by alternative 2. This is an increase in around 4,762 acres over the acreage of deserts in 

the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone specified by the proposed action and alternative 1 (table 32). 

Desert communities, because of the lower organic content of soils and lower mesic conditions, are 

more vulnerable to the effects of motorized and mechanized uses and take longer to recovery once 

impacted. Once an area has been impacted, it can become a source for invasive introduction and windcaused detachment of soil because of loss of ground cover. However, the expanded Motorized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

108

Recreation Land Use Zone also concentrates the negative impacts of motorized travel and potentially 

protects the community as a whole. Due to the limited acreage and potential for protection of the 

greater desert community, alternative 2 would result in similar impacts when compared to the 

proposed action.

Grasslands – Affected Environment

Grasslands occur throughout southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, northeastern Sonora, 

and northwestern Chihuahua at elevations ranging from 3,000 to 4,500 feet (Wright 1980). These 

grasslands are bounded by Sonoran or Chihuahuan Desert at the lowest elevations and woodlands or 

chaparral at the higher elevations (Schussman and Smith 2006). The grasslands on the Coronado are 

further described by Robbinett (2010) into semidesert grassland communities and plain and savannah 

communities. Combined, this is the largest extent and proportion of grasslands on any national forest 

in Arizona. The area comprises 25 percent of all grasslands in Southwestern Region national forests 

and 35 percent of all grasslands in southeastern Arizona (USDA FS 2009b).

Semidesert grasslands comprise the majority of the grassland community and occur at elevations from 

3,200 to 4,600 feet. They may extend higher on steep southern exposures. Annual precipitation 

averages from 12 to 16 inches. Ground cover consists mainly of gravel, cobble, and rock over 15 to 65 

percent of steep areas and moderate slopes, and 10 to 35 percent in bottom lands. Bedrock outcrops 

can be as much as 15 percent on steep and moderate slopes, with the exception of moderate slopes 

with limestone parent material, where bedrock outcrops range from none to 5 percent. In washes and 

bottom lands, bedrock outcrops are 2 percent or less. Channel areas are active with both erosion and 

sedimentation (Robbinett 2010).

Plains and savannah grasslands are found at elevations from 4,000 to 5,500 feet, although they may 

extend beyond this range on steep southern exposures. Plains and savanna grasslands occupy the 

ecotone between the desert and interior chaparral, representing a small percentage of the grassland 

communities. Annual precipitation averages from 16 to 20 inches. Ground cover by gravel, cobble, 

and rock ranges from 10 to 57 percent except in bottom lands with loamy soils. Bedrock outcrops can 

be as high as 10 percent in steeper areas (Robbinett 2010).

In the grasslands, species composition varies with soil, topography, and precipitation. Dominant 

grassland associations on the Coronado include mixed native perennial species and nonnative 

perennial species, with smaller aggregations dominated by various Bouteloua spp., tobossa (Hilaria 

mutica), and giant sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii). Shrubs also occupy grasslands; their abundance and 

species composition varies (USDA FS 2009b). 

Grasslands provide extremely important habitat for a diverse assemblage of plants and animals, 

second in diversity to Madrean encinal woodlands. Comprising valley and foothill habitats, they are 

especially important for riparian, aquatic, and terrestrial species more typical of those found in 

Mexico. Terrestrial forest planning species of semidesert grasslands include Madrean Valley forms, 

such as pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), Arizona grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus

savannarum ammolegus), Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae), insects (e.g., several 

grasshoppers), grasses, and numerous shrub and forb species. Riparian species include black-capped 

gnatcatcher (Polioptila nigriceps), sunrise skipper (butterfly) (Adopaeoides prittwitzi), and southwest 

monkeyflower (Mimulus dentilobus). Aquatic species include Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma

mavortium stebbinsi), Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis), and Gila topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis) (USDA FS 2009b). 

The reference conditions of the grassland communities are characterized by an open aspect, where 

native grasses are the primary species and low shrub cover (less than 10 percent). The desired 

conditions identified for the grassland communities closely follow the historic range of variation and 

the reference conditions described above. However, due to the high variability of the grassland 

communities, desired conditions reflect the diversity of topography and soils present within these 

communities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

109

Livestock grazing, fire suppression, fragmentation, and nonnative species introduction associated with 

Euro-American settlement of the grasslands have pushed this vegetation community from its natural 

state to a current condition departed from desired conditions. Both overgrazing and fragmentation 

have reduced the role of fire in the grassland communities by limiting fire spread. Fire suppression has 

led to woody species encroachment and, in some cases, a compositional shift from grassland to 

shrubland (Schussman and Smith 2006). Current stressors contributing to the loss of native grasslands 

are the invasion of nonnative grass species (primarily Lehmann lovegrass), shrub invasion, and direct 

loss of land and consequent fragmentation from development in rural areas. In many grassland 

communities, shrub and woody species invasion can be attributed to historical grazing and the 

decreased role of fire across the landscape. Fragmentation and past practices of heavy livestock 

grazing have passively suppressed fire, while active fire suppression was also used as a management 

tool. Development as a disturbance occurs outside of the boundaries of the Coronado; however, this 

activity makes it increasingly difficult for managers to sustain grassland-dependent organisms and 

processes within forest boundaries (Schussman and Smith 2006, USDA FS 2009b). 

Livestock grazing is a historical use that predates establishment of the national forest. Livestock was 

first introduced to New Mexico and Arizona between the late 16th and17th centuries. Beginning in the 

late 19th century, overstocking of ranges caused significant detrimental ecological changes in the 

region. After establishment of the Coronado, livestock grazing on National Forest System land was 

placed under the administrative control of the Forest Service. Grazing allotments were designated, 

stocking rates were systematically reduced, and sound management practices were implemented. As a 

result, ecological conditions steadily improved. Today, grazing is managed by the Forest Service in 

accordance with the terms and conditions of livestock grazing permits, allotment management plans, 

and annual operating plans, all of which have been subject to environmental analysis since the late 

1990s. Currently, stocking on the Coronado is light to moderate, which is consistent with sustaining 

rangeland ecosystems (Schussman and Smith 2006, USDA FS 2009b). 

Fire is an important natural disturbance in the grassland communities, as it maintains open grasslands 

with low shrub cover. Fires in the semidesert grassland were historically stand replacing, occurring 

every 2.5 to 10 years between June and July (Schussman and Smith 2006). In most grassland 

communities, the loss of frequent fire promotes the encroachment of woody species, eventually 

converting grasslands to shrublands. Due to the diversity of the grassland communities, the extent to 

which the absence of fire has played in driving grassland conversion varies, but is considerable. 

Increases in woody species density and cover in grasslands have also been correlated with wet 

winters, as well as other factors like rodent activity, livestock grazing, and increases in atmospheric 

carbon dioxide (USDA FS 2009b). 

On the Coronado, there are more invasive plant and animal species in the grasslands than any other 

vegetation community, including Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana), weeping lovegrass 

(Eragrostis curvula), northern crayfish (Orconectes virilis), and American bullfrog (Lithobates

catesbeiana) (USDA FS 2009b). Lehmann lovegrass has been widely seeded on rangelands in the 

Southwest for erosion control and livestock forage for decades (Cox and Ruyle 1986). It was widely 

used by the Arizona Department of Transportation Highway Division in seed mixes with other grasses 

to minimize erosion and sediment damage to highways during construction (Brady 1991). Prior to the 

mid-1980s, Lehmann lovegrass was used on the Coronado for range restoration projects, but was 

discontinued because of concerns about spreading population and negative effects on species diversity 

and wildlife habitat. In many areas, Lehmann lovegrass is now naturalized and forms monocultures 

that likely prevent the return of native grasses (Anable et al. 1992). Eradication may be possible with 

repeated application of herbicides, but the cost and negative effects of large-scale herbicide treatments 

make eradication impractical. There would also be a high likelihood of re-invasion of treated sites, 

considering that large seed sources exist on adjacent ownerships. Although less desirable than native 

grasses for some species of wildlife, including seed-foraging rodents and birds (Bock et al. 1986), 

Lehmann lovegrass does fulfill the purposes for which it was initially seeded to protect soil from 

erosion and provide forage for livestock. Unlike situations where vegetation type conversion occurs 

due to the invasion of a nonnative species (conversion of a grassland to a shrubland), in areas where 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

110

Lehmann lovegrass has become dominant, grassland ecosystem function as a whole has been 

maintained.

Currently, 27 percent of grasslands on the Coronado exist in an open native condition, 52 percent are 

shrub invaded, and 21 percent are open nonnative grasslands. Of the shrub-invaded areas, 42 percent 

have the potential to be restored to an open native condition. Sixty-nine percent of grasslands on the 

Coronado are either in the open native or restorable native communities, with the remainder in 

nonnative or former grassland communities (USDA FS 2009b). The vegetation condition class results 

indicate that the vegetation composition and structure of the grasslands are highly departed (vegetation 

condition class 3) from reference conditions (refer to table 30 for details). Much of the departure is 

due to increased canopy cover from shrubs. Early seral structure is deficit overall except for the 

Tumacacori Mountains where the 2011 Murphy Fire burned a large area of grasslands. These results 

would indicate a transition from grassland to shrubland due to a lack of wildfire among other potential 

factors as discussed in Schussman and Smith (2006a) and the Coronado National Forest Ecological 

Sustainability Report (USDA FS 2009b).

The success of recent planned fire ignitions and mechanical treatments to reduce shrub cover in 

current and former grasslands indicates the potential for grassland restoration. However, several 

factors must be carefully monitored to assess treatment effectiveness. One is the response of nonnative 

grasses to fire, and whether fire treatments will lead to increases in nonnative grasslands (USDA FS 

2009b). For example, nonnative grasslands produce hotter fires and respond more quickly after fire 

than native grasses (Schussman and Smith 2006). Other factors that affect treatment effectiveness 

relate to changes in climate, particularly precipitation patterns. In general, summer rains favor 

regeneration of grasses, while increases in shrub cover correlate with winter rains. The effectiveness 

of any treatment will be heavily influenced by precipitation amounts and patterns in future years 

(USDA FS 2009b). 

With warmer and drier climate conditions, grassland communities are susceptible to decreased plant 

productivity, increased insect attacks, colonization of invasive species, longer and more severe fire 

seasons, and altered frequency, intensity, timing, and spatial extent of disturbance events (droughts, 

fires, flash floods, landslides, and wind storms; see appendix A in the revised forest plan). Grasses use 

moisture in the upper soil layers. Intense precipitation increases runoff, but decreases the degree and 

effectiveness of water infiltration. This may decrease vigor of native plants and encourage 

colonization of nonnative invasive plant species.

Grasslands – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

According to the 2009 ecological sustainability report, 52 percent of the Coronado grasslands are in a 

shrub-invaded state (USDA FS 2009b). Under all alternatives, wildfire and mechanical treatments will 

be utilized with the goal of reducing shrub encroachment.

Effects of livestock grazing on grassland communities are well documented. They vary with timing, 

duration, and intensity and include changes in vegetation structure and composition, soil structure, and 

water infiltration rates. While unmanaged grazing may result in negative effects, literature supports 

that well-managed grazing at light to moderate levels can be benign or even beneficial to various 

rangeland ecosystem components, processes, or both.

No Action

The 1986 forest plan does not address grassland community ecosystems specifically and does not 

define desired future conditions and provide guidance on how to manage grassland communities. 

Vegetation treatments would likely continue in accordance with limited direction in the 1986 plan, 

which emphasizes treatment for sustained livestock forage including ripping and seeding, mechanical 

treatment for mesquite removal, planned fire ignitions for amole reduction, and chemical use for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

111

amole, catclaw, mesquite, burrobrush, and snakeweed. This emphasis, however, appears to have 

allowed shrub invasion to continue. Approximately 81,000 acres of grasslands have been treated with 

wildfire. Thinning and mastication projects targeting manzanita treated an additional 5,000 acres over 

the last 24 years of the 1986 plan. On average, the annual treatment rate is approximately 3,600 acres 

per year. Management of unplanned ignitions have been more frequent in the period following the 

2005 plan amendment allowing wildfires to be managed outside of wilderness. However, clear, 

predefined desired outcomes and measures of success would be lacking because the plan lacks goals 

and objectives specific for grasslands. Success would be measured by the overall management 

emphasis of managing for sustained production of livestock forage and game animal habitat. Although 

treatments have occurred under the 1986 plan, the explicit goals and desired conditions stated in the 

revised forest plan would facilitate project level planning better than the lack of them in the 1986 plan.

The 1986 forest plan does not provide guidance related to current threats to grassland’s structure, 

composition, and function (e.g., nonnative and woody plant invasion, fire exclusion, and 

fragmentation), which could result in further shrub invasion and/or the disruption of ecosystem 

processes and consequent overall loss in total grassland acres. A reduction of the grassland 

communities would result in reduced habitat for grassland-dependent species and a decrease in forage 

for both livestock and wildlife. As the grasslands are one of the most diverse vegetation communities 

in terms of wildlife on the Coronado, a loss in grassland habitat would potentially impact an 

abundance of species. 

An increase of woody species correlates to a decrease in herbaceous cover and would increase soil 

erosion through runoff and wind. Soil loss is a driving factor in the irreversible conversion of 

grasslands to shrubland communities (Schussman and Smith 2006) and may further this conversion. 

This loss of herbaceous cover would also result in a decline in water infiltration and availability to 

individual plants, decreasing the overall resiliency of the system and its ability to combat climate 

change and other disturbances. In addition, a decrease in herbaceous cover would limit the spread of 

fire across the grasslands, through the reduction of continuous fine fuels, negatively impacting nutrient 

cycling. Nonnative plant invasion also impacts the role of fire through this system, as these nonnative 

grasses burn at a higher intensity than native grasses (Cable 1965, Schussman and Smith 2006). This 

change in fire intensity increases the risk of soil damage.

Proposed Action

The proposed action would result in plant composition trending toward desired conditions, as would 

plant density, individual plant basal area, and root density in the surface soil horizon. The proposed 

action defines desired conditions based on the reference conditions for grassland communities and 

provides management objectives and guidelines that would provide a framework for implementing 

site-specific projects to achieve desired conditions. These plan components would guide management 

through planned and unplanned ignitions and mechanical treatments on at least 72,500 acres every 10 

years (7,250 acres per year) to maintain open, native grasslands with appropriate shrub and overstory 

cover. The proposed treatment rate, 7,250 acres per year, is roughly double that of current 

management.

The proposed action would maintain grasslands in a more open state that would restore fire to its 

characteristic role in these communities. The reduction of shrub encroachment and the promotion of 

continuous fuels would increase fire spread and improve nutrient cycling, thus improving the health 

and vigor of individual plants. Encouraging characteristic disturbance in the grasslands also promotes 

a functioning system and further maintains the open, native states described by the desired conditions. 

Furthermore, a reduction of woody species would maintain fire intensity at a characteristic level and, 

thereby, reduce the risk of soil damage from fire; however, as the revised forest plan does not address 

the removal or containment of naturalized, nonnative species such as Lehmann’s lovegrass, fire 

intensity increases due to the presence of nonnative species will remain unchanged under the proposed 

action. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

112

Promoting open grasslands would positively impact the system as a whole. Maintaining the grassland 

communities would improve habitat for grassland-dependent species such as pronghorn (Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department 2002) and Montezuma quail. The promotion of herbaceous cover would 

also improve forage for both livestock and wildlife species.

The mechanical treatment proposed under the revised forest plan may adversely impact the soil 

resource through increased erosion, scarification, and sedimentation in the short term. However, the 

removal of woody plants and consequent promotion of herbaceous cover may counteract these 

negative impacts. Schussman and Smith (2006) summarized that herbaceous cover is a driving factor 

in soil maintenance in the grasslands and reduces the risk of shrub invasion. The promotion of 

herbaceous cover would reduce soil erosion from runoff and wind. 

Understory cover also increases water infiltration and availability, improving the health and vigor both 

of the individual plants and the community as a whole. This improved health and vigor translates to 

the increased resiliency of the system to disturbance events and the stresses of climate change, of 

which water availability is a major factor.

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North.

Due to the limited area that would be impacted, the effects to the grasslands of recommending 

wilderness designation would be negligible. Approximately 9,025 acres, or approximately 1.7 percent, 

of the grassland communities would be allocated within these recommended wilderness areas. The 

impacts of recommending the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area are common to all 

alternatives and are discussed in more detail on page 98. Portions of the Ku Chish and Chiricahua 

Addition North Recommended Wilderness Areas recently burned, which reduced fuel loading and 

consequential fire hazard, but left the area moderately departed from reference vegetation structure. 

However, due to the limited area of impact, the effects to grasslands within recommended wilderness 

designations would be negligible. The Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Area is inaccessible and 

would have little impact on treatments within the grassland community. The effects of recommending 

the four areas as wilderness under the proposed action would be similar to those described under 

alternative 1 (page 100 and below) except that fewer acres would be affected.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the grassland 

community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided. 

In addition, the effects described under “Alternative 1” on page 100 also apply.

The grassland communities are present in each of the recommended wilderness areas (table 34). 

Approximately 31,708 acres, or 7 percent, of the grassland communities would be recommended to 

wilderness designation under alternative 1. If a grassland vegetation management project is planned 

within a recommended wilderness area requiring treatment or part of a project falls across the 

boundary, the limitations in wilderness could impede management and the movement toward, or 

attainment of, grasslands desired conditions within these areas.

Alternative 2

Approximately 21,459 acres of grasslands are present in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone 

specified by alternative 2. This is an increase of approximately 18,942 acres over the acreage of 

grasslands specified by the proposed action and alternative 1 (table 32). 

Because alternative 2 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the grasslands 

would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided. Effects 

specific to the expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone for the grassland communities 

are identical to those discussed under “Alternative 2” on page 101.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

113

Table 34. Acreage of grasslands within recommended wilderness

Recommended Wilderness Acres of Grasslands

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Area 6,036

Chiricahua Addition North 144

Chiricahua Addition West 33

Dragoon 1,708

Galiuro Addition 578

Jhus Canyon 27

Ku Chish 2,211

Mount Fagan 1,787

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 3,640

Mount Wrightson 1,688

Santa Teresa Addition North 190

Santa Teresa Addition South 240

Tumacacori 8,190

Whetstone 3,030

Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Area 2,119

Winchester 87

Interior Chaparral – Affected Environment

Interior chaparral covers 9 percent of the Coronado and occurs as a discontinuous band of vegetation. 

Most chaparral exists at mid-elevations (3,000 to 6,000 feet) and is bordered and intermixed with 

Madrean encinal woodland at the upper elevations, and grasslands or Sonoran Desert at lower 

elevations. The Coronado manages a tiny fraction of the interior chaparral in the southwestern United 

States (USDA FS 2009b). However, across the Southwestern Region, the Forest Service manages the 

majority of this vegetation community (Schussman and Smith 2006).

Interior chaparral is typically found on mountain foothills and lower slopes where low-elevation desert 

transitions into wooded evergreens. It comprises mixed shrub associations including, but not limited 

to, the following species: manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha), 

desert ceanothus (Ceanothus greggii), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), antelope bush 

(Purshia spp.), silktassle (Garrya spp.), Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia stansburiana), shrub live oak 

(Quercus turbinella), and sumac (Rhus spp.). In general, the proportion of interior chaparral 

vegetation on the Coronado is similar to that which is found in surrounding areas outside the national 

forest boundaries (USDA FS 2009b). 

Interior chaparral has few wildlife species associations of conservation concern. Because the interior 

chaparral community is fire adapted, wildlife species that have evolved in this vegetation community 

are resilient to the effects of fire. None except for Ball’s monkey grasshopper (Eumorsea balli) are 

chaparral specialists (USDA FS 2009b).

Although there is little direct evidence of the historical fire regime in the interior chaparral, indirect 

evidence points to a system that historically experienced high-intensity, stand-replacing fire every 20 

to 100 years (Schussman and Smith 2006). Little is known about the extent these fires burned 

historically (Schussman and Smith 2006). Current conditions within the interior chaparral are 

characterized by increases in open conditions due to fires occurring more frequently than did 

historically. This increased frequency is likely a result of the distribution and adjacency to vegetation 

communities with more frequent fire return intervals and the increased occurrence of unplanned 

human-caused ignitions. The trend is expected to continue. Desired conditions directly mirror 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

114

reference conditions in the majority of the interior chaparral. Table 35 shows the change in desired 

conditions to current conditions. The desired conditions within the wildland-urban interface dictate 

lower vertical structure to better manage fire and protect human communities.

The interior chaparral is highly departed (vegetation condition class 3). The results indicate a surplus 

of both open and closed structure, with a higher proportion being open. For detailed vegetation 

condition class information, refer to table 30.

Table 35. Current conditions versus desired conditions within the interior chaparral*

Structural Class Current Conditions Desired Conditions

Recently burned 22% 2%

Shrub, open canopy 35% 5%

Shrub, closed canopy 43% 93%

* Structural classes represented in this table were derived from the 2009 ecological sustainability report (USDA 

FS 2009b)

With warmer and drier climate conditions, interior chaparral ecosystems are susceptible to decreased 

plant productivity, increased insect infestation, colonization of invasive nonnative species, longer and 

more severe fire seasons, and altered frequency, intensity, timing, and spatial extent of disturbance 

events (droughts, flash floods, landslides, and wind storms; see appendix A in the revised forest plan).

Interior Chaparral - Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Vegetation treatments that would be permissible under each of the alternatives can have common 

effects on interior chaparral communities. In some cases, factors outside of Forest Service control, 

such as unplanned ignitions, may exacerbate effects. Frequent fire occurrence alters reference 

composition and structure of interior chaparral. Wildland fire can have varying impacts to interior 

chaparral based on the timing and frequency. Fire increases the risk of soil repellency, which may 

increase erosion and sedimentation, reduce water infiltration, and consequently impede germination. 

In contrast, fire also jump-starts nutrient cycling, increasing soil fertility and plant productivity 

(Schussman and Smith 2006).

No Action

Under the no-action alternative, the overall structure of chaparral would remain similar to the current 

condition, although changes at the species composition and structural stage may result from more 

frequent fire. The 1986 forest plan does not address interior chaparral ecosystems except in the 

context of rangeland, and does not provide desired conditions and guidance on how to manage this 

vegetation community. Under the direction of the 1986 forest plan, management activities in the 

interior chaparral have included chemical and planned fire ignition treatments targeting oak, piñon 

pine, manzanita, and juniper followed by aerial seeding of grasses to improve forage production. 

Currently, the observed trend is toward more acres of chaparral in recently burned and open canopy 

conditions, which is expected to continue. 

While treatments would continue under the 1986 forest plan, direction in the no-action alternative is 

not focused on the all-inclusive future condition of a healthy vegetation community, which includes its 

structure, composition, and function. The Coronado would be able to meet desired conditions that are 

output oriented, with success measured by rangeland and livestock forage. Furthermore, the 1986 

forest plan promotes type conversion of the interior chaparral to grassland. Although history has 

shown that the conversion of interior chaparral has been unsuccessful with chaparral community 

achieving pretreatment levels of canopy closure and density within 7 years (Pond and Cable 1960 

from Schussman and Smith 2006), the continued promotion of chaparral conversion is harmful to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

115

overall health of the system. The lack of clearly defined desired conditions under the 1986 forest plan 

promotes varied interpretations of plan direction at the project level, which does little to move the 

interior chaparral toward the more ecologically sustainable system defined by the desired conditions in 

the revised forest plan.

The short-term conversion of interior chaparral may improve forage for livestock and some wildlife 

species; however, the reduction of shrub density reduces hiding and thermal cover for white-tail 

(Odocoileus virginianus couesi) and mule deer (O. hemionus eremicus) and adversely impacts overall 

habitat quality of black bear (Ursus americanus). Due to the discontinuous nature of the interior 

chaparral and its presence as an ecotone, the impacts to chaparral as habitat may be limited.

More open conditions would increase short-term water yield from the community with limited 

improvement in water availability to chaparral vegetation. However, the increase in water would be 

short lived and would likely not impact the resiliency of the system to long-term stressors such as 

climate change. However, such limited increases in water availability may, if coincidentally timed, 

improve response to natural disturbances such as fire and insect and disease attack. 

Proposed Action

Under the proposed action, management would move the interior chaparral toward canopy closure that 

more closely mimics reference conditions and promotes the attainment of ecosystem restoration. The 

revised forest plan defines desired conditions based on the reference conditions for interior chaparral 

and provides management objectives and guidelines that provide a framework for implementing sitespecific projects to move the community toward desired conditions. Forest plan components specific 

to the vegetation community provide for better informed decisions and a basis for monitoring the 

effectiveness of future treatments. The plan components defined by the revised forest plan would 

guide management through planned and unplanned ignitions and mechanical treatments on 5,000 

acres every 10 years to maintain species diversity and promote eventual canopy closure. 

The revised forest plan addresses desired conditions for interior chaparral within the wildland-urban 

interface. The revised forest plan would maintain vegetation structure horizontal and close to the 

ground to reduce the fire intensities to a more manageable level within high-risk, wildland-urban 

interface communities. 

The movement toward reference densities described by the desired conditions may increase the habitat 

quality for Ball’s monkey grasshopper and black bear as well as improve cover for deer species. Due 

to the discontinuous nature of the interior chaparral and its presence as an ecotone, the impacts to 

chaparral for wildlife habitat improvement may be limited.

The maintenance of dense conditions would have little impact on water yield and availability for 

vegetation. Short-term increases in water yield may result following stand-replacing fire, but due to 

the regenerative ability of most chaparral species, these increases would likely have little lasting 

impact to the system. Under the proposed action, as interior chaparral trends toward canopy closure, 

water yield may decrease over the long term. However, a decrease in surface runoff due to increased 

ground cover may translate to improved soil retention and an increase in water infiltration and 

availability to individual plants. 

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North. 

Approximately 11,410 acres, approximately 7 percent, of the interior chaparral would be allocated in

these recommended wilderness areas. The impacts of recommending the Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area are common to all alternatives and are discussed in more detail on 

page 98. 

Portions of the Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Area recently burned, which reduced fuel loading 

and consequent fire risk, but left the area moderately departed from reference vegetation structure. 

The 2,253 acres of interior chaparral community that occurs within this recommended wilderness 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

116

likely saw a short-term increase in open conditions. The effects of recommending wilderness 

designation for the Ku Chish area would be negligible.

The effects of recommending the four areas as wilderness under the proposed action would be similar 

to those described under alternative 1 (page 100) except that fewer acres would be affected.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the interior 

chaparral would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided. In 

addition, the effects described in the “Alternative 1” section on page 100 also apply.

Interior chaparral is present in each of the recommended wilderness areas (table 36). Approximately 

23,038 acres, or 15 percent, of interior chaparral would be recommended to wilderness designation 

under alternative 1. If an interior chaparral vegetation management project is planned within a 

recommended wilderness area requiring treatment or part of a project falls across the boundary, the 

limitations on management in wilderness could impede management and the movement toward or 

attainment of interior chaparral desired conditions within these areas. 

Table 36. Acreage of interior chaparral within recommended wilderness

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of Interior 

Chaparral

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Area 511

Chiricahua Addition North 642

Chiricahua Addition West 289

Dragoon 1,623

Galiuro Addition 3,949

Jhus Canyon 1,141

Ku Chish 2,253

Mount Fagan 129

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 5,607

Mount Wrightson 700

Santa Teresa Addition North 772

Santa Teresa Addition South 658

Tumacacori 344

Whetstone 2,908

Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Area 152

Winchester 1,360

Total 23,038

Alternative 2

In addition to incorporating the direction in the revised forest plan (proposed action), alternative 2 

proposes to enlarge the area of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in comparison to the area 

specified by the proposed action and alternative 1. Approximately 2,282 acres of interior chaparral are 

present in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone specified by alternative 2. This is an increase in 

around 2,002 acres over that in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone specified by the proposed 

action and alternative 1 (table 32). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

117

Because alternative 2 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the interior 

chaparral would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided. 

Effects specific to the expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone for interior chaparral are 

identical to those discussed under “Alternative 2” on page 101. 

Madrean Encinal Woodland – Affected Environment

Madrean18 encinal woodland vegetation occurs on foothills, canyons, bajadas,19 and plateaus between 

the desert grasslands and Madrean pine-oak woodlands. This community is dominated by Madrean 

evergreen shrubs, such as Arizona white oak (Quercus arizonica), Emory oak (Quercus emoryi), gray 

oak (Quercus grisea), Mexican blue oak (Quercus oblongifolia), and Toumey oak (Quercus toumeyi). 

In addition, Chihuahuan pine (Pinus leiophylla var. chihuahuana), Arizona cypress (Hesperocyparis

arizonica), piñon (Pinus subsection cembroides), juniper (Juniperus spp.), and interior chaparral 

species may be present, but do not codominate. Ground cover is dominated by warm-season grasses, 

such as threeawns (Aristida spp.), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sideoats grama (Bouteloua

curtipendula), Rothrock grama (Bouteloua rothrockii), Arizona cottontop (Digitaria californica), 

plains lovegrass (Eragrostis intermedia), curly-mesquite (Hilaria belangeri), green sprangletop 

(Leptochloa dubia), muhly grasses (Muhlenbergia spp.), or Texas bluestem (Schizachyrium cirratum). 

This is the most abundant and widespread vegetation community, covering approximately 42 percent 

of Coronado National Forest lands. The greatest percentage of Madrean encinal woodland in the states 

of New Mexico and Arizona (19 percent) is managed by various private land owners. The Coronado 

manages the second largest (11 percent), the greatest percentage under a single management entity in 

the area (USDA FS 2009b). Although the Madrean encinal woodland is the most common vegetation 

community on the Coronado, only 10 percent of its range occurs within the United States (Schussman 

and Smith 2006), making the Coronado’s management of these encinal woodlands important.

There are more forest planning species associated with Madrean encinal woodlands than any other 

vegetation community on the Coronado. Many of these species are more typical of Mexico than the 

United States. All physical attributes (riparian, aquatic, rock, cave) have characteristic species in this 

vegetation community. Some of the many species include: jaguar (Panthera onca), New Mexico 

ridge-nosed rattlesnake (Crotalus willardi obscurus), Arizona ridge-nosed rattlesnake (Crotalus 

willardi willardi), Mexican stoneroller (Campostoma ornatum), Tarahumara frog (Lithobates 

tarahumarae), elegant trogon (Trogon elegans), Huachuca giant skipper (Aganthymus evansi), black 

bear (Ursus americanus), Arizona gray squirrel (Sciurus arizonensis), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes 

formicivorus), giant spotted whiptail (Aspidoscelis burti stictogramma), Pygmy sonorella (Sonorella 

micra), and many other talus snails, lichens, spreading marina (Marina orcuttii var. orcuttii), 

Chiricahua mock pennyroyal (Hedeoma costatum), and many vascular plants (USDA FS 2009b).

Livestock grazing, fire suppression, fuelwood harvest, and fragmentation associated with EuroAmerican settlement of the Madrean encinal woodland have pushed this vegetation community from 

its natural state to a current condition departed from desired conditions. Both overgrazing and 

fragmentation have reduced the role of fire in the Madrean encinal woodland by limiting fire spread. 

Fire suppression has led to woody species encroachment and, in some cases, a composition shift from 

encinal woodlands to mesquite and juniper woodlands. In addition to the increases in woody species 

density, intense fuelwood harvest in the late 1800s is associated with a reduction of tree size and 

productivity as well as an increase in the number of stems per tree (Schussman and Smith 2006). 

Little is known about the fire regime within the Madrean encinal woodland, but strong inferences 

suggest that historic fires would have burned more often and less severe than fires of today (USDA FS 

2009b). It is probably complex due to the intermixing of this community with the interior chaparral 

 

18 Referring to the Sierra Madre mountain range.

19 A broad slope of debris spread along the lower slopes of mountains by descending streams.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

118

and the high variability of topography, slope, and aspect. Historically, fire severity was likely variable 

with low-severity fire occurring where understory cover and open conditions allowed. High-severity 

or stand-replacing fire likely impacted this community about every century, as crown fire transitioned 

from the interior chaparral to dense stands in the Madrean encinal woodland. Based on fire return 

intervals of the surrounding communities, historical low-intensity fires probably occurred every 2.5 to 

10 years between April and June (Schussman and Smith 2006, USDA FS 2009b). Denser stands on 

north-facing slopes and in drainages probably burned less frequently. 

Vegetation mapping indicates that currently, the Madrean encinal woodland is characterized by a 

diversity of structural stages; however, there is an overabundance of the late-seral and lack of midseral closed state when compared to the desired conditions. Historically, these oak woodlands were 

dominated by open stands of oaks with denser stands occupying drainages and north-facing slopes. 

Although closed conditions (more than 30 percent canopy cover) in the mid-seral state dominate 

desired conditions, these stands likely occupied more mesic sites as described above. 

Desired conditions for the Madrean encinal woodland were derived directly from reference conditions. 

Table 37 shows the current conditions versus the desired conditions for this community. Currently, 20 

percent of this community is dominated by the grasses, forbs, and shrubs that regenerate after a standreplacing fire. Dense and open areas of regenerating overstory vegetation, namely seedlings and 

saplings 0 to 5 inches in diameter at root collar,

20 and more mature, small (5 to 10 inches diameter at 

root collar) trees, typify 13 percent of the Madrean encinal woodland. This state is classified as the 

mid-seral, open canopy, where open canopy is characterized by 10 to 30 percent canopy cover. Only 

10 percent of the Madrean encinal woodland occupies the mid-seral closed stage, where small trees 

form stands with over 30 percent canopy cover. Closed states generally have decreased grass and forb 

cover when compared to open canopy states. An open canopy of medium (10 to 20 inches diameter at 

root collar) and very large trees (more than 20 inches diameter at root collar) make up 25 percent, 

represented by the late-seral open stage. The late-seral closed stage is composed of a higher density of 

medium and very large trees to create closed canopy conditions. This stage represents 32 percent of 

the vegetation community.

Table 37. The current and desired conditions for the Madrean encinal woodland

Structural Class Current Conditions Desired Conditions

Early-seral 20% 20%

Mid-seral open 13% 25%

Mid-seral closed 10% 40%

Late-seral open 25% 15%

Late-seral closed 32% 0%

The vegetation condition class results indicate that the vegetation composition and structure of the 

Madrean encinal woodland reflects low to moderate departure (vegetation condition class 2) overall. 

A lack of open canopy and late seral conditions may be an indication of less frequent low and mixed 

severity fire. Conversely, an abundance of post fire (early-seral) structure reflects recent wildfire 

disturbance. Refer to table 30 for detailed information on vegetation condition class.

Domestic livestock grazing, at a moderate level, is a widespread use of Madrean encinal woodland on 

the Coronado. The effects of livestock grazing are discussed in more detail under the grasslands 

 

20 Tree diameters are measured at the root collar for most woodland tree species instead of at breast height as is done 

with larger trees found in forested areas. This is done since most woodland species branch lower than breast height 

or are multistemmed at the root collar. In the case of trees multistemmed at the base, these diameters are totaled 

(square root of the sum of squares) to what an equivalent single stem tree diameter would measure.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

119

section in this chapter. Livestock grazing is an extensive human-caused disturbance on the Coronado 

and is a historical use that predates establishment of the national forest. Eighty-two percent of the 

Coronado is available as designated grazing allotments. While unmanaged grazing may result in 

negative effects, literature supports that well-managed grazing at light to moderate levels can be 

benign or even beneficial to various rangeland ecosystem components and/or processes. Currently, 

stocking on the Coronado is light to moderate, which is consistent with sustaining rangeland 

ecosystems.

With the warmer and drier conditions predicted under climate change, Madrean encinal woodland 

ecosystems are susceptible to decreased plant productivity, increased insect infestation, colonization 

of invasive nonnative species, longer and more severe fire seasons, and altered frequency, intensity, 

timing, and spatial extent of disturbance events (droughts, flash floods, landslides, and wind storms; 

see appendix A in the revised forest plan).

Madrean Encinal Woodland – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, mechanical treatments would continue at a similar rate. The continuation of 

mechanical treatments poses the risk of soil compaction, scarification, erosion, and sedimentation. 

This becomes important due to the vulnerability of the thin soils within these woodlands (Borelli et al. 

1994, Ffolliott et al. 2011). However, these actions provide for the more active role of fire by reducing 

overstory density and ladder fuels and encouraging herbaceous growth, thereby allowing the spread of 

low-intensity fire. Under all alternatives, soil mitigation measures would be taken into account at the 

project level to decrease the negative effects of mechanical treatment. 

The use of unplanned and planned ignitions would continue in the Madrean encinal woodland. When 

properly managed, fire may pose less risk to soil damage and loss compared to mechanical treatments. 

Fire also improves nutrient cycling, facilitates understory cover, and promotes forge for wildlife. The 

number of acres treated using fire differs greatly between the no action and the proposed action, 

alternative 1, and alternative 2. The effects of this change will be discussed by alternative below.

A Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT) analysis was done for the Madrean encinal 

woodland community; however, the model did not accurately represent the dynamics of this 

community. Therefore, the effects of each alternative are discussed qualitatively, based on the 

scientific information available for the Madrean encinal woodland.

No Action

The no-action alternative does not hinder movement toward or attainment of desired conditions, but 

the lack of direction provided by the 1986 forest plan does not encourage proactive management. 

Under the direction of the 1986 forest plan, management has consisted of both mechanical and 

wildfire treatment of the Madrean encinal woodland. A total of approximately 208,000 acres have 

been treated in the last 24 years, equating to about 8,700 acres per year. From 2005 to 2010, wildfires 

and prescribed burning projects occurred frequently, resulting in the setback of shrub populations and 

reduction of overstory density on over 90,000 acres. Thinning and mastication projects that targeted 

manzanita during this same time reduced shrub cover and created more open structure on an additional 

20,000 acres. In terms of acres treated, managers would continue to be able to make progress in the 

Madrean encinal woodland under the 1986 plan.

From future planned actions, we assume that under the 1986 plan treatment would continue at a rate of 

about 6,700 acres per year, or a total of 67,000 acres every 10 years. When considering the treatments 

that occurred only within the period from 2005 to 2010, the number of acres treated per year increases 

drastically due to a plan amendment, which authorized the use of unplanned ignitions outside of 

wilderness. Due to the recent history of the management of unplanned ignitions, a larger number of 

acres may be treated under no action if this trend continues. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

120

Under the no-action alternative, the Madrean encinal woodland would move toward desired conditions 

through slow, incremental changes, as about only 9 percent of this vegetation community would be 

treated every 10 years. Mechanical and fire treatments would work to create and maintain open and 

closed mid-seral classes and open late-seral classes. However, without increases in treatment rates, 

movement toward desired conditions would be slow and variable, not affecting major change in the

short term.

Due to slow rates of treatment, the Madrean encinal woodland would likely exhibit continued 

overabundance of the late-seral stages and lack of mid-seral stages. When compared to the proposed 

action, a lack of wildfire treatments would result in reduced understory cover and diversity, which 

equates to a decrease in forage production and browse (Ffolliott et al. 2011), in addition to reduced 

ability to carry low-intensity surface fire. The reduced occurrence of fire would allow denser midstory 

conditions to develop, restricting growing space and inhibiting individual tree health and vigor, and 

decreasing tree and woodland resiliency to insect and disease outbreak. Under climate change, 

growing space (i.e., decreased water, nutrient, and sunlight availability) becomes more important as 

competition for water becomes a driving factor in the ability of this system to overcome the 

disturbances associated with a changing climate.

The reduced number of planned ignitions under the no-action alternative compared to the proposed 

action would likely diminish the role of surface fire across the landscape, barring unplanned ignitions. 

Less fire on the landscape would reduce nutrient cycling and aid the encroachment of woody 

vegetation. The increased presence of shrubs and other woody vegetation may have a detrimental 

effect to habitat quality for wildlife species.

Proposed Action

The proposed action defines desired conditions based on reference conditions for the Madrean encinal 

woodland and provides management objectives and guidelines as a framework for implementing sitespecific projects to achieve these conditions. These forest plan components allow for better informed 

management decisions and provide a basis for monitoring the effectiveness of treatments. 

Furthermore, these forest plan components would guide management to treat more of the Madrean 

encinal woodlands than would be expected under the no-action alternative. Through an increase of 

wildfire treatments, the revised forest plan would treat 367,000 acres every 10 years compared to the 

67,000 acres expected under the no-action alternative. This represents almost a 40 percent increase 

when compared to the no-action alternative. 

The increased use of fire would promote understory grasses and forbs, increasing browse and forage 

for both domestic livestock and wildlife species. By providing a continuous fuel source for the spread 

of low-intensity fire, the increase in understory cover would also encourage the restoration of 

characteristic, low-intensity fire to the system. The more open conditions and an increase in treatment 

would result in enhancement of the availability of growing space (water, nutrient, and sunlight 

availability), reducing individual tree competition for water and nutrients. As a result, tree health, 

vigor, and resiliency to natural disturbances and to the environmental stress associated with climate 

change would be improved. 

Mixed-severity fire would also play a role in mesic sites, recruiting mid-seral structural classes. Open 

states would likely recruit or maintain open states, while closed states would recruit closed states. For 

example, mixed-severity fire affecting the late-seral closed state would likely increase the early seral 

in the short term and develop into mid-seral closed through resprouting. A similar pattern would occur 

where higher severity fire affects the late and mid-seral open states; fires burning at lower intensities 

would likely maintain the open structural class. 

The increased use of fire would also arrest the encroachment of shrubs and other woody species, 

slowing the shift from oak dominated woodlands to mesquite or juniper-dominated woodlands and 

providing for improved habitat quality and availability for some wildlife species (Ffolliott et al. 2011). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

121

However, due to the sprouting of oak species, increased fire in this community may increase the 

number of stems per tree, while reducing overall cover (Pavek 1994a and 1994b). 

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and the Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North 

Recommended Wilderness Areas. Approximately 48,145 acres, or approximately 6 percent, of the 

Madrean encinal woodland communities would be allocated in these recommended wilderness areas. 

Recommendation of Madrean encinal woodland across 13,472 acres of the Mount Graham, and 

16,817 acres of the Ku Chish recommended wilderness areas is common to all alternatives and is 

discussed in more detail on page 53. Madrean encinal woodlands occur across 12,894 acres of the 

Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Area and 4,962 acres of the Chiricahua Addition North 

Recommended Wilderness Area. Due to the large amount of the Madrean encinal woodland across the 

areas, future treatments to maintain desired conditions may be limited by recommending this area. 

The effects of recommending the four areas as wilderness under the proposed action would be similar 

to those described under alternative 1 (page 100 and below) except that fewer acres would be affected.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the Madrean 

encinal woodland community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and 

objectives provided. Alternative 1 proposes 16 land parcels be managed for wilderness character. The 

Madrean encinal woodland is present in each of the recommended wilderness areas. Approximately 

130,326 acres, or about 17 percent, of the Madrean encinal woodland would be recommended for 

wilderness designation under alternative 1. Table 38 displays the acres of Madrean encinal woodland 

in each recommended area. 

Recommendation of the Ku Chish and Mount Graham areas for wilderness designation would result in 

identical effects when compared to the proposed action, as each would be recommended as part of the 

revised forest plan. See page 98 for a more information regarding the recommendation of the Mount 

Graham Recommended Wilderness Area and a discussion of wilderness management. Refer to 

“Proposed Action” and “Alternative 1” sections on page 99 and 100 for more information regarding 

the Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Area. 

The remaining recommended areas account for about 100,037 acres, or 13 percent, of Madrean 

encinal woodland. Refer to “Alternative 1” on page 100 for a discussion of effects related to each 

recommended area. If a Madrean encinal woodland vegetation management project is planned within 

a recommended wilderness area requiring treatment or part of a project falls across the boundary, the 

limitations on management in wilderness could impede management and the movement toward or 

attainment of desired conditions within these areas.

Alternative 2

Because alternative 2 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the Madrean 

encinal woodland community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and 

objectives provided. See the “Proposed Action” section of the “Madrean Encinal Woodland 

Community” section on page 120 for a more detailed discussion of these effects. Effects specific to 

the expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone for the Madrean encinal community are 

similar to those discussed under “Alternative 2” on page 101. 

Approximately 14,853 acres of Madrean encinal woodland is present in the area proposed for the 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone under alternative 2. This is an increase in 13,900 acres over the 

area of Madrean encinal woodlands specified in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone by the 

proposed action and alternative 1 (table 32). Although the land use zone expansion encompasses a 

large area, the increase accounts for less than 2 percent of the Madrean encinal woodland. The effect 

of alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed action.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

122

Table 38. Acreage of Madrean encinal woodland within recommended 

wilderness

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of Madrean Encinal 

Woodland

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Area 11,619

Chiricahua Addition North 4,962

Chiricahua Addition West 1,847

Dragoon 8,815

Galiuro Addition 7,799

Jhus Canyon 5,585

Ku Chish 16,817

Mount Fagan 2,408

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 13,472

Mount Wrightson 9,637

Santa Teresa Addition North 1,581

Santa Teresa Addition South 1,731

Tumacacori 17,521

Whetstone 12,894

Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Area 9,674

Winchester 3,964

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland – Affected Environment

Madrean pine-oak woodland covers approximately 8 percent of the national forest and is slightly more 

abundant on the Coronado than in the surrounding landscape (USDA FS 2009b). This vegetation 

community is dominated by an open to closed canopy of evergreen shrubs, such as Arizona white oak 

(Quercus arizonica), alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana), Chihuahua pine (Pinus leiophylla), 

various other pines, and a grassy understory. 

Madrean pine-oak woodlands usually occupy foothills and mountains ranging from approximately 

4,000 to 7,000 feet in elevation. Climate generally consists of mild winters and wet summers, with 

mean annual precipitation ranging from about 10 to 25 inches. Half of the precipitation typically 

occurs in summer, with the remainder occurring during the winter and spring (USDA FS 2009b).

The literature often combines this habitat with Madrean encinal woodland, cumulatively referring to 

them as Madrean evergreen woodland; it is difficult to separate species associations between the two, 

and many species occur in both (USDA FS 2009b). Generally, the presence of Chihuahua pine and 

other Madrean pines and the higher elevation Madrean oaks, such as silverleaf oak and netleaf oak, 

determine the Madrean pine-oak woodland. The oaks common to both communities are generally 

larger tree-form in the pine-oak woodlands instead of shrub-form as in the encinal woodlands (except 

in productive terrace sites such as Gardner Canyon). 

For the wildlife community, the assumption is that Madrean species requiring grassy openings are 

present in Madrean oak (encinal) woodlands, but not in Madrean pine-oak woodlands. The Madrean 

pine-oak woodland is a biologically diverse ecosystem, especially for invertebrates and plants, 

associated with all physical attributes (rock, cave, terrestrial, aquatic). The Madrean pine-oak 

woodland is included in Conservation International’s list of global conservation hotspots (Mittermeier 

et al. 2004). Forest planning species typical of this vegetation community include Chiricahua fox 

squirrel (Sciurus nayaritensis chiricahuae), many land snails, lichen grasshopper (in rocky areas) 

(Trimerotropis saxatilis), some notothenid moths, Patagonia eyed silkmoth (Automeris patagoniensis), 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

123

Catalina beardtongue in rocky areas (Penstemon distans), Huachuca mountain lupine (Lupinus 

huachucanus), Pinaleño Mountains rubberweed (Hymenoxys ambigens), and purple-spike coralroot 

(Hexalectris warnockii) (USDA FS 2009b).

Fire suppression associated with Euro-American settlement of the Madrean pine-oak woodland has 

pushed this vegetation community from its natural state to a current condition departed from desired 

conditions. Livestock grazing likely played a role in passive fire suppression in the Madrean pine-oak 

woodland by limiting fire spread. The reduction of fire as a natural process in this vegetation 

community has led to the increasing densities of pine, oak, and other associated species. Furthermore, 

the subsequent increase in uncharacteristic, high-intensity fire has skewed the species composition 

from a community dominated by pine to one dominated by oak. Structural changes within the 

community have reduced understory cover, further diminishing the role of characteristic surface fire 

(Schussman and Smith 2006). 

Fire, insects, and drought are the primary natural disturbances associated with the Madrean pine-oak 

woodland. Domestic livestock grazing at light to moderate levels continues in the Madrean pine-oak 

woodlands as well. The historical role of insects as disturbance agents in the vegetation community is 

poorly known, but bark beetles were probably significant disturbance agents in pine species. Recently, 

Chihuahua pine has been impacted by nonnative bark beetle species that are experiencing northward 

range expansion (Moser et al. 2005). Historically, fires may have burned with higher frequency and at 

lower severity, than they do today (USDA FS 2009b). These historical fires likely occurred every 3 to 

9 years in early spring and summer (Schussman and Smith 2006). 

Vegetation mapping indicates current conditions within the Madrean pine-oak woodland are 

characterized by an increase in overstory density and a decrease in herbaceous cover. Table 39

displays the current disparity between the current and desired conditions; desired conditions for this 

vegetation community mirror the reference conditions. There is an overabundance of Madrean pineoak woodland in structural stages that lack an understory component. Conversely, structural stages 

with understory components are not well represented. The lack of resprouter-dominated acres 

represented under current conditions may be due to the lack of fire in the Madrean pine-oak 

woodland; however, mapping may not have distinguished between the early-seral and resprouterdominated classes.

Table 39. The current and desired (reference) conditions in the Madrean pine-oak woodland

Structural Class* Current Conditions Desired Conditions

Early-seral 11% 4%

Resprouter dominated 0% 5%

Young pine-oak without understory 11% 3%

Young pine-oak with understory 5% 24%

Old pine-oak with understory 10% 60%

Old pine-oak without understory 63% 4%

* The early seral stage is characterized by grasses, seedlings, and saplings with low canopy cover of 0 to 9 percent. 

Structural stages without understory are characterized by 60 to 100 percent canopy cover, whereas those with 

understory have a reduced canopy cover of 10 to 59 percent. Canopy cover within the resprouter-dominated stage is 

variable, ranging from 30 to 100 percent.

The vegetation condition class analysis indicates Madrean pine-oak woodland is moderately departed 

(vegetation condition class 2). There is a surplus of closed canopy structure and deficit of open canopy 

relative to the reference conditions. This is likely due to a reduction in the frequency of low-severity 

fire, which historically maintained the open structure (Schussman and Gori 2006, USDA FS 2009). 

The relative amount of early seral structure varies across the Coronado with the highest proportions in 

the recent burned areas. There is a varying amount of uncharacteristic conditions across the national 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

124

forest, in part due to limitations of the mapping and model. Refer to table 30 for detailed vegetation 

condition class information for the Madrean pine-oak woodland.

With warmer and drier climate conditions predicted under climate change, Madrean pine-oak 

woodland ecosystems are susceptible to decreased plant productivity, increased insect attacks, 

colonization of invasive species, longer and more severe fire seasons, and altered frequency, intensity, 

timing, and spatial extent of disturbance events (droughts, flash floods, landslides, and wind storms; 

see appendix A in the revised forest plan).

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodland – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Because wildfire has been used to treat the surrounding communities with no action and would 

continue to be used as part of the revised forest plan, wildfire as a treatment in the Madrean pine-oak 

woodland is common to all alternatives. By reducing fuel loading and creating more open conditions, 

fire would alter vegetation and fuel structure, bringing the Madrean pine-oak woodland more in line 

with desired conditions. Fire would also promote nutrient cycling, increasing soil fertility, and plant 

productivity. Due to the removal of vegetation, fire may increase erosion and sedimentation in the 

short term. Fire also has the potential to create hydrophobic soils within high-severity areas, reducing 

water infiltration, which may consequently impede germination. 

Under all alternatives, conditions in the Madrean pine-oak would remain departed from desired 

structure. This departure is characterized by increased tree density and diminished understory cover as 

compared to desired conditions. The degree to which the effects of continued closed structure 

represent the Madrean pine-oak community vary under each alternative.

No Action

Under the direction of the1986 forest plan, vegetation treatments within the Madrean pine-oak 

woodland would continue as part of management of various other plant communities including 

interior chaparral, Madrean encinal woodland, and ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub communities. 

Under the direction of the 1986 forest plan, 250-year predictions from the 2009 ecological 

sustainability report indicate that current management would increase old pine-oak woodland without 

understory and decrease young and old pine-oak with understory to a very small percentage of the 

community. Young pine-oak without understory is expected to trend toward desired conditions; yet 

significant departure from desired conditions is expected to continue under current management 

(USDA FS 2009b). Although Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT) modeling was not 

completed under the no-action alternative for the Madrean pine-oak woodland, current conditions are 

74 percent departed from desired conditions.

Under the no-action alternative, departure from desired conditions is expected to continue. As 

departure from desired conditions is characterized by increases in overstory density and decreases in 

herbaceous cover (USDA FS 2009b), the no-action alternative will be analyzed under these 

conditions.

The dense conditions and lack of understory expected under the no-action alternative would result in 

diminished grass and forb species within the Madrean pine-oak woodland, correlating to a lack of 

forage for livestock and wildlife species. A continued reduction in herbaceous cover would further 

diminish the role of characteristic fire, further encouraging closed canopy conditions, and diminishing 

natural nutrient cycling. The promotion of closed canopy conditions would increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic high-severity fire, favoring oak and other resprouting species (Schussman and Smith 

2006). 

The restricted growing space associated with denser conditions (less water, nutrient, and light 

availability) would adversely impact individual health and vigor, decreasing tree and woodland 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

125

resiliency to insect and disease outbreak. This would especially impact pine species by increasing 

susceptibility to bark beetle attack. Under climate change, growing space would become more 

important as competition for water becomes a driving factor in the ability of system to overcome the 

disturbances associated with a changing climate.

Proposed Action

The proposed action defines desired conditions based on reference conditions for the Madrean pineoak woodland and provides management objectives and guidelines as a framework for carrying out 

site-specific projects and activities to achieve desired conditions. These forest plan components allow 

for better informed management decisions and provide a basis for monitoring the effectiveness of 

treatments. Furthermore, these forest plan components would guide management to treat the Madrean 

pine-oak woodlands through planned and unplanned ignitions and mechanical treatments on 25,000 

acres every 10 years to maintain species diversity and appropriate diversity of canopy closure. This 

would result in conditions for more acres of old pine and oak individuals with understory. Not 

addressing the Madrean pine-oak woodland limits our understanding of how much of this community 

has been treated under the 1986 forest plan. Without this information, we assume the revised forest 

plan would increase management to move the Madrean pine-oak woodland toward desired conditions. 

In addition, the revised forest plan would include desired conditions for coarse-woody-debris, snag, 

and large tree components that are important wildlife habitat features. 

The proposed action would result in less departure from desired condition vegetation fuels and 

disturbance regimes over the 20-year modeling period. Overall departure from desired conditions is 

expected to decrease to 55 percent as increases in the use of mechanical and fire treatments would 

reduce tree densities and increase the structural classes with understory cover (table 40). 

Table 40. The 20-year projected change in structural class under the proposed action based on 

VDDT modeling results1

Structural Class2 Current Conditions Proposed Action

Desired 

Conditions

Early-seral 9% 11% 4%

Resprouter dominated 0% 6% 5%

Young pine-oak without understory 12% 8% 3%

Young pine-oak with understory 5% 3% 24%

Old pine-oak with understory 10% 26% 60%

Old pine-oak without understory 64% 46% 4%

Departure3 74% 55% 0%

1. Projected percentages for the no-action alternative are meant to provide information on the relative distribution of 

structural classes and trend toward or away from desired conditions. These numbers are not to be interpreted as 

definite projections for the future.

2. The early seral stage is characterized by grasses, seedlings, and saplings with low canopy cover of 0 to 9 percent. 

Structural stages without understory are characterized by 60 to 100 percent canopy cover, whereas those with 

understory have a reduced canopy cover of 10 to 59 percent. Canopy cover within the resprouter-dominated stage is 

variable, ranging from 30 to 100 percent.

3. Departure is the collective divergence of seral stage percentages, on a scale of 1 to 100, from the desired condition 

percentages. 

While management under the no-action alternative may make some progress toward desired 

conditions, direction from the revised forest plan would result in stronger movement toward desired 

conditions. The revised forest plan’s emphasis on mastication and fire treatments is key, as Vegetation 

Dynamics Development Tool modeling outputs highlight the importance of utilizing both mechanical 

and planned fire ignition treatments to move the Madrean pine-oak community toward desired 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

126

conditions (USDA FS 2009g). Because desired conditions are characterized by increases in understory 

cover and decreases in tree density and canopy cover (USDA FS 2009b, Schussman and Smith 2006), 

the effects analysis will focus on these attributes.

The more open conditions that would result from management under the revised forest plan would 

increase the presence of the understory component. The promotion of understory cover would increase 

forage for livestock and wildlife species and encourage the return of characteristic fire to the system. 

Further promotion of fire as a management tool would maintain more open conditions and improve 

nutrient cycling. 

Reductions in overstory density would release growing space, corresponding to an increase in 

available water, nutrients, and sunlight. This would improve individual health and vigor, positively 

impacting the Madrean pine-oak woodland as a whole by improving resiliency to natural disturbances 

and those uncharacteristic disturbances associated with climate change.

Mechanical treatments associated with the proposed action could increase the risk of soil compaction, 

scarification, erosion, and sedimentation. Yet, the benefits of mechanical treatment may outweigh the 

negative soil impacts by encouraging the return of characteristic fire to this community. Mitigation 

measures to protect the soil resource should be implemented at the project level. 

After the 20-year modeling period, acres of large and old trees, large snag density, and the amount of 

surface fuels would trend toward desired conditions. See table 41 for a comparison of these metrics. 

Reductions in surface fuels would encourage lower fire intensities that are characteristic in the 

Madrean pine-oak woodland.

Table 41. The 20-year projected change in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel abundance 

under the proposed action for Madrean pine-oak woodland

Condition or Alternative

Late Seral Stages Averaged Across All Seral Stages

Acres of 

Large/Old Trees

No. Snags 

(>18 in. 

d.b.h./acre)

Surface Fuels (tons/acre)

≤3 in.

>3 and 

≤12 in. >12 in. Total

Current Conditions 103,388 1.1 3.8 4.5 2.4 10.7

Proposed Action 101,971 1.0 3.1 3.6 2.0 8.6

Desired Conditions 90,641 0.9 range from 1-5

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North. 

Approximately 14,964 acres, or approximately 10 percent, of the Madrean pine-oak woodland would 

be allocated within these recommended wilderness areas. Madrean pine-oak woodland occurs on 

2,942 acres of the Ku Chish, and 10,095 acres of the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness 

Areas, resulting in effects common to all alternatives. This vegetation community also occurs across 

1,425 acres of the Whetstone and 502 acres of the Chiricahua Addition North Recommended 

Wilderness Areas. Although wilderness management is more complex and restrictive than 

nonwilderness (see page 98), due to the limited acreage and reduction of fuel loading within this area, 

the immediate effects to the Madrean pine-oak woodland of recommending wilderness designation 

would be negligible. The effects of recommending the four areas as wilderness under the proposed 

action would be similar to those described under alternative 1 (page 100 and below) except that fewer 

acres would be affected.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the Madrean pineoak woodland community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

127

objectives provided. Alternative 1 proposes 16 land parcels be managed as recommended wilderness. 

The Madrean pine-oak communities are present in each of the recommended wilderness areas. 

Approximately 25,448 acres, or 18 percent, of the Madrean pine-oak woodland would be 

recommended for wilderness designation under alternative 1. The recommendation of the Ku Chish 

and Mount Graham areas would result in identical effects when compared to the proposed action, as 

each would be recommended as part of the revised forest plan. See page 97 for more information 

regarding recommendation of the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area and a discussion of 

wilderness management. Refer to the “Proposed Action” section on page 99 for more information 

regarding the Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Area.

The remaining acres of Madrean pine-oak woodland included under alternative 1 are represented in 

table 42. 

Table 42. Acreage of Madrean pine-oak woodland within recommended 

wilderness

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of Madrean PineOak Woodland

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Area 25

Chiricahua Addition North 502

Chiricahua Addition West 415

Dragoon 735

Galiuro Addition 4,104

Jhus Canyon 2,101

Ku Chish 2,942

Mount Fagan 4

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 10,095

Mount Wrightson 1,269

Santa Teresa Addition North 551

Santa Teresa Addition South 367

Tumacacori 245

Whetstone 1,425

Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Area 110

Winchester 558

Refer to the “Alternative 1” section on page 100 for a discussion of effects related to each 

recommended area. If a Madrean pine-oak woodland vegetation management project is planned within 

a recommended wilderness area requiring treatment or part of a project falls across the boundary, the 

limitations in wilderness could impede management and the movement toward or attainment of 

desired conditions within these areas.

Alternative 2

Because alternative 2 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the Madrean pineoak woodland community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and 

objectives provided. See the “Madrean Pine-Oak Community, Environmental Consequences Common 

to All Alternatives” section for a more detailed discussion of these effects. Effects specific the 

expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone for the Madrean pine-oak woodland are 

similar to those discussed under “Alternative 2” on page 101. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

128

Approximately 627 acres of Madrean pine-oak woodland would be included in this expanded 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone, compared to 59 acres of this vegetation community in the 

proposed action and alternative 1 (table 32). Although this community would be impacted by new 

roads and trails, the expanded Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone also concentrates the negative 

impacts of motorized travel. Due to the limited acreage (less than 1 percent) and potential for the 

protection of the greater Madrean pine-oak community, alternative 2 would result in similar impacts 

when compared to the proposed action.

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Shrub – Affected Environment

Ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forests comprise about 3 percent of the Coronado, generally 

occurring at elevations ranging from 5,000 to 10,000 feet. The community is dominated by ponderosa 

pine and Arizona pine (Pinus ponderosa and Pinus arizonica, respectively), which distinguishes it 

from the Madrean pine-oak woodlands. Ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub has two subclasses: one with 

a continuous layer of perennial grasses and a relatively minor shrub component and one with an 

understory of primarily evergreen shrubs, including manzanita, turbinella oak, sumac, and mountain 

mahogany. 

On the Coronado, there are few pure, large stands of ponderosa and Arizona pine. Stands are mostly 

transitional between other communities or occur in small patches. However, a surprising number of 

species are typical of, or find optimal habitat in, this habitat type. Most of them are plants. Forest 

planning species include northern (Apache) goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Slevin’s bunchgrass lizard 

(in open, grassy stands) (Sceloporus slevini), Arizona gray squirrel, Lemmon’s beggar-tick (Bidens

lemmonii), Mexican hemlock-parsley (Conopholis alpina var. mexicana), giant-trumpet (Macromeria

viridiflora), Chiricahua mountains larkspur (Delphinium andesicola), Chiricahua gentian (Gentianella 

wislizeni), and many other plants, plus Arizona mantleslug (Pallifera pilsbyri), Pinaleño mountain 

snail (in rocks) (Oreohelix grahamensis), and heart vertigo snail (Vertigo hinkleyi).

The reference condition of overstory vegetation differs from the current condition. Livestock grazing, 

logging, and fire suppression practices that arose from Euro-American settlement of the Southwest, 

created overly dense conditions in the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest of today (Covington and 

Moore 1994). These factors have pushed this vegetation community from its natural state to a current 

condition departed from reference conditions. The reduced competition from understory species due to 

heavy grazing increased successful seedling germination. Both overgrazing and fragmentation have 

reduced the role of fire in the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub by limiting fire spread. Fire suppression 

has led to increases in tree density, whereas selective logging reduced the prominence of large old 

trees within this vegetation community (Schussman and Smith 2006). 

Fire, insects, dwarf mistletoe, and drought are the primary natural disturbances in ponderosa pineevergreen shrub forests on the Coronado. Historically, fires burned with higher frequency and at lower 

severity than they do today (USDA FS 2009b). Higher severity fire may have occurred on a fine scale 

as individual trees and small patches experienced crown fire due to the localized buildup of ladder 

fuels (Schussman and Smith 2006). Within the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub subclass dominated by 

understory shrubs, greater vertical continuity due to the robust shrub component generally results in 

mixed severity fire characteristics as compared to the low severity fire characteristic of grass 

dominated understory subclass. The historical fire return interval in the ponderosa pine-evergreen 

shrub forest ranges from 2 to 17 years. Historically, fires burned over large tracts of land, maintaining 

the open structure of the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub and surrounding communities (Schussman 

and Smith 2006).

Vegetation mapping results indicate current conditions within the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub 

community are characterized by an abundance of closed structural classes when compared to the 

desired conditions. Table 43 indicates the disparity between current conditions and desired conditions 

for the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest. The structural classes are more evenly distributed in 

both open states the desired conditions, whereas currently, the majority of the ponderosa pine-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

129

evergreen shrub forest is in the closed old pine with grass state. Based on mapping, departure for this 

community is 77 percent.

Desired conditions accurately reflect the reference conditions for this community with the exception 

of the wildland-urban interface, where desired conditions call for more open horizontal structure to 

better manage fire in these areas. Desired conditions were adapted from the reference conditions 

defined in the 2009 ecological sustainability report to better represent the shrub component (USDA FS 

2009b); therefore, the desired conditions outlined in table 43 may be more representative of the shrub 

subclass than the grass subclass within the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest community, which 

is appropriate given their prevalence on the Coronado

Table 43. The distribution of structural classes in ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub for both current 

and desired conditions

Structural Class Current Conditions Desired Conditions

Early-seral 7% 4%

Resprouter dominated 0% 5%

Young with grass, moderate cover 4% 24%

Young with grass, closed 7% 3%

Old with grass, moderate cover 7% 60%

Old with grass, closed 75% 4%

The vegetation condition class analysis indicates the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community is 

highly departed (vegetation condition class 3) across the Coronado. The historically dominant lateseral open structure makes up only 5 percent or less of the vegetation. Departure is also reflected by 

the increased proportions of early-seral and mid-development structure reflected in areas with large 

fire disturbance of over the last couple of decades. Other areas on the Coronado contribute to the 

overall departure with an abundance of late seral closed structure. Conflictingly, these areas have 

experienced recent wildfires—Clark Peak in 1996 and Nuttall Complex in 2004—however, a majority 

of the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub affected was either unburned or burned at low severity. 

Detailed information on vegetation condition class for the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community 

can be found in table 30.

With warmer and drier climate conditions, ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub ecosystems are susceptible 

to decreased plant productivity, increased insect attacks, colonization of invasive species, longer and 

more severe fire seasons, and altered frequency, intensity, timing, and spatial extent of disturbance 

events (droughts, flash floods, landslides, and wind storms; see appendix A in the revised forest plan). 

High-risk occurrences include uncharacteristically intense wildfire, increased rate of insect or disease 

attack due to warming temperatures, and increasing challenges to regeneration of ponderosa pine, 

especially on warmer, drier areas such as south-facing slopes.

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Shrub – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wildland fire and prescribed cutting would continue to be used to treat the ponderosa pine-evergreen 

shrub community. By reducing fuel loading and creating more open conditions in some areas, fire and 

prescribed cutting would alter vegetation and fuel structure, bringing the ponderosa pine-evergreen 

shrub community more in line with desired conditions (Reynolds et al. 2013). Fire would also promote 

nutrient cycling, increasing soil fertility and plant productivity. Due to the removal of vegetation, fire 

may increase erosion and sedimentation in the short term. Fire also has the potential to create 

hydrophobic soils within high-severity areas, reducing water infiltration, which may consequently 

impede germination. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

130

Under all alternatives, conditions in the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community would remain 

departed from desired structure. This departure is characterized by increased tree density, fuel loading, 

and diminished understory cover as compared to desired conditions. Although no alternative achieves 

the desired condition, all alternatives move the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community toward 

desired conditions. The differences among the alternatives are shown through the Vegetation 

Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT) departure statistics. The degree to which the effects of 

continued closed forest structure represent the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community also varies 

with each alternative.

No Action

The guidance provided for the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community is not wholly applicable 

nor are the desired habitat conditions always attainable. The 1986 forest plan describes this 

community as the transition coniferous forests, but vegetation management direction is discussed in 

the context of Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat needs in ponderosa pine forests. 

However, the greater ponderosa pine forest community for which Mexican spotted owl and goshawk 

habitat requirements were developed, lacks the evergreen shrub component that is integral to the 

ponderosa pine on the Coronado. Old-growth conditions within this vegetation community are 

discussed in more detail under the “No Action” section on page 98.

Under the 1986 forest plan, treatments in this vegetation community have consisted of planned and 

unplanned ignitions. Based on planned future actions, we assume that under the 1986 plan, the 

ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community would be treated at a rate of about 1,000 acres per year, 

or a total of 10,000 acres every 10 years.

Continued management under the direction of the 1986 plan would lead to less departure from desired 

condition vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes during the 5-year modeling period compared to 

the current conditions. Structural classes would trend toward desired conditions for all but the earlyseral and young closed states. Table 44 shows the changes expected under the no-action alternative. 

Although management under the no-action alternative would trend the ponderosa pine-evergreen 

shrub forest toward desired conditions, dense conditions would continue to prevail. Model projections 

suggest that the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community would remain 60 percent departed from 

desired conditions.

Table 44. Projected structural class changes under the no action (5-year) alternative and the 

proposed action (10-year) for ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub based on VDDT modeling results*

(USDA FS 2009b)

Structural Class

Current 

Conditions No Action

Proposed 

Action

Desired 

Conditions

Early seral 7% 8% 5% 4%

Resprouter dominated 0% 3% 2% 5%

Young with grass, moderate cover 4% 12% 6% 24%

Young with grass, closed 7% 32% 6% 3%

Old with grass, moderate cover 7% 14% 35% 60%

Old with grass, closed 75% 31% 46% 4%

Departure 77% 60% 46% 0%

* Projected percentages for the no-action alternative are meant to provide information on the relative distribution of 

structural classes and trend toward or away from desired conditions. These numbers are not to be interpreted as 

definite projections for the future.

The effect of the 2011 fire season on departure would likely be no change or a slight decrease due to 

minimal increases in the open structure and understory and shrub component. However, due to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

131

limited area affected by fire, these structural changes would not likely impact the overall departure 

under the no-action alternative.

The continued abundance of closed conditions correlates to a decrease in the overall health of the 

ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest. High tree density would result in the diminished presence of 

the shrub component in the shrub dominated subclass and a decrease in understory cover and richness 

(Laughlin et al. 2004) in the perennial grass/shrub subclass. Diminished understory cover, especially 

the herbaceous component, would impact wildlife species associated with this vegetation community, 

including the northern goshawk. Furthermore, this diminished understory component would limit the 

role of characteristic fire by limiting its natural spread.

Dense conditions may transition to an increased risk of uncharacteristic, high-intensity fire through the 

promotion of fuel accumulation and continuity. The impacts of high-severity fire on this system would 

include soil damage, loss of habitat, and higher risk of conversion to an uncharacteristic 

shrubland/grassland state. The increased risk of high-intensity fire is especially important in the 

wildland-urban interface, where threats to human life and property are high.

Dense conditions promote the spread and intensification of southwest dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthonbium 

vaginatum) and increase the risk of outbreaks by native and range expanding bark beetles. Dense 

conditions also reduce growing space and the availability of nutrients, water, and sunlight to 

individual plants, thereby decreasing individual health and vigor, which translates to the greater 

ecosystem. A reduction in the resiliency of the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest that would 

result would decrease the ability of this vegetation community to recover from increased water stress, 

insect and disease attack, and uncharacteristic fire events that are expected under a changing climate.

After the 5-year modeling period, acres of large and old trees, large snag density, and the amount of 

surface fuels under the no-action alternative would not trend toward desired conditions as strongly as 

the proposed action. See table 45 for a comparison of these metrics by alternative. Decreases in 

surface fuels expected under the no-action alternative would promote lower intensity fire and reduce 

the negative fire impacts to the soil resource. A loss of large and old trees compared to the desired 

conditions would negatively impact forest structure and wildlife habitat.

Table 45. The projected change in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel abundance under the 

no-action alternative (5-year) and the proposed action (10-year) for ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub

Condition or 

Alternative

Late Seral 

Stages Averaged across all Seral Stages

Acres of 

Large/Old Trees

No. Snags 

(>18 in. 

d.b.h./acr

e)

Surface Fuels (tons/acre)

≤3 in.

>3 and 

≤12 in. >12 in. Total

Current Conditions 32,369 1.6 2.0 5.5 3.4 10.9

No Action 17,763 1.5 1.7 4.3 2.6 8.6

Proposed Action 31,974 1.7 1.6 4.2 2.7 8.5

Desired Conditions 25,263 1.0 to 2.0 3.0 to 

10.0

3.0 to 

10.0

3.0 to 

10.0

9.0 to 

30.0

Proposed Action

The proposed action defines desired conditions based on reference conditions for the ponderosa pineevergreen shrub community and provides management objectives and guidelines as a framework for 

implementing site-specific projects to achieve the desired conditions. Included is a desired condition 

for this community at the wildland-urban interface, specifying smaller, more widely spaced groups of 

trees than in areas outside the wildland-urban interface to promote low intensity surface fires when 

fire does occur. Furthermore, community-specific objectives would guide management to treat the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

132

ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest through planned and unplanned ignitions and mechanical 

treatments on 12,500 acres every 10 years to maintain species diversity and an appropriate diversity of 

open conditions and structural classes (Reynolds et al. 2013). 

Under the direction of the revised forest plan, management would move this vegetation community 

toward desired conditions for all structural classes. Table 45 shows the changes expected by each 

structural stage. Although moderate canopy cover classes would remain well below and the old-closed 

state would continue to surpass the desired conditions, substantial progress toward desired levels 

would be made. Stand characteristics would trend from closed canopy to moderately closed. Based on 

the VDDT modeling, departure from desired condition vegetation structure the 10-year modeling 

period would improve from a 77 to 46 percent departure. 

Although dense conditions would continue, the effects discussed under the “No Action” section on 

page 130 would be diminished for the proposed action. The proposed action makes considerable 

headway in the progress toward desired conditions, characterized by movement toward more open 

conditions. This would result in the improved overall health of the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub 

community. The reduced density of overstory species would promote the shrub and herbaceous 

components of the understory community, furthering the restoration of characteristic fire to the 

ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community. Moreover, a reduction of overstory density and 

development of uneven-aged forest structure would promote lower intensity characteristic fire and 

reduce vulnerability to bark beetle outbreaks.

An increase in the shrub and herbaceous components may positively impact the heterogeneity of the 

vertical structure, improving wildlife habitat quality. Due to the reduction of canopy closure that is a 

desired condition in the wildland-urban interface, fire intensity in these areas with high, human values 

would be reduced to a level that supports management of lower intensity fire conditions for the 

protection of human life and property. 

Mechanical treatments associated with the proposed action could increase the risk of soil compaction, 

scarification, erosion, and sedimentation. Yet, the benefits of mechanical treatment may outweigh the 

negative soil impacts by encouraging the return of characteristic fire and improving the overall health 

of this community. Mitigation measures to protect the soil resource should be implemented at the 

project level. 

More open conditions would also improve the availability of water, nutrients, and sunlight to 

individual plants, enhancing health, vigor, and resiliency within the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub 

forest community as a whole. Increased resiliency would translate to the improved response to natural 

disturbances such as insect and disease attack and to exacerbated disturbances from climate change. 

The availability of growing space (i.e., more water, nutrient, and light availability) would also 

improve the growth of residual trees, encouraging larger trees that are a more prominent component in 

both the reference and desired conditions of the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest. The reduction 

of canopy cover may also increase water yield from the system.

In terms of old-growth conditions within the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest, the revised forest 

plan supports development and maintenance of large trees, multistoried structure, snags, and downed 

woody debris as integrated components of an uneven-aged forest. Old-growth components would 

occur as individual or groups of old, declining, and dead trees and woody debris well distributed 

throughout the vegetation community. The location of old growth would shift on the landscape over 

time as a result of tree growth and mortality. The appropriate treatment of old growth in the revised 

forest plan would encourage consistent interpretation of this important component at the project level 

and do more to move the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community toward desired conditions for 

old growth occurrence and function. After the 10-year modeling period, acres of large and old trees, 

large snag density, and the amount of surface fuels under the proposed action would trend more

strongly toward desired conditions when compared to the no-action alternative. See table 45 for a 

comparison of these metrics by alternative. Decreases in surface fuels would promote lower intensity 

fire and reduce the negative fire impacts to the soil resource.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

133

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North. 

Approximately 22,970 acres, or 59 percent, of the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest would be 

allocated within the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area; no acres of this vegetation 

community would be represented in the Ku Chish or Whetstone areas (see page 97). Only 1 acre of 

ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub occurs in the Chiricahua Addition North area, therefore effects in this 

area would be negligible. Therefore, the effects of recommending the four areas as wilderness under 

the proposed action, and total acres of ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub affected, would be the same as

those described under alternative 1 (page 100 and below) and alternative 2.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the ponderosa 

pine-evergreen shrub community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and 

objectives provided. Alternative 1 proposes that 16 land parcels be recommended for wilderness 

designation, which includes both the Mount Graham and Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Areas. 

Approximately 22,970 acres, or 59 percent, of the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub would be allocated 

within the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area, resulting in effects common to all 

alternatives (see page 97). No acres of ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub would be present in the Ku 

Chish Recommended Wilderness Area, resulting in no effect to the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub 

community. 

The remaining acres of ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub forest that may be included under alternative 

1 are represented in table 46. Refer to the “Alternative 1” section on page 100 for a discussion of 

effects related to each recommended wilderness area. The small percentage (just over 1 percent) of 

ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub within these recommended areas would make the designation of any 

or all recommended wilderness of little impact to management of the this community. Therefore, 

alternative 1 would result in similar effects when compared to the proposed action.

Table 46. Acreage of ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub within recommended 

wilderness

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of Ponderosa PineEvergreen Shrub Forest

Chiricahua Addition North 5

Jhus Canyon 12

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 22,970

Santa Teresa Addition North 314

Santa Teresa Addition South 142

Alternative 2

Because alternative 2 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the ponderosa 

pine-evergreen shrub community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and 

objectives provided. Furthermore, the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community is not represented 

in the expanded Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone (table 32); therefore, the environmental 

consequences of alternative 2 would be identical to those of the proposed action. See page 131 for a 

more detailed discussion of these effects.

Mixed-conifer Forest – Affected Environment

Descriptions of Dry and Wet Mixed-Conifer

The mixed-conifer forest community is an upper elevation coniferous forest comprised of multiple 

species. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is common throughout this community. Comprised of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

134

both wet and dry mixed-conifer forest communities, this vegetation community generally occurs at 

elevations ranging from approximately 5,500 to 10,000 feet. The mixed-conifer vegetation community 

is transitional, intergrading with ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community at lower elevations and 

with spruce-fir forest at higher elevations in the Pinaleño Mountains. As mixed-conifer transitions 

from dry to wet conditions along elevational gradients, and varying by topographic aspect, ponderosa 

pine and Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) become less abundant while aspen (Populus tremuloides), 

white fir (Abies concolor), and southwestern white pine (Pinus strobiformis) become more abundant. 

The mixed-conifer forest typically occurs with understories of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and young trees. 

On the Coronado, the transition between dry and wet mixed-conifer forests is gradual and difficult to 

define, both on the ground and through aerial mapping techniques. The distinction between wet and 

dry mixed-conifer is typically determined through both a shift in dominant seral species and 

disturbance regime. Disturbances in the mixed-conifer community include fire, insects, diseases, and 

wind. On drier sites, fire is the primary disturbance agent, historically occurring frequently. Fire is 

generally not limited by lack of fuel connectivity or high fuel moistures. Insects are generally smallscale disturbance agents, but have the potential to cause large-scale disturbances. Dwarf mistletoes, 

parasitic plants found on several coniferous species, are chronic disturbance agents. Conversely, on 

wetter sites, fire is more limited by higher fuel moistures, occurring as larger scale, less frequent 

disturbances usually during periods of long-term drought. Historically on the Coronado, insects, 

diseases, and wind have caused frequent, small-scale disturbances. However, elsewhere in the West, 

insects cause large-scale disturbances in the wet mixed-conifer.

Typical forest planning species in mixed-conifer include the Mexican spotted owl, pungent talus snail 

(Sonorella odorata) (and many other land mollusks), band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata), 

Mount Graham red squirrel, twin-spotted rattlesnake (Crotalus pricei), black bear (Ursus 

americanus), and Coues’ white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi). 

Livestock grazing, fire suppression, and selective logging have pushed the mixed-conifer forest from 

its natural state to a current condition departed from desired conditions. The use of mixed-conifer 

forests as summer range for livestock and fragmentation from logging operations in the late 1800s and 

early 1900s reduced the role of fire in the mixed-conifer forest by reducing fuels and fuel connectivity. 

Fire suppression has led to the increase of structural homogeneity across the landscape and the 

encroachment of more fire susceptible trees, such as Douglas-fir, white fir and southwestern white 

pine. In addition to the increases in overstory density, selective harvesting that targeted large Douglasfir and ponderosa pine further skewed the age and species distribution to younger trees and less firetolerant species (Schussman and Smith 2006).

Historically, fires may have occurred more often and burned at lower severity than they do today 

(USDA FS 2009b). However, the fire regime within the mixed-conifer forest is more complex due to 

the high variability of topography, soils, and moisture that drive the differentiation between wet and 

dry mixed-conifer. Fires typically burned with mixed severity; as the mixed-conifer transitions from 

dry to wet, fire frequency decreases, but fire intensity increases. Fires likely occurred every 10 to 22 

years (USDA FS 2009b) in the dry period, between May and June (Schussman and Smith 2006). 

Current conditions in much of the wet and dry mixed-conifer are conducive to Douglas-fir beetle 

outbreaks (Yasinski 1958, USDA FS 2004). Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglassii), is 

parasitic on Douglas-fir, and western spruce dwarf mistletoe (A. microcarpum) is parasitic on 

Engelmann spruce, a dry mixed-conifer species discussed below, reducing tree health over several 

decades. Fire exclusion fosters spread and intensification of dwarf mistletoe as mistletoe seeds from 

plants in the overstory rapidly infect understory trees.

With warmer and drier climate conditions, mixed-conifer forest ecosystems are susceptible to 

decreased plant productivity, more frequent and severe insect outbreaks, colonization of invasive 

species, longer and more severe fire seasons, and altered frequency, intensity, timing, and spatial 

extent of disturbance events (droughts, flash floods, landslides, wind storms, and ice storms; see 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

135

appendix A in the revised forest plan). Extended drought could lead to increased tree mortality, which 

may increase the probability of wildfire (Jenkins et al. 2008).

Dry Mixed-conifer Forest: The dry mixed-conifer subclass is transitional with increasing elevation 

between ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub and wet mixed-conifer communities and generally occurs at 

elevations ranging from approximately 5,500 to 9,500 feet. The dry mixed-conifer forest characterizes 

the majority of the greater mixed-conifer community, representing approximately 88 percent of the 

Coronado’s mixed-conifer forest. Dry mixed-conifer forests are dominated by tree species such as 

ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir, Madrean oaks, and Gambel oak, with a lesser 

and localized presence of aspen, white fir, corkbark fir (Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica), and 

Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). This forest type typically occurs with understories of grasses, 

forbs, shrubs, and young trees. Fires occur frequently and are generally not limited by lack of fuel 

connectivity or high fuel moistures. Insects are generally small-scale disturbance agents, but have the 

potential to cause large-scale disturbances. Dwarf mistletoes, parasitic plants found on several 

coniferous species, are chronic disturbance agents. Drought also impacts this system.

The dry mixed-conifer has a fire regime very similar to ponderosa pine. Frequent low intensity surface 

fire is the dominant mode of disturbance. Fire intervals range from 2 to 17 years with a mean of 15 

years. Lethal fires can occur on a limited scale but is not the norm. These will be characterized as 

mixed fires because they most likely occur as a part of a more widespread surface fire.21

Vegetation mapping results indicate current conditions within the dry mixed-conifer forest are 

characterized by an increase in mid-aged trees and more closed classes when compared to the desired 

conditions. Desired conditions in this community are characterized by a mature or aging overstory 

with a maturing mid-story and regeneration. Understory cover (i.e., grasses, forbs and shrubs) vary 

negatively with increasing tree cover. Current conditions within the dry mixed-conifer type indicate a 

99 percent departure from desired conditions (table 47). Younger, more closed states make up the 

contemporary landscape as fire exclusion has allowed characteristic openings to infill with trees. 

Desired conditions accurately reflect the reference conditions for the dry mixed-conifer forest with the 

exception of the wildland-urban interface, where desired conditions call for more open horizontal 

structure to better manage fire in these areas.

Table 47. The distribution of structural classes in dry mixed-conifer for both current and desired 

conditions

Structural Class* Current Conditions Desired Conditions

Early-seral and uncharacteristic grassland, open 6% 0%

Young, open 2% 0%

Mid-aged, open 3% 0%

Mature/old with regeneration, open 1% 100%

Early seral, closed 1% 0%

Young, closed 9% 0%

Mid-aged, closed 44% 0%

Mature/old with regeneration, closed 34% 0%

* Open and closed refer to percent tree cover. Within the early seral class open indicates less than 10 percent cover, 

closed is more than 10 percent cover. Young, mid-aged and mature/old open and closed are characterized by less 

than 30 percent and more than 30 percent cover, respectively.

 

21 http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/pdfs/PNVGs/Southwest/R3MCONwd.pdf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

136

The vegetation condition class analysis indicates dry mixed-conifer is moderately departed (vegetation 

condition class 2) in the recently burned Chiricahua Mountains and highly departed (vegetation 

condition class 3) over the remaining locations on the Coronado. Forestwide, the dry mixed-conifer 

community is on the threshold between moderate (vegetation condition class 2) and high departure 

(vegetation condition class 3). Detailed information on vegetation condition class can be found in

table 30. The vegetation composition and structure of dry mixed-conifer varies by location on the 

Coronado, but there is a general deficit of open canopy structure likely due to fire exclusion. 

Conversely, early seral structure is over-represented in the Chiricahua Mountains, likely a result of the 

2011 Horseshoe 2 wildfire.

Wet Mixed-conifer Forest: The wet mixed-conifer forest subclass generally occurs at elevations 

ranging from approximately 5,500 to 10,000 feet, representing only 12 percent of the greater mixedconifer vegetation community. Tree species composition varies depending on seral stage, elevation, 

and moisture availability. The wet mixed-conifer forest is characterized by early seral species, such as 

aspen, Douglas-fir, New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), southwestern white pine, and Rocky 

Mountain maple (Acer glabrum); and late-seral species, such as white fir and Engelmann spruce. 

Ponderosa pine may be present in small proportions that decrease with increasing elevation. The wet 

mixed-conifer forest intergrades with the spruce-fir forest community at its upper elevation range 

(Pinaleño Mountains only), with ever increasing amounts of Engelmann spruce and corkbark fir in the 

later seral stages. Wet mixed-conifer has an understory of a wide variety of shrubs, grasses, forbs, and 

young trees depending on soil type, aspect, elevation, disturbance, and other factors. 

Disturbances in wet mixed-conifer typically occur at two spatial and temporal scales: large-scale 

infrequent disturbances (mostly fire) and small-scale frequent disturbances (fire, insect, disease, and 

wind). Fire occurrence and behavior are generally limited more by higher fuel moisture than by lack 

of woody fuels, occurring as larger scale, less frequent disturbances usually during periods of longterm drought, often following disturbance events such as insect mortality. Fire frequencies are very 

variable and the wet mixed-conifer supports a mixed fire regime. Mixed severity fires occurred every 

6 to 60 years.22 Lethal fires are usually at longer intervals, 100-plus years. Damaging mid-scale 

Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) outbreaks occur infrequently, but can cause 

significant mortality to larger size classes of Douglas-fir when they do. Historically on the Coronado, 

insects, diseases, and wind cause small scale, frequent disturbances; however, elsewhere in the West, 

insects cause large-scale disturbances in this vegetation community.

Vegetation mapping results indicate current conditions within the wet mixed-conifer subclass are less 

departed from desired conditions when compared to the dry mixed-conifer; yet, current conditions are 

characterized by similar increases in younger age classes (table 48). Current departure is 37 percent. 

Due to the lack of fire, the aspen and mixed deciduous class has decreased in abundance, whereas 

large high-severity fires may have caused an increase in early seral stage where aspen and oak are 

regenerating through the production of ramets.23 Desired conditions accurately reflect the reference 

conditions for wet mixed-conifer forest with the exception of the wildland-urban interface, where 

desired conditions call for more open horizontal structure to better manage fire in these areas.

The vegetation condition class analysis indicates wet mixed-conifer is moderately departed from the 

reference condition. Detailed information on vegetation condition class for the wet mixed-conifer 

community can be found in table 30. The wet mixed-conifer in the Pinaleño Mountains contributes to 

the overall departure with an overrepresentation of mid-development closed and early seral structure. 

Having the majority of the wet mixed-conifer in the Pinaleño Mountains in these structural classes is 

in part reflective of the fire history of the area over the last couple of decades. The Clark Peak Fire of 

 

22 http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/pdfs/PNVGs/Southwest/R3MCONcm.pdf 23 An individual clone, one of a group of clones. An individual plant that has grown vegetatively from another 

individual as a clone of that plant, but a separate plant. Specifically the separate "offspring" plant. For instance, in a 

clump of aspens, one single tree that is not the original tree is a ramet.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

137

1996 and Nuttall Complex of 2004 burned 32 percent of the wet mixed-conifer in the Pinaleño 

Mountains at moderate to high severity. In other words, the acres burned in these severity classes 

would show up as early seral and mid-development closed classes in the current data.

Table 48. The distribution of structural classes in wet mixed-conifer for both current and desired 

conditions

Structural Class Current Conditions Desired Conditions

Early-seral with aspen1 6% 1%

Aspen/mixed deciduous2 14% 21%

Small-medium mixed-conifer3 45% 29%

Old mixed-conifer with regeneration3 35% 49%

1. This class includes aspen and oak regeneration, 10 to 40 percent cover. 

2. This class includes young conifer species. Percent tree cover is more than 40 percent. 

3. Percent tree cover is 20 to 60 percent.

On other areas of the Coronado, vegetation condition class results show the majority of vegetation in 

mid- through late-development closed structure. The Chiricahua Mountains show the most early seral 

structure due to the recent Horseshoe 2 Fire that burned throughout the wet mixed-conifer. The 

abundance of late development closed structure suggests that many of the sites that could support 

aspen as an overstory dominant or codominant are currently dominated by conifers.

Mixed-conifer Forest – Environmental Consequences

Dry Mixed-conifer Forest – Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, departure from desired conditions for vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regime 

would decline. Treatments would not achieve, but would move the dry mixed-conifer toward desired 

conditions, over the 10-year modeling period.

Table 49 displays the projected structural distribution of the dry mixed-conifer under the no action and 

proposed action. Stand characteristics would diversify from their current aggregation of mid-aged and 

mature or old classes with greater than 30 percent cover to a wider age distribution and generally less 

than 30 percent cover. The Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT) departure from 

reference condition vegetation structure would improve departure of the dry mixed-conifer subclass to 

87 percent. 

By creating more open conditions, fire and prescribed cutting would alter vegetation and fuel 

structure, bringing the dry mixed-conifer community more in line with desired conditions (Reynolds 

et al. 2013). Fire would also promote nutrient cycling, increasing soil fertility, and plant productivity. 

Due to the removal of vegetation, both fire and cutting may increase erosion and sedimentation in the 

short term. Fire also has the potential to create hydrophobic soils within areas that burn under highseverity conditions, reducing water infiltration, which may consequently impede germination. The 

benefits of treatment may outweigh the negative soil impacts as the intents of prescribed cutting and 

wildfire treatments would be to return the dry mixed-conifer forest to characteristic structural classes 

and to provide for the natural role of fire in this ecosystem. A reduction in density of young, shadetolerant fire susceptible trees would result in reduced competition and improved growing space (i.e., 

increased water, nutrient and light availability); increased individual tree health and vigor and 

improved forest resiliency; reduced vulnerability to Douglas-fir beetle outbreak and enhanced 

understory production and richness (Laughlin et al. 2004). Increases in understory cover coupled with 

reductions in ladder fuels would help restore characteristic low-intensity fire to the mixed-conifer 

community; mixed- and high-severity fire would still impact the system, denser more homogenous 

stands would persist. Yet this mix of fire severity would increase the structural heterogeneity of the 

mixed-conifer forest at the landscape scale, improving wildlife habitat and reducing risks of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

138

widespread stand-replacing events, such as insects, disease, and wildfire. Furthermore, increases in the 

resiliency of the system would also facilitate forest response to these disturbances and those projected 

under climate change.

Table 49. Structural class 10-year projected changes for dry mixed-conifer under the proposed 

action alternative based on VDDT modeling results*

Structural Class

Current 

Conditions No Action

Proposed 

Action

Desired 

Conditions

Early-seral and uncharacteristic 

grassland, open1

6% 6% 6% 0%

Young, open2 2% 5% 5% 0%

Mid-aged, open 3% 14% 14% 0%

Mature/old with regeneration, open 1% 13% 13% 100%

Early seral, closed 1% 9% 9% 0%

Young, closed 9% 8% 8% 0%

Mid-aged, closed 44% 26% 26% 0%

Mature/old with regeneration, closed 34% 19% 19% 0%

Departure 99% 87% 87% 0%

1. Projected percentages for the proposed action alternative are meant to provide information on the relative 

distribution of structural classes and trend toward or away from desired conditions. These numbers are not to be 

interpreted as definite projections for the future.

2. Open and closed refer to percent tree cover. Within the early seral class, open indicates less than 10 percent cover, 

closed is more than 10 percent cover. Young, mid-aged, and mature/old open and closed are characterized by less 

than 30 percent and more than 30 percent cover, respectively. The effect of the 2011 fires season on departure would 

likely be a slight increase due to promotion of aspen, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine regeneration.

Wildlife habitat quantity may also be positively impacted as reductions in risk of extensive 

disturbance mortality would result in diminished risk of habitat loss for species dependent on mixedconifer such as Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk. Increases in understory production would 

also impact the available forage for both livestock and wildlife species. 

After the 10-year modeling period, large snag density, and the total surface fuels would trend toward 

desired conditions. Acres of large and old trees would trend away from desired conditions as the 

increase in open structure in younger age classes correlates to a decrease in the mature/old, closed 

states. However, the increase in the mid-aged open class provides the pathway to mature/old with 

regeneration open class if it the canopy openness can be maintained as the unit grows. All actions 

would result in decreased tree density when compared to the current condition, but large trees would 

be lacking when compared to the desired condition. See table 50 for a comparison of these metrics. 

The diminished presence of large, old trees would negatively impact forest structure wildlife habitat 

within this community; however, improved open conditions would have the opposite positive effect 

on habitat components such as forage and prey bases.

While treatments in the dry mixed-conifer forest would strive to move toward desired conditions, this 

subclass would remain highly departed from desired structure. This departure is characterized by high

tree density, the proliferation of less fire-tolerant species composition and age class distributions, high 

fuel loading, and diminished understory cover as compared to desired conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

139

Table 50. The projected change after 10 years in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel 

abundance under the proposed action for dry mixed-conifer

Condition or Alternative

Late Seral Stages Averaged Across All Seral Stages

Acres of 

Large/Old Trees

No. Snags 

(>18 in. 

d.b.h./acre)

Surface Fuels (tons/acre)

≤3 in.

>3 and 

≤12 in. >12 in. Total

Current Conditions 17,116 5.5 8.8 15.3 8.4 32.5

No Action 15,649 6.5 7.6 13.2 7.0 27.8

Proposed Action 15,649 6.5 7.6 13.2 7.0 27.8

Desired Conditions 48,904 average 3 range from 5-15

Dry Mixed-conifer Forest – No Action

Under the no-action alternative, the 1986 forest plan addresses the mixed-conifer community as a 

whole and only in the context of habitat for Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk. The 1986 

plan does not provide specific direction for the dry mixed-conifer subclass and does not discuss the 

differences between the wet and dry mixed-conifer forest. In addition to the lack of subclass-specific 

information, the 1986 plan provides no desired conditions or guidance on how to achieve desired 

conditions. Under the direction of the 1986 forest plan, management activities have included the use 

of fire and mechanical treatment to improve wildlife habitat and reduce fuel loading. 

Old-growth conditions in this vegetation community are discussed in more detail under the “No 

Action” section on page 98. Old growth in the dry mixed-conifer forest occurs as individual or groups 

of old, declining, and dead trees and woody debris integrated well distributed throughout the 

vegetation community. 

Dry Mixed-conifer Forest – Proposed Action

The proposed action defines desired conditions based on reference conditions for the dry mixedconifer community and provides management objectives and guidelines as a framework for 

implementing site-specific projects to achieve the desired conditions. Included is a desired condition 

for this community at the wildland-urban interface, specifying smaller and more widely spaced groups 

of trees than in areas outside the wildland-urban interface to promote low-intensity surface fires when 

fire does occur. These forest plan components and specific guidance for the dry mixed-conifer would 

allow for more informed management decisions and provide a basis for monitoring effectiveness of 

treatments. Forest plan components would guide management to treat the dry mixed-conifer forest 

through planned and unplanned ignitions and prescribed cutting treatments on 13,800 acres over 10 

years to maintain species diversity and an appropriate diversity of open conditions and structural 

classes. 

In terms of old growth within the dry mixed-conifer forest, the revised forest plan supports 

development and maintenance of old growth and large trees, multistoried structure, snags, and downed 

woody debris as integrated components of an uneven-aged forest. Old growth would occur as 

individual or small groups of old, declining, and dead trees and woody debris well distributed 

throughout the vegetation community. The location of old growth would shift on the landscape over 

time as a result of tree growth and mortality. The appropriate treatment of old growth in the revised 

forest plan would encourage consistent interpretation of this important component at the project level 

and do more to move the mixed-conifer forest toward desired conditions for old-growth occurrence 

and function.

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North. 

Approximately 5,349 acres, or approximately 11 percent, of the dry mixed-conifer forest would be 

recommended within these areas. Of this, 4,681 acres (89 percent) are in the Mount Graham area; 400
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

140

acres and 268 acres occur within the Chiricahua Addition North and Ku Chish areas, respectively. The 

recommendation of the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area results in effects common to 

all alternatives (see page 98). 

The effects of recommending the four areas as wilderness under the proposed action would be similar 

to those described under alternative 1 (page 100) except that fewer acres would be affected. In 

particular, future treatment needs may be impacted if Ku Chish is designated as wilderness. Applying 

pheromone bubble packets to protect Mexican spotted owl habitat may be impacted due to the 

limitations discussed on page 98. This is a standard treatment to disperse Douglas-fir beetles from 

attacking large trees, an important habitat component for Mexican spotted owl, in nesting and roosting 

sites following wildfires. The relatively small area in Ku Chish would limit the impacts of wilderness 

recommendation, but it could reduce the long-term sustainability of one Mexican spotted owl 

protected activity center. As mixed-conifer forests are rare on the Coronado and exist as discontinuous 

patches and stringers across the landscape, this vegetation community is of high value to Mexican 

spotted owl and other wildlife species. The loss of a few acres may result in disproportionate negative 

impacts to species that depend on this community.

Dry Mixed-conifer Forest – Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the dry mixedconifer community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives 

provided. Alternative 1 proposes that 16 land parcels be recommended for wilderness designation, 

which includes both the Mount Graham and Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Areas. 

Approximately 6,106 acres, or 12 percent, of the dry mixed-conifer forest would be allocated within 

these recommended wilderness areas. The majority of this acreage (9 percent) occupies the Mount 

Graham Recommended Wilderness Area. Recommending both the Mount Graham and Ku Chish 

Recommended Wilderness Areas would result in identical effects in those areas when compared to the 

proposed action. 

The remaining acres of dry mixed-conifer forest that may be included under alternative 1 are 

displayed in table 51. The effects of recommending these areas are discussed on pages 97 and 100. 

Alternative 1 would result in similar effects when compared to the proposed action.

Table 51. Acreage of dry mixed-conifer within recommended wilderness

Recommended Wilderness Acres of Dry Mixed-Conifer

Chiricahua Addition North 400

Chiricahua Addition West 7

Galiuro Addition 450

Jhus Canyon 300

Ku Chish 268

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 4,681

Dry Mixed-conifer Forest – Alternative 2

The dry mixed-conifer community is not represented in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone that, 

under alternative 2, is much larger than the other alternatives (table 32). Since alternative 2 

incorporates the same direction as the proposed action, effects to the dry mixed-conifer community 

would be identical to the proposed action. See page 139 for a more detailed discussion of these effects.

Wet Mixed-conifer Forest – Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, the wet mixed-conifer would trend from smaller and younger overstory to older 

stands of large trees; tree cover would remain largely the same. Table 52 shows the strong movement 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

141

toward desired conditions expected for the wet mixed-conifer subclass. The Vegetation Dynamics 

Development Tool (VDDT) departure from desired condition vegetation structure would improve to 8 

percent departed for the wet mixed-conifer subclass, compared to 37 percent departed under current 

conditions.

Table 52. Structural class 10-year projected changes expected for wet mixed-conifer under the 

no-action and proposed action alternatives based on VDDT modeling results*

Structural Class

Current 

Conditions

No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

Desired 

Conditions

Early-seral w/aspen1 6% 3% 3% 1%

Aspen/mixed deciduous2 14% 25% 25% 21%

Small-medium mixed-conifer3 45% 31% 31% 29%

Old mixed-conifer w/ Regeneration3 19% 41% 41% 49%

Departure 37% 8% 8% 0%

* Projected percentages for the proposed action alternative are meant to provide information on the relative distribution 

of structural classes and trend toward or away from desired conditions. These numbers are not to be interpreted as 

definite projections for the future.

1. This class includes aspen and oak regeneration, 10 to 40 percent cover.

2. This class includes young conifer species. Percent tree cover is more than 40 percent. 

3. Percent tree cover is 20 to 60 percent.

After the 10-year modeling period, acres of large and old trees, large snag density, and the amount of 

surface fuels would trend toward desired conditions. Surface fuels in some of size classes would 

surpass desired conditions. See table 53 for a comparison of these metrics by alternative. 

Table 53. The projected 10-year change in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel abundance 

under the no-action alternative and the proposed action for wet mixed-conifer

Condition or Alternative Late Seral Stages Averaged Across All Seral Stages

Acres of 

Large/Old Trees

No. Snags 

(>18 in. 

d.b.h./acre)

Surface Fuels (tons/acre)

≤3 in.

>3 and 

≤12 in. >12 in. Total

Current Conditions 2,351 8.7 10.8 20.6 14.1 45.5

No Action 2,754 9.4 11.5 21.1 13.6 46.2

Proposed Action 2,754 9.4 11.5 21.1 13.6 46.2

Desired Conditions 3,291 1-5 range from 2-40

In all structural classes, the wet mixed-conifer community moves toward desired conditions. The

increase of large/old trees and aspen would promote habitat characteristic important to wildlife species 

within the wet mixed-conifer subclass. Although tree cover would remain relatively high, this 

community is well adapted to higher densities as it occupies wetter sites and the mix of species present 

trend toward more shade tolerance. Therefore, the negative effects of density discussed in previous 

vegetation communities are diminished in wet mixed-conifer. Insect and disease would affect this 

community through characteristic, small-scale frequent disturbances, with occasional larger scale 

infrequent disturbances. Wildfire may occur infrequently at high severity or more frequently at mixed 

severity, as is characteristic for this type.

The reduced occurrence of the smaller, younger structural classes would likely limit high-intensity 

fire. Mixed- and high-severity fire would still impact the system after periods of long drought. This 

mix of fire severity would increase the structural heterogeneity of the wet mixed-conifer forest at the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

142

landscape scale, improving wildlife habitat and reducing risks of widespread stand-replacing events 

such as insects, disease, and wildfire. 

Under all alternatives, prescribed cutting and planned and unplanned ignitions would continue to be 

used at similar rates to treat the wet mixed-conifer subclass. By promoting large old trees and a 

diversity of forest structure, fire and prescribed cutting would alter vegetation and fuel structure, 

bringing the wet mixed-conifer community more aligned with desired conditions. Fire would also 

promote nutrient cycling, increasing soil fertility, and plant productivity. Due to the removal of 

vegetation, both fire and cutting may increase erosion and sedimentation in the short term. Fire also 

has the potential to create hydrophobic soils within high-severity areas, reducing water infiltration, 

which may consequently impede germination. The benefits of treatment may outweigh the negative 

soil impacts as the intents of prescribed cutting and wildfire treatments would be to return the wet 

mixed-conifer forest to characteristic structural classes and to provide for the natural role of fire. 

Wet Mixed-conifer Forest – No Action

Under the no-action alternative, the 1986 forest plan addresses the mixed-conifer community as a 

whole and only in the context of habitat for Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk. The 1986 

plan does not provide specific direction for the wet mixed-conifer subclass and does not discuss the 

differences between the wet and dry mixed-conifer forest. In addition to the lack of subclass-specific 

information, the 1986 plan provides no desired conditions or guidance on how to achieve desired 

conditions. Under the direction of the 1986 forest plan, management activities have included the use 

of fire and mechanical treatment to improve wildlife habitat and reduce fuel loading. 

Old-growth conditions within this vegetation community are discussed in more detail under the “No 

Action” section on page 98. In terms of old growth specific to the wet mixed-conifer subclass, the 

treatment of old growth as it would occur under an even-aged system is somewhat more appropriate. 

The wet mixed-conifer forest may occur in even-aged patches and exhibits some even-aged 

characteristics; however, this community is uneven-aged at the landscape scale. In the sky islands, old 

growth in the wet mixed-conifer forest occurs either in large uneven-aged stands or in even-aged 

patches where old-growth components (large and old trees, large snags, and multistoried structure) are 

concentrated, and as old-growth components integrated into the larger forest. 

Wet Mixed-conifer Forest – Proposed Action

The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the reference conditions for mixed-conifer 

communities and provides management objectives and guidelines as a framework for implementing 

site-specific projects to achieve the desired conditions. Included is a desired condition for this 

community at the wildland-urban interface, specifying the dominance of early-seral, fire-adapted 

species growing in more open conditions than the remainder of the Coronado to promote lower 

intensity surface fires when fire does occur. These forest plan components and specific guidance for 

the wet mixed-conifer would allow for more informed management decisions and provide a basis for 

monitoring effectiveness of treatments. Forest plan components would guide management to treat the 

wet mixed-conifer forest through planned and unplanned ignitions and prescribed cutting treatments 

on 2,400 acres every 10 years to maintain species diversity and an appropriate diversity of open 

conditions and structural classes. 

In terms of old growth within the wet mixed-conifer forest, the revised forest plan supports 

development and maintenance of old growth and large trees, multistoried structure, snags, and downed 

woody debris as more integrated components. Old growth would occur over large patches where oldgrowth components (i.e., old, declining, and dead trees, coarse woody debris, and structural diversity) 

are concentrated. The location of old growth would shift on the landscape over time as a result of tree 

growth and mortality. The appropriate treatment of old growth in the revised forest plan would 

encourage consistent interpretation of this important component at the project level and do more to 

move toward the desired conditions of old-growth occurrence and function as one component of many 

within the wet mixed conifer forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

143

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North.

This includes wet mixed conifer across approximately 528 acres in the Mount Graham area; and 45

acres in the Whetstone area, a total of 573 acres, or 9 percent, of this vegetation community. The 

effects of recommending the four areas as wilderness under the proposed action would be similar to 

those described under alternative 1 (page 100 and below) except that fewer acres would be affected.

The wet mixed-conifer community is not represented within the Ku Chish or Chiricahua Addition 

North areas (see page 98). 

Wet Mixed-conifer Forest – Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the wet mixedconifer community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives 

provided. Alternative 1 proposes that 16 land parcels be recommended for wilderness designation, 

which includes both the Mount Graham and Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Areas. 

Approximately 641 acres, or 10 percent, of the wet mixed-conifer forest would be allocated within 

these recommended wilderness areas under alternative 1. The majority of this acreage (8 percent) 

occupies the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area. Recommending both the Mount 

Graham and Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Areas would result in identical effects when 

compared to the proposed action. 

The remaining acres of wet mixed-conifer forest that may be included under alternative 1 are 

displayed in table 54. The effects of recommending these areas are discussed on pages 97 and 100. 

The limited acreage represented in the remaining areas would make the effects of the recommendation 

of any or all areas negligible. Alternative 1 would result in similar effects when compared to the 

proposed action.

Table 54. Acreage of wet mixed-conifer within recommended wilderness

Recommended Wilderness Acres of Wet Mixed-Conifer

Dragoon 11

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 528

Whetstone 45

Winchester 57

Wet Mixed-conifer Forest – Alternative 2

The wet mixed-conifer community is not represented in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone

that, under alternative 2, is much larger than the other alternatives (table 32). Since alternative 2 

incorporates the same direction as the proposed action, effects to the wet mixed-conifer community 

would be identical to the proposed action. See page 139 for a more detailed discussion of these effects.

Spruce-fir Forest – Affected Environment

Also known as subalpine conifer forests, spruce-fir forests are located at elevations between 9,500 and 

11,500 feet along a variety of gradients, including gentle to very steep mountain slopes. Engelmann 

spruce (Picea engelmannii), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), or corkbark fir (Abies lasiocarpa var. 

arizonica) dominate this vegetation community, either alone or in mixed stands. Douglas-fir, mixedconifer, and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands may also be present for long periods without 

regeneration. Herbaceous species may include, but are not limited to, red baneberry (Actaea rubra), 

starry false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum stellatum), fleabane (Erigeron eximius), blackberry (Rubus

pedatus), and subalpine lupine (Lupinus arcticus spp. subalpinus). Natural disturbances in this 

vegetation community include blowdowns, insect outbreaks, and stand-replacing fires. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

144

This habitat type has relatively few species, most of which are cold adapted and more typical of boreal 

forests than the Sierra Madre Occidental. Forestwide, this community is limited to the Pinaleño 

Mountains. Most wildlife species are terrestrial, rather than riparian or aquatic, and many of these are 

rock associates. Species of conservation concern include Mount Graham red squirrel, Pinaleño 

monkey grasshopper (Eumorsea pinaleno), cross snaggletooth (Gastrocopta quadridens), Heliograph

Peak fleabane (Erigeron heliographis), white-flowered cinquefoil (Potentilla albiflora), Mount 

Graham beardtongue (Penstemon deaveri), New Mexico lupine, timberland blue-eyed grass 

(Sisyrinchium longipes), and Heller’s whitlowgrass (Draba helleriana). 

The impacts of anthropogenic disturbance are not well documented within the spruce-fir forest 

(Schussman and Smith 2006). With the onset of Euro-American settlement, spruce-fir forests 

experienced grazing, logging, fragmentation, and fire suppression that significantly impacted the fire 

regimes, composition, and structure of lower elevation forests. Yet, the lower commercial timber 

values and relative inaccessibility of the spruce-fir forest may have diminished these impacts within 

this high elevation community. However, anthropogenic change in mid-elevation forests may have 

increased the susceptibility of the spruce-fir forests to high-intensity wildfire. Although spruce-fir 

naturally experiences stand-replacing fire, historical, high-frequency fire in the mixed-conifer forests 

that surround this community probably limited the transmission of crown fire to the spruce-fir forest. 

The increasing risk of high-severity crown fire in the mixed-conifer communities has the increased 

potential to spread into the spruce-fir, thereby reducing the sustainability of the spruce-fir as a stable 

system (Schussman and Smith 2006, Swetnam et al. 2009).

Bark beetle outbreaks are unlikely for several decades, as residual trees in the unburned areas are too 

small to support significant outbreaks. Spruce aphid will likely persist in the Pinaleño and Chiricahua 

Mountains within the spruce-fir forest and on Engelmann spruce in the mixed-conifer forest. As a 

result, Engelmann spruce will probably have less representation in the future forests (Lynch 2009), 

although uncertainty exists relative to long-term impacts of spruce aphid in southwestern forests.

What little is known about the fire dynamics for spruce-fir in the Pinaleño Mountains suggests that the 

historic fire return interval is 311 years (Grissino-Mayer et al. 1995) and at the boundary between 

mixed-conifer and spruce-fir it is more than 150 years (Swetnam et al. 2009). A fire regime condition 

class evaluation was not conducted for the spruce-fir forest (USDA FS 2009b).

The spruce-fir forest is a rare vegetation community on the Coronado, comprising less than 1 percent 

of the total acreage, but it is disproportionately important because of its unique characteristics and lack 

of representation elsewhere. The spruce-fir forest at the top of the Pinaleño Mountains incurred a 

severe die-off of mature trees in the 1990s and 2000s, primarily due to insect outbreaks and two 

wildfires (Koprowski et al. 2005, Lynch 2009). These outbreaks involved a variety of species, 

including two native bark beetles, a defoliating moth, and the spruce aphid (an exotic to the 

southwestern U.S.). Activity by each of these insects is thought to be related to recent warmer than 

normal autumn and winter temperatures (Lynch 2003). Stand-replacement wildfire or continuing 

warmer winter temperatures could lead to a loss of this vegetation community (USDA FS 2009c). 

Two wildfires, the Clark Peak Fire in 1996 and the Nuttall-Gibson Complex in 2004, burned as standreplacing fires over 40 percent of what remained of the spruce-fir community (University of Arizona 

2008).

Generally, desired conditions for this community were directly derived from reference conditions. The 

exception occurs within the wildland-urban interface where desired conditions specify open horizontal 

structure and a lack of stand-replacing fire to protect human values within the spruce-fir community. 

Table 55 shows the desired and current structural distributions for the spruce-fir forest based on midscale mapping. Due to drought, insect attack, and high-severity fire that affected the majority of the 

spruce-fir forest on the Coronado, current conditions are 54 percent departed from desired conditions. 

Historically, the spruce-fir forest was characterized by a broad mix of old growth, mid-aged, and 

young trees (Schussman and Smith 2006). Currently, the spruce-fir forest is dominated by an 

abundance of early seral vegetation, which includes regenerating aspen and conifer species with 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

145

grasses, forbs, and shrubs in the understory. Limited distribution of young to mid-aged and mature 

forest structure is due to insect and fire mortality.

Table 55. Distribution of structural classes for the spruce-fir forest under current and desired 

conditions

Structural Class* Current Conditions Desired Conditions

Early seral with aspen 79% 25%

Young forest with regeneration 11% 35%

Mature or old forest with regeneration 10% 40%

* The early seral stage is characterized by 10 to 40 percent canopy cover, while the young and mature/old forest have 

more than 40 percent cover.

The vegetation condition class analysis indicates vegetation composition and structure of spruce-fir is 

low to moderately departed from the reference condition (vegetation condition class 2). Detailed 

information on vegetation condition class for the spruce-fir community can be found in table 30. 

Unlike the mid-scale mapping, an abundance of late development structure and lack of middevelopment drives the vegetation condition class departure for this vegetation community. The 

differences in departure result from the disparity in the classification of structural classes between the 

mid-scale mapping and the data used in the vegetation condition class analysis and should be 

considered in the interpretation of these results.

Based on projections of future climate change for the region, spruce-fir forest ecosystems are 

susceptible to decreases in plant productivity from water limitations and increased heat, increases in 

insect attacks (which has already been observed), colonization of invasive species, longer and more 

severe fire seasons, and altered frequency, severity, timing, and spatial extent of disturbance events 

(droughts, flash floods, landslides, wind storms, and ice storms; see appendix A in the revised forest 

plan). Spruce-fir on the Coronado occurs at the highest elevations and, thus, is among the most 

susceptible to loss of suitable climate. Extended drought from a delayed monsoonal season could lead 

to increased tree mortality, resulting in increasing risk of intense wildfire.

Spruce-fir Forest – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, departure from vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regime desired conditions 

would decline to 44 percent in the 10-year modeling period. This movement toward desired conditions 

is likely due to natural forest and disturbance dynamics. Because the spruce-fir forest has recently 

undergone widespread stand-replacing disturbances, early-seral stages dominate this community. 

Within 10 years, the majority of structural change would occur through stand growth. Table 56 shows 

a shift from the early seral class to young forest and a slight shift from young to mature or old forest, 

due to growth and succession.

Table 56. Structural class 10-year projected changes for spruce-fir under the no-action and proposed 

action alternatives based on VDDT modeling results

Structural Class*

Current 

Conditions No Action

Proposed 

Action

Desired 

Conditions

Early-seral with aspen 79% 69% 69% 25%

Young forest with regeneration 11% 20% 20% 35%

Mature or old forest with regeneration 10% 11% 11% 40%

Departure 54% 44% 44% 0%

* The early seral stage is characterized by 10 to 40 percent canopy cover, while the young and mature/old forest have 

more than 40 percent cover.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

146

Early successional species would likely continue to dominate the overstory of burned areas until 

sufficient canopy closure allows for more shade tolerate species to establish. The presence of aspen 

may decline as conifers regenerate and reach canopy dominance, yet without artificial regeneration of 

conifer species aspen would continue to dominate in the short term. Over a longer period, aspen would 

remain as an integrated component in the forest, but no longer as large, pure stands. Due to the limited 

growing season of high elevation forests, the burned portion of the spruce-fir forest may require 

centuries to reach desired conditions where mature stands of spruce and fir occupy a more dominate 

role. Management can increase the proportion of young forest through planting, but cannot make 

significant change toward increasing the mature or old forest within 10 years. In unburned areas that 

experienced high insect-related mortality, regenerating trees would continue to grow at an increased 

rate when compared to relatively unaffected stands. Corkbark fir regeneration will probably be 

naturally favored over Engelmann spruce because of recurring spruce aphid damage. Open conditions

after stand-replacing fire allow for increased water, nutrient, and sunlight availability, increasing 

production of the seedlings and saplings (Swetnam et al. 2009).

Extensive stand-replacing fire may not affect this community, as high-severity fire has already 

impacted much of the spruce-fir forests. However, residual unburned areas with insect-related 

mortality have the potential to burn in the future. Crown fires from lower elevation communities may 

threaten the remaining overstory. Overall, the open regenerating condition of the spruce-fir forest and 

the characteristic long fire return interval may reduce the likelihood of high-intensity fire in this 

vegetation community.

Due to the loss of overstory, some wildlife habitat would likely improve as growth and succession 

move this community to a greater diversity of structural classes and more forested state. As more 

conifer trees reach seed producing age, Mount Graham red squirrel habitat may improve; however, as 

dense conditions would not markedly improve, increases in habitat quality would be limited 

(Koprowski et al. 2005). Aspen is an important habitat component for other wildlife species; its 

continued presence may provide habitat for these species.

After the 10-year modeling period, acres of large and old trees, large snag density, and the amount of 

surface fuels would increase toward desired conditions. See table 57 for a comparison of these metrics 

by alternative. Increases in all metrics would provide important wildlife habitat components and 

improve forest structure.

Table 57. The 10-year projected change in large trees, snag density, and surface fuel abundance 

under the no-action alternative and the proposed action for spruce-fir forests

Condition or 

Alternative

Late Seral Stages Averaged Across All Seral Stages

Acres of Large/Old 

Trees

No. Snags 

(>18 in. 

d.b.h./acre)

Surface Fuels (tons/acre)

≤3 in.

>3 and 

≤12 in. >12 in. Total

Current Conditions 302 5.6 10.2 20.0 9.2 39.4

No Action 332 7.3 11.6 22.8 11.4 45.8

Proposed Action 332 7.3 11.6 22.8 11.4 45.8

Desired Conditions 1,206 1.0 to 3.0 5.0 to 

40.0

5.0-

40.0

5.0-

40.0

15.0 to 

120.0

No Action

Under the no-action alternative, the 1986 forest plan addresses spruce-fir ecosystems only in the 

context of Mount Graham red squirrel and northern goshawk habitat, and does not define desired 

future conditions or provide guidance on how to achieve them. Although vegetation treatments are 

described in the 1986 forest plan, under its direction, only fuels reduction treatments near facilities 

have been implemented.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

147

Old-growth conditions within this vegetation community are discussed in more detail under the “No 

Action” section on page 98. In terms of old growth specific to the spruce-fir community, the treatment 

of old growth as it would occur under an even-aged system is somewhat more appropriate for sprucefir. However, on the Coronado, this community occurs on such a limited area that even-aged dynamics 

are diminished when compared to the spruce-fir community regionwide. The spruce-fir community of 

the Coronado occurs on about 3,016 acres with pure spruce-fir forest accounting for only about 600 

acres. Therefore, the community primarily functions at the mid- and fine-scales, where patch 

dynamics influence old growth. Old growth occurs, consequently, as patches of large and old trees, 

large snags, and multistoried structure.

Proposed Action

The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the reference conditions for spruce-fir 

communities and provides management objectives and guidelines as a framework for implementing 

site-specific projects to achieve the desired conditions. Included is a desired condition for this 

community at the wildland-urban interface, specifying more open conditions and reduced fire 

behavior to protect high value sites such as the Mount Graham International Observatory. These forest 

plan components would allow for more informed management decisions and provide a basis for 

monitoring effectiveness of treatments. Vegetation treatments in the spruce-fir vegetation community 

are expected to be similar to those in the 1986 forest plan; the revised forest plan does not identify an 

objective to treat a specified number of acres within the spruce-fir forest. This community would 

continue to grow without heavy management influence.

In terms of old growth within the spruce-fir forest, the revised forest plan supports development and 

maintenance of old growth and large trees, multistoried structure, snags, and downed woody debris as 

more integrated components. Old growth would occur over large patches where old-growth 

components (old, declining, and dead trees; coarse woody debris; and structural diversity) are 

concentrated. The location of old growth would shift on the landscape over time as a result of tree 

growth and mortality. The appropriate treatment of old growth in the revised forest plan would 

encourage consistent interpretation of this important component at the project level and do more to 

move the spruce-fir forest toward desired conditions for old-growth occurrence and function.

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North. 

Approximately 248 acres, or 7 percent, of the spruce-fir forest would be allocated within the Mount 

Graham Recommended Wilderness Area; no acres of this vegetation community would be represented 

in the Ku Chish, Chiricahua Addition North, or Whetstone areas (see page 98). The effects of 

recommending the four areas as wilderness under the proposed action would be the same as those 

described under alternative 1 (page 100 and below).

The impact of the revised forest plan on the spruce-fir community would be identical to those of the 

1986 forest plan, with the exception of the management of old growth, and the impacts of more 

appropriate desired conditions, guidelines, and management approaches defined for this community.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the spruce-fir 

community would be similar to the proposed action in terms of the guidance and objectives provided. 

In addition, alternative 1 proposes that 16 land parcels be recommended for wilderness designation. 

Approximately 248 acres, or 7 percent, of the spruce-fir forest would be allocated in the Mount 

Graham Recommended Wilderness Area with effects common to all alternatives (see page 97). The 

spruce-fir forest is not represented in any other recommended areas. Therefore, alternative 1 would 

result in identical effects when compared to the proposed action. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

148

Alternative 2

The spruce-fir community is not represented in the expanded Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone

(table 32) and because alternative 2 incorporates the direction of the revised forest plan, effects to the 

spruce-fir community would be identical to the proposed action. See “Effects Common to All 

Alternatives” and “Proposed Action” on pages 145 and 147 for a more detailed discussion of these 

effects.

Riparian Areas – Affected Environment

Riparian areas occupy approximately 5,142 acres of the Coronado National Forest. Although this

represents less than 1 percent of the Coronado, riparian areas are disproportionately important because 

the water that supports these communities is rare in the arid Southwest. Riparian areas occur on nearly 

level flood plains, low stream terraces, alluvial fans, and canyon bottoms throughout all vegetation 

communities. They are the transition areas between aquatic ecosystems and adjacent upland terrestrial 

ecosystems. Riparian areas are identified by soil characteristics and/or distinctive vegetation 

communities that require free or unbound surface or subsurface water. Most riparian areas on the 

Coronado National Forest are sustained by ephemeral or intermittent streams. Natural flood regimes 

result in diverse channel morphology, which is necessary for recruitment of some riparian plant 

species. Large riparian areas are geographically delineable at the landscape scale, and smaller riparian 

areas are geographically delineable at finer scales.

Because riparian areas offer a mesic and aquatic interface in an otherwise xeric landscape, plant and 

animal species biodiversity is extremely high and conservation issues are significant. Wildlife species 

from large and small mammals to reptiles, birds, and invertebrates depend on riparian ecosystems for 

water, food, cover, and nesting sites. Wildlife species of concern include adult phases of animals with 

aquatic larvae, including a multitude of insects (e.g., caddis flies, damselflies, and stoneflies) and 

special-status amphibians. Most species of bats that are rare or at risk use riparian areas for foraging. 

Land mollusks are often thought of as being upland rock associates, but some are typical inhabitants 

of mesic microclimates in riparian areas (e.g., Wet Canyon talus snail, Madera talus snail (Sonorella 

clappi) and Cave Creek woodland snail (Ashmunella chiricahuana)). Many rare and at-risk bird 

species depend on riparian habitats, including Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii), elegant trogon, and the 

western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). Numerous rare or at-risk plant 

species are riparian associates, including Gentry’s indigo bush (Dalea tentaculoides), Chiricahua 

mountain alum-root (Heuchera glomerulata), California satin tail (Imperata brevifolia), Southwest 

monkey flower, frog’s bit buttercup (Ranunculus hydrocharoides), and Huachuca water umbel 

(Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva). 

Traditionally, riparian species were collected by Native Americans for a variety of uses. Willows 

(Salix sp.) are an important plant for traditional basketry. The light wood from cottonwoods was used 

for construction, certain tools, and coals for roasting food. Mesquite continues to be widely used for 

fuel and food. Walnuts are a traditional food for Mexican-Americans as well as Native Americans. 

Among aquatic plants, cattail (Typha dominguez) was used for basketry and food, and yerba mansa 

(Anemopsis californica) has traditional medicinal uses.

Riparian Vegetation Classification

Vegetation supported within riparian areas varies with watershed size, geology, elevation, and aspect. 

Riparian vegetation has been categorized by various entities using different nomenclature, and several 

have developed riparian area maps that include the Coronado National Forest (Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 1993; Winestead 1997; Wahl 1997; Lee et al. 2006; USDA FS 1984). Most recently, the 

Forest Service has undertaken the regional riparian mapping project (RMAP) to classify potential 

native vegetation types. The regional riparian mapping project classification system incorporates 

terrestrial ecological unit inventory vegetation subseries. The Coronado National Forest is currently 

developing its terrestrial ecological unit inventory. The riparian classification system described in this 

environmental impact statement will be the system adopted by the Coronado National Forest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

149

Descriptions of potential native vegetation type groups and regional riparian mapping project units 

that occur on the Coronado National Forest are shown below.

Desert Willow Potential Natural Vegetation Type Group: Desert Willow (RMAP Map Unit 

130) is typically found at elevations ranging from 1,300 to 6,900 feet. Other riparian species 

commonly found in Map Unit 130 are netleaf hackberry and velvet mesquite.

Cottonwood Potential Natural Vegetation Type Group: Fremont Cottonwood-Shrub (RMAP 

Unit 180) is typically found at elevations ranging from 1,000 to 7,600 feet. Some areas of this map 

unit are dominated by Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii C.R. Ball) and velvet ash (Fraxinus

velutina) and have the potential for cottonwood regeneration. Other riparian species commonly 

found in Map Unit 180 are willow species, box elder, and desert willow. Map Unit 180 also 

supports a mesquite bosque subtype, mapped as Map Unit 180.6. Lanceleaf cottonwood, which is a 

hybrid between Fremont cottonwood and narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), may occur 

in place of Fremont cottonwood in some places as this map unit transitions with Map Unit 230 

(Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Shrub).

Narrowleaf Cottonwood-Shrub (RMAP Unit 230) is typically found at elevations ranging from 

1,900 to 10,000 feet. Other riparian species commonly found in Map Unit 230 include box elder, 

willow species, Arizona alder, and Arizona walnut. Lanceleaf cottonwood may occur in place of 

narrowleaf cottonwood in some places as this map unit transitions with Map Unit 180 (Fremont 

Cottonwood/Shrub). 

Sycamore-Fremont Cottonwood (RMAP Unit 270) is typically found at elevations ranging from 

1,400 to 7,700 feet. The primary cottonwood species in Map Unit 270 is Fremont cottonwood but 

includes the occasional incidence of narrowleaf cottonwood. Other riparian species commonly 

found in Map Unit 270 are box elder, velvet ash, Arizona walnut, and willow species. 

Cottonwood-Evergreen Tree Potential Natural Vegetation Type Group: Freemont 

Cottonwood-Oak (RMAP Unit 170) is typically found at elevations ranging from 2,200 to 7,500 

feet. Oak species in this map unit include Emory oak and Sonoran scrub oak. Other riparian species 

commonly found in Map Unit 170 are Arizona sycamore and velvet ash. 

Fremont Cottonwood-Conifer (RMAP Unit 150) is typically found at elevations ranging from 2,100 

to 8,800 feet. Other species commonly found in Map Unit 150 are juniper species and velvet 

mesquite. 

Willow-Alder (RMAP Unit 110) is typically found at elevations ranging from 3,330 to 9,900 feet. 

While both Arizona alder and willow species are indicative of this unit, some areas may contain 

only one species or the other. Common willow species include red willow (S. laevigata) and arroyo 

willow (S. lasiolepsis). Other riparian species commonly found in Map Unit 110 are Arizona 

walnut, velvet ash, and Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum). 

Montane Conifer-Willow Potential Natural Vegetation Type Group: Upper Montane ConiferWillow (RMAP Unit 280) is typically found at elevations ranging from 6,100 to 11,400 feet. 

Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) occurrence can range from mere presence to codominance. 

Conifer species include spruce, subalpine fir, white fir, and Douglas fir. Other riparian species 

commonly found in Map Unit 280 are thinleaf alder and box elder. 

Ponderosa Pine-Willow (RMAP Unit 350) is typically found at elevations ranging from 4,500 to 

9,700 feet. Map Unit 350 is typified by an overstory of ponderosa pine with an understory of 

shrubby willow species. Other riparian species commonly found in Map Unit 350 are Arizona 

walnut, box elder, and velvet ash. 

Walnut-Evergreen Tree Potential Natural Vegetation Type Group: Walnut-Evergreen Tree 

(RMAP Map Unit 300) is typically found at elevations ranging from 4,000 to 8,300 feet. Map Unit 

300 is typically found in central Arizona, southeastern Arizona, and southwestern New Mexico. 

This highly diverse unit tends to occur in dryer drainages than other riparian types and often also 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

150

includes species such as willows, box elder, ponderosa pine, piñon pine, juniper, and various species 

of oak. 

Herbaceous Riparian Potential Natural Vegetation Type Group: Herbaceous Riparian (RMAP 

Map Unit 190) is typically found at elevations ranging from 2,100 to 13,000 feet. This map unit 

supports a host of riparian and wetland herbaceous species, and species occurrence varies greatly 

with elevation and climate. The former Map Unit 200 (Herbaceous Wetland) has been combined 

with and is now included in Map Unit 190. 

Historic Riparian-Agriculture Potential Natural Vegetation Type Group: Historic RiparianAgriculture (RMAP Map Unit 400) represents areas that historically supported riparian vegetation 

but that have been altered by anthropogenic disturbances. Current land use is agricultural in nature, 

including farming and ranching. Ancillary data and historic site potential were used to determine the 

historic riparian type and the map unit that would have been expected in the absence of 

anthropogenic disturbance.

Historic Riparian-Residential/Urban Potential Natural Vegetation Type Group: Historic 

Riparian–Residential (RMAP Map Unit 410) represents areas that historically supported riparian 

vegetation, but that have been altered by anthropogenic disturbances. Current land use is urban or 

residential in nature. Ancillary data and historic site potential were used to determine the historic 

riparian type and the map unit that would have been expected in the absence of anthropogenic 

disturbance.

Riparian Area Conditions and Trends

Some factors that contribute to conditions and trends in riparian areas are beyond Forest Service 

control, specifically climate change, border-related activities (including undocumented immigration, 

smuggling, and consequent law enforcement actions), and water rights held by others. Flooding and 

fire are natural disturbances that can be influenced but not entirely controlled by management. Flood 

frequency is controlled largely by precipitation events, although flood size can be affected by human 

disturbances. Wildfires are not always readily suppressed. During drought conditions, riparian areas 

are more susceptible to damage from wildfire than under normal conditions. Because of the narrow, 

linear structure of riparian areas, fire behavior and severity can be influenced by fuels in the 

vegetation communities on adjacent uplands. 

Factors affecting conditions and trends in riparian areas that can be addressed by the Forest Service 

include motorized vehicle use, managed recreation, unmanaged recreation (especially off-highway 

vehicle use), prospecting for minerals, water withdrawals, livestock grazing, planned fire ignitions 

(prescribed fire), and management of some unplanned ignitions. In the past, poorly designed 

transportation systems and historic overgrazing have damaged some riparian areas and channels on the 

Coronado. Management changes have been made, and are continuing to be made, to address these 

situations. Managing recreation to minimize negative impacts has had limited success in riparian areas 

due to lack of personnel for enforcement, whereas mineral prospecting is generally well controlled to 

protect riparian areas. Water withdrawals will almost certainly continue, as will fires and floods at 

unnatural frequency and severity. 

In 1993, the Coronado National Forest began using the Southwestern Region Riparian Area Survey 

and Evaluation System (RASES) (USDA FS 1989). Baseline vegetation data have been collected from 

riparian areas in all ecosystem management areas. Data include species composition, age classes, tree 

reproduction, bank protection, canopy cover, and plant vigor. Although the data are sound, evaluating 

riparian condition using the standards and guidelines in the 1986 forest plan is problematic, because 

the criteria for desired conditions are defined as percentages of “natural” conditions, which themselves 

are undefined. In addition, the same criteria are applied to riparian areas that differ greatly in their 

ecological potential for the particular criteria. Keeping these caveats in mind, 49 percent of 287 

transects on all ecosystem management areas met the standard in the 1986 forest plan for species 

composition, age classes, and reproduction. In some instances, mature and sapling trees have been lost 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

151

to the drought that has been ongoing since 1999. The average score for bank protection was 49 

percent, which was below the 1986 standard of 60 percent. The average score for canopy closure was 

40 percent, which exceeded the standard of 30 percent. Scores for plant vigor in the excellent or good 

categories were achieved by 68 percent of sites. For the seven ecosystem management areas that have 

trend data available, the percent of monitoring transects showing upward or stable trends in species 

composition, age classes, and tree regeneration ranged from 33 to 87 percent. Riparian monitoring on 

the Coronado is ongoing. 

In addition to vegetation parameters, the Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation System method 

monitors channel morphology and substrate sediment size composition. For channel measures, the 

general trend across the Coronado is upward or within the expected range of variability. Upward and 

stable trends in channel conditions are a result of improved management of recreation, prospecting, 

livestock grazing, and road location and maintenance.

Riparian Areas – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Vegetation treatments that would be permissible under each of the alternatives can have common 

effects on riparian communities. In some cases, factors outside of Forest Service control, such as 

unplanned ignitions, may exacerbate effects. Frequent fire occurrence alters reference composition 

and structure of riparian areas. Wildland fire can have varying impacts to riparian areas based on the 

timing and frequency. Livestock grazing will continue to be authorized in some riparian areas. Effect 

will vary with timing, duration, and intensity and include changes in vegetation structure and 

composition, soil structure, and water infiltration rates.

No Action

Under the no-action alternative, management of riparian areas would continue to be directed by the

forestwide and management area goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in the 1986 forest plan 

(as amended). Current direction fails to address the following:

• There are no objectives for riparian areas. In particular, there are no quantitative objectives.

• Desired conditions defined as percentages of “natural” conditions, which themselves are 

undefined, do not reflect current ecological theory and practice that focus on describing states 

(present and potential), transitions between states, and management actions that can conserve or 

restore desired states.

• The riparian area classification system (Management Area 7A, wet deciduous and wet coniferous 

capability types; Management Area 7B, dry desert and dry oak capability types) does not 

correspond to the regional riparian mapping project riparian vegetation classification system being 

adopted by the Southwestern Region or the recently initiated Coronado National Forest terrestrial 

ecological unit inventory survey.

If no action is taken, upland watershed projects would continue under the direction of the 1986 forest 

plan. Riparian-specific projects would be conducted as opportunities are presented, and best 

management practices as described in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 would be implemented to 

minimize alteration of riparian areas. This would result in continued movement of riparian areas 

toward desired conditions across the Coronado, with isolated areas of static or downward trends where 

opportunities to make changes are not available. However, a consequence to riparian environments of 

the no-action alternative would be slower movement of riparian areas toward desired conditions than 

under the proposed action, because the no-action alternative has no quantitative objective for treating 

upland vegetation, soils, or watersheds. Healthy upland vegetation, soils, and watersheds are crucial 

for maintaining healthy riparian areas. Quantitative objectives provide measureable accomplishment 

requirements and accountability in achieving them. In addition, damage to riparian areas could occur 

as a consequence of the no-action alternative because the alternative does not provide specific 

guidelines: that protect riparian areas from new road construction, that allow livestock grazing only 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

152

when there is no deleterious effects to riparian area structure or function, and that require vegetation 

treatments in riparian areas to retain large-diameter woody debris, snags, and large trees. 

If no action is taken, the Coronado National Forest would be locked into an outdated riparian 

vegetation classification system for the next decade. The current riparian classification system does 

not correspond with the system recommended at the Forest Service regional level. This would result in 

inconsistencies in identification of riparian areas, data collection parameters, and condition 

assessments. Lack of clarity regarding riparian area classification could affect how areas are managed 

for riparian values and prioritized for protection, restoration, and treatment. The riparian vegetation 

categories used by the 1986 forest plan are very broad, encompassing multiple ecological sites with 

differing dominant species and potential vegetation communities, making it inappropriate to apply the 

same condition standards. Using inappropriately defined or undefined “natural” conditions as the 

criteria against which to evaluate current riparian conditions could result in confusing or misleading 

conclusions. For example “dry” riparian areas that do not have the capability to achieve arbitrary 

criteria for species composition, canopy cover, and channel morphology could be rated incorrectly as 

“at risk” or “impaired” when they are actually in satisfactory condition given their ecological 

potential. Resources for protection, restoration, and treatment of riparian areas are limited. A 

consequence of inaccurate classification or condition assessment to riparian environments could be the 

allocation of resources to riparian areas that have limited potential to respond and the neglect of areas 

that do have the potential to respond to protection, restoration, and treatment. 

The 1986 plan does not provide resource management direction to develop adaptation and resiliency 

to the effects of climate change. Thus, in riparian ecosystems, in which vegetation, soils, air, water, 

and wildlife are integrated components, atypical temperatures and rainfall patterns may cause 

disturbances such as flooding, decreased water availability, increased threat of wildfire, and increased 

susceptibility to insects and disease.

Proposed Action

The proposed action includes the following objective that differs from the no-action alternative:

• Treat 2,500 to 10,000 acres of uplands with vegetation treatments or soil and watershed 

restoration treatments to maintain watershed stability and, thereby, the structure and function of 

streams, flood plains, and riparian vegetation.

The proposed action also provides these guidelines that are not included in the no-action alternative:

• New road construction in riparian areas should be avoided, except to cross drainages, unless 

alternate routes have greater overall resource impacts. If these activities are unavoidable, they 

should be designed and implemented to minimize effects to natural water flow and native 

vegetation communities.

• Livestock grazing in riparian areas should only be allowed when there are no significant 

deleterious effects to riparian area structure or function. 

• Vegetation treatments in riparian areas should favor the retention of large diameter woody debris 

in and near stream channels.

• Vegetation treatments should favor the retention of snags and growth of large riparian trees.

Desired riparian area condition descriptions in the proposed action include the following:

• Channels and their adjacent flood plains are capable of filtering sediment, capturing bedload, 

aiding flood plain development, improving floodwater retention, and increasing groundwater 

recharge. 

• Vegetation and root masses stabilize streambanks against the cutting action of water currents. 

• All vegetation is native. 

• The ecological condition of riparian areas is resilient to animal and human use. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

153

• Tree canopy cover is between 30 and 100 percent. 

• Soil along streambanks is stabilized by vegetation, gravel, rocks, boulders, and bedrock such that 

60 to 100 percent of the bank is protected.

• Where water is perennial, streamflows and water quality characteristics (as described in the 

desired conditions for natural water sources) support aquatic wildlife. Native fish and other 

aquatic species are present, and habitat conditions are capable of providing self-sustaining 

populations. 

• Native fish and amphibian populations are free from or minimally impacted by nonnative 

predation and diseases. 

• Habitat and ecological conditions are capable of providing self-sustaining populations of native, 

riparian-dependent plant and animal species. 

• Fire burns only rarely through this vegetation type, and fire in surrounding watersheds causes 

minimal erosion and channel modification.

Movement of riparian areas toward desired conditions would proceed more rapidly under the proposed 

action than the no-action alternative because the proposed action includes a quantitative objective for 

treating 2,500 to 10,000 acres of upland vegetation, soils, or watersheds to maintain watershed 

stability, the structure and function of streams and flood plains, and riparian vegetation. Upland 

conditions are critically important for their effects on water quality, soil erosion, disturbance regimes, 

and the health and vigor of riparian vegetative communities. By requiring a quantitative standard, 

treatment of uplands would assume a priority status that is lacking in the no-action alternative. The 

consequence to riparian environments would be improvements in riparian qualities affected by upland 

watersheds, such as reduced soil erosion and sedimentation and enhanced water quality and water 

table recharge.

The proposed action also has guidelines that are absent from the no-action alternative that address new 

road construction in riparian areas, thinning and fire management projects, and livestock grazing to 

protect riparian ecosystems while accommodating legitimate multiple uses. 

Under the proposed action, the Coronado would adopt the regional riparian mapping project riparian 

vegetation classification system that corresponds with the system recommended at the Forest Service 

regional level. This would result in consist identification of riparian areas, data collection parameters, 

and condition assessments. Clarity regarding riparian area classification would enable the Forest 

Service to better manage riparian values and prioritize riparian areas for protection, restoration, and 

treatment. 

The riparian vegetation categories under the proposed action would be clearly defined with respect to 

ecological sites with unique dominant species and potential vegetation communities, making it 

appropriate to apply the same condition standards. Criteria for evaluating riparian conditions would be 

specific to the vegetation community and consistent with regional protocols and the capability of the 

site to achieve desired species composition, canopy cover, and channel morphology, lending accuracy 

and credibility to condition ratings within the context of their ecological potential. Desired riparian 

conditions would be described in terms of structure and function with respect to vegetation, stream 

characteristics, and wildlife habitat. A consequence for the riparian environment would be the most 

effective allocation of resources to riparian areas most capable of responding to protection, restoration, 

and treatment.

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action: the Mount 

Graham Wilderness Study Area, Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North. Combined, 

these areas include approximately 382 acres of riparian vegetation. Approximately 76 acres of riparian 

area identified by RMAP are found in the Ku Chish area, primarily in Wood Canyon. The Ku Chish 

area is currently grazed under the Rough Mountain Allotment and would continue to be grazed under 

wilderness designation. According to the regional riparian mapping project, riparian communities also 

occur across approximately 24 acres of Chiricahua Addition North, and seven acres of Mount Graham
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

154

recommended wilderness areas. The Whetstone area contains no riparian vegetation according to 

regional riparian mapping project. The need for watershed or riparian improvement or restoration 

projects, whether for management of grazing, fuels, recreation, or other purposes, would be evaluated 

on a site-specific basis and, if possible, would be accomplished within the constraints that apply to 

wilderness areas, such as no mechanized or motorized equipment. If improvement or restoration 

projects were needed, more time and possibly greater expense could be required for implementation 

because of the additional paperwork and less time-efficient methods approved for wilderness areas. 

However, these constraints can be lifted if a minimum requirements decision analysis24 determines 

that the benefits of the prohibited activity outweigh or justify trammeling in wilderness. The effects of 

recommending the four areas as wilderness under the proposed action would be similar to those 

described under alternative 1 (page 100 and below) except that fewer acres would be affected.

Management of areas for wilderness character is generally consistent with the desired conditions 

regarding the preservation of natural landscapes and the reduction of ground disturbance and other 

intrusions. Road construction, vehicular traffic, recreational development, mining exploration, and 

other uses that are permitted on the Coronado National Forest outside of wilderness can damage 

riparian areas. A consequence for riparian environments of wilderness designation under the proposed 

action, which is not included in the no-action alternative, would be to protect riparian areas from 

degradation arising from these intensive uses.

The revised forest plan under the proposed action provides resource management direction to develop 

resource adaptation and resiliency to the effects of climate change. Thus, negative effects described 

under the “No Action” heading above would be better managed, and the health and vigor of riparian 

resources would be sustained.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 incorporates all the components of the proposed action and recommends the designation 

of 16 additional wilderness areas. The consequences of implementing alternative 1 would include 

those listed for the proposed action along with additional effects associated with recommended 

wilderness areas in the Chiricahua, Dragoon, Galiuro, Peloncillo, Pinaleño, Santa Rita, Santa Teresa, 

Tumacacori, Whetstone, and Winchester Mountains. There are no regional riparian mapping project 

riparian areas in the Chiricahua Addition West Potential Wilderness Area, Whitmire Canyon Potential 

Wilderness Area in the Peloncillo Mountains, Mount Fagan Potential Wilderness Area in the Santa 

Rita Mountains, Santa Teresa Addition North Potential Wilderness Area, and Whetstone Potential 

Wilderness Area. Therefore, there would be no effects on riparian areas of designating these 

recommended wilderness areas.

The regional riparian mapping project (RMAP) does show riparian areas in the other proposed 

wilderness areas (Dragoon, Chiricahua Addition North, Jhus Canyon in the Chiricahua Mountains, 

Galiuro Addition, Bunk Robinson in the Peloncillo Mountains, Mount Graham in the Pinaleño 

Mountains, Mount Wrightson Addition in the Santa Rita Mountains, Santa Teresa Addition South, and 

Tumacacori). Acres of potentially effected riparian areas in these proposed wilderness areas are shown 

in table 58.

Currently, all of the recommended wilderness areas are grazed and would continue to be grazed under 

wilderness designation. The need for watershed or riparian improvement or restoration projects, 

whether for management of grazing, fuels, recreation, or other purposes, would be evaluated on a sitespecific basis and, if possible, would be accomplished within the constraints that apply to wilderness 

areas (such as no mechanized or motorized equipment). If improvement or restoration projects were 

needed, more time and possibly greater expense could be required for implementation because of the 

additional paperwork and less time-efficient methods approved for wilderness areas. However, these 

 

24 Limitations on management actions within wilderness areas may be temporarily lifted if minimum requirements 

decision analysis determines the action both necessary and the minimum required to complete the work.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

155

constraints could be lifted if a minimum requirements decision analysis determined that the benefits of 

the prohibited activity outweighed or justified trammeling in wilderness. 

Table 58. Acres of riparian area (as designated by the RMAP) in wilderness areas recommended by 

alternative 1 listed by ecological management area

Ecosystem Management Area Recommended Wilderness Riparian Acres

Chiricahua Ku Chish 121

Chiricahua Chiricahua Addition North plus Jhus Canyon 175

Dragoon Dragoon 147

Galiuro Galiuro Addition 1

Peloncillo Bunk Robinson 4

Pinaleño Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 27

Santa Rita Mount Wrightson Addition 114

Santa Teresa Santa Teresa Addition South 0

Tumacacori Tumacacori 103

Total Acres 692

Management of areas for wilderness character is generally consistent with desired conditions 

regarding the preservation of natural landscapes and the reduction of ground disturbance and other 

intrusions. Road construction, vehicle traffic, recreational development, mining exploration, and other 

uses that are permitted on the Coronado outside of wilderness can damage riparian areas, and 

wilderness designation could help protect riparian areas from degradation arising from these intensive 

uses. Alternative 1 would offer this protection to 842 riparian acres in recommended wilderness areas, 

whereas the proposed action would include only 324 acres of riparian vegetation.

Because alternative 1 includes the same direction as the proposed action with regard to climate 

change, the benefits to riparian resources would be the same (see “Proposed Action” discussion 

above).

Alternative 2

The consequences of implementing alternative 2 would include those listed for the proposed action 

along with additional localized effects on approximately 31 acres of riparian area included in the 

proposed Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone under alternative 2. By comparison, approximately 14 

acres of riparian are included in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone under the proposed action 

and alternative 1 (table 32). Under alternative 2, riparian areas in the Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone occur in the Santa Catalina, Huachuca, Santa Rita, and Pinaleño Mountains. With alternative 2, 

there is potential for off-highway vehicle trails and other facilities to be built in riparian areas in 

support of motorized recreation, which would result in a net loss of this community on the Coronado. 

In addition to localized effects, vegetation removal and soil compaction would likely extend beyond 

the footprint created by construction of facilities in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone and 

associated roads. There could also be effects downstream of the sites due to the significant disturbance 

expected from off-road vehicle use within the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone, including 

increased erosion, sedimentation, changes to channel morphology, and increased risk of invasive 

plants.

On the other hand, an officially designated land use zone for motorized recreation could direct offroad activities to the land use zone and away from other riparian areas that are currently being used, in 

some cases with very significant effects on riparian vegetation, animals, soils, and channel 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

156

morphology, if there were enough personnel to effectively control motorized recreation outside the 

land use zone.

Alternative 2 provides limited direction with regard to climate change. The strategies in appendix A of 

the plan guide management of forest resources to develop resiliency and adaptation to natural 

disturbances resulting from climate change (see “Proposed Action” discussion). However, alternative 

2 does not include plan components specific to climate change. Thus, this alternative is less effective 

than the proposed action and alternative 1 in sustaining riparian resources during climate change and 

slightly more effective than no action.

Cumulative Effects – Effects Common to All Alternatives

The multiple uses allowed in riparian areas on the Coronado and their associated uplands, coupled 

with factors outside the Forest Service’s control, could result in cumulative effects beyond those of 

one activity. Climate change is predicted by many models to create warmer and drier conditions in the 

Southwest in future decades. This could increase evapotranspiration rates in both upland and riparian 

areas and lower water tables in riparian areas, affecting instream flows and perennial pools. Loss of 

perennial above or below groundwater could cause vegetation communities to transition to more dryadapted species. Drought could reduce upland ground cover in grasslands or increase wildfires in 

forests and, thereby, increase erosion and sedimentation in streams. All of these effects could reduce 

wildlife habitat, especially for aquatic species. Stressed riparian vegetation could become more 

vulnerable to disturbance such as off-road vehicles, recreation, and livestock grazing. A riparian area 

impacted by a single disturbance (for example off-road vehicle use) might be able recover but lack the 

resilience to recover from multiple disturbances (such as off-road vehicle use during drought or 

accompanied by livestock grazing). 

Many riparian areas on the Coronado share watersheds with, or originate in upstream reaches on,

adjoining jurisdictions, including private lands, other agencies, and municipalities. Management on 

these watersheds and upstream reaches can have direct and profound effects on riparian areas on the 

Coronado. Off-road vehicle use, mining, recreation, grazing, fires, and invasive plants and animals 

may occur on watersheds and upstream reaches outside the Coronado that impact adjacent riparian 

areas on the national forest. These activities could contribute to increased erosion and sedimentation, 

altered channel morphology, and invasion of nonnative species in riparian areas on the Coronado. The 

environmental consequences to forest riparian areas could include degraded riparian conditions and 

reduced habitat for wildlife, especially aquatic species. Cumulative effects of off-forest activities, 

coupled with multiple uses in Coronado National Forest riparian areas and factors beyond the Forest 

Service’s control such as climate change and drought, could result in greater degradation than any one 

factor alone.

Cumulative Effects of No Action

The cumulative effects to riparian areas arising from multiple uses on the Coronado, factors outside of 

forest control, such as climate change and drought, and activities on adjoining jurisdictions are similar 

for all the alternatives. However, the no-action alternative is not well suited to anticipating or 

mitigating cumulative effects because it lacks quantitative objectives for treating upland vegetation, 

soils, or watersheds, and appropriate criteria for classifying and monitoring riparian areas.

Cumulative Effects of Proposed Action

Although possible cumulative effects in riparian areas for the proposed action and the no-action 

alternative are similar, the proposed action is better suited to anticipating and mitigating cumulative 

effects than the no-action alternative because it includes quantitative objectives for treating upland 

vegetation, soils, or watersheds, and appropriate criteria for classifying and monitoring riparian areas. 

In addition, guidelines and desired conditions in the proposed action focus on managing activities in 

riparian areas for resilience and sustainability with emphasis on their value for wildlife habitat and 

maintaining flood plain and channel function.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

157

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1

The potential cumulative effects described for all the alternatives apply to alternative 1 for the 

Coronado overall, but might be reduced in the 16 additional wilderness areas proposed in alternative 

1. Effects outside of the Forest Service’s control such as climate change, drought, and the activities of 

other jurisdictions and their consequences for riparian health and wildlife habitat would remain the 

same in the proposed wilderness areas. Cumulative effects from activities under the Forest Service’s 

control, such as roads, off-road vehicles, and developed recreation, would be reduced in the proposed 

wilderness areas. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2

The cumulative effects for alternative 2 are the same as those described for all the alternatives, except 

within the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone proposed under alternative 2 and possibly riparian 

areas downstream from the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone. The effects of off-road vehicles on 

31 acres of riparian area within the proposed Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone would likely 

exceed those of the described cumulative effects. However, there could be additional cumulative 

effects downstream due to the significant disturbance expected from off-road vehicle use within the 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone, including increased erosion, sedimentation, changes to channel 

morphology, and increased risk of invasive plants. The environmental consequences of alternative 2 

could increase downstream riparian degradation and loss of wildlife habitat.

Vegetation Communities, Fuels and Fire – Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects spatial boundary for the vegetation and fire analysis was defined by the 

Bailey’s (1983) ecological sections and ecoregion provinces represented on the Coronado and located 

within Arizona, New Mexico, and the country of Mexico. 

Ecoregion provinces are defined by continental weather patterns such as length of dry season and 

duration of cold temperatures as well as similar soil orders (USDA FS 2009b). Sections are a 

subdivision of provinces. Ecological sections describe broad areas of similar subregional climate, 

geomorphic process, stratigraphy, geologic origin, topography, and drainage networks (USDA FS 

2009b). Figure 3 shows the majority of the Coronado is represented by the Chihuahuan Desert-Basin 

and Range Section, with a very small portion ( less than 1 percent) occupying the Sonoran Desert 

Section. Within the cumulative effects boundary, the remaining lands are owned or managed by other 

national forests, the states of Arizona and New Mexico, Bureau of Land Management, National Park 

Service, Department of Defense, country of Mexico, several tribes, and numerous private entities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

158

Figure 3. The ecological sections (Bailey 1983) and North American provinces represented on the 

Coronado and considered for the cumulative effects analysis

Table 59. The acreage and percentage on the Coronado National Forest and the spatial contribution 

to Bailey’s ecological sections

Bailey’s Ecoregion Sections

Total Acres 

of Section

Portion Within the Coronado National Forest

Acres

Percent 

of 

Section

Percent of 

Section in 

Arizona

Percent of 

Section in 

New Mexico

Chihuahuan Desert-Basin and 

Range

15,645,569 1,772,417 11.3% 18.4% 1.1%

Sonoran Desert 17,526,383 1,329 0.01% 0.01% 0.0%

The North American ecoregion provinces span both the United States and Mexico. Within the states 

of Arizona, New Mexico, Sonora, and Chihuahua, the Coronado contributes to almost 4 percent of the 

Semideserts Province and less than 1 percent of the Deserts on Sand Province (table 60). The 

combined states of Sonora and Chihuahua contain almost 70 percent and 25 percent of the Deserts on 

Sand and Semideserts Provinces, respectively. The small proportion of each province represented on 

the Coronado and the large proportion of these provinces located in Sonora and Chihuahua means that 

the contribution of the Coronado to the sustainability of the ecological communities and processes 

within the Desert on Sand and Semideserts Provinces is limited.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

159

Table 60. The acreage and percentage on the Coronado National Forest and the spatial contribution 

to Bailey’s ecoregion provinces

Bailey’s North 

America 

Ecoregion 

Province

Total Acres of 

Province 

(AZ, NM, Sonora, 

Chihuahua)

Portion Within the Coronado National Forest

Acres

Percent 

of 

Province

Percent of 

Province in 

Arizona

Percent of 

Province in 

New Mexico

Deserts on Sand 89,848,752 428,519 < 1% < 1% < 1%

Semideserts 35,347,019 1,355,191 3.8% 3.6% < 1%

The temporal boundary used for the vegetation and fire cumulative effects analysis includes 10 years 

in the past and 10 years in the future. However, some discussion will include effects since the 

approval of the 1986 forest plan. In effect, the temporal boundary spans 20 years, from 2002 to 2022.

Activities on Adjacent Land Ownerships and Management Entities

Activities on other land ownerships within these provinces and sections also contribute to the 

conditions of ecological communities and processes. Table 61 includes information considered in this 

cumulative effects analysis about the management of other land ownerships, specifically their 

activities that are likely to occur over the next 10 years. 

There is limited information available on land management plans and resource accomplishments in 

Mexico. The few plans and projects listed in table 61 are a small representation of the land 

management activities in Mexico. However, as the Coronado has little influence on the provinces and 

associated vegetation communities that span Mexico, the limited information may not be a significant 

deficit in the cumulative effects analysis.

Table 61. Management plans for other lands considered in cumulative effects for vegetation and fire

Plan Description and Relevant Effects

Effects 

Timeframe Relevant Measure(s)

Arizona Forest 

Resource Strategy 

(2010)

Restoring declining ecosystems and protecting 

healthy ones to ensure the nation’s lands are 

resilient to threats and impacts, including 

climate change.

Current Amount of declining 

ecosystems restored and 

healthy ecosystems 

protected.

Community Wildfire 

Protection Plans 

(CWPP):

Arivaca/Sasabe, 

Catalina, Cascabel, 

Graham County, Mt. 

Lemmon, Pinal 

County, Sonoita/Elgin

The overarching goals of CWPPs adjacent to 

the Coronado include:

• Improve fire prevention and suppression, 

emphasizing firefighter and public safety.

• Reduce hazardous fuels, emphasizing public 

and private property protection.

• Restore forest, rangeland, and riparian 

health.

• Promote community involvement and 

provide for community protection.

Current and 

under revision

Amount of threats to 

property and ecosystem 

health reduced in 

Chihuahuan DesertBasin and Range.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

160

Plan Description and Relevant Effects

Effects 

Timeframe Relevant Measure(s)

Southern Arizona 

Buffelgrass Strategic 

Plan (2008)

The strategic plan identifies five key strategies 

that provide the framework for successfully 

managing buffelgrass infestations within the 

region:

• Minimize spread in areas where buffelgrass 

has not yet become established. 

• Set and implement control priorities based 

on actual and potential impacts. 

• Restore treated areas in ways that increase 

resilience against future invasion. 

• Mitigate wildfire risks to life and property in 

areas where control is no longer feasible. 

• Motivate legislation aimed at sustaining the 

control effort.

Current Amount of threats to 

property and ecosystem 

health reduced

Saguaro National Park 

General Management 

Plan (2008), Fire 

Management Plan 

(2007

Fire and fuels management goals (not all 

inclusive):

• Manage fire to minimize threats of 

unacceptable effects of fire to property

outside the park and sensitive cultural and 

natural resources.

• Restore and maintain fire-adapted 

ecosystems through the ecologically 

appropriate use of fire.

Current Amount of declining 

ecosystems restored and 

healthy ecosystems 

protected.

Fort Huachuca 

Integrated Resource 

Management Plan 

(U.S. Department of 

Defense 2001)

Fort Huachuca 

Integrated Wildland 

Fire Management Plan 

(2006)

These plans include the following goals:

• Protecting life, property, military training, 

natural resources, and historic properties 

from uncontrollable wildfires;

• Using prescribed fire to accomplish fuel 

reduction and improvement of ecological 

conditions and habitats; and

• Managing fire to benefit natural resources 

and ecosystems outside of human 

settlements.

Current Amount of threats to 

property and ecosystem 

health reduced in 

Chihuahuan DesertBasin and Range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

161

Plan Description and Relevant Effects

Effects 

Timeframe Relevant Measure(s)

Chiricahua National 

Monument General 

Management Plan 

(2001), Fire 

Management Plan 

(2005)

Fire and fuels management options:

• Appropriate management response 

(suppression) is applied around high visitor 

use, developed areas, certain sensitive 

resources needing protection, and when 

wildfire use is not feasible or safe.

• Prescribed fire is used to reduce fuels in 

high-risk areas and accomplish ecological 

goals.

• Wildland fire use allows natural ignitions to 

burn when they meet predetermined 

prescriptions related to safety and ecological 

goals.

• Nonfire applications—most notably thinning 

and herbicides—are treatments that are used 

instead of prescribed burning in areas where 

fire is inherently unsafe or undesirable given 

current fuels conditions.

Current Amount of declining 

ecosystems restored and 

healthy ecosystems 

protected in Chihuahuan 

Desert-Basin and Range 

Adjacent National 

Forests - Revised

Forest Plans

Guidance documents have been developed by 

the Southwestern Regional Office (R3) revision 

team to provide regional consistency for 

ongoing land management plan revisions. (The 

Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Coronado, 

Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests are 

currently in plan revision under the 1982 

Planning Rule provisions.) Local variation, 

specific to each planning effort is allowed, 

subject to consistency with best science and 

review by the revision team.

Current and 

under revision

Amount of threats to 

ecosystem health 

reduced and ecological 

function and resiliency 

restored.

Bureau of Land 

Management

Arizona strategic goals for sustainability 

include:

• Water – Living rivers preserve and enhance 

healthy vegetation, wildlife, and growing 

communities.

• Ecological Function – Enhanced ecological 

conditions support healthy plant and wildlife 

communities.

• Working Landscapes –Best multiple-use 

management practices enhance resource 

values.

Current Amount of ecological 

function and resiliency 

restored.

Native American 

Tribes – Integrated 

Resource Management 

Plans

Forest management plans appear in many 

forms, reflect many different approaches, and 

vary tremendously in their content, depth, and 

coverage. This diversity is appropriate in so far 

as it is necessary to serve specific tribal goals, 

but makes monitoring and comparison of plans 

and their implementation more difficult 

(IFMAT, 2003).

Current and 

under revision

Amount of threats to 

ecosystem health 

reduced and ecological 

function and resiliency 

restored.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

162

Plan Description and Relevant Effects

Effects 

Timeframe Relevant Measure(s)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - Strategic Plan

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 

mission is, working with others, to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants 

and their habitats for the continuing benefit of 

the American people. USFWS recognizes that 

fish and wildlife conservation is based on not 

only intervention to protect individual species 

but also intervention to protect, enhance, or 

restore habitat upon which these species 

depend for survival. 

Current 

(individual 

species 

recovery plans 

may be under 

revision)

Amount of habitat 

protected and restored.

Pinal County 

Comprehensive Plan 

(2009)

Natural environment goals:

• Develop a connected system of open space 

areas that protect and conserve natural, 

physical, and social resources.

• Strive to eliminate the fragmentation of 

wildlife habitat and support efforts to 

maintain or restore connectivity among 

habitats.

• Promote practices that prevent the 

introduction and spread of invasive species.

Current Amount of threats to 

ecosystem health 

reduced, open space 

preserved, and habitat 

protected and restored.

Cochise County 

Comprehensive Plan 

(as amended 2015)

Plan goals:

• Land use element: Development should 

occur in a manner that preserves open 

space, agricultural and ranching resources, 

and existing historical sites which may 

include: wildlife corridors; hydrologic 

recharge areas; floodplains; geologic 

features; historic, archaeological, or cultural 

resources; or arable soils.

• Water conservation and resources element: 

Sustain an adequate, safe water supply 

through water conservation measures, 

incentive programs, education, 

conservation and enhancement of natural 

recharge areas, and cooperative, multijurisdictional planning.

• Adequate facilities and services element:

Facilities for sewage disposal, water 

service, fire protection, streets, and utilities 

should be commensurate with the growth 

area classification and the intensity of 

proposed development. 

Current Amount of ecological 

function 

protected/restored in 

Chihuahuan DesertBasin and Range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

163

Plan Description and Relevant Effects

Effects 

Timeframe Relevant Measure(s)

Graham County 

Comprehensive Pan 

(2004)

Policy statement for forest/rangeland 

management:

That existing and proposed forest 

management plans include activities such as 

timber salvaging, prescribed burning, and 

fuelwood cutting to effectively improve 

forest health, protect human lives, and 

reduce risk of catastrophic fires having the 

potential to create waste lands taking 

decades to recover.

Current Amount of threats to 

property and ecosystem 

health reduced and 

ecological function and 

resiliency restored 

Chihuahuan DesertBasin and Range

Santa Cruz County 

Comprehensive 

Plan(2007)

Environmental/Open Space Goals:

• Open space and natural terrain remain 

dominant features of the landscape and 

view sheds are protected.

• Land uses will contribute to the protection 

of national and state parks, conservation 

areas, preserves, and other special natural 

resource areas.

• Wildlife habitat and wildlife movement 

corridors are recognized and preserved 

using established and innovative land use 

management tools.

Current Amount of open space 

preserved and habitat 

and ecosystem health 

protected in Chihuahuan 

Desert-Basin and Range

Pima County Multispecies Conservation 

Plan (MSCP 2010)

MSCP Land and Resource Management 

Objectives:

• Ensure the long-term viability and 

sustainability of native ecosystem structure 

and function and natural processes

• Protect the biological resources from 

threats and other disturbance activities

• Enhance and restore conservation targets in 

appropriate locations to improve habitat for 

covered species.

Current and 

under revision

Amount of threats to 

ecosystem health 

reduced, ecological 

function and resiliency 

restored, and habitat 

restored.

Hidalgo County 

Comprehensive Plan 

(2011)

Land and Water goals:

• Goal 2: Promote, protect, and restore the 

open spaces and natural resources such as 

rivers, riparian areas, flood plains, wildlife 

habitats, forests and grasslands, and 

migration corridors.

Hazard Mitigation goals:

• Goal 1: reduce potential loss of life and 

damage to existing community assets, 

including structures, critical facilities, and 

infrastructure from all emergencies, 

including natural and human-caused 

hazards such as wildfires, flooding, 

drought, severe weather, earthquakes, and 

contaminants.

Current Amount of open space 

preserved, habitat 

protected or restored,

and amount of 

ecosystem health and 

property protected in 

Chihuahuan DesertBasin and Range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

164

Plan Description and Relevant Effects

Effects 

Timeframe Relevant Measure(s)

Coronado Memorial 

GMP (2004), Fire 

Management Plan 

(2005)

Fire and fuels management goals (not all 

inclusive):

• Manage fire to minimize threats of 

unacceptable effects of fire to sensitive 

cultural and natural resources and 

properties within and outside the memorial.

• Implement a program in the future to use 

prescribed burning and hazard fuels 

reduction to restore natural fuel loadings.

Current Amount of declining 

ecosystems restored and 

amount of healthy 

ecosystems protected in 

Chihuahuan DesertBasin and Range

Mexico Emergency 

Mutual Assistance 

Operating Plan (2011)

Reduce the loss of resources caused by 

wildfires or other causes within the zone of 

mutual assistance along the U.S.-Mexican 

border.

Current Amount of ecosystem 

health and property 

protected

The Ministry of 

Environment and 

Natural Resources 

(Secretaria de Medio 

Ambiente y Recusos 

Naturales or 

SEMARNAT) 

Main Purpose Statement:

Promote the protection, restoration, and 

conservation of ecosystems and natural 

resources, as well as environmental goods 

and services, in order to promote their 

sustainable use and development. 

Current Amount of ecosystems 

protected and restored

Summary of Cumulative Effects 

The majority of both Chihuahuan Desert-Basin and Range and Sonoran Desert Sections are managed 

by Federal agencies, which include the Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, Department of Defense, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Table 62 summarizes the 

proportion of land ownership within the United States portion of the cumulative effects boundary. 

Other nearby Federal, State, and local jurisdictions share similar strategic goals with respect to 

fostering collaboration and ecosystem health. This includes promoting the natural role of fire in fireadapted ecosystems, resiliency to climate change, and protection of wildlife habitat.

Table 62. Proportion under Federal, State, private, and tribal ownership within the cumulative effects 

boundary in Arizona and New Mexico

Federal State Private Tribal

43% 21% 24% 12%

The first 10 years of the 1986 forest plan on the Coronado and surrounding national forests was driven 

much more by the production of forest products, and they were managed largely by using even-aged 

silvicultural methods, such as shelterwood and seed tree cuts. Although commercial timber harvest 

played a diminished role on the Coronado when compared to other national forests within the region, 

the legacy of this approach is reduced structural diversity and a general deficit of large and old trees. 

Other past management actions that are common on Department of the Interior and National Forest 

System lands that are still contributing to effects today include fire suppression (over several decades) 

and the lack of thinning in the sapling, small, and medium diameter classes. These actions have led to 

a surplus of trees that would likely continue to dominate untreated acres for several more decades. 

From 2003 to 2011, the majority of acres treated by the Department of the Interior and Forest Service 

were primarily density reduction treatments that focused on lowering fuel hazard and resulted in 

maintaining the landscape’s even-aged structure, which does not contribute to moving the forested 

landscape toward desired conditions of open and uneven-aged structure. Table 63 and table 64 display 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

165

the fuels treatments completed by Department of the Interior agencies and the Forest Service in 

Arizona and New Mexico. Past vegetation growth, trends, previous management and disturbance 

patterns, and annual weather patterns have contributed to the current vegetative composition, 

structure, densities, and conditions present today.

Table 63. Average yearly fuels treatment accomplishments by Department of the Interior agencies 

and Forest Service within the State of Arizona from 2003 to 2011

Agency

Wildland-Urban Interface Other - Outside Wildland-Urban Interface

Fire Mechanical Total Fire Mechanical Total

BIA 5,280 11,345 16,625 23,359 5,051 28,410

BLM 1,851 2,595 4,446 11,392 1,891 13,283

USFWS 3,262 95 3,357 5,831 511 6,342

NPS 1,820 345 2,165 7,353 508 7,861

USFS 35,184 29,503 64,687 51,140 14,948 66,088

Total 47,397 43,883 91,280 99,075 22,909 121,984

Average total planned fire ignition treatments per year (2003-2011) 146,472

Average total mechanical treatments per year (2003-2011) 66,792

Total 213,264

Source: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/reports/

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

NPS = National Park Service; USFS = U.S. Forest Service

Table 64. Average yearly fuels treatment accomplishments by Department of the Interior agencies 

and Forest Service within the State of New Mexico from 2003 to 2011

Agency

Wildland-Urban Interface Other - Outside Wildland-Urban Interface

Fire Mechanical Total Fire Mechanical Total

BIA 18,631 99,354 117,985 64,882 123,315 188,197

BLM 34,479 32,808 67,287 187,784 23,118 210,902

USFWS 0 0 0 0 0 0

NPS 28,865 3,317 32,182 88,219 2,226 90,445

USFS 14,842 12,644 27,486 19,420 5,178 24,598

Total 142,620 139,573 282,193 307,550 69,842 377,392

Average total planned fire ignition treatments per year (2003-2011) 100,810

Average total mechanical treatments per year (2003-2011) 56,819

Total 157,630

Source: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/reports/

BIA = Bureau of Indian Affairs; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

NPS = National Park Service; USFS = U.S. Forest Service

Recently agencies have shifted toward managing natural ignitions to achieve desired land and

resource management plan objectives, but this change has only gained momentum in the last 5 years 

and has yet to make a difference in landscape-scale effects. The 1996 forest plan amendment on all 

national forests in the Southwestern Region shifted national forests’ timber harvest strategy to the use 

of more uneven-aged silvicultural systems, such as individual tree and group selection. Additionally, 

old-growth management was implemented in the same amendment and promoted the development 

and maintenance of old growth and large trees, snags, and downed woody debris across National 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

166

Forest System lands. The use of “maintenance” prescribed burning has been analyzed in most 

vegetation treatment environmental analyses, allowing for increased reintroduction of fire into the 

fire-adapted vegetation communities. The rate of implementing these changes in Forest Service 

management and similar shifts in silvicultural methods on other Federal lands have been slowly 

increasing since 1996 and have begun to shift the static trend of the previous period toward desired 

conditions. 

Within the cumulative effects boundary (U.S. portion), the States of New Mexico and Arizona manage 

21 percent of the land. Overall, there is strong alignment between the Federal and State strategic plans, 

and the Arizona Forest Resource Strategy (2010). Some of the common themes are: (1) using a 

science-based approach, (2) collaboratively solving forest issues, (3) engaging tribal governments in 

natural resource management, and (4) restoring declining ecosystems and protecting healthy ones to 

ensure the Nation’s lands are resilient to threats and impacts, including climate change. The Arizona 

State Forestry Division completed approximately 14,000 acres of fuels treatments from 2002 to 2011. 

Arizona State Land Department works closely with the state and private forestry branch of the Forest 

Service to secure funding to protect communities from wildfire, assist private forest land owners, 

promote healthy forest practices, and assist communities with their urban forests. Many communities 

adjacent to the Coronado have developed community wildfire protection plans for this purpose. From

2007 to 2011, about 676 acres of lands next to the Coronado were treated. Fuels reduction and 

restoration of vegetation composition and structure proposed under the revised plan will complement 

the activities proposed under community wildfire protection plans to contribute to the protection of the 

wildland-urban interface and the overall health of the ecological communities in the region. 

The National Park Service is making some progress toward restoring degraded and at-risk vegetation 

communities, but their plan language is less specific and doesn’t give a good indication of how their 

future actions would affect vegetation structure and composition in relation to restoring reference 

conditions on lands that they manage. The Park Service does promote the restoration of fire-adapted 

ecosystems contributing to the overall health of the shared vegetation communities proposed for 

treatment under the revised forest plan.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protects and restores habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants. In the 

San Bernardino, Leslie Canyon, and Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuges, this takes on the form 

of riparian vegetation and grassland management. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities would 

increase the beneficial effects to species diversity and ecosystem restoration proposed under the 

revised plan objectives for the desert grassland and riparian vegetation communities.

The Bureau of Land Management provides wildland firefighting for resource protection, as well as 

using fire as a management tool to improve the health of the land. In managing livestock grazing on 

public rangelands, the overall objective of the Bureau of Land Management is to ensure the long-term 

health and productivity of these lands and to create multiple environmental benefits that result from 

healthy watersheds. Treatment objectives in the revised plan would complement Bureau of Land 

Management objectives by contributing to the restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems, improving 

species diversity, as well as watershed protection. 

Fort Huachuca (Department of Defense) also has a management plan that supports fuels reduction and 

ecosystem restoration. Vegetation treatments on Fort Huachuca are often accomplished in 

collaboration with the Coronado and with help from Forest Service employees. A total of 20,886 acres 

have been successfully treated with planned ignitions on Fort Huachuca over the past 7 years. 

Proposed treatments on Forest Service land would enlarge the overall areas treated by the Fort 

Huachuca and maximize the associated resource protection and restoration objectives.

Of the six counties represented on the Coronado, only Graham County has adopted a plan that 

specifically supports vegetation management to achieve ecosystem health and restoration. Even then,

Graham County focuses on fire risk reduction. Pima County has implemented a multispecies 

conservation plan that promotes the long-term viability and sustainability of native ecosystem 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

167

structure and function, yet does not specifically support vegetation management to achieve these 

goals. The remaining counties have plans that support the goals of the Coronado revised forest plan

and include provisions such as the preservation of open space, the protection of wildlife habitat, and 

the promotion of ecosystem health and sustainability. However, the majority of the counties have not 

yet made the shift toward considering these issues as a part of the need to manage vegetation 

composition, structure, and function through fire and other management tools to move the landscape 

toward reference conditions. As a result, their plans would not contribute as much toward the trend of 

restoring ecological structure and function in vegetation communities as the actions of Federal 

agencies, Graham County, and the State of Arizona.

A recent mining claim from Rosemont Copper would impact the vegetation communities on the 

Coronado through the direct removal of vegetation. This would decrease the ability of the Coronado to 

support and sustain the ecological communities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed claim.

Mexico manages some 71 million acres in the cumulative effects boundary. Mexico and the United 

States mutually manage fires that cross the international border into Mexico. To date, fire occurrence 

along the international border has been human caused and, therefore, required a suppression response. 

Natural ignitions have yet to be managed in the border area, but having the mutual agreement will 

support the revised plan objectives to restore fire-adapted ecosystems across the landscape. Within 

Mexico, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources promotes the protection, restoration, and 

conservation of ecosystems and natural resources.

The no-action alternative would have similar cumulative effects as the proposed action, as vegetation 

treatments would continue, although at slower rates due to current treatment levels. Alternative 1 and 

2 cumulative effects would be similar to the proposed action.

Invasive Species Treatments on Adjacent Lands

Treatment of invasive weeds on adjacent lands fosters activities that have cumulative environmental 

consequences in conjunction with all plan alternatives. Based on the last 6 years, on average the Forest 

Service has been treating 625 acres of invasive weeds per year. However, since 2010, the number of 

invasive species acres treated has increased about 100 to 200 percent. Under the forestwide invasive 

exotic plant management program, the Coronado will continue to treat invasive species across its 1.7 

million acres.

Buffelgrass is one of the most pressing invasive species problems on the Coronado. Although the 

Coronado does not manage a large portion of the desert potential natural vegetation type in the 

Southwest, buffelgrass threatens deserts universally. Buffelgrass is widespread throughout southern 

Arizona and occupies huge areas managed by other jurisdictions, including Saguaro National Park, 

Bureau of Land Management, Pima County, city of Tucson, other municipalities, and Arizona 

Department of Transportation. The organizations contribute to the removal and control of buffelgrass 

and other invasive species, which enhances the current and proposed treatments on the Coronado. 

Despite the concerted efforts of nonprofit organizations, State and Federal land management agencies, 

counties, municipalities, and other organizations to restrict the spread of buffelgrass and other invasive 

species, buffelgrass continues to be intentionally seeded to convert thousands of hectares of desert to 

grassland in Mexico. Buffelgrass is on the Arizona state noxious weed list and, therefore, can no 

longer be planted in Arizona. However, it is not included on the Federal noxious weed list or that of 

any other State and is still used as a pasture grass in other southwestern states. Fountain grass is also 

intentionally planted by private land owners as an ornamental, which spreads onto adjacent lands. Due 

to the conflicting management and existing vectors of transmission, invasive species will likely 

continue to be a problem in future.

Other Factors on Adjacent Lands

Other factors, common to all plan alternatives, outside the control of the Coronado that affect the 

condition of the vegetation communities in and around the Coronado include development on private 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

168

land. Development of private land adjacent to the national forest since 1990 has converted portions of 

some vegetation communities to urban or rural residential settings. Population growth within the 

counties that overlap the Coronado (excluding Hidalgo County) has increased on average between 20 

and 54 percent from 1990 to 2000 and between 11 and 109 percent from 2000 to 2010. Only Hidalgo 

County has seen a decrease in population over the same time periods, decreasing 0.4 percent between 

1990 and 2000 and 18 percent from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000, and 2010). Even 

with this population growth, these counties are still relatively low density, and so population growth 

has expanded the footprint of towns and cities outwards. 

Development increases fragmentation and decreases the ability of fire to play its natural role in the 

surrounding area. New homes and property developments change and increase the amount of valuesat-risk from fire and, therefore, change the decision on whether or not to suppress fire or allow it to 

play a more natural role. Adjacent properties can also become vectors for the introduction of exotic, 

invasive species. The increase in development adjacent to the Coronado would essentially increase the 

need for treatments implemented under the revised plan wildland-urban interface objectives.

Soils – Affected Environment

Soil is the mineral and organic matter that occurs on the land surface. It is characterized by horizons or 

layers that are distinguishable from the parent material below (bedrock) as a result of weathering, 

organic content, and chemical and physical processes. Soil comprises the transition area between the 

atmosphere above and the parent material below and provides a medium that supports vegetation 

growth. Soils on the Coronado are the primary driver of potential natural vegetation types.

Soils may be shallow (less than 1 inch) or deep (several feet) and may contain varying amounts of 

sand, silt, and clay particles, as well as all sizes of unweathered rocks. The soil surface is essential to 

the exchange of gases and water infiltration. Compaction of the surface, erosion of the surface layer, 

and removal of vegetation all affect the processes soil carries out in its role of supporting vegetation 

communities.

Soil Types

Soil types on the Coronado are based on terrestrial ecological units described in a general ecosystem 

survey (GES) (USDA FS 1991; Carleton 1991). The general ecosystem survey provides a systematic 

analysis, mapping, classification, and interpretation of terrestrial ecosystems at the landscape level. 

Full details about the general ecosystem survey are provided in appendix B of the Coronado National 

Forest Ecological Sustainability Report (USDA FS 2009b). 

The general ecosystem survey comprises 21 different units on the Coronado. Characteristics of the 

most common units are reported in table 65. Information in the table indicates forest soils tend to be 

present on elevated plains and hills, mountains, and escarpments; have very coarse surface texture 

(high cobble content); are generally deep and have a moderate erosion hazard. Predominant parent 

material on the Coronado is granite, with some alluvium. The limestone parent material of unit 483 

makes it unique; however, this material has a severe erosion hazard. Table 66 reports the most 

common general ecosystem survey units in forest ecosystem management areas, most of which are 

described in table 65. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

169

Table 65. General characteristics of predominant general ecosystem survey (GES) units on the 

Coronado National Forest

GES 

Unit Landform

Elevation 

(feet)

Percent 

Average 

Gradient 

Surface 

Texture Soil Depth

Parent 

Material

Erosion 

Hazard

Percent 

of 

Forest

146 Elevated 

plains and 

hills

4,200 –

6,900

0 – 40 Gravelly loam Deep Alluvium Slight to 

Moderate

8.3

303 Hills, 

mountains and 

escarpments

1,300 –

5,250

40 – 120 Extremely 

cobbly sandy 

loam

Shallow to 

moderate

Granite Moderate 4.8

475 Hills, 

mountains and 

escarpments

4,200 –

7,200

40 – 80 Extremely 

cobbly sandy 

loam

Shallow Granite, 

rhyolite

Moderate 33

476 Hills, 

mountains and 

escarpments

5,600 –

9,200

60 – 100 Extremely 

cobbly sandy 

loam

Deep Granite Moderate 17.5

490 Elevated 

plains and 

hills

4,200 –

6,900

0 – 25 Very cobbly 

sandy loam

Deep Granite, 

rhyolite

Moderate 

to severe

16.1

381 Elevated 

plains and 

escarpments

5,500 –

7,200

0 – 40 Extremely 

gravelly to 

cobbly sandy 

loam

Shallow Rhyolite Slight 2.8

472 Hills, 

mountains, 

and 

escarpments

4,200 –

7,200

15 – 40 Extremely 

cobbly sandy 

loam

Shallow Granite 

residuum

Moderate 2.3

483 Hills, 

mountains, 

and 

escarpments

3,200 –

7,500

40 – 120 Extremely 

cobbly loam to 

sandy loam

Shallow to 

moderately 

deep

Limestone Severe 3.7

Table 66. Common general ecosystem survey (GES) units by Coronado National Forest ecosystem 

management area

Ecosystem 

Management Area

Most Common 

GES Unit Acres*

Second Most Common 

GES Unit Acres*

Chiricahua 475 90,167 476 86,874

Dragoon 475 22,108 490 17,198

Galiuro 476 86,292 483 30,176

Huachuca 146 92,235 472 39,735

Peloncillo 475 36,312 381 30,270

Pinaleño 475 98,156 476 51,111

Santa Catalina 475 110,834 303 85,410

Santa Rita 475 58,545 490 41,170

Santa Teresa 483 36,212 485 13,058

Tumacacori 475 108,517 490 83,836

Whetstone 475 23,066 490 10,075

Winchester 475 14.955 490 3,916
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

170

Soil types depend on many factors, including climate, time, parent material, biological action, and 

slope position. They, in turn, influence the potential natural vegetation types on the Coronado. Each 

vegetation type requires specific precipitation and soil types in order to reach its potential natural 

state. Soils support vegetative community types by providing available moisture and nutrients. For 

example, a granitic soil, regardless of its depth, will support different vegetation types than an alluvial 

or basalt soil located in the same precipitation zone with the same aspect.25 This is because granitic 

soil is coarse textured and has low water retention capacity and/or nutrients available for plants. Basalt 

soil by contrast has a fine texture with much greater water retention capacity, hence, more water 

available for plant growth. 

Soil Condition and Trends

Soil condition is influenced by climate, geomorphic processes, and human-caused disturbances and is 

assessed in terms of its ability to support the potential natural vegetation type. Historically, the 

Coronado has had cycles of natural and human-caused impacts. Drought, fire, livestock grazing, 

woodcutting, and development all have caused varying degrees of soil impacts. According to 

historical records, the biological environment of southeastern Arizona before 1870 was relatively 

stable. Exceptions related to soils were naturally erosive areas having unstable geology.

Generally speaking, flatter landforms, such as elevated and valley plains, have experienced greater 

management impacts historically than steeper slopes, which are not as accessible. Typically, 

vegetation communities represented on these flatter landforms are desert communities, semiarid 

grasslands, and Madrean encinal woodlands. 

Soil condition assessments have evolved with better understanding of soil functions. Current 

assessment criteria found in Forest Service Manual 2550 and U.S. Forest Service Region 3 Technical 

Guide (2013). The technical guide classifies soil condition as “satisfactory,” “impaired,” and 

“unsatisfactory.” Satisfactory conditions are present where soils are functioning and soil loss is less 

than a specific threshold.26 Unsatisfactory soil conditions are found where erosion rates are higher 

than the soil loss threshold, and there is a loss of soil surface horizons and a potential for lower soil 

productivity. Impaired soil conditions fall within the range between satisfactory and unsatisfactory. 

Soil conditions across the Coronado were assessed between 1977 and 1986 using a protocol described 

in Hydrology Note 14 (USDA FS 1989) and again between 1998 and 2008, this time using a protocol 

from Forest Service Handbook 2509.18. Although the protocols differed, adequate vegetative ground

cover was an important factor in both. The two studies found that soils classified as impaired or 

unsatisfactory were, in part, lacking vegetative ground cover, whereas ground cover was adequate on 

soils in satisfactory condition. 

Low- to mid-elevation soils on the Coronado have improved over the past 20 years with improved 

range management. Most satisfactory conditions occur on resilient, stable, elevated plains, hills, and 

mountains and are represented in most vegetation communities. This indicates that onsite soil loss is 

within threshold limits, and that soil compaction is not adversely affecting the ability of the soil to 

absorb and infiltrate rainfall. The result is minimal soil loss and maintenance of soil productivity. 

This, in turn, leads to more resilient potential natural vegetation types. 

Areas on the Coronado having the most impaired and unsatisfactory soil conditions are on highly 

disturbed elevated plains in the desert communities, encinal woodlands, pine-oak woodlands, and 

small areas of grasslands. In impaired or unsatisfactory areas, soil erosion may be beyond threshold 

limits, and soil compaction may be evident, limiting precipitation infiltration to support effective 

 

25 This is the compass direction that a feature faces.

26 The soil loss tolerance threshold is defined as the rate of soil loss that can occur while sustaining inherent site 

productivity. Threshold values vary by kind of soil (depth, soil climate) and roughly equate to the point where longterm soil regeneration and soil productivity is sustained.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

171

ground cover. Therefore, in these areas there is a risk of losing long-term soil productivity. Recovery 

of affected soils is a long-term process that varies with many factors, including precipitation and 

parent material.

Table 67 shows the trends on the Coronado regarding soil conditions by ecosystem management area 

from the1986 survey to the most recent (post-1998) survey. In 1986, about 530,000 acres of the 

Coronado had less than the tolerance threshold of groundcover to prevent accelerated soil erosion. 

Monitoring in a variety of vegetation types indicates that plant density and basal area, especially in the 

grass component, has improved since 1986, which represents an improvement in groundcover. 

Although the protocols differed for each survey, they were heavily dependent upon groundcover, 

especially the vegetative component, as a key indicator for soil productivity. Differing protocols may 

not make an absolute comparison of satisfactory soil conditions feasible, but it simply shows 

improving trends in all but two ecosystem management areas. The percentages from more recent 

surveys are a reasonable indicator of current conditions.

Table 67. Percentage of soils in satisfactory condition in ecosystem management areas on 

the Coronado National Forest, based on pre- and post-1986 surveys*

Ecosystem Management 

Area

Satisfactory Condition 

Pre-1986 (percent)

Satisfactory Condition

Post-1998 (percent)

Chiricahua 66 96

Dragoon 73 94

Galiuro 81 92

Huachuca 75 82

Peloncillo 74 97

Pinaleño 75 80

Santa Catalina 55 99**

Santa Rita 71 93

Santa Teresa 31 79

Tumacacori 84 81

Whetstone 67 100

Winchester 100 97

*Figures include private inholdings and lands of other ownership.

**This is an estimate based on about 26 percent of the ecosystem management area having been surveyed

Soils – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Each of the four alternatives provides direction for managing the following activities to maintain soil 

conditions and productivity: livestock grazing, motorized transportation, managed recreation, 

unmanaged recreation (especially off-highway vehicle use), minerals exploration and mining, water 

withdrawals, and border-related activities (including, but not limited to, undocumented immigration 

and smuggling). These activities have the potential to cause a direct loss of vegetation, which removes 

a protective layer for soils and creates higher erosion potential. 

Livestock grazing and off-road vehicle use alter soil structure and water infiltration by increasing 

compaction and decreasing infiltration. These activities are vectors for the spread of invasive plant 

species, which may decrease soil productivity and alter the composition of vegetation communities. 

Mining directly removes soils and permanently alters the landscape. Mining and special use permits 

for water diversions result in a loss of soil moisture and vegetation and, hence, decrease soil 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

172

productivity. Mitigation measures in allotment management plans, mining plans of operation, and 

terms and conditions of special use permits help alleviate some, but not all of these effects.

No Action

Management of soils would continue in accordance with forestwide and management area specific 

goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in the 1986 forest plan. The plan establishes an objective 

to improve 1,053 acres of soils per year using ripping, shaping, seeding and planting, contour 

structures, brush crushing, and channel clearing or structures. Also, standards and guidelines in the 

plan prescribe management services to provide information to minimize disturbance and improve 

already disturbed areas. However, the plan does not include a definition of what constitutes 

“disturbance.”

The 1986 forest plan prescribes reseeding with native or nonnative species in Management Area 4 

(1,228,289 acres or 63 percent of the Coronado). The favored nonnative species it identifies for use in 

reseeding is Lehman’s lovegrass. Based on this direction, the effects of reseeding achieved the goal of 

increasing plant-based ground cover in most areas. While some species may stabilize nutrients and 

soil cover, most tend to outcompete and replace native vegetation. Different soil organisms 

predominate under different kinds of vegetation. Replacement of native plant communities with 

invasive nonnative species can be expected to change soil microbial populations and, thus, nutrient 

cycling processes. Additionally, having nonnative species present in the landscape may change the fire 

regime and degrade important wildlife habitat. Seeding with nonnative species is no longer considered 

a good management practice and is not recommended in the revised plan.

Of all the alternatives, the risk of uncharacteristic fire at the landscape scale is greatest for the 1986 

plan, because its prescribed rate of fuel treatments is less than all others. Also, the information on 

which the treatments are based is outdated compared to the other alternatives. Projections indicate that 

there will likely be shorter erosion cycles on the Coronado, as large wildfires and subsequent flooding 

occur. Uncharacteristic fire alters vegetation composition and structure. Accelerated erosion results 

from changes in ground and canopy cover as well as the ability of roots to hold soil particles through 

cohesion. 

Although direction in the no-action alternative identifies trends toward improvement of the soils 

resource, it does not specifically address several of the indices for improved soil conditions that are 

included in direction given in revised plans under the action alternatives. Trends indicate that current 

management is contributing to improvements in overall satisfactory soil conditions. However, the 

1986 plan does not identify specific desired conditions for vegetative groundcover, by potential 

natural vegetation type, and general soil conditions, and also does not have objectives for improving 

acreage in uplands with vegetation treatments and watershed or soil restoration. 

With regard to transportation, the 1986 plan does not include sufficient direction to adequately 

minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation adequately. It does not state specific objectives for 

decommissioning roads and maintaining roads, and managing highly erodible soils, riparian areas, and 

wetlands. Roads are often the main source of sedimentation in a watershed. Improperly located or 

maintained roads have the highest potential to cause soil detachment and transportation as sediment. 

The 1986 plan does not directly address the issue of increased motorized recreation and the 

proliferation of off-highway vehicles. Even though motorized recreation is restricted to roads and 

trails, the plan does not establish desired conditions or guidelines for mitigating and/or avoiding 

effects on soil and watersheds where they are permitted. 

Direction in the 1986 plan for soil protection in designated wilderness is consistent with the overriding 

direction in the Wilderness Act. In addition, it provides guidance for managing lands designated 

Management Area 9, which include all existing wilderness areas and the Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area. However, the 1986 forest plan does not mention or provide direction 

for management of soils in two other wilderness study areas, Bunk Robinson and Whitmire Canyon.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

173

The 1986 plan does not provide direction for management of resources in response to climate change. 

Without management direction, atypical temperature and rainfall patterns characteristic of climate 

change27 may adversely affect forest soils and the resources they support, such as vegetation, 

watersheds, and habitat. 

Human and ecological systems rely on soil for water and nutrients essential for plant growth, the 

regulation of the water cycle, and the storage of carbon. The physical structure of soils, including its 

organic material content, is critical to their nutrient balance, stability, water retention capability, and 

diversity and abundance of soil organisms. These factors, in turn, are important to the health of 

vegetation and watersheds, and the quality of habitat for wildlife.

In the arid Southwest, soil erosion is likely to increase because of climate change, whether as the 

result of flooding caused by more intense storms or increased arid conditions resulting from warmer 

temperatures and drought. Without planning for such changes, increases in direct soil loss in runoff 

and heavier sedimentation in streams would occur.

Proposed Action

The proposed action establishes forestwide desired conditions for the soils resource based on reference 

conditions for specific areas. The desired conditions for soils are linked to desired conditions for 

potential natural vegetation type because it is desirable to maintain soil function and productivity so 

that the potential natural vegetation type for each soil type will be realized and sustained. During the 

life of the plan, it is expected that a terrestrial ecological unit inventory will be completed. As data 

become available, soil conditions will be assessed and further management objectives may be added 

by amending the forest plan.

The proposed action provides goals for desired ground cover based upon the vegetation type in each 

landform. Plant based ground cover is an important component of soil productivity and provides 

important nutrient cycling functions and erosional resistance. In addition to the desired conditions for 

plant-based soil ground cover in nonforested vegetation types, the proposed action specifies desired 

coarse woody debris tonnage for forested potential natural vegetation types. Coarse woody debris is an 

important organic component of the forest floor; it provides for nutrient cycling and increased water 

retention capacity.

Desired conditions for range management in the revised plan call for areas that are grazed to have 

stable soils. For soils that are currently or inherently unstable, range management guidelines provide 

direction so that grazing will not contribute to instability. Range management guidelines state that 

grazing practices (timing, frequency, and intensity) would be designed to maintain or promote ground 

cover that will provide for infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, and soil stability, 

appropriate for the ecological zone. To this end, all permits that authorize grazing will follow these 

guidelines to achieve desired conditions. 

Forestwide desired conditions for soils are that ecological and hydrologic functions are not impaired 

by soil compaction. The goal is that soil condition ratings across the Coronado shall be “satisfactory.” 

To achieve this goal, vegetation and litter would be sufficient to limit the formation of rills, gullies, 

and pedestals; excessive soil deposition, and topsoil loss. 

Having clear desired conditions for soil will support decisions, especially for range, minerals 

exploration, transportation, and recreation, that will maintain current satisfactory soil conditions and 

improve soil conditions that are less than satisfactory by setting outcomes appropriate to the reference 

 

27 Carbon in soil is broken down naturally and released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide gas. However, as the air 

temperature increases, this process occurs more quickly, which means too much gas is produced, adding to the 

atmospheric trap, and consequently to global warming. See http://www.soilnet.com/legacy/schools/soil_climate1.htm
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

174

condition for these specific activities. By tying vegetation desired conditions to the soil type and 

landform, the proposed action better describes the desired understory and site capabilities for 

numerous activities than the 1986 plan. 

Specific desired conditions for soils would also guide prioritization of forestwide treatment priorities 

according to which areas most need improvement. The integrated approach linking soil desired 

conditions and vegetation desired conditions would also increase the effectiveness of monitoring at the 

site-specific level. 

Objectives are management targets that incrementally change resource conditions toward achieving 

desired conditions. Table 31 lists objectives for vegetation treatments by vegetation type, as specified 

in the revised plan under the proposed action. Attainment of the proposed action’s objectives for 

vegetation treatment as well as its targets for vegetative ground cover and coarse woody debris would 

improve soil conditions more expediently than the no-action alternative. As treatments progress 

toward desired conditions, the probability of uncharacteristic fire would decrease in treated areas. 

Another objective specific to soils is to treat 2,500 to 15,000 acres of upland vegetation, soil, and/or 

watershed over 10 years to improve litter and plant basal area, which provide a measure of the soil 

condition indicator of ground cover.

In the short term, vegetation management activities would have a negative effect in that they would 

increase compaction of soils when heavy mechanized and motorized equipment are used. And, 

depending on the method of disposal and quantity of slash and woody material that is removed from 

specific areas, nutrients available to plants and soil microorganisms may decline in abundance. 

However, in the long term, vegetation, coarse woody debris, and ground cover treatments would foster 

greater resiliency in vegetation and soils which, in turn, would decrease the likelihood of 

uncharacteristic fire and its which mass wasting and excessive soil erosion consequences. Ground 

cover would gradually move toward reference conditions as proposed treatments are completed, 

especially because reseeding, if necessary, would use native species. A sterile “nurse crop” such as 

sterile wheat or barley is sometimes used to enhance the success of seeded native species. The sterile 

species do not persist in the treatment area. As a result, a more robust and diverse understory 

community would develop across the landscape. The plan objective for enhancement or restoration of 

upland acreage, in particular, would accelerate the current trends in improved soil conditions.

The proposed action would allow the use of nonnative species for soil stabilization in areas where 

there are no other options and strongly discourage their use adjacent to wilderness areas. This would 

protect native plant communities better than the no-action alternative, which has no restrictions on the 

use of nonnative species for reseeding. This will have a long-term effect of promoting resilient native 

plant communities that, in turn, will secure satisfactory soil conditions.

Guidelines in the plan revised by the proposed action would help maintain or promote effective 

ground cover so that soil desired conditions associated with range management are met. This, in turn, 

would create a positive trend in the quality of the soils resource and increase the acreage of soils in 

satisfactory conditions. These, as well as range management desired conditions for stable soils, will 

help improve soil conditions over the 1986 forest plan by having specific direction for soil 

improvements that encourages a priority to address soil conditions using sound range management.

Wilderness direction in the proposed action better protects soil conditions than the no-action 

alternative. The revised plan’s desired conditions are that natural processes dominate soil and water 

cycles and that trails and campsites do not contribute sediment to downstream water resources. 

Combined with group size limits and rehabilitation objectives for the most heavily used wilderness 

areas, these would reduce human-caused effects, such as trampling that creates bare ground and trailand campsite-induced erosion.

Management of the Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Area in the northern Chiricahua Mountains 

is expected to have minimal negative effects on the soils resource. This area will not be protected from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

175

the effects of ground-disturbing activities such as off-road motor vehicle use, mining, or road 

construction. In wilderness areas, the desired condition is for natural cycles to dominate the soil and 

water resources with minimal erosion from trails and campsites. 

The proposed action would better protect sensitive soils that are highly erodible or support wetland 

and riparian vegetation communities than the no-action alternative. Decommissioning, closing, and 

restoring roads in specific areas would restore productivity to soils that are currently out of the 

permanent productivity base. This, in turn, will help increase the percentage of soils across the 

Coronado in satisfactory condition. Installation of hardened crossings will further decrease 

sedimentation directly into streams and lead to satisfactory soil conditions in riparian areas as well as 

better functioning stream channels.

Unlike no action, the revised plan under the proposed action provides plan components that include 

desired conditions and management approaches for the Coronado’s response to climate change. Goals 

include having forest ecosystems that are resilient to rapidly changing natural disturbances, such as 

drought, wind, fire, insects, and pathogens; and vegetation communities of various structure and ages 

across the landscape that can adapt to changing conditions. Toward achieving these goals, the soil 

functions of nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and carbon sequestration would sustain all vegetation 

types as they are adapting. Sustainable, adaptable, resilient vegetation would serve as the foundation 

of good quality habitat and healthy watersheds on the Coronado that support a variety of species, 

including those having special status. 

Complimenting desired conditions regarding climate change are management approaches and plan 

components that are tiered from the climate change response strategies described in appendix A of the 

revised plan. These include incorporating engineering practices that minimize soil erosion and surface 

runoff, which decreases the potential for alteration of the physical structure of soil and adverse effects 

on soil functions.

Overall, the proposed action establishes quantifiable desired conditions and objectives toward which 

management can seek to attain them. Although monitoring suggests that current soil conditions are 

trending toward satisfactory, the proposed action ensures that this trend will continue because it 

recommends projects that directly restore soil conditions, decommission roads, and prioritize 

improvement of soil conditions.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 emphasizes the importance of wilderness on the Coronado, proposing that 147,018 acres 

more than the proposed action and 194,593 acres more than alternative 2 be managed for wilderness 

characteristics (this includes recommended wilderness areas and wilderness study areas). While the 

effects of alternative 1 are qualitatively the same as those described for the proposed action, they will 

have a much greater benefit on soils, vegetation, and watersheds because of the increased area that 

will be managed as wilderness. 

Because of its emphasis on wilderness management, alternative 1 would require proposed vegetation 

treatments to be carried out without the use of mechanized vehicles and equipment and that there be 

no motorized travel. These restrictions would reduce the degree of compaction of soils that occurs 

from heavy equipment and vehicle travel and use compared to the proposed action and alternative 2. 

Depending on the size of areas treated and progress in their implementation, alternative 1 may reduce 

the quantity of slash and woody material that is removed from specific areas, which would allow more 

nutrients to be retained in soils for plant and microorganism use than would the proposed action and 

alternative 2. Because of the wilderness restrictions, however, the achievement of desired conditions 

for vegetation and watershed may be slower than for other action alternatives.

This alternative would have no measurable adverse effects on satisfactory soil conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

176

Alternative 1 would provide the same direction for the management of resources in response to 

climate change as the proposed action. Therefore, it would have the same benefits on soils as 

described above under the “Proposed Action” heading.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 proposes a Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone that is 40,255 acres larger than that 

proposed by both the proposed action and alternative 1. Increased soil compaction can lead to 

increased erosion and subsequent loss of soil productivity and satisfactory ratings. Motorized 

recreation increases ground-disturbing activities and the potential spread of invasive species. On a 

forestwide scale, there is little difference in effects to soils between this and the other alternatives, 

because alternative 2 encourages motorized use in specific locations. This alternative would move 

soils toward improving trends, but at a slightly lower rate than other alternatives.

Alternative 2 provides no plan components for management of soils to achieve resiliency and 

adaptation to changes that may result from warmer, drier climate conditions, which scientists currently 

believe will affect the Southwest as global warming occurs. It does, however, incorporate the 

strategies for management of climate change described in appendix A of the revised plan, which 

recommend approaches to address key climate change factors, such as insects, disease, and fire that 

exacerbate the effects of climate change. Because of this, adverse effects of climate change on soils 

under alternative 2 would be slightly greater than those resulting from direction under the proposed 

action and alternative 1, and slightly less than those resulting from the lack of direction in the noaction alternative.

Cumulative Effects

Although the soil resource is primarily within the boundaries of the Coronado National Forest, its 

function and productivity can be affected by activities and natural processes that originate beyond 

those boundaries or from private or other public inholdings surrounded by National Forest System 

land. Cumulative effects of multiple activities in the same area, such as within a watershed, depend 

upon the intensity of the activity and condition of the baseline environment.

Past, present, and future actions on the Coronado that contribute cumulatively to soils conditions 

include (1) ground-disturbing actions, including road, residential, and commercial construction, 

(2) grazing, (3) nonnative species proliferation, and (4) wildfire. The types of effects associated with 

these activities were discussed above under the consequences of the alternatives. Site-specific 

evaluations of cumulative soils impacts will be done on a case-by-case basis during future National 

Environmental Policy Act reviews of individual projects.

Potential additive effects on soils in 4th hydrologic unit code28 (HUC) watersheds are possible during 

the 10- to 15-year life of the revised plan. All 4th-, 5th-, and 6th- hydrologic unit code watersheds, even 

those that are only partially on National Forest System lands, are within the area of potential effect. 

Generally, the upper portions of thirteen 4th hydrologic unit code watersheds, fifty-one 5th hydrologic 

unit code watersheds, and two hundred forty-nine 6th hydrologic unit code subwatersheds are 

represented on the Coronado. The lower areas are managed by private land owners or other public 

land management agencies, many interspersed within the Coronado National Forest boundary. 

Private and public land development within and outside the national forest boundary disturbs and 

removes soils and vegetation, increasing erosion and sediment runoff to various watersheds when it 

rains or snows. With population growth in the area, the upward trend in land development is expected 

 

28 The U.S is divided and subdivided into successively smaller hydrologic units. The hydrologic units are nested within 

each other, from the largest to the smallest. Identifiers of hydrologic units are numeric codes that express the 

interrelationships of the units and represent the drainage of smaller watersheds into successively larger units (a 4th

level hydrologic unit code watershed is larger than and may encompass a 5th level watershed).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

177

to continue. In conjunction with growth, more people use the national forest, driving and parking more 

vehicles in unpaved areas, causing soil compaction and vegetation damage which, in turn, affects soil 

functioning and productivity.

Other activities on private land such as road building, grazing, mining, and fuel treatments may 

remove or disturb vegetation and soils and increase sediment in surface waters, affecting stream 

quality and aquatic habitat. All of these actions, individually or in combination, may contribute to 

cumulative effects on the soils resource on and outside of the Coronado. 

The differences among the four alternatives in managing the soils resource were reported in the 

sections above. When considered in combination with past, present, and future actions that may 

directly affect soils or indirectly affect them by causing impacts on vegetation and watersheds, no 

action would have the greatest potential to cumulatively affect soils, because it establishes fewer 

objectives and desired conditions for managing soils and for vegetation and watershed improvement 

projects. It also recommends reseeding using nonnative plant species, which has been observed to 

result in nonnatives outcompeting natives for nutrients and space and whose presence may enhance 

the probability of uncharacteristic wildfire. 

Of the three action alternatives, alternative 1 best conserves the soils resource by virtue of its emphasis 

on wilderness and the restrictions on the use of mechanical and motorized vehicles and equipment. 

Alternative 2, while it increases the area of forest devoted to motorized recreation, encourages 

motorized use in specific locations where the potential for soils damage is less than in other less 

disturbed areas. All three action alternatives provide equivalent direction for managing and improving 

soils and for completing vegetation and watershed projects to move the soils resource toward desired 

conditions more quickly than no action. No action and alternative 2 do not provide direction for 

managing resources in response to climate change. Therefore, cumulative effects of climate change 

would be more likely for these alternatives than for the proposed action and alternative 1.

Water Resources – Affected Environment

Water Quality

Surface water quality is a function of natural physical, biological, and chemical variables, such as 

elements present in soils and rock substrates, and concentrations of biological and chemical 

contaminants that originate either from a point (single) source (a discharge pipe) or from runoff that 

carries contaminants that accumulate over a landscape (nonpoint sources; for example, stormwater).

Reference (historic) water quality on the Coronado appears to have sustained ecological systems and 

species and accommodated all uses specified in state regulations. Historically, nonpoint sources of 

contamination in both Arizona and New Mexico, such as roads, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, 

recreation, and uncharacteristic fire, were neither widespread nor frequent. 

The general classifications of surface water quality assigned by the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) are as follows:

• Category 1 - Surface waters assessed as “attaining all uses.” All designated uses are assessed as 

“attaining.” 

• Category 2 - Surface waters assessed as “attaining some uses.” Each designated use is assessed as 

either “attaining,” “inconclusive,” or “threatened.” 

• Category 3 - Surface waters assessed as “inconclusive.” All designated uses are assessed as 

“inconclusive” due to insufficient data to assess any designated use (insufficient samples or core 

parameters). By default, this category would include waters that were “not assessed” for similar 

reasons.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

178

• Category 4 - Surface waters assessed as “not attaining.” At least one designated use was assessed 

as “not attaining” and no uses were assessed as “impaired.” A total maximum daily load (TMDL) 

analysis29 will not be required at this time because (reason cited). 

• Category 5 - Surface waters assessed as “impaired.” At least one designated use was assessed as 

“impaired” by a pollutant. These waters must be prioritized for total maximum daily load 

development.

Based on these categories, any stream listed as category 4 or 5 is considered highly departed from 

reference conditions. Unlisted streams, or those in categories 1 to 3, meet the desired conditions and 

are considered as not impaired. 

Designated uses of surface water in Arizona include full-body contact, partial-body contact, used as a 

domestic water source, fish consumption, aquatic and wildlife (cold water), aquatic and wildlife 

(warm water), aquatic and wildlife (ephemeral), aquatic and wildlife (effluent-dependent water), 

agricultural irrigation, and agricultural livestock watering .

The State of New Mexico defines water quality goals by designating uses for rivers, streams, lakes, 

and other surface waters, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions to preserve 

water quality. In New Mexico, water quality standards for interstate and intrastate surface waters are 

defined in the New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC, title 20, chapter 6, Part 4), and are under 

the oversight of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) . There are both water quality 

standard segment specific criteria (detailed in 20.6.4.97 through 20.6.4.899 NMAC) and designated 

use-specific criteria (detailed in 20.6.4.900 NMAC). The determination of use support using specified 

protocols is then combined to determine the overall water quality standard attainment category for 

each assessed unit (U.S. EPA 2011b). The unique assessment categories for New Mexico, which 

parallel those of Arizona, are described as follows:

1. Attaining the water quality standards for all designated and existing uses. Waters are listed in 

this category if there are data and information that meet all requirements of the assessment 

and listing methodology and support a determination that the water quality criteria are 

attained.

2. Attaining some of the designated or existing uses based on numeric and narrative parameters 

that were tested, and no reliable monitored data are available to determine if the remaining 

uses are attained or threatened. Assessment units are listed in this category if there are data 

and information that meet requirements of the assessment and listing methodology to support 

a determination that some, but not all, uses are attained based on numeric and narrative water 

quality criteria that were tested. Attainment status of the remaining uses is unknown because 

there is no reliable monitored data with which to make a determination.

3. No reliable monitored data and/or information to determine if any designated or existing use 

is attained. Assessment units are listed in this category where data to support an attainment 

determination for any use are not available, consistent with requirements of the assessment 

and listing methodology.

4. Impaired for one or more designated uses, but does not require development of a total 

maximum daily load because (reason cited).

 

29 A total maximum daily load analysis determines the maximum amount of a pollutant that a surface water can 

assimilate (the “load”) and still meet water quality standards during all conditions. It defines the loading capacity of 

the surface water relative to discharges from point and nonpoint sources in the watershed, natural background levels, 

seasonal variation, and with an incremental margin of safety.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

179

5. Impaired for one or more designated or existing uses. The assessment unit is not supporting 

one or more of its designated uses because one or more water quality standards are not 

attained according to current water quality standards and assessment methodologies.

Under the Clean Water Act, Arizona and New Mexico must periodically evaluate water quality in 

their jurisdictions. All data are reported for stream reaches, rather than at the watershed or subbasin 

level. Thus, only a very small portion of each watershed or subbasin is evaluated. Streams and lakes 

are the only water bodies tested; springs, stock ponds, and cienegas are not. Water quality is assessed 

in select perennial stream reaches and lakes on the Coronado by comparing existing conditions with 

desired conditions that are set by the State under authority of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Public 

Law 92-500).

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has evaluated approximately 5 percent, or 134.24 

miles, of the watercourses on the Coronado (ADEQ 2009). Six lakes on the Coronado have also been 

tested. Outside the national forest, but within watersheds that originate on the Coronado, the water 

quality of 537.65 miles of streams and 8 lakes has been assessed. 

According to the draft report, Status of Water Quality in Arizona: The Integrated 305(b) Assessment 

and 303(d) Listings Report (ADEQ 2009), the water quality of some reaches within and downstream 

of the Coronado is “impaired” and does not meet the status classifications for designated uses. These 

include one stream (7.5 miles) and two lakes on the Coronado (category 5). In addition, 5 streams 

(24.2 miles) and 2 lakes on the Coronado are classified as “not attaining” because they have total 

maximum daily load plans in process (i.e., they are category 4).

Off-forest and downstream of the Coronado in Arizona are 3.89 miles of category 4 streams that are 

“not attaining” and 132.38 miles of category 5 “impaired” streams. In New Mexico, no waters within 

or immediately downstream from the Coronado have been identified as not meeting standards. No 

category 4 or 5 streams are present.

The cause of impairment of forest water quality of streams is often due to the presence of heavy 

metals, Escherichia coli bacteria, or both. In lakes, the cause of impairment is the presence of heavy 

metal (mercury) or eutrophic (aging) conditions. Specifically, Cave Creek in the San Simon Subbasin 

is impaired because of selenium levels that may reflect natural background chemistry. Rose Canyon 

Lake in the Rillito Subbasin is classified as impaired because of eutrophic (aging) conditions. The 

condition of the lake changed after runoff from burned areas deposited a large quantity of organic 

material in it. In Parker Canyon Lake in the Upper Santa Cruz Subbasin, sampling and analysis 

indicates high concentration of mercury in fish.

Five streams on the Coronado are classified as category 4 (not attaining): Alum Gulch, Humboldt 

Canyon, Harshaw Creek, Three R Canyon, and Cox Gulch, all of which are in the Upper Santa Cruz 

Subbasin. Each of them has a total maximum daily load plan pending. All have heavy metals in the 

creek bottoms, runoff from past mining activities (numerous legacy mines) within their watersheds, 

and probably some natural background of heavy metals from seeps and springs. The two lakes on the 

Coronado, Arivaca Lake in the Brawley Wash Subbasin and Peña Blanca Lake in the Upper Santa 

Cruz Subbasin, have approved total maximum daily load plans for reducing heavy metals (mercury) in 

lake sediments. The sources of mercury are naturally occurring from the atmosphere and soil within 

the watershed, and anthropogenic from past mining activities.

Most contaminants in these waters originated from activities that did not exist in the period defined as 

the reference condition (1000 through 1889, before human alteration of the natural landscape); in 

particular, mining, grazing, stream channelization, pesticide use, recreation, motor vehicle travel, and 

agriculture. Original (reference) concentrations of heavy metal in the watersheds are unknown, 

although these contaminants do occur naturally, in varying degrees, in the watersheds of Arizona and 

New Mexico. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

180

Perennial lakes are not natural in southeastern Arizona or southwest New Mexico; therefore, no 

reference water quality is available for them. Closed basin lakes, also known as “playa” lakes, are 

found in both southern Arizona and southern New Mexico. None of these is located on the Coronado 

National Forest. Because of the absence of reference water quality for lakes, Clean Water Act 

standards are used as surrogates for reference conditions. Compared to Clean Water Act standards, the 

water quality of Coronado lakes is degraded. 

Within the Coronado, the most important nonpoint sources of pollution are from sediment generated 

from roads in close proximity to drainages and livestock grazing. The Coronado currently implements 

and monitors the use of site-specific best management practices for all activities that may potentially 

contaminate pollute state waters, including, but not limited to, transportation system operations and 

maintenance, road maintenance monitoring, range monitoring with annual operating instructions for 

range permittees (USDA FS 2012a), and implementation of total maximum daily load report 

recommendations.

Point sources of potential water contaminants on the Coronado include, but are not limited to, 

wastewater facilities associated with campgrounds, administrative sites, and other sites authorized by 

special use permit, and historic and existing mines. Point sources are also required to use best 

management practices including permitting, inspection, state certification, and mitigation of temporary 

point source pollution through the Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

program, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act program 

(Superfund).

Water Quantity – Surface Water

The extent of perennial streams on the Coronado has shifted slightly over time. Prior to the 

establishment of the Coronado, the Homestead Act of 1862 (Public Law 37-64) facilitated the transfer 

of some lands containing streams into private ownership. Stream diversions and irrigation ditches both 

on and outside the forest have reduced the streamflow along some stream segments. 

Streams on the Coronado serve as headwaters to numerous watersheds. The Coronado contains a 

relatively high percentage of miles of perennial streams when compared to its total land area within 

watersheds having perennial water. The forest manages approximately 21 percent of the land area of 

its component subbasins and has about 36 percent of the miles of its perennial streams. Exceptions are 

the Upper San Pedro River Subbasin, the Animas Valley Subbasin, and the Whitewater Draw 

Subbasin, where there is no or very little perennial water. Perennial streams within Coronado 

administered and managed lands cover about 114 miles.

Surface flow is dependent on precipitation. The recent drought in the Southwest has reduced flows in 

some stream reaches occupied by native fish and other aquatic species. On the Coronado, surface 

water is currently available for administrative use for firefighting and Forest Service livestock and 

road maintenance, under Federal reserved water rights.

30

The quantity of perennial surface water on the Coronado and in the watersheds beyond its boundaries 

is perceived to have departed from reference conditions; however, there are no streamflow data (or 

gauging stations) to confirm this perception of decline. Beyond the boundaries of the Coronado, 

withdrawal of groundwater for use in agriculture and urban water supplies has dramatically lowered 

the water table, which, in turn, has affected the quantity of perennial surface water. 

Acquisition of Arizona instream-flow certified water rights ensures and protects perennial stream 

water quantity on the Coronado for recreation and wildlife. Many of the Coronado’s instream-flow 

rights applications have been submitted and are pending Arizona Department of Water Resources 

 

30 Federal reserved water rights associated with public lands are reserved to satisfy the purposes for which the public 

land was established. These water rights, however, are subject to court adjudication.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

181

water right certification, which will be junior to older certificates (see table 68). Because all these 

applications are included within the ongoing Gila River water rights adjudication process, their fate 

will be settled by the court. New Mexico does not have a system to acquire state-based instream-flow 

water rights.

Table 68. Fourteen submitted applications for instream flow water rights

Ranger District Location

Douglas Cave Creek

Nogales California Gulch

Nogales Sycamore Creek

Sierra Vista O’Donnell Creek

Sierra Vista Redrock Creek

Sierra Vista Turkey Creek

Sierra Vista Miller Creek

Sierra Vista Scotia Canyon

Sierra Vista Harshaw Creek

Sierra Vista Parker Canyon

Safford Frye Creek

Safford Wet Canyon

Santa Catalina Paige Creek

Santa Catalina Sabino Creek

Reference levels of water yield are unknown; however, research suggests that the water yield of preEuro settlement, open canopied forests was higher than in the closed canopy forests that are prevalent 

today (USDA FS 2009b, Brown and Lowe 1974). Water yield from the Coronado is about 162,662 

acre-feet annually. It is estimated that overall forest water yield31 has been static to slightly downward 

over the last 20 years because of the following two ecosystem variables:

1. Aerial photo analysis in 2012 showed greater tree and shrub basal area and cover in several 

vegetation types over the last 20 years, which can result in increased evapotranspiration and 

decreased runoff and water yield. 

2. Drought conditions have prevailed most years since 1995 and have probably contributed to 

decreased precipitation, runoff, and water yield.

Past studies indicate that vegetation treatments to increase water yield result in only short-term water 

yield increases (1 to 3 years) (Baker 1999). Today, treatments to increase water yield are not being 

considered on the Coronado; therefore, a detailed analysis of water yield has not yet been conducted.

In summary, on the Coronado, surface water quantity and water yield has been static to slightly 

downward trending.

Water Quantity – Groundwater

Because the majority of groundwater withdrawals in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New 

Mexico occur on lands outside the Coronado, the Forest Service has no influence on their control. 

 

31 Output of water yield or water supply (used synonymously in this analysis) is the amount of water that leaves the 

immediate site to become surface water yield or groundwater recharge. Essentially, it is the difference between total 

precipitation and actual evapotranspiration.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

182

Forest Service groundwater policy (Forest Service Manuals 2560, 2880, and 2543) as well as agency 

technical guides provide direction for well drilling and pumping on the Coronado, specifying that 

these activities must not adversely affect connected riparian habitat and water quantity and quality. 

Because direction in the Forest Service manual is considered adequate and groundwater withdrawal is 

governed by State regulations, additional management direction was not specified by any of the action 

alternatives and they are not analyzed in this environmental impact statement.

Watersheds

Watersheds on the Coronado are defined using a uniform hierarchical system developed by the U.S. 

Geological Survey. The U.S. is divided and subdivided into successively smaller hydrologic units. The 

hydrologic units are nested within each other, from the largest to the smallest. Identifiers of hydrologic 

units are numeric codes (hydrologic unit codes or HUCs) that express the interrelationships of the 

units and represent the drainage of smaller watersheds into successively larger units.

All of the waters on the Coronado are in Region 15 of the U.S. Geological Survey National Surface 

Watershed Classification System (Lower Colorado River Region), in which three subregions are 

represented: 1504 (Upper Gila), 1505 (Middle Gila), and 1508 (Sonora). Subregions are divided into 

basins, basins are divided into subbasins, and subbasins are divided into watersheds. The term 

watershed in this environmental impact statement refers to the latter unit. The Coronado contains 13 

subbasins, 51 watersheds, and 249 subwatersheds (6th hydrologic unit code). Subbasins and 

watersheds are listed in appendix C of the Coronado National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report

(USDA FS 2009b).

Sixth hydrologic unit code watersheds on the Coronado were evaluated in 2011 to determine existing 

conditions, using the national watershed condition framework and assessment tool (USDA FS 2010b). 

The evaluation included assessments of riparian and aquatic habitat and soils, which affect the quality, 

quantity, and timing of water flows. Of the 249 6th hydrologic unit code watersheds present, 208 were 

evaluated. Forty-one were not evaluated because they occupy a very small percentage of the 

Coronado. 

Watershed conditions are either properly functioning (in a natural pristine state, commonly called 

healthy watersheds), functioning at risk, or degraded (in a severely altered state or impaired). 

Watersheds that are properly functioning have terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems that 

capture, store, and release water, sediment, wood, and nutrients within the range of natural variability 

for these processes. In this condition, they create and sustain terrestrial, riparian, aquatic, and wetland 

habitats that are capable of supporting diverse populations of native aquatic- and riparian-dependent 

species. In general, the greater the departure from the natural pristine state, the more impaired the 

watershed condition. 

Watershed condition classification is the process of describing watershed condition in terms of 

discrete categories (or classes) that reflect the level of watershed health or integrity. In this analysis, 

watershed health and integrity are considered to be conceptually the same. Watersheds with high 

integrity are properly functioning and support ecosystems that show little or no influence from human 

actions.

Forest Service Manual 2521.1 uses three classes to describe watershed condition:

1. Class 1 (properly functioning) - These watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition and are functioning properly.

2. Class 2 (functioning-at-risk) - These watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, 

and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition and are functioning at risk.

3. Class 3 (impaired) - These watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition and are impaired function.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

183

Table 69 summarizes the results of the assessment of 6th hydrologic unit code watersheds, grouped 

with their respective 4th hydrologic unit code watersheds, which overlap the Coronado in each 

watershed condition class. Results indicate that approximately 73 percent of the Coronado’s 6th

hydrologic unit code watersheds are properly functioning, 27 percent are functioning at risk, and none 

is impaired. Watersheds classified as functioning dominate the Coronado. The 27 percent of 6th

hydrologic unit code watersheds that are functioning at risk are departed from their reference 

condition, but are not yet impaired. Most of them reflect the effects of human activities, such as 

increased runoff from a higher density of roads, heavy recreation impacts in riparian areas, large 

quantity well withdrawals, effects of past and present mining, and vegetation changes resulting from 

aggressive fire suppression.

Table 69. Results of a 2011 watershed condition assessment of 6th HUC watersheds on the Coronado 

National Forest

4th HUC Watershed Number 

and Name

Number of 

6th HUC 

Watersheds

Number of 6th HUC Watersheds 

in Each Condition Class Percent of 

6th HUC 

Watersheds 

in Class 1

Class 1:

Functioning 

Properly

Class 2:

Functioning 

at Risk

Class 3:

Impaired

15040003 – Animas Valley 4 4 0 0 100%

15040005 – Upper Gila-San 

Carlos Reservoir

17 16 1 0 94%

15040006 – San Simon 20 17 3 0 85

15050201 – Willcox Playa 24 20 4 0 83

15050202 – Upper San Pedro 26 15 11 0 58%

15050203 – Lower San Pedro 34 30 4 0 88%

15050301 – Upper Santa Cruz 39 19 20 0 49%

15050302 – Rillito 18 10 8 0 56%

15050304 – Brawley Wash 5 2 3 0 40%

15080200 – Rio de la 

Concepcion

7 6 1 0 86%

15080301 – Whitewater Draw 7 7 0 0 100%

15080302 – San Bernardino 

Valley

4 3 1 0 75%

15080303 – Cloverdale 3 3 0 0 100%

TOTAL 208 152 56 0 73%

Water Resources – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The use of best management practices to improve or maintain water quality and water quantity and to 

minimize negative effects to watershed condition, such as channel damage, would be implemented in 

accordance with law, regulation, and policy. This will result in incremental improvements to existing 

watershed conditions because of the use of current science and technology to minimize negative 

effects from approved projects.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

184

No Action

Management of water resources would continue in accordance with direction in the 1986 forest plan. 

For watersheds affected by historic mining, grazing, hydrologic modification (channelization), 

pesticide use, recreation, motor vehicle travel, and agriculture, actions to correct these situations 

would continue at the current rate, which may ultimately contribute to future violations of water 

quality standards.

The 1986 plan contains vague and outdated management direction to improve impaired waters, attain 

designated beneficial uses, and meet State water quality standards. It lacks direction regarding 

treatments that may be used to remediate impaired waters. The revised plan under each of the action 

alternatives provides such direction.

The 1986 plan contains no direction for implementing total maximum daily load recommendations to 

improve impaired waters on the Coronado; therefore, water quality improvement projects would only 

occur on an opportunity basis. Without planned treatments and management, the current static trend in 

water quality is likely to continue. The other three alternatives address this deficiency.

The no-action alternative provides no specific desired conditions for future watershed condition. It 

contains management emphasis statements that are outdated. It does not recommend treatments to 

improve watershed functions where they are most needed, which over time may lead to deterioration 

of watershed function and water quality. The lack of plan direction specific to 6th hydrologic unit code

watersheds results in site-specific water resource improvements only, not improvements of overall 

watershed condition. The other three alternatives address this deficiency.

The no-action alternative does not contain any forest plan objectives to implement treatments designed 

to move watersheds toward properly functioning condition. Therefore, management would continue to 

plan and implement few treatments, resulting in less improvement of water quality and watershed 

function than would otherwise occur under the other three alternatives.

Direction specified by the no-action alternative does not provide a focused approach to watershed 

restoration. It does not provide guidance to prioritize treatments within particular watersheds and 

would not result in substantially improving functioning at risk or impaired watersheds. Because of the 

lack of objectives, the level of mechanical treatments would likely be less than other alternatives. As a 

result, it would be unlikely that entire watersheds would be restored except on an opportunity basis. 

Therefore, watershed function would continue to remain static.

To conclude, no action would not have a proactive effect on restoring and maintaining high quality, 

functioning water resources on the Coronado.

The 1986 forest plan does not provide direction for management of resources in response to climate 

change. Climate change has been shown to cause changes in temperature and rainfall patterns. 

Without management direction, climate change would directly affect forest water resources and 

indirectly affect resources they support, such as vegetation, wildlife, and habitat.

Adverse effects on water resources may include impairment of water quality, degradation of 

watersheds, loss of potential recreational uses, and loss of aquatic habitat and biota, any or all of 

which may result from higher velocity and greater quantities of surface runoff associated with extreme 

flooding and more intense storms; and lowered water yield and availability for wildlife, grazing, and 

human uses because of warmer and drier conditions/drought that decrease annual precipitation and 

snowpack.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

185

Proposed Action

The revised plan (the proposed action) includes specific water resources management direction, 

including:

• Desired conditions that water quality meet or exceed State of Arizona, State of New Mexico, 

and/or Environmental Protection Agency standards for designated uses.

• Desired conditions that the quantity of water available on the Coronado be appropriate to meet the 

needs of uses on and off the national forest and to keep channels and flood plains functional.

It also lists the following objectives:

• The Coronado will apply for at least 10 instream-flow water rights on creeks for the beneficial use 

of recreation and wildlife, including fish, every 10 years.

• Development of at least 3 springs to provide aquatic habitat for the recovery of plant species, 

animal species, or both every 10 years.

• Completion of 3 stream restoration project, development projects, or both to benefit aquatic 

species of conservation concern every 10 years.

While water quality trends would be expected to be static for the no-action alternative, trends for 

water quality under the proposed action would be toward attainment of desired conditions, based on 

revised plan direction that emphasizes total maximum daily load implementation and a focused, 

priority watershed treatment strategy. This direction helps align forest plan direction with the Clean 

Water Act.

Water quantity would continue to be largely controlled by weather events and climate. However, clear 

direction in the proposed action with regard to securing additional instream flow water rights, 

developing springs, and restoring streams would help meet the water needs on and off the Coronado 

and would keep channels and flood plains functional. This would help maintain watershed condition 

and the number of miles of perennial waters. A functional channel and flood plain improves water 

retention on the landscape and helps release water over a longer time period for uses on and off the 

Coronado. An indirect effect of functioning floodplains is the support of riparian habitat by 

maintaining natural disturbance cycles, which helps to recruit a diversity of plant species and age 

classes. This, in turn, benefits riparian wildlife species by having diverse forage and nesting locations.

Obtaining instream-flow water rights for the beneficial use of recreation and wildlife, including fish, 

results in protection of nonconsumptive water flow for the environment and recreation users. Existing 

water right certificates would be senior and take precedence over any new procured instream-flow 

water right obtained under this proposed action objective. Water not presently diverted for other 

beneficial uses would be the water these new junior instream-flow water rights are targeting. Indirect 

effects include numerous positive biological processes including riparian and wildlife habitat 

maintenance.

The development of springs and implementation of stream restoration projects provides aquatic 

habitat for plant and animal species dependent on these types of resources to function properly. 

Indirect effects include maintaining a more complex ecosystem and, thereby, improving viability of 

aquatic species and the climate resiliency of the system.

The proposed action alternative contains specific desired conditions for overall watershed condition, 

moving watersheds conditions toward properly functioning, and prioritizing treatments for watershed 

restoration. This alternative would focus treatments to improve the watershed functions where they are 

most needed, resulting in improved watershed function and water quality than would occur under the 

no-action alternative. 

The proposed action recommends the Mount Graham, Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition

North areas for wilderness designation. The official designation of areas as wilderness would prohibit 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

186

the use of mechanized and motorized equipment, except in special emergency circumstances as 

approved by the regional forester. This would reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts from offroad vehicles, mechanized mining operations, and construction of new infrastructure such as roads or 

buildings.

Wilderness restrictions may slow the progress of upland watershed improvements, but with careful 

planning, such projects can be accomplished using nonmotorized and nonmechanized methods.

Unlike no action, the revised plan includes desired conditions and management approaches for the 

Coronado’s response to climate change. Goals include having forest ecosystems that are resilient to 

rapidly changing natural disturbances, such as drought, wind, fire, insects, and pathogens, and 

vegetation communities of various structure and ages across the landscape that are adaptable to 

changing conditions. Toward achieving these goals, improved watershed function would help sustain 

vegetation that serves as a foundation of good quality forest habitat for a variety of species, including 

those having special status. 

Complimenting desired conditions regarding climate change are plan components that recommend 

management approaches tiered from the climate change response strategies described in appendix A 

of the revised plan. These include incorporating engineered structures that minimize soil erosion and 

reduce the velocity and quantities of runoff caused by natural disturbances caused by climate change 

(e.g., wildfire, intense storms, and flooding). They also include identifying and implementing water 

conservation practices and policies, such as water rights acquisitions and integrated water planning 

with Federal, state, and local agencies, and planning for a reduction in upland water supplies, both of 

which would benefit losses in water yield and availability that may result from climate change.

This direction would reduce potential impairment of forest water quality, degradation of watersheds, 

loss of potential recreational uses, and loss of aquatic habitat and biota. any or all of which may result 

from higher velocity and greater quantities of surface runoff associated with extreme flooding and 

more intense storms; and lowered water yield and availability for wildlife, grazing, and human uses 

because of warmer, drier conditions and drought that decrease annual precipitation and snowpack.

Alternative 1

The consequences of implementing this alternative would include those listed above for the proposed 

action and additional effects associated with the proposed management of 16 parcels for wilderness 

character. 

Wilderness restrictions on motorized and mechanized uses may slow the progress of upland watershed 

improvements, but with careful planning such projects can be accomplished using nonmotorized and 

nonmechanized methods. Because this alternative recommends more wilderness than any of the 

others, it would have the greatest impact among the alternatives on implementation of watershed 

improvement projects.

No surface waters in wilderness areas recommended by alternative 1 are ranked as either not attaining 

or impaired (category 4 or 5). One parcel in the Chiricahua Mountains is adjacent to a category 5 

(impaired) stream (Cave Creek). Five other parcels are located within or contribute surface water flow

to category 3 streams, which have water quality ranked as inconclusive. Monitoring will be necessary 

to ensure that the quality of this stream does not deteriorate, whether or not alternative 1 is 

implemented. In any case, activities on the wilderness parcels are not likely to contribute contaminants 

that would degrade the quality of adjacent surface waters.

Alternative 1 would provide the highest degree of surface water protection among all alternatives by 

imposing restrictions on new water extraction and developments. Therefore, those wilderness parcels 

that contribute to perennial surface water streams within the Coronado may accelerate the progress of 

water resources toward attaining desired conditions when compared with the other alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

187

With regard to effects on watershed condition, eight recommended wilderness parcels are located in 

6th hydrologic unit code watersheds that are class 1 (properly functioning), and eight others are within 

class 2 watersheds which are functioning at risk. Overall, designation as wilderness would provide 

additional protection to class 2 watersheds by virtue of its restrictions on activities and motorized and 

mechanical vehicles and equipment. The typical impairment in the class 2 watershed is related to 

overstocked vegetation. If wilderness restrictions impede the implementation of vegetation 

management projects, future conditions of the class 2 watershed may degrade. Careful planning would 

be necessary to accomplish such projects without mechanical or motorized methods at locations where 

overstocking is observed to be increasing.

Alternative 1 would provide the same direction for the management of resources in response to 

climate change as the proposed action. Therefore, it would have the same benefits to water resources 

affected by climate change as described above under the proposed action heading.

Alternative 2

Consequences from this alternative are very similar to those of the proposed action, except for those 

associated with its emphasis on motorized recreation. With regard to water quality, none of the 

proposed motorized recreation areas is located within an area where surface water quality is impaired 

(category 4 or 5).

With regard to water quality, none of the proposed motorized recreation areas is located within an 

assessed problem area for surface water quality (category 4 or 5). The Santa Rita Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone area contributes to Cienega Creek, a category 1 (attaining all uses) water 

quality area managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The Santa Catalina Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone contributes to Tanque Verde Creek, a category 3 (inconclusive) stream, and the 

Pinaleño Motorized Land Use Zone has not yet been assessed. 

Increasing motorized recreation typically loosens or compacts soil and removes or damages vegetation 

ground cover, which may increase erosion and sedimentation. This may have an indirect effect on 

Cienega Creek’s water quality category, and change it from attaining all uses to category 2 (attaining 

some uses). Such a change would not be a significant effect, but it would downgrade the resource 

instead of moving forward to attain desired conditions.

None of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone areas is within or in proximity to perennial streams. 

No direct effects to surface water quantity are anticipated.

With alternative 2, there is a potential for off-highway vehicle trails and other facilities to be built in 

support of motorized recreation. Direct effects to watersheds from these activities include vegetation 

removal, soil compaction, erosion, and sedimentation and indirect effects include more upland 

sediments entering the stream zone, higher peak flood flows, and hydrologic modifications, such as 

channelization. This could result in moving watershed condition classes to a lower state of 

functionality, such as from functioning (class 1) to functioning at risk (class 2). Both the Santa 

Catalina and Santa Rita Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones have slivers of 6th HUC watersheds 

that are class 2. All of the Pinaleño Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone is in class 1 watershed 

condition. 

A positive benefit to surface water management under alternative 2 would be the potential increase of 

roads, which, in turn, may augment the feasibility of mechanical treatment of watersheds that are in 

need of treatment. 

Progress of achieving desired conditions in watersheds and water resources under alternative 2 would 

likely be accomplished in a similar timeframe as the proposed action, less quickly than alternative 1, 

and faster than the no-action alternative.

Alternative 2 provides no plan components for management of water resources to achieve resiliency 

and adaptation to changes that may result from warmer, drier climate conditions, which scientists 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

188

currently believe will affect the Southwest as global warming occurs. It does, however, incorporate the 

strategies for management of climate change described in appendix A of the revised plan, which 

recommend approaches to address key climate change factors, such as insects, disease, and fire that 

exacerbate the effects of climate change. Because of this, adverse effects of climate change on water 

resources under alternative 2 would be slightly greater than those resulting from direction under the 

proposed action and alternative 1 and slightly less than those resulting from the lack of direction in the 

no-action alternative.

Cumulative Effects

The timeframe for assessing cumulative effects on water resources is 15 years and the spatial bounds 

of analysis is the 6th hydrologic unit code watersheds on and off-forest, the latter being those that are 

affected by forest actions. 

Actions by other entities that may contribute to cumulative effects include livestock grazing, 

prescribed and natural fires, wildfire suppression, recreation, mining, farming, wildlife management, 

watershed management, and activities associated with rural residential communities. These 

occurrences have contributed incrementally to effects that have changed ecological conditions on and 

off the Coronado, impacting water quality, water quantity, and watershed condition. Cumulative 

effects described in this section are common to all alternatives.

Historic heavy livestock grazing across the Coronado and in the region around the turn of the 20th 

century resulted in a reduction in native grasses and an increase in shrubs. In some areas, removal of 

vegetation by grazing resulted in soil loss and degraded watershed function. Best management 

practices to mitigate grazing effects have since been implemented, with a general improvement in 

conditions. The forest will manage livestock grazing on National Forest System lands to continue the 

trend of improving watershed conditions. Thus, while grazing by other non-forest entities may 

adversely impact the watersheds from offsite, these effects would not be exacerbated by increments 

contributed by Forest Service actions. 

Historic fuelwood harvesting in the late 19th and early to mid-20th centuries has had similar effects to 

degrading watersheds by contributing to soil loss and an increase in shrubs. Best management 

practices for these activities have also had the effect of reversing this historic trend. Fuelwood harvest 

on the Coronado would continue to be managed according to plan direction that requires the use of 

best management practices. Therefore, with the application of best management practices, adverse 

effects on soils and shrub encroachment will be managed to minimize effects on the watershed. Thus, 

while fuelwood harvest outside the Coronado may adversely impact watersheds, these effects would 

not be exacerbated by increments contributed by Forest Service actions under any of the alternatives. 

Wildfire suppression activities since the establishment of the national forest (circa 1908) have 

contributed to a trend of increased shrubs and overstocked trees. This trend incrementally has a 

negative effect on watershed function by altering hydrologic processes, such as water absorption, 

retention, and release of water in the watershed. Also, watershed stability can be reduced after 

uncharacteristic wildfires. The forest would manage future shrub encroachment and overstocking 

under each of the action alternatives, and to a lesser extent, prescriptions in the 1986 plan. 

Management of wildfire rather than suppression is also an option. This would decrease the potential 

for adverse effects on watershed function associated with the effects of suppression. Because impacts 

from forest management would be minimal, there is little potential for them to contribute significantly 

to cumulative effects. 

Clearing brush and thinning overstocked trees on the Coronado in combination with the same 

activities off-forest may be a source of cumulative effects to water resources. These activities may 

include the use of mechanical treatment methods, chemical treatment methods that have been 

authorized based on a site-specific environmental analysis of the effects of such treatment, and fire. 

Short-term cumulative effects, such as fugitive dust emissions and erosion and sedimentation, would 

result from the ground-disturbing activities of mechanical clearing. It is possible, however to minimize 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

189

or mitigate these effect by using best management practices. In the long term, this action would 

encourage growth of vegetative ground cover, which would correspondingly improve watershed 

conditions. Because of this, forest management would not contribute to cumulative effects to 

watersheds.

Minerals exploration and mining activity have occurred on and adjacent to the Coronado during the 

last few centuries. Historic surface and underground mining is a ground-disturbing activity by 

definition and causes many effects, some irreversible, to the environment. Historic mining activity can 

have adverse effects on water quality caused by excess sediment and pollutants from areas of waste 

rock dumps or processed ore. Water quantities may also be impacted since large volumes of water are 

generally necessary for present day commercial mining activities. However, because the Coronado has 

numerous historic mining districts with historic mineral production, there is a potential that within the 

next few decades renewed exploration and extraction could occur. In combination with off-forest 

mining activity, mining on the Coronado may have cumulative adverse effects on water quality, water 

quantity, and watershed.

Rural development in the watersheds, such as homesteads and private developments, continues to 

result in vegetation loss, increased sedimentation, and runoff from roads and disturbed areas, and 

increased groundwater use. These actions contribute effects on the watersheds of the Coronado. 

Direction in the forest plan under all alternatives is designed to conserve vegetation and soils and 

manage groundwater withdrawals without depleting the resource. Therefore, although other agencies 

and entities may cause adverse effects to the watershed, they are not exacerbated by effects caused by 

forest management.

Offsite farming by multiple individuals may cumulatively affect the quality and quantity of water 

resources and watershed condition. Farming is not a valid use of National Forest System land. In areas 

adjacent to the Coronado in the upper portion of the Coronado watersheds, farming is uncommon. 

However, it is very substantial in the lower portions of the watershed outside the Coronado National 

Forest boundary. Farming impacts water quantity because irrigation uses large volumes of 

groundwater and diverted surface water. Farming also impacts water quality since agricultural 

chemicals and irrigation return flow can pollute surface and groundwater. Sedimentation from 

agricultural fields impacts the drainages downstream. In a cumulative sense, effects on groundwater 

and perennial streams would primarily result from off-forest actions, and any effects on watersheds 

from Coronado National Forest actions are unlikely to result in a cumulative effect. 

Activities associated with a shared border between the United States and the Republic of Mexico is 

increasing impacts on watersheds. Undocumented immigrants crossing back and forth between the 

two countries have used the watersheds of the Coronado. They create foot trails, which impact soils, 

leave trash and debris, inadvertently start large wildfires, and leave gates open or cut fences, which 

allow livestock to drift to pastures that are resting. Border Patrol agents who seek and detain 

undocumented persons regularly use double-track roads or trails in large four-wheel-drive vehicles 

and off-highway vehicles in locations that have historically had little use. Future activities could 

include construction of lookout towers, fences or barriers, and new roads, using new or existing roads 

as drag roads, and other activities surrounding surveillance techniques. These disturbances adversely 

affect soils in the watershed, causing sedimentation in streams and loss of or damage to vegetation. 

Forest management of surface waters would not contribute to the cumulative effects on watersheds 

that result from border management.

Off-forest motorized recreation impacts watersheds and water resources when vehicles are driven on 

unpaved roads. Loose soils eventually deposit as sediment in stream channels. Off-road motorized 

recreation also damages soils and vegetation, which contributes to watershed health. Direction in the 

revised forest plan focuses motorized recreation in a land use zone in previously disturbed areas to 

prevent impacts on soils, vegetation, and watershed. As this outdoor recreation activity grows in 

popularity, irresponsible use will lead to the creation of more unauthorized roads, which can have a 

negative impact on select portions of watersheds. Because of management direction for motorized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

190

recreation, the Coronado’s contribution to cumulative effects on watersheds caused by motorized 

recreation will be relatively low.

Air Quality – Affected Environment

Standards and Regulations

The Clean Air Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-2006) authorized the Public Health Service, in the Federal 

Health and Welfare Department, to set standards for auto emissions, expanded local air pollution 

control programs, established air quality control regions, set air quality standards and compliance 

deadlines for stationary source emissions, and authorized research on low emissions fuels and 

automobiles. 

In 1970, amendments to the Clean Air Act required the recently created Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect public health. 

The standards are dynamic in that they change with the emergence of new pollution prevention and 

monitoring technology and scientific knowledge about effects. Today, there are six criteria pollutants 

for which standards have been set:

1. Carbon monoxide 

2. Lead 

3. Nitrogen dioxide 32

4. Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) and particulate matter smaller 

than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5)

5. Ozone

6. Sulfur dioxide

These are known as “primary” national ambient air quality standards, and they establish the maximum 

average volume (concentration) of each pollutant acceptable for inhalation by sensitive populations, 

such as people with asthma, young children, and the elderly, over a given period of time. “Secondary” 

standards have also been established for certain criteria pollutants to protect the “public welfare from 

adverse effects to visibility, building integrity, plants, and animals” (U.S. EPA 2011). 

Subsequent amendments to the Clean Air Act (1977 and 1990) established prevention of significant 

deterioration regulations that apply to designated pristine natural areas nationwide; pollutants that 

contribute to regional haze and visibility impairment, especially sulfates and nitrates; and wet and dry 

deposition of chemical elements and compounds that can adversely affect natural resources in forest 

ecosystems (acid precipitation). 

Natural events that decrease visibility include volcanic and seismic activity, wildfires, high winds, 

tornadoes, and hurricanes, among others. Natural visibility conditions and efforts to attain the national 

visibility goal of “no anthropogenic (manmade) impairment” by 2064 are defined in the Regional 

Haze Rule (40 CFR Part 51) and further documented in state implementation plans. 

States are in the process of developing milestones for visibility improvements to reach natural 

conditions. Both Arizona and New Mexico have established Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plans (ADEQ 2011 and NMED 2010) designed to remediate current impairments of visibility, 

including smoke and smog, and to prevent future impairment. The State implementation plans 

establish acceptable levels of criteria pollutants that affect visibility, such as particulate matter, and 

 

32 Nitrogen dioxide is an ozone precursor, meaning it breaks down into ozone over time.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

191

other chemical elements and compounds, such as mercury, sulfates, and nitrates. Both plans are under 

review and pending approval by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Coronado’s responsibility with regard to visibility involves coordination with the Environmental 

Protection Agency and State, county, and tribal air regulatory agencies in managing and mitigating the 

emissions of air pollutants resulting from Forest Service activities, such as the application of planned

fire ignitions.

33 If conditions prescribed by the Regional Haze Rule and Arizona and New Mexico 

regional haze implementation plans (when approved by the Environmental Protection Agency) are 

met, visibility is expected to improve over time on, and outside, the Coronado.

Climate

The Coronado National Forest has a unique range of climates induced by the complex topography of 

southeastern Arizona. The generally arid region is punctuated by discrete mountain ranges (the sky 

islands). Precipitation and temperature values vary considerably between the low desert areas and the 

subalpine environments of the mountain ranges. Temperature decreases with elevation on average in 

the lower atmosphere; therefore, higher elevation areas will experience lower average temperatures 

than the low desert areas.

Precipitation typically increases with elevation in mountainous areas because of orographic lifting 

(upslope flow) of moisture-containing air masses. The average total annual precipitation for the region 

is 15.6 inches (39.5 centimeters) while the annual average temperature is 62.4 degrees Fahrenheit 

(16.9 degrees Celsius). These values represent the average conditions for Pima, Cochise, Santa Cruz, 

and Graham Counties in southeast Arizona and Hidalgo County in southwest New Mexico.

The role of topography in controlling surface climate is well illustrated in examining climate data 

from two weather stations located close to each other, but at different elevations. Weather stations at 

Tucson International Airport and at Palisades Ranger Station on the Coronado are within 25 miles of 

each other, but differ by 5,000 feet in elevation. This difference accounts for the dramatic differences 

in temperature and precipitation shown in table 70.

Table 70. Climatic data from Tucson International Airport and Palisades Ranger Station on the 

Coronado National Forest

Location Elevation

Average 

Maximum 

Temperature

Average 

Minimum 

Temperature

Average Total 

Precipitation

Average 

Total 

Snowfall

Tucson Airport 2,562 feet 

(780 m)

82 °F 

(28 °C)

55 °F 

(13 °C)

12 inches 

(30 cm)

1 inch 

(3 cm)

Palisades Ranger 

Station

7,959 feet 

(2,426 m)

59 °F 

(15 °C)

34 °F 

(1 °C)

31 inches

(79 cm)

78 inches 

(197 cm)

Class I, Sensitive Areas

The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments established provisions to facilitate the prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality in areas currently attaining the national ambient air quality standards. They 

also contained requirements pertaining to pollution sources in nonattainment areas for the standards. A 

nonattainment area is a geographic area that does not meet one or more of the Federal air quality 

standards. Initial classifications of attainment areas were either class I or class II. Class I areas include 

international parks, national wilderness areas exceeding 5,000 acres in size, national memorial parks 

 

33 See the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality website: 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/smoke/download/prules.pdf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

192

exceeding 5,000 acres in size, and national parks exceeding 6,000 acres. Class II areas comprise all 

the remaining areas that are not class I.

The Clean Air Act affords class I areas the highest level of protection from air quality degradation. It 

requires that projects with the potential to affect class I areas be designed to minimize or avoid 

deterioration of ambient air quality and air quality related attributes. The 1977 amendments 

established major permit review requirements for new pollutant sources to ensure the future 

attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards in class I areas. 

Visibility is a highly important attribute of class I areas, and the reduction of haze is a management 

objective for improving and maintaining visibility in these areas. Such areas in and near the Coronado 

are the Galiuro Wilderness, Chiricahua Wilderness, Chiricahua National Monument Wilderness, and 

Saguaro National Park (see figure 4). Two other class I areas, the Superstition Wilderness and the Gila 

Wilderness, are farther away from the Coronado but close enough that activities on Coronado National 

Forest lands could affect their air quality. The Superstition Wilderness is on the Tonto National Forest 

approximately 50 miles to the north and the Gila Wilderness is on the Gila National Forest 

approximately 80 miles to the northeast.

Air Quality Conditions and Trends

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality defines 11 geographical areas having similar 

hydrology, topography, and localized meteorological conditions as smoke management units or 

airsheds (figure 4). Ranger districts of the Coronado National Forest are in four airsheds: Upper Gila 

River (7), Mexico Drainage (8), Gila River (9), and Lower Colorado (11). Wildfires regularly impact 

airshed 7, 8, and 9, and less frequently, 11.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

193

Figure 4. Airsheds, nonattainment areas, and class I areas in Arizona

(Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality34)

Nonattainment Areas

An area for which monitoring of ambient air indicates a violation of one or more primary national 

ambient air quality standards is labeled as “nonattainment.” “Maintenance areas” are those that were 

at one time classified as nonattainment and currently meet the standards. A strategy to ensure 

continued maintenance of their attainment status is prescribed in an EPA-approved planning document 

 

34 http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/smoke/download/burn_inst.pdf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

194

unique to each maintenance area. All other areas are either “attainment” or listed as “unclassified” 

because of a lack of monitoring data.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports nonattainment areas annually in the Federal Register 

(40 CFR 81 – Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes) and on its website. State and 

local air monitoring stations measure ambient concentrations for all primary pollutants. In Arizona, 

particulate matter (PM10) nonattainment areas are Paul Spur/Douglas in Cochise County, Rillito in 

Pima County, and Nogales in Santa Cruz County, which is a nonattainment area for PM2.5. In New 

Mexico, one PM10 nonattainment area is the Anthony PM10 in the southeastern corner of Doña Ana 

County, along the border with Mexico. Air quality there is influenced by two nearby urban areas to the 

east at Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas (U.S. EPA 2012). The New Mexico PM10

nonattainment area is not near enough to be affected by management activities on the Coronado under 

most circumstances. There are no nonattainment areas for the other criteria pollutants in the Arizona 

and New Mexico areas near the Coronado.

Because it is highly urbanized relative to other Arizona counties in which the Coronado is located 

(Cochise, Santa Cruz, Graham, Pinal), Pima County has the most significant sources of air pollutants 

that contribute to cumulative effects in the planning area. Real-time monitoring data are available at 

the “Air Info Now” website of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ).35

Air quality standards are largely attained in Pima County, although ambient ozone concentrations are 

very close to maximum levels. The PM2.5 standard has not been exceeded in Pima County since 

monitoring began in 1999. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations average about 30 percent of the standard, 

and sulphur dioxide concentrations average about 7 percent of the standard in Pima County. There has 

been little change in their concentrations over 15 years. Carbon monoxide concentrations have been 

declining in Pima County and are currently about 20 percent of the standard (PDEQ 2009). The Santa 

Catalina Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone proposed by alternative 2 is directly east of the carbon 

monoxide maintenance area in Pima County. The sulphur dioxide maintenance area of Morenci is 

located approximately 30 miles to the northeast of the Pinaleño Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone

proposed by alternative 2.

Hidalgo County in New Mexico, in which a small part of the Coronado is located, is very rural in 

nature and does not have its own air monitoring Web site. Typical pollutants here include windblown 

dust (particulate matter) and emissions from agricultural and vehicle activities. Real-time data for 

ozone, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter concentrations are collected east of Hidalgo County 

near Deming, New Mexico, in Luna County. Ozone and sulphur dioxide are measured to the northeast 

near Hurley, New Mexico. Data are reported on the Internet36 by the New Mexico Environment 

Department. 

Visibility and Acid Rain

One of the most basic forms of air pollution––haze––degrades visibility and aesthetic vistas in many 

American cities and scenic areas. Haze results when sunlight encounters tiny pollutant particles in the 

air, which reduce the clarity and color of what we see, particularly during humid conditions. Chemical 

compounds in fine particles that most impair visibility are sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, 

elemental carbon (or soot), and soil dust. Fine particles (PM2.5) are more efficient at impairing 

visibility than coarse particles (PM10 and larger) (USDA FS 2002). Because of the arid climate in the 

Southwest and the lack of industrial sources of pollutants, visibility is generally better than in most 

other areas of the U.S. Nevertheless, with population growth and more vehicles on the road, the 

 

35 http://www.airinfonow.org/html/data.html

36 http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us/stationStatus.php?stationNo=90
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

195

natural range of visibility in the western U.S. has decreased from 140 miles to a range of 35 to 90 

miles.37

Wildfires and windblown dust are natural sources of emissions that affect visibility. Windblown dust 

originates from motor vehicle travel (especially on dirt roads), agriculture, off-highway vehicle use, 

and planned fire ignitions. Wildland fires are the result of natural ignitions (lightning) or humancaused ignitions. Depending on its severity, timing, duration, and type and condition of vegetation 

consumed, wildfires of extreme intensity often increase smoke and haze well above natural levels. 

Pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment, especially sulfates and nitrates that deposit in the 

ecosystem, cause acidification of lakes and streams, nutrient enrichment of coastal waters and large 

river basins, soil nutrient depletion and decline of sensitive forests, agricultural crop damage, and 

impacts on ecosystem biodiversity. Policy makers, land managers, and/or regulatory agencies 

establish “target loads” of various pollutants to protect sensitive ecosystem components in specific 

areas. A target load is defined by a calculated “critical load”—the maximum deposition of visibilityrelated pollutants below which significant harmful ecological effects are not expected to occur. The 

critical load is established in consideration of the expected ecosystem response to a given deposition 

level. A target load may be higher or lower than the critical load, depending on the economic cost of

emissions reductions, timeframe, and other considerations. Critical loads have been calculated for 

many ecosystems in the United States, including northeastern forests and high elevation lakes in the 

mountain west.38

In response to amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1977, which required the development of Federal 

and state implementation plans for the protection of visibility in class I areas, an Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network39 was established in 1985. 

IMPROVE implemented an extensive long-term monitoring program to define current visibility 

conditions, track changes in visibility, and determine causal mechanism for visibility impairment in 

national parks and wilderness areas. Visibility-related data is collected by IMPROVE at two 

monitoring stations in southeastern Arizona: Chiricahua National Monument and Saguaro National 

Park.

40 There are no IMPROVE sites in Hidalgo County, New Mexico; however, the Chiricahua site 

in Arizona is in close proximity to the county.

Another group of agencies, academic institutions, private companies, and nongovernmental 

organizations collaborate in the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) National Trends 

Network (NTN),41 which monitors ambient precipitation chemistry nationwide. One NADP station is 

located at the Chiricahua National Monument next to the Coronado National Forest. There are no 

stations in the portion of the Coronado in southwest New Mexico; however, data from the Chiricahua 

site may be relevant there because of its close proximity to New Mexico. One New Mexico 

monitoring site is located north of Hidalgo County.

Sulfate concentrations in precipitation have decreased nationwide over the past 2 decades, especially 

in the eastern U.S., where many industrial sources have been subject to emissions control established 

by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Acid Rain Program.42 While sulfur emissions have 

 

37 http://www.epa.gov/visibility/what.html

38 http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/clean_air_water/clean_water/critical_loads/faq/#5

39 Members include the EPA, National Park Service (NPS), USDA Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 

Administrators (STAPPA). See http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/visdata.html

40 See http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Overview/IMPROVEProgram_files/frame.htm

41 http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/nadp/

42 Lynch et al. 1995. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

196

declined in the eastern United States, especially in the northeast, nitrogen deposition has continued to 

increase in the West (Potter and Huber 2007).

In 2009 (the most recent available data), the precipitation-weighted mean concentration of nitrates at 

the Chiricahua site was 0.85 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and 0.60 milligrams per liter for sulfate. In 

2009, the site had nitrate and sulfate concentrations that were 0.02 milligrams per liter and 0.17 

milligrams per liter above 2008 data, respectively. However, these concentrations are relatively low 

when compared to those reported in the Midwest and Northeast, which are well over 10 milligrams 

per liter and there is insufficient data available for scientists to predict a trend. 

Air Quality – Environmental Consequences

Sources of Emissions

The following section compares the potential effects to air quality from direction given in the 1986 

plan (no action) and direction under the proposed action and alternatives. Potential sources of 

emissions on the Coronado may result from the following activities.

Vehicle and heavy equipment operation, including on- and off-road travel and recreational 

vehicle use, release combustion gases (exhaust) and particulates to the air, both of which contribute to 

ambient concentrations of pollutants regulated by the national ambient air quality standards. While 

most emissions are confined locally and are temporary, large road or facility construction projects and 

sizeable mining operations, such as the Rosemont Copper Project, will contribute enough particulates 

over extensive periods of time to negatively affect ambient concentrations. Quantifiable 

concentrations of pollutant emission would be calculated during every site-specific environmental 

review of future proposed actions.

Mechanical treatment of vegetation is used to reduce high concentrations of fuels in the forest 

understory, which, in turn, lowers the risk of severe wildfire and its effects on the health and safety of 

fire management personnel, and improves habitat for a variety of species. It is often used in advance 

of planned fire ignitions to remove the woody debris and plant material on the forest floor. Operation 

of chainsaws and chippers releases exhaust and particulates to the air, and burning the larger branches, 

twigs and other woody debris, referred to as “slash” generates smoke, the effects of which are 

discussed below.

Planned fire ignitions are conducted on the Coronado to achieve land and resource management 

objectives. Planned ignitions are used to mimic natural reference (pre-European settlement) fire 

conditions and move the ecosystem toward a desired vegetation condition that supports recurring 

wildland fire.

Both planned and unplanned fire ignitions release smoke in amounts relative to the amount of fuels 

consumed, type of fuels, moisture, area burned, and duration, and in which combustion gases and 

various diameter particulates are released to ambient air. The predominant pollutant in smoke is fine 

particulate matter, both PM10 and PM2.5. Studies indicate that 90 percent of all smoke particles from 

wildfires is PM10, and that 90 percent of the PM10 is PM2.5 (Ward and Hardy 1991). 

PM2.5 in smoke is of paramount importance because these fine particles are known to lodge deep in 

the human respiratory system and are quite difficult to expel (USDA FS 2002). Consequently, they 

can have significant impacts on the health and well-being of sensitive populations, such as the elderly, 

young children, and persons with lung disease or compromised immune systems. Carbon monoxide 

released by combustion generates localized increments to ambient air, which present a health and 

safety concern for fire personnel; and nitrogen oxides, which are chemical precursors to the formation 

of ozone. 

Smoke is managed by the Coronado National Forest in accordance with Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality and New Mexico Environmental Department regulations established under the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

197

Clean Air Act (e.g., visibility and criteria pollutants). Wildfires are considered “natural events” and, as 

such, are exempt from Clean Air Act regulations.

Coronado staff coordinate with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, New Mexico 

Environmental Department, or both before planned fire ignitions are applied to the landscape to ensure 

that various factors that influence the volume of smoke emissions are addressed appropriately by 

mitigation or avoidance to minimize adverse effects (USDA FS 2002). In general, every planned fire 

ignition is planned to emit pollutants in concentrations that will not adversely impact air quality by 

defining the size of the burn area and weather conditions under which burning is acceptable, with the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and New Mexico Environmental Department approval. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The 1986 forest plan requires that every Coronado National Forest action be designed to comply with 

the national ambient air quality standards and any other applicable air quality regulations. It also 

specifies best management practices be applied to activities that generate air pollutants to reduce or 

mitigate potential adverse impacts. The three action alternatives propose equivalent air quality 

protection. Therefore, there is no difference among the alternatives with regard to protection of 

ambient air quality and effects on human health. 

Given the mandate of the 1872 Mining Act, the Forest Service must consider all proposals for 

minerals exploration and mining on public land. Regardless of which alternative is implemented, 

large-scale mining actions on the Coronado, such as the Rosemont Copper Project, will be managed to 

mitigate or avoid adverse impacts to air quality and to maintain target loads for pollutants that impair 

visibility and adversely affect ecosystem resources by acid deposition. 

Under all alternatives, wildland fires will continue to occur on the Coronado and will be managed 

according to policy and guidance set forth under the alternative. Smoke from wildland fires may travel 

large distances, impairing local and regional visibility, and degrading air quality far from their point of 

origin, depending on topography and atmospheric conditions—in particular, wind speed and direction. 

In the case of uncharacteristic wildfire, ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants may increase 

beyond the national ambient air quality standards in the local and possibly regional airshed, regardless 

of which revised forest plan is in effect. Thus, any adverse health effects on sensitive populations 

would be equal for all alternatives. 

Application of planned and unplanned ignitions will adhere to the protocols required by the 1986 plan, 

which are reiterated in the action alternatives. Therefore, there would be no difference among the 

alternatives in effects on regional haze and visibility in designated class I attainment areas. 

No Action

The 1986 plan includes standards and guidelines that require all site-specific actions to be planned to 

continue to attain local, State, and Federal ambient air quality standards. It also includes guidelines for 

mitigating fugitive dust during ground-disturbing activities, including motor vehicle travel on and off 

roads.

The plan, however, does not establish goals or objectives (i.e., desired conditions) related to airquality values; for example, it lacks a goal to “achieve high quality visual conditions for class I 

attainment areas.” The 1986 forest plan does not provide direction on approaches to future 

management of air quality. 

The no-action alternative does not provide direction to address management of resources in response 

to climate change. Climate change and air pollution are closely coupled. Climate change does not 

affect air quality, but deterioration of air quality exacerbates climate change. Just as air pollution may 

have adverse effects on ecosystems and human health, it may also affect the earth’s climate. This 

occurs when atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane trap solar energy that is 

not absorbed by the planet and is typically radiated back into space. The result is climate change, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

198

which affects temperature and rainfall patterns. The close connection between climate and air quality 

is also reflected in the impacts of climate change on air pollution levels. Ozone and particle pollution 

are strongly influenced by shifts in the weather (e.g., heat waves or droughts). Without forest plan 

direction that manages air quality relative to its potential exacerbation of greenhouse gas emissions, 

Coronado National Forest activities and uses would add an increment of pollutants that contribute to 

global warming.

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan includes specific direction toward achieving desired conditions. For example, 

“air quality above the Coronado National Forest meets State air quality standards, including visibility 

and public health. Air quality-related values, including high quality visual conditions, are maintained 

within the class I airsheds in the Galiuro and Chiricahua Wildernesses.”

The revised forest plan identifies the following approaches to managing future air quality:

• Participating with the states of Arizona and New Mexico in the air quality regulatory process by 

reviewing air permit applications for new and modified industrial facilities to ensure that their air 

emissions do not adversely impact air quality-related values, such as visibility, ozone exposure, 

and atmospheric deposition, in wilderness areas.

• Considering class I and class II airsheds when determining an appropriate response to wildfire. 

• Managing and coordinating the timing, duration, and frequency of planned fire ignitions across 

the forest to minimize impacts to regional air quality.

In contrast to the status quo supported by the 1986 plan, the proposed action provides direction that 

emphasizes public health and visibility as desired conditions. This better aligns forest management 

with the goals and objectives of the Clean Air Act and its amendments, the Regional Haze Rule, and 

Arizona and New Mexico state implementation plans.

The proposed action recommends designation of four wilderness areas on the Coronado (Ku Chish, 

Whetstone, Mount Graham, and Chiricahua Addition North) and reiterates the 1986 plan 

recommendation for designation of the Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area as wilderness. 

Restrictions on the use of internal combustion engines on vehicles and equipment would not change 

for the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area, because it is already managed to preserve 

wilderness characteristics. Thus, the effects of the no-action alternative and the proposed action on air 

quality would remain the same with regard to Mount Graham. 

Although wilderness management is not currently required at Ku Chish, Whetstone, Mount Graham,

and Chiricahua Addition North, the ruggedness of the area makes the use of vehicles and equipment 

difficult, if not impossible. Thus, air quality in this area is currently quite good, and with the 

wilderness recommendation by the proposed action, no measurable change in emissions is likely to 

result from application of new restrictions on vehicle and equipment use.

Wilderness restrictions on motorized and mechanized uses may affect the progress of upland 

watershed improvement projects (fuel treatments). In this case, there would be a very minimal 

increase in the probability of uncharacteristic wildfire occurring within these areas. The smoke and 

airborne pollutants from fires may cause short-term visibility impacts in nearby class I areas, including 

the Chiricahua and Galiuro Wilderness areas on the Coronado and the Gila Wilderness and Saguaro 

National Park. However, dispersion and dilution would reduce ambient concentrations of criteria 

pollutants to levels that would not compromise attainment.

As discussed under the “No Action” heading above, climate change and air pollution are closely 

linked. Climate change does not affect air quality, but deterioration of air quality exacerbates climate 

change. The revised forest plan under the proposed action provides direction for the management of 

air quality to minimize emissions of pollutants from forest actions and uses that contribute to global 

warming and, hence, climate change. It also recommends designation of four new wilderness areas, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

199

where restrictions on motorized and mechanized uses would decrease the contribution of vehicle and 

equipment exhaust emissions, which include greenhouse gases, to global warming.

The proposed action recommends the new Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area, where climate 

change signs and effects will be monitored, along with other unrelated research and studies. The data 

and information gained by monitoring climate-change influences and effects will contribute to the 

identification and effectiveness of new approaches to foster adaptation and resiliency in Coronado 

National Forest resources.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1would have the same effects on air quality as the proposed action and would result in 

additional beneficial effects from managing 16 additional parcels for wilderness character. Direct 

effects on air quality caused by the use of internal combustion engines, vehicle travel, construction 

and maintenance of roads, and other ground-disturbing activities, such as mechanical treatments of 

fuels, would decrease because of wilderness restrictions. These direct benefits would more than offset 

the very small indirect effect from restricted access and equipment use that may increase the 

probability of uncharacteristic wildfire and adverse effects from smoke on ambient air quality and 

visibility. Therefore, qualitatively, alternative 1 is more likely than the other alternatives to move the 

air quality in the forest ecosystem toward desired conditions. 

Alternative 1 provides the same direction as the proposed action with regard to management of 

pollutant emissions that contribute to global warming and a recommendation for designation of the 

Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area. In addition, alternative 1 recommends designation of 

approximately 255,908 acres of the Coronado as new wilderness, where restrictions on motorized and 

mechanized uses would greatly decrease the contribution of vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions, 

which include greenhouse gases, to global warming. Because of this recommendation, alternative 1 

would be the most effective among the alternatives at reducing the incremental contribution from the 

Coronado to global warming.

Alternative 2

Effects on air quality from alternative 2 would be the same as those of the proposed action, with a few 

exceptions. The primary difference between alternative 2 and the others with regard to effects on air 

quality is that emissions of fugitive dust and exhaust from recreational vehicle use and construction of 

related facilities, including off-highway vehicle trails, would increase with alternative 2, because it 

proposes to allocate 40,255 acres more to the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone than the proposed 

action and alternative 1.

None of the proposed Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones in the Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, and 

Pinaleño Ecosystem Management Areas (see figure 2, page 7) are within either a nonattainment or 

maintenance area. Class I areas are within the area of potential effect of all three Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zones. While emissions are expected to degrade local ambient air quality over temporary 

periods of activity, quantification of the increments of pollutants that would be emitted is not possible. 

Given the localized nature of emissions, it is unlikely that increments of pollutants would exacerbate 

ambient concentrations to the extent that national ambient air quality standards are violated. Sitespecific environmental reviews would be used to evaluate potential effects on nonattainment, 

maintenance, and class I areas at the time individual projects are proposed.

Because alternative 2 recommends only the Mount Graham Wilderness Study area (61,315 acres) for 

wilderness, the decrease in vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions expected under the proposed 

action and alternative 1 would be less than under alternative 2. This would result in a minimal increase 

in emissions from these sources that is not quantifiable at the programmatic level. Site-specific 

emissions will be addressed after projects are proposed in the future. Effects of emissions and 

consequent effects on air quality related to wilderness designations would be equivalent for no action 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

200

and alternative 2 because both propose the continued management of the Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area for wilderness values. 

Potential benefits of alternative 2 could be that forest vegetation treatments using vehicles and 

mechanized equipment would not be restricted, and the very slight increase in the probability of 

uncharacteristic wildfire occurrence, with associated smoke and visibility impacts, would not result. 

Effects of emissions and consequent effects on air quality related to wilderness designations would be 

equivalent for no action and alternative 2 because both propose the continued management of the 

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area for wilderness values. 

Indirect effects on ambient air quality would result from airborne dust generated by wind erosion of 

land and vegetation cleared for development of motorized recreation trails and facilities. Temporary, 

localized increases in exhaust pollutants, including particulates, from construction vehicle and 

equipment use would result. An increase of roads and trails in the Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zone may improve access to currently inaccessible areas that are in need of fuels treatment. 

Because of the adverse effects that motorized recreation would have on ambient air quality, alternative 

2 would move the forest ecosystems toward desired conditions more slowly than the proposed action 

and alternative 1, and about equally if no action is taken.

Alternative 2 provides the same direction as the proposed action with regard to management of 

pollutant emissions that contribute to global warming. However, because it recommends specific areas 

on the Coronado for motorized recreational use, vehicle exhaust emissions of greenhouse gases would 

likely be more than any of the other alternatives. The newly designated zones would make land 

available for facilities that support motorized vehicle use as well as additional trails and courses. 

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that motorized use would not increase if motorized use zones are 

designated and would continue at its current level. Alternative 2 also does not recommend designation 

of the Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area, where climate change research is anticipated.

Cumulative Effects

The following text provides a qualitative assessment of the potential cumulative effects of forest plan 

direction for each alternative over a 15-year plan lifetime, inclusive of Coronado and nearby airsheds 

and class I areas. Sources of pollutant emissions from the Coronado were listed above. 

Non-Forest Sources of Emissions

Off-forest sources of emissions that may contribute additively to cumulative effects are those that 

would disturb soils, such as residential and commercial development, mining, minerals exploration 

projects, and road construction. Vehicle travel on adjacent roads and highways and agricultural 

activities (which produce exhaust gases and fugitive dust), industrial facilities from which pointsource (e.g., smokestack) pollutant emissions are released, and smoke from fires on land under private 

or other agency jurisdiction also contribute to cumulative effects. Of these, the activities most likely to 

contribute to cumulative air quality, when considered additively with forest actions, are mining, road 

construction, and vehicle travel.

Population growth in the Southwest is expected to continue over the life of the forest plan. Areas 

adjacent to the Coronado, especially the Tucson metropolitan area, would continue to be very 

attractive to those wishing to relocate to a warmer climate. With projected growth, new construction 

of residential and commercial developments and roads is likely, and new ground disturbances would 

contribute additional fugitive dust to the ambient air. Likewise, an influx of more people would trigger 

more vehicle travel on local roads, increasing exhaust and dust emissions in the area impacts. Future 

proposed actions on the Coronado would be evaluated to determine if, when added to nonforest 

sources, they would exacerbate attainment or increase haze and decrease visibility in both the local 

airshed and in class I areas
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

201

Mining and minerals exploration are expected to increase over the life of the plan, as the market 

value of copper and other mineral resources rises. Mining and exploration on public lands must be 

considered for approval under the Mining Act of 1872. Many currently undeveloped areas of locatable 

mineral deposits on and off the national forest may be explored and/or mined, including those in the 

Santa Rita, Dragoon, and Huachuca Ecosystem Management Areas. New mining activities may 

release large quantities of fugitive dust during the life of the plan from vehicle and equipment travel, 

ground disturbance for construction of processing facilities, and blasting, drilling, and mechanical 

extraction of ore. Minerals exploration activities would affect air quality from fugitive dust from 

vehicle and equipment use. Because both exploration and mining proposals would be evaluated on a 

site-specific basis for potential effects on local air quality and class I areas, there is no difference 

among the alternatives with regard to their cumulative effects.

Grazing on and off the Coronado would continue to add increments of greenhouse gases to the 

ambient air. Greenhouse gas contributions from grazing include methane gas released by livestock; 

managed livestock waste used as an amendment for crops emits methane and nitrous oxide; and 

nitrous oxide released by soils on grazed lands, as constituents in unmanaged waste and forage 

legumes affect the nitrogen cycle (USDA FS 2011a). However, agricultural activities on and off the 

Coronado are not expected to expand significantly during the analysis period. Therefore, while the 

listed emissions would continue, cumulative effects on the environment would not likely increase.

Industrial sources of air pollutants near the Coronado include power plants, factories, a smelter, and 

other facilities that release pollutants from a single point. Air emissions from each of these are 

regulated under permits by the state and local environmental agencies. Therefore, if new significant 

sources of this kind are proposed, the increment of criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases, and 

hazardous substances would be reviewed by regulators. Mitigation and monitoring would be required 

to ensure continued attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. No sources of industrial 

emissions are generated by forest activities. Therefore, the Coronado would not contribute to adverse 

impacts if new or expanded industrial sources are developed.

Planned and unplanned fire ignitions may produce smoke, from which primary, secondary, and 

hazardous pollutants are released to the atmosphere. Planned ignitions are applied under the direction 

of a Federal, state, or local land management agency after consideration of variables such as weather, 

acreage to be treated, type and condition of fuels, and duration, among other factors. Authorization for 

planned ignitions by the States of Arizona or New Mexico is based, in part, on consideration of the 

potential for cumulative effects from smoke with other activities planned during a concurrent 

timeframe. Therefore, the potential for significant cumulative effects from planned ignitions is largely 

avoided or in some cases, mitigated by adherence to the enhanced smoke management program in the 

State implementation plan. 

The occurrence and extent of wildfire are not predictable, and when uncharacteristic fires occur, their 

high intensity may result in temporary violations of the national ambient air quality standards in the 

affected airshed(s). The effects of wildfires are not considered additive with planned forest activities 

because they are unplanned events.

Conclusion

Both nonforest and forest actions would release criteria pollutants to ambient air. Direction requiring 

compliance with all air quality regulations is given in each of the alternatives and the 1986 plan. 

Therefore, there would be no difference among them with regard to their future additive effects on air 

quality, when other sources of emissions are considered. The alternatives identify goals and 

approaches for managing air quality related values in class I areas. The 1986 plan does not. Generally, 

the three action alternatives would better provide for management of air quality than the 1986 plan. 

Alternative 2 provides for an expanded Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone, which is relatively 

small (45,117 acres or about 3 percent) relative to the 1.7 million-acre Coronado National Forest 

National Forest. While increased vehicle exhaust emissions and fugitive dust would contribute to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

202

short-term local increases in ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants, their contribution would not 

be measurable at the national forest scale. Although the increase would be minimal and have little 

impact on the Coronado, these small increases, when combined by off-forest emissions of the same, 

would additively affect local concentrations of greenhouse gases, adding an increment to one of the 

stressors that exacerbate climate change.

Climate Change – Affected Environment

Climate change has become one of the biggest issues of this generation. The major scientific agencies 

of the United States—including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—agree that climate change is occurring 

and that humans are contributing to it.43 In tandem with efforts in the private and public sector, the 

Forest Service has been proactive in adopting strategies for managing National Forest System 

resources to increase their ability to adapt and become resilient to the effects of climate change. 

Examples of this are thinning extremely dense stands of trees and managing each unit’s fleet to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The following discussion describes the potential effects of climate change on forest resources, briefly 

assesses potential changes in greenhouse gas emissions from forest activities, and evaluates how well 

the direction under each of the alternatives fosters adaptation and resiliency in resources vulnerable to 

climate change related effects. More information may be found in the Southwestern Region Climate 

Change Trends and Forest Planning (USDA FS 2010c) and the ecological sustainability report (USDA 

FS 2009b), as well as an edited summary document from the Climate Assessment for the Southwest

(CLIMAS; Lenart 2007). 

Climate scientists agree that the earth is undergoing a warming trend (“global warming,” one aspect of 

climate change), and that human-caused elevations in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gases are among the causes of global temperature increases. This trend is 

expected to increase. Carbon dioxide is released during natural processes and human activities, such 

as combustion of fossil fuels. It is considered an atmospheric emission (source) as well as an input to 

ecological functions (sinks). The role of carbon dioxide is as a contribution to storage of carbon or a 

release of carbon, depending on a complicated and interrelated set of chemical and physical processes. 

These processes are essential to the forest ecosystem, because they provide energy for plants and 

wildlife and recycle nutrients during decomposition and disturbances such as fire. Carbon dioxide 

emissions from human sources are not regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Climate change is not just a predicted future event—it is happening now—having been documented 

extensively in the literature. However, the state of knowledge needed to address climate change at the 

national forest scale is still evolving, and there are both certainties and uncertainties about it. What is 

certain, based on real-time data and model agreement by climatologists, is that:

1. there is and will continue to be an increase in mean annual temperature; 

2. there is and will continue to be a decrease in mean annual precipitation during the winter and 

spring rainy season; and

3. there will be an overall increase in rate of evapotranspiration (loss of water through the 

atmosphere) (Lenart 2007).

These certainties are among the reasons for recent repeated winter drought cycles. 

The primary uncertainty with regard to climate in the American Southwest is what will happen during 

the second, generally more substantial, rainy season. Regarding the monsoon of Arizona and New 

Mexico (the summer rainy season marked by a shift in winds), recent data are widely variable, and 

 

43 http://epa.gov/climatechange/facts.html
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

203

predictions of the amount of rainfall during future monsoons is largely speculative. Models cover the 

gamut, and year-to-year predictions are variable and not necessarily consistent with global weather 

patterns, such as El Niño and La Niña. 

Even though summer rains may be substantial, they are more widely scattered and more intense than 

winter rains, causing heavy surface runoff, which erodes soils and vegetation. Several models predict 

an increase in annual precipitation during future monsoons, but it is uncertain whether summer rains 

can offset the effects of a dry winter. During late winter, melting snowpack recharges groundwater, 

which supports the success of spring plant communities. 

Managing resources during climate change is challenging, but by reducing stressors and applying 

adaptive management principles, the Coronado can minimize overall effects. Most Federal land 

management agencies are fully aware of the potential effects of climate change on natural resources, 

and many are conducting research and coordinating management responses with each other, often 

with partner organizations. 

Multiple branches of the Forest Service are engaged in developing tools and strategies for addressing 

climate change. For example, as part of its 2010 to 2015 strategic plan, the Forest Service launched a 

National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change (USDA FS 2010g), which guides efforts to 

ensure resource sustainability during climate change. The roadmap focuses on three activities: (1) 

assessing current risks, vulnerabilities, policies, and gaps in knowledge; (2) engaging internal and 

external partners in seeking solutions; and (3) managing for resilience in ecosystems as well as in 

human communities.

More recently, the Forest Service published another guidebook intended to help develop options for 

adapting to climate change (USDA FS 2011a). All national forests must now complete an annual 

“climate change scorecard,” which specifies elements with which each forest must comply by 2015 to 

decrease resource effects. Examples of these include sustainable operations (recycling, reducing 

carbon emissions through fleet management, teleworking), employee education, viability assessments, 

and working with partners on solutions.

Current Conditions and Future Trends

Regional drying and temperature trends have occurred twice during the 20th century (the 1930s Dust 

Bowl and 1950s Southwest drought) and may have been even more severe during what is known as 

the Medieval Climate Anomaly, an interval of warm, dry conditions with regional variability, which 

lasted from A.D. 900 to 1350. According to modeled scenarios, the slight warming trend observed in 

the last 100 years in the Southwest may continue into the next century, with the greatest warming 

occurring during winter. Climate models predict that temperatures will rise approximately 4 to 5 

degrees Fahrenheit (approximately 2 to 3 degrees Celsius) by 2030 and between 7 and 12 degrees 

Fahrenheit (4 and 7 degrees Celsius) by 2090. This trend would increase pressure on the region’s 

already limited water supplies, increase energy demand, alter fire regimes and ecosystems, create risks 

for human health, and have negative effects on agriculture. 

Climate variability influences the frequency, intensity, timing, and spatial extent of natural stressors 

on forest resources, such as insect infestation, disease, introduced species, fire, droughts, landslides, 

wind storms, and ice storms. These stressors, in turn, affect the distribution and abundance of plant 

and animal species because they affect resource availability, fecundity, and survivorship. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

204

The potential ecological implications of climate change trends in the Southwest indicate:

• more extreme disturbance events, such as wildfires, floods, and heavy winds;

• greater vulnerability to invasive species, including insects, plants, fungi, and vertebrates;

• greater vulnerability to disease in plants and animals;

• long-term shifts in vegetation patterns (cold-tolerant vegetation moving upslope or disappearing 

in some areas and migration of some tree species to the more northern portions of their existing 

range);

• potential decreases in overall forest productivity that results from reduced precipitation;

• decrease in biodiversity of native species (extirpation or extinction);

• shifts in the timing of snowmelt (already observed) and increases in summer temperatures 

affecting the survival of fish species and efforts to reintroduce species into their historic range; 

and 

• effects on phenology and changes in the date of flowering and associated pollination and food 

chain disruptions.

While some of these effects may be minimized by management strategies that promote adaptation and 

resilience of forest resources to variations in temperature and rainfall patterns, newly emerging 

stressors may emerge to offset any progress that has been achieved toward meeting the challenge of 

climate change.

Climate Change – Environmental Consequences 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Vegetation treatments under all alternatives, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal and 

planned fire ignitions, would improve the net carbon balance on the Coronado especially those in 

higher elevation vegetation types carried out under the proposed action, alternative 1, and alternative 

2. Although treatments would likely release carbon, they would improve the long-term sustainability 

of the ecosystem as a carbon sink (Hurteau et al. 2008). Studies have shown that fire risk reduction 

and restoration treatments release less carbon than high-severity fire (Finkral and Evans 2008; Hurteau 

et al. 2008). Improved ecological conditions resulting from restoration of vegetation toward desired 

conditions and maintenance of a fire regime consistent with historical fire return intervals would 

reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve the sustainability of carbon sequestration by soils on the 

forest.

The five key climate change factors that are most likely to be a potential concern for the Southwest 

include: (1) extreme weather events; (2) wildfire and human-caused risks; (3) insects, diseases, and 

invasive species; (4) water use and demand; and (5) increased socioeconomic demands. Under all 

alternatives, the effects of the key factors would be addressed directly or indirectly on the Coronado 

based on the strategies described in appendix A of the revised forest plan. They include:

• enhancing adaptation by anticipating and planning for disturbances from intense storms;

• using a suite of adaptation options to manage ecosystems in the face of uncertainty;

• increasing water conservation and planning for reductions in upland water supplies;

• anticipating increased forest recreation use; and

• monitoring climate change influences and the effectiveness of adaptation approaches.

These strategies focus on how best to incorporate changes from disturbances into managed forests and 

enhance ecosystem resilience. Under all alternatives, management activities that would improve 

ecosystem function would likely improve the resiliency of those ecosystems to withstand changes 

from common stressors, such as fire, flood, and drought, for which frequency, intensity, timing, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

205

spatial extent can vary as a result of climate change. However, shifts in vegetation and habitat ranges 

that result from long-term climatic changes are beyond Forest Service control and not fully addressed 

by any plan alternative.

Although forest plan monitoring programs under all alternatives do not include components to 

specifically monitor climate change, they would incorporate provisions that will help in the 

understanding of interrelationships between key plan components and climate change. For example, 

by monitoring the scale and severity of stressors, such as wildfire, insects, and disease, and assessing 

their effects on progress of various resources toward desired conditions, a forest gathers input to the 

development of strategies to deal with hotter and drier conditions and the vulnerability of resources to 

these stressors.

Under all alternatives, the Forest Service would have to comply with national standards, including 

compliance with the 2015 climate change scorecard.

No Action 

The no-action alternative lacks plan components that provide direction for management of resources 

during climate change. For the most part, management of vulnerable resources would continue to be 

governed by resource-specific plan direction and relevant laws and regulations. 

Despite the lack of climate change direction in the 1986 plan, the Forest Service is required to manage 

resources in accordance with the guidebook for national forests to develop adaptation options to 

respond to climate change (USDA FS 2011). Therefore, while the plan itself would not encourage the 

development of adaptation and resiliency in forest resources, climate change direction at the national 

level would help the Coronado in this regard.

Because no action lacks desired conditions and other plan components to direct management of 

ecosystem health and progress toward desired conditions, those resources would be increasingly 

vulnerable to the natural stressors whose effects are exacerbated by climate change. This may cause 

resource conditions to depart further from desired conditions.

Proposed Action 

Climate change direction in the revised forest plan under the proposed action establishes specific plan 

components, including desired conditions and management approaches that are applicable to 

vegetation, water, soil, air, wildlife, invasive species, motorized transportation, recreation, scenic 

quality, range management, and wilderness. The components build upon the climate change strategies 

that are described in appendix A of the revised forest plan for the five key climate change factors 

recognized as likely to have adverse effects on resources in the Southwest. 

By specifying desired conditions in the revised forest plan, the proposed action directs management 

actions toward the attainment of reference conditions for each resource. For example, in the revised 

forest plan, the desired condition for all vegetation types is stated as follows: “[v]egetation conditions 

are resilient to the frequency, extent, and severity of disturbances, under a changing climate, 

especially fire.” Desired conditions, regardless of current or changing conditions, allow forest resource 

management actions to adapt as necessary to continue moving a resource or ecosystem toward 

ecological and social desired conditions. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

206

Overall, desired conditions and other revised plan guidance under the proposed action provide a 

framework to:

• restore and maintain the structure, composition, and function of ecosystems;

• move highly departed ecosystems toward desired conditions;

• reduce the threat of uncharacteristic fire while promoting natural fire occurrence on the landscape;

• promote interconnectedness of continuous blocks of habitat to allow for adaptation, including 

genetic and behavioral interactions; and

• maintain the abundance and distribution of habitats to support recovery or stabilization of 

federally listed and other species.

Management of ecosystems in times of uncertainty benefits from adaptive, flexible, and innovative 

approaches that are, for the most part, reversible and should be applied incrementally so that 

approaches may be modified with changing circumstances (Millar et al. 2007). The proposed action 

offers guidance regarding a variety of management tools and action, as well as an opportunity for 

climate change research in a newly proposed research natural area (Finger Rock), which would be 

dedicated to climate-related studies.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 proposes the same direction for climate change as the proposed action. Because of its 

recommendation of 255,908 acres of new wilderness on the Coronado, it may further increase 

ecosystem resiliency in the face of climate change. This is because lands managed to retain wilderness 

values and characteristics are better protected from development, fragmentation, and human-caused 

disturbances than those that are not. Wilderness areas allow primarily low-disturbance activities, 

which do not compromise migration of species and range shifts. Intact, unaltered habitat is extremely 

important to the retention of biodiversity and to provide a buffer to climate change, because plants and 

animals that are allowed to persist in slowly changing landscapes are much more likely to succeed that 

those in rapidly changing, altered environments. 

Although new wilderness recommendations may benefit resources in light of climate change, the 

positive effects of alternative 1 may be less evident in areas where resources are highly departed from 

reference conditions. In high elevation forests where this departure is characterized by overly dense 

conditions, the increase in wilderness areas under alternative 1 may inhibit resiliency if forests become 

overstocked and are unable to adapt to the added stressors of climate change.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 has no plan components that establish desired conditions for resources during a period of 

climate change, as do the proposed action and alternative 1, nor does it recommend new wilderness 

and research natural areas. This makes the effects of plan direction on management of climate change 

somewhat less effective than those of the proposed action and alternative 1. However, direction under 

alternative 2 incorporates the strategies that are described in appendix A of the revised forest plan for 

addressing the five key climate change factors that are of concern in the Southwest and encourages 

their implementation (see “Effects Common to All Alternatives”). 

Because alternative 2 would designate at least ten times more forest acres for motorized recreational 

uses than the other alternatives, it has the potential to result in an increased increment of greenhouse 

gas emissions, which are major contributors to climate change (see Affected Environment), above the 

other alternatives. Alternative 2 would recommend no new wilderness; thus, the benefits of wilderness 

management described under alternative 1 would not be realized by alternative 2. In addition, because 

alternative 2 would not recommend the Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area, an additional 

research natural area for climate change research would not be added on the Coronado.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

207

Cumulative Effects

Climate change is a global phenomenon that may dramatically affect the natural resources found on 

the Coronado over the long term, as well as the social and economic amenities—such as recreation, 

livestock grazing, and forest products—that are dependent on those natural resources. 

Other state, municipal, and industry efforts, including Arizona’s adoption of a renewable portfolio 

standard that promotes generation of electricity by renewable energy sources by 2025, are aimed at 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions and associated effects of climate change over the long term. These 

combined efforts would have a positive effect on management for climate change in the local area. 

However, given the projected trends and persistence of climate change effects over the long term, 

effects of climate change on the Coronado would still occur.

The proposed action and alternative 1 are consistent with approaches of other national forests that are 

also revising their forest plan direction with respect to climate change. By using consistent approaches 

for addressing this issue, management of ecosystems and species that depend on them will have a 

higher likelihood of resiliency over the long term.

Another positive cumulative effect may result from management of large land areas to accommodate 

low-disturbance activities by other agencies, including the National Park Service, Department of 

Defense, Bureau of Land Management, and the States of New Mexico and Arizona, Together their 

actions would contribute to broader scale ecosystem resiliency in the Southwest. This is especially 

true under alternative 1, which would manage the greatest area of wilderness of all alternatives. Areas 

with restricted activities like wilderness frequently influence the surrounding patterns of development 

(e.g., urban, energy sources), which, in turn, may reduce certain threats to native plant and animal 

species. In such areas, biodiversity is expected to be maintained and to buffer the effects of climate 

change, because plants and animals that are allowed to persist in slowly changing landscapes are much 

more likely to persist that those in rapidly changing altered environments.

Alternative 2 provides for an expanded Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone, which is relatively 

small (45,117 acres or about 3 percent) relative to the 1.7 million-acre Coronado National Forest. 

Increased emissions of greenhouse gases contributed by motorized recreation, when combined by offforest emissions of the same, would additively affect local concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Species Diversity and Viability – Affected Environment

This section discloses the potential environmental consequences on species and habitat that may result 

from direction under three action alternatives and no action. It describes species viability assessments 

conducted as part of the planning process and reports potential effects of plan direction on federally 

listed44 species and designated critical habitat; species and habitat proposed for listing; Forest Service, 

Region 3 sensitive species, migratory birds, eagles, forest management indicator species, and other 

planning species for the Coronado.

An assessment of species diversity for the Coronado was completed as part of the Coronado 

Ecological Sustainability Report (USDA FS 2009b). The coarse-filter approach of the 1982 Planning 

Rule guided the forest plan revision team in prescribing management direction necessary to conserve 

the diversity of forest plant and animal communities. 

In general, a coarse filter is used to evaluate the relative effectiveness of proposed management 

approaches to mitigate the risk to species viability from specific threats. Where proposed resource 

management options fail to provide a high likelihood of maintaining ecological conditions that support 

 

44 These are listed under the authority of the Endangered Species Act.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

208

viable populations, specific fine-filter (species-specific) standards or strategies are developed (Haufler 

et al 1982).

From an initial list of 1,400 species, 437 species (terrestrial, aquatic, and plant) were determined to 

have a potential viability concern. Designated as “forest planning species,” they include: 36 mammals, 

32 birds, 8 amphibians, 19 reptiles, 73 insects, 4 other invertebrates, 16 fish, 56 mollusks, 7 fungilichen, 5 mosses-liverworts, and 181 plants. Species viability assessments for those 437 species have 

been prepared according to Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2670) and documented in

three specialist reports: the Coronado Population Viability Assessment Report and the biological 

assessment and biological evaluation for the draft environmental impact statement. 

The following factors provided input into the assessment of viability risk to forest planning species:

• availability and current conditions of the habitat or habitat features with which the species are 

typically associated

• population occurrences and distribution

• threats from Forest Service management actions expected to occur within the planning area 

Considering these factors, forest specialists developed plan components to guide management toward 

attaining desired conditions specific to terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic species and their habitat. If 

plan components were sufficient to meet or maintain desired habitat conditions, risk to a species’ 

viability was determined to be “low” or “none.” For those species having “some” potential viability 

risk, specialists developed additional standards and guidelines (fine-filter or species-specific plan 

components) for inclusion in the revised forest plan to manage resources against threats to these 

species. This was done in accordance with direction in the 1982 Planning Rule. Most often, species 

requiring fine-filter plan components are local, endemic species. These species require ecosystemspecific plan components, and components that respond to certain natural history traits or human 

features that support population viability. 

Of the 437 species indicating a potential viability concern, 362 species were found to have no or low 

risk to their viability (these are “coarse-filter” species) and 75 species were found to have some risk 

(“fine-filter species”) to their population viability, requiring more plan components than coarse-filter 

species to ensure their sustainability. A detailed description of the viability analysis process is reported 

in the population viability report filed in the administrative records of the forest plan revision process 

and this National Environmental Policy Act review and the ecological sustainability report (USDA FS 

2009b). Table 146 in appendix F lists all species evaluated in this process. 

Habitat – Affected Environment

The Coronado is believed to have the highest biological diversity of any national forest in the western 

United States because it is located at a convergence zone of ecological regions and vegetation 

communities. To the west is the Sonoran Desert; to the southeast is the Chihuahuan Desert; to the 

north are the Central Arizona Mountains; and to the south is Mexico’s Sierra Madre Occidental. 

Elevations on the Coronado range from about 3,000 feet to nearly 11,000 feet above mean sea level. 

Along this gradient, vegetation communities range from deserts to subalpine forests. Despite this 

diversity, most of the Coronado comprises desert grasslands, Madrean encinal woodlands, and 

Madrean pine-oak woodlands. Biodiversity is reinforced by a long growing season, a dual rainy 

season, and the evolutionary isolation of the “sky island” mountain ranges.

The following discussions summarize the quantity and distribution of various vegetation communities 

on the Coronado with which specific coarse-filter and fine-filter species are associated, the quality of 

each habitat, and the risk factors that may affect the sustainability of the community and various 

species it supports. The effects of management under each alternative on specific vegetation 

communities are discussed in detail in topic 1 of this chapter and summarized below in the 

“Environmental Consequences” discussion.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

209

Desert Communities 

Quantity and Distribution – The Coronado manages only a fraction of desert plant communities 

compared with surrounding land ownership entities. However, these lands make up 175,452 acres, or 

about 10 percent of the Coronado and 17 percent of desert communities represented by Southwestern 

Region national forests (USDA FS 2009). 

Relatively few species are associated with terrestrial habitats of desert communities because the 

Coronado is on the fringe of these arid habitats, which are largely managed by other agencies. 

Buffelgrass is a prevalent invasive nonnative species in this community. There are 17 fine-filter 

species45 associated with both the Chihuahuan and Sonoran Desert communities: 3 mammals (1 

endangered, 2 sensitive), 1 reptile (sensitive), 1 bird (sensitive), 1 amphibian (sensitive), 3 fish ( 2 

endangered, 1 sensitive), 8 plants (2 endangered, 5 sensitive, and 1 other forest planning). In addition, 

there are 142 coarse-filter species associated with this community: 7 mammals, 3 birds, 2 amphibians, 

5 reptiles, 2 insects, 2 mollusk, 1 fungi-lichen, and 26 plants. Coarse-filter species are identified in 

appendix F as F1 in the “Associated Habitat” column.

Habitat Quality – Current conditions in desert communities on the Coronado reflect a greater 

proportion of grasses than reference conditions, and these are mostly invasive nonnative species, 

which contribute to an increased threat of uncharacteristic wildfire. To make matters worse, fire 

destroys native plants and encourages the growth of invasive grasses. 

Nonnative grasses also out-compete native plants, even in the absence of fire. Current trends indicate 

that desert plant communities may be at risk for conversion to nonnative grasslands. 

Risk Factors – Populations of invasive, nonnative grasses are increasing in desert communities in 

spite of concerted efforts to restrict them. The vegetation condition class (VCC) analysis for desert 

communities indicates an overall moderate departure (vegetation condition class 2) from reference

conditions (see “Vegetation Communities” section) for composition and structure, which is likely a 

result of increased shrub encroachment and invasive species. The presence of buffelgrass alters the 

desert ecosystem as a whole (Olsson et al. 2012), likely resulting in reductions in native wildlife 

habitat quantity and quality, including habitat for desert bighorn sheep and the Sonoran desert tortoise 

(Gray and Steidl 2012).

Grassland Communities

Quantity and Distribution – Grasslands are a predominant vegetation community on the Coronado 

(407,477 acres). The Forest Service manages a fraction of grasslands in southeastern Arizona 

compared with other Federal and private land owners, but this 407,477 acres is 25 percent of 

grasslands on National Forest System lands in Arizona and New Mexico (USDA FS 2009). Details 

about grasslands on the Coronado are presented in the “Vegetation Communities,” section under topic 

1 of this chapter.

Coronado grasslands support valuable valley and foothill habitats for plants and animals, supporting 

biodiversity that is second only to that of the Coronado’s Madrean encinal woodlands. There are 30 

fine-filter species associated with forest grasslands: 3 mammals (2 endangered, 1 sensitive), 1 bird 

(sensitive), 3 amphibians (1 endangered, 1 threatened, 1 sensitive), 2 reptiles (1 candidate, 1 

sensitive), 7 fish (3 endangered, 1 threatened, 3 sensitive), 12 plants (2 endangered, 9 sensitive, 1 

other), and 2 mollusks (1 candidate, 1 other). In addition, there are 99 coarse-filter species, including: 

17 mammals, 6 birds, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, 8 insects, 10 mollusk, 1 fungi-lichen, and 49 plants. 

Coarse-filter species are listed in appendix F and identified in the “Associated Habitat” column.

 

45 These species may be associated with other habitat elements as well. Therefore, the number of associated species by 

habitat element adds up to more than 69 fine-filter species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

210

Management of grasslands using plan components that promote open grasslands would improve 

habitat for grassland-dependent species, such as pronghorn (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

2002) and Montezuma quail, and herbaceous cover for both livestock and wildlife.

Habitat Quality – Grasslands within the historic range of variation are typically open with low shrub 

canopy cover. In southeastern Arizona, these communities are trending from open grasslands with low 

shrub canopy cover toward higher shrub canopy cover. Factors such as precipitation patterns, grazing 

history, soil, and fire all interact to influence non-uniform changes in grassland composition and 

structure across the region (USDA FS 2009). 

Risk Factors – Desert grasslands, plains, and savanna grasslands cover 26 percent of the national 

forest, most of which are desert grasslands. The departure of vegetation structure and composition, 

invasive species, and overgrazing are primary risk factors in grassland habitat. Currently, composition 

and structure of forest grasslands are highly departed (vegetation condition class 3) from the reference 

conditions (see “Vegetation Communities”). On private lands surrounding the Coronado, ex-urban 

development has led to the loss and fragmentation of grasslands and the disruption of natural 

processes, primarily low-intensity wildfire, that have historically maintained grasslands. Natural 

succession in grasslands encourages increased shrub cover unless these areas are treated. Because of 

threats beyond Forest Service control, such as urban development, the risk to sustainability of desert 

grasslands is moderate to high.

Interior Chaparral

Quantity and Distribution – Interior chaparral comprises 151,181 acres or 9 percent of the national 

forest, which is a fraction of chaparral managed by other agencies in the region and 11 percent of total 

interior chaparral on National Forest System lands in Arizona and New Mexico (USDA FS 2009). 

Interior chaparral has few species associations, and the sole chaparral specialist on the Coronado is 

Ball’s monkey grasshopper. Species in chaparral are fire-adapted, because the ecosystem has 

historically experienced frequent fires. Eight fine-filter species are associated with the interior 

chaparral community: 3 mammals (2 endangered, 1 sensitive), 1 bird (sensitive), 1 reptile (candidate), 

1 fish (sensitive), 1 plant (sensitive), and 1 mollusk (other). In addition, there are 27 coarse-filter 

species associated with the grassland habitat type: 9 mammals, 2 insects, 2 mollusk, and 14 plants. 

Coarse-filter species are listed in appendix F and are identified in the “Associated Habitat” column as 

F3.

Habitat Quality – Fire and drought are primary disturbances in interior chaparral. From 1982 to 

2003, fires occurred in 21 of 22 years. An average of 790 acres or less than 1 percent burned per year, 

with the largest fire being about 4,000 acres. Large fires occur infrequently in this community. 

Historic fire-return interval ranges from 20 to 100 years. Historic data indicate that fire frequency and 

severity in interior chaparral was lower than in recent years.

The distribution of interior chaparral structural classes for reference and current conditions is 

displayed in table 35 on page 114. It indicates that fire occurs more often today in interior chaparral 

than it has historically. This trend toward recently burned and open canopy is expected to continue. 

However, the overall structure of chaparral as shrub land has been stable over the historical record and 

is expected to persist, although changes at the species level may be occurring with more frequent fire 

(USDA FS 2009).

Risk Factors – The Coronado’s interior chaparral is highly departed (vegetation condition class 3) 

given its surplus of both open and closed structure. Because of this, approximately 50 percent of the 

Coronado’s interior chaparral vegetation community has a high probability of uncharacteristic fire, 

and the remainder has a higher than historic probability of the same. The project trend for interior 

chaparral is toward a more frequent occurrence of wildfire and an increasingly open canopy cover. 

However, interior chaparral is a fire-adapted ecosystem, and the basic structure as a shrub-dominated 

type is not expected to change. Management practices that may cause disturbance in interior chaparral 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

211

are road construction, recreation management, fire management, livestock grazing, and grassland 

restoration actions. Given these factors, the risk to sustainability of interior chaparral is low (USDA 

FS 2009).

Madrean Encinal Woodlands

Quantity and Distribution – Madrean encinal woodland is the most abundant and widespread 

vegetation community on the Coronado, covering approximately 738,693 acres (or 43 percent). The 

forest manages the second highest quantity of this community (11 percent) relative to other land 

owners in Arizona and New Mexico and the greatest quantity under a single management entity. The 

Coronado’s Madrean encinal woodland is about 26 percent of the total community on Southwestern 

Region national forests (USDA FS 2009).

Not surprisingly, Madrean encinal woodlands have more species associations than any other 

vegetation community. Many are more common in Mexico than elsewhere in the U.S. All physical 

attributes, including riparian, aquatic, rock, and cave habitats, support characteristic species in this 

vegetation community. There are 37 fine-filter species associated with the Coronado’s Madrean 

encinal woodlands community: 4 mammals (2 endangered, 2 sensitive), 2 birds (sensitive), 6 fish, (2 

endangered, 1 threatened, 3 sensitive), 2 amphibians (1 threatened, 1 candidate), 2 reptiles (1 

candidate, 1 sensitive), 16 plants (1 endangered, 13 sensitive, 2 other), 1 insect (candidate), 1 other 

invertebrate (other), 2 mollusks (1 candidate, 1 other) and 1 lichen (other). In addition, there are 125 

coarse-filter species associated with the Madrean encinal woodlands: 15 mammals, 4 birds, 2 

amphibians, 6 reptiles, 14 insects, 27 mollusk, 3 fungi-lichen, and 54 plants. Coarse-filter species are 

listed in appendix F and identified in the “Associated Habitat” column as F4.

Habitat Quality – Fire and drought are natural disturbances in Madrean encinal woodland. Fires 

occurred every year from 1982 to 2003, with an average of 6,000 acres burned per year (less than 1 

percent). The area burned during this period ranged from 61 to more than 40,000 acres. Large fires 

occur infrequently, however. In the past 22 years, only 3 fires affected more than 10,000 acres. 

Vegetation composition and structure of the Madrean encinal woodland reflects low to moderate 

departure (vegetation condition class 2) overall. Its lack of open canopy and late-seral conditions may 

reflect less frequent low- and mixed-severity fires. Conversely, the abundance of post-fire (early-seral) 

structure reflects recent wildfire disturbance. In Madrean encinal woodland, the historic fire-return 

interval ranges from 2.5 to 10 years. Historic data indicate that fire frequency may have been higher 

and severity may have been lower than current conditions (USDA FS 2009). Projected trends are 

toward reference conditions. 

Risk Factors – Thirty-eight percent of the Coronado’s Madrean encinal woodland is at risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire. A moderate degree of domestic livestock grazing is a widespread use of the 

Coronado’s Madrean encinal woodlands. Well-managed livestock grazing is a sustainable disturbance 

in these woodlands that can be used as a management tool to reduce the risk of wildfire. Other 

disturbances that affect the risk of adverse effects on Madrean encinal woodland are road construction, 

recreation management, fire management, and ecosystem restoration activities (USDA FS 2009).

Madrean Pine-Oak Woodlands

Quantity and Distribution – The Coronado manages 142,047 acres of Madrean pine-oak woodland, 

which comprises 8 percent of the national forest. This is a fraction of the Madrean pine-oak 

woodlands in the region that are managed by other agency and private land owners, but about 17 

percent of Madrean pine-oak woodlands on National Forest System lands in Arizona and New Mexico 

(USDA FS 2009). 

Vegetation management often combines this community with Madrean encinal woodland under the 

designation as Madrean evergreen woodland. Many species are common to both encinal and pine-oak 

woodlands. A commonly assumed distinction between the two is that Madrean species that require 

grassy openings are present in encinal, but not pine-oak woodlands. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

212

Nevertheless, this is a highly diverse habitat, especially for invertebrates and plants, and it is 

associated with all physical attributes (i.e., rock, cave, terrestrial, aquatic). There are 27 fine-filter 

species associated with Madrean pine-oak woodland: 3 mammals (1 endangered, 2 sensitive), 3 birds 

(1 threatened, 2 sensitive), 2 amphibians (1 threatened, 1 candidate), 1 fish (sensitive), 5 mollusks (1 

candidate, 1 sensitive, 3 other), 11 plants (1 endangered, 8 sensitive, 2 other), 1 insect (sensitive), 1 

lichen (other). In addition, there are 90 coarse-filter species: 11 mammals, 6 birds, 2 amphibians, 6 

reptiles, 7 insects, 24 mollusk, 2 fungi-lichen, and 32 plants. Coarse-filter species are listed in 

appendix F and are identified in the “Associated Habitat” column as F5.

Habitat Quality – The Madrean pine-oak woodland on the Coronado is moderately departed 

(vegetation condition class 2) from reference conditions, having a surplus of closed canopy structure 

and deficit of open canopy relative to reference conditions. This is likely the result of the infrequency 

of low-severity fire, which historically maintained the open structure (Schussman and Gori 2006, 

USDA FS 2009).

Fire and drought are the primary natural disturbances in Madrean pine oak woodland. Fires occurred 

in 18 of 22 years from 1982 to 2003, with an average of 1,800 acres burned per year (about 1 percent). 

The largest fire affected more than 24,000 acres. However, in the 22-year period of reference, this 

community had only 6 fires greater than 1,000 acres in size.

Risk Factors – Some domestic livestock grazing at light to moderate levels occurs in the Madrean 

pine-oak woodlands on the Coronado. Other habitat disturbances in the community are road 

construction, recreation management, fire management, and ecosystem restoration activities. 

The fire-regime condition class for Madrean pine-oak woodland indicates that current fire frequency 

and severity are altered and the probability of uncharacteristic fire is high. The historic fire-return 

interval in Madrean pine oak woodland ranges from 3 to 8 years. Historic data indicate fire frequency 

may have been higher and severity may have been lower than current conditions (USDA FS 2009). 

Most (99 percent) of the Madrean pine-oak woodlands community has either an elevated or high 

probability of experiencing uncharacteristic wildfire, which in combination with the high percentage 

of departure from reference conditions and projected trends for further departure from reference 

conditions, presents a high degree of risk to the sustainability of the Coronado’s Madrean pine-oak 

woodland.

Ponderosa Pine-Evergreen Shrub

Quantity and Distribution – About 39,477 acres (2 percent of the national forest) of ponderosa pineevergreen shrub are found on the Coronado. Few pure, large stands of ponderosa and Apache pine are 

present. Stands are mostly transitional between other types or in small patches. The Coronado 

manages a fraction of ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub in the region compared to other agency and 

private land owners. 

Most of the species associated with this habitat are plants. There are 16 fine-filter species associated 

with this community: 1 mammal (sensitive), 3 bird (1 threatened, 2 sensitive), 5 mollusks (2 sensitive, 

3 other), and 7 plants (5 sensitive, 2 other). In addition, ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub has 59 coarsefilter species: 10 mammals, 3 birds, 2 reptiles, 3 insects, 10 mollusk, and 31 plants. Coarse-filter 

species are listed in appendix F and are identified in the “Associated Habitat” column as F6.

Habitat Quality – The ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community on the Coronado is highly 

departed (VCC 3) from reference conditions, because the historically dominant late-seral open

structure comprises only 5 percent or less of it. Departure is also reflected in the increased proportions 

of early-seral and mid-development structure where wildfire has occurred the past few decades. Other 

areas on the Coronado contribute to the overall departure with an abundance of late-seral closed 

structure. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

213

The historic fire-return interval in ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub ranges from 2 to 17 years. Historic 

data indicate that fire frequency may have been higher and severity may have been lower than current 

conditions (USDA FS 2009). The distribution of ponderosa pine structural classes for reference and 

current conditions is displayed in table 47 on page 136. The 50- and 100-year projections under 

current management show increasing amounts of closed-canopy ponderosa pine of all ages, as well as 

increasing amounts of uncharacteristic grassland and shrub land. Substantial deviations from reference 

for all other stages are expected under current management.

Other disturbances in the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community are the result of road 

construction, recreation management, fire management, and ecosystem restoration activities.

Risk Factors – Climate change is expected to cause warmer and drier conditions in the Southwest 

over an indefinite period of time. Because of this, ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub ecosystems are at 

risk for decreased plant productivity, increased insect attacks, colonization of invasive species, longer 

and more severe fire seasons, and altered frequency, intensity, timing, and spatial extent of 

disturbance events (droughts, flash floods, landslides, and wind storms). 

Fire and drought are the primary natural disturbances in the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub 

community. From 1982 to 2003, fire occurred in 7 years, burning an annual average of 390 acres (less 

than 1 percent). Large fires occur infrequently in this community; only 2 fires larger than 1,000 acres 

have occurred over the last 22 years, while in 18 of those years less than 100 acres burned. 

The high proportion of the ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community having an elevated or high 

probability of uncharacteristic fire (99 percent), its currently high departure from reference conditions, 

projected trends further from reference conditions, and threats beyond Forest Service control (legacy 

of fire suppression and climate change), all indicate a high risk to the sustainability of the Coronado 

ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub community.

Mixed-conifer Forest (Wet and Dry)

Quantity and Distribution – The Coronado manages 55,451 acres of mixed-conifer vegetation (3 

percent of wet and less than 1 percent dry), only a fraction of the mixed-conifer managed by other 

land owners in the region. 

This habitat is restricted to the highest elevations of the sky islands and tends to have boreal flora and 

fauna. There are 18 fine-filter species associated with the Coronado’s mixed-conifer forest 

community: 2 mammals (1 endangered, 1 sensitive), 3 birds (1 threatened, 2 sensitive), 3 mollusks (2 

sensitive, 1 other), and 10 plants (7 sensitive, 3 other). There are also 71 coarse-filter species in 

mixed-conifer: 12 mammals, 3 birds, 2 reptiles, 8 insects, 15 mollusks, 1 fungus, and 30 plants. 

Coarse-filter species are listed in appendix F and are identified in the “Associated Habitat” column as 

having biotic habitat component 7.

Habitat Quality – Vegetation composition and structure of dry mixed-conifer are moderately to 

highly departed (vegetation condition class 3) and for wet mixed-conifer are moderately departed 

(vegetation condition class 2) from reference conditions. There is a slight trend toward an increase in 

the under- and mid-story components of both wet and dry mixed-conifer. However, this does not 

negate an increasing trend in the mature component of this vegetation type, which is moving toward 

reference conditions. 

The distribution of mixed-conifer structural classes for reference and current conditions is displayed in

table 47 and table 48. With current management, the 50- and 100-year projections show increasing 

amounts of closed-canopy mixed-conifer, particularly in the mature and old forest class. There will be 

declines in the amount of open canopy mid-aged and mature and old mixed-conifer forest.

Risk Factors – Disturbances that affect the quality of mixed-conifer habitat on the Coronado include 

road construction, recreation management, fire management, and ecosystem restoration activities. The 

historic fire-return interval ranges from 10 to 22 years. Historically, fire frequency may have been 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

214

higher and severity may have been lower than current conditions (USDA FS 2009). Given a high 

proportion of mixed-conifer with an elevated or high probability of uncharacteristic fire (92 percent), 

its moderate to high departure from reference conditions, projected trends of its further departure from 

reference conditions, and threats beyond Agency control (the legacy of fire suppression and climate 

change), there is a high risk to the sustainability of the Coronado mixed-conifer vegetation 

community.

Spruce-fir Forest 

Quantity and Distribution – The Coronado manages 3,014 acres of spruce-fir forest, a fraction of 

that which is managed by other land owners in the region, and less than 1 percent of forest vegetation. 

This habitat type has relatively few species, most of which are cold adapted and more typical of boreal 

forests. Spruce-fir habitat is found only in the Pinaleño Mountains on the Safford Ranger District. 

Most spruce-fir species are terrestrial, rather than riparian or aquatic, and many of these are rockassociates. Three fine-filter species are associated with spruce-fir on the Coronado: 1 mammal 

(endangered) and 2 plants (sensitive). There are also 29 coarse-filter species associated with the 

spruce-fir forest habitat: 4 mammals, 3 birds, 1 reptile, 4 insects, 3 mollusks, and 14 plants. Coarsefilter species are listed in appendix F and are identified in the “Associated Habitat” column as having 

biotic habitat component 8.

Habitat Quality – The reference status of spruce-fir is distributed over the following structural 

classes, with current distribution included for reference (table 55, page 145). Vegetation composition 

and structure of spruce-fir habitat is characterized by low to moderate departure (vegetation condition 

class 2) from reference conditions. A stand-replacing insect outbreak occurred in this community 

between 1999 and 2001. In addition, 1 fire (Nuttall-Gibson Complex) has occurred in the 23 years 

from 1982 to 2005. This was stand replacing over 40 percent of spruce-fir that remained after the 

insect outbreak (USDA FS 2009). 

A fire history study of the Pinaleño Mountains suggests a fire-return interval for this forest type of 300 

to 400 years because of the lack of trees older than this age and evidence of a catastrophic fire in 1685 

(USDA FS 2009).

Risk Factors – Disturbance of the spruce-fir vegetation community may result from road 

construction, recreation management, fire management, and ecosystem restoration activities. The very 

small amount of spruce-fir vegetation on the Coronado, along with threats beyond Forest Service 

control (i.e., the legacy of climate change and nonnative insects, such as the spruce aphid) and limited 

management options to reduce them, indicate a high risk to the sustainability of the Coronado sprucefir community.

Montane Meadows, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas

Quantity and Distribution – The Coronado manages only a fraction of montane meadows, wetlands, 

and riparian habitat when compared to other land owners in the region. These lands together comprise 

5,142 acres or less than 1 percent of the Coronado. The forest manages 27 percent of cottonwoodwillow and 12 percent of montane-willow riparian forests on National Forest System lands in Arizona 

and New Mexico (USDA FS 2009). 

Riparian areas support a wide variety of plant associates that vary by elevation and other factors. 

Because riparian areas offer a mesic and aquatic interface in an otherwise xeric landscape, species 

diversity is extremely high, and conservation issues are great. The fine-filter species associated with 

these three types of habitat are four plants (sensitive). There are also 109 coarse-filter species in this 

habitat: 16 mammals, 16 birds, 3 amphibians, 6 reptiles, 16 insects, 9 mollusks, 1 lichen, and 42 

plants. Coarse-filter species are listed in appendix F, and are identified in the “Associated Habitat” 

column as all species that have either the physical habitat component indicator A (riparian) or the 

biotic habitat component 9 (montane meadow).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

215

Habitat Quality – Fire frequency varies by vegetation type. Based on data from 1982 through 2003, 

no fires have occurred in coniferous riparian habitat, wetlands, or cienegas. Fires in mixed-broadleaf 

deciduous riparian vegetation have occurred 5 times in the last 22 years, burning from 1 acre up to 

approximately 300 acres. Fires are more frequent in montane-willow and cottonwood-willow riparian 

forests, occurring 14 and 15 times respectively over the past 22 years, and burning a relatively small 

annual acreage (51 to 66 acres). 

Monitoring of riparian conditions is ongoing, but it is problematic because survey protocols and rating 

criteria are applied uniformly to riparian areas having very different vegetation potential. Preliminary

results indicate that of the 7 ecosystem management areas for which trend data is available, 33 to 87 

percent of transects indicate an upward or stable trend in species composition, age classes, and tree 

regeneration. Mature and sapling trees have been lost to drought, and bank protection is low in some 

areas; however, most sites had excellent canopy closure and plant vigor. The general trend is upward 

or within the expected range of variability for channel characteristics.

Risk Factors – Montane meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas may be affected by road construction, 

recreation management, fire management, and livestock grazing. Riparian areas are of very limited 

extent on the Coronado and they acquire the risk to sustainability of adjacent vegetation communities. 

Currently, montane meadows, wetlands, and riparian areas have moderate departure (vegetation 

condition class 2) from reference conditions. In addition, these areas are subject to threats beyond 

Forest Service control (i.e., the legacy of climate change, illegal activities related to the border with 

Mexico, and water rights disputes). Given these considerations, the risk to sustainability of riparian 

areas ranges from low to high, depending on the nature and condition of surrounding vegetation.

Rocks and Talus Rock Features (Rock/Talus/Cliff)

Quantity and Distribution – Rock, talus, and cliff habitats are components of the “Biophysical 

Features” section in the revised forest plan. Because these features are not mapped or addressed in the 

2009 ecological sustainability report, the following description is more qualitative than what has been 

presented for vegetative habitat elements. 

All ecosystem management areas have rock features and most have endemic species associated with 

this habitat element. Many of the rock outcrops, hillsides, and cliffs have characteristic or endemic 

forest planning plant species. Cliffs are not a particularly common feature on the Coronado, but some 

cliff-associated species (e.g., American peregrine falcon) are present in all ecosystem management 

areas. They are particularly well represented in the Dragoon and Chiricahua Ecosystem Management 

Areas at all elevations. High-elevation talus slopes, in particular, are biologically diverse and well 

represented with forest planning species, including talus snails, mountain snails, and the small 

Madrean montane rattlesnakes. Talus occurs as discrete rockslides, especially in the Chiricahua, Santa 

Rita, Huachuca, Pinaleño, and Whetstone Ecosystem Management Areas.

There are 28 fine-filter species associated with the rock/talus/cliff habitats on the Coronado: 

1 mammal (sensitive), 1 bird (sensitive), 1 amphibian (candidate), 19 plants (4 sensitive, 15 other), 4 

mollusks (2 sensitive, 2 other), and 2 lichen (other). In addition, there are 82 coarse-filter species 

associated with the rock/talus/cliff habitat type: 6 mammals, 1 bird, 1 amphibian, 3 reptiles, 3 insects, 

34 mollusks, 5 fungi-lichen, and 29 plants. Coarse-filter species are listed in appendix F and are 

identified in the “Associated Habitat” column as all species that have the physical habitat component 

indicator E (cliff/rock).

Habitat Quality – Although this habitat element was not assigned a trend ranking in the ecological 

sustainability report (USDA FS 2009b), the population viability assessment (USDA FS 2011) used a 

ranking of “stable” under both current and projected habitat trends. This is because there are currently 

no large quarries or mines on the Coronado, and local, native rock is not generally used in the 

construction of roads or other structures.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

216

Risk Factors – Any action that results in the loss of naturally occurring rock features is a threat to the 

sustainability of rock-associated species. These include large mines, quarries, and other harvesting of 

native rock. In some areas, talus slopes are intentionally bisected to gather road building materials for 

the local road system, even though talus is considered important because of its biological resources 

(Herrington 1988). 

Removal of tree cover from the margins of talus slopes is also a threat to native species, because the 

vegetation-covered edges provide moist microclimates for many species, especially during hot, dry 

periods. Currently, there are no active large mines on the Coronado and several small minerals 

exploration projects. Recreation (rock climbing) can be a threat to cliff-associated species if it is 

unmanaged.

Cave and Adit Features

Quantity and Distribution – Cave and adit habitats are components of the “Biophysical Features” 

section in the revised forest plan. These features were not mapped or addressed in the ecological 

sustainability report (USDA FS 2009b); therefore, this description is more qualitative than what has 

been reported for vegetative habitat elements. 

According to an unpublished source, there are at least 219 named caves or cave entrances on the 

Coronado. Most of the caves are located on the larger and better-explored ecosystem management 

areas, such as the Chiricahua and Huachuca, and those that have geology-encouraging development of

karst features, such as the Whetstone Ecosystem Management Area (Kartchner Caverns). 

Adits and shafts have not been inventoried on the Coronado, but many of them were important to past 

minerals exploration and extraction activities. More than 1,500 abandoned mines are documented 

forestwide, with new sites being recorded every year. Although the biology of caves on the Coronado 

is poorly defined, it includes endemic forest planning species, such as bats. Caves and adits may 

function similarly as biological resources, but caves are natural features, while adits and shafts are not, 

and there are distinct differences in habitat quantity, quality, and risk factors. 

There are five fine-filter species associated with the cave and adit habitat: 4 mammals (2 endangered, 

2 sensitive) and 1 other invertebrate (other). In addition, there are 6 coarse-filter species associated 

with this habitat: 3 mammals, 2 other invertebrates, and 1 mollusk. Coarse-filter species are listed in 

appendix F and are identified in the “Associated Habitat” column as all species that have the physical 

habitat component indicator G (cave).

Habitat Quality – Although this habitat element was not assigned a trend ranking in the ecological 

sustainability report (USDA FS 2009b), the population viability assessment (USDA FS 2011) used a 

ranking of “declining” for current habitat trend and “stable to improving” for projected habitat trends, 

based on limited information and uncertainty about future trends. 

In general, cave habitat trends are expected to decline because human use degrades their sensitive 

microclimates. The future trend is projected to improve because the Forest Service has a cave 

management strategy and program in development, many caves are being considered for gating or 

fencing, and precautionary measures to guard against white-nose syndrome, a devastating disease of 

bats, will likely decrease future human disturbances to caves. It is difficult to predict the future of 

adits. In some cases they will be closed because of safety concerns and, in others, they will be treated 

like important refugia for bats and other animals.

Risk Factors – As mentioned previously, the primary threats to caves and adits are from human entry. 

This falls into two general categories: entry by recreationists (spelunkers), or illegal entry by illegal 

border crossers and drug traffickers. Generally, as natural features, caves are more attractive to 

spelunkers. Adits, on the other hand, are unnatural features and are more likely to be used for illegal 

purposes. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

217

Another threat to native species is loss of the feature itself. Adits may be permanently closed (fenced, 

gated, or even filled) with or without surveys for bats (several species of which are forest planning 

species). Some adits and tailings can be acid producing and groundwater or surface seepage can be 

toxic in terms of pH or heavy metal contaminants.

Aquatic Habitat

Quantity and Distribution – Aquatic habitat is a component of the “Biophysical Features” section in 

the revised forest plan. These features are not mapped or addressed in the ecological sustainability 

report (USDA FS 2009b); therefore, the following description is more qualitative than those provided 

for vegetative habitat elements. 

Southeastern Arizona is an arid environment that has experienced a historic “type conversion” of 

water resources. Before European settlers arrived, all aquatic habitat elements were natural—springs, 

seeps, cienegas, streams, and even some long, perennial river reaches in the valleys below the 

Coronado. Lentic habitats were limited to small ponds or pools; lakes were not present. Today, most 

of the region’s natural surface waters have been lost, diverted, or temporally diminished (changed 

from perennial to ephemeral or continuous to intermittent). Currently, there are a few perennial 

streams flowing down from the higher elevations that are often spatially intermittent during spring low 

flow or times of drought. Only a few perennial streams are significant enough, and intact enough, to 

harbor aquatic species. Most of the available surface water is now found in constructed waters (stock 

tanks, drinkers, wildlife waters) across the Coronado, especially in places where livestock grazing is 

permitted. There are a few small artificial lakes (Peña Blanca, Parker Canyon, Rose Canyon, Riggs 

Flat) in the Tumacacori, Santa Catalina, Huachuca, and Pinaleño Ecosystem Management Areas, as 

well as adjacent valleys.

There are 18 fine-filter species that are associated with an aquatic community: 13 fish (7 endangered, 

2 threatened, 3 sensitive, 1 proposed), 2 amphibians (1 threatened, 1 sensitive), 2 insects (1 candidate, 

1 sensitive), and 1 other invertebrate (other). There are also 87 coarse-filter species associated with 

aquatic habitat type: 5 mammals, 13 birds, 3 reptiles, 3 fish, 4 amphibians, 31 insects, 7 mollusks, and 

21 plants. Coarse-filter species are listed in appendix F and are identified in the “Associated Habitat” 

column as having physical habitat component A, B, C, or D. Additionally, species that benefit from 

plan components for natural water sources were included, although they may not be water obligates.

Habitat Quality – Although this habitat element was not given a trend ranking in the ecological 

sustainability report (USDA FS 2009b), the population viability assessment (USDA FS 2011) used a 

ranking of “declining” for both current and future habitat trends. Virtually all remaining waters on the 

Coronado are degraded from reference conditions. There has been nearly a categorical decline of 

aquatic species (USDA FS 2011). Most aquatic vertebrates that rely on perennial waters (i.e., fishes 

and many frogs) are federally listed as threatened, endangered, or candidates for listing; or they are 

Forest Service sensitive species. Both the range and occupied habitat of native fishes have declined, 

partly because existing habitats are of such poor quality that they cannot sustain native fish

populations (AGFD 2001). Some species, including federally listed leopard frogs and Sonora tiger 

salamander, have adapted to constructed waters, but because of a serious introduced fungal disease of 

fish called chytridiomycosis, many populations of leopard frogs in stock tanks have plummeted.

Risk Factors – Species that are dependent upon aquatic habitats are threatened by numerous risk 

factors (Rinne and Minkley 1991). The most all-encompassing risk is loss of surface water through 

diversion, groundwater pumping, and drought (Jones and Sredl 2005; Lenart 2007). Habitat alteration 

and degraded water quality are also risk factors. Invasive species have had a heavy toll on not only 

survival of native species, but also attempts to reestablish populations. American bullfrogs, northern 

crayfish, nonnative tiger salamanders, and a variety of warm water fishes are nonnative invasive 

species that have caused most problems. Although the Coronado cannot control diseases or climate 

change, there are stressors and environment conditions that can be managed.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

218

Federally Listed Species – Affected Environment

Federally listed threatened and endangered species, species proposed for listing, designated critical 

habitat, and habitat proposed for designation are those formally listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) under authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. 

Pursuant to Section 7 (2)(a) of the ESA, the Forest Service will prepare a biological assessment to 

determine the potential effects of an alternative selected as the revised forest plan 

All federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated and proposed critical habitats for 

the Southwestern Region were considered in this species viability analysis. Table 71 lists federally 

listed species whose viability was shown to be at risk after a coarse-filter analysis. These species 

require fine-filter components and analysis to determine their viability. Table 72 provides codes used 

in table 71 and throughout this wildlife analysis.

Certain threatened and endangered species occur in the area surrounding the Coronado but are not 

known to occur within its boundaries (such as masked bobwhite quail). Such species were not carried 

forward as forest planning species for analysis. 

Habitat estimates reported in table 71 are based upon the extent of potential natural vegetation types, 

or biophysical habitat elements that meet the life history requirements of the species limited by the 

ecosystem management areas where the species is known to occur. They may overestimate habitat 

extent for some species that use microsites too small to map accurately or that fluctuate on the 

landscape over time within the associated habitat element. For instance, the Sonora tiger salamander

has an estimated habitat extent of 92,186 acres but occupies only aquatic areas (primarily stock tanks)

within the associated habitat elements and ecosystem management areas that have adequate water 

levels during the frog’s breeding season. Acres or stream miles of designated critical habitat are those 

determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and published in the Federal Register.

Table 71. Federally listed species and occupied critical habitat on the Coronado National Forest1

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name Status

Habitat 

Extent

on the 

Coronado 

(acres)

Critical 

Habitat on 

Forest

Critical 

Habitat 

(acres/ 

stream 

miles)

Habitat 

Associations

Associated 

Ecosystem 

Management Areas 

(EMAs)

Mammals

Jaguar Panthera onca E 562,705 Yes, 

Designated

488,812 

acres

TER, RIA: 

ENC, PIO, 

PON, 

WMC, 

DMC

PEL, CHI, 

TUM, RIT, 

HUA, WHE

Ocelot Leopardus 

pardalis

E 559,689 No NA TER: ENC, 

PIO, PON, 

WMC, 

DMC

PEL, CHI, 

TUM, RIT, 

HUA, WHE

Mexican gray 

wolf

Canis lupus 

baileyi

E, Ep 0 No NA TER: ENC, 

PIO, PON, 

WMC, 

DMC

NA

Mount 

Graham red 

squirrel

Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus 

grahamensis

E 18,120 Yes, 

Designated

1,921 

acres

TER:WMC, 

SPR

PIN

Lesser longnosed batLeptonycteris 

yerbabuenae

E 1,526,216 No NA TER, CAV: 

DES, GRA, 

CHA, ENC

ALL
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

219

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name Status

Habitat 

Extent

on the 

Coronado 

(acres)

Critical 

Habitat on 

Forest

Critical 

Habitat 

(acres/ 

stream 

miles)

Habitat 

Associations

Associated 

Ecosystem 

Management Areas 

(EMAs)

Mexican longnosed batLeptonycteris 

nivalis

E 1,537,768 No NA TER, CAV: 

GRA, CHA, 

ENC, PIO, 

PON

PEL

Birds

Mexican 

spotted owl2

Strix 

occidentalis 

lucida

T 236,718 Yes, 

Designated

793,243

acres

TER: PIO, 

PON, DMC

ALL

Western 

yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis

T 1,281,433 Yes, 

Proposed

150 acres TER, RIA: 

GRA, ENC, 

PIO

ALL

Northern 

Aplomado 

falcon

Falco 

femoralis 

septentrionalis

Ep 0 No NA TER: GRA NA

Amphibians

Sonora tiger 

salamander

Ambystoma 

mavortium 

stebbinsi

E 92,186 No NA RIA, AQU: 

GRA

HUA

Chiricahua 

leopard frog

Lithobates 

chiricahuensis

T 960,047 Yes, 

Designated

263 acres, 

54 stream 

miles

RIA, AQU: 

GRA, ENC, 

PIO

PEL, CHI, 

DRA, TUM, 

RIT, HUA, 

GAL

Reptiles

New Mexico 

Ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake

Crotalus 

willardi 

obscurus

T 50,657 No NA RIA, ROC, 

TER: CHA, 

ENC, PIO

PEL

Northern 

Mexican 

gartersnake

Thamnophis 

eques 

megalops

T 524,762 Yes, 

Proposed

93,565 

acres

RIA: GRA, 

CHA, ENC

TUM, RIT, 

HUA

Fish

Gila chub Gila 

intermedia

E 208,191 Yes, 

Designated

8.7 stream 

miles (907 

acres 

buffered)

AQU: DES, 

GRA

HUA, CAT

Yaqui chub Gila purpurea E 201,388 No NA AQU: GRA, 

ENC

CHI

Yaqui catfish Ictalurus pricei E 0 No NA AQU: GRA NA

Gila 

topminnow

Poeciliopsis 

occidentalis

E 486,736 No NA AQU: DES, 

GRA, ENC

HUA, CAT, 

GAL

Sonora chub Gila ditaenia T 154,413 Yes, 

Designated

6.5 stream 

miles (47 

acres

buffered)

AQU: GRA, 

ENC

TUM

Desert pupfish Cyprinodon 

macularius

E 0 No NA AQU: DES, 

GRA

NA
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

220

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name Status

Habitat 

Extent

on the 

Coronado 

(acres)

Critical 

Habitat on 

Forest

Critical 

Habitat 

(acres/ 

stream 

miles)

Habitat 

Associations

Associated 

Ecosystem 

Management Areas 

(EMAs)

Gila trout Oncorhynchus 

gilae

T 37,141 No NA AQU: PIO, 

PON, 

WMC, 

DMC, SPR

PIN

Apache trout Oncorhynchus 

gilae apachae

T 37,141 No NA AQU: PIO, 

PON, 

WMC, 

DMC, SPR

PIN

Spikedace Meda fulgida E 0 No NA AQU: DES, 

GRA, CHA, 

ENC

NA

Loach 

minnow

Tiaroga cobitis E 0 No NA AQU: DES, 

GRA, CHA, 

ENC, PIO, 

PON, DMC, 

WMC

NA

Roundtail 

chub

Gila robusta P 0 No NA AQU: GRA, 

CHA, ENC

NA

Plants

Pima 

pineapple 

cactus

Coryphantha 

scheeri var.

robustispina

E 171,788 No NA TER: DES, 

GRA

RIT, HUA

Huachuca 

water umbel

Lilaeopsis 

schaffneriana 

var. recurva

E 250,351 Yes, 

Designated

8.3 stream 

miles

RIA, SPG, 

AQU: DES, 

GRA, ENC, 

PIO

HUA

Canelo Hills 

ladies’ tresses

Spiranthes 

delitescens

E 230,066 No NA RIA, SPG: 

GRA, ENC

HUA

1. Codes for status, habitat associations, and associated ecosystem management area can be found in table 72.

2. More acres of critical habitat have been designated for this species than acres of the forest that have the primary 

constituent elements for Mexican spotted owl. That is why the acres of habitat extent on the forest are less than acres 

of critical habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

221

Table 72. Explanation of codes used throughout the wildlife section

Status Codes

E = Endangered

T = Threatened

P = Proposed for listing

C = Candidate

Ex = Extirpated

Ep = Nonessential, experimental population

SS = Forest Service Southwestern Region 

sensitive species

O = Forest planning species or other status

D = Delisted

Habitat Association Codes

RIA = Riparian

SPG = Spring

AQU = Aquatic

ROC = Cliff/Rock

TER = Terrestrial

CAV = Cave

OTH = Other

Forest Plan Component Codes

DC = Desired Condition

VO = Vegetation Objectives

G = Guidelines

S = Standard

O = Objective

MA = Management Approach

Vegetation Community Descriptions

VDC = Vegetation-Desert Communities

VGC = Vegetation-Grassland Communities

VIC = Vegetation-Interior Chaparral

VMP = Vegetation-Madrean pine-oak woodland

VME = Vegetation-Madrean encinal woodlands

VWM = Vegetation-Wet Mixed-conifer

VDM = Vegetation-Dry Mixed Confer

VPP = Vegetation-Ponderosa pine-evergreen oak

VSF = Vegetation-Spruce fir

Vegetation Community Descriptions

ALL = All communities

DES = Desert communities

GRA = Valley grasslands

CHA = Interior chaparral

ENC = Madrean encinal/PJ

PIO = Madrean pine-oak

PON = Ponderosa pine

WMC = Mixed-conifer forest – wet

DMC = Mixed-conifer forest - dry

SPR = Subalpine forest (spruce-fir)

MOM = Montane meadow

Ecosystem Management Area (EMA) Codes

ALL = All EMAs

CHI = Chiricahua

DRA = Dragoon

GAL = Galiuro

HUA = Huachuca

PEL = Peloncillo

PIN = Pinaleño

CAT = Santa Catalina

RIT = Santa Rita

STE = Santa Teresa

TUM = Tumacacori

WHE = Whetstone

WIN = Winchester

Forest Plan Resource Codes

ARP = Animals and Rare Plants

BIP = Biophysical Features

COW = Constructed Waters

ISM = Invasive Species Management

MIN = Minerals

MTS = Motorized Transportation

NWS = Natural Water Sources

RAM = Range Management

RIA = Riparian

WET = Wetlands
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

222

Jaguar

Status – The jaguar was listed as an endangered species in the U.S. portion of the species’ range on 

July 22, 1997 (USFWS 1997a), without critical habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed 

to designate critical habitat for the jaguar on August 20, 2012 (USFWS 2012a), and on July 1, 2013 

(USFWS 2013), they announced revisions to proposed critical habitat for the jaguar. In March 2014, 

the Service announced the final designation of approximately 764,207 acres of critical habitat for the 

jaguar (USFWS 2014). The Service and the binational Jaguar Recovery Team released a draft 

recovery plan for the jaguar in December 2016 (USFWS 2016c).

Distribution – Currently, individual jaguars occasionally occur in the southwestern U.S. and are from 

established populations in Mexico. The most northern recently documented breeding population of 

jaguars is now known to be centered in (but not restricted to) east-central Sonora, about 130 miles 

south of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Arizona and New Mexico jaguars reported from 1996 through 

2016 almost certainly belong to the northernmost population known in Mexico. Recent U.S. jaguar 

sightings (after 1963) have been of males, suggesting possible dispersal of individuals originating in 

northern Mexico. Based on finding jaguars in their study area “frequently, continuously, and year 

round,” researchers asserted that adult jaguars might be resident (in very low numbers) in the ArizonaNew Mexico borderlands shared with Mexico. Recent sightings of jaguar have been in the Peloncillo 

Mountains of southwestern New Mexico near the Arizona border, in the Baboquivari Mountains west 

of the Coronado, and in the Animas Mountains of southwestern New Mexico, and in the Santa Rita 

and Huachuca Mountains. Prior to these sightings, the last confirmed report of a jaguar in Arizona was 

in 1986 when one was killed in the Dos Cabezas Mountains (USDA FS 2011). 

On February 18, 2009, the Arizona Game and Fish Department captured and radio collared a jaguar 

southwest of Tucson at approximately 4,000 feet elevation, in a transition between desert grassland 

and oak woodland. By 2009, monitoring efforts confirmed occurrence of four different adult male 

jaguars (possibly as many as six) since 1996 in the borderlands of southern Arizona and southwestern 

New Mexico. By 2016, two additional adult males had been documented in southeastern Arizona. No 

females or subadult males were documented during that period. The last documented female jaguar 

occurrence in Arizona was in 1963. The monitoring data are not sufficient to determine if jaguars are 

continuously present in the U.S. 

The Arizona-New Mexico Jaguar Conservation Agreement focused conservation efforts in a priority 

geographic area that includes all or parts of Santa Cruz, Pima, Pinal, Graham, Greenlee, and Cochise 

Counties in Arizona and all or parts of Catron, Sierra, Luna, Grant, and Hidalgo Counties in New 

Mexico. The Coronado participates in the remote camera census program for jaguar detection along 

the international border with Mexico. The jaguar is known to occur in the Peloncillo, Tumacacori, 

Santa Rita, and Huachuca Mountains with at least three individuals repeatedly documented (USDA FS 

2011). From September 2012 to September 2015, there were hundreds of documented photographs of 

the same jaguar occurring on the Coronado National Forest, either within or near proposed critical 

habitat. Based on this new information, it seems probable that this single resident male jaguar that had

a home range or territory that included most of the Santa Rita Mountains and likely the Whetstones 

(USDA FS 2013). In December 2016, a male jaguar, an individual not previously seen in Arizona, 

was photographed in the Huachuca Mountains (USFWS 2016a). 

Habitat – The jaguar is found in Sonoran desertscrub up through subalpine conifer forest from 

elevations of 1,600 to 9,000 feet. Habitat includes a wide variety of situations, such as tropical and 

subtropical forests, lowland scrub and woodland, thorn scrub, pampas/llanos, desert, swampy savanna, 

mangrove swamps, lagoons, marshland, and floating islands of vegetation. At the southern extreme of 

the range, this cat inhabits open savanna, flooded grasslands, and desert mountains; at the northern 

extreme it may be found in chaparral and timbered areas (NatureServe 2012).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

223

Designated Critical Habitat Within the Coronado National Forest – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service finalized critical habitat for the jaguar in March 2014 (USFWS 2014). Approximately 764,207 

acres of critical habitat for the jaguar were designated in Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties in 

Arizona, and Hidalgo County in New Mexico. A total of 488,812 acres of designated critical habitat 

occurs on the Coronado National Forest. The primary constituent elements (PCEs) of designated 

critical habitat for the jaguar are as follows (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014:12587):

Expansive open spaces in the southwestern United States of at least 100 square kilometers (38.6 

square miles) in size which:

1. provide connectivity to Mexico;

2. contain adequate levels of native prey species, including deer and javelina, as well as 

medium-sized prey such as coatis, skunks, raccoons, or jackrabbits;

3. include surface water sources available within 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of each other;

4. contain from greater than 1 to 50 percent canopy cover within Madrean evergreen 

woodland, generally recognized by a mixture of oak (Quercus spp.), juniper (Juniperus

spp.), and pine (Pinus spp.) trees on the landscape, or semidesert grassland vegetation 

communities, usually characterized by Pleuraphis mutica (tobosagrass) or Bouteloua 

eriopoda (black grama) along with other grasses;

5. are characterized by intermediately, moderately, or highly rugged terrain;

6. are below 2,000 meters (6,562 feet) in elevation; and

7. are characterized by minimal to no human population density, no major roads, or no stable 

nighttime lighting over any 1-square-kilometer (0.4-square-mile) area.

Risk Factors – In the past, the primary threat to jaguars in the U.S. was from shooting and possibly 

the reduction in understory vegetation density in riparian areas. In Arizona, the decline of the species 

was concurrent with the predator control associated with land settlement and development of the 

livestock industry. To date, shooting still remains a threat to jaguars. At least 64 jaguars have been 

killed in Arizona since 1900, one as recently as 1986. Other impacts include clearing of preferred 

habitat, alteration and destruction of riparian areas, habitat fragmentation or blocking of corridors that 

jaguars may use to move between Mexico and the U.S., and any trapping or animal control activities 

that target jaguars or other large predators (USDA FS 2011). Human population growth and 

development have both direct and indirect impacts on jaguar populations because they fragment 

habitat and isolate populations of jaguars and other wildlife (Jaguar Recovery Team and USFWS 

2012a). Further, roads may directly impact jaguars and their habitat, resulting in mortality caused by 

vehicles, disturbance, habitat fragmentation, changes in prey numbers or distribution, and provision of 

increased access for legal or illegal harvest.

Ocelot

Status – The ocelot was listed as an endangered species in the U.S. portion of its range on July 21, 

1982 (USFWS 1982), without critical habitat. A recovery plan was originally completed for the ocelot 

in 1990. A draft revised recovery plan was prepared in 2010 by a binational recovery team from 

Mexico and the U.S. The States of Texas and Arizona are active participants on the team. The first 

revision of the Recovery Plan for the Ocelot was published in July 2016 (USFWS 2016d). While the 

recovery plan considers the ocelot throughout its range, its major focus is on two cross-border 

management units: the Tamaulipas Management Unit in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in southern 

Texas, and the Arizona-Sonora Management Unit in southeast Arizona, which includes the Coronado 

National Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

224

Distribution – Currently, the ocelot ranges from extreme southern Texas and southern Arizona 

through the coastal lowlands of Mexico to Central America, Ecuador, and northern Argentina. The 

ocelot also is known from Trinidad and Isla de Margarita, Venezuela. Southern Arizona represents the 

northernmost distribution of the species and recent documentation of the ocelot in Arizona is sparse. 

Currently, the ocelot is listed as endangered throughout its range. In recent years the ocelot has been 

documented in two counties (Cochise and Gila), but the range also includes Pima and Santa Cruz 

Counties. The U.S. contains only a small proportion of the ocelot’s range and habitat. At least six 

ocelots have been documented as occurring in Arizona since 2009 (USFWS 2016d). In November 

2009, an ocelot was documented in Arizona with the use of camera traps for the first time since 1964, 

when the last known ocelot in Arizona was legally shot. The remote camera image was from Cochise 

County. In 2010, an ocelot was found dead on a road near Globe, Arizona (AGFD 2011) and,

beginning in February 2011, ocelots have been documented in the Huachuca, Whetstone, and Santa 

Rita Mountains (USDA FS 2011; Tim Snow, Arizona Game and Fish Department, pers. comm., 

November 7, 2016). 

Habitat – Little is known about ocelot habitat use in Arizona; however, ocelots are typically 

associated with areas of dense cover. In habitats with good cover, ocelots tend to keep hidden in dense 

brush when active by day. Ocelot habitat occurs in humid tropical forests, mangrove forests, swampy 

savannas, brushland, and riverine scrub in deserts. Dens are in caves, hollow trees, thickets, or the 

spaces between the closed buttress roots of large tree (USDA FS 2011). Researchers found that 27 of 

the 36 records (75 percent) of ocelots in Sonora were associated with tropical or subtropical habitat, 

namely subtropical thorn scrub, tropical deciduous forest, and tropical thornscrub. Only males (11.1 

percent of the total records) were recorded in temperate oak and pine-oak woodland (USFWS 2016d). 

Recent detections of ocelots in Arizona were located in the semidesert grassland (46 percent), 

Madrean evergreen woodland (46 percent), and Great Basin grassland (8 percent) biotic communities 

(Culver et al. 2016). On average, these ocelot locations had 23 percent tree cover, were found at an 

elevation of 6,010 feet, were 1.5 miles from perennial water sites, and 4 miles from major roads.

Risk Factors – In the past, the primary threat to ocelots in the U.S. was from shooting and possibly 

the reduction in understory vegetation density in riparian areas. In Arizona, the decline of the species 

was linked to predator control and fur trapping, as well as habitat fragmentation and loss associated 

with land development. To date, both impacts remain threats to ocelots, though fur trapping and 

shooting have declined as protections for this species increase: the ocelot is protected from hunting 

and live collection in Arizona where it is listed as a species of special concern. Habitat conversion, 

fragmentation, and loss, comprise the primary threats to the ocelot today. Other impacts include roads, 

border issues, low genetic diversity, herbicides/pesticides, and climate change. All of these impacts 

have the potential to adversely affect ocelots and their habitats.

Mexican Gray Wolf

Status – Gray wolf subspecies or populations by region were originally listed individually. On April 

28, 1976, the Mexican gray wolf subspecies was listed as endangered in the southwestern United 

States and Mexico (Federal Register 41:17736). On March 9, 1978, the gray wolf was listed as an 

endangered population at the species level (Federal Register 43:9607, March 9, 1978), reflecting 

changes in understanding in wolf taxonomy and the fact that wolves in the wild often disperse across 

subspecies boundaries; however, the 1978 rule made clear that subspecies would continue to be 

maintained and conserved (USFWS 2015). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a rule on 

June 13, 2013 (Federal Register 78:35664), to delist the gray wolf and maintain protections to the 

Mexican gray wolf, listing it as an endangered subspecies. On February 17, 2015, the Mexican gray 

wolf subspecies was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2015), and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized revisions to the regulation for the nonessential experimental 

population of the Mexican gray wolf (USFWS 2015c).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

225

Distribution – Historically, Mexican gray wolves occurred in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and in a 

large portion of Mexico. By 1942, breeding populations of Mexican gray wolves were thought 

extirpated from the United States as a result of government and private efforts to kill predators such as 

wolves, though reports of wolves crossing into the United States from Mexico persisted into the 

1960s. By the time the Mexican gray wolf was listed in 1976, no wild populations were known to 

remain in the United States or Mexico. Several Mexican wolf individuals captured in the wild in 

Mexico became the basis for the captive breeding program (USFWS 2015). In 1998, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service established the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area in central Arizona, New 

Mexico, and a portion of Texas, and 11 wolves from the captive-breeding program were released into 

the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area 

(USFWS 2015b). Additional releases and translocations have occurred and by 2014, a population 

count indicates that at least 109 Mexican gray wolves inhabit the Mexican Wolf Experimental 

Population Area (USFWS 2015a). A single pair with pups is known to occur in the San Luis 

Mountains in Mexico just south of the international border, and more releases are planned for the 

future.

Historically, in southern Arizona this subspecies occurred in the Santa Rita, Tumacacori, AtascosaPajarito, Patagonia, Chiricahua, Huachuca, Pinaleño, and Catalina Mountains, west to the Baboquivari 

Mountains, but was extirpated by 1976. Currently at least 109 individuals occur in the Mexican Wolf 

Experimental Population Area that straddles Arizona and New Mexico (USFWS 2015). In 2015, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revised the regulations for the nonessential experimental population of 

this subspecies by expanding the boundaries of the 10J area south of Interstate 10 in Arizona, 

modifying the regulations that govern release, translocation, removal, and take of this subspecies, and 

issuing a permit for management of this subspecies both inside and outside the Mexican Wolf 

Experimental Population Area (USFWS 2015c).

There are no known occurrences of this species on the Coronado. The nearest U.S. population is 

nearly 100 miles northeast of the Coronado, and the Mexican population is approximately 30 miles 

southwest of the Coronado (USFWS 2015c). However, the regulations for the nonessential 

experimental population of the Mexican gray wolf were recently revised to allow greater area for the 

population to achieve necessary population growth and distribution to become self-sustaining, allow 

for wolves from Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico, to disperse into the United States, and increase the 

flexibility of management of the experimental population of Mexican gray wolves (USFWS 2015 &

2015c). The term Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area has been discontinued, and the action area has 

been placed into Zone 2 of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area. In Zone 2, Mexican gray 

wolves will be allowed to naturally disperse into and occupy, and they may be translocated into in the 

future in a phased approach. There is no critical habitat designation for the wolf.

Habitat – Historically, Mexican gray wolves were associated with montane woodlands, consisting of 

evergreen oaks (Quercus spp.), pinyon (Pinus edulis), or juniper (Juniperus spp.) to higher elevation 

pine (Pinus spp.) or mixed conifer forests and adjacent grasslands at elevations of 4,000 to 5,000 feet 

above mean sea level. Mexican gray wolves likely selected these vegetation communities based on the 

availability of ungulate prey, water, cover, and den sites; these wolves were thought to avoid desert 

scrub and semidesert grasslands. Currently, Arizona wolves inhabit pine-oak woodlands, pinyonjuniper woodlands, and mixed conifer forest. Historical diet probably consisted of white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O. hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), collared peccaries (javelina) 

(Tayassu tajacu), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), jackrabbits 

(Lepus spp.), cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.), and small rodents. In Arizona, they show a strong 

preference to elk, compared with other ungulates, though deer and small animals are also preyed upon 

(USFWS 2015).

Risk Factors – Human-caused mortalities continue to be the primary cause of death for released 

Mexican gray wolves. In the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, illegal shooting is the single greatest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

226

source of wolf mortality in the reintroduced population. Between 1998 and June 1, 2009, 31 of 68 

deaths were due to illegal shooting of wild wolves. In several years, illegal shooting resulted in Blue 

Range Wolf Recovery Area population declines of close to or exceeding 10 percent. Threats related to 

the destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat, disease, and predation are not currently 

considered significant threats to the Mexican wolf reintroduced population (USFWS 2010d).

Mount Graham Red Squirrel

Status – The Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis) was listed as 

endangered in June 1987 (USFWS 1987), and critical habitat was designated in February 1990 

(USFWS 1990). A recovery plan for the species was completed in 1993 (USFWS 1993d).

Distribution – The Mount Graham red squirrel is the southernmost subspecies of Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus. This squirrel occurs in high elevation (typically above 8,000 feet) mixed-conifer and 

spruce-fir forests of the Pinaleño Mountains in Graham County, Arizona (USFWS 2011). The squirrel 

may inhabit drainage bottoms where mixed forests occur at lower elevations (USFWS 1993d). The 

entire current range of the species is in the Pinaleño Mountains (Safford Ranger District of the 

Coronado National Forest). 

Historically, the Mount Graham red squirrel was common above 8,500 feet in elevation but is now 

seldom observed below 9,200 feet. As recently as the 1960s, the species possibly ranged as far east as 

Turkey Flat and as far west as West Peak, but currently is found as far west as Clark Peak. It is 

believed a local extinction occurred on West Peak, possibly as a result of a fire in the mid-1970s that 

caused loss of habitat and isolation of the West Peak subpopulation from the rest of the range 

(USFWS 1993d).

Midden surveys have been conducted in red squirrel habitat since 1986. In 1986, the potential habitat 

for the red squirrel was estimated to be 22,436 acres. This estimate included ponderosa pine forests, 

and surveys in 1986 did not locate any middens in this forest type. In 1988, the amount of potential 

habitat was revised to exclude ponderosa pine stands, and the amount of red squirrel habitat was 

estimated to be 11,733 acres (USFWS 1993d). 

Between 1986 and 1991, 85 percent of the suitable habitat within the range of the red squirrel was 

surveyed (USFWS 1993d). Results of 1991 midden surveys showed that over 90 percent (510 out of 

549) of middens occurred above 9,000 feet in elevation. Most middens occurred in spruce-fir 

vegetation types (203 out of 549, or 37 percent) or in the mixed-conifer/spruce-fir transition (268 out 

of 549, or 49 percent). Only 78 middens (14 percent) occurred in mixed-conifer vegetation (USFWS 

1993d).

As of spring 2009, the technical subgroup of the Mount Graham red squirrel recovery team 

determined that only fall survey data will be taken. Analysis found that data acquired during spring 

surveys are inconsistent due to the difficulty of detecting squirrels during this time of year (they are 

foraging far and wide and not yet caching cones), especially when compared to data collected during 

fall surveys (when squirrels are actively caching cones, thereby making it much easier to determine if 

a midden is occupied) (USFWS 2011). 

Based on 1991 survey data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the habitat capability for the 

red squirrel at 650 individuals. In 200 years, assuming no catastrophic habitat loss, the habitat 

capability would increase to 900 red squirrels (USFWS 1993d and 2011).

Habitat – The red squirrel inhabits the spruce-fir (Picea engelmannii), corkbark fir (Abies lasiocarpa

var. arizonica), and mixed-conifer forest types at high elevations of 8,500 feet or higher. Old-growth 

mixed-conifer stands dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and white fir (Abies 

concolor) also provide habitat. Overall habitat suitability for the species depends on the ability of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

227

forest to produce reliable and adequate conifer cone crops for food and suitable microclimate 

conditions for storage of closed cones (USFWS 2011).

Designated Critical Habitat Within the Coronado National Forest – Critical habitat for the Mount 

Graham red squirrel was designated in January 1990 (USFWS 1990). All designated critical habitat 

for this species is within the Pinaleño Mountains on the Safford Ranger District of the Coronado 

National Forest. The area designated is composed of three large areas covering approximately 1,921

acres on Mount Graham and are named as the Hawk Peak/Mount Graham, Heliograph Peak, and 

Webb Peak critical habitat blocks. These areas were determined to contain the largest contiguous 

stand of good to excellent habitat and densest concentration of red squirrel middens, providing the 

best existing habitat components for the survival of the species. The primary constituent elements of 

critical habitat is dense spruce-fir forests. The Coronado National Forest does not conduct any 

activities that would diminish habitat quality, midden concentrations, or red squirrel survival within 

critical habitat (USFWS 2011).

Risk Factors – Past threats to the red squirrel were direct loss of habitat by human activities, and 

indirect consequences of this habitat loss or alteration. Actions that directly altered habitat suitability 

for the red squirrel were logging and associated road construction, road construction for residential 

and recreation access, and conversion of land to uses other than forest (recreational and residential 

development). Actions that directly affected the quantity of red squirrel habitat also affected the 

quality of the remaining habitat. Fragmentation from timber harvest, road construction, and land use 

conversion resulted in alteration of forest microhabitats (USFWS 2011).

Current threats facing Mount Graham red squirrel include predation; loss of habitat due to native and 

exotic insect infestations; direct mortality and loss of habitat and middens due to large-scale wildfires;

loss of habitat due to human factors (such as disturbance; conversion to roads, trails, and/or recreation 

sites; or permitted special uses); loss or reduction of food sources due to drought; and apparent dietary 

and territory competition with Abert’s squirrel, which were introduced in the 1940s by the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department (USFWS 2008d). Some preventative actions have been taken by the 

Forest Service and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Forest Service has stopped all 

harvesting of timber, fuelwood, and Christmas trees, and has restricted campfire wood gathering in 

some areas. Abert’s squirrels are now hunted year-round in the pine forest through the spruce-fir 

zones (AGFD 2013). Another factor possibly affecting the species’ existence is risk of extinction due 

to genetic and demographic problems associated with small population sizes (USFWS 2008d).

Lesser Long-nosed Bat

Status – The lesser long-nosed bat was listed as endangered in September 1988 (USFWS 1988) 

without critical habitat. A recovery plan for the species was developed in May 1994 (USFWS 1995a). 

In January 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting the lesser long-nosed bat 

(USFWS 2017).

Distribution – The lesser long-nosed bat is a seasonal migrant on the Coronado National Forest. The 

species occurs in Arizona generally from May to September, but significant numbers of bats are found 

on the Coronado National Forest only after leaving low-elevation maternity colonies. Occurrence on 

the Coronado coincides with the blooming of paniculate agaves between July and September. 

Habitat – Several post-maternity roosts, which house from thousands to only a few individuals, are 

known from various locations on or near the Coronado, but only four are monitored on a priority basis 

during the simultaneous roost surveys. They are Patagonia Bat Cave, Lone Star Mine, New Catalina 

Cave, and Papago Cave. Two roost locations on the Coronado that used to be included in the 

simultaneous roost surveys were the Kasper and Hilltop Mines. These two sites are no longer 

surveyed because they are now active mines. In 2009 and 2010, New Catalina Cave and Papago Cave 

were added to the simultaneous roost surveys. There are also post-maternity roosts close to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

228

Coronado National Forest where roosting lesser long-nosed bats most certainly forage on the 

Coronado. There are no known maternity colonies on the Coronado National Forest (USDA FS 2011). 

These bats exhibit roost-switching behavior, therefore, it is difficult and perhaps inappropriate to 

determine population trends based on the number of bats detected at select roosts from year to year. It 

appears that known roosts are still being used, and new roosts and newly discovered roosts continue to 

be documented on and around the Coronado National Forest (USDA FS 2011).

Risk Factors – The primary threat to this species comes in the form of roost site disturbance or loss. 

The colonial roosting behavior of this species, where high percentages of the population can 

congregate at a limited number of roost sites, increases the likelihood of significant declines or 

extinction due to impacts at roost sites (USFWS 2016e). Potential impacts to roost sites may occur due 

to: border activities, recreation, vandalism of potential roost sites, mine closures, and spread of 

disease. Other risk factors to this species include reduction of habitat (loss of saguaros and agaves as 

food sources), grazing, and fire suppression.

Some of the most numerous and dense agave clusters on the Coronado National Forest are in areas 

with rocky slopes where there is poor livestock grazing potential. Thus, effects of livestock grazing on 

agave would likely be limited to the relatively few locations where permanent water is available. In 

addition, many grazing allotments on the Coronado National Forest are grazed only during the winter 

and are rested during the summer growing season when agaves are bolting. On year-round grazing 

allotments, grazing is managed under strategies that insure periodic rest or deferment during the 

growing season, thus ensuring that only a percentage of pastures supporting flowering agaves are 

grazed during any single growing season. 

There is little information available on the effects of fire on agaves and bats; however, wildfire may 

result in impacts to roost sites. The fire itself can result in short-term impacts from smoke and heat. 

More lasting impacts can result if the microclimate of the roost is affected by the impact of the fire 

(removal of vegetation, change in air currents, alteration of hydrology, etc.). Slauson and Dalton 

(1998, in USFWS 2007a) concluded that the short-term effects of fire on flowering agaves were 

limited. In fact, they found that burned plants produced significantly more nectar and had higher sugar 

concentrations than unburned plants. Pollen production and seed set were also unaffected by burning.

Predation of lesser long-nosed bats by owls and snakes occurs but is not significant. Drought and 

climate change have also been identified as threats to the species (USDA FS 2015). 

Mexican Long-nosed Bat

Status – The Mexican long-nosed bat was listed as endangered in September 1988 (USFWS 1988) 

without critical habitat. A recovery plan for the species was developed in September 1994 (USFWS 

1994).

Distribution – The Mexican long-nosed bat is not believed to occur in Arizona; however, there are 

historic confirmed occurrences of the species on the Coronado National Forest from 1963 and 1967 in 

the Peloncillo Mountains. There is also currently one known Mexican long-nosed bat roost on the 

Coronado in a crevice in the Peloncillo Mountains. Therefore, it is speculated that this species forages 

on the Douglas Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest (Scott Richardson, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, pers. comm., August 2016). 

Habitat – This species depends largely on caves for roosting and agave flowers and cacti for food 

(USFWS 1988). Potential roosts are surveyed for long-nosed and other bat species on a project-byproject basis. Roost surveys are also coordinated with research personnel and include southwestern 

New Mexico and the Peloncillo Mountains (USDA FS 2011). 

Risk Factors – Risk factors are identified as disturbance of roosts; loss of food sources through 

clearing of land for agriculture and human exploitation of agaves. Long-nosed bats are thought to be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

229

negatively affected by reductions in acreage of native agaves over large areas of their wintering 

grounds in Mexico due to excessive harvesting for local manufacture of mescal and tequila. This 

threat to the Mexican long-nosed bat food resource is beyond the control of national forests. Another 

possible threat to native agaves is wildfire, prescribed burns, or both; however, threats to long-nosed 

bats from grazing on food plants, the tequila industry, and prescribed fire are likely not as severe as 

once thought (USFWS 2007a).

Mexican Spotted Owl 

Status – The Mexican spotted owl was listed as threatened in March 1993 (USFWS 1993b) and 

critical habitat was designated in August 2004 (USFWS 2004a). A recovery plan for the species 

was developed in December 1995 (USFWS 1995b) and revised in September 2012 (USFWS 

2012f).

Distribution – The Coronado National Forest lies completely within the Basin and Range–West 

Recovery Unit for the Mexican spotted owl. The Forest Service estimates 241,659 acres of protected 

habitat are present on the Coronado National Forest outside of protected activity centers and 78,524 

acres of restricted habitat. Biologists have delineated 108 protected activity centers within the 

boundaries of the Coronado (USDA FS 2015). Occupancy of monitored protected activity centers 

varied between 69 and 87 percent over a period of 3 years (2007 to 2009). Surveys within recent years 

have identified additional areas that may be appropriate for protected activity center delineation, and 

the Coronado is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delineate new protected activity 

centers. Coronado National Forest protected activity centers have been monitored sporadically since 

1989; it is not possible to infer any trends related to the population of owls on the Coronado.

Habitat – Mexican spotted owls are widely distributed on the Coronado National Forest. Mexican 

spotted owls are most common in mixed-conifer forests dominated by Douglas-fir and/or white fir as 

well as Madrean encinal woodlands, ponderosa pine-Gambel oak, and canyons with varying degrees 

of forest cover including riparian. 

Designated Critical Habitat Within the Coronado National Forest – Approximately 8.6 million 

acres of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl was designated on Federal lands in Arizona, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah in August 2004, of which 793,243 acres are on the Coronado

(USFWS 2004a). Within the critical habitat boundaries, critical habitat includes only Protected and 

Restricted habitats as defined in the original recovery plan (USFWS 1995b). Protected areas include 

all known owl sites (protected activity centers), all areas in mixed-conifer and pine-oak types with 

greater than 40 percent slopes where timber harvest has not occurred in the past 20 years and 

administratively reserved lands, such as wilderness areas or research natural areas. Restricted habitat 

includes mixed-conifer forest, pine-oak forest, and riparian areas adjacent to or outside of protected 

areas. The primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the owl include those physical 

and biological features that support nesting, roosting, and foraging.

The primary constituent elements identified in the 1995 and 2012 recovery plans are as follows:

1. Primary Constituent Elements Related to Forest Structure:

• A range of tree species, including mixed-conifer, pine-oak, and riparian forest types, 

composed of different tree sizes reflecting different ages of trees, 30-45 percent of which 

are large trees with a trunk diameter of 0.3 meters (12 inches) or greater when measured 

at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) from the ground;

• A shaded canopy created by the tree branches and foliage covering 40 percent or greater 

of the ground; and,

• Large, dead trees (snags) with a trunk diameter of at least 0.3 meters (12 inches) when 

measured at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) from the ground.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

230

2. Primary Constituent Elements Related to Maintenance of Adequate Prey Species:

• High volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris;

• A wide range of tree and plant species, including hardwoods; and,

• Adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and allow plant 

regeneration.

3. Primary Constituent Elements Related to Canyon Habitat (one or more of the following):

• Presence of water (often providing cooler air temperature and often higher humidity than 

the surrounding areas);

• Clumps or stringers of mixed-conifer, pine-oak, pinyon-juniper, and/or riparian 

vegetation;

• Canyon walls containing crevices, ledges, or caves; and,

• High percentage of ground litter and woody debris.

Part or all of 11 critical habitat units46 (BR-W-7, BR-W-8, BR-W-9, BR-W-10, BR-W-11, BR-W-12, 

BR-W13, BR-W-14, BR-W-15, BR-W-16, and BR-W-18) occur within the boundaries of the 

Coronado. The critical habitat units encompass approximately 209,138 acres of protected habitat and 

approximately 62,622 acres of restricted habitat. Within the critical habitat boundaries, only areas that 

fit the definition of restricted or protected habitat in the recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl are 

critical habitat. The areas (acres) listed above represent estimated critical habitat within the critical 

habitat units and not the total area for the critical habitat unit itself.

Risk Factors – Threats to the U.S. population have transitioned from commercial-based timber 

harvest to stand-replacing wildfire. Recent forest management has moved from a commodity focus 

and now emphasizes sustainable ecological function and a return toward presettlement fire regimes, 

both of which have potential to benefit the Mexican spotted owl. Southwestern forests have 

experienced larger and more severe wildfires from 1995 to present. Climate variability combined with 

dense forest conditions may also synergistically result in increased negative effects to habitat from 

fire. The intensification of natural drought cycles and the ensuing stress placed upon overstocked 

forested habitats could result in even larger and more severe fires in Mexican spotted owl habitat. 

Several factors have been identified as particularly detrimental to the Mexican spotted owl, including 

predation, starvation, accidents, disease, and parasites (USFWS 2012). In addition to stand-replacing 

fires, improper livestock grazing (use levels and seasons), land development of facilities or structures 

and roads (including road maintenance) and recreation activities (often associated with motor vehicles 

such as all-terrain vehicles) have contributed noise and disturbance to Mexican spotted owls and have 

been a threat to Mexican spotted owls and their habitat on the Coronado (USDA FS 2015).

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Status – On October 3, 2013, the western yellow-billed cuckoo was proposed for listing as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2013b), and effective October 3, 2014, it 

was listed as threatened under the Act (USFWS 2014b). In August 2014, designation of critical 

habitat for the species was proposed (USFWS 2014a).

Distribution – Historical accounts postulate that the western yellow-billed cuckoo was formerly 

widespread and locally common in California and Arizona, more narrowly distributed but locally 

common in New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington and uncommon along the western front of the 

 

46 The full documentation for designation of critical habitat can be found here:

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/MSO/FR_MSO_CH_8_31_04.pdf
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

231

Rocky Mountains north to British Columbia (USFWS 2016). The species may be extirpated from 

British Colombia, Washington, and Oregon. The western yellow-billed cuckoo is now very rare in 

scattered drainages in western Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, with single, nonbreeding birds 

most likely to occur. The largest remaining breeding areas are in southern and central California, 

Arizona, along the Rio Grande in New Mexico, and in northwestern Mexico.

Habitat – Habitat for the species in the eastern United States consists of parks, riparian woodlands, 

and other deciduous woodlands. This is in contrast to habitat west of the Continental Divide, where 

suitable habitat is limited to narrow, and often widely separated, riparian cottonwood-willow galleries 

(salt cedar is also used by the cuckoo). Dense understory foliage appears to be an important factor in 

nest site selection, while cottonwood trees are an important foraging habitat in areas where the species 

has been studied in California. The species is usually found at elevations less than 2,011 meters (6,600 

feet) (USFWS 2001).

Losses of riparian habitats from historic levels have been substantial in Arizona; however, Arizona 

probably contains the largest remaining cuckoo population among states west of the Rocky 

Mountains, and the species is still found in all counties in Arizona (USFWS 2016). Recent surveys 

have found that, in addition to gallery riparian forest and mesquite woodlands, yellow-billed cuckoos 

are also using, and likely breeding in, more xeroriparian drainages in the foothills and mountains of 

southeastern Arizona. This kind of habitat is more typical of habitat where cuckoos are found in 

Sonora, Mexico. Many drainages throughout southeastern Arizona have not been thoroughly 

surveyed, however, and as surveys continue to occur, it is likely that additional yellow-billed cuckoo 

locations will be discovered.

Proposed Critical Habitat Within the Coronado National Forest – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service proposed 546,335 acres of critical habitat in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, 

New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Wyoming for the western yellow-billed cuckoo on August 15, 2014

(USFWS 2014a). Of the 245,000 acres of critical habitat proposed in Arizona, approximately 150

acres occur on the Coronado on the Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Area in critical habitat unit45: AZ-37, Florida Wash. Approximately 700 acres of proposed critical habitat occur in streams and 

major drainages adjacent to the Coronado. Primary constituent elements specific to the western 

yellow-billed cuckoo are (USFWS 2014a).

1. Riparian woodlands. Riparian woodlands with mixed willow cottonwood vegetation, 

mesquite-thorn forest vegetation, or a combination of these that contain habitat for nesting 

and foraging in contiguous or nearly contiguous patches that are greater than 325 feet (100 

meters) in width and 200 acres (81 hectares) or more in extent. These habitat patches contain 

one or more nesting groves, which are generally willow dominated, have above average 

canopy closure (greater than 70 percent), and have a cooler, more humid environment than 

the surrounding riparian and upland habitats.

2. Adequate prey base. Presence of a prey base consisting of large insect fauna (for example, 

cicadas, caterpillars, katydids, grasshoppers, large beetles, dragonflies) and tree frogs for 

adults and young in breeding areas during the nesting season and in post-breeding dispersal 

areas.

3. Dynamic riverine processes. River systems that are dynamic and provide hydrologic 

processes that encourage sediment movement and deposits that allow seedling germination 

and promote plant growth, maintenance, health, and vigor (e.g. lower gradient streams and 

broad floodplains, elevated subsurface groundwater table, and perennial rivers and streams). 

This allows habitat to regenerate at regular intervals, leading to riparian vegetation with 

variously aged patches from young to old.

Risk Factors – The loss, degradation, and fragmentation of riparian woodland habitat, and 

degradation of the invertebrate communities they support, have been identified as the primary factors 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

232

causing yellow-billed cuckoo declines in the western United States. Estimates of riparian habitat 

losses include 90 to 95 percent for Arizona, 90 percent for New Mexico, 90 to 99 percent for 

California, and more than 70 percent nationwide. Distribution, population, and trend data indicate that, 

although regional declines have occurred, the yellow- billed cuckoo is relatively common as a 

breeding bird in much of the eastern United States (USFWS 2001).

Northern Aplomado Falcon

Status – The northern Aplomado falcon was listed as endangered in January 1986 (USFWS 

1986) without critical habitat.

Distribution – Historically, in the U.S., this species was limited to southeastern Arizona (Cochise and 

Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona), southern New Mexico, and southern Texas. It was also found 

throughout most of Mexico south to Tierra del Fuego. Currently there is very limited distribution, with 

no confirmed sightings in the U.S. between 1952 and 1997. In 1887, five nests were located in 

Arizona; these are the only known nests ever found in the state. A small population has been 

confirmed in northern Chihuahua and Tamaulipas Mexico, and several confirmed sightings have been 

made in the U.S. in New Mexico and Texas since 1995 (USFWS 2001a).

A nonessential experimental population (10 (j)) for the northern Aplomado falcon was established in 

2006 to include both Arizona and New Mexico. The action allowed for the reintroduction of up to 150 

northern Aplomado falcons annually for 10 or more years into New Mexico. Currently, reintroduction 

sites are only on lands within New Mexico, but falcons would be allowed to disperse into Arizona as 

part of the 10(j) population (USDA FS 2011). 

The northern Aplomado falcon does not occur on lands administered by the Forest Service 

Southwestern Region. Currently, potentially suitable nesting and/or foraging habitat occurs within 

National Forest System lands on the Lincoln, Coronado, Gila and Cibola National Forests. These 

national forests are located approximately 200 miles (Lincoln), 60 miles (Coronado), and 50 miles 

(Gila) from the recently successful nest site near Deming, New Mexico. Therefore, it is conceivable 

that Aplomado falcons could use suitable nesting or foraging habitat found on Coronado National 

Forest lands over a period of time (USDA FS 2011).

No recovery efforts have been implemented by the Coronado National Forest specifically for the 

northern Aplomado falcon. The recovery plan for the species or recent Federal Register notices related 

to the species do not identify Southwestern Region national forests anywhere as having any 

connection with species recovery. An active and ongoing release effort of Aplomado falcons is 

currently ongoing in New Mexico on private lands and areas managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management and Department of Defense. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began reintroducing 

Aplomado falcons into historical habitat in southern New Mexico in 2006 to establish a viable resident 

population in New Mexico and Arizona. This action is part of a series of reintroductions and other 

recovery actions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal and State agencies, and other 

partners are conducting throughout the specie’s historical range. Therefore, the number of Aplomado

falcons in New Mexico will increase over the next 5 to 10 years, and falcons may eventually disperse 

into suitable habitat on the Coronado National Forest in New Mexico and Arizona. The fact that 

potentially suitable habitat does exist on National Forest System lands within the Coronado suggests 

that Forest Service activities could impact this species in the future (USDA FS 2011).

Habitat – Habitat for this species consists of open grassland terrain with scattered trees, relatively low 

ground cover, an abundance of small to medium sized birds, and a supply of suitable nesting 

platforms, particularly yuccas and mesquite. Typical habitat ranges in elevation from 1,189 to 2,743 

meters (3,500 to 9,000 feet). Woody vegetation, fence posts, and telephone poles serve as perches 

(USFWS 2001a).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

233

Moderately suitable habitat (mapped in 2005) for nesting, foraging, or both exists within National 

Forest System lands in the Peloncillo Mountains of the Coronado National Forest in New Mexico. The 

habitat suitability mapping effort did not include lands in Arizona, but the “Coronado National Forest 

Ecological Sustainability Report” prepared for the forest plan revision states that desert grasslands 

make up 26 percent of the Coronado National Forest (USDA FS 2009b). Around 27 percent of these 

lands are currently in an open, native condition, similar to the reference condition. Another 42 percent 

have been invaded by shrubs, but have the potential to be restored to an open, native condition through 

appropriate management actions. Some species such as the Aplomado falcon are considered locally 

rare and on the fringe of their normal range, so the Coronado National Forest probably provides 

suboptimal habitat. Habitat for the falcon also occurs in the Chiricahua Mountains (USDA FS 2011).

Risk Factors – The Aplomado falcon is at the northern limits of its continental range in southeastern 

Arizona, southern New Mexico, and western and southern Texas; and, therefore, possibly vulnerable 

to small changes in habitat quality in this region (USFWS 2006a). Prior to the mid-1940s severe 

overgrazing, by domestic livestock, fire suppression and resultant brush encroachment in the 

Southwest has been most frequently implicated as the principal cause for the species' decline. Direct 

adverse effects of livestock grazing on potential falcon prey species have also been suggested as a 

possible cause. In southern Texas, relatively high numbers of falcon eggs and specimens were 

collected by professional collectors during the early-1900s and possibly contributed to the 

disappearance of Aplomados in that region. In portions of the Aplomado's former desert range, large 

tracts of native grassland have been converted to pasturelands and croplands, thereby further reducing 

the extent and quality of Aplomado falcon habitat. Other threats include direct loss of habitat from 

various forms of human development, secondary lead poisoning through ingestion of game birds 

(doves and quail), electrocution by improperly designed electrical transmission lines, and human 

disturbance in breeding areas, although falcons appear to be tolerant to some disturbance.

Sonora Tiger Salamander 

Status – The Sonora tiger salamander was listed as endangered in January 1997 (USFWS 1997) 

without critical habitat. A recovery plan for this species was released in October 2002 (USFWS 

2002c).

Distribution – Based on collections and observations of salamanders, and the distribution of plains 

grassland and adjacent Madrean evergreen woodlands (Brown 1994) in which the salamander has 

been found, the range of the subspecies and its occupied and potentially occupied habitat is thought to 

extend from the crest of the Huachuca Mountains west to the crest of the Patagonia Mountains, 

including the San Rafael Valley and adjacent foothills from its origins in Sonora north to the Canelo 

Hills.

All confirmed historic and extant aquatic populations are found in tanks, ponds, or impounded 

cienegas within 31 kilometers (19 miles) of Lochiel, Arizona. This region lies between the Patagonia 

and Huachuca Mountains, is bordered on the north end by the Canelo Hills, and stretches from Santa 

Cruz County in Arizona south into Sonora, Mexico. Cattle ponds or tanks are the primary habitat for 

Sonora tiger salamanders, but there are several observations of unidentified salamanders away from 

cattle ponds. Periodic surveys have been conducted on public lands throughout the Arizona portion of 

the San Rafael Valley from 1979 to 2007. 

A single terrestrial Sonora tiger salamander was found near Oak Spring in Copper Canyon of the 

Huachuca Mountains (USFWS 1997). Tiger salamanders have also been reported from a cave, a 

vertical mining shaft at the northwestern edge of the San Rafael Valley, and one spring-fed well, 

which have yet to be confirmed (Ziemba et al. 1998). In the past, salamanders were collected from a 

cienega at Rancho Los Fresnos in the San Rafael Valley, Sonora, and they were likely A. m. stebbinsi. 

However, surveys during 2006 and 2007 failed to locate additional salamanders, and most waters on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

234

the ranch were occupied by nonnative bullfrogs, crayfish, green sunfish, black bullhead, or some 

combination of those species (USFWS 2009).

More data are needed to make definitive statements about the long-term viability of Sonora tiger 

salamanders in the San Rafael Valley. About half of the 58 Sonora tiger salamander populations have 

been discovered in the last 5 years, and only in the last 5 years were ponds with salamanders sampled 

consistently, making it difficult to determine long-term trends in the proportion of ponds occupied by 

salamanders and suitability of those ponds for salamander breeding habitat. Also, more data on the 

ecology of Sonora tiger salamanders (lifespan, proportion of adults breeding each year, frequency and 

distance of dispersal events) are required to develop a suitable population viability analysis.

Habitat – Historically, the Sonora tiger salamander probably inhabited springs, cienegas, and possibly 

backwater pools of the Santa Cruz River and streams in the San Rafael Valley where permanent or 

nearly permanent water allowed survival of mature branchiates. Erosion and arroyo cutting in the late 

19th and early 20th centuries caused the San Rafael Valley to dry and natural standing water habitats 

to disappear (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Hadley and Sheridan 1995). The Sonora tiger 

salamanders are no longer found in these rare habitats. Arizona Game and Fish Department (1993) 

estimated that up to 90 percent of the riparian habitat along Arizona’s major desert watercourses has 

been lost, degraded, or altered. The Sonora tiger salamander apparently has opportunistically taken 

advantage of available stock tank habitats as natural habitats disappeared (Hendrickson and Minckley 

1984) or were invaded by nonnative predators with which the salamander cannot coexist (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2002a).

The most important habitat requirement for Sonora tiger salamanders is the availability of standing 

water for breeding from January through June. This gives the salamanders enough time to breed, grow 

as larvae, and metamorphose before the pond dries. Permanent bodies of water can be good breeding 

sites, except they often contain introduced fish and bullfrogs (Snyder 1998). As a result, ponds created 

by ranchers for watering their cattle are now almost the only suitable breeding sites remaining. 

However, there are still areas, such as Scotia Canyon in the Huachuca Mountains, that may be suitable 

breeding sites.

Risk Factors – The restricted distribution of Sonora tiger salamanders makes them vulnerable to 

relatively small-scale environmental disturbances and land use changes. The primary threats to the 

Sonora tiger salamander include predation by nonnative fish and bullfrogs, diseases, catastrophic 

floods and drought, illegal collecting, introduction of other subspecies of salamanders that could 

genetically swamp A. m. stebbinsi populations, and stochastic extirpations or extinction characteristic 

of small populations (USFWS 2009).

Currently, Sonora tiger salamanders breed almost exclusively in these cattle ponds. The fact that 

Sonora tiger salamanders breed in human-constructed cattle ponds instead of natural habitats does not 

necessarily threaten persistence of the taxon. Sonora tiger salamanders have successfully bred in cattle 

ponds for decades, but salamanders are now dependent on humans to maintain the habitat. In 

particular, cattle ponds require occasional re-excavation because they fill in with silt, and pond dams 

also require occasional maintenance. Unfortunately, the maintenance required to maintain these ponds 

also adversely affects the Sonora tiger salamander. Cattle pond habitats are also vulnerable to extreme 

weather conditions. Long-term drought could dry many of the ponds, and if ponds remained dry for 

several years, lack of breeding could lead to local extirpation of the salamander population.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Status – The Chiricahua leopard frog was listed as endangered in June 2002 (USFWS 2002b), 

and critical habitat was designated in March 2012 (USFWS 2012e). A recovery plan for this 

species was drafted in April 2006 (USFWS 2006) and finalized in April 2007 (USFWS 2007).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

235

Distribution – The Coronado National Forest occurs in three recovery units identified in the 

Chiricahua leopard frog recovery plan. In recovery unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, 

Arizona and Mexico), there are several populations or metapopulations on the Coronado. Sycamore 

Canyon is the only significant site with moving water in recovery unit 1 to support breeding 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. Most other sites are livestock tanks or impounded springs. 

Recovery unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico) also hosts several 

population sites on the Coronado National Forest. The Florida Canyon site was augmented with frogs 

from elsewhere in the Santa Rita Mountains in 2009. The site was enhanced in 2010 with the addition 

of a steel tank for breeding. The eastern slope of the Santa Rita Mountains is another population site 

that includes two metal troughs in Louisiana Gulch, Greaterville Tank, Los Posos Gulch Tank, and 

Granite Mountain Tank complex. The Granite Mountain Tank complex includes two impoundments 

and a well. All but Los Posos Gulch Tank are currently occupied breeding sites. 

Recovery unit 3 (Chiricahua Mountains-Malpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre, Arizona, New Mexico, and 

Mexico) includes the Chiricahua Mountains and its aquatic habitats where Chiricahua leopard frog 

populations occur or have occurred in Ash Creek and the Peloncillo Mountains and its aquatic habitats 

where Chiricahua leopard frog populations occur or have occurred in Geronimo, Javelina, State Line, 

and Canoncito Ranch Tanks; Maverick Spring; and pools or ponds in the Cloverdale Cienega and 

along Cloverdale Creek below Canoncito Ranch Tank. Breeding occurs in State Line and Canoncito 

Ranch Tanks, and possibly other aquatic sites. 

In recovery unit 4 (Pinaleño-Galiuro-Dragoon Mountains, Arizona) a few Chiricahua leopard frog 

populations are in the Galiuro Mountains (Deer Creek and High/Ash Creek) and the Dragoon 

Mountains with existing populations at Shaw Tank, Tunnel Spring, and Halfmoon. 

Habitat – The Chiricahua leopard frog is an inhabitant of montane and river valley cienegas, springs, 

pools, cattle (stock) tanks, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers. The species requires permanent or 

class-permanent pools for breeding and water characterized by low levels of contaminants and 

moderate pH. Prior to the invasion of perennial waters by predatory, nonnative species (American 

bullfrog, crayfish, fish species), the frog was historically found in a variety of aquatic habitat types. 

Today, leopard frogs in the Southwest are so strongly impacted by harmful nonnative species, which 

are most prevalent in perennial waters, that their occupied niche is increasingly restricted to the 

uncommon environments that do not contain these nonnative predators, and these now tend to be 

ephemeral and unpredictable. This increasingly narrow realized niche is a primary reason for the 

threatened status of the Chiricahua leopard frog (USFWS 2012).

Designated Critical Habitat within the Coronado National Forest – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service designated critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog on April 19, 2012. Approximately

263acres and 54 stream miles were designated on the Coronado in 13 separate units. Activities on the 

Coronado that may warrant special management for the Chiricahua leopard frog include, but are not 

limited to, introduction of predators, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, sportfishes, and barred tiger 

salamanders; introduction or spread of chytridiomycosis; recreational activities; livestock grazing; 

water diversions and development; construction and maintenance of roads and utility corridors; fire 

suppression, fuels management, and prescribed fire; and various types of development. The areas of 

designated critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog, grouped by recovery unit, are listed below:

Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, Arizona and Mexico)

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 4 (Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks). This unit 

includes 201 acres of Coronado National Forest lands in the Pajarito and Atascosa 

Mountains. In this unit, bullfrogs are a continuing threat.

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 5 (Sycamore Canyon). This unit includes 262 acres of Coronado 

National Forest land and 7 acres of private lands along Atascosa Canyon through Bear 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

236

Valley Ranch in the Pajarito and Atascosa Mountains. Sycamore Canyon is designated a 

research natural area and is closed to livestock grazing. Critical habitat is designated for the 

Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia) in Sycamore Canyon. Much of this unit also lies within the 

Pajarita Wilderness area. Bullfrogs have been a continuing problem in this unit; other 

threats are sedimentation and erosion upstream, illegal border activity, and trampling. 

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 6 (Pena Blanca Lake/Spring and Associated Tanks). This unit 

includes 202 acres and is all on National Forest System lands. There is a continuing threat 

of reinvasion or introduction of bullfrogs.

Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico)

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 7 (Florida Canyon). This unit includes 4 acres and is all on 

National Forest System lands in the Santa Rita Mountains. Water is a limiting factor in this 

system, particularly during drought.

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 8 (Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains). This unit includes 

172 acres of National Forest System lands and 14 acres of private lands in the Greaterville 

area. Surface water is a primary limiting factor in this unit. 

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 11 (Scotia Canyon). This unit includes 70 acres in Scotia Canyon, 

Huachuca Mountain. Bullfrog reinvasion is a significant, continuing threat. The proposed 

critical habitat designation for the Chiricahua leopard frog largely overlaps that of critical 

habitat for the endangered plant Huachuca water-umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. 

recurva). 

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 13 (Carr Barn Pond). This unit includes 0.6 acre of National Forest 

System lands in the Huachuca Mountains. The population has been eliminated after 

chytridiomycosis die-offs three times; twice the population has subsequently been 

reestablished through translocations. Largemouth bass have been introduced illegally into 

the pond and then removed, and bullfrogs periodically invade the site.

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 14 (Ramsey and Brown Canyons). This unit includes 44 acres of 

private lands in Ramsey Canyon and 58 acres of Coronado National Forest in Brown and 

Ramsey Canyons, Huachuca Mountains. The populations tend to experience epizootic 

chytridiomycosis outbreaks followed by declines or extirpation. Additional threats in this 

unit include nonnative species, drying, sedimentation, and fire.

Recovery Unit 3 (Chiricahua Mountains-Malpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre, Arizona, 

New Mexico, and Mexico)

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 16 (Peloncillo Mountains). This unit includes 366 acres of National 

Forest System lands. Periodic drought dries most of the aquatic sites completely or to small 

pools, which limits population growth potential.

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 17 (Cave Creek). This unit includes 234 acres of National Forest 

System lands. Scarcity of water can occur in drought years.

Recovery Unit 4 (Pinaleño-Galiuro-Dragoon Mountains, Arizona)

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 20 (Deer Creek). This unit consists of 17 acres of Coronado 

National Forest, 69 acres of Arizona State Land Department lands, and 34 acres of private 

lands in the Galiuro Mountains. The primary threat to Chiricahua leopard frogs and their 

habitats in this unit is periodic drought that results in breeding sites drying out. 

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 21 (Oak Spring and Oak Creek). This unit consists of 27 acres of 

National Forest System lands in the Galiuro Mountains. The primary threat in this unit is 

extended drought during which all of the pools are subject to reduction or drying.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

237

♦ Critical Habitat Unit 22 (Dragoon Mountains). This unit includes 74 acres of National 

Forest System lands. Threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat are primarily 

scarcity of suitable breeding habitat and loss of that habitat during drought.

Risk Factors – The primary threats to this species are predation by nonnative organisms and die-offs 

caused by a fungal skin disease chytridiomycosis. Additional threats include drought, floods, 

degradation and loss of habitat as a result of water diversions and groundwater pumping, poor 

livestock management, altered fire regimes, mining, development, and other human activities; 

disruption of metapopulation dynamics, resulting from an increased chance of extirpation or extinction 

resulting from small numbers of populations and individuals, and environmental contamination 

(USFWS 2007, 2012e).

New Mexico Ridge-nosed Rattlesnake

Status – The New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake was listed as threatened in August 1978 with 

critical habitat (USFWS 1978); however, no critical habitat was designated on the Coronado National 

Forest. A recovery plan for this species was developed in March 1985 (USFWS 1985).

Distribution – In New Mexico, the ridge-nosed rattlesnake is found only in the Animas and 

Peloncillo Mountains of Hidalgo County at elevations above 1,680 meters (5,000 feet). The 

subspecies also occurs in the Peloncillo Mountains of Arizona. Populations also exist in the Sierra de 

San Luis in northwestern Chihuahua/northeastern Sonora, Mexico (USFWS 2002a). The area 

occupied by this species in the Peloncillo Mountains on the Douglas Ranger District of the Coronado 

National Forest is approximately 1,128,739 acres. Within the Peloncillo Mountains, a total of 27 New 

Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake have been found in 13 general areas (USFWS 2011). The relatively 

low number (27 snakes) may be attributed to the difficulty in locating this subspecies in the Peloncillo 

Mountains. To date, there have been no effective methods developed for surveying the New Mexico 

ridge-nosed rattlesnake. Multiple lines of evidence suggest an exceptionally small population occurs 

in the Peloncillo Mountains, and the Peloncillo population tested positive for genetic bottlenecks in 

several statistical tests (USDA FS 2011).

Habitat – Found among rocks, bunchgrass, and leaf litter in steep rocky canyons in Madrean 

evergreen woodland and Petran montane conifer forests at elevations ranging from 5,000 to 8,500 

feet) (USFWS no date).

Risk Factors – Some of the primary threats to the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake include highseverity wildfires, illegal collection, prescribed fires, excessive erosion and sedimentation into talus 

slides, some recreational activities, and use of pesticides that may impact the forage base for this 

species. New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnakes occur in three, small disjunct populations, so its 

viability is sensitive to natural events, habitat destruction or modification, and collection. Natural 

threats to the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake include predation, starvation, and disease. While 

disease is not known to limit wild populations of this species, the highly disjunct range of this 

subspecies increases its vulnerability to extinction due to disease and habitat loss (USDA FS 2015).

The largest threat to the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake is loss of habitat. The Animas 

Mountains in New Mexico are privately owned, and access to this range of the ridge-nosed rattlesnake 

is strictly controlled. However, most of the rattlesnake habitat in the Peloncillo Mountains is managed 

by the Coronado National Forest and BLM and, thus, open to public use. The Peloncillo Mountains 

are more accessible than the Animas or San Luis ranges, making illegal collection and other human 

activities more likely. Activities that may affect the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake in the 

Peloncillos include planned fire ignitions, wildfire, illegal collection, cattle grazing, commercial 

beargrass harvesting, excessive erosion and sedimentation into talus slides, some recreational 

activities, and use of pesticides that may impact the forage base for this species (USDA FS 2011).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

238

Northern Mexican Gartersnake

Status – On July 10, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list northern Mexican 

gartersnake as threatened and concurrently proposed to designate critical habitat (USFWS 2013a, 

2013c). On July 7, 2104, the USFWS determined that threatened species status is warranted for this 

species in Arizona and New Mexico (effective August 7, 2014) (USFWS 2014d).

Distribution – In the United States, the northern Mexican gartersnake historically occurred 

predominantly in Arizona at elevations ranging from 40 to 1,875 meters (130 to 6,150 feet). It was

generally found where water was relatively permanent and supported suitable habitat. The northern 

Mexican gartersnake historically occurred in every county within Arizona, within several perennial or 

intermittent drainages and lentic (still, nonflowing water) wetlands (USFWS 2012g). Current or 

potentially occupied habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake occurs on Federal (65 percent), 

tribal (15 percent), State (10 percent), county (5 percent), and private lands (5 percent). 

Approximately 30 percent of occupied or potentially occupied habitat occurs on the Coronado 

National Forest. 

On the Coronado, Scotia Canyon was the last area intensively resurveyed by Rosen et al. (as cited in 

USFWS 2012g). In 2008, a multiparty effort was initiated within Scotia Canyon, including the 

Peterson Ranch Pond and vicinity, to eradicate bullfrogs as well as record observations of Chiricahua 

leopard frogs or northern Mexican gartersnakes. After many surveys of herpetofauna in this area to 

identify the presence of bullfrogs for eradication, a single, large adult northern Mexican gartersnake

was observed, the first in over 8 years of informal surveys at this site (USFWS 2012g). This 

observation suggests that the species continues to occur in the upper Scotia Canyon area but, given the 

extensive survey effort, it occurs in exceptionally low densities and no longer represents a stable 

population because of problems with reproduction and survivorship that exist with populations 

comprised of very low numbers of individuals.

Habitat – Throughout its rangewide distribution, the northern Mexican gartersnake occurs at 

elevations from 40 to 2,590 meters (130 to 8,497 feet) (USFWS 2012g). The northern Mexican 

gartersnake is a riparian obligate (restricted to riparian areas when not engaged in dispersal behavior) 

and occurs chiefly in the following general habitat types: (1) Source area wetlands (for example, 

cienegas) and stock tanks (small earthen impoundments); (2) large river riparian woodlands and 

forests; and (3) streamside gallery forests defined by well-developed broadleaf deciduous riparian 

forests with limited, if any, herbaceous ground cover or dense grass (USFWS 2012g). 

Cienegas are particularly important habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake and are considered 

ideal for the species (USFWS 2012g). Hendrickson and Minckley (as cited in USFWS 2012g) defined 

cienegas as “mid-elevation (3,281 to 6,562 feet (1,000 to 2,000 meters)) wetlands characterized by 

permanently saturated, highly organic, reducing (lowering of oxygen level) soils.” Many of these 

unique communities of the southwestern United States, Arizona in particular, and Mexico have been 

lost in the past century to streambed modification, improper livestock grazing, woodcutting, artificial 

drainage structures, streamflow stabilization by upstream dams, channelization, and streamflow 

reduction from groundwater pumping and water diversions (USFWS 2012g). 

Proposed Critical Habitat Within the Coronado National Forest – On July 10, 2013, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the northern Mexican gartersnake 

(USFWS 2013a). The proposed critical habitat occurs in 14 subunits and totals approximately 421,423 

acres in Greenlee, Graham, Apache, La Paz, Mohave, Yavapai, Navajo, Gila, Coconino, Cochise, 

Santa Cruz, Pima, and Pinal Counties in Arizona and Grant and Catron Counties, New Mexico. 

Approximately 93,585 acres of critical habitat on the Coronado is proposed for this species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

239

Primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of northern Mexican gartersnakes in areas 

occupied at the time of listing have been identified and include the following (USFWS 2013a):

1. aquatic or riparian habitat

2. adequate terrestrial space adjacent to designated stream systems with sufficient structural 

characteristics to support life-history functions such as gestation

3. a prey base consisting of viable populations of native amphibian and native fish species

4. an absence of nonnative fish species of the families Centrarchidae and Ictaluridae, bullfrogs 

(Lithobates catesbeianus), and/or crayfish (Orconectes virilis, Procambarus clarkii, etc.), or 

occurrence of these nonnative species at low enough levels such that recruitment of northern 

Mexican gartersnakes and maintenance of viable native fish or soft-rayed, nonnative fish 

populations (prey) is still occurring

Risk Factors – The most significant threat to the northern Mexican gartersnake is the presence of 

harmful nonnative species because nonnative prey directly upon gartersnakes and compete with them 

for prey (USFWS 2014d). Declines in gartersnake prey base (native amphibians and fish populations)

from disease and nonnative predators and parasites have led to subsequent declines in the distribution 

and density of gartersnake populations. Finally, the destruction and modification of northern Mexican 

gartersnake habitat continues to threaten the species (USFWS 2008c, 2014d). Habitat destruction and 

modification have resulted from dams, water diversions, groundwater pumping, woodcutting, 

recreation, mining, contaminants, urban and agricultural development, road construction, improper 

livestock grazing, wildfires, and undocumented immigration. The above-listed threats have resulted in 

the fragmentation of northern Mexican gartersnake populations and associated genetic impacts. Low 

birth rates relative to other gartersnakes may have negative implications for the species’ ability to 

rebound in isolated populations.

Gila Chub

Status – The Gila chub was listed as endangered with critical habitat on November 2, 2005 (USFWS 

2005). In October 2015, a draft recovery plan for the species was released (USFWS 2015b). A 

recovery plan for this species was drafted in October 20015 (USFWS 2015b). 

Distribution – Overall, the populations of Gila chub rangewide (Arizona and New Mexico) currently 

appear to be stable. Six populations of Gila chub are present in two Ecosystem Management Areas on 

the Coronado National Forest: Bear Creek, Romero Creek, and Sabino Creek (Santa Catalina 

Ecosystem Management Area) and O’Donnell Creek, Post Canyon, and Turkey Creek (Huachuca 

Ecosystem Management Area). Within the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area, all are part of one 

population estimated at fewer than 500 adults (USFWS 2015b). In 2005 all Gila chub populations on 

the Forest were considered unstable and threatened (i.e., the species is rare, has limited distribution, 

predatory or competitive nonnatives are present, or the habitat is modified or threatened in these three 

streams) (USFWS 2005). During 2005, Gila chub were repatriated in Sabino Creek and introduced to 

Romero and Bear Creeks. The Forest assisted with introductions, on private property, in the Canelo 

Hills. During 2008, Emergency flood repairs to Sabino Canyon resulted in short-term effects to 

habitat, but appear to have resulted in additional stability for habitats over the long term. Aquatic 

surveys conducted in 2014 by the University of Arizona and Arizona Game and Fish Department 

confirmed the stability of the Gila chub population in Sabino Creek, as well as the absence of 

nonnative species (USDA FS 2015).

Habitat – Gila chub commonly inhabit pools in smaller streams, springs, and cienegas, and can 

survive in small artificial impoundments (Miller 1946, Rinne 1975, Weedman et al. 1996, Minckley 

and March 2009). Gila chub are highly secretive, preferring quiet, deeper waters, especially pools, or 

remaining near cover including terrestrial vegetation, boulders, and fallen logs (Rinne and Minckley 

1991, Carman 2006, Minckley and March 2009). Undercut banks created by overhanging terrestrial 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

240

vegetation with dense roots growing into pool edges provide ideal cover (Nelson 1993). Native fish 

found in Gila chub habitat include Sonora sucker (Catostomus insignis), longfin dace (Agosia 

chrysogaster), and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) (USDA FS 2011). 

Designated Critical Habitat Within the Coronado National Forest –Approximately 8.7 stream 

miles of critical habitat were designated on the Coronado. On the Coronado National Forest and 

adjacent Bureau of Land Management and private lands, three streams reaches are designated:

• Sabino Canyon: 6.9 miles of creek extending from the southern boundary of the Coronado 

National Forest upstream to its confluence with the West Fork of Sabino Canyon. 

• O’Donnell Canyon: 6.2 miles of creek extending from its confluence with Turkey Creek 

upstream to the confluences of Western, Middle, and Pauline Canyons. Land ownership includes 

private, the BLM, and the Coronado National Forest. 

• Turkey Creek: 3.9 miles of creek extending from its confluence with O’Donnell Canyon 

upstream to where Turkey Creek crosses Arizona Highway 83. Land ownership includes private 

lands and the Coronado National Forest.

Risk Factors – Decline of Gila chub is primarily due to habitat loss from various land use practices 

and predation and competition from nonnative fish species, and the highly fragmented and 

disconnected nature of the remaining Gila chub populations increases their vulnerability to these 

threats (USFWS 2005a). Land uses that have caused past habitat loss and continue to threaten Gila 

chub habitat are hydrologic modification of rivers, springs, and cienegas for human uses (groundwater 

pumping, dewatering, diversion of water channels, impoundments, and flow regulation); poorly 

managed livestock grazing; logging and fuelwood cutting; road construction and use; recreation; 

mining; and urban and agricultural development (USFWS 2005a). All of these activities have 

promoted erosion and arroyo formation and the introduction of predaceous and competing nonnative 

fish species (Miller 1961, Minckley 1985), and at least one, or some combination, of these activities is 

occurring in all of the remaining populations. Wildfires and wildfire suppression activities also pose a 

threat to the remaining populations by causing water quality changes that can kill fish (Rinne 2004, 

USFWS 2005a, Rhodes 2007) negatively altering food base for fishes (Earl and Blinn 2003), and 

resulting in stream and riparian vegetation alteration that negatively affects fish habitat (USFWS 

2005a).

Perhaps the most serious threat to Gila chub is predation by, and competition with, nonnative 

organisms, including numerous nonnative fish species, bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana), and virile 

crayfish (Orconectes virilis). Dudley and Matter (2000) correlated green sunfish presence with Gila 

chub decline, documented green sunfish predation on Gila chub, and found that even small green 

sunfish readily consume young-of-year Gila chub. Unmack et al. (2003) similarly found that green 

sunfish presence was correlated with the absence of young-of-year Gila chub in Silver Creek, Arizona. 

Nonnative fish parasites, such as Asian tapeworm (Bothriocephalus acheilognathi), also may be a 

threat to Gila chub (USFWS 2005a). 

Several climate-related trends have been detected since the 1970s in the southwestern U.S. including 

increases in surface temperatures, rainfall intensity, drought, heat waves, extreme high temperatures, 

and average low temperatures (Lenart 2007).

Yaqui Chub

Status – The Yaqui chub was listed as endangered with critical habitat in August 1984 (USFWS 

1984); however, no critical habitat was designated on the Coronado National Forest. A Rio Yaqui 

Fishes Recovery Plan, which included the Yaqui chub, was completed in March 1995 (USFWS 1995).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

241

Distribution – The historic range of Yaqui chub includes the western Rio Yaqui basin, which drains 

western Sonora and portions of eastern Chihuahua in Mexico and the San Bernardino Valley in 

southeastern Arizona, U.S. (Minckley 1980, Minckley and Brown 1994). 

Historical distribution of Yaqui chub included West Turkey Creek in the Chiricahua Mountains and 

Sulphur Springs Valley, which drains into West Turkey Creek; both are in the Coronado National 

Forest. Reintroductions into West Turkey Creek have taken place in recent years; however, the habitat 

on the Coronado is ephemeral, and no fish have been found in follow-up monitoring.

The Coronado National Forest completed three surveys in 2007, and six surveys in 2008, both on and 

off the Coronado. Private land below the Coronado has an extant population. However, no Yaqui chub 

have been found in West Turkey Creek on the Coronado since 2003. The probable reason for the loss 

of this population is most likely drought (USDA FS 2008). Pool habitats within the Coronado 

National Forest have likely diminished in quantity and quality due to drought and sediment flows 

following wildfires.

In 2009, three sites on West Turkey Creek within the Coronado National Forest boundary were 

surveyed, but no fish were found due to low water levels. Habitats on the Coronado are ephemeral, but 

healthy populations persist in private ponds and in perennial stream reaches at El Coronado Ranch 

downstream of the Forest Service monitoring sites. Riparian areas are largely ungrazed and in good 

condition (USDA FS 2010).

There are no known populations of Yaqui chub within the Coronado National Forest boundaries. 

However, the species does persist in private ponds and perennial reaches of West Turkey Creek on the 

El Coronado Ranch (USDA FS 2004), which borders the west boundary of the Chiricahua Mountains 

unit of the Douglas Ranger District. The ponds on the El Coronado Ranch are in the Upper Turkey 

Creek watershed.

Habitat – Adult Yaqui chub live in deep freshwater pools in creeks, scoured areas of cienegas, and 

other stream associated quiet waters. They seek cover in daylight, especially under undercut banks and 

in areas of accumulated debris often associated with higher aquatic plants (Lee et al. 1980). 

Risk Factors – Temperature is a key factor defining the gradients of performance and the absolute 

bounds of life for most aquatic organisms. It also affects rates of growth and timing of key life history 

events or transitions (Rieman and Isaak 2010). Increased temperature may also lead to an increase in 

water temperature, which would allow other warmwater fishes (native and nonnative) to expand their 

range into the limited habitat occupied by Yaqui chub. Threats also include habitat destruction and 

modification and interactions with introduced fish species (USDA FS 2015).

Yaqui Catfish

Status – The Yaqui catfish was listed as threatened with critical habitat in August 1984 (USFWS 

1984); however, no critical habitat was designated on the Coronado National Forest. A Rio Yaqui 

Fishes Recovery Plan, which included the Yaqui catfish, was completed in March 1995 (USFWS 

1995).

Distribution – There are no known populations of Yaqui catfish on the Coronado; however, the 

species was released in ponds on the El Coronado Ranch in 1997 (USFWS 2010c), which borders the 

west boundary of the Chiricahua Mountains unit of the Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area. The 

ponds on the El Coronado Ranch are in the West Turkey Creek watershed. The species also occurs on 

the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge located approximately 13 miles southwest of the 

Peloncillo Mountains unit of the Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area (B. Radke, personal 

communication, September 26, 2016) in the Upper San Bernardino Valley watershed.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

242

Habitat – This species inhabits moderate to large streams in areas of medium to slow current over 

sand/rock bottom at elevations ranging between 4,000 to 5,000 feet (1,219 to 1,425 meters) (USFWS

2010c).

Risk Factors – Since the 19th century, habitat of the Yaqui catfish has been steadily destroyed by 

stream bank erosion, construction of water impoundments that dewatered downstream habitat, 

excessive groundwater pumping, hybridization with channel catfish, and introduction of 

nonindigenous fish (USFWS 1984). The effects of climate change (decreased precipitation and water 

resources and increased evapotranspiration) are also a threat to this species.

Gila Topminnow

Status – The Gila topminnow was listed as endangered in 1967 without critical habitat (USFWS 

1967); however, no critical habitat was designated on the Coronado National Forest. A recovery plan 

for Gila topminnow was prepared in 1982 (USFWS 1984a) and revised in 1998 (Weedman 1998); no 

recovery units or management areas were developed within this recovery plan.

Distribution – Historically, Gila topminnow were documented throughout Redrock Canyon since 

1978 (USFWS 2008). The status of the Redrock Canyon Gila topminnow population has declined 

recently, and the species has not been documented since 2005. Although range and riparian conditions 

have largely improved, the area has been in drought since 1995, and the resulting reductions in habitat 

as stream channels have dried and perennial habitat has been reduced in extent, along with increases in 

nonnative species, primarily mosquitofish, have apparently extirpated the Gila topminnow from the 

drainage.

This species is currently known to occur in four drainages, in two ecosystem management areas on the 

Coronado. In 2015, in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Gila topminnow 

were reintroduced into Sabino Canyon in the Santa Catalina Ecosystem Management Area. In 

addition, they have been documented in O’Donnell, Redrock, and Parker Canyons in the Huachuca 

Ecosystem Management Area. In the fall of 2015, a new occurrence of Gila topminnow was 

discovered in lower Parker Canyon, roughly four miles below Parker Canyon Lake. Genetic analysis 

is being conducted on individuals recovered from the site to determine the source population. 

The reestablishment history of Gila topminnow illustrates that even sites that were thought to be 

secure may fail for various reasons. Gila topminnow on Federal lands is widely dispersed and in some 

cases vulnerable to events beyond the respective land management agencies’ control. Such actions 

would include invasions or unauthorized introductions of nonnative fishes and stochastic events such 

as floods.

Habitat – The Gila topminnow is an inhabitant of vegetated springs, brooks, and margins and 

backwaters of larger bodies of water. It prefers shallow, warm, fairly quiet waters but also can be 

found in moderate currents and depths up to 1 meter, in permanent and intermittent streams, and 

marshes. Its preferred habitat has dense mats of algae and debris (usually along stream margins or 

below riffles) and sandy substrate sometimes covered with mud and debris (NatureServe 2012).

Risk Factors – Threats include habitat loss and predation by introduced mosquitofish. Habitat 

destruction and introduction of nonnative species are the primary reasons for reductions in Gila 

topminnow populations. Current land use practices such as improper livestock grazing, mining, timber 

harvesting, road maintenance, and recreation pose major threats to habitat as well as existing and 

future populations. Additionally, population growth and development continue to affect potential 

recovery of the species through increased groundwater pumping and diversions to supply the growing 

populations, stream and river channelization, and increased water pollution (Weedman 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

243

Sonora Chub

Status – The Sonora chub was listed as threatened with critical habitat in April 1986 (USFWS 

1986c.). A recovery plan was completed in 1992 (USFWS 1992).

Distribution – The Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia) is endemic to streams of the Rio del la Concepcion 

drainage of Sonora, Mexico, and Arizona. In May 2006, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff 

confirmed the continued presence of Sonora chub in the headwaters of the Río Cocóspera at Rancho el 

Aribabi in Sonora, but the current status in Mexico is unknown. All waters occupied by Sonora Chub 

in the U.S. are in the Coronado National Forest and about one-half of the drainage is in Pajarita 

Wilderness and Goodding Research Natural Area (USFWS 2005). The Coronado National Forest 

contains 6 miles of habitat occupied by Sonora chub. Various agency staff (Forest Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and other entities) have reliably detected Sonora chub, though the upstream 

limits of the species’ occurrence in California Gulch appear to be variable based on the presence of 

nonnative fish—largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in particular (USFWS 2010e).

Habitat – Habitat characteristics important to Sonora chub include clean permanent water with pools 

and intermediate riffle areas and/or intermittent pools maintained by bedrock or by subsurface flow in 

areas shaded by canyon walls (USFWS 2005). In Sycamore Creek, Sonora chub are found in the 

largest, deepest, most permanent pools (Carpenter 1982). Analysis of habitat use by Sonora chub 

showed this species preferring deep pools and some amount of floating cover (USFWS 1992). 

It should be noted also that there is a safety concern associated with surveying for this species. The 

canyons where it occurs (Sycamore and California Gulch/Warsaw Canyon) are known routes for drug 

traffickers and undeclared aliens; therefore, border security issues make it difficult to monitor Sonora 

Chub populations. As a result, population surveys are only conducted in a major pool in the upper end 

of the canyon. These drainages are negatively impacted by the presence of nonnatives, including green 

sunfish and bullfrogs, although Sonora chub persists in good numbers in Sycamore Canyon, despite 

the presence of a large population of bullfrogs. Surveys conducted in 2005, 2006, and 2009 indicate 

that there was no known net loss of populations detected during the reporting period, nor a reduction 

of pool or spring habitat (USDA FS 2008, 2010).

Designated Critical Habitat Within the Coronado National Forest – Critical habitat includes 

Sycamore Creek, extending downstream from and including Yank Spring, to the International border

(USFWS 1986c). The lower 1.2 miles of Penasco Creek and the lower 0.25 mile of an unnamed 

stream entering Sycamore Creek from the west, about 1.5 miles downstream from Yank Spring, were 

also designated. In addition, critical habitat includes a 25-foot-wide riparian area along each side of 

Sycamore and Penasco Creeks. Known primary constituent elements include pools of clean, 

permanent water with intermediate riffle areas or intermittent pools held by bedrock or maintained by 

subsurface flow where pools are often shaded by canyon walls. On the Coronado, approximately 6.5 

miles of critical habitat are designated, including the following areas:

1. Sycamore Creek and a riparian zone 25-feet wide along each side of the creek from Yank’s 

Spring downstream approximately 5 stream miles to the international border with Mexico; 

2. Yank’s Spring; 

3. Penasco Creek, including a riparian zone 25-feet wide along each side of the creek from the 

confluence with Sycamore Creek; and 

4. An unnamed tributary to Sycamore Creek, from its confluence with Sycamore Creek.

Risk Factors – The limited distribution of Sonora chub in the U.S. places inordinate importance on 

the quality of habitat in Sycamore Creek (USFWS 1992) and California Gulch. The Sycamore 

drainage has been highly modified by human activities, including grazing, mining, recreation, and the 

introduction of exotic taxa. It regularly sustains large floods and severe droughts. A series of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

244

environmental perturbations made worse by degraded watershed conditions could cumulatively result 

in extirpation of the species from the U.S.

Sycamore Creek is at the edge of the range of the species, is isolated from other populations of Sonora 

chub, and has marginal habitat (Hendrickson and Juarez-Romero 1990). Channel degradation, 

siltation, and water pollution caused primarily by livestock grazing, roads, and mining have probably 

affected the habitat of Sonora chub. Cattle regularly gain access to Sycamore Canyon through an 

unmaintained section of fence along the international border (USFWS 1999) and degrade the riparian 

vegetation in the lower 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles) of the stream (Carpenter 1982). In 1981, exploration 

for uranium occurred along an approximate 12-kilometer stretch of the upper eastern slopes of the 

Sycamore drainage. According to the 1992 recovery plan for the Sonora chub, uranium was found and 

claims are being maintained; however, no active mining was planned at that time.

Native fishes appear adept at maintaining populations during severe conditions so long as their 

habitats are unaltered (Minckley and Meffe 1987). Thus, a single catastrophic event, such as severe 

flood, fire, or drought, is unlikely to eliminate Sonora chub from the U.S.

Predation by nonnative vertebrates is also a threat to populations of Sonora chub. Green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus) is a known predator on native fishes in Arizona (Minkley 1973) and has been 

found in Sycamore Creek below the entrance of Penasco Canyon (Brooks 1982). 

Intensified future droughts are anticipated in the American Southwest (Seager et al. 2007) with 

predictions that the region “...will dry in the 21st century and that the transition to a more arid climate 

should already be underway.” Weiss and Overpeck (2005) state that multiyear or decade-scale 

changes in precipitation will be difficult to forecast and will affect how ecosystems and watersheds 

function. These changes will be hard to predict and are likely to occur nonlinearly. Therefore, while it 

appears reasonable to assume that the species may be affected by climate change, there is a lack of 

certainty as to how climate change specifically will affect Sonora chub beyond loss, reduction, and 

degradation of habitat. There are no expectations of measurable changes in climate within the 

temporal bounds of this action.

Desert Pupfish

Status – The desert pupfish was listed as endangered with critical habitat in April 1986 (USFWS 

1986a.); however, no critical habitat was designated on the Coronado National Forest. A recovery plan 

was prepared in 1993 (USFWS 1993); no recovery units or management areas were developed within 

this recovery plan.

Distribution – Desert pupfish were once widely distributed in desert springs, marshes, backwaters, 

and tributaries through much of the lower Colorado and Gila Rivers, from southern Arizona to 

southeastern California and northern Sonora, Mexico. At present, it is restricted to three natural 

populations in California and irrigation drains around the Salton Sea, one natural population in 

Arizona, and in five restricted locations in Mexico. There are 16 transplanted populations in the wild 

and all in Arizona (USDA FS 2011). The one natural population in Arizona occurs in Quitobaquito 

Spring and pond in Pima County and reintroductions have been made in Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, 

Graham, Cochise, La Paz, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona (USFWS 2010).

Numerous captive and wild, reestablished populations currently exist. These populations have been 

established on private, municipal, county, state, and Federal lands, including the Aravaipa Creek 

watershed, Mud Springs on the Tonto National Forest, and on the Muleshoe Cooperative Management 

Area. In 2013, the Bureau of Land Management reintroduced desert pupfish into the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area in three locations (USFS 2016). Plans are also in progress to reestablish 

desert pupfish in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. Additional captive sites persist 

in southern Arizona, with a number of refuge ponds having recently been created under a Safe Harbor 

Agreement including a site on the Audubon Society Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch near the Sierra 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

245

Vista Ranger District. The species currently does not occur within the Coronado National Forest; 

however, additional efforts to establish populations may take place in the future and, as such, they are 

included in this analysis.

Habitat – Desert pupfish are found in shallow water of desert springs, small streams, and marshes 

below 1,515 meters (5,000 feet) elevation. The species tolerates high salinities and high water 

temperatures (USFWS 2010a).

Risk Factors –Since the 19th century, habitat of the desert pupfish complex has been steadily 

destroyed by stream bank erosion, construction of water impoundments that dewatered downstream 

habitat, excessive groundwater pumping, application of pesticides to nearby agricultural areas, and 

introduction of nonindigenous fish species (USFWS 1986a.). Nonnative bullfrogs may also prove 

problematic in the management of desert pupfish as they are opportunistic omnivores with a diet that 

includes fish (Clarkson and deVos Jr. 1986; Cohen and Howard 1958). The effects of climate change 

(decreased precipitation and water resources and increased evapotranspiration) are also a threat to this 

species.

Gila Trout

Status – The Gila trout was listed as threatened without critical habitat in July 2006 (USFWS 

2006c). A recovery plan was prepared in 1993 (USFWS 1993c) and was revised in 2003 

(USFWS 2003). The recovery team has operated under the standard that new populations be 

stocked a minimum of three times and that reproduction be confirmed in the stream prior to the 

population being considered viable and established.

Distribution –Gila trout occupy about 6.5 miles of their historical range in Arizona. Currently there 

are 17 populations of Gila trout in the wild: 4 relict populations that are secure and 13 established 

replicates. All wild Gila trout populations are currently located on National Forest System lands, with 

14 populations on Gila National Forest, 1 on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (Raspberry 

Creek), 1 on the Coronado National Forest (Frye Creek), and Grapevine Creek on the Prescott 

National Forest (USDA FS 2011).

Ash, Frye, Deadman, and Marijilda creeks are now considered within the historical range of Gila 

trout. Gila trout have been introduced into both Frye and Ash creeks: Frye Creek in the Pinaleño 

Mountains was stocked in October 2009 and again in February 2011, and 5 trout were introduced into 

Ash Creek in November 2011 (USDA FS 2015). The Fry Creek population is doing well, reproducing 

with two age classes present. The Coronado also continued planning efforts for establishment of Gila 

trout populations in additional streams in the Pinaleño Mountains. 

Habitat – Gila trout are found in small, high mountain streams at an elevation of approximately 1,524 

to 3,048 meters (5,000 to 10,000 feet). They feed on insects and occasionally small fish (USFWS 

2006b).

Risk Factors – Current limiting factors for Gila trout recovery include impacts of wildfire; continued 

impacts from predation, competition, and hybridization with nonnative trout; limited range of the 

species; and other habitat impacts. 

Authorized livestock use has decreased on the Coronado National Forest. The Coronado has 

restrictions on grazing in the vicinity of the current Apache trout populations in the Pinaleño 

Mountains. Those streams have been proposed to become Gila trout streams sometime in the future.

Other potential Gila trout recovery streams, now occupied by Apache trout, may have some risk from 

road systems. However, roads are limited on Mount Graham in the Pinaleño Mountains where these 

streams are located. New forestwide standards and guidelines under the Motorized Transportation 

System Program prohibits motor vehicle use (cross-country travel) off the designated system of roads, 

trails, and areas except as identified on motor vehicle use maps.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

246

Apache Trout

Status – The Apache trout was listed as threatened without critical habitat in July 1975 (USFWS 

1975). A recovery plan was prepared in 1983 (USFWS 1983) and revised in August 2009 (USFWS 

2009); no recovery units or management areas were developed within this recovery plan.

Distribution – Historical distribution of Apache trout is unclear. Once Apache trout were recognized 

as a species separate from Gila trout, their original distribution was described as the upper Salt River 

drainage and headwaters of Little Colorado River in Arizona above 5,900 feet in elevation (USDA FS 

2011). 

On the north side of the Pinaleño Mountains, four creeks (Ash, Frye, Deadman, and Marijilda) have at 

some point contained hybridized populations of Apache trout (USDA FS 2015). All the hybridized 

Apache trout have been chemically removed from Ash Creek. In 2004, post-fire flooding from the 

Nuttall Fire eliminated all of the hybridized Apache trout from Frye Creek, and most of the hybridized 

fish from Marijilda and Deadman creeks. The trout in these creeks, along with Grant Creek and Big 

Creek (a tributary of Grant Creek) on the south side, were evaluated for genetic purity in 1998 (Grant 

and Big creeks were retested in 2013). Only the population in Grant and Big Creeks were found to be 

genetically pure, so the effects analysis that follows is directed only toward the population in these 

two creeks. Grant and Big Creeks drain into the Willcox Playa, which is a closed basin. The 

hybridized Apache trout remaining in Marijilda and Deadman creeks do not qualify for recovery 

actions. Recent direction from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that actions involving these 

hybrids do not require Section 7 consultation and, as such, effects to fish in these drainages will not be 

discussed further.

Habitat – Occurs in small, cold, high-gradient streams above 1,524 meters (5,000 feet) elevation. 

These streams have substrates consisting of boulders, rocks, and gravel, with some sand or silt, and 

flow through mixed-conifer forests and mountain meadows (USFWS 2008a).

Risk Factors – Authorized livestock use has decreased on the Coronado National Forest, and the

Coronado has restrictions on grazing in the vicinity of the current Apache trout populations in the 

Pinaleño Mountains. Current limiting factors for Apache trout recovery include impacts of wildfire; 

continued impacts from predation, competition, and hybridization with non-native trout; limited range 

of the species; and other habitat impacts.

Spikedace

Status – The spikedace was listed as endangered with critical habitat in February 2012 (USFWS 

2012b); however, no critical habitat was designated on the Coronado National Forest. A recovery plan 

was prepared in 1991 (USFWS 1991); no recovery units or management areas were developed within 

this recovery plan.

Distribution – In Arizona, populations are found in Aravaipa Creek, and are believed to be present in 

the Verde River, and Eagle Creek within Graham, Pinal, Greenlee, and Yavapai counties (USFWS 

2012d). Undiscovered populations may exist in unsampled Gila basin streams. In addition, 

populations were translocated in Hot Springs and Redfield Canyons (Cochise and Graham Counties), 

and in Fossil Creek (Gila County) in 2007; Bonita Creek (Graham County), and the San Francisco 

River (Catron County) in 2008. Insufficient time has elapsed to determine whether these restoration 

projects will be successful. Spikedace does not occur within the Coronado’s boundaries.

Habitat – This species is found in moderate to large perennial streams, under 6,000 feet in elevation, 

where it inhabits moderate- to fast-velocity waters over gravel and rubble substrates (USFWS 2012d). 

Specific habitat consists of shear zones where rapid flow borders slower flow, areas of sheet flow at 

the upper ends of mid-channel sand and gravel bars, and eddies at downstream riffle edges. Recurrent 

flooding helps the spikedace maintain its competitive edge over invading exotic species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

247

Risk Factors – Spikedace are estimated to be extirpated from approximately 90 percent of their 

historical range (USDA FS 2015). Prolonged drought, anticipated effects of climate change, and the 

increasing abundance and expanding range of competitive and predatory nonnative fishes have 

increased the threat of extinction for the species.

Loach Minnow

Status – The loach minnow was listed as threatened in October 1986 (USFWS 1986b) then uplisted to 

endangered with critical habitat in February 2012 (USFWS 2012b); however, no critical habitat was 

designated on the Coronado National Forest. A recovery plan was prepared in 1991 (USFWS 1991); 

no recovery units or management areas were developed within this recovery plan.

Distribution – This species was once common throughout much of the Gila River system including 

portions of the Gila, Blue, Tularosa, White, Verde, Salt, San Pedro, and San Francisco rivers in 

Arizona and New Mexico, as well as some of their tributaries (USFWS 2012c). In Arizona, the 

species is limited to reaches in the mainstem White River and East Fork of the White River (Navajo 

County), North Fork East Fork Black River and Boneyard Creek (Apache County), Aravaipa Creek, 

Deer Creek, and Turkey Creek (Graham and Pinal counties), San Francisco and Blue Rivers, and 

Eagle, Campbell Blue, and Little Blue Creeks (Greenlee County). Loach minnow does not occur 

within the Coronado boundaries (USDA FS 2015).

Habitat – The loach minnow is a bottom dweller of small to large perennial creeks and rivers, 

typically in shallow turbulent riffles with cobble substrate, swift currents, and filamentous algae at 

elevations below 8,000 feet (2,438 meters) (USFWS 2012c). Recurrent flooding is instrumental in 

maintenance of quality habitat.

Risk Factors – Loach minnow and its designated critical may be affected by damming, channel 

alteration, riparian zone modification and destruction, channel down-cutting, groundwater pumping, 

watershed conditions, stormwater runoff, introduction and spread of competitive and/or predatory

non-native fish species, livestock grazing, timber harvest, wildfire, recreational activities, and other 

habitat alterations (USDA FS 2015, USFWS 2012c).

Roundtail Chub

Status – The roundtail chub was proposed to be listed as threatened in October 2015 (USFWS 2015d).

Distribution – The species was historically considered common in deep pools and eddies of large 

streams throughout its range in the upper and lower Colorado River basins in Wyoming, Utah, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona (USDA FS 2015). Today the roundtail chub occupies 18 to 32 

percent of its historical range in the lower Colorado River basin and is limited to Arizona’s Little 

Colorado, Bill Williams, Salt, and Verde River drainages and Eagle and Aravaipa Creeks, and New 

Mexico’s upper Gila River. Roundtail chub does not occur within the Coronado.

Habitat – The roundtail chub occurs in cool to warm water over a wide range of elevations in rivers 

and streams throughout the Colorado River basin, often occupying open areas of the deepest pools and 

eddies of mid-sized to larger streams at elevations between 4,300 and 6,500 feet (USFWS 2010b, 

2015d). This species is often associated with areas of cover in the form of boulders, overhanging 

cliffs, undercut banks, or vegetation.

Risk Factors – Roundtail chub populations have declined due to a combination of habitat loss and 

degradation related to dams, diversions, groundwater pumping, mining, development, recreation, 

improper livestock grazing, and competition and predation from nonnative fishes (USFWS 2010b). 

Global climate change is anticipated to worsen the effects of these threats.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

248

Pima Pineapple Cactus 

Status – The Pima pineapple cactus was listed as endangered without critical habitat in September

1993 (USFWS 1993a). 

Distribution – Pima pineapple cactus occurs in Santa Cruz and Pima Counties, Arizona, and northern 

Sonora, Mexico. The range is from Tucson, Arizona, southward to northern Sonora, Mexico, and 

includes the Altar and Avra Valleys, Santa Cruz River Basin, and lower foothills of adjacent mountain 

ranges. The range extends about 45 miles east to west and 50 miles north to south (USFWS 1993a).

Pima pineapple cactus occurs on the Coronado National Forest, Nogales, and Sierra Vista Ranger 

Districts. These populations are somewhat disjunct from the main distribution to the north. They 

represent only a minor part of the species’ distribution and abundance, but are significant for their 

safety from potential development. 

Habitat – Pima pineapple cacti grow in alluvial basins and hillsides of desert grasslands and 

desertscrub. The plant occurs most commonly in open areas on flat ridgetops or areas with less than 

10 to 15 percent slope (USFWS 1993a). Pima pineapple cacti are also found in the transition zone 

between the desert grasslands and desertscrub. Vegetation within this transition zone is dominated by 

mid-sized mesquite trees, half shrubs, and patches of native grass and scattered succulent (USFWS 

2004). Soils range from shallow to deep, and silty to rocky. 

Risk Factors – There is ample habitat for survival of this cactus, but its key habitat in the vicinity of 

Tucson is privately owned and is prime real estate subject to commercial and residential development. 

The trend for this cactus is downward primarily due to this irreversible habitat loss (USFWS 1993a). 

Some areas within the species’ range have been developed for farm production. The Avra and Altar 

Valleys and Santa Cruz River Basin are currently under cultivation, but were probably historical 

habitat for this species (USFWS 1993a). 

Practices used to modify desert communities to increase grass production for livestock have affected 

this plant more than any direct livestock impacts. Improper livestock grazing during the mid-to-late 

1800s and continuing livestock grazing practices may have significantly altered the ecosystem. Effects 

of improper livestock grazing include: erosion, changes in hydrology and microclimate, invasion of 

weedy exotic plant species, shifts in density, relative abundance, and vigor of native species (USFWS 

2012).

Mechanical vegetation manipulation such as imprinting, chaining, and ripping directly damage or 

destroy plants, as well as reduce the shrub component of the plant community. The seeding of 

nonnative grasses, predominately Lehman’s lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana), usually follows 

mechanical manipulation. Up to 75 percent of Pima pineapple cactus habitat has been significantly 

altered by the introduction of this grass that outcompetes native grasses and has created monotypic 

stands over large areas of mid-elevation southern Arizona. This grass creates abundant fine fuels that 

burn very hot and carry fire rapidly through an area. Most native grasses and shrubs are not adapted to 

such fires and are eliminated from the community while Lehmann’s lovegrass prospers under such 

conditions. Cacti, including Pima pineapple cactus, do not tolerate hot fires and are damaged or killed. 

Under these altered community conditions, the elimination of grazing may do more damage than its 

presence. Although trampled plants have been seen in grazed areas, grazing removes much of the 

grass that is competing for space, water, and nutrients, and removes the standing dead grass, thus 

reducing the fire hazard (USFWS 2012).

Off-road vehicle use can cause problems for Pima pineapple cactus (USFWS 2012). The cacti are 

small and can be covered by grass, making them difficult to see. Cacti on the Sierra Vista Ranger 

District occur in relatively flat areas that are very popular for off-road vehicle use. This activity is not 

authorized by the Forest Service, but the area was not adequately signed for non-entry. The Coronado 

National Forest increased patrols during weekends and holidays to more effectively manage this 

activity in occupied habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

249

No research has been initiated related to the specific effects of climate change on this species; 

however, there are no expectations of measurable changes in climate within the temporal bounds of 

the proposed action.

Huachuca Water Umbel 

Status – The Huachuca water umbel was listed as endangered in January 1997 (USFWS 1997) and

critical habitat was designated in July 1999 (USFWS 1999a). A draft recovery plan was prepared in 

March 2016 (USFWS 2016b); no recovery units or management areas were developed within this 

recovery plan.

Distribution – Naturally known locations of the Huachuca water umbel have increased to 30 in the 

United States and 21 in Sonora, Mexico, within the Santa Cruz, San Pedro, Rio Yaqui, Rio Sonora, 

and Rio Concepcion watersheds (USFWS 2014c). The Huachuca water umbel occurs on Federal, 

State, and county administered lands and on privately owned lands, and the majority of the known 

locations occur along the San Pedro River, in the Huachuca Mountains, and along Cienega Creek. In 

addition, this species has been introduced into new areas, and existing populations have been 

augmented in several locations throughout southeastern Arizona.

The Sierra Vista Ranger District manages six Huachuca water umbel sites in the Huachuca Mountains. 

These are the Scotia, Bear, Sunnyside, and Sycamore Canyon sites, as well as Sycamore Spring and 

Mud Spring. Scotia Canyon has one of the largest populations with plants occupying most of the 

suitable habitat along the 4,800 feet perennial reach of the stream. These four sites are at the highest 

known elevations for Huachuca water umbel. They are in the upper parts of the watershed and 

relatively secure from water withdrawals or water diversions. The sites are grazed, but the monitoring 

that occurs every two years in Scotia, Sunnyside, and Bear Canyons shows no adverse effects to 

Huachuca water umbel.

Significant flows in Scotia Canyon from the 2013 monsoon season scoured the canyon and because of 

this, larger patches were not as prevalent in the lower canyon portion as in previous years of survey; 

the flood also removed competing vegetation (USFWS 2014c). Significant flows from the 2013 

monsoon season also scoured Sunnyside Canyon, and although larger patches were found, the overall 

extent in this canyon is believed to have contracted from previous years. At the confluence of Lone 

Mountain Canyon and Bear Canyon, a cattle exclosure has been erected around multiple small patches 

for protection. In 2014, during a field visit it was observed that plants existed both inside and outside 

of the exclosure. The species has been regularly observed in visits at Sycamore Spring, and although 

intensive grazing has occurred in the past, population numbers and distribution have increased in 

recent years at this site. In 2014, a survey of Mud Spring revealed many patches occurring both inside 

and outside of an erect bullfrog exclosure that also excludes cattle. Patches outside the exclosure 

occurred in two separate spring runs, one of which was heavily impacted by domestic livestock 

trampling and javelin wallows.

Habitat – The Huachuca water umbel grows in cienegas (marshy wetlands) and along streams and 

rivers (USFWS 1997). It can grow in saturated soils or as an emergent in water depths up to about 10 

inches. The surrounding nonwetland vegetation can be desertscrub, grassland, oak woodland, or 

conifer forest at elevations of 2,000 to 7,100 feet (AGFD 1997). High quality Huachuca water umbel 

sites have stable perennial streamflow and herbaceous vegetation that stabilizes the banks and 

channel. Where these conditions are found, Huachuca water umbel often occurs as a common member 

of the aquatic community and is distributed uniformly along perennial stream segments. Huachuca 

water umbel seems to benefit from an intermediate level of flooding frequency that reduces 

competition with larger aquatic plants like cattails, sedges, and bulrushes. Conversely, floods that are 

too frequent or intense can destroy populations (Johnson et al. 1992).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

250

Designated Critical Habitat within the Coronado National Forest – Seven critical habitat units 

have been designated for Huachuca water umbel in Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties. These are part 

of Sonoita Creek in T. 20 S., R. 16 E., sections 33 and 34 (unit 1); part of the Santa Cruz River and a 

tributary in T. 24 S., R. 17 E., sections 11, 13, and 14 (unit 2); in the Huachuca Mountains part of 

Scotia Canyon in T. 23 S., R. 19 E., sections 3, 9, 10, 16, and 21 (unit 3), part of Sunnyside Canyon in 

T. 23 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 10 (unit 4), part of Garden Canyon on the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation 

(unit 5), and part of Bear Canyon and tributaries in T. 23 S., R. 19 E., sections 25 and 36, T. 23 S., R. 

20 E, sections 30 and 31, and T. 24 S., R. 19 E., Sec. 1 (unit 6); and the San Pedro River from T. 19 

S., R. 21 E. to T. 23 S., R. 22 E. (unit 7) (USFWS 1999a). The Scotia, Sunnyside, and Bear Canyon 

units (3, 4, and 6) are on the Coronado National Forest and total approximately 8.3 stream miles. The 

critical habitat units include the stream courses and adjacent areas out to the beginning of upland 

vegetation. 

Risk Factors – Water withdrawals, diversions, stream channelization, and levies in southern Arizona 

and Sonora have reduced the habitat available for Huachuca water umbel. Several historical locations 

no longer provide any suitable habitat because perennial streamflows have ceased due to lowered 

water tables. Continued human population growth in southern Arizona is expected to put greater 

pressure on water resources. Off-highway vehicle use is also noted as a threat to this species and 

populations in Bear Canyon have been impacted by off-highway vehicle use.

Widespread watershed degradation occurred in southern Arizona in the late 1800s due to uncontrolled 

livestock grazing, mining, hay harvesting, timber harvesting, and other practices such as fire 

suppression. This led to widespread erosion and channel entrenchment that has contributed to longterm or permanent degradation and loss of cienega and riparian habitats throughout southern Arizona 

and northern Mexico.

Poor livestock management can destabilize stream channels and disturb cienega soils creating 

conditions unfavorable to Huachuca water umbel, which requires stable stream channels and cienegas. 

Such management can also change riparian structure and diversity causing a decline in watershed 

conditions. However, livestock grazing that is well managed can be compatible with Huachuca water 

umbel. Cattle generally do not eat the plants because the leaves are too close to the ground, but they 

can trample plants. Huachuca water umbel is capable of rapidly expanding from rhizomes and can 

recover quickly from light trampling. Light trampling may also keep other plant density low, thus 

providing favorable Huachuca water umbel microsites (USFWS 1997).

No research has been initiated related to the specific effects of climate change on this species; 

however, there are no expectations of measurable changes in climate within the temporal bounds of 

the proposed action.

Canelo Hills Ladies’ Tresses

Status – The Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses was listed as endangered in January 1997 (USFWS 1997) 

without critical habitat. 

Distribution – The Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses grows in cienegas, in southern Arizona, and northern 

Sonora, Mexico. Cienegas are mid-elevation wetland communities often surrounded by relatively arid 

environments. They are usually associated with perennial springs and stream headwaters, have 

permanently or seasonally saturated highly organic soils, and are extremely rare wetland habitats 

(USDA FS 2011). 

The Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses is known from five cienega sites at about 5,000 feet elevation in the 

San Pedro River watershed in Santa Cruz and Cochise Counties, southern Arizona. The total amount 

of occupied habitat is less than 200 acres. Four of the sites are on private land (two of the four sites are 

owned by The Nature Conservancy) less than 23 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border; one site is on 

the Sierra Vista Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest, near private land (USDA FS 2011).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

251

It is difficult to estimate population size and stability for this orchid because nonflowering plants are 

hard to find in the dense herbaceous vegetation and because uncounted dormant plants cause the total 

population to be underestimated. The Nature Conservancy has monitored the plants at its Canelo Hills 

reserve since 1979, and has made yearly population counts since 1993. There is no clear population 

trend because the number of plants varies greatly from year to year. It was as high as 521 in 1995 and 

as low as 19 in 1997. In 1995, 107 plants bloomed, but only one plant bloomed in 1997. An informal 

survey of the Sheehy Springs site in 1999 counted 731 blooming plants; based on the survey, this may 

be the largest Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses population. The site on the Coronado had four flowering 

plants when it was discovered in 1996 (USDA FS 2011). In a subsequent site visit in 1997 following 

heavy grazing in the area, all streamside vegetation had been removed including that supporting the 

plants previously found (USDA FS 2015).

Habitat – This species is found in finely grained, highly organic, saturated soils of cienegas. Plants 

occur intermixed with tall grasses and sedges at an elevation of approximately 1,524 meters (5,000 

feet) (USFWS 2001b).

Risk Factors – The primary threat to Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses is further loss of its limited habitat. 

Other threats include groundwater overdrafts, surface water diversions, impoundments, 

channelization, improper livestock grazing, agriculture, mining, road building, nonnative species 

introductions, urbanization, woodcutting, and recreation as factors that contribute to riparian and 

cienega habitat loss and degradation in southern Arizona (USDA FS 2011). There is anecdotal 

evidence that Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses requires disturbances such as grazing or fire (AGFD 2000). 

Even if not required, these activities may benefit the orchid by reducing competing vegetation. The 

listing document (USFWS 1997) notes that there is disagreement among scientists on the effect of fire 

on the species and that determining the role of fire will be essential in properly managing the species.

Regionally Sensitive and Other

Forest Planning Species – Affected Environment

The regional forester’s sensitive species program is the Forest Service’s dedicated initiative to 

conserve and recover plant and animal species according to Forest Service policy found in Forest 

Service Manual 2670. The Coronado National Forest improves habitat and restores ecosystems for 

sensitive species through vegetation treatments and management practices. Sensitive species are those 

plant and animal species identified by the regional forester for which population viability is a concern, 

as evidenced by the following:

• significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density

• significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ 

existing distribution

“Other forest planning species” are not listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive but still have 

species-specific threats to their population viability that are not addressed by the coarse-filter analysis.

The habitat extent estimates reported in table 73 and table 74 are based upon the extent of potential 

natural vegetation types, or biophysical habitat elements that meet the life history requirements of the 

species limited by the ecosystem management areas (EMAs) where the species is known to occur. 

These acres may overestimate habitat extent for some species that use microsites that are too small to 

map accurately or that move on the landscape over time within the associated habitat element. See 

table 72 for definitions of codes used in the tables.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

252

Table 73. Fine-filtered regionally sensitive species and occupied habitat on the Coronado National 

Forest1

Common Name Scientific Name

Habitat Extent 

(acres) on the 

Coronado NF

Habitat 

Associations

Associated 

EMAs

[Desert] bighorn 

sheep

Ovis canadensis 

[mexicana]

133,623 RIA, ROC: DES, 

GRA

GAL, CAT

Mexican longtongued batChoeronycteris 

mexicana

717,476 RIA, TER, CAV: 

ENC, PIO

PEL, CHI, DRA, 

TUM, RIT, 

HUA, WHE, 

CAT

[Pale] Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

Plecotus townsendii 

[pallescens]

1,762,934 TER, CAV: DES, 

GRA, CHA, ENC, 

PIO, PON, WMC, 

DMC

ALL

American peregrine 

falcon

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

1,762,934 ROC: DES, 

GRA,CHA,ENC, 

PIO, PON, WMC, 

DMC

ALL

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis 998,344 TER: ENC, PIO, 

PON, WMC, DMC

ALL

Arizona treefrog 

(Huachuca/Canelo 

DPS)

Hyla wrightorum 131,983 RIA, ROC: ENC, 

PIO

HUA

Lowland leopard frog Lithobates 

yavapaiensis

277,432 RIA, AQU: DES, 

GRA

TUM, GAL, 

STE, CAT

Giant spotted 

whiptail

Aspidoscelis burti 

stictogramma

1,076,398 RIA, TER: DES, 

GRA, ENC

PEL, TUM, RIT, 

HUA, PIN, WIN, 

GAL, STE, CAT

Mexican stoneroller Campostoma ornatum 197,664 AQU: GRA, ENC, 

PIO

CHI

Sonora sucker Catostomus insignis 265,223 AQU: GRA, ENC TUM, RIT

Longfin dace Agosia chrysogaster 1,062,375 AQU: DES, GRA, 

CHA, ENC

CHI, TUM, RIT, 

HUA, CAT

Huachuca giantskipperAgathymus evansi 140,517 TER: ENC, PIO HUA

Arizona 

Cymbiodytan water 

scavenger beetle

Cymbiodyta arizonica unknown RIA, SPG, AQU: -

unknown

CHI

Stephan's riffle beetle Heterelmis stephani 64,860 SPG, AQU: ENC RIT

Huachuca springsnail Pyrgulopsis 

thompsoni

209,501 SPG, AQU: GRA, 

ENC, PIO

HUA

Pinaleño mountain

snail

Oreohelix 

grahamensis

47,959 ROC, TER: PON, 

WMC, DMC

PIN

Wet canyon talus

snail

Sonorella 

macrophallus

70,136 RIA, ROC, TER: 

PIO, PON, WMC, 

DMC

PIN

Parish’s abutilon Abutilon parishii 317,156 RIA, ROC: DES, 

GRA

TUM, RIT, CAT
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

253

Common Name Scientific Name

Habitat Extent 

(acres) on the 

Coronado NF

Habitat 

Associations

Associated 

EMAs

Santa Rita 

yellowshow

Amoreuxia gonzalezii 43,233 ROC, TER: GRA RIT

Copper Mine milkvetchAstragalus cobrensis 

var. maguirei

247,231 RIA: ENC, PIO PEL,CHI

Huachuca milk-vetch Astragalus hypoxylus 137,883 TER: ENC HUA

Ayenia Ayenia truncata 

(=A. glabra)

62,290 TER: DES, GRA RIT

Elusive browallia Browallia eludens 140,853 RIA, TER: ENC, 

PIO

HUA

Chihuahuan sedge Carex chihuahuensis 183,767 RIA, AQU: PIO, 

PON, WMC, MOM

CHI, RIT, HUA, 

PIN, CAT

Cochise sedge Carex ultra 632,617 RIA, SPG: ENC, 

PIO

PEL, CHI, DRA, 

TUM, RIT, 

HUA, GAL

Soft Mexican-orange Choisya dumosa var. 

mollis

64,705 TER: ENC, PIO TUM

Recurved corycactus Coryphantha 

recurvata

155,101 TER: GRA, CHA, 

ENC

TUM

Smooth baby-bonnets Coursetia glabella 338,181 TER: ENC PIO CHI, HUA

Arid throne fleabane Erigeron arisolius 762,408 TER: GRA, ENC CHI, DRA, 

TUM, RIT, 

HUA, WIN

Chiricahua gentian Gentianella wislizeni 22,452 TER: PON, WMC, 

MOM

CHI

Coleman’s coralroot Hexalectris colemanii 111,619 RIA: GRA, ENC RIT

Purple-spike 

coralroot

Hexalectris warnockii 338,181 TER: ENC, PIO CHI, HUA

Chiricahua mudwort Limosella pubiflora 237,996 SPG, AQU: ENC, 

PIO, PON, WMC

PEL, CHI

Beardless chinch 

weed

Pectis imberbis 340,544 TER: GRA, ENC, 

disturbed

RIT, HUA

Broad-leaf groundcherryPhysalis latiphysa 36,649 TER: DES, GRA PIN

Hinkley’s Jacob’sladderPolemonium 

pauciflorum hinckleyi

36,649 RIA, ROC: PON, 

WMC, DMC, SPR

CHI

White-flowered 

cinquefoil

Potentilla albiflora 50,975 TER: PON, WMC, 

SPR, MOM

PIN

Huachuca cinquefoil Potentilla rhyolitica 

var. rhyolitica

6,571 ROC: WMC RIT, HUA

Whisk fern Psilotum nudum 48,266 RIA, TER: DES TUM

Porsild’s starwort Stellaria porsildii 20,162 TER: WMC, MOM CHI

Aravaipa woodfern Thelypteris puberula 

var. sonorensis

115,840 RIA, SPG, ROC: 

DES, GRA

CAT

1. Codes for status, habitat associations, and associated ecosystem management area can be found in table 72.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

254

Table 74. Fine-filtered other forest planning species for the Coronado National Forest1

Common Name Scientific Name

Habitat Extent 

(acres) on the 

Coronado NF

Habitat 

Associations

Associated 

EMAs

Arizona cave 

amphipod

Stygobromus 

arizonensis

374,699 AQU, CAV: ENC CHI, RIT, HUA

Barfoot (“Bearfoot”)

woodlandsnail

Ashmunella esuritor 30,716 ROC, TER: PIO, 

PON

CHI

Chiricahua 

woodlandsnail

Ashmunella proxima 276,659 RIA, ROC: GRA, 

CHA, ENC, PIO, 

PON, WMC, 

DMC

CHI

Pungent talussnail Sonorella odorata 4,292 ROC, TER: PIO, 

PON, WMC, 

DMC

CAT

Heart vertigo snail Vertigo hinkleyi 140,517 TER: ENC, PIO, 

PON

HUA

No common name Mannia californica 201,419 RIA, ROC: ENC, 

PIO

TUM, CAT

No common name Plagiochasma 

wrightii

235,551 RIA, ROC: ENC CHI, TUM

Pringle’s fleabane Erigeron pringlei 18,115 RIA, ROC: WMC, 

DMC

RIT, PIN

Arizona eryngo Eryngium 

sparganophyllum

212,221 RIA: ENC, PIO, 

PON

RIT, CAT

Bigelow’s 

thoroughwort

Eupatorium bigelovii 15,244 RIA, ROC: WMC, 

DMC

PIN

Santa Catalina 

burstwort

Hermannia 

pauciflora

56,408 ROC, TER: DES CAT

Southwest 

monkeyflower

Mimulus dentilobus 11,619 RIA, SPG: GRA, 

ENC

RIT

Leafy Jacob’s-ladder Polemonium 

foliosissimum var. 

flavum

47,959 TER: PON, DMC PIN

Cochise woodsia Woodsia cochisensis 782,139 SPG, ROC: GRA, 

ENC, PIO

CHI, DRA, 

TUM, RIT, HUA

1. Codes for status, habitat associations, and associated ecosystem management area can be found in table 72.

Species Diversity and Viability – Environmental Consequences

Coarse-Filter/Fine-Filter Approach to Analysis

The coarse-filter review in the species viability analysis determines whether desired conditions and 

objectives proposed in the alternatives would sustain the viability of forest planning species. 

Occasionally, plan components including standards, guidelines, or both that address specific threats to 

habitat elements are included in the coarse-filter review. 

Direction offered by the no-action alternative is not conducive to a coarse-filter assessment, because 

the 1986 plan does not establish specific desired conditions or objectives. However, the 1986 plan 

establish hundreds of mitigation recommendation that may be comparable to “groups” specified in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

255

components of the action alternatives. For example, a guideline/standard listed by the no-action 

alternatives is “Revegetate wildfire areas with wildlife forage, cover, and riparian species. Native 

species should be used when available.” This is comparable to a mitigation that might be listed for the 

ALL and TER group of the action alternatives. Refer to the chapter 3 heading “Vegetation 

Communities” for more detail describing how direction in the no-action alternative would guide 

habitat management toward achieving resilient, self-sustaining ecosystems.

Although plan components are not coded in the alternative descriptions, desired conditions and 

objectives are referred to as “DC” and “VO” in this environmental impact statement. Codes listed in 

table 72 are typically intuitive, based on acronyms or abbreviations of terms used in the forest plan. 

For a given species, DC refers to the desired conditions of the habitat elements that the species 

occupies. Similarly, VO (vegetation objectives) refers to the objectives for management (acres treated 

over a specific timeframe) of the vegetation habitat element in which the species occurs. In most 

cases, species occupy more than one habitat element, so most DC and VO codes refer to several. 

Plan components contribute to conservation of a species by their influence on sustaining vegetation 

habitat, restoration, or both and reducing potential threats (uncharacteristic wildfire, insect outbreaks)

and depleted or degraded surface water resources. All desired condition statements relate to 

environmental goals to which the Forest Service aspires in order to achieve resiliency in selfsustaining ecosystems. While plan components in the revised forest plan may guide the movement of 

habitat attributes toward desired conditions, most desired conditions are not likely to be fully achieved 

within the life of this plan. Thus, emphasis was placed on objectives in the coarse-filter review, 

because they are indicators of progress toward desired habitat conditions.

Plan components were further categorized into groups if in combination, they apply to several species. 

For example, guidelines for biophysical (BIP) features related to management of talus (i.e., rock 

debris) were included in the group “ROC.” ROC group components meet viability requirements for 

nearly all talus snails and several other rock-dwelling species. Other groups were considered coarsefilter components because they addressed forestwide threats or commonly used mitigations across 

several habitat elements. Following is an overview of coarse-filter plan component groups.

• ALL: These are actions (objectives) and mitigations (standards and guidelines) that apply to many 

and varied species; they are generally good management for a variety of rare plants and animals. 

An example is RAM-G-2, which applies to range management: “Burned areas should be given 

sufficient deferment from grazing, especially during the growing season, to ensure plant recovery 

and vigor.”

• TER: These plan components benefit all terrestrial species. An example of a component in the 

TER group is VME-G-1: “Fuel reduction and habitat restoration projects should leave clusters of 

live trees and shrubs to benefit species that require these structures for breeding, feeding, shelter, 

and other habitat needs.” A guideline such as this can benefit hundreds of species—the vast 

majority of species in VME, which is the identifier for “Vegetation: Madrean encinal woodland.” 

• AQU: These plan components benefit aquatic species in lotic (flowing) and lentic waters, seeps, 

and springs, constructed and natural waters, and wet meadows. An example is NWS-G-3: “Fuel 

buildup should be reduced around natural water sources to protect them from uncharacteristic fire 

effects.”

• ROC: These plan components benefit rock-dwelling species (talus, cliff, outcrops). An example is 

BIP-G-2: “Management activities should be designed to avoid or minimize the alteration of 

naturally occurring rocky outcroppings or cliff faces.)

• RIA: These plan components benefit riparian species; this is often related to aquatic features. An 

example is RAM-G-5: “Within riparian areas, structures used to manage livestock should be 

located and used in a way that does not conflict with riparian functions and processes.”

• CAVE: These plan components benefit cave-dwelling species, particularly bats.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

256

For fine-filter species, plan components beyond desired conditions and objectives are needed to meet 

population viability requirements. These may include species-specific measures, such as with recovery 

plans and conservation agreements, ARP-G-1. In virtually all cases, coarse-filter components (DC, 

VO, and groups) provide positive management strategies, but are not specific enough to ensure that 

the population viability requirements of certain species are met.

The no-action alternative is not considered in coarse-filter assessments, because there are no specific 

desired conditions or objectives. However, this is not to imply that there are no coarse-filter 

counterparts in the no-action alternative. Indeed, there are hundreds of mitigations that could be 

considered as counterparts to action alternative groups. For example, a guideline/standard (not 

differentiated) is: “Revegetate wildfire areas with wildlife forage, cover, and riparian species. Native 

species should be used when available.” This is comparable to a mitigation that would be part of the 

ALL and TER group of the action alternatives. The “Vegetation Communities” section describes in 

more detail how the elements of the no-action alternative would move these habitats toward or away 

from the desired conditions for resilient, self-sustaining ecosystems.

Habitat Elements by Alternative (Coarse Filter Analysis)

Terrestrial vegetation communities on the Coronado comprise deserts, grasslands, interior chaparral, 

Madrean encinal woodland, Madrean pine-oak woodland, ponderosa pine-evergreen shrub, mixedconifer (wet and dry) forest, spruce-fir forest, montane meadows, aquatic habitat, wetlands, and 

riparian areas. 

Desert

Two significant threats to desert communities (Sonoran and Chihuahuan desertscrub) are invasion by 

nonnative grasses—particularly buffelgrass—and wildfire. The threats are interrelated because fire 

risk goes up with increased presence of nonnative grasses. Buffelgrass is currently established in the 

Sonoran Desert portion of the desert communities’ habitat element. Plan objective (VDC-O-1) calls 

for the suppression of buffelgrass invasion within the Sonoran Desert over the life of the plan. This 

would meet viability requirements of at least eight species associated with deserts, especially in the 

Santa Catalina Ecosystem Management Area, where buffelgrass poses a serious threat to wilderness 

character in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness.

In terms of addressing the threat of buffelgrass, there are only slight differences between alternatives. 

Because buffelgrass is a threat in only the Santa Catalina ecosystem management area, which is 

geographically separate from other desert habitat on the Coronado, the action alternatives sufficiently 

address threats to desert communities as a habitat element and provide for species viability. 

Alternative 1 proposes more wilderness in the desert community than the others, which, because of 

restrictions on motorized and mechanized uses in wilderness, would likely decrease the introduction 

of buffelgrass on vehicles. On the other hand, these same restrictions may hinder the progress of 

buffelgrass treatment if access by vehicle is not available in some areas. 

Alternative 2 would designate a Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in desert communities in the 

Santa Catalina Ecosystem Management Area, which could compound with the effects of buffelgrass 

by causing more ground disturbance, noise, and increasing the risk of human-caused fire ignition. 

Because of this, alternative 2 does not protect this habitat element as well as the other alternatives.

Overall, however, management direction in each action alternative and the no-action alternative and 

their respective objectives for treating invasive species would move desert communities toward 

reference conditions over the life of the plan. Consequently, plan components under all alternatives 

would provide for the viability of coarse-filter species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

257

Grasslands

Grasslands (semidesert grasslands, plains grassland, and oak savannah) are primarily threatened by 

invasion of nonnative species (Lehmann lovegrass) and even native shrubs, as well as overgrazing. In 

most circumstances, Lehmann lovegrass cannot be eradicated and is now part of a new grassland 

community. Because many native plant and animal species have adapted to the nonnative grasslands, 

containing and preventing further expansion of the Lehman’s lovegrass community is the key to 

providing for species viability for those dependent on the native grassland’s composition and 

structure. Because of this, there are no objectives to control Lehmann lovegrass but the proposed 

action no longer encourages activities that cause it to spread, which are part of the no-action 

alternative. Overgrazing’s effect on desert communities is mitigated by range management 

components in all alternatives and setting limits on stocking rates, duration, and intensity 

appropriately in annual operating instructions based on project-level National Environmental Policy 

Act analysis. That leaves invasion by native shrubs and trees as the primary threat to many species of 

grassland obligates (including the highest variety of overwintering sparrows in the U.S.).

The objective (VGC-O-1) for this habitat element is to treat at least 72,500 acres of grasslands by 

various methods. Grasslands cover the largest proportion of the Coronado National Forest (over 25 

percent of the land base). Based on likely projected treatments, all 12 of the ecosystem management 

areas will have shrub reduction treatments ranging from 1,000 acres (2 of the smaller ecosystem 

management areas) to 20,000 acres (Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area). The level and 

diversity of treatments to address habitat threats in this habitat element across the Coronado provides 

for the viability of species whose threats are tied to changes in the structure and composition of these 

sites from shrub encroachment. Grasslands are usually the most conducive vegetation community 

treated by planned and unplanned ignitions (high potential for resiliency, frequent restoration 

projects).

No action and the proposed action would provide similarly for grassland communities habitat threats 

and species viability for associated species. Even though the no-action alternative does not have as 

holistic an approach to management, it does not provide a serious impediment to managing using a 

more updated methodology. From a species management perspective, the proposed action is more 

beneficial to wildlife over no action due to the need to actively manage grasslands to prevent shrub 

encroachment, especially in the forest planning species-rich Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area. 

However, the addition of some recommended wilderness areas (especially the Dragoon, Bunk 

Robinson, Whitmire, and Mount Fagan) would benefit grassland species over the proposed action as 

is.

In alternative 2, motorized recreation would impact grassland communities more than any other 

habitat element. Approximately 21,459 acres of grasslands are present in the Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zone specified by alternative 2. This is an increase of approximately 18,942 acres over the 

acreage of grasslands in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone specified by the proposed action 

and alternative 1. Under alternative 2, there is an increased potential for new construction of offhighway vehicle trails and other facilities in support of motorized recreation, which could result in a 

net loss of the grassland communities on the Coronado and increased disturbance to associated 

wildlife. These impacts would not result in a loss of species viability.

Overall, however, management direction in each action alternative and the no-action alternative and 

their respective objectives for treating invasive species would move grassland communities toward 

reference conditions over the life of the plan. Consequently, plan components under all alternatives 

would provide for the viability of coarse-filter species.

Interior Chaparral

Interior chaparral has very few closely associated species. Because it frequently burns at relatively 

high intensity, plants and animals that have evolved in chaparral are resilient to effects of fire and are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

258

primarily types of species that have a greater ability to survive in multiple habitat elements. The noaction alternative provides direction to reduce shrubs and increase livestock forage in this vegetation 

community, which is improper management given its historic range of variation. In the proposed 

action, desired conditions direct the Forest Service to retain this habitat element as a native ecosystem 

but not where it is encroaching on adjacent grasslands. However, any differences between alternatives 

for coarse-filter species in this habitat element would be inconsequential because none depends on it 

exclusively.

Overall, however, management direction in each action alternative and the no-action alternative and 

their respective objectives for treatment of interior chaparral habitat would move the community 

toward reference conditions over the life of the plan. Consequently, plan components under all 

alternatives would provide for the viability of coarse-filter species.

Madrean Encinal and Madrean Pine-Oak Woodlands

Madrean encinal and Madrean pine-oak woodlands are often adjacent or intermixed with one another 

and have similar threats. The primary threat is uncharacteristic fire behavior due to overstocking and 

high fuel loads, brought about by historic overgrazing followed by decades of fire suppression. Both 

habitat elements are rich with forest planning species, but the pine-oak woodlands decidedly more so, 

partly because of its occurrence in riparian situations at moderate elevations. Although Madrean pineoak woodlands are a relatively small part of the land base of the Coronado National Forest, this is a 

Mexican habitat element originating in the Sierra Madre Occidental, so the Coronado manages most 

of the habitat in the U.S.

Given the situation, one would think that pine-oak woodlands would be high priority to receive forest 

restoration treatment, but the objective (VMP-O-1) only targets 25,000 acres, and those acres would 

likely only occur in about one-half of the ecosystem management areas, given projects currently 

planned. However, the situation is different after the 2011 fires in the Chiricahua and Huachuca 

Ecosystem Management Areas where much of this habitat occurs, because thousands of acres were 

already “treated” by wildfire, but it is too soon to assess conditions. Although much Madrean encinal 

woodland also burned, much of it was likely low-severity burns that helped maintain the ecosystem.

The objective for Madrean encinal woodland is 367,000 acres (VME-O-1). This high number reflects 

that this is a major habitat element of the Coronado National Forest, and also Mexican in origin. It is 

also an ecosystem that can be readily maintained by natural processes. Treatments are relatively 

inexpensive and projects are often selected in oak woodlands to meet restoration targets. It is difficult 

to compare the proposed action with alternative 1 because Chiricahua Addition West and Mount 

Wrightson would need mechanized treatment, which would increase their risk of uncharacteristic fire 

under wilderness management. There are some recommended wildernesses in alternative 1 that would 

contribute to Madrean biotic refugia without a predicted increase in uncharacteristic fire behavior, 

including Bunk Robinson, Whitmire Canyon, Dragoon, Chiricahua Addition North, and Ku Chish. 

Therefore, alternative 1 would do the most to provide for species viability in these habitat elements 

because it would provide more natural and intact ecosystems.

Overall, however, management direction in each action alternative and the no-action alternative and 

their respective objectives for treatment would move Madrean encinal and pine-oak communities 

toward reference conditions over the life of the plan. Consequently, plan components under all 

alternatives would provide for the viability of coarse-filter species.

Montane Forest

Montane forest includes ponderosa pine/evergreen oak, dry mixed-conifer, wet mixed-conifer, and 

spruce/fir vegetation communities. They represent the cline of dry to wet forests along an elevational 

gradient. Ponderosa pine is not common in pure stands on the Coronado National Forest, as it is 

elsewhere in the region. The mixed-conifer types are rarely differentiated in the literature with regards 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

259

to their typical plant and animal inhabitants, so they were analyzed together in the population viability 

assessment. They have a natural, but infrequent fire-return regime (less frequent on the wet end). 

Spruce-fir is not fire adapted per se, except as having a stand-replacement event with very infrequent 

fires (following high fuel buildup followed by drought and late spring ignition). As with the woodland 

types, all of the montane forest habitat elements are suffering from the same forest health issues. 

These forests have also experienced recent large-scale wildfires, but active management with 

mechanized equipment is needed for all high elevation forests. The spruce/fir community is somewhat 

different because it has mostly been replaced following the Nuttall Complex fires. The pine and 

mixed-conifer fires have burned with a mosaic of intensities, so treatments are still necessary.

There are relatively few forest planning species overall for montane conifer forests, but because the 

land base is small, they are biologically important, and have the highest number of endemics among 

forest planning species. The objective for ponderosa pine (VPP-O-1) is to treat 12,500 acres, but no

treatments are recommended for the Huachuca or Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Areas (R. 

Lefevre, pers. comm.) because stands are so small they cannot be mapped. The objectives for dry 

mixed-conifer (VDM-O-1) recommends treating 13,800 acres and 2,400 acres in wet mixed-conifer 

(VWM-O-1) among the several ecosystem management areas having significant amounts of mixedconifer. For alternatives in montane forest types, there are no differences, because most of the area has 

burned or is already scheduled for treatment.

The Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, which is also a recommended wilderness area common to 

all alternatives, includes approximately 98 percent (28,426 acres) of montane forest on the Coronado. 

Because of the presence of structures and recreation facilities at these high elevations, it is unlikely 

these ecosystems will ever become self-sustaining through natural processes. Restrictions that may 

ultimately result from recommending this area as wilderness would likely limit the ability to treat and 

manage these forest communities for desired conditions.

However, overall management direction in the each action alternative and the no-action alternative

and their respective objectives for treatments would move montane forest communities toward 

reference conditions over the life of the plan. Consequently, plan components under all alternatives 

would provide for the viability of coarse-filter species.

Aquatic, Wetland, and Riparian Areas

Species relying upon aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat elements are categorically the most at-risk 

species, so in many cases, the fine-filter was needed to meet viability requirements. Aquatic habitats 

are threatened by a host of problems, including water diversion, invasive plants, invasive predators, 

conversion to stock-watering structures, and climate change (frequent drought has been a premier 

problem). Three objectives do address Coronado National Forest management: NWS-O-1 is for 

applying for instream flow water rights within 10 years. NWS-O-2 is for completing reconstruction of 

at least three developed springs, and NWS-O-3 is for restoration projects, development projects, or 

both to benefit aquatic habitats for “species of conservation concern” (likely the most at-risk species 

we can manage for). There are unknowns here, however, because there are no indications as to which 

sites or species will ultimately be selected. Most of the instream water rights that will be applied for 

have one or more of these species present. Of the 30 potential streams in this environmental impact 

statement to be applied for, the Coronado National Forest has an objective for 10. Since the 

applications target streams occupied by high-risk species, several are filtered out by these objectives. 

In many cases, there are few reasonable management options for providing adequate water quantity 

for aquatic species, especially dealing with climate change and within the context of water rights. 

There are also numerous aquatic species that required fine-filter components, because aquatic species 

tend to be rare, occur in disjunct populations, and have multiple threats.

Overall, however, management direction in each action alternative and the no-action alternative and 

their respective objectives for treatments would move aquatic, wetland, and riparian communities 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

260

toward reference conditions over the life of the plan. Consequently, plan components under all 

alternatives would provide for the viability of coarse-filter species.

Biophysical Features Group

Forest plan components for biophysical features (BIP group) are generally coarse-filter components, 

but include standards and guidelines. Those components that address rocks, cliffs, and talus include 

BIP- G-1, BIP-G-2, and MIN-G-1. The components essentially make rock features off limits for 

construction (locatable mineral exploration and extraction notwithstanding, which is outside the scope 

of forest planning). Essentially all of the rock dwellers are addressed by the coarse filter.

Other features in the biophysical features group are caves and karst (natural attributes) and mines, 

adits, and shafts; unnatural features. These are addressed in BIP-G-3, BIP-G-4, and BIP-S-1. These 

are coarse-filter components for species that use large subterranean features, especially, but not 

limited to, bats. Other species of animals use these features, and would benefit from these plan 

components. There are a few invertebrates and bats with limited ranges endemic to certain areas for 

which habitat protections alone are not sufficient that were carried forward to the fine-filter analysis. 

For bats in the fine-filter analysis, the limiting factor in their distribution and abundance are mines and 

adits appropriate for breeding.

Management direction in each action alternative and the no-action alternative would move biophysical 

features toward reference conditions over the life of the plan. Consequently, plan components under 

all alternatives would provide for the viability of coarse-filter species.

Habitat Elements by Alternative (Fine Filter Analysis)

Species for which addressing habitat threats alone was insufficient to provide for their viability are 

discussed in the following sections Even though some of their threats were addressed by components 

reviewed in the coarse-filter evaluation, vulnerabilities to these species remain and require additional 

plan components and/or mitigation in order to meet species viability requirements.

Federally Listed Species – Environmental Consequences 

Most of the threatened, endangered, and candidate species (table 71) were not covered only by coarsefilter plan components (usually desired condition statements and objectives), because the species 

typically had inherent fine-filter threats that required species-specific plan components. For example, 

many of the species listed by the Endangered Species Act have recovery plans or conservation 

agreements, and are managed by any number of species-specific conservation measures in those 

documents. In this environmental impact statement, the plan component identifier (table 148 in 

appendix F) directing the Coronado National Forest to follow guidance of these documents is ARP-G1. Also, Mexican spotted owl and Mount Graham red squirrel were addressed extensively in standards 

and guidelines in the no-action alternative, and many of these components were carried forward into 

the action alternatives.

Environmental consequences are discussed for threatened, endangered, and candidate species, which 

required fine-filter plan components (table 75) in the population viability assessment. More details on 

potential effects of implementing the preferred alternative, as well as effects determinations, will be 

addressed in the biological evaluation and biological assessment.

Under all alternatives, relevant laws, policies, and manual direction such as Forest Service Manual

2600 that regulate the management of federally listed and regionally sensitive species would remain in 

place, and these species would continue to be addressed in project-level analyses.

Status codes in table 71 are as follows:

• E = endangered
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

261

• Ep = nonessential, experimental population

• T = threatened

• P = proposed for listing

Plan component codes in the table are defined in table 72.

Table 75. Federally listed species threats and plan components to address threats

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Status Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Mammals

Jaguar Panthera onca E Shooting, habitat conversion, 

roads, fragmentation, and loss,

reduction in understory 

vegetation density in riparian 

areas.

ARP-G-1; DC; VO; 

ALL; TER

Ocelot Leopardus 

pardalis

E Habitat conversion, roads, 

fragmentation, and loss.

ARP-G-1; DC; VO; 

ALL; TER

Mexican gray 

wolf

Canis lupus 

baileyi

E, Ep Human-caused mortalities ARP-G-1; DC; VO; 

ALL; TER

Mount Graham 

red squirrel

Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus 

grahamensis

E Stand-replacing crown fires, 

insect outbreaks, high avian 

predation, and climate change.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

ARP-G-1; EMA-PIN-G3A, 3B, 3C; EMA-PINS-2; VDM-G-1, 3, and 5; 

VSF-G-1, VSF-G-3, 

VSF-G-4 (1), (2), (3); 

VWM-G-1, 3, 4, 5, and 

6; see text for discussion 

of Pinaleño Ecosystem 

Restoration Project

Lesser long-nosed 

bat

Leptonycteris 

yerbabuenae

E Loss of habitat, loss of 

saguaros and agaves as food 

resources, grazing, fire, and 

loss of cave/adit roosting sites.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

CAV; ARP-G-5; BIP-G3 and 4; BIP-S-1; RAMG-1, 6, and 7; VDC-G-3 

and 2; VIC-G-1; VMPG-1 several special areas 

(see sensitive species 

section)

Mexican longnosed batLeptonycteris 

nivalis

E Same as above. However, this 

species is very peripheral to 

Coronado National Forest 

(only a few foraging records 

on Peloncillo Ecosystem 

Management Area).

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

CAVE; ARP-G-1; BIPG-3 and 4; BIP-S-1; 

EMA-PEL-S-1; RAMG-1, 6, and 7; VDC-G-3; 

VIC-G-1; VMP-G-1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

262

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Status Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Birds

Mexican spotted 

owl

Strix 

occidentalis 

lucida

T Stand-replacing crown fires, 

drought, insect disease, fire 

suppression, and other forest 

health issues.

DC; VO; TER; ARP-G1; RAM-G-1 and 4; 

VAC-G-1 to 6; VMP-3, 

9, 10, 12, and 13; VDMG-1, 3, and 5; VWM-G1, 4, 5, and 6; several 

special areas (see 

sensitive species section)

Western yellowbilled cuckooCoccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis

T The loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation of riparian 

habitat.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA

Northern 

Aplomado falcon

Falco 

femoralis 

septentrionalis

Ep Habitat degradation due to 

brush encroachment fostered 

by overgrazing and fire 

suppression; overcollecting; 

and reproductive failure caused 

by organochlorine pesticide 

use, namely DDT.

ARP-G-1; DC; VO; 

ALL; TER;

Amphibians

Sonora tiger 

salamander

Ambystoma 

mavortium 

stebbinsi

E Predation by nonnative 

species; diseases, catastrophic 

floods and drought, illegal 

collecting, and stochastic 

extirpations or extinction 

characteristic of small 

populations.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; ARP-G-1; ISM-G1; RAM-S-2; NWS-G1,2, 3; VGC-1 and 2

Chiricahua 

leopard frog

Lithobates 

chiricahuensis

T Water diversion, pumping, or 

increased evapotranspiration; 

overgrazing; wildfires; 

chytridiomycosis; and climate 

change.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA ARP-G-1; COW-G2; ISM-G-1; NWS-G-1 

to 5; RAM-S-2 and 3; 

RIA-G-2, 3, and 4; 

VGC-1 and 2; several 

special areas (see 

sensitive species section)

Reptiles

New Mexico 

ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake

Crotalus 

willardi 

obscurus

T Loss of habitat, prescribed fire, 

wildfire, illegal collection, 

cattle grazing, commercial 

beargrass harvesting, excessive 

erosion and sedimentation into 

talus slides, some recreational 

activities, and pesticides.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

ARP-G-1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

263

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Status Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Northern Mexican 

gartersnake

Thamnophis 

eques 

megalops

T Water diversion, pumping, or 

increased evapotranspiration; 

overgrazing; loss of 

specialized prey species (e.g., 

native fishes and leopard 

frogs); invasive species; 

wildfire, woodcutting, 

recreation, mining, 

contaminants, urban and 

agricultural development, road 

construction, and disease.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; ISM-G-1, NWS-G1, 2, and 3

Fish

Gila chub Gila 

intermedia

E Predation by and competition 

with nonnative organisms 

(American bullfrogs (L. 

catesbeiana), and crayfish 

(Orconectes virilis)); and 

habitat alteration, destruction, 

and fragmentation resulting 

from water diversions of 

rivers, springs, and cienegas 

for human uses (groundwater 

pumping, dewatering, 

diversion of water channels, 

impoundments, and flow 

regulation), poorly managed 

livestock grazing, logging and 

fuelwood cutting, road 

construction and use, 

recreation, mining, and urban 

and agricultural development.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

(draft recovery plan)

Yaqui chub Gila purpurea E Invasion and predation of 

native and nonnative species.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Yaqui catfish Ictalurus 

pricei

E Habitat destruction (e.g., 

stream bank erosion, 

construction of water 

impoundments, excessive 

groundwater pumping) and 

introduction of nonindigenous 

fish.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis 

occidentalis

E Habitat destruction (e.g., from 

groundwater pumping and 

water diversion); invasive 

species, especially 

Mosquitofish (Gambusia 

affinis); overgrazing, mining, 

timber harvesting, road 

maintenance, and recreation.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

264

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Status Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Sonora chub Gila ditaenia T Predation by nonnative 

vertebrates, drought, climate 

change, channel degradation, 

siltation, and water pollution 

caused primarily by livestock 

grazing, roads, and mining.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Desert pupfish Cyprinodon 

macularius

E Introduction and spread of 

predatory and competitive 

fishes, water impoundment and 

diversion, water pollution, 

stream channelization, and 

habitat modification.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Gila trout Oncorhynchus 

gilae

T Wildfire; predation, 

competition and hybridization 

with nonnative trout; limited 

range.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Apache trout Oncorhynchus 

gilae apachae

T Grazing DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Spikedace Meda fulgida E Drought, climate change, 

competitive and predatory 

nonnative fishes

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis E Habitat modification,

introduction and spread of 

competitive and/or predatory

non-native fish species, 

livestock grazing, timber 

harvest, wildfire, and

recreational activities

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Roundtail chub Gila robusta P Habitat loss and degradation 

related to dams, diversions, 

groundwater pumping, mining, 

development, recreation, 

improper livestock grazing, 

and competition and predation 

from non-native fishes, and 

climate change

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

RIA; AQU; ARP-G-1

Plants

Pima pineapple 

cactus

Coryphantha 

scheeri var. 

robustispina

E Loss of desert and grassland 

habitat; grazing, wildfire; 

invasive grasses; and illegal 

collection.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; 

VDC-G-1 and 3; EMARIT-G-2; EMA-HUA-G2; RAM-G-1 and 4

Huachuca water 

umbel

Lilaeopsis 

schaffneriana 

var. recurva

E Water withdrawals, diversions, 

stream channelization, levies, 

overgrazing, and trampling.

DC; VO; ALL; RIA; 

EMA-HUA-G-2; NWS1, 2, 3, and 5; RAM-G-1 

to 5; WET-G-1; WET-S1; ARP-G-1 (draft 

recovery plan)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

265

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Status Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Canelo Hills 

ladies’ tresses

Spiranthes 

delitescens

E Further loss of limited habitat, 

groundwater overdrafts, 

surface water diversions, 

impoundments, channelization, 

improper livestock grazing, 

agriculture, mining, road 

building, nonnative species 

introductions, urbanization, 

wood cutting, and recreation.

DC; VO; ALL; RIA; 

NWS-O-2;NWS-O-3; 

RIA-G-2; WET-O-1; 

WET-O-2; WET-S-1; 

WET-G-1; MTS-G-2; 

MTS-G-3; NWS-G-2; 

NWS-G-3; NWS-G-4

Jaguar and Critical Habitat, Ocelot and Mexican Gray Wolf

Summary of Determinations:

• The implementation of any alternative may render a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for jaguar, jaguar designated critical habitat, and ocelot.

• The implementation of any alternative may render a “not likely to jeopardize in proposed 10(j) 

area” determination for Mexican gray wolf.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on terrestrial habitat or 

species populations, but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of 

habitats and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – Jaguar, ocelot and Mexican gray wolf presence on the Coronado National Forest is

extremely rare, however adverse effects from management actions are possible. Overall, the 1986 

forest plan and its implementing standards and guidelines are positive for the long-term conservation 

and recovery of these species. The Coronado has low total miles and a low road density standard and 

there is no cross-country travel allowed on the national forest, which is positive for large carnivores as 

roads and cross-country travel result in habitat fragmentation. In addition, the Coronado National 

Forest is a long-standing member of the Jaguar Conservation Team, and the Forest Service 

participates in the remote camera census program for jaguar detection along the international border 

with Mexico. Effects to jaguar, ocelot, and Mexican gray wolf habitat from fire and fuels 

management, including prescribed fire, may result in reducing cover in some areas, but it is 

anticipated these effects would be insignificant because treatments would be limited in size and 

vegetation would respond quickly after treatment, eventually providing additional cover. Fire and 

fuels management may also have indirect benefits to jaguar, ocelot, and Mexican gray wolf by 

improving prey base habitat productivity through increased plant vigor. The Coronado has the third 

highest recreation use in the Southwestern Region, and effects to these large carnivores resulting from 

recreation activities may include avoidance, habituation, displacement, habitat modification or loss, 

and a potential for illegal shooting. 

Proposed Action – The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the current science for 

grasslands, Interior chaparral, Madrean pine-oak, Madrean encinal, riparian vegetation, mixed conifer 

forest and ponderosa pine communities and provides management objectives and guidelines as a 

framework for implementing site-specific projects to achieve desired conditions. Forestwide plan

objectives state that a minimum of 500,700 acres in these habitat types be treated through planned and 

unplanned ignitions and mechanical treatments every 10 years to maintain species diversity and an 

appropriate diversity of open conditions and structural classes. Fire management, including prescribed 

fire, can have indirect effects by improving prey base habitat productivity through increased plant 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

266

vigor however, in some cases valuable cover may be altered or lost. From 2003 to 2012, the Coronado 

has had a moderate to large prescribed fire program burning about 128,624 acres, which is one of the 

highest totals in the region over that time period.

Rangewide, impacts of roads on large carnivores include direct mortality from vehicle collisions, 

avenues for illegal shooting, direct habitat loss, and harassment. Areas where jaguars and ocelots have

occurred on the Coronado, however, have low road densities and include portions of areas currently 

being considered for wilderness status. Further, currently the Coronado has 0.99 mile per square mile 

of National Forest System roads; this low road density standard is well within densities generally 

recommended for carnivore conservation (USDA FS 2011).Through land or facility development or 

activities, minerals projects have the potential to impact jaguar, ocelot and Mexican gray wolf, and 

their prey, often via disturbance and loss/fragmentation of habitat. Effects to these carnivores from the 

activities of this program are similar to the effects of roads. In addition, surface occupancy causes 

direct habitat loss and the addition of human occupation increases the chances for harassment and 

lethal encounters. Mineral extraction operations may occur during the planning period, which may 

adversely impact the jaguar and its habitat.

Alternative 1 – In addition to incorporating the proposed action, alternative 1 proposes that 14 

additional land parcels (in addition to Mount Graham, Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua North 

Recommended Wilderness Areas) be recommended for wilderness designation. Recommending these 

wilderness areas would result in identical effects when compared to the proposed action. Acres 

(beyond the proposed action) of Madrean pine-oak, Madrean encinal, riparian vegetation and mixed 

conifer forest and ponderosa pine communities that may be included under alternative 1 total 144,707

acres within the additional 14 areas proposed. Table 76 shows the number of acres of jaguar critical 

habitat in the recommended wilderness areas.

Wilderness areas do not have roads, thus wilderness areas would protect large carnivores from impacts 

such as direct mortality from vehicle collisions, avenues for illegal shooting, direct habitat loss, and 

harassment. Areas where large carnivores occur on the Coronado have low road densities and include 

portions of areas currently being considered for wilderness status. Currently, the Coronado has 0.99 

mile per square mile of NFS roads. This low road density standard is well within densities generally 

recommended for carnivore conservation (USDA FS 2011).

Table 75 lists the major threats (fourth column) followed by the guidelines and standards that address 

threats to jaguar, ocelot and Mexican gray wolf (fifth column). ARP-G-1 defers mitigations to 

recovery plans for threatened and endangered species. The ocelot and Mexican gray wolf have final 

recovery plans and the jaguar has a draft recovery plan and designated critical habitat. The recovery 

outline was used to develop a full jaguar recovery plan (USFWS 2016c) which is incorporated to the 

plan by reference per ARP-G-1.

Table 76. Acres of jaguar critical habitat within recommended wilderness areas under alternative 1

Potential Wilderness Area Acres of Jaguar Critical Habitat

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Area 15,740

Mt. Fagan 5,366

Mt. Wrightson 13,791

Whetstone 16,218

Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Area 12,153

Alternative 2 – This alternative proposes the expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone

in comparison to the proposed action and alternative 1. Alternative 2 recommends only the Mount 

Graham Wilderness Study Area for designation; however, management of this and other existing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

267

wilderness study areas for wilderness characteristics would continue to restrict the use of mechanized 

and motorized equipment and vehicles.

Under alternative 2, approximately 61,283 acres within the expanded Motorized Recreation Land Use

Zone are in Madrean pine-oak, Madrean encinal, riparian vegetation, mixed conifer forest and 

ponderosa pine communities, which are suitable habitat for jaguar, ocelot, and Mexican gray wolf. 

These areas would be avoided by these large carnivores due to the high level of disturbance by noise 

and human interaction. There is a potential for off-highway vehicle trails and other facilities to be built 

in riparian areas in support of motorized recreation, which would result in a net loss of these

communities on the Coronado. On the other hand, an officially designated land use zone for motorized 

recreation could direct off-road activities to the land use zone and away from other riparian areas that 

are currently being used.

Designated Critical Habitat – Jaguars require connectivity to Mexico, availability of native prey 

species and water sources, dense canopy cover, rugged terrain, and minimal to no human 

development. Activities that may adversely modify critical habitat are any that destroy or substantially 

reduce the habitat requirements listed above. They can include rangeland management, recreational 

development, fires, and mining activity that proceed without adequate consideration of the welfare of 

the jaguar.

Livestock grazing can modify native prey species’ habitat by altering vegetation composition and 

structure directly by trampling, clipping, or browsing. These changes could alter prey species 

distribution and/or density by removing herbaceous vegetation that provides food and hiding cover. 

Livestock management on the Coronado National Forest adjusts livestock forage utilization based on 

site-specific resource conditions and management objectives, but in general, utilization is managed at 

a level corresponding to light to moderate intensity (15 to 45 percent of current year's growth). This 

level of utilization provides adequate food and cover for jaguar prey species (USFS 2013). Further, 

livestock fences on the Coronado are constructed to minimize wildlife impacts. 

Closely spaced water sources are important for jaguar survival. Most water sources are water troughs 

and ponds that contain water during all or most of the year and these water sources do not exclude use 

by jaguar or prey species.

Mining activity, including road use both during the day and at night could cause displacement around 

the area for the duration of mining activities. Rugged terrain such as canyons, ridges, and rocky hills is 

an important component in jaguar habitat and mining activities could alter the topography within the 

project area, which would cause temporary displacement around the area of activities. Mineral 

extraction operations may occur during the planning period, which may adversely impact critical 

habitat of the jaguar.

Fires can alter prey species’ habitat and well as resting and denning habitat. If fires occur in an area 

when jaguars are moving through, they would likely vacate the area temporarily due to the presence of 

fire itself, a temporary lack of prey species in the area, and increased human activity (USFS 2013). 

Wildfire and prescribed fires can also change canopy cover; however, fires are primarily managed to 

result in low- to moderate-intensity fire, with limited areas of high-intensity fire.

Jaguars require minimal human interaction. Recreational activities such as hiking, hunting, and offhighway vehicle driving are expected to continue on the Coronado National Forest over the life of the 

project; however, these activities are regulated and there will be no urban development or additional 

summer homes as a result of this plan within jaguar critical habitat on Coronado National Forest lands.

Therefore, we do not anticipate and increase in human-jaguar interactions.

Table 77, table 78, and table 79 outline the trends and determinations by alternative for jaguar, ocelot,

and Mexican gray wolf.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

268

Table 77. Jaguar trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Negative Negative Negative Negative

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Table 78. Ocelot trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Negative Negative Negative Negative

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Table 79. Mexican gray wolf trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Negative Negative Negative Negative

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination Not likely to 

jeopardize in 

proposed 10(j) area

Not likely to 

jeopardize in 

proposed 10(j) area

Not likely to 

jeopardize in 

proposed 10(j) area

Not likely to 

jeopardize in 

proposed 10(j) area

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Mount Graham Red Squirrel and Critical Habitat

Summary of Determinations:

The implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for Mount Graham red squirrel and Mount Graham red squirrel critical habitat.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on habitat or species 

populations but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of habitats 

and species populations on the Coronado National Forest. Under all alternatives, the Pinaleño 

Ecosystem Restoration Project will be implemented. The project focuses on restoring resiliency to 

Mount Graham red squirrel habitat but has short-term negative effects from vegetation management 

activities. Under all alternatives, management considerations for Mount Graham red squirrel 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

269

supersede those for all other species per forest plan direction and the Mount Graham red squirrel 

recovery plan. 

Current resource programs have different effects on the Mount Graham red squirrel. Rangeland 

management and associated livestock grazing have incidental effects on the Mount Graham red 

squirrel since no grazing occurs within the core range of the species. Two programs—fire 

management and watershed management—perform activities that are evaluated on a site-specific basis 

for impacts to the red squirrel, but would generally result in long-term benefits for the squirrel. 

Removal of forest products associated with fire has the potential to impact foraging, nesting and 

midden habitat by reducing available resources.

The engineering program performs direct activities (road maintenance, road closures) which could 

result in habitat fragmentation or direct mortality; however, no new roads are projected to be 

constructed. Road activity that is limited to simple maintenance has a negligible effect. Furthermore,

there is a beneficial effect on the red squirrel if roads are closed. 

Recreational use occurs in the range of the red squirrel but is regulated. It is not known if recreational 

use in the range of the red squirrel exceeds capacity at certain times, but with the restrictions in place, 

effects are likely to be minimal when coupled with other guidelines for protection of wildlife, fish, 

rare plants, and watershed resources. Although facility development, under special use permit, and 

mineral exploitation are restricted to some extent under all alternatives, new facilities and mineral 

extraction are not prohibited in the range of the Mount Graham red squirrel. Although site-specific 

management plans would be developed for any new facilities, there could be further loss and 

degradation of habitat. Mineral extraction has the potential to impact foraging habitat and reduce 

available resources. The data on mineral exploitation indicate these impacts may be negligible because 

the average site is less than 2 acres.

Under current conditions, about 90 percent of the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area is 

highly departed from reference conditions and under extreme risk of uncharacteristic fire. There is an 

elevated need to treat this area due to its importance as Mexican spotted owl and Mount Graham red 

squirrel habitat. The decrease in the ability to mechanically treat, use planned ignitions, or both in this 

area prior to reintroduction of natural ignitions could result in uncharacteristic fire behavior if a 

wildfire were to occur, as was the case for the Clark Peak and Nuttall Complex Fires. However, the 

impacts of recommending the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area would be negligible as 

it is already managed as wilderness due to its status as wilderness study area.

No Action – Under this alternative, Mount Graham red squirrel habitat (wet mixed-conifer and 

spruce/fir forest) is specifically addressed under Management Areas 2 and 2a, and there are numerous 

standards and guidelines addressing management in these areas to mitigate potential effects to Mount 

Graham red squirrel. This alternative does not discuss the differences between wet and dry mixedconifer forest and does not define desired future conditions for resilient stands or provide guidance on 

how to achieve these desired conditions. However, this would not prevent ecological restoration of 

these vegetation communities since the Pinaleño Ecosystem Restoration Project was developed under 

the no-action alternative. 

Vegetation treatments would continue under the 1986 forest plan; however, departure from reference 

condition vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes after the first 10 years would likely remain high 

over the majority of this vegetation community.

In the 1986 forest plan, there are many amendments, standards, and guidelines for Mount Graham red 

squirrel, including special use management numbers 5 and 9 (Mount Graham International 

Observatory and electronic sites), which address habitat loss; transportation system number 5, 

reducing traffic in Mount Graham red squirrel habitat, to alleviate disturbance, possibly causing 

behavioral and fecundity alteration; and insects and disease number 1, which limits insect control 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

270

activities within Mount Graham red squirrel habitat. For Management Areas 2 and 2A (forest plan 

change notice 2 in June 1996 and amendment number 4 in 1998), there are dozens of standards and 

guidelines that specifically address threats to, and habitat needs of, Mount Graham red squirrel, 

Mexican spotted owl, and northern goshawk and set limits on activities in Mount Graham red squirrel 

habitat (Management Areas 2 and 2A). These measures do not overly limit restoration activities in

Mount Graham red squirrel habitat to increase the risk of uncharacteristic fire or impede habitat 

improvement necessary to sustain the Mount Graham red squirrel population. In this regard, the noaction alternative is much more responsive to the needs of Mount Graham red squirrel than any of the 

other alternatives but may become out of date with the recovery plan if it is revised and so is not as 

flexible as the proposed action.

Proposed Action – The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the current science for 

wet mixed-conifer and spruce/fir communities and provides management objectives and guidelines as 

a framework for implementing site-specific projects to achieve the desired conditions. Forestwide plan 

components would guide treatment in the mixed-conifer forest through planned and unplanned 

ignitions and mechanical treatments on 16,200 acres to maintain species diversity and an appropriate 

diversity of open conditions and structural classes. There are no plan objectives to restore habitat 

quality in the spruce/fir forest in the proposed action or any of the alternatives, which would have a 

minimal effect since most of this vegetation community has burned in the last decade and is now in an 

early seral condition within the historic range of variation for the potential natural vegetation type.

Table 71 lists the major threats (fourth column) followed by the guidelines and standards that address 

threats to Mount Graham red squirrel (fifth column). ARP-G-1 defers mitigations to recovery plans for 

threatened and endangered species. The Mount Graham red squirrel has a final recovery plan (USFWS 

1993d) and a revised recovery plan has been drafted (USFWS 2011), which is incorporated into the 

plan by reference per ARP-G-1. 

EMA-PIN-G-3A, B, and C refer specifically to Mount Graham red squirrel. The first establishes a 

hierarchy, recognizing needs of Mount Graham red squirrel conservation and management as 

superseding all other species (including Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk). The second 

relates to potential effects of recreation, and the third ensures protection of the middens (caching and 

den sites), as was done in the design of the Pinaleño Ecosystem Restoration Project. EMA-PIN-S-2 

prohibits the establishment of new recreational structures. The VDM, VWM, and VSF guidelines (see 

table 72 for guideline codes) are for conducting vegetation management in montane conifer forests, 

especially to retain important structural features, re-create old-growth life form to squirrel habitat, and 

guidance for crews doing vegetation management. As a set, these plan components address the threats 

to species viability for Mount Graham red squirrel, such that there is a low risk of the species 

becoming extinct due to Forest Service management of its habitat.

Alternative 1 – Alternative 1 proposes that 16 land parcels be recommended for wilderness 

designation forestwide, including the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area. There are no 

additional proposed wilderness areas within Mount Graham red squirrel habitat, so alternative 1 and 

the proposed action are identical with regards to this species.

Alternative 2 – This alternative proposes expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in 

comparison to the proposed action and alternative 1. Alternative 2 includes Stockton Pass Road to the 

south of Mount Graham as an area managed for scenic values and motorized use, but the area is far 

enough away that it would not directly impact Mount Graham red squirrel habitat. Indirectly, 

increased motorized recreational use in Stockton Pass could result in an accidental fire, which could 

ultimately burn intensely on the south-facing slope into Mount Graham red squirrel habitat. However, 

because the amount of motorized use of Stockton Pass is not anticipated to increase, this is not 

expected to be a serious threat related to this particular alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

271

Designated Critical Habitat – Activities that may adversely modify critical habitat are any that 

destroy or substantially reduce forest density in the vicinity of occupied habitat (e.g., middens). This

can include timber harvest and recreational development that proceed without adequate consideration 

of the welfare of the squirrel (USFWS 1990). Timber production is no longer practiced in the Pinaleño 

Ecosystem Management Area, but the Pinaleño Ecosystem Restoration Project targets forest 

restoration objectives to decrease the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire. Designated critical habitat 

acres would remain the same across all alternatives.

Rangeland management has no effect on Mount Graham red squirrel critical habitat since no grazing 

occurs in the designated critical habitat. The engineering program performs direct activities (road 

maintenance, road closures) which have a negligible or beneficial effect on critical habitat, but 

performs interrelated activities depending on other resource needs. It is not known if recreational use 

in critical habitat exceeds capacity at certain times, but there are restrictions in place, so effects are 

likely to be minimal when coupled with other guidelines for protection of wildlife, fish, and rare 

plants and watershed resources. Although facility development, under special use permit, and mineral 

exploitation are restricted to some extent under all alternatives, new facilities and mineral extraction 

are not prohibited in critical habitat of the Mount Graham red squirrel. Although site-specific 

management plans would be developed for any new facilities or minerals projects, there could be 

further reduction of resources and loss and degradation of habitat. The data on mineral exploitation 

indicates that these impacts may be negligible because the average site is less than 2 acres. 

The potential effects of climate change to the Mount Graham red squirrel could include long-term 

drought and hotter average temperatures, which could result in a higher risk of stand-replacing fires, 

heat and water stress on conifer trees, and increase in exotic pest episodes, all of which would be 

major threats to Mount Graham red squirrel habitat. However, there are no expectations of measurable 

changes in climate within the temporal bounds of the proposed action (USFWS 2012).

Table 80 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for Mount Graham red squirrel.

Table 80. Mount Graham red squirrel trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trends1 Positive Positive Positive Positive

Habitat trends1 Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely to 

adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely to 

adversely affect

1. Population and habitat trends for Mount Graham red squirrel needs an explanation. There was a huge population 

decline in the last 2 decades, so the population is already very low and holding capacity is low. There were 

catastrophic insect outbreaks followed by catastrophic fires. While it is hoped the Coronado National Forest will 

recover, especially under the Pinaleño Ecosystem Restoration Project, it is possible that because of human causes 

and climate change, the ecosystem and squirrel may not recover.

Lesser Long-nosed Bat

Summary of Determinations:

The implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for lesser long-nosed bat.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

272

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on habitat or species 

populations but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of habitats 

and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – The 1986 forest plan does not define desired future conditions or objectives for treating 

desert communities and desert grasslands, Madrean encinal woodland, or interior chaparral, but there 

are many standards and guidelines for habitat management, especially for range management in 

Management Area 4, which contains mitigations for habitat protection. The no-action alternative

recognizes the need to restore ecological processes in fire-dependent ecosystems, but it does not 

provide desired conditions that support this species’ foraging habitat and does not include strategic 

objectives for accomplishing these goals. There are standards and guidelines to protect caves and 

roosts. 

Under the no-action alternative, desert and grassland communities would continue to be departed from 

desired conditions. According to the 2009 ecological sustainability report, 52 percent of Coronado 

National Forest grasslands are in a shrub-invaded state (USDA FS 2009b). Vegetation treatments 

would likely continue in accordance with the limited direction in the 1986 forest plan, which 

emphasizes treatment for sustained livestock forage, as well as control of shrub invasion. 

Under the no-action alternative, the overall structure of chaparral and Madrean encinal woodland 

would remain similar to the current condition, although changes at the species composition and 

structural stage may result from more frequent fire.

The no-action alternative has standards and guidelines to protect caves and roosts and to protect all 

agaves and saguaros, which are food for the bat. It also contains restrictions on livestock use in 

Management Area 4, which prevent livestock from competing with bats for critical food sources. The 

no-action alternative is more specific than strategic in design, so there are many more fine-filter type 

components in the no-action alternative that mitigate direct impacts to or avoid bat roosting habitat, 

but the lack of objectives for treating the overall habitat for the bat is problematic for ensuring 

restoration goals that protect food sources and other habitat needs.

Proposed Action – The proposed action would result in plant composition trending toward desired 

conditions, as would plant density, individual plant basal area, and root density in the surface soil 

horizon. The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the current science for desert 

communities and desert grasslands, and provides management objectives and guidelines that would 

provide a framework for implementing site-specific projects to achieve desired conditions. These plan 

components would result in planned and unplanned ignitions and mechanical treatments on at least 

72,000 acres to maintain open, native grasslands with appropriate shrub and overstory cover. Every 

year herbicides and manual methods would be used to suppress or eradicate buffelgrass on 1,000 to 

1,500 acres of Sonoran Desert. Desired conditions and objectives would improve habitat quality and 

threats to the bat associated with loss of habitat conditions, while guidelines protect food resources 

(primarily paniculate agaves). The proposed action would maintain grasslands in a more open state 

that would restore fire to its characteristic role in these communities. The reduction of shrub 

encroachment and the promotion of continuous fuels would increase fire spread and improve nutrient 

cycling, thus improving the health and vigor of individual plants that support bats and provide food 

sources. Encouraging characteristic disturbance in the grasslands also promotes a functioning system 

and further maintains the open, native states described by the desired conditions. Management 

activities initiated under this alternative would essentially be the same as was done under the no-action 

alternative, so the effects determinations would be the same. However, the proposed action is more 

comprehensive in addressing bat habitat besides roosting areas and would, therefore, better provide for 

species viability.

Management of landscape-scale wildland fire has the potential to result in short term impacts to lesser 

long-nosed bat. The primary threats to the lesser long-nosed bat are loss of or disturbance at roost sites 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

273

and impacts to forage sources (USFWS 2016e). All activities at or near known roost sites will be 

designed to avoid impacts, including the possibility of smoke in roosting sites. Another potential 

impact from wildland fire may include changes to foraging habitat through loss of agaves. The

objectives of these treatments could impact the foraging habitat of lesser long-nosed bat by burning 

agaves outright or by affecting agave phenology for the short term (the current growing season);

however, only a small portion of available habitat would likely be affected at any one time. Fine-filter 

plan components are listed in table 71. There are plan components that address retention of agaves, the 

primary food of lesser long-nosed bats, and adits and caves which lesser long-nosed bats use during 

the summer months (post-maternal roosts). Standards and guidelines would guide management to 

retain and enhance habitat for paniculate agaves to benefit this species. Plan components also 

incorporate mitigations from the recovery plan. Livestock grazing is listed as a threat because cattle 

may forage upon bolting agave stalks. Plan components guide range use by limiting livestock grazing 

to levels that allow the persistence of native vegetation communities, which would encourage 

preservation and recruitment of paniculate agave.

The use of herbicide and pesticides can have adverse effects on aquatic and upland species and are 

expected to continue under this plan as they have under the previous forest plan. Any potential 

projects implemented would be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine potential effects on 

individual species and to mitigate them. Minerals management could also impact lesser long-nosed bat

by disturbing roosting bats and causing localized losses of agaves due to surface disturbance.

Alternative 1 – For all resources, plan components for alternative 1 are the same as for the proposed 

action. This alternative proposes that 16 areas be managed as recommended wilderness. The grassland 

communities, which are the most threatened habitats for lesser long-nosed bats, are present in each of 

the recommended wilderness areas. Approximately 30,694 acres, or 7 percent, of the grassland 

communities would be recommended for wilderness designation under alternative 1. As discussed 

earlier, some recommended wilderness areas would make good candidates as biological refugia, 

because the ecosystem and fire regimes are functioning and do not pose an increased risk of 

uncharacteristic fire. For grasslands and chaparral, the Tumacacori and Santa Teresa Recommended 

Wilderness Areas would require active management to create better habitat conditions for this species. 

The environmental consequences of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed action, 

although most of the other recommended wilderness within lesser long-nosed bat habitat would 

benefit from management as wilderness.

Alternative 2 – Forest plan components for alternative 2 are the same as for the proposed action. This 

alternative proposes expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in comparison to the 

proposed action and alternative 1. Alternative 2 recommends only the Mount Graham Wilderness 

Study area (61,315 acres) for wilderness; however, the environmental consequences of this alternative 

would be similar to those of the proposed action, although the motorized recreation areas would 

increase slightly in part of the grassland habitat for lesser long-nosed bat. This species is a nocturnal 

forager so the motorized recreation areas in its habitat would not cause too much disturbance, because 

most motorized recreation occurs during the day.

Lesser long-nosed bat populations seem to be fairly stable, although it is difficult to assess, partly 

because habitat management in Mexico is poorly known (these are migratory species that spend 

summers on the Coronado National Forest). Endangered Species Act determinations are the same for 

all alternatives because management and components are fairly consistent across the board for lesser 

long-nosed bat habitat. The action alternatives are similar to the no-action alternative, which has 

already gone through section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Table 81 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for lesser long-nosed bat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

274

Table 81. Lesser long-nosed bat trends by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Mexican Long-nosed Bat

Summary of Determinations:

The implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” 

determination for Mexican long-nosed bat.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on habitat or species 

populations, but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of habitats 

and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – The 1986 forest plan does not define desired future conditions or objectives for treating 

desert grasslands, interior chaparral, Madrean encinal, Madrean pine-oak, and Ponderosa pine, but 

there are many standards and guidelines for habitat management, especially for range management in 

Management Area 4, which contains mitigations for habitat protection. The no-action alternative

recognizes the need to restore ecological processes in fire-dependent ecosystems, but it does not 

provide desired conditions that support this species foraging habitat and does not include strategic 

objectives for accomplishing these goals. There are standards and guidelines to protect caves and 

roosts. 

Under the no-action alternative, the grassland communities would continue to be departed from 

desired conditions. According to the 2009 ecological sustainability report, 52 percent of Coronado 

National Forest grasslands are in a shrub-invaded state (USDA FS 2009b). Vegetation treatments 

would likely continue in accordance with the limited direction in the 1986 forest plan, which 

emphasizes treatment for sustained livestock forage, as well as control of shrub invasion. 

Under the no-action alternative, the overall structure of chaparral and Madrean encinal woodland 

would remain similar to the current condition, although changes at the species composition and 

structural stage may result from more frequent fire.

The no-action alternative has standards and guidelines to protect caves and roosts and to protect all 

agaves, which are food for the bat. It also contains restrictions on livestock use in Management Area 

4, which prevent livestock from competing with bats for critical food sources. The no-action 

alternative is more specific than strategic in design, so there are many more fine-filter type 

components in the no-action alternative that mitigate direct impacts to or avoid bat roosting habitat, 

but the lack of objectives for treating the overall habitat for the bat is problematic for ensuring 

restoration goals that protect food sources and other habitat needs.

Proposed Action – The proposed action would result in plant composition trending toward desired 

conditions, as would plant density, individual plant basal area, and root density in the surface soil 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

275

horizon. The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the current science for grassland 

communities and provides management objectives and guidelines that would provide a framework for 

implementing site-specific projects to achieve desired conditions. These plan components would result 

in planned and unplanned ignitions and mechanical treatments on at least 72,000 acres to maintain 

open, native grasslands with appropriate shrub and overstory cover. Desired conditions and objective 

would improve habitat quality and threats to the bat associated with loss of habitat conditions, while 

guidelines protect food resources (primarily paniculate agaves). The proposed action would maintain 

grasslands in a more open state that would restore fire to its characteristic role in these communities. 

The reduction of shrub encroachment and the promotion of continuous fuels would increase fire 

spread and improve nutrient cycling, thus improving the health and vigor of individual plants that 

support bats and provide food sources. Encouraging characteristic disturbance in the grasslands also 

promotes a functioning system and further maintains the open, native states described by the desired 

conditions. Management activities initiated under this alternative would essentially be the same as was 

done under the no-action alternative, so the effects determinations would be the same. However, the 

proposed action is more comprehensive in addressing bat habitat, including roosting areas and would, 

therefore, better provide for species viability. The primary threats to the Mexican long-nosed bat are 

loss of, or disturbance at, roost sites and impacts to forage sources. 

Fine-filter plan components are listed in table 71. Standards and guidelines would guide management 

to retain and enhance habitat for paniculate agaves to benefit this species. Mexican long-nosed bats 

roost in adits and caves during the summer months (post-maternal roosts). Livestock grazing is listed 

as a threat because cattle may forage on bolting agave stalks. Plan components guide range use by 

limiting livestock grazing to levels that allow the persistence of native vegetation communities, which 

would encourage preservation and recruitment of paniculate agave.

Alternative 1 – For all resources, plan components for alternative 1 are the same as for the proposed 

action. This alternative proposes that 16 areas be managed as recommended wilderness. The grassland 

communities, which are the most threatened habitats for Mexican long-nosed bats, are present in each 

of the recommended wilderness areas. Approximately 30,694 acres, or 7 percent, of the grassland 

communities would be recommended for wilderness designation under alternative 1. As discussed 

earlier, some recommended wilderness areas would make good candidates as biological refugia, 

because the ecosystem and fire regimes are functioning and do not pose an increased risk of 

uncharacteristic fire. The environmental consequences of this alternative would be similar to those of 

the proposed action, because the two recommended wilderness areas under this alternative that are 

within Mexican long-nosed bat habitat are recommended as wilderness study areas under the proposed 

action.

Alternative 2 – Forest plan components for alternative 2 are the same as for the proposed action. This 

alternative proposes expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in comparison to the 

proposed action and alternative 1. Alternative 2 recommends only the Mount Graham Wilderness 

Study area (61,315 acres) for wilderness; thus, the environmental consequences of this alternative 

would be discountable because there are no known roosts in the area, and it was not known to be 

utilized by the bat historically.

Table 82 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for Mexican long-nosed bat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

276

Table 82. Mexican long-nosed bat trends by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, not 

likely to 

adversely affect

May affect, not 

likely to adversely 

affect

May affect, not 

likely to 

adversely affect

May affect, not 

likely to 

adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Mexican Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat

Summary of Determinations:

The implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for Mexican spotted owl and Mexican spotted owl critical habitat.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on habitat or species 

populations but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of habitats 

and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – The 1986 forest plan addresses mixed-conifer ecosystems in the context of habitat for 

Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk. However, it does not discuss the differences between wet 

and dry mixed-conifer forest, though both are occupied by this species. The no-action alternative does 

not define desired future conditions for resilient stands or provide guidance on how to achieve these 

desired conditions. Components in the 1986 forest plan that address Mexican spotted owl were mostly 

taken directly out of the current recovery plan. These components are problematic because they were 

designed for environmental conditions in areas that have very divergent topography and forest form 

and structure. In addition, the standards and guidelines are extremely restrictive (e.g., 9-inch diameter 

cap), and may not allow restoration of late-successional forests. The Pinaleño Ecosystem Restoration 

Project was able to be approved and implemented to effectively manage to restore conifer forests only 

because management for the Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk was trumped by plan 

direction to manage habitat for Mount Graham red squirrel. In Mexican spotted owl habitat elsewhere 

on the Coronado, this would not be possible without a plan amendment.

Vegetation treatments would continue under the 1986 forest plan; however, departure from reference 

condition for vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes after the first 10 years would likely remain 

high over the majority of this vegetation community, except in areas within the Pinaleño Ecosystem 

Restoration Project and those burned in the numerous recent fires, especially in the Chiricahua and 

Huachuca Mountains.

The Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area was designated in 1984, so it is integrated into the noaction alternative. Under current conditions, the majority (about 90 percent) of this area is highly 

departed from reference conditions and under extreme risk of uncharacteristic fire. There is an 

elevated need to treat this area due to its importance as Mexican spotted owl and Mount Graham red 

squirrel habitat. The inability to mechanically treat, use planned ignitions, or both in this area prior to 

reintroduction of natural ignitions could result in uncharacteristic fire behavior if a wildfire were to 

occur.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

277

Under the no-action alternative, there are several special areas and research natural areas. These are 

discussed in detail elsewhere. Several of these have spotted owl habitat (i.e., protected activity centers 

and critical habitat).

Proposed Action – The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the current science for 

mixed-conifer communities and provides management objectives and guidelines as a framework for 

implementing site-specific projects to achieve desired conditions. Forest plan components would 

guide management to treat mixed-conifer forest through planned and unplanned ignitions and 

mechanical treatments on 16,200 acres to maintain species diversity and an appropriate diversity of 

open conditions and structural classes. The standards and guidelines from the no-action alternative

would be incorporated into the proposed action by ARP-G-1, which tiers to current recovery plan 

conservation measures. Therefore, there would be no difference in effects to Mexican spotted owl 

between the no action and proposed action alternatives. Unlike the no-action alternative, the proposed 

action would not need to be amended in order to remain current when the recovery plan for Mexican 

spotted owl is revised. It is anticipated that this revision would allow for greater flexibility in treating 

in and around Mexican spotted owl habitat to reduce the threat of uncharacteristic fire.

The Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area, research natural areas, and other special areas 

were carried forward from the 1986 forest plan into the proposed action, so these do not differ from 

the no-action alternative. The proposed action also recommends 3 other wilderness areas and 2 

wilderness study areas: the Whetstone Recommended Wilderness, the Ku Chish Recommended 

Wilderness, the Chiricahua-North Addition Recommended Wilderness, Whitmire, and Bunk Robinson 

are recommended as wilderness study areas. Protected activity centers exist in all three of the newly 

recommended wilderness areas, as well as the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area, but 

not in either of the recommended Wilderness Study Areas. Some of the recommended wilderness 

areas would provide excellent refugia for Mexican spotted owl, especially Ku Chish and Chiricahua 

Addition North. These areas would need little to no mechanized treatment to reach desired conditions 

and resiliency to natural phenomena. Mount Graham and Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Areas 

would be poor refugia. These areas would result in a moderate to high viability risk for the Mexican

spotted owl based on the limited ability of the Forest Service to make progress toward the ponderosa 

pine and mixed-conifer habitat desired conditions and the increased risk of losing these habitat 

elements to wildfires by having unnaturally high fuel loads in these stands.

Alternative 1 – In addition to incorporating the proposed action, alternative 1 also proposes that 14 

additional land parcels (in addition to Mount Graham, Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua North

Recommended Wilderness Areas) be recommended for wilderness designation. The additional acres 

(beyond the proposed action) of mixed-conifer forest that may be included under alternative 1 total 

1,275 acres within the additional 14 areas proposed. Table 83 lists the acres of recommended 

wilderness areas within Mexican spotted owl critical habitat.

Some of the additional recommended wilderness areas in alternative 1 would provide excellent refugia 

for Mexican spotted owl, especially Dragoon. Jhus Canyon would need little to no mechanized 

treatment to reach desired conditions and resiliency to natural phenomena. Chiricahua Addition West, 

Tumacacori, and Galiuro Recommended Wilderness Areas would be poor candidates. These areas 

would result in a moderate to high viability risk for the Mexican spotted owl based on the limited 

ability of the Forest Service to make progress toward the ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer habitat 

desired conditions and the increased risk of losing these habitat elements to wildfires by having 

unnaturally high fuel loads in these stands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

278

Table 83. Acres of Mexican spotted owl critical habitat within recommended 

wilderness areas

Potential Wilderness Area

Acres Within Mexican Spotted Owl

Critical Habitat

Tumacacori 12,372

Mount Wrightson Addition 10,332

Whetstone 14,250

Ku Chish 24,785

Chiricahua addition-North 6,229

Chiricahua addition-West 1,955

Jhus Canyon 10,078

Winchester 6,982

Galiuro Addition 1,820

Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area 50,896

Santa Teresa Addition-North 1,963

Santa Teresa Addition-South 1,368

Total acres 143,030

Alternative 2 – This alternative proposes the expansion of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone

in comparison to the proposed action and alternative 1. Alternative 2 recommends only the Mount 

Graham Wilderness Study Area for designation; however, management of this and other existing 

wilderness study areas for wilderness characteristics would continue to restrict the use of mechanized 

and motorized equipment and vehicles. Effects from this alternative are discussed under designated 

critical habitat.

Designated Critical Habitat – Designated critical habitat acres would remain the same across all 

alternatives. Under all alternatives, the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area would burn 

uncharacteristically severe due to the current stand densities. Alternative 1 would restrict access and 

vegetation management in recommended wilderness areas causing an increase in stand density, 

canopy closure, and basal area. This buildup would cause some stands to burn uncharacteristically 

severe, while some would be maintained through a natural fire regime. Table 84 outlines the trends 

and determinations by alternative for Mexican spotted owl.

Table 84. Mexican spotted owl population and critical habitat trends, and determinations by 

alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive1 Negative Negative

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act

1. This is positive relative to the other alternatives. Alternative 1 is negative because several poor selections of 

recommended wilderness areas (see text) trump the general benefits of wilderness areas that do not need active 

management.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

279

Under alternative 2, approximately 20,228 acres of proposed Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone

overlap Mexican spotted owl critical habitat. Of this total, only 631 acres are within a vegetation 

community (Madrean pine-oak) that could have primary constituent elements that would make them 

suitable Mexican spotted owl habitat. This area could degrade over time and negatively affect primary 

constituent elements needed for critical habitat. However, most Mexican spotted owl habitat is in 

small discontinuous areas of less than 30 acres, which lacks protected activity centers and large areas 

of primary constituent elements. The closest protected activity center is 1 mile away from the 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone in the Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Area and may result 

in noise disturbance in the protected activity center. As a result, there may be only minor differences 

between the proposed action and alternative 2 in terms of effects to Mexican spotted owl critical 

habitat.

Wildland fire is one of the most utilized methods of ecosystem restoration on the Coronado National 

Forest. The goal of this program is to enhance resiliency of all vegetation communities. Long term, 

this program will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire impacts and improve prey habitat by 

producing more opens stands with various structural stages. However, in the short term, 

implementation could result in impacts to foraging habitat through temporary alteration of forest 

structure and reduced quality of prey habitat. Other potential impacts to Mexican spotted owl critical 

habitat could result from road construction and maintenance of the Coronado’s motorized 

transportation system, as well as from construction or maintenance of recreation facilities.

The Mexican spotted owl population does not have statistically valid population trend information for 

the Coronado National Forest and is, therefore, difficult to assess. Endangered Species Act 

determinations are the same for all alternatives, because standards and guidelines that reduce the 

effects of vegetation treatments area carried forward, either directly or incorporated by referencing the 

recovery plan. Under all action alternatives, there are objectives to treat vegetation in Mexican spotted 

owl habitat.

Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo and Proposed Critical Habitat and Northern Aplomado 

Falcon (nonessential, experimental population)

Summary of Determinations:

• The implementation of any alternative may render a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for western yellow-billed cuckoo and “not likely to result in destruction or adverse 

modification” to western yellow-billed cuckoo proposed critical habitat.

• The implementation of any alternative may render a “not likely to jeopardize” determination for 

northern Aplomado falcon.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on aquatic and riparian 

habitat or species populations, but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and 

improvement of habitats and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – Under the 1986 forest plan, riparian habitat would move at a slower pace toward desired 

conditions than the proposed action and the plan does not define desired future conditions or 

objectives for treating desert communities, or desert grasslands, but there are many standards and 

guidelines for habitat management, especially for range management in Management Area 4, which 

contains mitigations for habitat protection. The no-action alternative recognizes the need to restore 

ecological processes in fire-dependent ecosystems, but it does not provide desired conditions that 

support these species’ foraging habitat and does not include strategic objectives for accomplishing 

these goals. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

280

Under the no-action alternative, the grassland communities would continue to be departed from 

desired conditions. According to the 2009 ecological sustainability report, 52 percent of Coronado 

National Forest grasslands are in a shrub-invaded state (USDA FS 2009b). Vegetation treatments 

would likely continue in accordance with the limited direction in the 1986 forest plan, which 

emphasizes treatment for sustained livestock forage, as well as control of shrub invasion. 

Proposed Action – The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the current science for 

riparian and desert communities and provides management objectives and guidelines that would 

provide a framework for implementing site-specific projects to achieve desired conditions. For

western yellow-billed cuckoo, these objectives and guidelines are mostly found in the sections on 

natural waters and riparian management. For northern Aplomado falcon, the section on range 

management provides standards and guidelines. For natural waters, guidelines protect surface water 

quality and quantity, as well as the surrounding vegetation, which provides foraging habitat for adults. 

Guidelines also provide for the retention of large trees and snags along a riparian corridor; these 

benefit both riparian species by providing perches and nesting sites. The standards and guidelines 

under range management provide specifically to alleviate grazing pressure and to provide cover for 

native species, which also provides for prey species.

Alternative 1 – In addition to incorporating the proposed action, this alternative proposes that 16 land 

parcels be recommended for wilderness designation. Approximately 20,576 acres, or 12 percent, of 

the desert communities would be allocated within these proposed wilderness areas, and approximately 

932 acres of riparian communities would be designated.

Alternative 2 – Under this alternative, there are additional effects on approximately 31 acres of 

riparian area included in the proposed Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone. The western yellowbilled cuckoo is a riparian species that can be found across all ecosystem management areas, so there 

is a potential it could inhabit the area within the 31 acres. The northern Aplomado falcon does not 

occur in the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone areas specified by alternative 2; therefore, the 

effects of alternative 2 on these two species would be the same as those of the proposed action.

Proposed Critical Habitat – Of the 245,000 acres of western yellow-billed cuckoo proposed critical 

habitat in Arizona, approximately 125 acres occur on the Coronado National Forest in the Santa Rita 

Ecosystem Management Area within Florida Wash. The Standards and Guidelines in the Coronado 

land and resource management plan seek to mitigate or prevent impacts on wildlife and plant 

diversity. 

There is plan direction for avoiding riparian effects from roads. Roads can result in removal of 

riparian vegetation and degradation of watershed function and integrity. Wildland fire has the 

potential to impact western yellow-billed cuckoo, primarily through changes to habitat from structural 

changes or loss of nesting structure. The objective of this program area is to restore uplands which 

would benefit riparian resources in the long-term but could result in effects to riparian habitat through 

short-term watershed affects such as sedimentation. In general, guidance should assist in minimizing 

or, under certain circumstances, avoiding adverse effects to proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo

critical habitat from prescribed fire management activities. The Coronado provides sustainable 

livestock grazing. Direct and indirect effects may take place as the result of the implementation of 

Standards and guidelines pertinent to rangeland management, but overgrazing is not likely to result 

since grazing only occurs on 18 of the 125 acres of proposed critical habitat on the Coronado National 

Forest, thus the effects would be insignificant and discountable.

Table 85 and table 86 outline the trends and determinations by alternative for western yellow-billed 

cuckoo and northern Aplomado falcon.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

281

Table 85. Western yellow-billed cuckoo trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Proposed Critical 

habitat determination

Not likely to result 

in destruction or 

adverse 

modification

Not likely to result 

in destruction or 

adverse 

modification

Not likely to result 

in destruction or 

adverse 

modification

Not likely to result 

in destruction or 

adverse 

modification

ESA = Endangered Species Act

Table 86. Northern Aplomado falcon (nonessential, experimental population) trends by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination Not likely to 

jeopardize

Not likely to 

jeopardize

Not likely to 

jeopardize

Not likely to 

jeopardize

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Sonora Tiger Salamander, Chiricahua Leopard Frog and Critical Habitat, New Mexico 

Ridged-nosed Rattlesnake, and Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Proposed Critical 

Habitat

Summary of Determinations:

• The implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for Sonora tiger salamander. 

• The implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for Chiricahua leopard frog and for Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat.

• The implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake.

• The implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for northern Mexican gartersnake and a “not likely to result in destruction or 

adverse modification” for northern Mexican gartersnake proposed critical habitat.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments; recreation management; watershed management; wildlife, fish, or rare plants management; 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on habitat or species 

populations but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of habitats 

and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

The habitat trend varies across all alternatives for the Sonora tiger salamander, Chiricahua leopard 

frog, and northern Mexican gartersnake, even though there are objectives, standards, and guidelines 

targeting these aquatic-associated species. This is because the habitat needs for the species is more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

282

complex than simply the vegetation community or presence of water; it also includes water quantity 

and quality, hydrology, species that co-occur, climate, geomorphic features, diseases present, and 

many other factors (“habitat” is all of the environmental parameters the species needs to persist). The 

outlook from climate change and water needs by society suggests surface water will always be a rare 

and threatened resource for these species.

No Action – Under this alternative, riparian habitat would move at a slower pace toward desired 

conditions than the proposed action. With such small quantities of riparian habitat across the 

Coronado National Forest, there is a guideline in the no-action alternative for establishing one stock 

tank per mile. This density of livestock waters can be detrimental to native aquatic species because it 

allows for potential spread of nonnative species (especially American bullfrog, warmwater fishes, and 

northern crayfish). Leopard frogs and tiger salamanders have been able to occupy and breed in stock 

tanks, but often populations cannot persist as well as they do in high quality natural situations. 

Northern Mexican gartersnakes are typically present in more natural situations or stock waters that 

have certain “natural” characteristics and lack invasive predators. Runoff, sedimentation, and loss of 

riparian vegetation from recreation use are problems that are not adequately addressed under current 

management direction. These factors degrade the quality of the existing and potential aquatic and 

riparian habitat for threatened and endangered species. 

The Sonora tiger salamander (“Huachuca tiger salamander”) is a management indicator species under 

the 1986 forest plan, and is referenced in the plan, but there is little direction on managing for this

species. This species was to have “appropriate habitat components” measured in the monitoring plan. 

This was done through annual surveys by Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Under the no-action alternative, upland watershed projects would continue under the direction of the 

1986 forest plan. Riparian-specific projects would be conducted as opportunities are presented, and 

best management practices as described in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 would be implemented 

to minimize alteration of riparian areas. This would result in continued movement of riparian area 

conditions toward desired conditions across the Coronado, with isolated areas of static or downward 

trends where opportunities to make changes are not available.

Proposed Action – The proposed action recommends four wilderness areas and two wilderness study 

areas. These are the Whetstone, Mount Graham, Ku Chish and the Chiricahua North Addition 

Recommended Wilderness, and the Whitmire and Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Areas. The 

Sonora tiger salamander and northern Mexican gartersnake probably do not occur in any of the 

recommended wilderness areas and so effects to them are discountable. 

The Peloncillo Mountains, in which two wilderness study areas are recommended (Whitmire and 

Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Areas), is the only mountain range in the Coronado National Forest 

in which the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake occurs. Chiricahua leopard frogs are also likely

present in the Bunk Whitmire Wilderness Study Area, as there are recent records from the vicinity.

These areas have both burned in the recent past and thus are good candidates to be managed through 

natural processes. Designating these areas as wilderness study areas will also help protect habitat for 

these species.

The proposed action provides guidelines and standards for aquatic species including the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, Sonora tiger salamander, and northern Mexican gartersnake in the sections on natural 

waters, riparian management, and range management. These guidelines protect surface water quality 

and quantity, as well as the surrounding vegetation and bank vegetation, which provides foraging, 

shade and hibernacula habitat. Range management standards provide stock pond guidance for 

Chiricahua leopard frogs and other species, because most leopard frog and Sonora tiger salamander 

localities are now in stock ponds, rather than natural waters. Wildland fire may result in short-term 

impacts to these species and their habitat; however, the objective of the program is to restore uplands, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

283

which would benefit aquatic resources. Overall, these plan components address the threats related to 

availability of high-quality water and loss of habitat quality that could further imperil aquatic species.

Some additional guidelines address the threat of invasive species or site-specific management in areas 

where these species are known to occur. Chiricahua leopard frogs are found in several areas that have 

inherent protections by their designation—such as the Goodding Research Natural Area, a natural 

water system that harbors the heart of the Sycamore Canyon metapopulation. Sonora tiger 

salamanders are found in the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area, so the site-specific guidelines 

for this area also protect habitat for this species. These plan components support the recovery of the 

species associated with these sites.

The threat of chytridiomycosis and maintaining water quantity in the face of climate change are 

outside the Forest Service’s management capability, so no components directly address these threats 

in a species-specific way. There is a potential population of Sonora tiger salamander in Scotia Canyon 

that may have genetic issues because of hybridization or they may be nonnative to the site. There are 

no plan components for genetic problems.

The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the current science for desert communities 

and provides management objectives and guidelines that would provide a framework for 

implementing site-specific projects to achieve desired conditions for species such as New Mexico 

ridge-nosed rattlesnake. 

Alternative 1 – Alternative 1 incorporates all the components of the proposed action with the addition 

of 12 additional recommended wilderness areas. The Sonora tiger salamander and northern Mexican 

gartersnake probably do not occur in any of the recommended wilderness areas and so effects to them 

from alternative 1 would be the same as the proposed action. The New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake

may occur in the Whitmire and Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Areas.

The consequences of implementing alternative 1 would include those listed for the proposed action 

along with an additional 346 acres of habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs associated within 9 of the 

recommended wilderness areas. Chiricahua leopard frogs were extirpated from the entire Chiricahua 

Ecosystem Management Area (the type locality for the species), but have been reintroduced on the 

east side of the range. Future reintroductions of the west side of the range would be impacted by the

recommended wilderness in the Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area. The Tumacacori

Recommended Wilderness, where Chiricahua leopard frogs may occur because of its proximity to the 

Coronado National Forest’s largest metapopulation, is not in a condition that would allow it to sustain 

natural processes, particularly fire, and so its recommendation may pose a threat to Chiricahua leopard 

frogs if they are present. They are also likely present in or near the Galiuro Addition Recommended 

Wilderness, which has the same issue. It is possible they currently occupy other recommended 

wilderness areas in the elevational and distributional range, but there is not enough information to 

determine potential effects to these populations. All of the recommended wilderness areas are 

currently grazed and would continue to be grazed under alternative 1. The need for watershed or 

riparian improvement or restoration projects—whether for management of grazing, fuels, recreation, 

or other purposes—would be evaluated on a site-specific basis and, if possible, would be 

accomplished within the constraints that apply to wilderness areas, such as no mechanized or 

motorized equipment.

Approximately 20,576 acres, or 12 percent, of the desert communities would be allocated in these 

proposed wilderness areas, although it is unknown how many acres of suitable habitat exist for New 

Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake. The Whitmire and Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Areas may 

benefit the rattlesnake by reducing risk of direct mortality from motorists.

Alternative 2 – Under this alternative, there are additional effects on approximately 31 acres of 

riparian area included in the proposed Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone. There is a potential for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

284

off-highway vehicle trails and other facilities to be built in riparian areas in support of motorized 

recreation, which would result in a net loss of this community on the Coronado. Chiricahua leopard 

frogs occur in the vicinity of the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones of the northern Santa Rita 

Mountains. On the other hand, an officially designated land use zone for motorized recreation could 

direct off-road activities to the land use zone and away from other riparian areas that are currently 

being used, in some cases with significant effects on riparian vegetation, animals, soils, and channel 

morphology.

There are no proposed Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones in the Peloncillo Mountains, thus New 

Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake will experience the same effects from alternative 2 as from the 

proposed action.

The determination for the no-action alternative for Sonora tiger salamander is “may affect, likely to 

adversely affect” because there are virtually no forest plan components in the 1986 forest plan 

addressing this species or its habitat and threats. In the no-action alternative, stock tank management is 

limited to use by cattle for drinking, rather than persistence of native aquatic fauna and structure that 

supports wildlife use. However, in the action alternatives, there are numerous objectives for 

restoration of upland habitats (primarily grassland) and conservation of Sonora tiger salamander 

through guidelines, including a recovery plan. There are also mitigations to protect populations from 

the largest threat, invasive species. In alternative 2 there is no guidance for climate change, and the 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone has the potential to adversely affect 65 acres. Table 87 outlines 

the trends and determinations by alternative for Sonora tiger salamander.

Table 87. Sonora tiger salamander trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Negative

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

* The no-action alternative is “likely to adversely affect” because there are no components in the 1986 forest plan 

addressing this species or its habitat and threats.

Chiricahua leopard frog populations have been extremely dynamic. There was a huge decline from 

historic records, but in recent years, most remaining populations have been relatively stable, 

expanding and collapsing in response to environmental factors (rain, disease). Chiricahua leopard 

frogs occur across a broad range of habitats and are widely distributed across the Coronado National 

Forest. Thus, even though there are mitigations (guidelines and standards) in place to offset effects of 

the activities, the effects associated with them are less predictable and more likely to affect 

populations. Activities that have occurred under the no-action alternative are likely to be very similar 

to those under the action alternatives. Under the 1986 forest plan, leopard frog populations have 

declined precipitously since historic conditions. Some of the reasons for declines were due to factors 

beyond control of the Forest Service (chytridiomycosis and drought), whereas some activities are due 

to Forest Service management strategies, such as wildfire use and livestock grazing. As a result, there 

is no difference between alternatives in how they might contribute toward listing for the species (table 

88).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

285

Designated Critical Habitat – Designated critical habitat acres for the Chiricahua leopard frog would 

remain the same across all alternatives. The Standards and Guidelines in the proposed action of the

Coronado land and resource management plan seek to mitigate or prevent impacts on wildlife and 

plant diversity. Some plan direction seeks to avoid riparian effects from roads. In general, guidance 

should assist in minimizing or, under certain circumstances, avoiding adverse effects to Chiricahua 

leopard frog critical habitat from management activities. The Coronado seeks to provide sustainable

livestock grazing and maintain or improve riparian and watershed conditions. Direct and indirect 

effects, may take place as the result of the implementation of standards and guidelines pertinent to 

rangeland management, but overgrazing is not likely to result. Potential negative effects exist from 

wildland fire, grazing, herbicide use for invasive species management, sale of forest products, 

minerals management, roads, and recreational users. Effects from these programs include degradation

of water quality from sedimentation, trampling of riparian and streambank vegetation, presence of 

herbicide in aquatic systems and dewatering of the aquifer. Table 88 outlines the trends and 

determinations by alternative for Chiricahua leopard frog.

Table 88. Chiricahua leopard frog and critical habitat trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Negative Negative

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act

The New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake population status is unknown at this time. The Peloncillo 

population of New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake is one of three known populations; the privately 

owned Animas Mountains, New Mexico and Sierra San Luis Mountains, Mexico contain the other 

two populations. Multiple lines of evidence suggest an exceptionally small population occurs in the 

Peloncillo Mountains, and the Peloncillo population tested positive for genetic bottlenecks in several 

statistical tests (USDA FS 2011). 

New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake habitat in the Peloncillo Mountains improved in 2008 when the

Whitmire Fire burned through part of three polygons of core habitat. Preliminary analysis indicated 

that the fire effects were low, and the upper canopy in the core habitat polygons was not impacted. 

Fuel loading creates an altered fire regime, which leads to hot fires that destroy woodlands and are a 

serious threat to the New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake and its habitat (USDA FS 2011). 

Conducting prescribed fires or managing natural fires under the action alternatives will reduce the 

threat of hot fires, which is reflected in table 89. 

Because the Peloncillo Mountains are more accessible to the public than the Animas and Sierra San 

Luis Mountain ranges, illegal collection and other human activities are potentially more important 

threats than elsewhere in the range of the New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake. The current 

Coronado forest plan standards and guidelines restrict the use of motorized vehicles to existing trails 

and roadways, and other roads are closed, adverse effects from poaching and direct killing by motor 

vehicles could occur (USDA FS 2011).

Grazing within the Peloncillo Mountains, and specifically in Management Area 4, where the New 

Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake is currently known to occur, is primarily managed at forage use 

levels and requires higher density water developments and interior fencing. Loss of groundcover may 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

286

cause snakes to move less during foraging or mating, as well as increasing their risk of predation 

(USDA FS 2011). Table 89 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for New Mexico 

ridge-nosed rattlesnake.

Table 89. New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

The northern Mexican gartersnake was historically much more widespread that it currently is, having 

occurred in several of our ecosystem management areas where there was surface water and native 

frogs and fishes. However, as a result of surface water loss through diversion and pumping, loss in 

prey (especially leopard frogs and native fishes), and an increase in predators (particularly American 

bullfrog), populations have plummeted. The only recent (within the past 10 years) records on the 

Coronado National Forest are from Scotia Canyon (one individual seen in recent years), Redrock 

Canyon (one individual seen in recent years), Brown Canyon (one individual), and Canelo Hills 

(which still has a population). It is also possible that there are low-density populations in Parker 

Canyon (last record was from 1986) and Bear Canyon (last record was from 1987). All of these 

Coronado National Forest sites are in the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area. This species is 

close to being extirpated from the Coronado and possibly throughout its entire U.S. range (status of 

populations in Mexico are poorly known). In order for the negative trend to be reversed, the 

significant threats must be mitigated: populations must be enhanced, native prey base must be restored 

(which are plagued by high morbidity invasive diseases), invasive species must be controlled, and 

surface water must be retained in natural water systems. Much of this is beyond National Forest 

System control and authority. The forest plan components help mitigate many of the land management 

threats, but these are not enough to address problems facing the populations themselves, prey base, 

and climate change. 

In table 90, habitat trend is negative across all alternatives, even though there are objectives, 

standards, and guidelines targeting this and other aquatic-associated species. This is because the 

habitat needs for the species is more complex than simply the vegetation community or presence of 

water; it also includes water quantity and quality, hydrology, species that co-occur, climate, 

geomorphic features, diseases present, and many other factors ( “habitat” is all of the environmental 

parameters the species needs to persist). This is an example where the species may not be able to 

maintain viable populations on the Coronado National Forest, but it still meets population viability 

requirements because the plan components are the actions the Forest Service has authority to manage 

for. Survival of the species (at least in the U.S.) will take a concerted effort by several agencies and 

nongovernment organizations addressing the various threats. This is mentioned in the “Management 

Approaches” sections of the revised forest plan.

Proposed Critical Habitat – Proposed critical habitat acres for the northern Mexican gartersnake

would remain the same across all alternatives. The Standards and guidelines in the proposed action of 

the Coronado land and resource management plan seek to mitigate or prevent impacts on wildlife and 

plant diversity. Some plan direction seeks to avoid riparian effects from roads. In general, guidance 

should assist in minimizing or, under certain circumstances, avoiding adverse effects to proposed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

287

northern Mexican gartersnake critical habitat from management activities. The Coronado seeks to 

provide sustainable livestock grazing and maintain or improve riparian and watershed conditions. 

Direct and indirect effects, may take place as the result of the implementation of standards and 

guidelines pertinent to rangeland management, but overgrazing is not likely to result. Potential 

negative effects exist from wildland fire, grazing, herbicide use for invasive species management, sale 

of forest products, minerals management, roads, and recreational users. Effects from these programs 

include degradation of water quality from sedimentation, trampling of riparian and streambank 

vegetation, presence of herbicide in aquatic systems and dewatering of the aquifer.

Table 90 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for northern Mexican gartersnake.

Table 90. Northern Mexican gartersnake trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Negative Negative Negative Negative

Habitat trend Negative Negative Negative Negative

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Proposed Critical 

habitat determination

Not likely to result 

in destruction or 

adverse 

modification

Not likely to result 

in destruction or 

adverse 

modification

Not likely to result 

in destruction or 

adverse 

modification

Not likely to result 

in destruction or 

adverse 

modification

ESA = Endangered Species Act

Gila Chub and Critical Habitat, Yaqui Chub, Yaqui Catfish, Gila Topminnow, Sonora 

Chub and Critical Habitat, Desert Pupfish, Gila Trout, Apache Trout, Spikedace and 

Critical Habitat, Loach Minnow and Critical Habitat, Roundtail Chub

Summary of Determinations:

• Implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for Gila chub, Yaqui catfish and Sonora chub, and for Gila chub and Sonora chub 

critical habitat.

• Implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for Yaqui chub, Gila topminnow, desert pupfish, Gila trout, spikedace, loach 

minnow, and roundtail chub.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on aquatic and riparian 

habitat or species populations, but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and 

improvement of habitats and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – The no-action alternative does little to address native fish populations. The only plan 

content related to stream habitat conditions does not distinguish between native fish habitat and sport 

fish. It does have management for riparian resources that is adequate to support habitat for a diversity 

of species and which would not result in the loss of riparian habitat extent (see “Riparian Areas” 

section for more information). Under this alternative, most fish and frog populations have decreased 

dramatically, but there are a few streams where Gila chub and Sonora chub are doing well and have 

actually thrived the past several years. Based on the analysis of the effects on the aquatic habitat, it 

was determined that this alternative would maintain species viability on the Coronado National Forest, 

but would not increase trends in individual species populations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

288

For watersheds affected by historic mining, grazing, hydrologic modification (channelization), 

pesticide use, recreation, motor vehicle travel, and agriculture, actions to correct these situations 

would continue at the current rate under the no-action alternative, which may result in continued 

violations of water quality into the future (see “Water Resources” for more information). Management 

actions under this alternative would cause no change to habitat quantity or distribution, and habitat 

quality would continue to improve slowly. Thus, populations of Gila chub, Yaqui chub, Yaqui catfish,

Gila topminnow, Sonora chub, desert pupfish, Gila trout, Apache trout, spikedace, loach minnow, and 

roundtail chub would be expected to be maintained at current levels.

Gila chub, Sonora chub, Gila topminnow, and spikedace are management indicator species under the 

1986 forest plan, but there is little guidance on managing for these species or the waters they occur in. 

These species were to have “appropriate habitat components” measured in the monitoring plan. This 

was done via surveys by Arizona Game and Fish Department, which focused on population size and 

localities but also habitat condition.

To decrease risk to the Gila trout on Mount Graham in the Pinaleño Mountains from road 

sedimentation, a forestwide standard and guideline (2025) under the recreation program was put in 

place during 2010 that prohibits motor vehicle use (cross-country travel) off the designated system of 

roads, trails, and areas except as identified on motor vehicle use maps. 

Proposed Action – The proposed action recommends the addition of 4 wilderness areas and 2 

wilderness study areas. These are the Mount Graham, Ku Chish, Chiricahua North Addition and 

Whetstone Recommended Wilderness and the Whitmire and Bunk Robinson Wilderness Study Areas. 

As a recommended wilderness areas, these areas would provide another layer of protection; however, 

in the Mount Graham and Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Areas, the ponderosa pine and 

mixed-conifer habitat are highly departed from desired conditions and thus at increased risk of 

wildfires due to unnaturally high fuel loads. These effects include increased runoff of floodwaters, 

deposition of debris and sediment originating from the burned area.

Other potential effects from implementing the proposed action include adverse effects from use of 

herbicides and pesticides for treatment of invasive plants, mineral extraction, roads, recreation, and 

grazing activities. These effects include habitat loss and fragmentation, increased sedimentation, 

floodplain and streambank vegetation removal, reduction of cover and exposure of soil to erosion and 

dewatering of the aquifer.

However, under this alternative, fine-filter plan components (table 71) include recovery plans for Gila 

chub (draft recovery plan),Yaqui chub, Yaqui catfish, Gila topminnow, Sonora chub, desert pupfish, 

Gila trout, Apache trout, spikedace, loach minnow and roundtail chub. All species are addressed by 

components to control of invasive species that could decimate populations, which has happened in 

most of the historic drainages. There are also components that address retaining high water quality and 

protecting pools from the threat of intense wildfire. Sedimentation into streams is a huge potential 

threat that can extirpate entire drainages, as happened with Sabino Canyon following the fire. There 

are many plan components that deal with upland habitat management and reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire (see “Vegetation Communities” for more information). Therefore, the proposed 

action alternative better addresses the threats to these species from management in the surrounding 

uplands.

The development of springs and implementation of stream restoration projects, to provide aquatic 

habitat and restore proper functioning condition, would result in improved habitat quantity and quality 

for plant and/or animal species associated with them. This is particularly important for protecting 

species from the impacts of climate change and from the effects of uncharacteristic fire in their 

watershed.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

289

Alternative 1 – Alternative 1 incorporates all the components of the proposed action with the addition 

of 12 additional recommended wilderness areas (beyond the 4 recommended in the proposed action). 

Management of these lands would be dominated by natural processes and mechanized and motorized 

uses would occur on a limited basis for management purposes only and would not be permitted to 

permanently alter the landscape. Under this alternative, terrestrial habitats would benefit from the 

increase in unaltered landscapes except for where the area’s management as a recommended 

wilderness would increase the risk of uncharacteristic fire. Areas already in a condition that would 

allow fire to play its natural role on the landscape would allow large tracts of land to become refugia 

for individual species survival.

The headwaters of Sycamore Creek lie within the boundaries of Tumacacori Recommended

Wilderness Area. As a recommended wilderness area, this area would provide another layer of 

protection to the Sonora chub within Sycamore Canyon, but upland habitats are outside the range of 

historic variability and its recommendation could increase the risk of uncharacteristic fire. However, 

part of the Tumacacori Recommended Wilderness Area burned in 2011 and 2016 and ash was 

transported into Sycamore Canyon. The fish and frog populations seem to be doing well, and the fire 

“treated” some of the upland vegetation. So it is possible that the risk to these species is not as great as 

some others.

Alternative 2 – Under this alternative there are additional effects on approximately 31 acres of 

riparian area included in the proposed Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone. None of the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zones would affect any of these species, so the effects would be identical to the 

proposed action.

Designated Critical Habitat – Designated critical habitat acres would remain the same across all 

alternatives. Designated critical habitat exists on the Coronado for Gila chub and Sonora chub. Yaqui 

catfish, desert pupfish, spikedace and loach minnow all have designated critical habitat, but it does not 

occur on the Coronado. Implementation of any alternative would result in a “may affect, likely to 

adversely affect” determination for critical habitat for both the Gila chub and Sonora chub. The 

standards and guidelines in the Coronado land and resource management plan seek to mitigate or 

prevent impacts on wildlife and plant diversity. Some plan direction seeks to avoid riparian effects 

from roads. In general, guidance should assist in minimizing or, under certain circumstances, avoiding 

adverse effects to Gila chub and Sonora chub critical habitat from management activities. The 

Coronado seeks to provide sustainable livestock grazing and maintain or improve riparian and 

watershed conditions. Direct and indirect effects, may take place as the result of the implementation of 

standards and guidelines pertinent to rangeland management, but overgrazing is not likely to result. 

Potential negative effects exist from wildland fire, grazing, herbicide use for invasive species 

management, sale of forest products, minerals management, roads, and recreational users. Effects 

from these programs include degradation of water quality from sedimentation, trampling of riparian 

and streambank vegetation, presence of herbicide in aquatic systems and dewatering of the aquifer.

The Gila chub population trend is reflected in pre- and post-Aspen Fire Sabino Creek conditions, 

where the species is currently doing well. Determinations are based on recent, past consultation, and 

the fact that Sabino Canyon receives much recreational use and maintenance. Plus, there should be no 

differences in alternatives related to Sabino Canyon and other locations. There is much human activity 

in Sabino Canyon and the potential for excessive sedimentation or scouring exists, partly based on 

management in upland habitats; hence, the “likely to adversely affect” determination (table 91). The 

reason the determinations are the same for all action alternatives is because there are no differences in 

management proposed for this area. In the case of the Coronado National Forest, the loss of any robust 

population would result in loss of population viability for this species, but the loss of a few individuals 

due to management actions would result in an adverse effect determination, but not the loss of 

population viability. Table 91 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for Gila chub.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

290

Table 91. Gila chub trends and critical habitat and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Stable Stable Stable Stable

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act

The only Yaqui chub population on the Coronado National Forest does well in some years and poor in 

others. There is no guidance on managing for Yaqui chub in the no-action alternative, while there are 

several guidelines that address threats in the action alternatives, and the plan components are all the 

same. In addition, the action alternatives manage the overall riparian and aquatic habitat better than 

the no-action alternative. There are no differences in management of lands where the species occurs in 

the action alternatives. Table 92 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for Yaqui chub.

Table 92. Yaqui chub trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic Dynamic

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

The Yaqui catfish population trend is based on unknown plans to reestablish extirpated populations, 

which would occur in all alternatives. Recently, the Southwestern Region completed consultation on 

all of the forest plans in Arizona and New Mexico. Neither the Yaqui catfish nor its critical habitat 

occur on the Coronado; however, downstream effects from management activities are possible to the

species. Table 93 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for Yaqui catfish.

Table 93. Yaqui catfish trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

291

The Gila topminnow population trend is based on a recently reintroduced population in Sabino 

Canyon in the Santa Catalina Mountains and a recently discovered population in Parker Canyon in the 

Huachuca Mountains. In addition, they have been documented in O’Donnell, and Redrock Canyons in 

the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area. Table 94 outlines the trends and determinations by 

alternative for Gila topminnow.

Table 94. Gila topminnow trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Sonora chub population trend is based on continued occupancy of pools in Sycamore Canyon. The noaction alternative does little to address Sonora chub. However, all of the action alternatives have plan 

components, which include three objectives to protect habitat for aquatic species, as well as several 

guidelines and standards not found in the no-action alternative. The Sonora chub population has 

always appeared to be stable, even when confronted with a large population of American bullfrogs, 

which are currently eradicated or managed to a very low number and after large-scale fires upstream 

in 2011 and 2016. Therefore, the action alternatives would better provide for the viability of the 

species on the Coronado National Forest. Table 95 outlines the trends and determinations by 

alternative for Sonora chub.

Table 95. Sonora chub trends and critical habitat and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Stable Stable Stable Stable

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act

The desert pupfish population trend is based on unknown plans to reestablish extirpated populations, 

which would occur in all alternatives. Neither the desert pupfish nor its critical habitat occur on the 

Coronado. The nearest known occurrences of this species to the Coronado, downstream from the 

Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Area on the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (USDA FS 

2016). The only critical habitat for this species in Arizona occurs on the Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument. Table 96 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for desert pupfish.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

292

Table 96. Desert pupfish trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action

Proposed 

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Currently, there is one population of Gila trout on the Coronado. Frye Creek, in the Pinaleño 

Mountains, was stocked in October 2009 with 500 Gila trout of the South Diamond lineage, and in 

February of 2011, a supplemental stocking of Gila trout was completed. Other Coronado National 

Forest potential recovery streams, now occupied by Apache trout, may have some risk from road 

systems. However, roads are limited on Mount Graham in the Pinaleño Mountains where these 

streams are located. Motor vehicle use (cross-country travel) is prohibited off the designated system of 

roads, trails, and areas except as identified on motor vehicle use maps. Authorized livestock use has 

decreased on the Coronado. The Coronado has restrictions in place on grazing in the vicinity of the 

current Apache trout populations in the Pinaleño Mountains. Those streams have been proposed to 

become Gila trout streams sometime in the future. The Coronado, in cooperation with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has completed nonnative salmonid 

removal and established new Gila trout populations. There are standards and guidelines that support 

conservation and recovery of Gila trout. Table 97 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative 

for Gila trout.

Table 97. Gila trout trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Stable Stable Stable Stable

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

The Apache trout is a nonnative species and was introduced as part of its recovery plan many years 

ago, but they hybridized with other nonnative trout (especially rainbow trout). On the north side of the 

Pinaleño Mountains, four creeks (Ash, Frye, Deadman, and Marijilda) have at some point contained 

hybridized populations of Apache trout (USDA FS 2015). All the hybridized Apache trout have been 

chemically removed from Ash Creek. In 2004, post-fire flooding from the Nuttall Fire eliminated all 

of the hybridized Apache trout from Frye Creek, and most of the hybridized fish from Marijilda and 

Deadman creeks. The trout in these creeks, along with Grant Creek and Big Creek (a tributary of 

Grant Creek) on the south side, were evaluated for genetic purity in 1998 (Grant and Big creeks were 

retested in 2013). Only the population in Grant and Big Creeks were found to be genetically pure, so 

the effects analysis that follows is directed only toward the population in these two creeks. Table 98

outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for Apache trout.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

293

Table 98. Apache trout trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

The spikedace population trend is based on unknown plans to reestablish extirpated populations, 

which would occur in all alternatives. Neither the spikedace nor its critical habitat occur on the 

Coronado; however, downstream effects from management activities are possible. Table 99 outlines 

the trends and determinations by alternative for spikedace.

Table 99. Spikedace trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act

The loach minnow population trend is based on unknown plans to reestablish extirpated populations, 

which would occur in all alternatives. Neither the loach minnow nor its critical habitat occur on the 

Coronado; however, downstream effects from management activities are possible. Table 100 outlines 

the trends and determinations by alternative for loach minnow.

Table 100. Loach minnow trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

294

The roundtail chub population trend is based on unknown plans to reestablish extirpated populations, 

which would occur in all alternatives. The roundtail does not occur on the Coronado; however,

downstream effects to this species from management activities are possible. Table 101 outlines the 

trends and determinations by alternative for roundtail chub.

Table 101. Roundtail chub trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Positive Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination Not likely to 

jeopardize

Not likely to 

jeopardize

Not likely to 

jeopardize

Not likely to 

jeopardize

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Pima Pineapple Cactus

This species is typically found in the desert to grassland ecotone, but plan components only target 

“pure” habitat elements, making management species- and site-specific. The Pima pineapple cactus 

population trend is based on survey reports (table 102). Habitat trend of action alternatives is difficult 

to predict because there are no objectives targeting occupied area and, historically, the occupied area 

has not been treated because it is desert, it is occupied by this species, or both. 

Summary of Determinations:

Implementation of any alternative may render a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination 

for Pima pineapple cactus.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on habitat or species 

populations but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and improvement of habitats 

and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – There is no guidance in the 1986 forest plan on how to address the effects and threats of 

invasive species, including the unique problems associated with controlling the spread of invasive 

species such as Lehman’s lovegrass and bufflegrass, which increase the likelihood of uncharacteristic 

fire. While invasive species treatments have occurred under the 1986 forest plan, direction is lacking,

inhibiting the ability of the Coronado National Forest to move this community toward desired 

conditions. Additionally, the 1986 forest plan promotes the use of fire to improve grassland habitat for 

livestock but does not require mitigation for the Pima pineapple cactus. Management under the 

direction of the 1986 plan may change the composition of desert ecosystems sufficiently to result in 

reduced acreage on the Coronado.

Proposed Action – The proposed action defines desired conditions based on the current science for 

desert and grassland communities and provides management objectives and guidelines that would 

provide a framework for implementing site-specific projects to achieve desired conditions. Forest plan 

components would guide management to treat 1,000 to 1,500 acres of buffelgrass invasion annually 

using chemicals and hand pulling to decrease the spread of this invasive species. Every 10 years, the 

plan stipulates treating at least 72,500 acres of grasslands using wildland fire (planned and unplanned 

ignitions), thinning, and mastication.

This species is known to occur within the Santa Rita and Huachuca Ecosystem Management Areas. 

Additional plan components within the Santa Rita and Huachuca Ecosystem Management Areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

295

would guide management activities involving ground disturbance and/or vegetation management to 

incorporate site-specific design features to benefit habitat for, or mitigate impacts to, rare plant 

populations. None of the recommended wilderness in the proposed action overlaps with Pima 

pineapple cactus habitat.

Alternative 1 – In addition to incorporating the proposed action, this alternative proposes that 16 land 

parcels be recommended for wilderness designation. Approximately 20,576 acres, or 12 percent, of 

the desert communities would be allocated within these proposed wilderness areas, although it is 

unknown on how many acres Pima pineapple cactus occurs.

Alternative 2 – The Pima pineapple cactus does not occur in any area with additional Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone and so the effects of this alternative are the same as the proposed action.

Table 102 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for Pima pineapple cactus.

Table 102. Pima pineapple cactus trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Negative Negative Negative Negative

Habitat trend Negative Unknown Unknown Unknown

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Huachuca Water Umbel and Critical Habitat

Summary of Determinations:

The implementation of any alternative may render a “may affect, likely to adversely affect” 

determination for Huachuca water umbel and Huachuca water umbel critical habitat.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on aquatic and riparian 

habitat or species populations, but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and 

improvement of habitats and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – The Huachuca water umbel is not specifically addressed in the 1986 forest plan, but 

riparian habitat is protected from activities in several plan components. There are also management 

areas that address the sensitivity of important riparian areas (including perennial streams, an aquatic 

feature). This plant is actually aquatic (growing in standing water) to riparian (adjacent to surface 

water), and aquatic habitats outside of the management areas are generally lacking. Also, surface 

water discussions mostly focus on stock tanks, which can divert water from natural watercourses. 

Generally, stock tanks do not provide habitat for Huachuca water umbel, whereas natural watercourses 

do.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

296

Proposed Action – The proposed action offers the following plan components that could benefit this 

species:

• Apply for at least 10 instream flow water rights on streams for recreation and wildlife purposes, 

prioritizing locations necessary for sustaining native fish populations. 

• Treat 2,500 to 10,000 acres of uplands with vegetation treatments or soil and watershed 

restoration treatments to maintain watershed stability and, thereby, the structure and function of 

streams, flood plains, and riparian vegetation.

• Restore native vegetation and natural water flow patterns on at least 10 wetland sites within 10 

years of forest plan approval.

This species is known to occur within the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area. An additional plan 

component within the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area would guide management activities 

involving ground disturbance and/or vegetation management to incorporate site-specific design 

features to benefit habitat for, or mitigate impacts to, rare plant populations.

Effects that may result from implementing the proposed action include increased runoff of 

floodwaters, deposition of debris and sedimentation of water channels from wildland fire. Use of 

herbicides and pesticides to treat invasive species can have an adverse effect on aquatic species, 

including the Huachuca water umbel. Livestock grazing can result in trampling of plants and changing 

riparian and aquatic conditions; however, this species currently successfully coexists with grazing in 

Bear Canyon in the Huachuca Mountains.

Alternative 1 – None of the recommended wilderness areas occur in the range of the Huachuca water 

umbel, so effects of this alternative are comparable to the proposed action for this species.

Alternative 2 – The Huachuca water umbel is not affected by any of the Motorized Recreation Land 

Use Zones in this alternative, so effects of this alternative are comparable to the proposed action.

Designated Critical Habitat – Designated critical habitat acres would remain the same across all 

alternatives. The discussions in the previous section for effects to the species also apply to critical 

habitat. Primary constituent elements of critical habitat also include sufficient baseflow, healthy 

stream channels, and maintenance of riparian vegetation. All of the program areas mentioned above 

also similarly affect the primary constituent elements of the critical habitat units for the Coronado 

National Forest.

The status of Huachuca water umbel populations is not well documented, but the species is known to 

be surviving. New populations have recently been discovered, suggesting populations are somewhat 

stable. However, all aquatic species are threatened by drought and other factors. Table 103 outlines 

the trends and determinations by alternative for Huachuca water umbel.

Table 103. Huachuca water umbel trends and determinations, by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA determination May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, likely 

to adversely affect

ESA = Endangered Species Act
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

297

Canelo Hills Ladies’ Tresses

Summary of Determinations:

Because there is only one location where this species occurs on the Coronado National Forest, and that 

area is protected by a fence and excluded from livestock grazing, the implementation of any 

alternative may render a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for Canelo Hills 

ladies’ tresses.

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The implementation of plan components related to vegetation 

treatments, recreation management, watershed management, wildlife, fish, or rare plants management, 

or land acquisition in any of the alternatives may have short-term effects on aquatic and riparian 

habitat or species populations but would produce long-term benefits to the maintenance and 

improvement of habitats and species populations on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action – The Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses is not specifically addressed in the 1986 forest plan, but 

riparian habitat is protected from activities in several plan components. There are also management 

areas that address the sensitivity of important riparian areas. 

Proposed Action – Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses occur in cienegas, none of which fall within 

recommended wilderness areas in the proposed action. These rare wetlands are protected by several 

plan components:

• MTS-G-3: New road construction in riparian areas should be avoided, except to cross, unless 

alternate routes are physically or financially infeasible or have greater overall resource impacts. If 

these activities are unavoidable, they should be designed and implemented to minimize effects to 

natural water flow and native vegetation communities.

• MTS-G-2: New road construction in meadows and wetlands should be avoided where physically 

or financially feasible. If these activities are unavoidable, they should be designed and 

implemented to minimize effects to water flow, wetland recharge, and ecosystem function.

• NWS-G-2: Water quality, quantity, and habitat features at natural springs and seeps should be 

protected or enhanced.

• NWS-G-3: Fuel buildup should be reduced around natural water sources to protect them from

uncharacteristic fire effects.

• NWS-G-4: Management activities should not impair soil moisture recharge at outflows of natural 

water sources.

• NWS-O-2: Reconstruct at least 3 developed springs within 10 years to provide aquatic habitat for 

the recovery of plant and/or animal species.

• NWS-O-3: Complete 3 stream restoration and/or development projects to benefit aquatic species 

of conservation concern within 10 years.

• RIA-G-2: Livestock grazing in riparian areas should only be allowed when there are no 

significant deleterious effects to riparian area structure or function.

• WET-O-1: Restore native vegetation and natural water flow patterns on at least 10 wetland sites 

every 10 years.

• WET-S-1: The total acreage of existing wetlands will not be diminished due to management 

activities.

• WET-G-1: Management activities should only be allowed in wetlands if vegetative communities 

(except noxious and/or invasive plants), soil function and structure, and hydrologic function are 

kept the same or improved.

Alternative 1 – None of the recommended wilderness areas occur within the range of the Canelo Hills 

ladies’ tresses, so the effects of this alternative are comparable to the proposed action for this species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

298

Alternative 2 – The Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses is not affected by any of the Motorized Recreation 

Land Use Zones in this alternative, so the effects of this alternative are comparable to the proposed 

action.

Table 104 outlines the trends and determinations by alternative for Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses.

Table 104. Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses trends and determinations by alternative

Trends and 

Determinations No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Population trend Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Habitat trend Negative Positive Positive Positive

ESA 

determination

May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect

May affect, not likely

to adversely affect

May affect, not likely 

to adversely affect

Critical habitat 

determination

NA NA NA NA

ESA = Endangered Species Act; NA = not applicable

Regionally Sensitive Species and Other

Forest Planning Species – Environmental Consequences

Species that were not federally listed as threatened or endangered are either Southwestern Region 

Forest Service sensitive species (table 105) or “other planning species” (table 106). Each of these lists 

has a somewhat different content. Sensitive species tend to be vertebrates and select plants, while 

“other planning species” tend to be invertebrates and other, apparently rare, plants. However, this 

category also has common game species or species of public interest. There tends to be a fair amount 

of literature on natural history of sensitive species, while many of the “other planning species” are 

poorly known (game and public interest species being the notable exception). Although the origin and 

content of the lists are different, a finite number of species tend to face the same threats, so they are 

mostly considered together here (except as noted) based on the common threats and population 

viability risks. 

Many of the sensitive species were filtered out during the coarse-filter process if they are relatively 

widespread, highly mobile, and lacked specific natural history requirements. This included most birds, 

bats, and terrestrial mammals. These species benefit from habitat restoration (desired conditions and 

objectives) and are relatively widespread terrestrial “generalists.” They, therefore, do not need 

additional fine-filter components to address their associated threats. Most of the “other” forest 

planning species were filtered out by the coarse filter for two main reasons: 

1. There was insufficient information on the species to develop fine-filter components, so the 

assumption was made that coarse-filter components would suffice for species that evolved in 

the ecosystems being restored; or 

2. They were associated primarily with terrestrial biophysical features, which have adequate

plan components to protect them from threats. 

The Coronado has many species that are closely associated with biophysical features (especially talus 

slopes), so a few forestwide plan components were sufficient to negate the need for species- or sitespecific fine-filter components. As an example, there are 40 of 47 mollusks (appendix F) in the 

coarse-filter category that are associated with biophysical features and could be screened using the 

coarse filter components alone.

One of the main threats to rare and localized forest planning species is extirpation or extinction 

through stochastic (random, unpredictable) events. Rarity alone is not a criterion for requiring fine-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

299

filter components, but where our management would contribute to the vulnerability of the species to 

extirpation or extinction, then the Forest Service would need additional plan components to meet its 

population viability requirements. The best example of fine-filter components addressing the 

possibility of extirpation by stochastic events is for plants whose known distribution is limited to one 

or two ecosystem management areas. If a population were to be extirpated from one of two known 

ecosystem management areas due to our management actions, then it would be extirpated from 50 

percent of its range across the planning area (Coronado National Forest) and would not meet the 

criteria to “maintain viable populations (not species viability), well distributed across the planning 

area.” As a result, many of the ecosystem management areas in the action alternatives have a speciesspecific guideline, a site-specific guideline, or both to address management in areas that could affect 

rare species population viability, such as this one from the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area 

(EMA-TUM-G-2):

Management activities involving ground disturbance and/or vegetation management 

should incorporate site-specific design features to benefit habitat for, or mitigate impacts 

to, rare plant populations. For the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area, these 

species and associated management threats include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Cochise woolwort: grazing; recurved corycactus: illegal collection, grazing, road 

construction and maintenance; soft Mexican-orange: fire.

Another reason that numerous species were not screened by the coarse filter alone was threats to 

aquatic species. Aquatic species tend to be rare and localized distributions and have been steadily 

declining. As an example, the longfin dace is the most widely distributed fish on the Coronado 

National Forest, but occupied stream habitat is still rare, so it has numerous guidelines targeting 

mitigation in natural waters: NWS-G-1, NWS-G-3, and NWS-G-5. These components are in addition 

to two coarse-filter components (objectives): NWS-O-1 and NWS-O-3 that support maintaining water 

quantity needed for aquatic habitat.

Table 105. Sensitive species threats and plan components to address threats

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

[Desert] Bighorn 

sheep

Ovis 

canadensis 

mexicana

Invasive species of buffelgrass; loss of 

aquatic habitats; off-road vehicle use; 

development; disease from domestic 

goats and sheep and energy resource 

development.

BIP-G-2; REC-G-6; RAMG-3; RAM-S-1; VDC-G-1 

and 2; WIL-PSR-G-1 and 

2; EMA-CAT-S-2A

Mexican longtongued batChoeronycteris 

mexicana

Grazing and fire suppression; loss of 

food supplies (nectar and pollen of 

agave and columnar cactus) due to 

development, ranching practices, 

harvesting, or any activities that 

disturbs agave and/or columnar cactus 

populations; and disturbance of roost 

sites.

ARP-G-5; BIP-G-3 and 4; 

BIP-S-1; RAM-G-4; VICG-1, VMP-G-1; several 

special areas (see text)

[Pale] Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

Plecotus 

townsendii 

[pallescens]

Reduction of chaparral habitat, loss of 

habitat (e.g., reclamation of 

abandoned mines), vandalism, and 

disturbance of maternity roosts and 

hibernacula.

ARP-G-5; BIP-G-3 and 4; 

BIP-S-1; RAM-G-4; 

several special areas (see 

text)

American 

peregrine falcon

Falco 

peregrinus 

anatum

Environmental toxins, habitat loss, 

human disturbance, and illegal take.

ARP-G-3; BIP-G-2; RECG-6; several special areas 

(see text)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

300

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Northern goshawk Accipiter 

gentilis

Stand-replacing crown fires, drought, 

insects, disease, and other forest 

health issues.

ARP-G-2A to D; EMACHI-S-2A and B; several 

special areas (see text)

Arizona treefrog 

(Huachuca/Canelo 

DPS)

Hyla 

wrightorum

Wildfire and subsequent erosion, 

sedimentation, and ash flow.

DC; VO; ALL; TER; RIA; 

ISM-G-1; COW-G-2; 

EMA-HUA-G-1, 2 and 4; 

NWS-G-1 to 5; RIA-G-2, 

3, and 4; ARP-G-2 (draft 

conservation agreement)

Lowland leopard 

frog

Lithobates 

yavapaiensis

Habitat alteration and fragmentation 

and the introduction of nonnative 

predatory and competitive fishes, 

crayfishes, and frogs; drought; and 

disease.

COW-G-2; ISM-G-1; 

NWS-G-1 to 5; RAM G 2 

and 3; RAM-S-2 and 3; 

several special areas (see 

text)

Giant spotted 

whiptail

Aspidoscelis 

stictogramma

Invasive species of buffelgrass; loss of 

aquatic habitats; off-road vehicle use; 

development; and energy resource 

development.

RIA-G-1 to 4; VDC-G-1 

and 2; VGC-G-1 and 2; 

several special areas (see 

text)

Mexican 

stoneroller

Campostoma 

ornatum

Aquifer pumping, reduction in 

streamflows, water diversion, drought, 

and predation by nonnative green 

sunfish.

NWS-G-4

Sonora sucker Catostomus 

insignis

Alteration of historic flow regimes 

and construction of reservoirs have 

diminished available habitat, and 

general watershed erosion causing 

excessive sand deposition in streams 

has eliminated much of the required 

pool habitat.

NWS-G-1; NWS-G-2 

Desert sucker Catostomus 

clarkia

Alteration of historic flow regimes 

and construction of reservoirs have 

diminished available habitat, and 

general watershed erosion causing 

excessive sand deposition in streams 

has eliminated much of the required 

pool habitat.

NWS-G-1; NWS-G-2

Longfin dace Agosia 

chrysogaster

Habitat alterations and interactions 

with nonnative fish species. Large 

areas of habitat have been destroyed 

by dewatering, stream diversion, 

groundwater pumping, dam 

construction, channel and watershed 

erosion, and other factors.

NWS-G-1; NWS-G-2

NWS-G-5

Huachuca giantskipperAgathymus 

evansi

Grazing and fire suppression; and fire. VIC-G-1, VIC-G-5; VMPG-1; EMA-HUA-S2 A and 

B

Arizona 

Cymbiodytan 

water scavenger 

beetle

Cymbiodyta 

arizonica

Water use, grazing, logging habitat 

modification, erosion, sedimentation,

and siltation.

NWS-G-1 and 2; EMACHI-S1A to D; EMA-CHIS2A and B; RAM-G-5
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

301

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Stephan's riffle 

beetle

Heterelmis 

stephani

Spring habitats degraded and 

trampling of larvae.

DC; VO; AQU; NWS-G-1,

2, 3, and 5; WET-G-1; 

WET-S-1

Huachuca 

springsnail

Pyrgulopsis 

thompsoni

Habitat modification and loss through 

catastrophic wildfire and grazing.

DC; VO; RIA; ARP-G-1;

NWS-G-1, 2, 3, and 5; 

RAM-G-1 to 5; WET-G-1; 

WET-S-1

Pinaleño mountain 

snail

Oreohelix 

grahamensis

Stand-replacing crown fires, drought, 

insects, disease, and other forest 

health issues.

BIP-G-1 and 2; MIN-G-1; 

EMA-PIN-MA; EMA-PINS-1A and B; ARP-G-2

(draft conservation 

agreement)

Wet canyon 

talussnail

Sonorella 

macrophallus

Stand-replacing crown fires, drought, 

insects, disease, and other forest 

health issues.

EMA-PIN-MA; MIN-G-1; 

ARP-G-2 (draft 

conservation agreement); 

Wet Canyon Talus snail 

Special Area

Parish’s abutilon Abutilon 

parishii

Competition with exotic plants such 

as buffelgrass and Thornberry; 

livestock habitat degradation, 

trampling, and grazing; mining, hiker 

trampling and trail maintenance.

BIP-G-2; MIN-G-2 VDCG-1 and 2; RAM-G-1 and 2 

and 4 to 7; RIA-G-2; WETG-1; several special areas 

(see text)

Santa Rita 

yellowshow

Amoreuxia 

gonzalezii

Invasive species, invasion by native 

and nonnative shrubs, overgrazing,

fire suppression, development, and 

mining.

EMA-RIT-G-2; RAM-G-1 

and 2 and 4 to 7

Copper Mine 

milk-vetch

Astragalus 

cobrensis var. 

maguirei

Water diversion, pumping, or 

increased evapotranspiration,

overgrazing, climate change, and 

concentrated recreation.

EMA-PEL-G-2; EMACHI-G-3; RAM-G-1 and 2 

and 4 to 7; several special

areas (see text)

Huachuca milkvetchAstragalus 

hypoxylus

Habitat degradation, trampling from 

recreation and grazing, and fire 

suppression.

EMA-HUA-G-2; EMAHUA-S2 A and B; RAMG-1 and 2 and 4 to 7; RECG-2

Ayenia Ayenia truncata 

(= A. glabra)

Invasive species, invasion by native 

and nonnative shrubs, overgrazing,

fire suppression, and development.

EMA-RIT-G-2; RAM-G-1 

and 2 and 4 to 7

Elusive browallia Browallia 

eludens

Grazing, fire suppression, and 

diversion, pumping, or increased 

evapotranspiration, climate change, 

fuelwood cutting, and hiking.

EMA-HUA-G-2; RAM-G1 and 2 and 4 to 7; EMAHUA-S2 A and B; REC-G2; 

Chihuahuan sedge Carex 

chihuahuensis

Water loss through diversion, 

pumping, or increased 

evapotranspiration; overgrazing; and 

climate change.

WET-S-1; WET-G-1; RIAG-2; MTS-G-3; RAM-G-1 

and 2 and 4 to 7; MOM-G1, 2 and 4; several special 

areas (see text)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

302

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Cochise sedge Carex ultra Water loss through diversion, 

pumping, or increased 

evapotranspiration; overgrazing; and 

climate change.

WET-S-1; WET-G-1; RIAG-2; MTS-G-3; RAM-G-1 

and 2 and 4 to 7; several 

special areas (see text)

Soft MexicanorangeChoisya 

dumosa var. 

mollis

Grazing, fire suppression, and climate 

change.

EMA-TUM-G-3 and -4; 

EMA-TUM-s-2A and B; 

RAM G-1 and 6

Recurved 

corycactus

Coryphantha 

recurvata

Invasive species, invasion by native 

and nonnative shrubs, overgrazing,

fire suppression, and development.

EMA-TUM-G-3; EMATUM-G-4; EMA-TUM-s2A and B; RAM-G-1 and 2 

and 4 to 7

Smooth babybonnetsCoursetia 

glabella

Grazing, fire suppression, and climate 

change.

EMA-HUA-G-2; EMACHI-G-2; EMA-CHI-G-3

Arid throne 

fleabane

Erigeron 

arisolius

Reduction of chaparral habitat,

grazing, and fire suppression.

RAM-G-1 and 2 and 4 to 7; 

MOM-G-1, 2 and 4; several 

special areas (see text)

Chiricahua gentian Gentianella 

wislizeni

Stand-replacing crown fires, drought, 

insects, disease, and other forest 

health issues; grazing; and recreation 

development.

EMA-CHI-G-3; EMACHI-S-1A to D; RAM-G-1 

and 2 and 4 to 7; REC-G-2; 

MOM-G-1, 2 and 4.

Coleman’s 

coralroot

Hexalectris 

colemanii

Invasive species, invasion by native 

and nonnative shrubs, overgrazing,

fire suppression, development, and 

mining.

EMA-RIT-G-2; EMADRA-G-4; RAM-G-1 and 2 

and 4 to 7

Purple-spike 

coralroot

Hexalectris 

warnockii

Grazing, fire suppression, climate 

change, collecting, fire, and facility 

maintenance.

EMA-CHI-G-3; EMAHUA-G-2, EMA-DRA-G4, EMA-RIT-G-2; RAM-G1 and 2 and 4 to 7

Chiricahua 

mudwort

Limosella 

pubiflora

Climate change diversion, pumping, 

or increased evapotranspiration; 

overgrazing; and concentrated 

recreation.

EMA-PEL-G-2; EMAPEL-S-1; RAM-G-1 and 2 

and 4 to 7; REC-G-2; 

WET-G-1; WET-S-1; 

Beardless chinch 

weed

Pectis imberbis Invasive species, invasion by native 

and nonnative shrubs, overgrazing,

fire suppression, development, and 

road maintenance.

EMA-RIT-G-2; EMAHUA-G-2; RAM-G-1 and 2 

and 4 to 7

Broad-leaf 

ground-cherry

Physalis 

latiphysa

Invasive species of buffelgrass, loss of 

aquatic habitats, off-road vehicle use,

grazing, development, and energy 

resource development.

VDC-G-1 and 2; EMAPIN-G-1; RAM-G-1 and 2 

and 4 to 7; WET-G-1; 

WET-S-1; 

Hinkley’s Jacob's 

ladder

Polemonium 

pauciflorum 

hinckleyi

Water diversion, pumping, or 

increased evapotranspiration; 

overgrazing; climate change; hiking 

and fire.

EMA-CHI-G-3; RAM-G-1 

and 2 and 4 to 7; WET-G1; WET-S-1; 

White-flowered 

cinquefoil

Potentilla 

albiflora

Stand-replacing crown fires, loss of 

natural fire regime; drought, insects,

disease, and other forest health issues.

EMA-PIN-G-1; EMA-PINS-1A and B; MOM-G-1, 2 

and 4.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

303

Common Name

Scientific 

Name Threats

Plan Components to 

Address Threat 

Providing for Viability

Huachuca 

cinquefoil

Potentilla 

rhyolitica var. 

rhyolitica

Grazing and recreation. EMA-HUA-G-2; RAM-G1 and 2 and 4 to 7; REC-G2; EMA-HUA-S-2A and B

Whisk fern Psilotum 

nudum

Invasive ssp. of Buffelgrass; loss of 

aquatic habitats; off-road vehicle use;

development, and energy resource 

development; diversion, pumping, or 

increased evapotranspiration; 

overgrazing; and climate change.

RIA-G-1 and 2; EMATUM-G-3 and 4; EMATUM-S-1A and B; MTS-G2 and 4

Porsild’s starwort Stellaria 

porsildii

Stand-replacing crown fires, drought, 

insects, disease, and other forest 

health issues; grazing; and recreation 

development.

EMA-CHI-G-3; REC-G-2; 

EMA-CHI-S-1A to D; 

EMA-CHI-S-2A and 2 B; 

MOM-G-1, 2 and 4.

Aravaipa 

woodfern

Thelypteris 

puberula var. 

sonorensis

Water diversion, pumping, or 

increased evapotranspiration; 

overgrazing; climate change; 

collecting; and spring development.

EMA-CAT-G-2; EMACAT-S-1A and B; RAM-G1 and 2 and 4 to 7; WET-G1; WET-S-1

Table 106. Other forest planning species threats and plan components to address threats

Common name

Scientific 

Name Threats

Plan Components to Address 

Threat Providing for Viability

Arizona cave 

amphipod

Stygobromus 

arizonensis

Groundwater pollution and 

groundwater depletion.

Pending strategy for Bog Springs 

(possible Conservation Agreement) 

and/or more information on 

distribution,

Barfoot 

(“Bearfoot”)

woodlandsnail

Ashmunella 

esuritor

Desiccation, habitat/cover 

loss, fire.

RIA-G-3; RIA-G-4; BIP-G-1; EMACHI-S-1A to D; EMA-CHI-S-2A 

and 2B

Chiricahua 

woodlandsnail

Ashmunella 

proxima

Desiccation, habitat/cover 

loss, fire, limited distribution.

RIA-G-3; RIA-G-4; BIP-G-1; EMACHI-S-1A to D; EMA-CHI-S-2A 

and 2B

Pungent 

talussnail

Sonorella 

odorata

Desiccation, loss of habitat 

and cover, and high-intensity 

wildfire.

EMA-CAT-G-1; MIN-G-1

Heart vertigo 

snail

Vertigo hinkleyi Desiccation, loss of habitat 

and cover, and high-intensity 

wildfire.

EMA-HUA-G-3

No common 

name

Mannia 

californica

Unknown, but could be 

threatened by stochastic 

events.

EMA-TUM-G-2; EMA-TUM-S-1A 

and B; EMA-TUM-S-2A and B

No common 

name

Plagiochasma 

wrightii

Unknown, but could be 

threatened by stochastic 

events.

EMA-TUM-G-2; EMA-TUM-S-1A 

and B; EMA-TUM-S-2A and B

Pringle’s 

fleabane

Erigeron 

pringlei

Recreation, road construction, 

and collection by botanists.

EMA-RIT-G-2 EMA-PIN-S-1A and 

B; EMA-PIN-G-1, REC-G-2
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

304

Common name

Scientific 

Name Threats

Plan Components to Address 

Threat Providing for Viability

Arizona eryngo Eryngium 

sparganophyllum

Disturbed habitats; invasive 

weeds; grazing; urban and 

agricultural development.

EMA-RIT-G-2, EMA-CAT-G-2; 

EMA-CAT-S-1A and B

Bigelow’s 

thoroughwort

Eupatorium 

bigelovii

Unknown, but could be 

threatened by stochastic 

events.

RIA-G-3; RIA-G-4; BIP-G-1

Santa Catalina 

burstwort

Hermannia 

pauciflora

Unknown, but could be 

threatened by stochastic 

events.

EMA-CAT-G-2; EMA-CAT-S-1A 

and B

Southwest 

monkeyflower

Mimulus 

dentilobus

Wetland habitats often used 

for household and livestock 

water.

EMA-RIT-G-2; COW-G-2; RIA –G1 and 2, 4 and 6; WET-G-1; WET-S1

Leafy Jacob’sladderPolemonium 

foliosissimum 

var. flavum

Unknown, but could be 

threatened by stochastic 

events.

EMA-PIN-G-1; EMA-PIN-S 1A and 

B

Cochise woodsia Woodsia 

cochisensis

Unknown, but presumably 

loss of surface and 

groundwater.

NWS-G-2 to 5; WET-G-1; WET-S-1

Fine-filter Threats and Population Viability

In the regional sensitive species and other forest planning species categories, 69 species were found to 

have some risk (fine-filter species) to their population viability that needed further analysis. The 

species identified included: 6 mammals, 3 birds, 4 amphibians, 2 reptiles, 3 insects, 1 other 

invertebrate, 7 fish, 7 mollusks, 0 fungi-lichen, 2 mosses-liverworts, and 34 plants.

No Action 

Invasive Species – Direction provided by the no-action alternative does not directly address the threat 

of invasive plant species to wildlife. It allows for seeding using nonnative species and for maintenance 

of desirable nonnatives for maintaining ecosystem diversity, each of which could adversely affect 

habitat for wildlife species. Even though this alternative does not directly address the threat of 

invasive plant species to wildlife habitat, it does not contain language that impedes the Forest 

Service’s ability to contain and prevent introduction of invasive plants. Implementation under the noaction alternative has, therefore, been able to provide for the viability of species for which invasive 

species are a threat.

Stochastic Events – There is no mechanism in the no-action alternative for addressing the threat of 

stochastic events to populations of rare or endemic animals and plants. However, the requirement to 

manage for species viability has allowed the Forest Service and its partners to design project 

mitigations that prevent management activities from adversely contributing to this natural variability 

in habitat conditions. There is no language in the no-action alternative that has prevented addressing 

this threat where it has been possible to do so. Implementation under the no-action alternative has, 

therefore, not been able to provide for the viability of species for which stochastic events are a threat.

Vegetation Management – Treating vegetation outside its historic range of variation for ecosystem 

restoration goals (restoration of resiliency) is an important function of the Coronado National Forest’s 

mission. Guidelines and standards to retain structural features and compositional integrity of forests 

and woodlands (and other habitat elements) are important mitigations to meet population viability 

objectives. In the no-action alternative, many of the guidelines and standards came from recovery 

plans or other similar documents. These documents have been incorporated into the plan in such a way 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

305

that when the source document or plan is updated, the no-action alternative no longer matches the 

newer content and must be amended. 

Northern goshawk’s major threats are forest health related. Guidelines for vegetative management in 

the 1986 forest plan include recommendations for managing northern goshawk habitat and its prey. 

These guidelines specify that the Forest Service manage for uneven-aged stand conditions, and retain 

live reserve trees, snags, downed logs, and woody debris levels throughout woodland, ponderosa pine, 

mixed-conifer, and spruce-fir forest cover types. The 1986 forest plan has guidelines with implied 

desired conditions for a specific size class distribution. The plan also describes opening size and 

reserve tree requirements (a specified number of trees retained according to opening size) by forest 

type. These guidelines were designed based on studies of goshawk conducted in northern Arizona on 

the Kaibab Plateau where the birds occupied vast, homogeneous stands of ponderosa pine. The 

conditions on the Coronado National Forest are very different as ponderosa pine only occurs as an 

ecotone between adjacent stand types. Also, the topography of the mountain ranges on the Coronado 

do not lend themselves to implementing design criteria as it was outlined for the larger more 

contiguous vegetation types typical of northern Arizona. As a result, implementation of these 

guidelines has hampered the ability to restore ecosystems to their historic range of variation and has 

had uncertain effects on providing for the viability of northern goshawk on the Coronado National 

Forest.

Management for forage improvement and control of undesirable natives under the no-action 

alternative has resulted in burning of desert communities and desert grasslands. Burning in these 

vegetation communities poses a risk to agaves that are not fire adapted but provide a food source for 

bats on the sensitive species list. Because of direction in the no-action alternative to retain agave and 

saguaros, site-specific avoidance to prevent burning areas where these agaves occur has been effective 

in mitigating these risks even though it is not a result of the direction in the no-action alternative. 

Implementation under the no-action alternative has, therefore, been able to provide for the viability of 

species for which loss of food supplies is a threat.

Threats to Aquatic, Riparian, Seep, and Wetland Habitats – The no-action alternative addresses 

the need to preserve cover for bank protection, shade, and sediment-water balance in fish-bearing 

streams. It also provides direction to improve riparian areas to satisfactory functioning conditions and 

to protect their productivity and diversity forestwide. Management Area 7 manages much of the 

riparian vegetation on the Coronado to provide for wildlife habitat and forage, and to exclude 

livestock grazing except when criteria are met that show the activity would not pose a threat to species 

viability. Wetlands are managed according to direction for riparian areas in the no-action alternative. 

The main issue with management of the no-action alternative is that not all riparian areas are included 

in Management Area 7, and so the direction that protects associated species from threats may not 

cover all locations where those threats exist. However, the most sensitive and important areas are 

included in Management Area 7 or identified as an issue in other parts of the plan. This is adequate to 

provide for the viability of aquatic and riparian dependent species, given current known threats but 

may not address emerging threats in the future if they occur outside Management Area 7.

There is also direction in the no-action alternative to maintain natural conditions around constructed 

waters that would provide wildlife and plant habitat. This direction addresses the same threats as the 

proposed action.

Mountain meadows have similar protections in the no-action alternative as in the proposed action and 

have similar effects to population viability. 

Motorized Transportation System – The no-action alternative addresses avoiding road construction 

in wet meadows and on sensitive soils but not directly in wetlands or riparian areas. Many of the most 

important wetlands and riparian areas for species that have viability threats are within Management 

Area 7B, which also should be avoided for road and trail construction according to the no-action 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

306

alternative. Restricting construction of roads in areas sensitive to sedimentation and compaction 

effects would provide for viability of aquatic species for which increased turbidity and temperature 

would threaten the population. It would also provide for protection of rare plants that occur in these 

areas. 

Biophysical Features – The no-action alternative provides some protection of biophysical features 

but is not as comprehensive as the proposed action. It has a guideline that states to “Preserve and 

protect caves for their unique environmental, biological, geological, hydrological, archaeological, 

paleontological, cultural, and recreational values,” and direction to route trails around talus slopes. 

These guidelines prevent some disturbances that are a threat to species. In terms of talus slopes, 

Management Area 2B protects a special area in the Pinaleño Mountains that is habitat for several 

endemic talus snails but talus snails on other parts of the Coronado do not have similar protections. In 

the no-action alternative, there is no protection of talus slopes from mineral activities outside 

Management Area 2B.

Recreation and Special Uses – In terms of providing for species viability, the no-action alternative

and proposed action have similar effects. Both provide for large areas of nonmotorized recreation use 

and have guidelines that protect habitat and species that are located in particularly high-use areas. 

Other Plan Components – Identified bat roosts will be managed as a sensitive resource and for the 

enhancement of populations under the no-action alternative. Protection measures may include 

seasonal closures, education, and gating. Management of roosts will include consultation with State 

and Federal wildlife agencies. These guidelines would result in protection of bat species from the 

threat of disturbance while roosting.

Site-Specific Measures – The effects to species viability for wilderness, wilderness study areas, and 

zoological and botanical areas are the same for no action and the proposed action except that the South 

Fork, Birds of Prey Zoological and Botanical Area is slightly smaller. This would not have a 

measureable effect on population viability for any of the fine-filter species.

Climate Change – There is no mechanism in the no-action alternative for addressing the threat of 

climate change to populations of rare or endemic animals and plants. However, the requirement to 

manage for species viability has allowed the Forest Service and its partners to implement project 

mitigations that prevent forest management activities from adversely interacting with these climatic 

factors. There is no language in the no-action alternative that has prevented addressing this threat 

where it has been possible to do so. Implementation under the no-action alternative has, therefore, not 

been able to provide for the viability of species for which climate change is a threat.

Viability Conclusion – The no-action alternative does not always directly address threats to species 

viability but also does not contain direction that impedes the Forest Service from acting appropriately 

to prevent extirpation of a species from the planning area when it is within the agency’s authority and 

ability to do so. This alternative, therefore, is able to provide for the viability of all sensitive and other 

forest planning species that have fine-filter threats. Species that have been extirpated in the past 20 

years have not been lost as a result of the plan content in the no-action alternative, but because of 

outside influences or lack of ability to react in a timely manner to threats to the species. These factors 

would continue to influence species viability regardless of which alternative is selected. However, 

direction offered by the no-action alternative does not provide for viability as well as the proposed 

action, which uses more updated science and knowledge of species and specifically addresses the 

threats associated with their viability and habitat needs.

Proposed Action

In this section, the major threats are addressed, as well as the plan components and fine-filter species 

shown in table 105 and table 106. Forest plan components for the proposed action, alternative 1, and 

alternative 2 are the same. The only differences are in land usage as set-asides in alternative 1 and land 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

307

use zones for motorized recreation in alternative 2. For alternatives 1 and 2, only the issues that differ 

from the proposed action are addressed in those sections below.

Invasive Species – The Coronado National Forest has many nonnative species, but most are not 

invasive and do not pose a threat to ecosystems or population viability. About 30 species of plants 

have been identified as invasive, plus a small number of animals. In desert communities, buffelgrass 

has a huge potential to threaten native species, because it has the capacity to transform the desert into 

a grassland ecosystem and drastically change the historic fire regime. Thus far, it has not spread 

beyond the Santa Catalina Ecosystem Management Area on the Coronado National Forest. Forest plan 

components that address the buffelgrass threat include VDC-G-1and 2. These components are all 

aimed at minimizing the spread, or ultimately, eradicating the species. Species that will benefit from 

buffelgrass control include most Sonoran Desert species in appendix F (coarse-filter species), plus 

Parish’s abutilon, broad-leaf ground-cherry, giant spotted whiptail, and desert bighorn sheep.

Lehmann lovegrass is well established over much of the desert grasslands across the Coronado, but is 

replacing a native grassland community, so many native species can still persist in its presence. 

Lehmann lovegrass, while an invasive, is not addressed specifically in the proposed action, because it 

is often beyond the ability of management to restore ecosystems once it has become established over a 

large area. However, there are components for rare plants and guidelines that guide management to 

retain native grasses wherever possible (VAC-G-1 and VGC-G-2). In the case of VGC-G-2, the 

important point is that if Lehmann lovegrass appears in an area of a project and the number of plants is 

very small, it may be possible to eradicate. If, however, there is a sea of Lehmann lovegrass, it is 

likely beyond our ability to manage as a whole, but it might be possible to determine mitigations in an 

area where the forest planning species occur, such as an exclosure. These plan components would help 

prevent the spread of Lehman’s lovegrass into new areas and would, thereby, address the threat to 

these species before the community becomes inexorably altered. The fine-filter species (table 105 and 

table 106) for whom expansion of Lehmann’s lovegrass is a threat are giant spotted whiptail, Santa 

Rita yellowshow, ayenia, recurved corycactus, Coleman’s coral-root, beardless chinchweed, and 

whisk fern. 

Abert’s squirrel is an animal that was intentionally introduced to the Santa Catalina and Pinaleño 

Ecosystem Management Areas as a game animal, but it may compete with native squirrels (Mount 

Graham red squirrel and Arizona gray squirrel). Abert’s squirrel is a habitat generalist and, as a result, 

habitat improvements for Mount Graham red squirrel and Arizona gray squirrel would also improve 

habitat conditions for Abert’s squirrel. Therefore, habitat management is not sufficient to address the 

threat of competition and the ability to address this threat is outside of Forest Service authority. 

Populations can be managed by Arizona Game and Fish Department to enhance survival of native 

species, so the forest plan includes a management approach to encourage the agency’s cooperation in 

this process. 

There are some serious aquatic threats, including northern crayfish (Orconectes virilis), American 

bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeiana), and a variety of warmwater fishes (especially green sunfish, 

Lepomis cyanalis) (USDA FS 2009). The aquatic invasive species are discussed below in the “Threats 

to Aquatic, Riparian, Seep, and Wetland Habitats” section.

Stochastic Events – This category covers an artificial group of plants (especially) or animals that has 

such limited distributions that their population viability could be threatened by stochastic events. 

Populations of these species could be eliminated by forest management actions if the species and 

appropriate mitigations for it were not identified at the ecosystem management area and local level 

during project planning. The plan components that specifically provide for viability to rare plant 

populations are tailored to the species and threats found in each ecosystem management area are 

EMA-RIT-G-2, EMA-HUA-G-2, EMA-CAT-G-2, EMA-PIN-G-1, EMA-PEL-G-2, EMA-DRA-G-4, 

EMA-TUM-G-4, and EMA-CHI-G-3. These guidelines specify management activities involving 

ground disturbance or vegetation management to incorporate site-specific design features to benefit 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

308

habitat for, or mitigate impacts to, rare plant populations. Species that may have a threat to viability 

include: Coleman’s coral-root, Chiricahua mudwort, copper mine milk-vetch, New Mexico 

bitterweed, Arizona eryngo, Arizona manihot, beardless chinchweed, Cochise woolwort, Huachuca 

cinquefoil, Pima pineapple cactus, Santa Rita yellowshow, Southwest monkeyflower , recurved 

corycactus, soft Mexican-orange, Huachuca milkvetch, Huachuca water umbel, purple-spike coralroot, Rusby’s hawkweed, smooth baby-bonnets, broad-leaf ground-cherry, leafy Jacob’s ladder, whiteflowered cinquefoil, Porsild’s starwort, Pringle’s fleabane, Santa Catalina burstwort, Copper Mine 

milk-vetch, ayenia, elusive browallia, Chiricahua gentian, Hinkley’s Jacob’s ladder, and Arivaipa 

woodfern.

Plagiochasma wrightii and Mannia californica are two species of liverwort found in the Tumacacori 

Ecosystem Management Area and EMA-TUM-G-2 addresses searching and managing for these 

species in rocky stream habitats. Forest plan components that identify these species and require their 

inclusion in project design are adequate to provide for species viability because the plants are 

specifically identified for any projects within the range. The biologist on the project would then be 

required to follow forest plan guidance and mitigate effects to these species. If these species were not 

highlighted in these guidelines, they would probably be overlooked.

Vegetation Management – Treating vegetation outside the historic range of variation for ecosystem 

restoration goals (restoration of resiliency) is an important function of the Coronado National Forest’s 

mission. Guidelines and standards to retain structural features and compositional integrity of forests 

and woodlands (and other habitat elements) are important mitigations to meet population viability 

objectives. Retention of large-diameter live and standing dead trees, woody debris, mesic 

microclimates, openings, and other features of climax forests would ensure population viability of 

most forest species that are not specialized (including the raptors themselves) per coarse-filter plan 

components.

Guidelines that specifically address vegetation management include, but are not limited to, VAC-G-4, 

5, and 6; VIC-G-1, VME-G-1, VMG-G-2, VMP-G-3, 5, 9, 10, 12, and 13; VDM-G-1, and VWM-G-3. 

Among these forest and woodland management guidelines, there is some repetition across vegetation 

types (VIC-G-1and VMP-G-1 both refer to retaining paniculate agaves; the difference is that the 

guidelines are in different sections (VIC = interior chaparral; VMP = Madrean pine-oak)). These types 

of guidelines basically direct management to use the best management practices to treat woodland and 

forest vegetation types while retaining key structural features necessary for wildlife. Examples include 

stand-level treatment direction; when and where to burn woody debris; retention of snags, logs, largediameter trees; retention of clusters; stand size; desired forest structure; and so on. These guidelines 

represent good habitat management for a suite of fine- and coarse-filter species, but few are critical 

components needed for population viability requirements of any particular species, except for the 

Huachuca giant skipper. The Huachuca giant skipper (an endemic insect) requires the Huachuca 

agave, an endemic plant species, as the larval food plant. Thus, VMP-G-1 is necessary to meet 

viability standards for the skipper as well as the Mexican long-tongued and lesser long-nosed bats, 

who feed on the flowers and fruits of agaves.

In the proposed action, mitigations for forest health activities and wildlife are sometimes tiered to 

recovery plans and conservation measures, which are incorporated by reference. These mitigations 

often support the viability of other species that are not threatened or endangered. The northern 

goshawk, for which there is no recovery plan or conservation agreement, benefits from project 

mitigations that would be implemented due to the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan because they 

overlap in habitat use. The northern goshawk also has guidelines that do appear in the forest plan, 

including ARP-G-2A and 2D, which support their unique habitat needs.

Grasslands are often managed using burning from planned or unplanned ignitions or shrub removal 

(e.g., mastication). VGC-G-1 and 2 are guidelines to retain native grasses and some native shrubs and 

would be used in these implementation activities to design mitigations that benefit grassland species, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

309

especially those that need cover. Vegetation management fine-filter components generally do not 

provide for the viability of species on their own but interact with other parts of the plan to cover 

integrated threats to species viability. For instance, the giant spotted whiptail is a good example of a 

species that could succumb to various threats but benefits from multiple fine-filter components. The 

species is generally riparian in grasslands, but needs structure for thermoregulation. It may be 

outcompeted by other species in disturbed habitats (especially under drought conditions), and is 

localized in distribution. The plan components for vegetation management are able to address part of 

the threats to this species but the direction for stochastic events and invasive species also contribute to 

providing for its viability.

Threats to Aquatic, Riparian, Seep, and Wetland Habitats – All of these habitat elements overlap 

because of the presence of water, so plan components for species associated with water or the adjacent 

vegetation generally overlap in their ability to provide for population viability. Threats in aquatic and 

riparian habitats are many, including water diversion and pumping, disease, invasive species, poor 

water quality, and loss of surface water due to drought and climate change. 

For species that have at least part of their life history in water, two sections apply: natural waters 

(NWS) and constructed waters (COW). NWS-G-1 through G-5and NWS objectives help to protect the 

integrity of natural waters, which typically have higher value to wildlife, fish, and rare plants than 

constructed waters. The guidelines protect integrity via a series of mitigation guidance components 

including minimization of sedimentation of the stream (which interferes with life history strategies of 

fishes and other species); bank stabilization, which confines the channel and hydrological structure 

fishes evolved with; excluding nonnative, invasive species; and treatment of upland habitats to reduce 

the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Together these natural waters components retain streams as 

relatively natural systems that species can persist in, and thereby ensure population viability. Species 

that benefit from natural water guidelines include lowland leopard frog, Mexican stoneroller, Sonora 

sucker, longfin dace, Arizona cymbiodytan water scavenger beetle, Cochise woodsia, and possibly 

Arizona cave amphipod. 

Constructed waters mostly address their use for livestock drinking water, but are of value to some 

native species. Because most of the perennial waters are gone, the only existing surface water in many 

areas are stock tanks. Some species have adapted to be able to use stock tanks, including leopard 

frogs, tiger salamanders, and even some rare plants. Bats regularly use stock tanks as their primary 

source of drinking water. COW-G-2 addresses the needs of native species, such as lowland leopard 

frog and Townsend’s big-eared bat. The function of constructed waters toward population viability is 

to provide surface water to some species in some areas, in lieu of natural waters. These constructed 

waters, when properly designed to support native species, can also support populations of Southwest 

monkeyflower and support its viability. However, stock tanks can be problematic if they are situated 

in a manner facilitating dispersal of aquatic invasive species, especially American bullfrog. The 

proposed action did not carry forward a guideline from the no-action alternative that encouraged a 

higher density of stock tanks that was contributing to the spread of invasive aquatic species. No native 

species have evolved with stock tanks. However, because it is unlikely natural waters will recover 

from human interference or climate change in the foreseeable future, stock tanks remain a resource for 

some species.

Wetland and riparian areas are threatened by most of the same issues as aquatics. When surface water 

is diverted or pumped elsewhere, the riparian and wetland vegetation dies and the species that rely on 

those sensitive habitats are extirpated. Thus, most of the wetland (WET) and riparian (RIA) guidelines 

and standards are aimed to minimizing the loss of surface water (within management control) and 

protecting riparian vegetation from wildfire. The guidelines and standards are WET-G-1; WET-S-1; 

and RIA-G-1 through 4. Species benefiting from these components include many plants associated 

exclusively with springs and wetlands. Species include giant spotted whiptail, Arizona cymbiodytan 

water scavenger beetle, Wet Canyon talussnail, copper mine milk-vetch, elusive browallia, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

310

Chihuahuan sedge, Cochise sedge, Chiricahua mudwort, Hinkley’s Jacob’s ladder, whisk fern, 

Aravaipa woodfern, Arizona cave amphipod, Parish’s Abutilon, broad-leaf ground-cherry, Bigelow’s 

thoroughwort, Barfoot woodlandsnail, Chiricahua woodlandsnail, Mannia californica, Plagiochasma 

wrightii, southwest monkeyflower, and Cochise woodsia. 

Higher elevation plants, including Chihuahuan sedge, arid-thorn fleabane, Chiricahua gentian, whiteflowered cinquefoil, and Porsild’s starwort, also benefit from guidelines designed to protect wet 

montane meadows, including MOM-G-1, 2, and 3. These guidelines restrict human presence on 

meadows and wetlands to not diminish these specialized habitats, which are the biggest threats to 

these species. Degraded habitats cannot support viable populations.

ISM-G-1 is a provision to remove nonnative invasive species from aquatic habitat, which would 

address their threat to Sonora tiger salamanders, native ranid frogs (lowland leopard and Tarahumara), 

northern Mexican gartersnakes, and native fish during restoration projects.

Motorized Transportation System – There are relatively few plan components addressing the effects 

of roads on forest planning species. However, MTS-G-1 through 3 are guidelines that protect sensitive 

soils, riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows from road construction, which degrades habitat rapidly 

through compaction and sedimentation effects. Compaction of sensitive soils and trampling of 

sensitive plants is a threat to numerous forest planning species, so viability is linked to retaining highquality wetland sites. In particular, they address the threats to viability for Chihuahuan sedge, Cochise 

sedge, and whisk fern.

Range Management – Range management (RAM, usually referring to livestock grazing) is 

frequently listed as a threat in table 105 and table 106. More correctly, grazing, and especially 

overgrazing, can exacerbate other threats to population viability. For example, improper grazing can 

increase the scale and magnitude of loss of habitat, loss of food resources for native species, changes 

in plant communities, degraded water quality, and an increase in spread of invasive species. Activities 

and structures that support livestock, such as fencing and earthen stock tanks, can also threaten native 

plants and animals. 

Historically, grazing was much more intense than it is now, and during the last 20 years, grazing 

pressure has been reduced and even eliminated in some areas. Most of the range management 

guidelines are intended to manage cattle so that they can coexist with native plants and animals. 

RAM-G-1 relates to intensity of grazing (keeping it within acceptable levels to manage for native 

species); RAM-G-2 rests burned areas from grazing; RAM-G-3 addresses needs of wildlife passage 

through fences; RAM-G-4 states that wildlife needs for ground cover should be met; RAM-G-5 deals 

with riparian function. RAM-G-6 emphasizes perpetuation of native plant species. RAM-S-1 

addresses the issue of disease from livestock that transmits to bighorn sheep. RAM-S-2 and 3 target 

management of leopard frogs (Chiricahua and lowland) in constructed waters. Grazing is so pervasive 

on the landscape that most species are potentially affected (especially palatable rare plants), with the 

exception of those species that live in areas closed to grazing (high elevations and biologically 

sensitive areas, such as meadows and true desertscrub communities) or unlikely to be grazed by cattle 

(e.g., talus, cliffs). Thus, these guidelines (RAM-G-1 through 7) and those of the extremely rare 

species (see “Stochastic Events” section) mitigate the effects of cattle by managing for viability of 

numerous plant species. These include Parish’s Abutilon, Santa Rita yellowshow, Copper Mine milkvetch, Huachuca milk-vetch, ayenia, elusive browallia, Chihuahuan sedge, Cochise sedge, soft 

Mexican-orange, recurved corycactus, arid-thorn fleabane, Chiricahua gentian, Coleman’s coral-root, 

purple-spiked coral-root, Chiricahua mudwort, beardless chinchweed, broad-leaf ground-cherry, 

Hinkley’s Jacob’s ladder, Huachuca cinquefoil, whisk fern, and Arivaipa woodfern. RAM-G-3 also 

provides for the viability of desert bighorn sheep and lowland leopard frog whose migration may be 

impacted by improperly designed fencing. RAM-G-4 also protects groundcover, which creates the 

suitable habitat for food sources that reduce the risk to viability for Mexican long-tongued bat and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

311

Townsend’s big-eared bat. RAM-G-5 also reduces the threat to viability for Arizona cymbiodytan 

water scavenger beetle from grazing.

Biophysical Features – Biophysical features include rocky features, caves, and adits. All of the rockdwelling species were coarse-filtered out, except for Wet Canyon talussnail, barfoot woodland snail, 

and Chiricahua woodland snail. These species are also associated with riparian habitat elements, so 

population viability cannot be addressed simply by protecting talus slopes (see also the section on 

riparian habitats). Guidelines that address rock features include BIP-G-1 and 2 and MIN-G-1; these 

target the protection of talus slopes or outcrops and cliffs (habitat element important to desert bighorn 

sheep and American peregrine falcon). Some plants also use multiple habitat elements that include 

rocks, and the complex environments they occur in can make them very specialized and prone to 

extirpation. This includes Pinaleño mountain snail, barfoot woodland snail, Chiricahua woodland 

snail, Bigelow’s thoroughwort, Parish’s abutilon, Mannia californica, and Plagiochasma wrightii, 

whose other threats are addressed in the “Threats to Aquatic, Riparian, Seep, and Wetland Habitats,” 

“Site-specific Measures” and “Stochastic Events” sections).

For species that use caves (Arizona cave amphipod, Mexican long-tongued bat, and Townsend’s bigeared bat), there are three guidelines protecting cave features and their microhabitats or ensuring 

sensitive mines are not closed in a manner that would compromise the viability of sensitive species: 

BIP-G-3 and -4, and BIP-S-1. These guidelines provide for the viability of bats and other caveassociated species. The amphipod is poorly known, but there is a possibility of a conservation measure 

that may benefit the species if it co-occurs with other protected species in the Santa Rita Ecosystem 

Management Area (a noncave site). 

Recreation and Special Uses – In general, recreation is currently compatible with the needs of forest 

planning species because the amount of recreation on the Coronado National Forest has not reached a 

threshold to where populations are being lost. However, some guidelines and standards have been 

established to guard against this possible outcome in certain circumstances. Some of the potential 

threats from recreation were discussed in the section on stochastic events or biophysical features 

(caves), and will not be repeated here. REC-G-2 is a guideline that minimizes resource damage from 

recreational activities that may be a threat, such as trampling to Huachuca milk-vetch. This guideline 

reduces the risk to viability for elusive browallia, Chiricahua gentian, Chiricahua mudwort, Huachuca 

cinquefoil, Porsild’s starwort, and Pringle’s fleabane as well. REC-G-6 is a guideline that limits rock 

climbing to manage for populations of desert bighorn sheep and American peregrine falcon. ARP-G-2 

covers protection of raptor nests on cliff faces, so also applies to American peregrine falcon. These 

guidelines, in concert with others, provide for the viability of these species. These guidelines reduce 

the risk of recreation activities that might threaten forest planning species viability.

There are no fine-filter species plan components for special uses management, although some of the 

guidelines and suitability determinations benefit species.

Other Plan Components – Management for animals and rare plants (ARP) are integrated into other 

programs and the ARP guidelines referring to northern goshawk were discussed in the “Vegetation 

Management” section. ARP-G-1 and ARP-G-2 are coarse-filter components that incorporate recovery 

plans and conservation agreements by reference. ARP-G-5 targets bats (in general) in roosts (caves, 

adits, cracks in cliffs, under bark on trees in riparian areas), so for fine-filter species this includes 

Townsend’s big-eared bat and Mexican long-tongued bat. The guideline limits human activity periods, 

roost site quality, and spread of disease (the potential for white-nose syndrome).

Site-specific Measures – Site-specific measures can be ecosystem management area-specific 

guidelines and standards or special areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, zoological and 

botanical areas (ZBA), and research natural areas (RNA). WIL-PSR-G-1 and 2 minimize disturbance 

and public entry into the Pusch Ridge Wilderness; this is partially a strategy for management of desert 

bighorn sheep. Although it appears the sheep were extirpated, habitat quality is improved and other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

312

plan components are in place to allow reintroduction of the species into Pusch Ridge. The other highelevation wildernesses (in Huachuca, Chiricahua, Santa Catalina, and Pinaleño Ecosystem 

Management Areas) are outside the normal range of variability so do not provide for the habitat needs 

for fine-filter forest planning species without restoration.

The pungent talussnail is not a talus-dwelling species; it is actually associated with woody debris in 

Douglas-fir forests of the Santa Catalina Ecosystem Management Area, so it is addressed specifically 

(although not referred to by the species) in EMA-CAT-G-1, which retains mesic microhabitat 

conditions. Wet Canyon talussnail does inhabit talus slopes but also requires mesic microclimates and 

has its own special area to address its threats as well as EMA-PIN-MA.

Several ecosystem management areas have special areas that were set aside for biological resources, 

including rare plants and animals. There are components that address protection of biological 

resources in all special areas, and all have forest planning species. One of the major protections in 

most of these is the closure of these areas to livestock grazing. The special areas are summarized 

below, with a list of the species from table 105 and table 106 that potentially occur in them (these are 

not precisely known, so may be based on ecosystem management area occurrences):

• EMA-CHI-S-1A to 1C (Pole Bridge Research Natural Area): Mexican long-tongued bat, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, coppermine milk-vetch, Cochise sedge, smooth 

baby-bonnets, arid throne fleabane, Chiricahua gentian, purple spike coral-root, Chiricahua 

mudwort (possibly extirpated from Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area), Hinkley’s Jacob’s 

ladder, Porsild’s starwort, Cochise woodsia, American peregrine falcon, Arizona cymbiodytan 

water scavenger beetle, barfoot woodland snail, and Chiricahua woodland snail.

• EMA-CHI-S-2A and 2B (Proposed Cave Creek Canyon Birds of Prey Zoological Botanical 

Area): Mexican long-tongued bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, coppermine 

milk-vetch, Cochise sedge, smooth baby-bonnets, Chiricahua gentian, purple spike coral-root, 

Chiricahua mudwort (possibly extirpated from Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area), 

Hinkley’s Jacob’s ladder, Porsild’s starwort, Cochise woodsia, American peregrine falcon, 

Arizona cymbiodytan water scavenger beetle, barfoot woodland snail, and Chiricahua woodland 

snail.

• EMA-PEL-S-3A to 3B (Proposed Guadalupe Canyon Zoological Botanical Area): Mexican longtongued bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, coppermine milk-vetch, Chihuahuan 

sedge, Cochise sedge, smooth baby-bonnets, Chiricahua mudwort, American peregrine falcon, 

lowland leopard frog, and giant spotted whiptail.

• EMA-TUM-G-3A to 3C and EMA-TUM-S-1A (Wild Chile Botanical Area): Mexican longtongued bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Parish’s abutilon, Cochise sedge, soft Mexican-orange, 

recurved corycactus, arid throne fleabane, whisk fern, Mannia californica, Plagiochasma wrightii, 

Cochise woodsia, American peregrine falcon, lowland leopard frog, and giant spotted whiptail.

• EMA-TUM-S-2A and B (Goodding Research Natural Area and proposed Goodding Research 

Natural Area extension): Parish’s abutilon, Cochise sedge, soft Mexican-orange, recurved 

corycactus, arid throne fleabane, whisk fern, Mannia californica, Plagiochasma wrightii, Cochise 

woodsia, Mexican long-tongued bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, American peregrine falcon, 

lowland leopard frog, and giant spotted whiptail.

• EMA-HUA-S-1A and 1B (Elgin Research Natural Area and proposed Canelo Research Natural 

Area): Huachuca milk-vetch, elusive browallia, Chihuahuan sedge, Cochise sedge, smooth babybonnets, arid throne fleabane, purple spike coral-root, beardless chinch-weed, Huachuca 

cinquefoil, Cochise woodsia, Mexican long-tongued bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, American 

peregrine falcon, and Huachuca giant skipper.

• EMA-PIN-S-1A and 1B (Goudy Research Natural Area): Chihuahuan sedge, broad-leaf groundcherry, white-flowered cinquefoil, Pringle’s fleabane, Bigelow’s thoroughwort, leafy Jacob’s 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

313

ladder, Mexican long-tongued bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, American 

peregrine falcon, Pinaleño mountain snail, and Wet Canyon talus snail.

• EMA-CAT-S-1A and 1B (Santa Catalina and Butterfly Research Natural Area): Pungent talus 

snail, Parish’s abutilon, Arizona eryngo, Santa Catalina burstwort, Mexican long-tongued bat, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, northern goshawk, American peregrine falcon, lowland leopard frog, 

giant spotted whiptail, and Aravaipa woodfern.

• EMA-CAT-S-2A (Bighorn Sheep Special Management Area): bighorn sheep.

These set-asides are among the more important components for ensuring population viability. There is 

extensive discussion on this elsewhere in the final environmental impact statement, but the recurring 

theme is that set-asides act as filters from human-caused problems (introduction of nonnative species, 

structures, wildfire, trampling, etc.); they function as refuges for biological diversity; and are 

important buffers from climate change. These special areas above were selected specifically to protect 

a suite of sensitive species (hence each having a multiple list of species).

Climate Change – Although climate change per se is not listed as a plan component category, 

components for managing for climate change are found throughout the proposed action, primarily as 

factors that reduce climate change stress on plants and animals and their habitat elements. Examples 

include the components to reduce loss of surface water, treating woodlands and forests to become 

resilient to insect outbreaks and wildfire, retaining the microhabitat character of biophysical features, 

and, most importantly, retaining unaltered areas that can act as biodiversity refugia and buffers against 

climate change. Areas that are unaltered by human activity directly but are outside the historical range 

of variability because of fire suppression and the influence of past grazing management do not 

functionally serve these purposes. Only areas that can be managed by natural disturbance and 

processes (e.g., fires from unplanned ignition and insect outbreaks) serve this purpose well. The 

benefit of these areas is discussed in more detail under alternative 1.

Viability Conclusion – The process to address population viability was the driver to develop plan 

components, emphasizing objectives (actions), many of which were designed to achieve long-term 

restoration goals (desired conditions), so population viability requirements are met for all species, 

through the coarse- and fine-filter approach. Some species may have circumstances beyond the control 

of the Forest Service, which could result in extirpation in part or all of the planning area, but only 

factors within the control of Forest Service management are figured into the population viability 

assessment (USDA FS 2011). As an example, at the time of this writing, the Tarahumara frog is 

nearly extirpated from the Coronado National Forest (and United States), but the cause is a nonnative 

disease that cannot be controlled; the habitat is actually in very good condition to allow persistence in 

the absence of the disease. Therefore, the Coronado has provided for species viability but the species 

has not persisted for other reasons. All the species listed in table 105 and table 106 have a low risk to 

their species viability from the proposed action, and management under the proposed action would not 

contribute to a trend toward listing for these species.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 plan components are the same as the proposed action. There would be no differential 

effects to forest planning species, except that there would be less area actively managed for vegetation 

restoration and other factors.

Invasive Species – In general, invasive species translocation would likely be reduced in remote 

wilderness areas, but if established would be more difficult to manage. 

Stochastic Events – See the site-specific measures section for more information on rare plants and 

animals potentially threatened by stochastic events due to management.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

314

Vegetation Management –There would be much less active vegetation management in alternative 1, 

compared to the other alternatives. See the coarse-filter discussions for implications to plants and 

animals.

Threats to Aquatic, Riparian, Seep, and Wetland Habitat – For aquatic and near-aquatic habitats, 

there are pros and cons for resident species, depending up the ecosystem management areas and 

recommended wilderness areas.

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones – There would be fewer roaded areas in alternative 1 than 

the other alternatives, which is generally beneficial for rare plants and animals because it reduces the 

vectors spreading invasive plant and animal species, decreases disturbance from human activities and 

functions as a biodiversity refuge and climate change buffer.

Biophysical Features – There would be no differential effects to forest planning species in alternative 

1 from the proposed action. 

Recreation and Special Uses – Alternative 1 would allow fewer special uses and motorized and 

mechanized recreation than the other three alternatives because of the additional wilderness areas that 

it recommends. This decrease is generally beneficial for rare plants and animals functions as a 

biodiversity refuge and climate change buffer because it reduces the vectors for spreading invasive 

plant and animal species, decreases disturbance from human activities, and functions as a biodiversity 

refuge and climate change buffer.

Other Plan Components – There would be no differential effects to forest planning species in 

alternative 1 from the proposed action. 

Site-specific Measure – This is the area that differs from the other action alternatives. For rare plants 

and animals in set-aside lands, there would be no interference from humans. With 14 additional setaside lands, some of the plan components to manage for rare plants would no longer apply in the setaside areas (EMA-RIT-G-2, EMA-HUA-G-2, EMA-CAT-G-2, EMA-PIN-G-1, EMA-PEL-G-2, 

EMA-DRA-G-4). Fine-filter forest planning species are found in all ecosystem management areas and 

many of the additional recommended wilderness areas and wilderness study areas of alternative 1. 

Since there is little proactive management for species potentially threatened by stochastic events, the 

addition of set-aside lands is generally beneficial. However, for sites requiring active management, 

this alternative is generally less desirable than the proposed action. See the section on coarse-filter for 

a discussion of the different recommended wilderness areas that are beneficial. 

Climate Change – See discussion in section on proposed action (and refer to the revised forest plan) 

for information on climate change. The addition of set-asides has great value as refuges for biological 

diversity and buffers from climate change. However, systems that are too far out of the historic range 

of variation are subject to catastrophic events. See the “Vegetation Communities,” “Water Resources,” 

“Soils,” and “Special Areas” sections for a discussion of the different recommended wilderness areas 

that are beneficial. 

Viability Conclusion – Because alternative 1 has more area without active management or human 

interference, there would be no threats from human-caused management in the set-asides and, 

therefore, no increased threat to the viability of species compared to the proposed action.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 plan components are the same as the proposed action, except that there are additional 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones.

Invasive Species – In areas of additional Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones, there is a chance for 

an increased rate (but probably slight) of spread of Lehmann lovegrass.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

315

Stochastic Events – There would be no differences from the proposed action effects for species 

threatened by the potential for stochastic events.

Vegetation Management – There would be no differences from the proposed action effects related to 

vegetation management.

Threats to Aquatic, Riparian, Seep, and Wetland Habitat – There would be no differences from 

the proposed action effects related to aquatic and near-aquatic habitat elements. 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone– Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones are relatively 

localized and there would be no differences from the proposed action effects for any forest planning 

species.

Biophysical Features – There would be no differences from the proposed action effects to forest 

planning species. 

Recreation and Special Uses – Effects would differ from the proposed action in that there would be 

slightly more use from all-terrain vehicles, but there would be no differential effects to forest planning 

species.

Other Plan Components – There would be no differences from the proposed action effects to forest 

planning species. 

Site-specific Measures – There would be no differences from the proposed action effects to forest 

planning species. 

Climate Change – See discussion in section on proposed action (and refer to the revised forest plan) 

for information on climate change. There would be no differences from the proposed action effects to 

forest planning species.

Viability Conclusion – Refer to the viability conclusion in the proposed action section. The proposed 

action and alternative 2 are identical.

Management Indicator Species – Affected Environment

Management indicator species were selected based on the criteria that their population changes are 

believed to indicate the effects of management activities being emphasized in the plan alternatives, so 

that the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations can be estimated (Forest Service 

Manuals 2605 and 2620). The Coronado used the direction in the 1982 Planning Rule provisions and 

Forest Service guidance documents to help identify categories of species to consider, monitoring and 

selection criteria, and a process to follow for selection and documentation. 

A species list for management indicator species was derived from a multiagency process that included 

the Coronado National Forest, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Arizona Department of Game and 

Fish. This process considered coverage of terrestrial and aquatic species, primary potential natural 

vegetation types in which the Forest Service expects to focus management activities, availability and 

ease of obtaining monitoring data, and responsiveness to management activities. The 1986 forest plan 

identified a number of management indicator species. These were added to a large list of additional 

potential species. The entire list was then subjected to assessment criteria. Each species was assigned 

weighted, numerical values to determine utility and feasibility as management indicator species. 

Weighting categories were distribution, abundance, vegetation community, management response, 

monitoring for cost and logistics, and monitoring for output quality. The list was then sorted by 

score—with higher scores suggesting better utility and feasibility for management indicator species—

and by potential natural vegetation type. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

316

Table 107 shows the final list for the Coronado National Forest management indicator species and 

their associated ecological communities, as approved by the forest supervisor. The species listed were 

analyzed for the purposes of comparing the alternatives in this environmental impact statement. More 

details on the selection of management indicator species are available in a wildlife specialist’s report 

filed in the project record.

Acorn Woodpecker

Acorn woodpeckers occur in both the Madrean encinal woodlands and Madrean pine-oak woodlands. 

For the purposes of management indicator species, only the Madrean pine-oak woodlands habitat is 

considered here. Acorn woodpecker populations, as measured in the annual breeding bird survey, are 

stable. Habitat trends are declining in the Madrean pine-oak woodlands, particularly the mature oak 

component indicative of late-successional, open pine-oak woodlands which provides the best habitat 

for acorn woodpecker. The quality of acorn woodpecker habitat in Madrean pine-oak woodland is 

assumed to relate to the condition and trends as described in the “Vegetation Communities, Fuels and 

Fire” section. Conditions are characterized by an increase in overstory density and a decrease in 

herbaceous understory compared with desired conditions. Trends reported in 2009 were a continuation 

of those trajectories away from desired conditions (USDA FS 2009b). In 2011, large fires burned 15 

percent of the Madrean pine-oak woodlands, with 5 percent, 6 percent, and 4 percent burning under 

low, moderate, and high severity, respectively. Current conditions may be represented by an increase 

in the early-seral, resprouter-dominated stages following moderate- and high-severity fire. The 

understory component may have increased in areas where fires burned with low severity (Schussman 

and Smith 2006). 

Table 107. Management indicator species and their associated ecological communities for the 

Coronado National Forest

Species Indicator Habitat

Existing Habitat 

Acres* Primary Reasons for Selection

Acorn 

woodpecker

Madrean pine-oak woodland 141,638 Widespread and common across forest

and monitored in breeding bird surveys. 

This species requires mature oaks, 

which are indicative of latesuccessional, open pine-oak woodlands.

Mexican 

spotted owl

Dry mixed-conifer

Wet mixed-conifer

55,623 Species and habitat relationship well 

documented in literature, There is a 

standard protocol, recovery plan, and 

precedent for monitoring in the 

“Coronado National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan” biological 

opinion (LRMP BO) (USFWS 2012).

Sonoran Mud 

Turtle

Constructed and natural 

waters within the grasslands, 

Madrean encinal woodlands, 

and the Madrean pine-oak 

woodlands vegetation 

communities

Lentic acreage not 

calculated. Associated 

upland acres: 1,329,899

This species is a strong indicator of 

standing, perennial water. It is 

monitored in conjunction with American 

bullfrog (see “Monitoring Plan”).

* The acres of species habitat do not vary much by each alternative; therefore, acres of habitat will remain the same for 

all alternatives including the no-action alternative.

Mexican Spotted Owl

Mexican spotted owls are widely distributed on the Coronado National Forest. They are most common 

in mixed-conifer forests dominated by Douglas-fir, white fir, or both. For the purposes of management 

indicator species, only the mixed-conifer habitat is considered here. The quality of Mexican spotted 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

317

owl habitat in the dry and wet mixed-conifer is assumed to relate to the condition and trends as 

described in the “Vegetation Communities, Fuels and Fire” section. Conditions in the dry mixedconifer are characterized by 78 percent more closed canopy structural classes than the desired 

condition, which is 100 percent mature and old trees with regeneration and open structure. The wet 

mixed-conifer community is closer to desired conditions, although lacking in aspen and older age 

classes. 

In 2011, large fires burned 33 percent of the dry mixed-conifer forest, with 15 percent, 12 percent, and 

5 percent burned at low, moderate, and high severity, respectively. Eleven percent of the wet mixedconifer forest burned, with 4 percent burning with low and moderate severity and 3 percent burning 

with high severity. Due to the high percentage of mixed-conifer forest affected, the 2011 fire season 

likely had a large impact on the condition of this community. A high proportion of large-diameter 

snags may increase the threat of Douglas-fir beetle and recurring fire, which could impact Mexican 

spotted owl habitat. Areas with some residual tree cover may see high ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir 

regeneration. In the wet mixed-conifer, the 2011 fire season likely promoted aspen regeneration.

Sonoran Mud Turtle

The Sonoran mud turtle inhabits perennial pools of surface water. Most of the available lentic surface 

water is now found in constructed waters (stock tanks, drinkers, wildlife waters). These are found 

throughout the Coronado National Forest where livestock grazing is permitted. There are a few small 

artificial lakes (Pena Blanca, Parker Canyon, Rose Canyon, and Riggs Flat) in the Tumacacori, 

Huachuca, and Pinaleño Ecosystem Management Areas, as well as adjacent valleys. Although this 

habitat element was not given a trend ranking in the ecological sustainability report (USDA FS 

2009b), the population viability assessment (USDA FS 2011) used a ranking of “declining” for both 

current and future habitat trends. Virtually all remaining waters are degraded from historical 

(reference) condition. There has been a nearly categorical decline of aquatic species (USDA FS 2011). 

Most aquatic vertebrates that rely on perennial waters (fishes and many frogs) are federally listed as 

threatened, endangered, candidate, or Forest Service sensitive. There has been a massive reduction in 

range and occupied habitat for native fish (AGFD 2001), partly because existing habitats are of such 

poor quality that they cannot sustain native fish populations. Sonoran mud turtles, along with some 

other species (notably leopard frogs and Sonora tiger salamander) have adapted to constructed waters 

with natural banks (stock ponds). Water quantity in stock ponds is almost exclusively dependent on 

surface runoff from surrounding watersheds. Runoff with low sediment load is optimum, whereas 

runoff with high sediment load will fill the pond and reduce its water holding capacity. The majority 

of watersheds on the Coronado National Forest—numbering 152—is functioning properly and 

expected to deliver runoff with low sediment loads. Fifty-six watersheds are functioning at risk due to 

added runoff from high-density roads, high recreation impacts to riparian areas, high well water 

withdrawals of groundwater, mining impacts causing poor water quality, and poor fire regime 

condition class.

Management Indicator Species – Environmental Consequences 

Table 108 summarizes the expected habitat and population trends of management indicator species by 

alternative. Further details about how alternatives would likely affect these management indicator 

species are described below. Under all alternatives, habitat quantity is not expected to change.

Acorn Woodpecker

No-action Alternative – The acorn woodpecker is not specifically addressed in the 1986 forest plan. 

There is guidance for leaving wood structure (standing, prostrate, and live trees) used by this species. 

However, there are no objectives for restoration of Madrean pine-oak woodlands. One parcel would 

be recommended for wilderness designation, which is a continuation of current policy and would not 

change the trajectory of the species or its habitat. As stated in the “Vegetation Communities, Fuels and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

318

Fire” section under the no-action alternative, departure from desired conditions in the Madrean pineoak woodland is expected to continue. Because of this, it would result in declining populations of 

acorn woodpecker. 

Proposed Action – In the proposed action, this species is not specifically addressed with plan 

components, but the Madrean pine-oak woodland habitat is addressed. This habitat is outside the 

historic range of variation and is expected to remain outside the historic bounds, but there is an 

objective to treat 25,000 acres in the next 10 years, which would benefit acorn woodpecker 

populations by increasing the herbaceous understory in young and old pine-oak. Two parcels would be 

recommended for wilderness designation, which would add 13,082 acres where human disturbance 

would be limited in Madrean pine-oak woodland. 

Table 108. Summary of effects to management indicator species habitat quality and population by 

alternative

Current Condition and 

Alternatives Acorn Woodpecker Mexican Spotted Owl Sonoran Mud Turtle

Current Condition

Habitat Quality Stable Declining Declining

Population Stable Declining Stable

No Action

Habitat Quality Declining Declining Declining

Population Declining Declining Declining

Proposed Action

Habitat Quality Increasing Increasing Stable to increasing

Population Increasing Increasing Stable to increasing

Alternative 1

Habitat Quality Increasing Increasing Stable to declining

Population Increasing Increasing Stable to declining

Alternative 2

Habitat Quality Increasing Increasing Stable to increasing

Population Increasing Increasing Stable to increasing

Although current levels of human disturbance in these areas do not appear to be a factor in the species 

abundance, wilderness designation would preclude larger disturbances such as mining and road 

building. Wilderness designation would also increase planning time and costs for vegetation 

treatments. As stated in the “Vegetation Communities, Fuels and Fire” section, the proposed action 

would result in stronger movement toward desired conditions than the no-action alternative. Because 

habitat conditions would be improving under the proposed action, populations of acorn woodpecker 

are expected to increase.

Alternative 1 – In alternative 1, all of the plan components for Madrean pine-oak woodland in the 

proposed action would apply. Additional parcels would be recommended for wilderness designation. 

The effects of additional wilderness designations on Madrean pine-oak woodland are disclosed in the 

“Vegetation Communities, Fuels and Fire” section. The acorn woodpecker occurs in all of these 

parcels. Wilderness designation would benefit acorn woodpeckers in that it would effectively reduce 

the possibility of future habitat fragmentation. Wilderness designation would also increase planning 

time and costs and reduce the options available for vegetation treatments. Mechanical treatments 

would not be allowed in these parcels, unless justified through additional process, including 10,000 

acres of mastication in the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area prescribed in the proposed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

319

action. Overall, wilderness designation may hinder treatments to achieve desired conditions in the 

following recommended wilderness areas: Chiricahua Additions West (418 acres) and North (503 

acres), Jhus Canyon (2,223 acres), Tumacacori (245 acres), Dragoon (736 acres), and Galiuro (4,104). 

However, since the primary treatments in acorn woodpecker habitat would be prescribed fire, the 

hindrance in treatments would be minimal in these areas. Because of the reduction of potential for 

future habitat fragmentation and the minimal hindrance in treatments, alternative 1 would have greater 

benefits to the acorn woodpecker populations than either the no action or the proposed action 

alternatives. 

Alternative 2 – In alternative 2, all of the plan components for Madrean pine-oak woodland in the 

proposed action would apply. In addition, the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone would be 

enlarged and would include 627 acres of Madrean pine-oak woodland. No additional wilderness areas 

would be recommended. The effects of increased acreage of Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone on 

Madrean pine-oak woodland are disclosed in the “Vegetation Communities, Fuels, and Fire” section. 

In summary, alternative 2 could result in limited loss of this vegetation community. Although 649 

acres is relatively small compared with total acres of Madrean pine-oak woodland on the Coronado, 

there would be increased possibility of development and disturbance on these acres. Therefore, under 

alternative 2, acorn woodpecker populations are expected to increase at a faster rate than for the noaction alternative, but a slower rate than expected under the proposed action or alternative 1.

Mexican Spotted Owl

No-action Alternative – The 1986 forest plan has many plan components for the management of 

Mexican spotted owl. However, this was regionally standardized guidance that does not apply well to 

the topogeographic and vegetation features of the Coronado National Forest sky island habitats. The 

main problem is that the guidance for silvicultural treatments is too restrictive (especially the 9-inch 

diameter cap), which may hinder forest restoration efforts. Additionally there are no objectives for 

restoration of mixed-conifer forests. The no-action alternative carries forward one recommendation 

for wilderness designation, the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area, which includes 9 

percent (4,999 acres) of the mixed-conifer forest. This is a continuation of current policy and would 

not affect the trajectory for the species. As stated in the “Vegetation Communities, Fuels, and Fire” 

section, under the no-action alternative, departure from desired conditions in the mixed-conifer forests 

is expected to continue. This would result in declining populations of Mexican spotted owl.

Proposed Action – The proposed action includes objectives, guidelines, and standards for Mexican 

spotted owl that are not as restrictive as the 1986 forest plan, but retain plan components to manage 

for late-successional forests and primary constituent elements (large trees and snags, protected activity 

centers, and other features). In addition, there are plan components specifically for the mixed-conifer 

forest, including an objective to treat 16,200 acres to maintain species diversity and an appropriate 

diversity of open conditions and structural classes. This would benefit the Mexican spotted owl. An 

additional parcel would be recommended for wilderness designation compared with the no-action 

alternative; however, the Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Area contains only 268 acres of mixedconifer forest. Importantly, wilderness designation would preclude the use of pheromone bubble packs 

to protect Mexican spotted owl habitat. This is a standard treatment used to disperse Douglas-fir 

beetles, therefore, protecting large nest and roost trees after fires. Although the Ku Chish area is small, 

the inability to use pheromone treatments within it could reduce the long-term sustainability of an 

entire Mexican spotted owl protected activity center. As disclosed in the “Vegetation Communities, 

Fuels and Fire” section, the proposed action would result in improved habitat conditions in the mixedconifer forests. This outweighs and reduces the possible need for pheromone treatments in 268 acres 

of recommended wilderness. Therefore, the proposed action would result in increasing populations of 

Mexican spotted owl.

Alternative 1 – In alternative 1, all of the plan components for mixed-conifer in the proposed action 

would apply. Additional parcels would be recommended for wilderness designation. The effects of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

320

additional wilderness designations on mixed-conifer are disclosed in the “Vegetation Communities, 

Fuels and Fire” section. Habitat for Mexican spotted owl, as represented by mixed-conifer forest, 

occurs in seven of these parcels. Wilderness designation would benefit Mexican spotted owl in that it 

would effectively reduce the possibility of future habitat fragmentation. Wilderness designation would 

also marginally increase planning time and costs and reduce the options available for vegetation 

treatments. Mechanical treatments would not be allowed in these parcels, unless justified through 

additional process.

Overall, wilderness designation may impede the implementation of treatments to achieve desired 

conditions for mixed-conifer in the following recommended wilderness areas: Dragoon (11 acres), 

Jhus Canyon (302 acres), Chiricahua Addition North (398 acres), Chiricahua Addition West (7 acres), 

and Galiuro Addition (455 acres). This acreage is small compared to the total of mixed-conifer 

communities on the Coronado; therefore, the effect of wilderness designation is minimal. Because of 

the reduction of potential for future habitat fragmentation and the minimal impediment of treatments,

alternative 1 would have greater benefits to Mexican spotted owl populations than either the no action 

or the proposed action alternatives.

Alternative 2 – In alternative 2, all of the plan components for mixed-conifer forest in the proposed 

action would apply. In addition, no parcels would be recommended for wilderness designation and the 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone would be enlarged. The mixed-conifer forest is not represented 

in the enlarged Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone. Therefore, the environmental consequences of 

alternative 2 would be equivalent to those reported for the proposed action.

Sonoran Mud Turtle

No-action Alternative – The 1986 forest plan provides little guidance for management of native 

aquatic species. There are frequent references to making water available for livestock and that the 

presence of stock ponds benefits Sonoran mud turtles. However, there are no objectives for making 

waters available to native species such as the Sonoran mud turtle, which can tolerate limited drying 

but cannot use elevated developed waters (concrete or metal drinkers). There are no specific desired 

conditions or objectives for improving watersheds. This alternative would not focus treatments to 

improve watershed functions where they are most needed, resulting in reduced watershed function 

than could otherwise occur (see the “Water Resources – Environmental Consequences” section). 

These factors combined would result in lower quality of habitat for, and lower populations of, Sonoran 

mud turtles. 

Proposed Action – The proposed action includes objectives and guidelines that would directly benefit 

Sonoran mud turtle in the “Natural Waters” section of the revised forest plan, but none in the 

“Constructed Waters” section. Nevertheless, this species is present in constructed waters that have 

natural banks. Specific plan components for overall watershed condition, moving watersheds toward 

proper function and prioritizing treatments where needed would benefit Sonoran mud turtle habitat 

and populations.

Alternative 1 – Alternative 1 includes all of the plan components beneficial to the Sonoran mud turtle 

and its habitat described in the proposed action. In addition, 16 parcels would be recommended for 

wilderness designations. As stated in the “Water Resources” section, this alternative would be the 

most limiting for upland watershed improvement activities. Also, the ability to maintain stock ponds is 

impeded by wilderness designation. Therefore, alternative 1 would be the least beneficial alternative 

for Sonoran mud turtle and its habitat.

Alternative 2 – The environmental consequences of alternative 2 to Sonoran mud turtle populations 

and habitat would be similar to those described for the proposed action, with the exception of the 

deserts, grasslands, and Madrean oak woodland areas within the expanded Motorized Recreation Land 

Use Zone. In these areas, there could be increased sedimentation in stock ponds as a result of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

321

increased development and recreational traffic on roads and trails. This would result in lower capacity 

for water storage in stock ponds and higher probabilities of stock ponds drying out completely. This 

change would adversely impact habitat and survival of the turtle.

Migratory Birds – Affected Environment

Considered for the migratory bird analysis were: (1) birds identified as priority species in the Arizona 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (APIF Plan; Latta et al. 1999) and (2) birds in Bird 

Conservation Regions 34 of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern 

(BCC; USFWS 2008b) (table 109).

The Arizona Partners in Flight Plan and the Birds of Conservation Concern identify priority species of 

concern. Those that occur in Coronado National Forest habitats are analyzed. However, effects to 

Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk are considered under the “Federally Listed Species,” 

“Sensitive Species,” and “Management Indicator Species” sections of this chapter and are not 

discussed here. Important bird areas are also addressed in this analysis. There are eight important bird 

areas on the Coronado National Forest: California Gulch (2,042 acres), Chiricahua Mountains 

(292,206 acres), Huachuca Mountains (101,028 acres), Santa Rita Mountains (138,767 acres), Tanque 

Verde Wash/Sabino Canyon (4,770 acres), Patagonia Mountains (62,400 acres), Pinaleño Mountains 

(151,198 acres) and Sycamore Canyon (in the Atascosas) (2,212 acres). A proposed important bird 

area, Tucson Sky Islands and Sonoran Uplands (327,637 acres), is partially located on the Coronado 

National Forest.

Table 109. Priority migratory birds and habitat

Species Habitat Potential Natural Vegetation Type

Golden-crowned kinglet

Pine grosbeak

Swainson’s thrush

Three-toed woodpecker

Spruce-fir Spruce-fir

Olive-sided flycatcher Mixed-conifer Mixed-conifer

Cordilleran flycatcher

Flammulated owl

Grace’s warbler

Lewis’ woodpecker

Olive warbler

Purple martin

Ponderosa pine Ponderosa pine

Grasshopper sparrow

Swainson’s hawk

High elevation grassland Montane and subalpine grassland

Great basin grassland

Black-throated gray warbler

Gray flycatcher

Gray vireo

Piñon jay

Sage sparrow

Piñon-juniper Piñon-juniper woodland

Piñon-juniper evergreen shrub

Black-chinned sparrow

Sage sparrow

Virginia’s warbler

Chaparral Interior chaparral

MacGillivray’s warbler

Red-faced warbler

High elevation riparian Montane willow

Mixed broadleaf

Bendire’s thrasher

Sage sparrow

Desert communities

Desert grasslands
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

322

Migratory Birds – Environmental Consequences 

Effects Common to All Alternatives – The primary direction for management of migratory birds is 

contained within the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Executive Order (EO) 13186, and the 2008 

memorandum of understanding titled: “Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of 

Migratory Birds.” The memorandum lists many actions the Forest Service shall take, such as: 

• address migratory bird conservation in developing, amending, or revising forest plans; 

• participate in planning efforts of Bird Conservation Regions; 

• evaluate effects of agency actions on migratory birds within the environmental analysis process; 

• minimize effects to migratory birds; 

• cooperate with land owners; 

• support studies and research; 

• recognize and promote the value of migratory birds to the public; and 

• promote collaboration.

Applying the actions specified in the memorandum would contribute positively to migratory bird 

conservation for all alternatives, including the no-action alternative, by ensuring migratory birds are 

considered in forest planning and project environmental analysis, and by applying approaches for 

identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 

Forest Service management activities generally would not meet the definition of “take” under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which is “... to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, 

or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50 CFR 10.12). Vegetation 

removal or destruction is not considered a taking; however, activities done during breeding seasons—

such as hazard tree or snag removal, timber harvest, fuels reduction, and prescribed fire—could result 

in unintentional take if active nests with eggs or young are present in trees and shrubs or on the 

ground. These activities would occur under all alternatives considered in this analysis.

No Action – Except for migratory bird habitat in desert and grassland communities, current guidance 

considers migratory birds and their habitats and provides direction for improvement of habitats. 

Unintentional take could occur from management activities that destroy nests or kill individual birds. 

Considering environmental and cumulative consequences common to all alternatives and the effects 

disclosed above, this action is likely to result in some unintentional take of migratory birds, but it is 

not likely to occur to such an extent that would have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. 

Proposed Action – Guidance in this alternative provides for migratory bird habitat through desired 

conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines for the vegetation types. Additional general direction 

to improve habitats and maintain viable populations in forestwide wildlife direction also applies to 

migratory birds. Unintentional take could occur from management activities that destroy nests or kill 

individual birds.

Considering environmental and cumulative consequences common to all alternatives and the effects 

disclosed above, this action is likely to result in some unintentional take of migratory birds, but it is 

not likely to occur to such an extent that would have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. 

Alternative 1 – Alternative 1 would propose additional wilderness areas, totaling 255,908 acres and 

would result in stronger guidance and protections for migratory birds than any of the other 

alternatives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

323

Considering environmental and cumulative consequences common to all alternatives and the effects 

disclosed above, alternative 1 is likely to result in some unintentional take of migratory birds, but it is 

not likely to occur to such an extent that would have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird 

populations. This alternative has greater positive impacts on migratory birds and their habitats than 

alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 – Alternative 2 is not as strong as alternative 1, overall, when considering the effects 

disclosed above because it is likely to result in some unintentional take of migratory birds; however, 

alternative 2 is not likely to occur to such an extent that would have a measurable negative effect on 

migratory bird populations.

Bald and Golden Eagles – Affected Environment

All golden and bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). 

The purpose of the analysis in the following section is to determine if take is likely to occur with 

implementation of the alternatives. Take is defined in the Eagle Act as to “...pursue, shoot, shoot at, 

poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest or disturb.” Disturb is further defined as 

“...to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the 

best scientific information available: (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by 

substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest 

abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” Bald 

and golden eagles are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which also prohibits take.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends using the Conservation Assessment and Strategy for 

Bald Eagles in Arizona (Driscoll et al. 2006) in conjunction with the Bald Eagle National 

Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007b) to protect bald eagles in Arizona. For golden eagles, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a report titled Interim Golden Eagle Technical Guidance: 

Inventory and Monitoring Protocols; and Other Recommendations in Support of Golden Eagle

Management and Permit Issuance (Pagel et al. 2010). 

Surveys for nesting bald eagles are led by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Department

conducts fixed-wing flights for nesting bald eagle activity early each breeding season. Based on their 

survey results, Arizona Game and Fish Department assigns bald eagle nest watchers to monitor sites 

with active nests. Nest watchers monitor occupied sites from the first week of February through 

fledging in June. 

National bald eagle winter surveys have been ongoing since 1979. They were initiated and organized 

by the National Wildlife Federation from 1979 to 1991 and have been coordinated by the Raptor 

Research Technical Assistance Center (Bureau of Land Management) since then. Arizona Game and 

Fish Department is the coordinating agency for the annual statewide survey. Golden eagles are also 

documented if they are encountered on survey routes.

Bald Eagles

Bald eagles are not only Southwestern Region sensitive species, but they also fall under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). They are winter migrants on the Coronado. They are 

occasionally seen around the Coronado and have been recorded at Riggs Flat Lake. No known roost 

sites or nest sites exist on the Coronado. Eagles are often seen perched in trees or snags near water or 

next to roadways where they feed on road-killed animals. However, bald eagles are highly mobile in 

the winter, and they can fly great distances in search of aquatic or terrestrial prey and suitable 

nighttime roosting habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

324

Golden Eagles

Golden eagle nest surveys were conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in January and 

March 2012 on the Coronado National Forest. Comprehensive cliff surveys were done in the Dragoon, 

Winchester, Galiuro, Santa Teresa, Whetstone, Santa Catalina, and Rincon Mountains and Mount 

Graham. 

The categories listed below are large nest (large nest of unknown species and status), occupied (two 

golden eagles in the area of at least one large nest), active (golden eagle incubating), and sighting 

(golden eagle seen but no nest found). Overall, 2 breeding areas were found (1 active nest, 1 

occupied), 22 other large nests, and had 7 additional sightings of golden eagles unassociated with 

nests.

• Dragoon Mountains: one large nest.

• Mount Graham: one occupied (pair perched together and one large nest nearby), one sighting 

(golden eagle perched), one large nest.

• Winchester Mountains: three sightings (two golden eagles perched together but no nest found –

probably a territory; one eagle perched); one large nest. Also, three prairie falcons and one other 

large falcon (either prairie or peregrine) sighted.

• Santa Teresa Mountains: one active (golden eagle incubating), three sightings (two immature 

and one adult golden soaring together), six large nests.

• Galiuro Mountains: At least 22 large nests. Also, three peregrine falcons sighted.

• Rincon Mountains: Two large nests.

• Santa Catalina Mountains: At least four large nests. Also, one prairie falcon and three other 

large falcons (either prairie or peregrine) sighted.

• Whetstone Mountains: At least four large nests.

Bald and Golden Eagles – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives – Forest Service authorized management activities generally 

would not meet the definition of take under the Eagle Act. However, some activities could result in 

disturbance to eagles during the breeding season, or disturbance near roost sites in the winter. 

Examples include timber harvest or thinning activities; road, trail, and facility construction; prescribed 

burning; and special use permits near eagle nests or roost sites. All projects and activities would be

evaluated at the project level. If take is likely, a permit would have to be applied for, and issued by,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before the activity could occur. 

No Action – While future management activities could result in unavoidable take of bald and golden 

eagles, this alternative provides strong guidance to be applied at the project level for minimization of 

disturbance. Each project would be evaluated at the site-specific level, and each would require a take 

permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if take is likely. 

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences, this alternative could result in 

unintentional take, as defined in the Eagle Act, for bald or golden eagles on the Coronado. However, 

take is not likely at the project level.

Proposed Action – This alternative has some guidance to be applied at the project level for 

minimization of disturbance. Each project would be evaluated at the site-specific level, and each 

would require a take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if take is likely. 

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences, this alternative could result in take, as 

defined in the Eagle Act, for bald or golden eagles on the Coronado. Guidance to minimize 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

325

disturbance effects under this alternative would not be as strong as alternative 1, which recommends 

the addition of 16 new wilderness areas, totaling 255,908 acres. 

Alternative 1 – This alternative has some guidance to be applied at the project level for minimization 

of disturbance. The designation of 16 new wilderness areas does more to reduce the likelihood of take 

of eagles as compared to the other alternatives.

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences, this alternative could result in take, as 

defined in the Eagle Act, for bald or golden eagles on the Coronado. Guidance to minimize 

disturbance effects under this alternative would be stronger than alternative 2, with the addition of 16 

new wilderness areas. 

Alternative 2 – This alternative would allow further construction of facilities to localize the impacts 

of motorized recreation into more developed settings; it would also provide fewer areas for quiet and 

nonmotorized recreation. This alternative has some guidance to be applied at the project level for 

minimization of disturbance. Each project would be evaluated at the site-specific level, and each 

would require a take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if take is likely. 

Considering all environmental and cumulative consequences, this alternative could result in take, as 

defined in the Eagle Act, for bald or golden eagles on the Coronado. Guidance to minimize 

disturbance effects under this alternative would not be as strong as alternative 1, with the addition of 

16 new wilderness areas. 

Cumulative Effects – The spatial boundary for cumulative effects analysis for the biological 

resources in the planning process is termed the Madrean Archipelago or Sky Island Region. It 

essentially corresponds to the western one-half of M321, the Chihuahuan Desert Province (Bailey et 

al. 1995). This ecoprovince, which includes southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, is 

also known by other names in other classification systems, including the Apachean Ecoregion, 

Mexican Highlands Province, or Madrean Archipelago. Each classification system and authority has 

its own boundaries and rationale for selection. For our purposes (cumulative effects for biological 

resources), the boundary is the western half of the M321, the extreme eastern edge of M322, the 

American Desert and Semideserts Province, and the adjacent Madrean Archipelago (north of the 

Sierra Madre Occidental) of Mexico. 

We include the eastern edge of M322 because there is some Sonoran Desert Ecotype on the Coronado 

National Forest but only the part that has the eastern limital faunal component (not species found in 

the western deserts). The Mogollon Rim is not included because there is a distinctive break in typical 

floral and faunal elements between the Mogollon Rim and Madrean Archipelago. For the same reason, 

the eastern half of M321 is excluded because there is a faunal break in Hidalgo County, New Mexico; 

east of this line are biota typical of the Chihuahuan Desert. This Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert 

interface has been discussed extensively in the literature and is often referred to as the “Cochise FilterBarrier” (Morafka 1977). We also do not recognize the political boundaries between the United States 

of American and Mexico, because Mexican sky islands and valleys and Arizona and New Mexico’s 

sky islands and valleys are contiguous and biologically (and geologically and climatically) related. 

Thus, our spatial bounds of analysis are defined by the Baboquivari Mountains to the west, the 

Animas Mountains (New Mexico) to the east, the Gila River to the north, and the Sierra Madre 

Occidental to the south (northern Sonora and extreme northwest Chihuahua). There is a small buffer 

around this area to accommodate land management that could affect the Madrean Archipelago.

The temporal bounds of analysis include 10 years into the future and 10 years into the past. For the 

future, this is the same as the period covered by most forest plan objectives. Generally, all past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and plans are off-forest, because on-forest projects 

would be implementation of the 1986 forest plan. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

326

Several categories of factors can contribute to cumulative effects: plans, such as land and resource 

management plans and wildfire protection plans (for these see the section on fire management); 

recovery plans, including safe harbor agreements, conservation agreements, and similar action plans; 

recovery actions, such as salvage, reintroduction, and translocations; ground-disturbing activities, such 

as mines, urban development, and fire suppression. The cumulative effects of these plans range from 

negative to the point of removing all useable habitats to beneficial for biological resources. 

The Bureau of Land Management manages the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area east of the 

Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Area. This is a dynamic area for biological resource management 

because it is one of the few riparian and aquatic sites with remnant and diverse threatened and 

endangered fauna. The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area has native populations of Gila chub, 

Gila topminnow, desert pupfish, Chiricahua leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake, Huachuca 

water umbel, Southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow-billed cuckoo. Black-tailed prairie dogs 

were extirpated from the Coronado National Forest during an extermination campaign, but the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department has reintroduced a population to the Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area. Researchers here have been part of the National Fish and Wildlife Federation’s 

Grassland Initiative, targeting the Madrean Archipelago. Other highly biodiverse valley riparian areas 

include the San Pedro River and Gila Box National Conservation Areas. These have been very 

important venues to recovery of native fishes. BLM also has resource management plans for the 

Muleshoe (southern Galiuro Mountains), Gila District (Safford and Tucson Field Offices), Dos 

Cabezas Wilderness, Red Canyon Wilderness, and Aravaipa Wilderness. National wildlife refuge 

plans includes the San Bernardino and Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuges. These are located in 

a critical area for wildlife conservation because they are the only source of Yaqui fish in the U.S., as 

well as the only remaining genetic stock of Chiricahua leopard frogs from the vicinity of the 

Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area (type locality), needed for reintroduction on the Coronado 

National Forest. Frogs have already been breeding in the ranarium and onsite at the Southwest 

Research Station (American Museum of Natural History research facility). 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge was established to maintain the only populations of masked 

bobwhite, but they may now be extinct in the wild, so the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is attempting 

to restore lands for reintroduction. There is only one unconfirmed sighting record of this species on 

the Coronado National Forest, adjacent to the national wildlife refuge in the Tumacacori Ecosystem 

Management Area, so this species has never actually been confirmed to occur on-forest. However, 

most of the management the refuge does is to restore habitat and populations of other native species. 

The refuge is primarily valley grasslands (but also includes the Baboquivari Sky Island), and is close 

enough to the Coronado National Forest that we have many of the same species and management 

issues. For example, the Chiricahua leopard frog metapopulation in the Tumacacori Ecosystem 

Management Area is linked to the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, as are invasive American 

bullfrogs. Also, the jaguar (nicknamed Macho-B) was a resident of Arizona for over a decade and 

alternated between traveling in the Baboquivari Mountains and Pajaritos (on the Coronado National 

Forest), crossing the grasslands. Together the management of biological resources is enhanced by dual 

management of Federal agencies. 

There are Department of Defense installations adjacent to the Coronado National Forest, and they 

have management plans that include natural resources. The Department of Defense is not generally 

recognized as a land management agency, but in fact, the installations often lie in large, remote, 

lightly populated areas, where the ecosystems are less disturbed than most managed lands. There are 

more threatened and endangered species on Department of Defense lands than any other Federal land 

management agency. The Coronado National Forest works very closely with the Department of 

Defense on conservation issues. 

A different type of Federal agency that impacts wildlife habitat conditions is the U.S. Border Patrol, a 

social/law enforcement agency. The job of Border Patrol is not to manage for conservation of rare 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

327

species, but to control illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Unlike other Federal agencies, there 

typically are not biologists employed by the agency. Many of their activities are, in fact, problematic 

for the biological resources mission of the Forest Service. For example, they have many roads that 

crisscross the lands near the border, which is the area with the highest biodiversity. Agents are 

typically not well versed in natural resource protection and they can use a waiver for national security 

to implement their mission and avoid environmental review. However, Border Patrol has a public 

lands liaison who works directly with the forest at both the district and forest level. This relationship 

affords both agencies to respond to immediate impacts to the environment, plan ahead and attempt to 

minimize Border Patrol impacts when operations are undertaken on the forest. For most activities the 

Border Patrol have land management agency liaisons and consultants that work with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on threatened and endangered species. Border Patrol provided startup funding for 

research on threatened and endangered species by the border (cameras for jaguars and ocelots). The 

last 10 years has also seen an upswing in illegal border activity management, including the placement 

of pedestrian and vehicle barrier fences, an increased network of roads, the establishment of a security 

infrastructure, and increased number of border agents. These factors increase disturbance of wildlife 

and plants and influence the migration behavior and habitat extent of far-roaming species such as 

jaguar.

There are two national parks in the Madrean Archipelago managed by the National Park Service: 

Saguaro National Park and Chiricahua National Monument. Saguaro National Park was created to 

manage the proliferation of native giant saguaro cactus. The Park Service manages national parks to 

sustain native species by habitat restoration, as well as managing for wildlife populations directly. 

Chiricahua National Monument is contiguous to the Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area. 

Although national parks cater to ecotourists and recreation uses as a large part of their mission, they 

also manage their lands for ecological resiliency and biodiversity, which is complementary to the 

forest plan. Many of the same native and invasive species cross the boundaries of these areas and so 

coordination between agencies is essential in holistic conservation programs and managing threats to 

population viability. 

The states of Arizona and New Mexico each have agencies that manage plant and animal resources, 

most notably the Arizona Game and Fish Department and New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish. Even though New Mexico is a very small part of the bounds of analysis (and Coronado National 

Forest), that small portion is extremely diverse and is situated near an international wildlife corridor of 

connecting mountains. Arizona Game and Fish Department has a strategic plan for 2007–2012 and a 

State wildlife action plan. Arizona Game and Fish Department and New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish manage for a variety of wildlife issues, such as game management, nongame management, 

wildlife diseases, reintroductions, access, and wildlife linkages (corridors). There is also the State 

Lands Department and Arizona State Parks system. The former has a dynamic role with urban 

development and socioeconomic factors. The management of these State agencies complements the 

Forest Service’s ability to achieve wildlife objectives and to manage for populations that are resilient 

to stochastic events. They also provide monitoring programs and data that are essential for evaluating 

movement toward desired conditions and the effectiveness of mitigations directed by the forest plan. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department also has a recent effort to map wildlife migratory paths across 

ownerships, which facilitates coordination in maintaining open space between the sky islands.

Each of the counties within the cumulative effects area have governments that manage their land base 

for a variety of reasons, such as camping, hiking, hunting, wildlife viewing, grazing, and resource 

extraction. Pima County is most noteworthy because it is at the interface of the Cochise Filter and 

Sonoran Desert, and is the urban hub of Tucson and outlying communities. Because of the large 

population and rapid urban growth, Pima County developed a Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, 

which allows for developers to offset environmental impacts from private land development by 

contributing to a fund that purchases open space and restores lands that have been impacted by past 

activities. The Nature Conservancy is a nongovernment organization that manages lands in Ramsey 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

328

Canyon, Appelton/Whittell, Patagonia, and Aravaipa Canyon for biological resources. Each of these 

land bases has management plans and active restoration efforts that support species viability on the 

Coronado National Forest.

Ground-disturbing activities across land management agencies in the cumulative effects area include 

(but are not limited to) grazing, mining, urban growth, fire management, vegetation management, and 

road development. The Rosemont Copper Project in the Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Area 

would alter about 7,000 acres of habitat and affect a much larger area indirectly from light, noise, and 

traffic. This project would amend the forest plan to allow for disturbance associated with the mining 

that could contribute to the trend toward listing for Coleman’s coral-root and Beardless chinchweed 

(USDA FS 2011b). There are several other potential mining projects, but they are mostly in the 

exploratory phase (small to medium scale drilling) and so the scale of their effects and what species 

they might impact is still unknown. 

Urbanization has been increasing rapidly in the valleys of the Madrean Archipelago, although it 

mostly slowed since the 2008 recession. It has resulted in increased fragmentation of habitat between 

sky islands and loss of habitat for some populations on private land. Fire has been changing the 

landscape of the Madrean Archipelago, both on and off the Coronado National Forest. The 

management of other Federal and State land owners has been better coordinated because of the 

increasing risk of uncharacteristic fire but management of private land is not always directed toward 

the same objectives, which can lead to ignition sources and ecosystem conditions that can increase fire 

intensity and effects. 

More than one-half of the Madrean Archipelago is in Mexico. Every few years, there is a symposium 

on the biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago. The proceedings are published by 

the Rocky Mountain Research Station. These proceedings provide a good source of information on 

management of the sky islands. During the first two symposia, submissions were decidedly skewed to 

the U.S. portion, but the May 2012 symposium had a significant percentage of contributions from 

Mexican researchers and land managers, so this opened the door to learning more about how lands are 

managed and the state of conservation of species. The vast majority of lands are not managed by 

public agencies; rather they are managed by private holdings and often ejidos (communal farm and 

ranchlands). Management of the ejidos varies greatly, usually in response to the will of the 

community. Many ejidos are very conservation oriented and work with researchers for conservation 

goals. There are some biological reserves, such as the Ajos-Bavispe National Reserve and Sonoran 

Wildlife Refuge. Not far south of the border are two areas that are well known as having populations 

of jaguars and ocelots, and serve as research centers for those cats and many other species: Rancho El 

Aribabi and the Northern Jaguar Reserve. There is one very noteworthy Federal Government agency 

that deals with conservation in Mexico: CONABIO.47 CONABIO is not a land management agency, 

however. They oversee research, maintain databases, and provide information that allows ranchos and 

ejidos to manage their lands. There are some conservation groups in Mexico as well; premier among 

them is Pronatura, an environmental group that works with its citizenry to advance knowledge of 

conservation of Mexico’s diverse flora and fauna. The Universidad de Sonora is also very involved in 

biological research. However, as in the U.S., there are diverse attitudes toward the environment that 

result in difficulties in coordinating management across ownerships and even more so in Mexico 

because of the different land tenure system. For example, many ranchers in Sonora are actively 

helping the spread of Buffelgrass into native vegetation communities (notably the deserts) because it 

is a resilient food source for cattle. Although the plant is a serious invasive, it also helps fatten cattle 

for market, so it is important from a socioeconomic standpoint.

 

47 http://www.conabio.gob.mx/
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

329

As a whole, the Madrean Archipelago is a changing and diverse social and ecological environment. 

The ground-disturbing changes resulting from urban development, illegal border activities, and Border 

Patrol activities, mining operations, and intensive wildfires from past management practices 

(overgrazing and fire suppression) are cumulatively degrading the natural environment and reducing 

the biological diversity and resources. One of the most critical problems is the loss of surface water 

and groundwater, which is causing a decline in aquatic species. These issues are exacerbated by 

drying climate trends.

Conversely, there are agencies at all levels of government, as well as nongovernmental organizations 

and private land owners, that are focused not only on mitigating negative effects of habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, but are actively working and cooperating to restore damaged 

ecosystems and bring back the native flora and fauna. Good examples of this are the efforts to restore 

vanishing aquatic fauna, working on landscape-level restoration projects (such as FireScape), and 

maximizing limited funding through extensive partnerships. Management of lands outside the 

Coronado National Forest is important for all aspects of management of biological resources. Some of 

the areas that manage primarily for conservation of biological diversity will be the likely source of 

recolonization of native species onto the Coronado or linkages between areas. The increased 

communications with researchers and managers of Mexico is extremely important in maintaining our 

biodiversity, such as the source of jaguars and ocelots to reestablish in the United States.

In this context, there are few differences in cumulative effects between the alternatives. The only 

difference is in alternative 1, which has a large number of recommended wilderness areas. Lands that 

set aside large areas for low-disturbance activities, like recommended wilderness, also occur in the 

form of national parks, Department of Defense lands, some Bureau of Land Management lands, some 

State lands, and across most administrations. These lands influence the pattern of development (urban, 

alternative energy sources) and reduce risk from threats to wildlands, native plants, and animals. 

Intact, unaltered habitat is extremely important in the face of climate change. Areas that retain 

biodiversity and act as a buffer from climate change allow plants and animals to persist in slowly 

changing landscapes. As a result, the plant and animals are more likely to persist than those in rapidly 

changing, altered environments.

Revision Topic 2: Visitor Experiences

Recreation – Affected Environment

The Coronado offers a variety of recreational activities: camping and picnicking, hiking, wildlife and 

scenic viewing, horseback riding, hunting and fishing, snow sports, rock climbing, and caving. 

Recreational use is heavy year round. Lower elevations, which support desert and grassland 

vegetation, are most popular from fall through spring. Higher elevations, with their shady conifer 

forests, are heavily used during the warmer months. 

The Coronado National Forest offers 66 developed campgrounds and picnic areas, historic rental 

cabins, more than 1,100 miles of trails (including the Arizona National Scenic Trail and the Arcadia 

National Recreation Trail), several lakes, 3 scenic byways (Sky Island National Scenic Byway, Swift 

Trail Parkway, and Patagonia-Sonoita Scenic Road), designated mountain bike trails, and motorized 

touring areas. Currently, the Forest Service has authorized special recreational uses for recreation 

residences in three ecosystem management areas, several organization camps, a lodge, a ski area, and 

numerous outfitter and guiding activities.

Sabino Canyon and Mount Lemmon on the Santa Catalina Ranger District each receive more than 1 

million visitors annually. Amenities at the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, located adjacent to 

metropolitan Tucson, include a shuttle tour into the canyon, picnic areas, and interpretive facilities. In 

addition to developed recreation sites, the Coronado offers a wide variety of undeveloped recreation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

330

settings for visitors to explore the backcountry on primitive roads and find solitude in eight 

congressionally designated wilderness areas.

The Coronado and Lincoln (New Mexico) National Forests have the greatest number of recreational 

caves in the Forest Service’s Southwestern Region. Many on the Coronado are a legacy of historic 

mining in southeastern Arizona, there being thousands of abandoned mines, adits, and caves across the 

landscape. Some of these features have been remediated to eliminate health and safety issues and are 

no longer available for use by caving enthusiasts. Others are closed temporarily for the protection of 

special-status cave-dwelling species, especially bats, during maternity roosting seasons. The Coronado 

National Forest allows exploration on a case-by-case basis for those caves that are gated and locked. A 

refundable deposit is required for users to obtain an access key. 

Information collected during national visitor use monitoring on the Coronado (USDA FS 2012) 

indicates that the five activities most popular with visitors are hiking or walking (75.6 percent 

participation), viewing natural features (67.4 percent), observing wildlife (65.9 percent), relaxing 

(45.9 percent), and driving for pleasure (23.9 percent). Nature center activities, nature study, and 

picnicking are also very popular (USDA FS 2012). 

The increase in recreational use of the Coronado over the past few decades has been dramatic. 

According to national visitor use monitoring data, there were nearly 2.8 million visits to the Coronado 

during fiscal year 2007, most of them from the Tucson metropolitan area and nearby communities. 

Other visitors originated from across North America, and about 3 percent were foreign visitors. 

Demographically, a majority of visitors were male (58.5 percent), most were Caucasian (89.6 

percent), and 13.9 percent were Hispanic.

Several new recreational issues and trends have emerged since the 1986 forest plan was developed:

• population growth in southeastern Arizona, which has accelerated the loss of natural landscapes 

(open space), decreased public access to the Coronado where residential and commercial land has 

been developed, and increased the number of forest visitors to the point where many recreation 

sites fill to capacity regularly;

• exponential growth in the popularity of certain recreational activities, such as mountain biking, 

off-highway vehicle use, and bird watching;

• recreation activities that were virtually unheard of at the time of the 1986 forest plan, including 

geocaching and paintballing;

• a decline in forest health and the effects of climate change, which have increased the incidence 

and probability of catastrophic wildfires and facilitated major insect and disease outbreaks that 

affect recreational settings;

• increased illegal activities along the international border with Mexico, combined with U.S. Border 

Patrol activities and facilities for managing illegal activity, which have changed recreational 

settings and compromised visitor safety; and 

• decreased Federal funds for management of national forest recreation.

The recreation opportunity spectrum provides a framework that allows the Forest Service to manage a 

variety of recreation environments for visitors to enjoy. The settings are defined by a number of 

indicators: access, remoteness, naturalness, facilities and site management, social encounters, visitor 

impacts, and visitor management. Opportunities are provided along the spectrum from a very high 

probability of solitude, self-reliance, challenge, and risk (primitive) to very social experiences where 

self-reliance, challenge and risk are relatively unimportant (rural or urban). In 2000, when the handdrawn recreation opportunity spectrum maps from the 1980s were converted to data using GIS and the 

Coronado’s recreation opportunity spectrum settings were reviewed, a new class called “roaded 

modified” was identified and added to the recreation opportunity spectrum mapping.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

331

Recreation – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Recreation would continue to be managed by direction given in the Forest Service manual and 

handbooks, which provide general guidance, and a forest plan that provides direction specific to the 

Coronado National Forest. Caves would continue to be managed to provide recreation opportunities 

while protecting resources using an existing plan and other directives (Forest Service manual and 

handbook, cave management plans, and other guidance).

Recreation settings would continue to be managed for largely the same recreation opportunity 

spectrum settings under the existing plan or any alternative. This would result in approximately 87

percent of the Coronado continuing to be managed for primitive and semiprimitive settings that 

provide low development recreation opportunities. Therefore, a natural setting would be retained on 

most of the Coronado with management direction under all alternatives. However, under the proposed 

action, alternative 1 and alternative 2, future projects implementing the plan would have to also 

consider the desired conditions and guidelines of the project area’s land use zone (see the “Proposed 

Action” section). Table 110 shows the recreation opportunity spectrum settings for the Coronado 

National Forest.

Table 110. Percent of Coronado National Forest in recreation opportunity spectrum classes1

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting Acres

Percent of Coronado National 

Forest acres2

Primitive 568,463 33.1%

Semiprimitive nonmotorized 304,333 17.7%

Semiprimitive motorized 640,354 37.3%

Roaded modified 109,630 6.4%

Roaded natural 93,443 5.4%

Rural 1,520 <0.1

Urban 402 <0.1

Total3 1,718,145 99.9

1. Definitions are provided in the glossary on page 448.

2. Percentages were rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, which yielded slightly less than 100 percent.

3. Because of the data source, which has land boundary errors and includes private and state land, this total is more than 

the total acres of National Forest System lands on the Coronado National Forest.

No Action

If no action is taken, management of recreation would continue to follow the forestwide and 

management area-specific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in the 1986 forest plan. 

The 1986 forest plan contains no desired conditions for recreation settings and features on the 

Coronado, making it difficult for managers to identify projects, set priorities, and measure progress 

toward improved resource conditions. 

The no-action alternative includes standards and guidelines that are no longer needed or realistic given 

the current budget. Many of these recommendations are no longer forest priorities and, if followed, 

would direct recreation resources to projects that would provide few benefits to visitors. 

The no-action alternative identifies management areas based on vegetation communities and slopes 

that do not reflect current use patterns and management needs. Because of this, recreation in these 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

332

areas is not easily managed for improved visitor satisfaction or protection of resources. This is 

because designations do not take into account social considerations or factors that influence the 

recreation settings, such as the presence of roads, facilities, and the types of recreation uses occurring 

in the area.

Management area direction in the 1986 forest plan provides few specifics other than allowing for 

dispersed recreation in most areas, nonmotorized, nonmechanized activities in Management Area 9, 

and developed facilities in Management Areas 3A and 3B. This provides only limited guidance for 

addressing current problems such as unmanaged recreation and user conflicts. In addition, 

Management Area 3A areas (existing developed recreation sites) are not depicted on any maps, and 

Management Area 3B areas (future developed recreation sites) would continue to be unused. Because 

there are so few places on the Coronado with appropriate topography and high demand for additional 

developed recreation facilities, Management Area 3B is considered to be unnecessary. Having 

management direction for areas that are unmapped or unused does not provide sufficient guidance for 

managers to prioritize developed recreation facilities or visitor needs. 

Management area direction contains confusing standards and guidelines, such as “Manage dispersed 

use at a level of 100 percent reduced service,” which is not helpful in managing the recreation 

program to improve or make progress toward a desired condition.

In addition, the 1986 plan lists new construction and reconstruction projects for recreation sites and 

trails. This is problematic because priorities have changed and future funding is unknown. These 

outdated strategies do not help the Coronado meet visitor needs, manage limited budgets, or move 

toward the desired conditions for developed recreation facilities and visitor satisfaction. They also 

provide little direction on how to improve long-term forest health, which is critical to maintaining the 

recreation settings desired by the public. 

The lack of current, scientifically sound guidance in the 1986 plan, especially desired conditions for 

recreation on the Coronado, makes it difficult for managers to plan projects that will preserve valued 

natural recreation settings, which are so important for recreation. Occasionally, this lack of clarity 

creates artificial conflicts between recreation and forest health goals because recreation uses and forest 

management activities are perceived as mutually exclusive. There is no distinction between short-term 

disruptions of the natural setting and visitor access versus longer-term alteration of the natural setting 

by uncharacteristic disturbance and its effects on recreation use and visitor satisfaction.

The 1986 plan contains no direction with regard to the management of forest resources in response to 

climate change. Because of this, forest natural resources and settings would likely be vulnerable to 

atypical temperature and rainfall patterns. As an example, drought induced by climate change 

(warmer/drier climate) may alter the availability of popular water-oriented recreation destinations, 

such as lakes, rivers, sports fisheries, and scenic features, such as waterfalls. Also, without 

management direction, vegetation would be less likely to adapt to, or be resilient to, changing 

conditions, which, in turn, may affect forage and habitat available to wildlife. Decreased populations 

of big and small game may result, which would have a negative effect on recreational hunting activity.

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan would include descriptions of desired conditions that provide a long-term, 

strategic vision for recreation across the Coronado and desired conditions that management should 

move toward or strive to attain. This would help forest managers set priorities, plan projects, and work 

toward improved resource conditions. For example, desired conditions describe separate areas for 

different types of motorized recreation activities (off-highway vehicle versus quiet recreation), which 

would help reduce on-the-ground conflicts from different user types.

The revised forest plan would provide land use zones that better reflect public use patterns and 

activities, especially recreation, in various areas. Land use zones complement recreation opportunity 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

333

spectrum settings by responding to public concerns about the need for “quiet” recreation settings, 

acknowledge the popular recreation areas on the Coronado where management of recreation is most 

intense, and provide areas for noise-generating activities, such as off-highway vehicle use. 

Under the proposed action, the Wild Backcountry Land Use Zone provides opportunities for solitude 

and challenge. The Roaded Backcountry Land Use Zone provides for dispersed motorized and 

nonmotorized recreation activities. The Developed Recreation Land Use Zone is popular for day trips 

and destination-based recreation (lakes, campgrounds, skiing), and the Motorized Recreation Land 

Use Zone provides specific areas in three ecosystem management areas for off-highway vehicle

recreation. 

The plan would include recommendations for congressional designation of four areas as wilderness: 

two in the northern Chiricahua Mountains (Ku Chish and Chiricahua Addition North), one in the 

Whetstone Mountains, and the current Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area. The effect of 

recommending the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area for wilderness designation would 

result in recreation settings nearly identical to the current conditions because the area would continue 

to be managed for primitive recreation opportunities (for more information see section entitled 

“Designated and Special Areas”). Although rugged topography already limits mechanized uses in the 

northern Chiricahua Mountains and Whetstones, managing the three areas as wilderness would 

provide another layer of protection to conserve the primitive characteristics of approximately 47,575

acres of natural, nonmotorized recreation settings. Mechanized uses, such as mountain biking, would 

not be permissible if Ku Chish and Chiricahua Addition North were designated as wilderness. 

However, these areas are very rugged and have limited trails, which are mostly used for hiking and 

horseback riding. The Whetstones do not have any trails. Therefore, management of Ku Chish, 

Chiricahua North, and the Whetstones as wilderness would not significantly affect mountain bike 

recreation. However, it would prohibit mountain biking, a restriction that favors nonmechanized uses.

The revised forest plan includes objectives, guidelines, and management direction that provide a 

framework for site-specific projects consistent with recreation plans and efforts of other entities. 

Current recreation concerns would be addressed, such as off-highway vehicle use, impacts of rock 

climbing, visitor safety, trash problems along the international border with Mexico, and access to 

public lands.48 Guidelines would help develop design criteria for site-specific projects and, if 

followed, they would protect desired recreation settings by using standard architectural and Forest 

Service guidelines for built improvements.

The revised forest plan contains objectives and guidelines for treatments of vegetation that would 

improve forest health and resilience to wildfire, disease, and insect infestation. Improvement of forest 

health and resilience would, in turn, protect and enhance recreational settings by preventing 

uncharacteristic wildfire. Such fires may restrict public access to the area for several years because of 

safety concerns. These fires also alter the recreation setting by decreasing diversity, removing shade, 

destabilizing trails, and generally lowering the scenic integrity of the surroundings.

The proposed action includes desired conditions, guidelines, and management approaches for 

managing trails, including the Arizona National Scenic Trail, which would guide management of the 

corridor and help protect the natural and recreational setting for which it was designated. Direction to 

manage for appropriate recreation opportunity spectrum settings, utilize interim plans (including the 

“Arizona Trail Management Plan”), and provide needed trailhead facilities would help protect the 

resource and provide for visitors along the trail while a comprehensive management plan is prepared 

for the entire state.

 

48 However, impacts from illegal activity and Department of Homeland Security counter-activity are outside the control 

of the Coronado and often override forest plan direction.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

334

Suitability tables in the revised forest plan identify land use zones where facilities that can negatively 

impact recreation settings (such as transmission lines, observatories, and communication towers) may 

be located and where they are unsuitable. These types of facilities introduce urban elements into a 

natural landscape. Direction in the forest plan would provide forest managers with guidance for 

minimizing impacts of such facilities to recreation settings on the Coronado.

Because of increased temperatures and atypical rainfall patterns, climate change in the Southwest may 

shorten the opportunity for some recreational uses, such as cold-weather sports, and lengthen others, 

such as hiking, horseback riding, motorized recreation, and camping. It may also change the 

distribution of hunting and fishing opportunities because of changes in vegetation structure and 

composition and/or surface water quality and quantity, which can, respectively, alter terrestrial and 

aquatic habitat.

To maintain the quality and availability of multiple recreation opportunities and accommodate the 

increased use expected with future population growth, the revised forest plan under the proposed 

action includes desired conditions and management approaches for the Coronado’s response to 

climate change. Complimenting desired conditions are strategies for responding to changing natural 

disturbances such as flooding, wildfire, and insect outbreaks (see appendix A of the revised forest 

plan). This direction would benefit recreational opportunities as they help manage forest resources 

into sustainable, adaptable, resilient, and diverse ecosystems that serve as the foundation for many and 

varied opportunities for recreational uses into the future.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would affect recreational use in the same manner as described above for the proposed 

action, although there would be a corresponding increase or decrease in effects, depending on the 

specific recreational activity (e.g., quiet solitude or mountain biking), as a consequence of the 

proposed recommendation of 16 areas for designation as wilderness. Approximately 15 percent of the 

Coronado (255,908 acres) in the Chiricahua, Dragoon, Galiuro, Peloncillos, Pinaleño, Santa Rita, 

Santa Teresa, Tumacacori, Whetstone, and Winchester Ecosystem Management Areas would be 

managed for wilderness character under alternative 1. Several recommended areas have very steep 

topography (Ku Chish, for example), and some do not have any trails (Chiricahua Addition West and 

Winchester), which limits some recreational uses, such as mountain biking.

Managing for wilderness character would conserve more acres of forest in natural appearing, 

nonmotorized settings of very high scenic quality than each of the other alternatives. This would 

appeal to nature enthusiasts and those who visit the Coronado for scenic vistas. 

Motorized and mechanized uses, such as motor vehicle operation and mountain biking, are prohibited 

in wilderness. Because it recommends more wilderness than each of the other alternatives, alternative 

1 would provide greater user opportunities for solitude and challenging remote recreation and the 

largest area available to users for nonmotorized recreation, especially hiking and backpacking. Most 

of the recommended wilderness areas have very steep topography, some have no trails (Chiricahua 

Addition West and Winchester), and some have very little mountain biking use, so the mountain 

biking would be most affected in the Dragoon, northern Chiricahua, Peloncillo, northern Santa Rita, 

and Whetstone recommended wilderness areas. Because there is no data on mountain biking use in the 

areas, quantifying effects is not possible. Mountain biking would be least affected in rugged, steep 

recommended wilderness.

Those areas proposed for wilderness designation that support many acres of the most unique natural 

vegetation (e.g., coniferous forests, meadows, riparian areas) on the Coronado are the Mount Graham, 

Ku Chish, Tumacacori, and Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Areas. Added protection would 

most benefit these special recreation settings.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

335

Recreational use under alternative 1 would attract additional visitors who favor the ambiance of 

wilderness. This is likely a relatively minor positive effect in those areas that simply expand existing 

wildernesses, and much greater benefit in areas where entirely new wilderness areas would be created. 

The duration and magnitude of this effect is uncertain. It is likely that users who favor quiet recreation 

would benefit, and those who prefer motorized and mechanized recreation would not.

Because of restrictive standards and guidelines for motorized and mechanical uses in wilderness, this 

alternative would marginally increase the cost and impede the accomplishment of forest health 

improvement projects that would benefit recreation settings, and increase the complexity of fire 

management. If uncharacteristic wildfire occurs, long-term recreational settings would be adversely 

affected. This is most problematic in recommended wilderness areas that are highly departed from 

desired conditions, have heavy fuel loads and high vegetation densities, and are accessible by 

mechanized equipment (Dragoon, Galiuro, and Mount Graham). It is moderately problematic in 

recently burned areas that currently have lower fuel loads but may need future vegetation treatments to 

maintain desired conditions (Ku Chish, Chiricahua Additions West and North, Jhus Canyon, and 

Tumacacori). It is not a problem in recommended wilderness currently closer to desired condition or 

with difficult access that makes mechanical treatments impractical (Santa Teresa Additions North and 

South, Whetstone, Winchester, Mount Fagan, Mount Wrightson Addition, Bunk Robinson, and 

Whitmire).

Alternative 1 includes the same direction regarding climate change as the proposed action. Thus, the 

benefits to recreation described under the “Proposed Action” heading also apply to alternative 1.

Alternative 2

Effects on recreation under alternative 2 would be the same as those of the proposed action except: it 

recommends only one wilderness area, the Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, does not provide 

for management of forest resources in response to climate change, it recommends less acreage to be 

designated for research natural areas, and most notably, it increases the number of acres of forest as 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones in the Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, Pinaleño, and Huachuca 

Mountains (see table 8).

Alternative 2 would not provide an additional nonmotorized recreation setting in the Chiricahua 

Mountains because it does not recommend the Ku Chish wilderness area. As a consequence, the 

additional resource protection of managing this area for wilderness character would not be realized.

Under alternative 2, 45,117 acres would be managed for motorized recreation, which is 10 times the 

area allocated to a motorized recreation zone by the proposed action and alternative 1. Motorized trails 

and/or facilities for off-highway vehicles (such as loading ramps) may be added. This would enhance 

recreational opportunities in designated places on the Coronado for visitors who enjoy off-highway 

vehicle touring. 

Alternatively, although the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone is just 3 percent of the Coronado 

National Forest, visitors who prefer quieter settings would be displaced to other areas.

Alternative 2 provides no plan components for management of forest resources to achieve resiliency 

and adaptation to changes that may result from warmer, drier climate conditions, which scientists 

currently believe will affect the Southwest as global warming occurs. It does, however, incorporate the 

strategies for management of climate change described in appendix A of the revised forest plan. Given 

the potential effects on seasonality and types of recreation use described under the “Proposed Action” 

heading, alternative 2 would be slightly less effective in managing the effects of climate change on 

recreational uses than the proposed action and alternative 1, and slightly more effective than the noaction alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

336

Cumulative Effects

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The cumulative effects analysis timeframe for recreation is 15 years and the spatial bounds of analysis 

for cumulative effects to recreation is the southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico sky 

island region, including all of Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties, southern Pinal and Graham Counties, 

western Hidalgo County, and eastern Pima County. 

The most profound effects to open space and outdoor recreation opportunities in southeastern Arizona 

are not from individual projects, but from multiple events and human activities over many years, 

including rapid population growth, border impacts, mining, and severe wildfires. Public recreation 

settings are often affected as numerous individual projects with relatively minor effects occur or are 

approved. Cumulatively, southeastern Arizona is slowly losing its once vast wild places. 

However, other lands that provide natural landscapes and open space for outdoor recreation, and other 

entities that support public recreation and recreation settings, help mitigate this loss, and these are 

described in more detail below.

Table 111 describes the actions that, when considered additively with the effects of each alternative, 

may cumulatively affect recreation in southeastern Arizona. In addition to the actions listed in the 

table, the Rosemont Project, would eliminate public recreation access to as many as 7,194 acres in the 

northern Santa Rita Mountains. The mine would also permanently change the recreation setting from a 

natural area to an industrial landscape, eliminate one of two optimum off-highway vehicle recreation 

opportunities on the Coronado, and displace current users who would have to drive farther to find 

similar alternate opportunities. Displaced users may then move into other areas on the Coronado, 

which could result in visitor conflicts. 

Cumulative effects resulting from the 1986 plan or any of the action alternatives would be similar. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

337

Table 111. Actions and plans that could affect recreation on the Coronado National Forest

Types of 

Lands/Actions/Plans Plans Cumulative Effects

Other public land management 

agencies and private entities that

provide outdoor recreation 

opportunities similar to the 

Coronado National Forest (such 

as lands with natural settings and 

facilities for hiking and 

camping) 

• Arivaipa Canyon Wilderness and Wilderness Management Plan: BLM 

lands that provide primitive recreation opportunities and natural scenery.

• Catalina State Park Management Plan: Coronado National Forest lands 

managed by Arizona State Parks for recreation opportunities (camping, 

trails, interpretation).

• Chiricahua National Monument General Management Plan: NPS lands 

that provide recreation opportunities (camping, trails, interpretation) and 

wilderness.

• Colossal Cave Mountain Park: Private park that provides outdoor 

recreation opportunities and natural scenery.

• Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness Management Plan: BLM lands that 

provide primitive recreation opportunities and natural scenery.

• Gila Box Management Plan: BLM lands that provide primitive recreation 

opportunities and natural scenery.

• Ironwood Forest National Monument Resource Management Plan: NPS 

lands that provide recreation opportunities (mostly dispersed) and 

wilderness.

• Las Cienegas Resource Management Plan: BLM lands that provide 

recreation opportunities (developed, primitive, interpretation) and natural 

scenery.

• Middle Gila Canyons Transportation and Travel Management Plan: BLM 

lands that provide recreation opportunities and natural scenery. The goals 

of the plan are to preserve recreation opportunities (including off-highway 

vehicle use), protect natural resources, and provide public access.

• Muleshoe Ecosystem Management Plan: BLM lands that provide 

primitive recreation and natural scenery.

• Saguaro National Park General Management Plan: NPS lands that provide 

recreation opportunities (facilities, trails, interpretation) and wilderness.

• San Bernardino and Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Management Plan: USFWS lands that provide wildlifeoriented outdoor recreation opportunities.

• San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan: BLM lands that provide 

recreation and natural scenery.

• Tucson Mountain Park: County park that provides outdoor recreation 

opportunities (including camping and trails) and natural scenery.

In conjunction with Coronado National Forest land 

management and the forest plan, the cumulative 

effects would be beneficial because people would 

be provided with a combination of lands for a 

wider variety of outdoor recreation opportunities 

and settings throughout the analysis area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

338

Types of 

Lands/Actions/Plans Plans Cumulative Effects

Other public agencies, 

governments, and partners that 

may not directly provide outdoor 

recreation opportunities, but help 

visitors access the Coronado 

National Forest, provide 

direction for conserving open 

space, provide outdoor 

education, and/or provide 

support (including funds) for the 

management of recreation 

opportunities on the Coronado.

• Arizona Long Range Transportation Plan: ADOT plan to provide 

multimodal transportation throughout the State for the next 25 years 

(including bicycling and access to recreation).

• Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) and 

New Mexico SCORP: State park plans that provide outdoor recreation 

supply and demand information helpful for budgeting and project planning 

on the Coronado. Arizona SCORP also provides criteria for Land and 

Water Conservation Fund and Heritage grants, which help the Coronado 

National Forest provide public recreation opportunities.

• Arizona Trail Association Strategic Plan: Organization plan that provides 

strategic goals for the Arizona National Scenic Trail.

• Corridor Management Plan for the Patagonia-Sonoita Scenic Road: ADOT 

plan that provides guidance for protecting recreation, open space, and 

scenery across multiple land ownership.

• Development Operating, Education Shooting Sports, Off-Highway 

Vehicle, Watchable Wildlife, and Watercraft Program Plans: Arizona 

Game and Fish Department plans for managing and enhancing wildlifeoriented recreation (including fishing, boating, off-highway vehicles, 

wildlife viewing, hunting and shooting, and public access).

• New Mexico Statewide Natural Resource Assessment and Strategy and

Response Plans: State plan that provides guidance for conserving 

landscapes, recreation opportunities, open space, and scenic values.

• Sky Island Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan: Coronado National 

Forest plan that provides guidance for protecting recreation, open space, 

and scenery.

• Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan: County plan that focuses on balancing 

urban growth and open space (including recreation and scenery).

• Swift Trail Corridor Management Plan: ADOT plan that provides 

guidance for protecting recreation, open space, and scenery.

In conjunction with Coronado National Forest land 

management and the forest plan, the effects would 

be beneficial because land managers (including the 

forest) would be provided with strategic guidance, 

information, and other tools that provide residents 

and tourists with outdoor recreation opportunities 

throughout the analysis area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

339

Types of 

Lands/Actions/Plans Plans Cumulative Effects

Fire Management Plans: City, 

county, and Federal plans that 

provide guidance for managing 

fire on lands near the Coronado 

National Forest.

Arivaca Sasabe Community Wildfire Protection Plan; Cascabel Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan; Catalina Community Wildfire Protection Plan; 

Chiricahua National Monument Fire Management Plan; Coronado National 

Memorial Fire Management Plan; Ft. Huachuca Integrated Wildfire 

Management Plan; Gila District Fire Management Plan; Graham County 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan; Mt. Lemmon Wildland Urban 

Interface Plan; Pinal County Community Wildfire Protection Plan; Saguaro 

National Park Fire Management Plan; San Pedro Fire Management Plan; 

Sonoita Elgin Community Wildfire Protection Plan

In conjunction with Coronado National Forest land 

management and the forest plan, the effects would 

be beneficial because wildfire would be managed 

in a way that protects public safety, improves 

ecosystem health, and reduces the likelihood of 

catastrophic fires on the Coronado. This would 

help keep visitors in the analysis area safe and 

protect recreation settings and facilities from fire 

damage. Some plans even mention the need to 

protect recreation values and wilderness character, 

and provide specific guidance for protecting these 

resources.

Municipal plans: County plans 

that provide guidance for 

economic development and 

regional growth, while 

protecting amenities including 

tourism and open space.

• Cochise County Comprehensive Plan

• Graham County Comprehensive Plan

• Hidalgo County Comprehensive Plan Update

• Pima County Comprehensive Plan Update

• Pinal County Comprehensive Plan

• Santa Cruz County Comprehensive Plan

In conjunction with Coronado National Forest land 

management and the forest plan, the effects would 

be a combination of positive and negative. Some 

effects would be beneficial because the growth of 

communities is planned in a way that strives to 

balance growth with recreation and open space, 

which helps reduce conflict between NFS lands 

and nearby municipal areas. Other effects would 

be negative because urban growth and 

development contributes to loss of open space and 

outdoor recreation opportunities throughout 

southeastern Arizona (i.e., reduced supply), and 

increased population leads to additional demand 

for recreation opportunities on the Coronado (i.e.,

increased demand).

Other land owners and managers 

adjacent to the Coronado 

National Forest not mentioned 

above who provide or support 

outdoor recreation 

NA (No plans found or consulted) In conjunction with Coronado National Forest land 

management and the forest plan, the effects would 

be beneficial because people would be provided 

with a wider variety of outdoor recreation 

opportunities throughout the analysis area and land 

managers would work together to manage open 

space and recreation opportunities. Specific 

benefits would include providing access to public 

lands, ensuring that trail corridors continue beyond 

the Coronado’s boundary, and working toward 

healthier ecosystems in the analysis area.

NPS = National Park Service; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; ADOT = Arizona Department of Transportation; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

340

Scenery – Affected Environment

One of the most distinctive features of the Coronado is its sky island mountain ranges that rise 

dramatically from a sea of surrounding desert. Elevations range from 3,000 to 10,720 feet above sea 

level. The Coronado’s 1.7 million acres are subdivided into 12 ecosystem management areas, each of 

which includes at least one mountain range. Visitors enjoy vast open spaces and a variety of natural 

landscapes, including deeply carved desert canyons, riparian corridors with towering sycamores and 

cottonwoods, rolling grasslands, oak woodlands, and mountaintop conifer forests. The Coronado’s sky 

islands also provide a scenic backdrop to cities and roads in the surrounding desert.

The report of the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (1987) states that America’s most 

important attribute for a recreation area is natural beauty. Viewing natural scenery, sightseeing, 

driving for pleasure, and photographing flowers, trees, scenery, and wildlife are among the Nation’s 

highest-ranking recreational activities (Cordell 2008). The Coronado National Forest is a regional, 

national, and international year-round recreation destination. According to the 2012 National Visitor 

Use Monitoring report, more than 67 percent of visitors to the Coronado participate in viewing natural 

features (scenery), the second most popular primary activity after hiking or walking. Additionally, 

more than 25 percent of visitors to the Coronado were reported to have traversed a scenic byway.

Although scenic quality on the Coronado is generally acceptable, its landscapes have been impacted, 

to varying degrees, by management of multiple resources. Resource management activities that have 

altered scenic resources include, but are not limited to, vegetation management, mineral extraction, 

roads, campgrounds and picnic areas, fire management (suppression and prescribed burning), and 

livestock grazing. Additionally, the Coronado’s scenic integrity is vulnerable to several growing 

threats. Throughout the forest plan revision process, the Forest Service received many comments from 

the public about this topic. One comment in particular captures the opinion of many others:

What people are valuing now is the pristine quality of the sky islands. That is what these 

people (new residents) are looking for. But, that pristine quality is being affected by 

population growth and increased pressure on the resources.

Several scenic resource issues and trends have emerged or grown worse since the 1986 forest plan was 

developed, including the following:

Population Growth and the Resulting Loss of Open Space and Natural Landscapes. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona’s population in 1912 (the first census taken after 

the Coronado was established in 1905) was approximately 204,354. In contrast, in 2005, 

Arizona’s population was more than 6 million, and the state was reported to have the fastest rate 

of population growth in the country (Arizona State Parks 2008). The population of southeastern 

Arizona continues to grow. The Tucson metropolitan area population is now more than 1 million 

people (Pima Association of Governments 2009). Other cities and towns and leapfrog 

developments near the Coronado are spreading across the landscape; in many locations, housing, 

resorts, and commercial development parallel the national forest boundary. Arizona’s population 

is expected to grow to over 12 million people by 2050 (Arizona State Parks 2008).

International Border Activities. Approximately 58 miles of Coronado National Forest are 

adjacent to the international border with Mexico. Illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and law 

enforcement activities affect scenic quality and alter forest landscapes. According to the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, in each year since 1998, the U.S. Border Patrol (Tucson, 

Arizona, sector) has had the largest number of apprehensions in the Southwest, and in 2008, 

317,709 or 45 percent of all Southwest border apprehensions. In reality, the total number of illegal 

border crossings is likely much greater. 

In recent years, a large percentage of illegal activities have occurred on forest lands because of 

increased security off-forest. Impacts on the Coronado from immigration and smuggling include 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

341

the creation of numerous unauthorized roads and trails and extensive trash and debris piles. U.S. 

Border Patrol infrastructure and operations have necessitated the creation of numerous new roads, 

fences, walls, and surveillance towers. Effects from these activities now extend many miles into 

the Coronado, not just along the physical border with Mexico.

Communication Towers and Power Lines. As the population grows, additional communication 

towers and power lines are needed. Requests to site such facilities on the Coronado continue to 

increase. Construction of cell phone towers across southeastern Arizona’s landscapes is among 

the most recent related activity that negatively affects numerous viewsheds. On the Coronado, 

there is a major electronic site in the Santa Rita Mountains that does not conform to the guidelines 

established in the 1984 electronic site management plan that limit the height to reduce scenic 

impacts. This tower is now visible on the ridgeline from many miles away. 

Astrophysical Developments. Southern Arizona has clear, dark skies—features that make the 

area ideal for viewing the heavens. It has come to be known as the astronomy capital of the world. 

The Coronado’s sky island mountain ranges are ideal for astrophysical sites. These facilities are 

generally located atop mountain peaks where dust and light pollution are minimal. Although some 

people consider these a sightseeing opportunity, the light-colored observation structures of these 

facilities contrast strongly with the natural landscape and are visible from many miles away, 

which negatively affects the scenery valued by most visitors. Access roads to the sites add 

negative impacts to scenic quality.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use and Non-National Forest System Roads. According to the Arizona 

State Parks Department (Arizona State Parks 2008), off-highway vehicles are four times as 

popular as they were a decade ago, and in the West, off-highway vehicle sales are double the 

national average, having increased 154 percent in 5 years. Off-highway vehicle use is an 

increasingly popular activity in many areas on the Coronado. In fact, off-highway vehicle

recreation is one of the fastest growing activities on public lands in the Nation. While off-highway 

vehicle use on many National Forest System roads is an appropriate recreation activity, some 

users drive off road, where they create unauthorized roads. Off-road vehicle use damages fragile 

desert vegetation and soils, and because desert soils tend to be much lighter in color than the 

vegetation, creates strong scenic contrast. With little topsoil and arid conditions, scars do not heal 

quickly.

Mining. Rich mineral resources on the Coronado have supported mining activity since the mid1800s, before the Coronado was officially designated. Mines and quarries often result in 

vegetation clearing, roads, open pits, waste rock piles, and facilities that contrast sharply with line, 

form, color, and texture found naturally in the landscape. Mining and mineral exploration has 

increased significantly in recent years. Unfortunately, reclamation of past mines has rarely been 

adequate to restore scenic quality. A limestone mine in the Santa Rita Mountains has left a large 

white scar that can be seen from at least 30 miles away in Tucson. The Rosemont Copper Project 

will disturb about 3,670 acres of National Forest System land. 

Declining Forest and Ecosystem Health. Although wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks 

are natural processes, in recent years these disturbances have far exceeded the typical scale, 

intensity, and frequency on the Coronado. Fire suppression, drought, and climate change are the 

likely causal factors. Because of these events, scenic quality has been adversely affected across 

entire viewsheds for decades.

The Forest Service visual management system (USDA FS 1974), which was used in the 1986 forest 

plan, and the improved scenery management system (USDA FS 1995), which is used in the proposed 

action and alternatives 1 and 2, provide a framework to inventory, assess, and manage scenic 

resources. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

342

In the early 1980s, scenic resources on the Coronado were mapped and visual quality objectives were 

established. In 2001, a new inventory of the Coronado was completed using the scenery management 

system in the “Scenery Management System Handbook” (USDA FS 1995). In 2012, this inventory 

was updated using new vegetation data and computer visibility mapping. The Scenery Management 

System inventory includes mapping of:

• scenic integrity (the existing condition of scenic resources); 

• scenic attractiveness (the intrinsic scenic beauty of a landscape based on land form, rock form, 

water form, and vegetation); 

• concern levels (the relative concern for scenery along roads and trails); 

• visibility (the foreground, middle ground, and background areas visible from roads and trails); and 

• scenic classes (the relative importance of scenery).

In 2012, recommended scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) were reviewed by the forest plan revision 

interdisciplinary team and forest leadership to ensure compatibility with other resources.

Scenery – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, scenery would continue to be managed by direction given in Forest Service 

Manuals and Handbooks, which provide general guidance; and a revised forest plan, which provides 

direction specific to the Coronado. Direction under the action alternatives would reference maps that 

show scenery integrity objectives that must be followed during project planning. The 1986 plan would 

reference visual quality objectives currently applicable to scenic integrity.

Coronado lands would continue to be managed primarily for natural landscapes and scenic quality. 

However, because national forests are managed for multiple uses and forest plans are subject to 

amendment, projects that have the potential to adversely affect scenic qualities may be approved 

pending appropriate environmental analysis and public involvement.

No Action

Under the no-action alternative, management of scenic resources would continue to adhere to the 

forestwide and management area-specific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in the 1986 

forest plan. 

The 1986 forest plan contains no desired conditions or vision for management of future scenic quality 

on the Coronado, making it difficult for managers to set priorities, plan projects, and improve resource 

conditions. For example, the 1986 forest plan does not mention that healthy, fire-resistant vegetation 

(vegetation conditions that allow fires to move through without doing major damage and that recover 

relatively quickly from fire) is important for long-term scenic quality.

The 1986 forest plan includes standards and guidelines that provide general guidance for mitigating 

project effects to scenery (such as “maintain and protect the visual integrity of the landscape”), but 

also contains direction for projects that are no longer needed or feasible with current funding, such as 

recommendations for viewshed corridor plans and an inventory of visual absorption capability.49

Many of these recommendations are no longer priorities or are inconsistent with the current best 

practices in managing scenic resources.

 

49 Visual absorption capability is a classification system used to denote relative ability of a landscape to accept human 

alterations without loss of character of scenic quality.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

343

Management areas in the 1986 plan do not reflect current public use areas and associated landscapes,

nor are there any management areas where scenic quality is the focus. Management area direction 

would continue, but would provide few specifics other than the number of acres to be managed for 

each visual quality objective. Scenic quality would not be managed in ways that improve visitor 

satisfaction or protect scenic resources.

Standards and guidelines would not provide specific direction for special uses, such as electronic sites 

and observatories, which can negatively impact scenic quality.

Visual quality objective maps would continue to be used during project planning. These maps do not 

reflect changes in visitor use patterns and wilderness boundaries that have been designated since the 

early 1980s, do not incorporate views from trails, do not reflect current public opinion (especially 

concerns about open space and scenery), do not incorporate existing forest uses that necessitate lesser 

visual quality objectives (such as existing electronic sites), and do not reflect a regional (sky island) 

landscape context. Additionally, visual quality objectives assume all human modifications are 

negative, even historic sites, well-designed buildings (such as visitor centers), and manmade features 

such as campgrounds. Hence, visual quality objectives do not provide adequate guidance for 

protecting scenic quality or moving toward desired conditions. Table 112 lists the visual quality 

objectives for the Coronado National Forest in the 1986 plan.

Table 112. Visual quality objectives in the 1986 forest plan

Visual Quality Objective Acres Percent of Forest

Preservation: Allows for ecological changes only. 399,604 22.6

Retention: Provides for management activities that are not visually 

evident.

213,678 12.1

Partial retention: Provides for management activities that are 

visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

507,145 28.6

Modification: Management activities may visually dominate the 

original characteristic landscape, but must utilize naturally 

established form, line, color, and texture to be compatible with the 

natural surroundings.

466,957 26.4

Maximum modification: Management activities of vegetative and 

landform alterations may dominate the characteristic landscape, but 

when viewed as background, they must appear as natural 

occurrences.

183,657 10.4

Total 1,771,041* 100.1**

*Total acres are based on digitized, pre-GIS maps. These acres include private lands within the national forest 

boundary. 

**Percentages were rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, which yields slightly more than 100 percent.

The 1986 plan contains no direction with regard to the management of Coronado National Forest

resources in response to climate change. Because of this, natural resources and settings would likely 

be vulnerable to adverse effects of atypical temperatures and rainfall patterns, which include drought, 

increased number and intensity of wildfires, increased insect and disease outbreaks affecting 

vegetation, and decreased water yield and availability. As an example of an effect on scenic quality 

from the lack of climate change direction, if vegetation management and fuels reduction projects do 

not occur and drought is induced by climate change, it could lead to severe wildfires, which would 

likely negatively affect forest vegetation and the scenic quality of the landscape. Likewise, heavy 

runoff from extreme storms may remove understory vegetation, especially in areas that have burned, 

which would reduce the quality of scenic vistas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

344

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan under the proposed action describes desired conditions that present a vision for 

scenic quality and its management across the Coronado and provides goals on which management 

would focus. This would help Coronado National Forest managers set priorities, plan projects, and 

work toward an improved resource condition. For example, the revised forest plan clearly states that 

healthy, fire-resistant vegetation is important for long-term scenic quality.

The revised forest plan would replace visual quality objectives with the Forest Service Scenery 

Management System and establish scenic integrity objectives, which use current visitor use patterns 

and concern for scenery, recent vegetation mapping, and computer-based visibility mapping. The very 

high, high, and moderate scenic integrity objectives result in a relatively natural-appearing landscape.

“Research has shown that high-quality scenery, especially that related to natural appearing forests, 

enhances people’s lives and benefits society” (USDA FS 1995). The proposed action manages more 

acres for very high and high scenic integrity objectives than the 1986 forest plan does for comparable 

objectives (visual quality objectives of preservation and retention). This would result in a more intact 

and attractive scenic setting for forest visitors and residents. 

Scenic integrity objectives would help protect and improve scenic quality across most of the 

Coronado, yet in some locations scenic integrity objectives would be lower to allow for necessary and 

accepted land uses that have poor scenic quality, such as at electronic sites and some portions of the 

international border. Table 113 shows scenic integrity objectives for the Coronado as specified in the 

revised forest plan. 

Table 113. Scenic integrity objectives in the revised forest plan under the proposed action

Scenic Integrity Objective Acres Percent of Forest

Very high: Landscapes where the valued character is intact, with only 

minor deviations (such as ecological changes, hiking trails, and 

occasional range fences).

447,178 25.1

High: The valued landscape character appears intact, though roads 

provide access to the national forest and places from which to view 

scenery. Activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and 

texture found in the existing landscape character.

1,314,710 73.7

Moderate: The valued landscape appears slightly altered. Facilities in 

these areas are those valued by forest visitors (such as campgrounds and 

picnic areas) and privately owned recreation areas (such as summer 

homes, organization camps, lodges, and ski areas). Areas rated as 

moderate are relatively small. Noticeable deviations must remain visually 

subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.

20,725 1.2

Low: The valued landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations begin 

to dominate, but repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the 

landscape character. Areas rated as low are relatively small.

198 <0.1

Very low: Human activities may dominate the original, natural landscape 

character but should appear as natural occurrences when viewed at 

background distances. Areas rated as very low are relatively small.

1,159 0.1

Total 1,783,970 100**

**Percentages were rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent, which yields slightly more than 100 percent.

Wilderness and recommended wildernesses have a scenic integrity objective of very high. Developed 

recreation sites (including campgrounds, picnic areas, recreation residences, and areas managed for 

scenic integrity objective use) usually have a scenic integrity objective of moderate. Communication 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

345

sites, astrophysical sites, transmission lines, the international border, active mines, and other utilitarian 

areas have scenic integrity objectives of low or very low. The remainder of the Coronado has a scenic 

integrity objective of high.

Four areas would be recommended for wilderness designation under the proposed action, the present 

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, and Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua Addition North. 

This would afford additional protection for approximately 108,890 acres of natural settings and scenic 

quality in these areas because of restrictions on new development and facilities, which often 

negatively impact scenic quality.

Managing four areas as recommended wilderness would marginally increase the cost and reduce the 

ability of the Forest Service to implement forest health improvement projects that would benefit longterm scenic quality. It would increase the complexity of fire management because of restrictive 

standards and guidelines for wilderness, especially those with regard to motorized and mechanized 

uses. In turn, more careful planning would be necessary. This is most problematic in the Mount 

Graham recommended wilderness because it is highly departed from desired conditions and has heavy 

fuel loads and vegetation densities. It is moderately problematic in recently burned areas that currently 

have lower fuel loads but may need future vegetation treatments to maintain desired conditions (Ku 

Chish and Chiricahua North). It is not a problem in the Whetstone recommended wildernesses because 

this area is currently closer to desired condition and have very difficult access, both of which make 

mechanical treatments impractical.

Under the proposed action, the revised forest plan would provide objectives, guidelines, standards, and 

management approaches that create a framework for future site-specific projects consistent with other 

scenery-related plans and efforts, such as corridor management plans for scenic roads and scenic 

byways. These would help address current scenic quality issues with structures and activities such as 

off-highway vehicle use, the international border with Mexico, and communication sites, towers, and 

transmission lines. Land use zones and suitability tables would help direct these uses to acceptable 

locations on the Coronado, identify where new facilities are appropriate (and not appropriate), and 

along with guidelines, would help reduce impacts.

The revised forest plan would include guidelines that would result in facilities that complement and 

blend with natural landscapes, which would help protect natural settings valued by visitors.

Objectives and guidelines for treatments of vegetation in the revised forest plan would improve forest 

health and resilience to wildfire, disease, and insect infestation, which would, in turn, enhance and 

protect long-term scenic quality. Forest health projects usually create scenic quality changes in the 

short term (sometimes ranging from 3 to 5 years) in order to maintain long-term scenic quality. The 

proposed action allows for these short-term effects and would simplify the implementation of such 

projects, which would reduce the adverse effects that catastrophic wildfires have on scenic quality.

The revised forest plan would include guidelines for lessening the short-term effects of vegetation 

management projects. These projects benefit scenic quality in the long term by supporting more 

resilient ecosystems with fewer uncharacteristic disturbances. However, these guidelines allow for 

short-term unsightly features (such as slash piles and stumps) that detract from scenic quality but 

allow for the management needed to maintain scenic integrity in the long term. Guidelines in the 

revised forest plan would help these projects blend in with the natural landscape and would help 

protect scenic quality.

“Suitability” tables are included in the revised forest plan to identify locations within land use zones 

and specially designated areas where facilities that may adversely affect scenic quality (transmission 

lines, observatories, and communication towers) are not appropriate. These types of facilities, which 

are typically authorized by special use permits, introduce urban elements into a natural landscape. 

Direction in the revised forest plan would provide decision makers with guidance for minimizing the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

346

effects of such facilities on forest scenic resources. A list of communications sites (appendix C in the 

revised forest plan) identifies appropriate places for facilities, which would help reduce impacts to 

scenic resources.

The revised forest plan under the proposed action includes desired conditions and management 

approaches that will guide the Coronado’s future response to climate change (see proposed action, 

revised forest plan). Complementing desired conditions are management approaches that tier from the 

climate change response strategies described in appendix A of the revised forest plan. Included in 

these strategies is guidance that aids in planning a forest management response to extreme weather 

events and wildfire, both of which destroy native vegetation and scar the landscape in various 

vegetation communities at all elevations; and managing the restoration of resources and ultimately, 

scenic quality, in the aftermath of such events. Direction in the revised forest plan under the proposed 

action would, therefore, facilitate the adaptation and resiliency of forest vegetation to climate-induced 

events. Hence, the quality of vegetative landscapes on the Coronado would be maintained or improved 

under the proposed action.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have the same effects on scenic quality listed above for the proposed action, but 

they would be increased because of the recommendation of additional parcels for wilderness 

designation. These additional areas are located in the Chiricahua, Dragoon, Galiuro, Peloncillo, Santa 

Rita, Santa Teresa, Tumacacori, and Winchester Ecosystem Management Areas. 

Because of restrictions on the new development and facilities and motorized and mechanized uses in 

wilderness, management of 16 areas as recommended wilderness would enhance the conservation of 

natural settings and preserve scenic quality on 255,908 acres (approximately 15 percent of the national 

forest). Forest parcels with the greatest number of unique vegetation communities (coniferous forests, 

meadows, riparian areas) are in the Mount Graham, Ku Chish, Tumacacori, and Whetstone Ecosystem 

Management Areas. 

Managing 16 areas as recommended wilderness would marginally increase the cost and reduce the 

ability of the Forest Service to implement forest health improvement projects that would benefit longterm scenic quality. It would increase the complexity of fire management because of restrictive 

standards and guidelines for wilderness, especially those with regard to motorized and mechanized 

uses. In turn, more careful planning would be necessary. This is most problematic in recommended 

wilderness areas that are highly departed from desired conditions, have heavy fuel loads and 

vegetation densities, and are accessible by mechanized equipment (Dragoon, Galiuro, and Mount 

Graham). It is moderately problematic in recently burned areas that currently have lower fuel loads 

but may need future vegetation treatments to maintain desired conditions (Ku Chish, Chiricahua 

Additions West and North, Jhus Canyon, and Tumacacori). It is not a problem in recommended 

wildernesses that are currently closer to desired condition or have very difficult access, both of which 

make mechanical treatments impractical (Santa Teresa Additions North and South, Whetstone, 

Winchester, Mount Fagan, Mount Wrightson Addition, and the Bunk Robinson and Whitmire 

Wilderness Study Areas). 

Table 114 reports the scenic integrity objectives specified under alternative 1. Because alternative 1 

provides the same draft revision plan direction as the proposed action regarding climate change, its 

benefits on forest scenic resources and integrity would be the same as those described above under the 

“Proposed Action” heading.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

347

Table 114. Scenic integrity objectives under alternative 1

Scenic Integrity Objective* Acres Percent of Forest

Very high 599,224 33.6

High 1,162,685 65.2

Moderate 20,730 1.2

Low 204 <0.1

Very low 1,128 0.1

Total 1,783,970** 100.1***

* Refer to table 113 for definitions.

** Total acres do not exclude private lands within the national forest boundary.

*** Percentages were rounded to the nearest tenth, which yields slightly more than 100 percent.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have the same effects on scenic quality as the proposed action, with the exception 

that alternative 2 would recommend only one wilderness area and would increase land allocations for 

areas for motorized recreation in Motorized Recreation Land Use Zones in the Santa Catalina, Santa 

Rita, Huachuca, and Pinaleño Mountains. Thus, additional protection of scenic quality in wilderness 

afforded by management under alternative 1 and the proposed action would not be realized, and 

additional effects on scenic quality may result from increased motorized recreation.

Alternative 2 may increase negative effects on scenic quality as a consequence of user-created roads 

and trails and construction of new facilities in the additional areas allocated for motorized recreation; 

and the vegetation damage and exposure of bare soils that would result from concentrated off-highway 

vehicle use and off-road vehicle use. 

Alternative 2 provides no plan components for management of Coronado National Forest resources to 

achieve resiliency and adaptation to changes that may result from warmer, drier climate conditions 

that are expected in the Southwest. It does, however, incorporate the strategies for management of key 

climate change factors that can alter the landscape (see appendix A of the revised forest plan). Events 

that disturb the natural landscape as a consequence of climate-induced change, such as wildfire and/or 

extreme erosion and runoff, can significantly impair the scenic quality of the forest landscape. 

Because it would only follow the strategies in appendix A of the revised forest plan that guide 

planning for extreme events, alternative 2 would be slightly less effective in managing the effects of 

climate change on scenic quality than the proposed action and alternative 1, and slightly more 

effective than the no-action alternative (table 115).

Table 115. Scenic integrity objectives under alternative 2

Scenic Integrity Objective* Acres Percent of Forest

Very high 447,178 25.1

High 1,273,116 71.4

Moderate 62,336 3.5

Low 183 <0.1

Very low 1,158 0.1

Total 1,783,970** 100.1***

* Refer to table 113 for definitions.

** Total acres do not exclude private lands within the national forest boundary.

*** Percentages were rounded to the nearest tenth, which yields slightly more than 100 percent.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

348

Cumulative Effects 

The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative effects on scenic quality is the life of the forest plan (15 

years), and the spatial bounds of analysis is the southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico 

sky island region, including all of Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties, southern Pinal and Graham 

Counties, western Hidalgo County, and eastern Pima County. 

Public lands provide a range of natural scenery and open space in addition to the Coronado National 

Forest. However, differences in physical settings and agency missions often result in different types of 

experiences. The Coronado National Forest manages most of the high-elevation areas within the 

cumulative effects boundary. National Park Service lands are managed for high quality scenery. The 

Bureau of Land Management and Arizona State parks and county parks provide scenery similar to the 

lower elevation lands on the Coronado National Forest. Local parks generally provide more urban 

settings. 

The most profound effects on scenic quality in the area of potential effect are not attributed to 

individual projects but rather to multiple projects and human activities over many years, coupled with 

negative influences from rapid population growth (and associated infrastructure), illegal activities in 

border areas, mining, and severe wildland fires. 

Scenic resources are often degraded incrementally as numerous individual projects with relatively 

minor effects occur or are approved. Cumulatively, southeastern Arizona is slowly losing its once vast 

wild places. However, other lands that provide natural landscapes and open space, and other entities 

that support the protection of scenic quality, help mitigate this loss, and these are described in more 

detail below.

Additionally, most effects to scenic resources are cumulative. As projects add buildings, utility lines, 

and mines to a landscape, there is an immediate decline in scenic quality that increases with every new 

proposed development. Most projects are permanent or leave permanent scars, and landscape 

character is not restored unless facilities are removed, landscapes are naturalized, or both, which is 

rare and can take many years. 

Non-forest actions and plans that could contribute to cumulative effects to scenic quality on the 

Coronado are summarized in table 116.

In addition to the actions listed in table 116, the Rosemont Copper Project will have direct, largescale, long-term negative impacts on scenic resources. This project will convert a natural appearing 

landscape into industrial landforms having markedly different vegetation than what is there at present. 

The project will also displace visitors to other areas on the Coronado, some of which may be less able 

to assimilate increased use. It will also degrade scenic quality further by effects on roads south of the 

mine, where terrain is more gentle, lending itself to off-road travel, which negatively affects 

vegetation, soils, and scenic integrity.

Cumulative effects resulting from the 1986 plan or any of the action alternatives would be similar.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

349

Table 116. Actions and plans that may contribute to cumulative effects on scenic quality on the Coronado and adjacent landscapes

Types of Lands/Actions/Plans Plans Cumulative Effects

Other public land management agencies 

and private entities which provide natural 

landscapes with high scenic quality and 

open space similar to the Coronado 

National Forest

• Arivaipa Canyon Wilderness and Wilderness Management Plan:

BLM lands that provide natural scenery.

• Catalina State Park Management Plan: Coronado NF lands managed 

by Arizona State Parks for recreation opportunities and settings.

• Chiricahua National Monument General Management Plan: NPS 

lands that provide natural scenery and wilderness.

• Colossal Cave Mountain Park: Private park that provides natural 

scenery.

• Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness Management Plan: BLM lands 

that provide natural scenery.

• Gila Box Management Plan: BLM lands that provide natural 

scenery.

• Ironwood Forest National Monument Resource Management Plan:

NPS lands that provide natural scenery and wilderness.

• Las Cienegas Resource Management Plan: BLM lands that provide 

natural scenery.

• Middle Gila Canyons Transportation and Travel Management Plan:

BLM lands that provide natural scenery.

• Muleshoe Ecosystem Management Plan: BLM lands that provide 

natural scenery

• Saguaro National Park General Management Plan: NPS lands that 

provide natural scenery and wilderness

• San Bernardino and Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Management Plan: USFWS lands that provide 

natural scenery

• Tucson Mountain Park: County park that provides natural scenery

• Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

(SCORP) and New Mexico SCORP: State Park plans that provide 

outdoor recreation (including viewing scenery) supply and demand 

information helpful for budgeting and project planning on the 

Coronado National Forest.

In conjunction with the Coronado National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,

cumulative effects would be beneficial because 

users would be provided with a combination of 

lands for a wider variety of open space and 

scenery throughout the analysis area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

350

Types of Lands/Actions/Plans Plans Cumulative Effects

Other public agencies, governments, and 

partners that may not directly provide 

outdoor recreation opportunities, but help 

visitors access the Coronado National 

Forest, provide direction for conserving 

open space, provide outdoor education, 

and/or provide support (including funds) 

for the management of recreation 

opportunities on the Coronado.

• Arizona Trail Association Strategic Plan: Corridor Management 

Plan for the Organization plan that provides strategic goals for the 

Arizona National Scenic Trail.

• Patagonia-Sonoita Scenic Road: ADOT plan that provides guidance 

for protecting open space and scenery across multiple land 

ownership.

• New Mexico Statewide Natural Resource Assessment and Strategy 

and Response Plans: State plan that provides guidance for 

conserving landscapes, open space, and scenic values.

• Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan: County plan that focuses on 

balancing urban growth and open space (including scenery).

• Swift Trail Corridor Management Plan: ADOT plan that provides 

guidance for protecting recreation, open space, and scenery.

In conjunction with Coronado National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan, the 

effects would be beneficial because land 

managers (including the Forest) would be 

provided with strategic guidance, information, 

and other tools that provide residents and 

tourists with outdoor recreation opportunities 

throughout the analysis area.

City, county, and Federal plans that 

provide guidance for managing fire on 

lands near the Coronado National Forest.

Cascabel Community Wildfire Protection Plan; Chiricahua National 

Monument Fire Management Plan; Coronado National Memorial Fire 

Management Plan; Ft. Huachuca Integrated Wildfire Management 

Plan; Gila District Fire Management Plan; Graham County Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan; Mt. Lemmon Wildland Urban Interface Plan; 

Pinal County Community Wildfire Protection Plan; Saguaro National 

Park Fire Management Plan; San Pedro Fire Management Plan; 

Sonoita Elgin Community Wildfire Protection Plan

In conjunction with the Coronado National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,

effects would be beneficial because wildfire 

would be managed in a way that protects 

ecosystem health (which would benefit scenic 

quality because healthy forests are scenic) and 

reduces the likelihood of catastrophic fires on 

the Coronado (which can burn vegetation and 

damage scenic quality). Some plans even 

mention the need to protect aesthetics and 

wilderness character, and provide specific 

guidance for protecting these resources.

Municipal plans (regional, county, and 

city): County plans that provide guidance 

for economic development and regional 

growth, while protecting amenities 

including scenery and open space.

• Cochise County Comprehensive Plan

• Graham County Comprehensive Plan

• Hidalgo County Comprehensive Plan Update

• Pima County Comprehensive Plan Update

• Pinal County Comprehensive Plan

• Santa Cruz County Comprehensive Plan

In conjunction with the Coronado National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,

the effects would be a combination of positive 

and negative. Some effects would be beneficial 

because the growth of communities is planned 

in a way that strives to balance growth with 

scenery and open space, which helps provide 

continuous natural scenery beyond the national 

forest boundary. Other effects would be 

negative because urban growth and 

development contributes to loss of open space 

and scenic quality throughout southeastern 

Arizona.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

351

Types of Lands/Actions/Plans Plans Cumulative Effects

Other land owners and managers adjacent 

to the Coronado National Forest not 

mentioned above who provide or support 

open space and scenic quality.

Various plans and ongoing working relationships. Includes the 

National Park Service (Coronado National Memorial, Ft. Bowie, and 

Ironwood Forest National Monument), USFWS (Buenos Aires 

National Wildlife Refuge), BLM (Red Canyon Wilderness and other 

lands), Arizona State Parks (Catalina State Park), University of 

Arizona (Santa Rita Experimental Range), The Nature Conservancy 

(Ramsey Canyon Preserve), Fort Huachuca, Appleton-Whittell 

Research Ranch, and the Malpais Borderlands group.

In conjunction with the Coronado National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,

the effects would be beneficial because 

residents and visitors would be provided with a 

combination of lands for a wider variety of 

outdoor recreation settings throughout the 

analysis area and land managers would work 

together to manage open space and scenery. 

Specific benefits would include providing 

access to scenic public lands and working 

toward healthier ecosystems in the analysis 

area, all of which benefit people who enjoy 

scenic landscapes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

352

Public Safety and Illegal Activities – Affected Environment

Public comments during the plan revision process have characterized a changing social environment 

both on and off the Coronado that includes illegal immigration, urbanization, regional population 

growth, and irresponsible use of, or disregard for, natural resources. Vandalism of natural and cultural 

resources continues to occur. Deliberate destruction of heritage sites by pottery hunters results in 

irreplaceable losses of cultural resources. Participants in plan revision meetings favor increased 

attention to public safety and rule violations using a combination of user education efforts and 

increased law enforcement.

Undocumented immigrants are the most common “illegal users” of Federal lands. The Southwest, in 

general, has experienced a dramatic increase in the migration of undocumented citizens since 1994. 

The U.S. Border Patrol has a constant presence in southeastern Arizona, both on and off the 

Coronado. The Nogales, Sierra Vista, and Douglas Ranger Districts of the Coronado are contiguous in 

certain places with the international border with Mexico and experience the highest degree of adverse 

effects from illegal activities, while the Santa Catalina and Safford Ranger Districts are affected to a 

lesser extent. Drug and human smuggling in these areas represents a significant health and safety 

hazard for Forest Service and recreational users. And in some cases, mounds of trash that illegal users 

discard degrade the scenic quality of the Coronado and present health hazards.

Law enforcement has determined that illegal users have been responsible for many large wildland 

fires on and off the Coronado over the past decade. And, for safety reasons, Forest Service firefighting 

efforts must be planned to include the potential for encounters with armed or violent groups or 

individuals in these areas.

Currently, areas of illegal activity are monitored by law enforcement entities using helicopters; 

drones; motorized vehicles, including off-highway vehicles; and horseback. Surveillance of some 

areas recommended as wilderness under the proposed action and alternative 1 is performed using 

these methods as well as surveillance equipment.

Public Safety and Illegal Activities – Environmental Consequences

No Action

Forestwide and management area-specific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in the 1986 

forest plan, as amended, include the following:

• a goal to cooperate with state and local law enforcement agencies in the protection of visitors, 

their property, and National Forest System lands and facilities

• standards and guidelines requiring that appropriate measures be taken to protect caves and cultural 

resources

The 1986 plan direction preceded the border issues that exist today; therefore, the plan does not 

specifically address the type and scale of illegal activities that occur. The no-action alternative

recommends one wilderness area (Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area). Because of 

wilderness restrictions, motorized access by law enforcement would not be permitted. This wilderness, 

however, does not experience a high degree of illegal activities that occurs in ranger districts closer to 

the border with Mexico. Therefore, its designation would have little impact on management of illegal 

activities on the Coronado and public safety. 

The lack of climate change direction in the 1986 plan would have no effect on management of public 

safety and illegal activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

353

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan includes the following direction:

• forestwide and land use zone specific goals (desired conditions) reflecting a safe experience for 

visitors

• specific desired condition statements for ecosystem management areas along the international 

border that reflect an environment where risks are natural and visitors do not feel threatened

• direction in wilderness and other management areas impacted by illegal activities to clean up trash 

and rehabilitate damage from unauthorized trails

• recreation and scenery management direction account for the need for developments along the 

border

Direction in the proposed action better addresses threats to public safety and border issues than the noaction alternative. It is similar in direction to alternatives 1 and 2, with the exception that it 

recommends less acreage for wilderness designation than alternative 1. The Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area, as noted under the “No Action” heading above, does not experience 

the high degree of illegal activity as those areas near the border with Mexico. Therefore, its 

designation would have little impact on management of illegal activities on the Coronado and public 

safety. The other wilderness recommended under the proposed action is the Ku Chish Recommended 

Wilderness Area on the Douglas Ranger District. This district has a high degree of illegal activities, 

and public safety is a key concern. However, this recommended wilderness area is located in very 

rugged terrain, and it is unlikely that designation as wilderness will have a significant effect on law 

enforcement monitoring in this area. Law enforcement access issues overall would not be significantly 

restricted under the proposed action and would be much less than restrictions resulting from 

alternative 1, but greater than alternative 2, which recommends only the Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area. Direction in the proposed action regarding management of resources 

in response to climate change would have no effect on public safety and illegal activities.

Alternative 1

Because alternative 1 recommends 255,908 acres of the Coronado for designation as wilderness, many 

areas would no longer be accessible to Border Patrol and other law enforcement vehicles. Because of 

wilderness restrictions, law enforcement officers would have to access wilderness on foot or 

horseback. Helicopter patrols may be an option if approved by the regional forester after a minimum 

requirements decision guide analysis is completed for such actions in specific restricted areas. 

Recommended wilderness areas where Border Patrol and law enforcement would be most affected by 

wilderness restrictions are the Tumacacori, Bunk Robinson, Whitmire Canyon, Mount Fagan, and 

Mount Wrightson Additions because of their proximity to the border and history of illegal activities. 

Wilderness areas recommended in the Chiricahua, Dragoon, and Whetstone Ecosystem Management 

Areas would affect law enforcement to a lesser degree, because their rugged, steep terrain is less 

attractive to illegal users.

Direction in alternative 1 regarding management of resources in response to climate change would 

have no effect on public safety and illegal activities.

Alternative 2

Because alternative 2 makes only one wilderness recommendation, its effect on law enforcement 

access would be less than the proposed action and alternative 1, but similar to the no-action 

alternative. The additional acreage offered for motorized recreation by alternative 2 may enhance the 

opportunity for law enforcement activities to be conducted using off-road vehicles on districts that 

experience a high degree of illegal activity in remote areas having difficult access or where roads do 

not exist. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

354

The lack of climate change direction under alternative 2 would have no effect on management of 

public safety and border issues.

Cumulative Effects

Information regarding future proposed surveillance and patrol activities was requested from the 

Border Patrol. Because of the sensitive nature of the agency’s mission, this information will not be 

available as input to a cumulative effects analysis.

Wilderness and Other Special Areas – Affected Environment

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

Wilderness areas provide a wide variety of user opportunities for exploration, solitude, natural risk, 

challenge, and primitive and unconfined recreation. Wild landscapes represent the Coronado’s richest 

concentration of quiet places, where the sights and sounds of human presence are relatively 

unnoticeable. Developments (fences, structures, and water-containment features) are rare; those that 

exist offer visitors a glimpse of past cultures and traditional land uses. In addition to recreational use, 

compatible uses of wilderness also include grazing, camping, hiking, and other forms of quiet 

recreation. 

The 1986 plan describes eight previously designated wilderness areas on the Coronado, which 

together cover 338,318 acres: Galiuro, Pusch Ridge, Rincon Mountain, Pajarita, Miller Peak, 

Chiricahua, Santa Teresa, and Mount Wrightson (see maps for no-action alternative in appendix L). In 

addition, the three action alternatives include direction for managing these eight wilderness areas. The 

action alternatives also continue management of the Bunk Robinson and Whitmire Canyon 

Wilderness Study Areas for wilderness character. 

The wilderness and wilderness study areas were created by the authority of several legislative acts: the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978, New Mexico Wilderness Act 

of 1980, and Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984. In accordance with wilderness legislation, these areas 

are managed to maintain wilderness characteristics, including natural conditions, primeval character, 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, ecological and 

geological processes, and other features of scientific, educational, scenic, and historic value. 

Recommendations for new wilderness areas are proposed in revised plans under each the three action 

alternatives (see chapter 2).

Wilderness use on the Coronado is reported to be about 488,000 visits annually (USDA FS 2012), 

second among all national forests in the Southwestern Region. Furthermore, increased wilderness 

visitation is expected in the future as the population of southeastern Arizona continues to grow 

(Coronado National Forest Wilderness Need Evaluation; USDA FS 2013). Although some wilderness 

areas on the Coronado do not experience high use because they are difficult to access or have few 

developed trails, others, such as the Pusch Ridge and Mount Wrightson Wilderness Areas, are easily 

accessible to visitors, are located close to more populated areas, and have developed trailheads. As a 

result, encounters among wilderness visitors are high in these two areas. 

During the planning process for revision of the forest plan, the Forest Service evaluated land parcels 

relative to established inventory criteria for potential wilderness. The Coronado National Forest 

“Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report” documented this review in accordance with the 

“potential wilderness evaluation process” outlined in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 70. 

From that evaluation, areas were recommended for congressional designation as wilderness in revised 

forest plans specified by the three action alternatives. 

In addition to the eight previously designated wilderness areas, the no-action alternative recommends 

the Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area (61,315 acres) for congressional designation as a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

355

recommended wilderness area. As explained in footnote 6 in chapter 2, this wilderness study area was 

established by Congress in 1984 and was recommended for congressional wilderness designation in 

the 1986 plan. Although the recommendation was never acted upon by Congress, all alternatives for 

plan revision carry forward the recommendation to designate this wilderness study area as a 

wilderness area. The 1986 plan also recognizes the Bunk Robinson and Whitmire Canyon Wilderness 

Study Areas and manages them to retain wilderness characteristics.

In addition to the eight previously designated wilderness areas, the proposed action recommends 

congressional designation of four areas as wilderness: Mount Graham (61,315 acres) (carried forward 

from the 1986 plan), Ku Chish (26,245 acres), Chiricahua Addition North (5,013 acres) and 

Whetstone (16,317 acres) Recommended Wilderness Areas. It also recognizes that Bunk Robinson 

and Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Areas would continue to be managed to retain wilderness 

characteristics. 

Alternative 1 proposes 16 areas to be recommended for wilderness designation, including the three

areas currently managed as wilderness study areas: Mount Graham, Bunk Robinson, and Whitmire 

Canyon. No recommendations for additional wilderness study areas are made by alternative 1.

Alternative 2 carries forward the 1986 plan recommendation that the current Mount Graham 

Wilderness Study Area (61,315 acres) be congressionally designated as the Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area and that the Bunk Robinson (19,062 acres) and Whitmire Canyon 

(12,163 acres) Wilderness Study Areas continue to be managed to retain wilderness character.

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

There are 16 eligible wild, scenic, and recreational rivers on the Coronado, all of which were 

identified in a 1993 inventory and described in Resource Information Report: Potential Wild, Scenic, 

and Recreational River Designation, National Forests of Arizona (USDA FS 1993). In 2008, the 16 

river segments were reevaluated, and they all remain eligible. The outstandingly remarkable values of 

eligible segments are protected by Forest Service policy. Table 6 in chapter 2 provides details about 

the Coronado streams that are eligible for wild, scenic, or recreational river designation, including 

their outstanding remarkable values. 

Desired conditions for “wild” rivers are that they remain free of impoundments, with shorelines that 

are essentially primitive with little or no evidence of human activity. The wild river is inaccessible 

except by trail, and no developed recreation facilities exist. Water quality of wild rivers meets or 

exceeds state standards. 

Desired conditions for “scenic” rivers call for shorelines that are largely primitive and undeveloped, 

with no substantial evidence of human activity. Evidence of human activities generally diminishes 

over time. Roads may reach or bridge the river. Scenic rivers are free of impoundment and 

improvements that occur are minimally intrusive in the landscape. 

For “recreational” rivers, desired conditions are that they generally are accessible by road or trail and 

have expected encounters with people. Recreation opportunities vary depending on their compatibility 

with the outstandingly remarkable value of the eligible segment. Vegetation management is used to 

enhance recreation river values. Improvements may dominate the landscape, with facilities that are 

visually complementary with the landscape. Roads and trails provide access within the river corridor 

consistent with protection and enhancement of scenic, cultural and historic, wildlife, and fish 

outstandingly remarkable values and protection of soil and water quality. The transportation system 

supports interpretation, recreation, and resource management activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

356

Research Natural Areas

The Coronado currently has six research natural areas (RNAs): Pole Bridge, Goodding, Elgin, Goudy 

Canyon, Butterfly Peak, and Santa Catalina. The special designation of research natural area preserves 

and conserves unique natural resources for research and education. Pole Bridge Research Natural Area

was established to preserve its distinctive populations of southern Arizona pines. Goodding Research 

Natural Area features an extremely diverse and interesting example of Madrean pine-oak woodland 

with associated aquatic features along the U.S. border with Mexico. Elgin Research Natural Area

occupies a unique transition zone between southwestern grasslands and oak savanna vegetation 

communities. Goudy Canyon Research Natural Area supports a mixed-conifer stand with Mexican 

white pine (Pinus strobiformis) on east-facing slopes and contains an excellent example of upper 

elevation old-growth forest (i.e., trees that are 40 inches in diameter at breast height). Butterfly Peak 

Research Natural Area features an extremely steep (greater than 60 percent slope), rocky scrub 

community in the Santa Catalina Mountains and a wide variety of deciduous and evergreen tree 

species that are present in various mixtures. Santa Catalina Research Natural Area was established in 

1927, and was the first area designated as a research natural area in the country. It encompasses a 

large basin along the south side of the Santa Catalina Mountains with extensive fields of granite 

boulders, pine-oak woodlands, and a variety of other vegetation communities.

The proposed action and alternative 1 carry forward the 1986 plan’s recommendation for three 

research natural areas that were never established. Two of these are expansions of previously 

designated research natural areas. Goodding Extension on the Nogales Ranger District would protect a 

population of supine bean (Phaseolus supine) and would incorporate more of the area’s botanical 

diversity and populations of rare species. Pole Bridge Extension on the Douglas Ranger District would 

provide Chihuahuan pine forest communities for research, retain old growth to maintain Chihuahua 

pine communities, and help preserve and protect the genetic diversity of the Sierra Madrean pine-oak 

ecosystem. The third recommendation carried forward is the proposed Canelo Research Natural Area

on the Sierra Vista Ranger District, which would provide a representation of oak woodlands of 

southern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico and would serve as a benchmark to evaluate grazing 

management in adjacent areas. The proposed action and alternative 1 also carry forward the 1986 

plan’s recommendation to reduce the existing Santa Catalina Research Natural Area to eliminate a 

large area heavily used for dispersed recreation. The 1986 plan originally states the Santa Catalina 

Research Natural Area will be reduced from 4,131 acres to 890 acres. Improved mapping technology 

shows that the existing Santa Catalina Research Natural Area is 4,040 acres and the proposed reduced 

area is 634 acres. The proposed action and alternative 1 carries forward the identical proposed 

boundary reduction with the corrected acreages.

The proposed action and alternative 1 propose an area in Finger Rock Canyon on the Santa Catalina 

Ranger District as a new research natural area (1,103 acres). This area has a biologically rich 

xeroriparian ecosystem that provides a corridor for wildlife movement and a refugium for rare flora 

and fauna, and it performs key hydrologic functions. This proposed research natural area will be 

dedicated to future ecological and climate change monitoring and research. It was selected for this 

purpose based on it having 600 vascular plants and a total of 207 species of birds, mammals, 

amphibians, and reptiles, which were documented over 25 years (Crimmins et al. 2010).

Management restrictions are specific to each research natural area. In general, research natural areas 

are protected against human activities that directly or indirectly modify their ecological integrity. In 

addition, all research natural areas located within wilderness are subject to the regulations and 

restrictions associated with wilderness management.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried roadless areas on the Coronado are included in the acreage within the Wild Backcountry 

Land Use Zone and are managed to preserve roadless character. This management must maintain 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

357

natural features and landscapes with the minimum infrastructure necessary to support a range of 

nonmotorized uses. These areas offer recreational opportunities in the “primitive to semiprimitive” 

recreation opportunity spectrum (see “Recreation” section in this chapter). Settings may be primitive, 

with wilderness-like areas that are natural, and the areas may provide many opportunities for 

nonmotorized recreation, to include challenge and solitude. Inventoried roadless areas provide many 

dispersed nonmotorized recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, and birdwatching, but are 

closer to roads and have more visitors than the most primitive settings.

Desired conditions for inventoried roadless areas include wild undeveloped character with natural 

settings. The sights and sounds of motorized vehicles are nonexistent in these areas. Crowds or other 

urban elements are not evident. Dispersed camping sites are available to those who seek them, but are 

used infrequently. Recreational impacts on the landscape are minimal. Vegetation within these sites is 

vigorous and quickly recovers from the impacts of camping activities. Opportunities for solitude and 

quiet recreation are readily found. Hunters enjoy a challenging and remote experience. Quiet 

experiences are available throughout inventoried roadless areas.

Inventoried roadless areas and effects to roadless character were considered in developing the 

recreation opportunity spectrum classifications explained under the “Recreation” heading in this 

chapter. Roadless areas that met the inventory criteria in the Forest Service handbook were considered 

as potential wilderness areas. Management of these areas is the same for all alternatives. All 

alternative plans would retain roadless character.

Wilderness and Other Special Areas – Environmental 

Consequences

The evaluation of effects reported in this section is focused on how each alternative plan’s direction 

for management of designated and/or special areas affects their character, and how proposed 

recommendations affect current uses and management activities in a designated or special area. 

Effects of plan direction on specific resources are described separately by resource area in this 

chapter.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Wilderness Study Areas and Recommended Wilderness

The Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area is common to all alternatives. It is the only 

recommended wilderness area in the wildland-urban interface; it is referred to in the Graham County 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan as a high-risk wildland-urban interface. Restrictions related to 

this recommended wilderness area have the potential to slightly increase the threat to life and property 

in adjacent areas, including numerous communication towers, residential and administrative 

developments, and the Mount Graham International Observatory. However, because this wilderness 

study area is currently managed as a wilderness, effects would not change under any of the 

alternatives.

No new wilderness study areas are proposed under any alternative. Therefore, effects of management 

for wilderness character in the wilderness study areas would remain the same for all.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Under all alternatives, inventoried roadless areas would be managed to meet specific desired 

conditions, which for the action alternatives, apply to resources in the Wild Backcountry Land Use 

Zone. Overall, guidelines seek to preserve natural settings where the sights and sounds of motorized 

vehicles are not present. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

358

Direction in all alternatives would have no effects on the characteristics of inventoried roadless areas. 

The recreation opportunity setting of semiprimitive nonmotorized applies to inventoried roadless 

areas. Activities therein must follow Forest Service policy on road construction and tree cutting, 

which is consistent with national Forest Service policy on preserving their roadless character.

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Because the 1986 plan was in effect before the designation of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, it 

does not provide management direction specific to any eligible stream or segment on the Coronado. 

Thus, management adheres to Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2354 – River Recreation 

Management) for maintaining free-flowing conditions and outstandingly remarkable values and is 

guided by other resource management direction specific to management areas in which the eligible 

waterways occur.

In the same manner, all action alternatives will manage the Coronado’s eligible rivers according to 

Forest Service policy. Therefore, the conservation and preservation of eligible segments under this 

policy would be the same for all alternatives.

Research Natural Areas

Designated research natural areas would continue to be managed following the standards for 

protection and management of a research natural area (Forest Service Manual 4063.41). The 1986 

plan and the revised forest plans under all alternatives would continue to support and promote the 

basic objectives and purposes under which these special areas were established. Relevant laws, 

regulations, and policies that regulate the management of these special areas would remain in place. 

All alternatives reiterate the 1986 forest plan proposal for establishing the Canelo Research Natural 

Area extending the Pole Bridge and Goodding Research Natural Areas, and reducing the Santa 

Catalina Research Natural Area. Under all alternatives, research natural areas would be managed 

under a set of guidelines designed to move resources toward desired conditions, including having 

them serve as prime examples of the ecological features for which they were designated, with little 

evidence of human activity or disturbance. In these areas, visitor access and use occurs at levels 

acceptable to maintain the research values of the research natural area. Special use permits within 

these areas are inappropriate unless they are related to research for which the area is designated. Fire 

management mimics natural fire processes and is compatible with ongoing research.

No Action

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

The no-action alternative provides minimal direction for managing wilderness. Wilderness 

management is guided by wilderness management plans. Although each designated wilderness area 

has a wilderness management plan, the most recent of the plans was written in 1993, and all plans 

need updating. 

Continuing to manage wilderness and wilderness study areas under outdated management direction 

would have several effects on the Coronado’s wilderness land base. First, the current management 

area standards and guidelines provide less than optimal management flexibility by combining 

wilderness and wilderness study areas into one management area. Furthermore, the 1986 plan provides 

little or no distinction between a standard and a guideline. Other standards in the 1986 plan lack 

clarity, such as the wilderness recreation use management guideline, which states:

Manage wilderness use as follows: Standard - 172,499 acres (generally in riparian and 

other concentrated use areas); less than standard - 225,046 acres (generally in other types 

and low use areas).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

359

This guideline uses outdated language and is difficult to interpret. In addition, wildlife management 

using the 1986 plan direction is focused on specific wildlife species rather than ecosystems or habitats, 

thereby limiting management options.

In general, current management area guidance for wilderness and wilderness study areas requires 

updating. Guidance on issues such as scenery management, for example, needs to be changed to 

reflect the objectives currently in use. Furthermore, the no-action alternative provides little guidance 

or desired conditions for wilderness education, which currently is a high priority component of 

wilderness management. The no-action alternative does not provide sufficient guidance regarding the 

protection of native plant and animal species from nonnative invasive species in wilderness and 

wilderness study areas. Finally, the objectives of wilderness management and language used to 

describe them also need to be updated to be consistent with current Forest Service wilderness 

management focus and objectives.

The 1986 plan contains no direction with regard to the management of Coronado National Forest

resources in response to climate change. Plants and animals would be extremely vulnerable to the 

consequences of atypical temperatures and rainfall patterns, which include drought; increased number 

and intensity of wildfires; increased stress on vegetation, including insect and disease outbreaks; and 

decreased water yield and availability. Each of these consequences may affect one or more resources 

within designated wilderness and designated wilderness study areas, some more than others, 

depending on location and uses. As an example, in the absence of appropriate management, drought 

may stress native vegetation to such an extent that invasive nonnative species outcompete it for 

nutrients and water in a wilderness or wilderness study area, potentially changing habitat and 

displacing species to other nonwilderness locations. This, in turn, may diminish the visitor experience 

in the wilderness.

Recommended Wilderness

The no-action alternative carries forward the 1986 plan recommendation for the Mount Graham 

Wilderness Study Area to be designated as wilderness (figure 5). The no-action alternative also 

continues to manage the Bunk Robinson and Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Areas to maintain 

wilderness character. Therefore, this alternative would have no consequences other than limiting the 

wilderness on the Coronado to what was recommended in 1986. This would decrease the opportunities 

for quiet recreation that would have been available if additional wilderness or wilderness study areas 

had been recommended.

Because it lacks climate change direction, the 1986 plan would have the same effects on vegetation, 

water, air quality, and wildlife resources in recommended wilderness as those described for designated 

wilderness and designated wilderness study areas.

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

The lack of climate change direction in the 1986 plan would allow climate change induced 

consequences on wild, scenic, and recreational rivers that are similar to those described above for 

wilderness. However, the effects of the natural disturbances they generate would primarily alter the 

characteristics of water resources and riparian areas. Warmer temperatures and drier conditions could 

cause streams or segments eligible for wild, scenic, and recreational river designation to dry up, 

making them no longer suitable for recreational uses such as boating and sport fishing. Intense 

flooding caused by extreme storms could significantly impair the water quality of streams, making 

them unsuitable for water-contact recreation. In the absence of direction and appropriate management 

responses to climate changed induced events, the visitor recreational experience on wild, scenic, and 

recreational rivers would be diminished.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

360

Figure 5. Wilderness areas and recommended wilderness area under the no-action alternative
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

361

Research Natural Areas

The 1986 forest plan acknowledges six previously designated research natural areas and proposes 

three additional research natural areas and one reduced research natural area. The research natural area 

proposals described in the 1986 plan were never realized. While the 1986 plan lists standards and 

guidelines for the management areas where research natural areas are located (Management Areas 8 

and 8A), it makes little or no distinction between them. Furthermore, standards in the plan lack clarity 

and often fail to maintain the objectives in the establishment records. For example, the range 

management guideline for Management Area 8 states the following:

Manage suitable rangeland at level A (no livestock). Management excludes livestock 

grazing to protect other values or eliminates conflicts with other users.

This guideline is not consistent with the content of the documents that established the Pole Bridge and 

Goodding Research Natural Areas, which allow light grazing to continue. While the grazing 

restriction may prevent possible negative impacts such as overgrazing or trammeling of natural 

vegetation, this guideline precludes the special use of the area that was intended when it was 

established. 

In general, current management area guidance for research natural areas requires updating. Guidance 

on issues such as scenery management, for example, needs to be changed to conform with current 

scenery management frameworks. In addition, the objectives of research natural area management and 

language used to describe those objectives need to be updated to be consistent with current Forest 

Service management focus and objectives.

Lack of climate change direction on resources in research natural areas would be similar to those 

described above for designated wilderness and designated wilderness study areas. Plants and animals 

would be extremely vulnerable to the consequences of atypical temperatures and rainfall patterns, 

which include drought; increased number and intensity of wildfires; increased stress on vegetation, 

including insect and disease outbreaks; and decreased water yield and availability. Each of these 

consequences may affect one or more resources within designated research natural areas, some more 

than others, depending on location and uses. This may diminish the opportunity for scientists and 

others who use the natural resources in these areas to study plants and animals.

Proposed Action

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

The Coronado’s designated wilderness areas and the ecosystem management areas in which they are 

located are described in chapter 2. Under the revised forest plan, wilderness areas would be managed 

under specific standards and guidelines for designated wilderness management areas. This direction 

updates the 1986 plan’s wilderness and ecosystem management approaches and principles and 

incorporates strategies that will allow management to adapt to new challenges. Wilderness values, 

including naturalness, undeveloped qualities, solitude, and opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation, are expected to be better conserved under the proposed action than under the no-action 

alternative because of the increased clarity and guidance provided. Because alternatives 1 and 2 will 

include the same plan direction as the proposed action, they would have equivalent effects on 

wilderness management.

Increased temperatures and atypical rainfall patterns caused by climate change in the Southwest will 

generate natural disturbances (flooding, wildfire, and insect outbreaks) that could adversely affect the 

structure, function, and productivity of soils; impair water quality; decrease water yield and 

availability to wildlife; and stress vegetation and forest health. To maintain the quality and availability 

of multiple uses opportunities in wilderness and wilderness study areas and accommodate the 

increased use expected with future population growth, the revised forest plan under the proposed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

362

action includes desired conditions and management approaches for the Coronado’s response to 

climate change (see pages 19 and 20 of the revised forest plan). Complementing desired conditions are 

strategies for responding to changing natural disturbances such as flooding, wildfire, and insect 

outbreaks (see appendix A of the revised forest plan). This direction would benefit recreational 

opportunities as they help manage forest resources into sustainable, adaptable, resilient, and diverse 

ecosystems that serve as the foundation for many and varied opportunities for wilderness uses into the 

future.

Recommended Wilderness

The proposed recommendation of four new areas for wilderness designation (see chapter 2) would 

increase opportunities for a wilderness experience above recommendations under no action and 

alternative 2, but less than that offered by alternative 1 (figure 6). The proposed action would also 

restrict public access for motorized and mechanized recreation in these areas more than no action and 

alternative 2, and less than alternative 1. The proposed action would provide for increased wilderness 

visitation better than the no-action alternative and alternative 2, because recommended areas would 

provide a wilderness-like experience near underserved populated areas. Increases in wilderness 

visitation would be less, however, than that which would result under alternative 1.

Located in the Pinaleño Mountains on the Safford Ranger District, the Mount Graham Recommended 

Wilderness Area has been consistently managed to preserve wilderness character since its designation 

as a wilderness study area in 1984. Management of the area would not change with the 

recommendation under the proposed action. Therefore, environmental effects would remain the same 

as under the 1986 plan.

Both the Chiricahua Addition North and Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Areas are in the 

Chiricahua Mountains on the Douglas Ranger District. No roads access the boundary of Ku Chish 

therefore, visitors enter on foot. Recommending these two areas as wilderness would prevent the 

construction of new roads or motorized trails in the area. In Ku Chish, this would not have a negative

effect on visitation because steep terrain and an unreliable water supply already limit the use of three 

established trails for hiking and horseback riding. The Chiricahua Addition North, an expansion of the 

existing Chiricahua Wilderness, contains eight trails that are also used primarily for hiking and 

horseback riding. Thus, the recommendation by the proposed action would not affect the quality of the 

primitive recreation experience offered in these areas. 

Portions of Ku Chish and the Chiricahua Addition North areas recently experienced uncharacteristic 

wildland fire (Horseshoe 2), which caused vegetation to moderately depart from its reference structure 

and fire regime. Because of this, there may be a need for restoration and vegetation management 

treatments. Motorized and mechanized uses are not permitted in wilderness; therefore, treatments 

would likely include prescribed fire and grazing. When managed appropriately, neither of these 

treatments would adversely affect the environment of the parcel.

Recommending Ku Chish and the Chiricahua Addition North areas as wilderness may impede the 

progress of habitat restoration and/or monitoring activities that traditionally involve motorized or 

mechanized equipment. However, designation of wilderness may provide additional, high quality 

refugia for sensitive, threatened, and endangered species. The presence of special-status species, such 

as the Mexican spotted owl and various bats, contributes positively to the wilderness character of the 

area. For more information on the impact of wilderness recommendation on wildlife species, see the 

“Wildlife” section in this chapter. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

363

Figure 6. Wilderness areas and recommended wilderness areas under the revised forest plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

364

Motor vehicle use by Forest Service personnel (administrative use) in recommended wilderness would 

be allowed until Congress acts upon the recommendation but only if such use does not degrade the 

area’s wilderness character. In recommended wilderness areas, the Border Patrol has the authority to 

supersede management restrictions on motorized vehicle use during pursuit of a crime in progress. 

The use of motorized and mechanized equipment and the sights and sounds associated with Border 

Patrol activities may negatively impact wilderness character and the wilderness experience. Illegal 

activities may also negatively impact the Ku Chish and Chiricahua Addition North wilderness 

character.

The Whetstone Recommended Wilderness Area is located in the Whetstone Mountains, which is part 

of the Sierra Vista Ranger District. This area has attracted high interest from the public and also rated 

highly in the potential wilderness evaluation. As with all recommended wilderness areas, construction 

of new roads or motorized trails would be prohibited. During the public involvement process, 

recreation users identified locations within this area that are popular for mountain bike use. In 

response to these comments, the initial boundary was adjusted to exclude mountain biking routes. 

Current recreation uses within the adjusted area are compatible with wilderness character and would 

be able to continue with wilderness designation. 

Across all four areas recommended as wilderness areas by the proposed action, fuel and vegetation 

management activities may be more difficult to implement because of wilderness restrictions. This 

may affect the risk of fire in the wildland-urban interface. However, treatments are still possible with 

proper planning to use nonmechanized methods and nonmotorized access. And, the ability to use 

prescribed fire would be available in recommended wilderness areas in accordance with the 

Coronado’s wilderness fire management plan. While progress in fuel treatments may be less than that 

accomplished under the no action and alternative 2, increases in risk of wildland fire are unlikely to be 

significant.

The proposed action’s direction and management approaches for managing climate change in 

wilderness and wilderness study areas would also apply to recommended wilderness. Therefore, the 

benefits of developing adaptability and resiliency to climate change (see “Wilderness and Wilderness 

Study Areas” above) would also apply to resources in the four recommended wilderness areas.

See the Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report (USDA FS 2013) for more information on each 

area and a more in-depth discussion of the effects of wilderness and nonwilderness recommendations 

for each area. Also see alternative 1 analysis below for more discussion of the effects of 

recommending these four areas.

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

The proposed action’s direction and management approaches for managing climate change in 

wilderness and wilderness study areas would also apply to eligible wild, scenic, and recreational 

rivers. Therefore, the benefits of developing adaptability and resiliency to climate change (see 

“Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas” above) would also apply to eligible wild, scenic, and 

recreational rivers. With appropriate management, the effects of the natural disturbances induced by 

climate change would be mitigated and the characteristics of water resources and riparian areas would 

be retained. Depletion of water supplies, streamflow, and aquatic habitat would not adversely affect 

recreational uses, such as boating and sport fishing. Intense flooding caused by extreme storms would 

not impair the water quality of streams, making them unsuitable for water-contact recreation.

Research Natural Areas

The proposed action’s recommendation for designation of a new research natural area previously 

identified by the 1986 plan (Canelo), extension of two other research natural areas (Goodding and 

Pole Ridge), reduction of one research natural area (Santa Catalina) and a new recommended research 

natural area (Finger Rock) would enhance the preservation and conservation of these biologically rich 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

365

lands. In particular, the Finger Rock corridor provides refugia for over 600 vascular plants and over 

200 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area

would be dedicated to ecological and climate change monitoring and research, which would have a 

positive impact on the ecosystem.

The proposed action’s direction and management approaches for managing climate change in 

wilderness and wilderness study areas would also apply to recommended new research natural areas. 

Therefore, the benefits of developing adaptability and resiliency to climate change (see “Wilderness 

and Wilderness Study Areas” above) would also apply to resources in research natural areas. In 

addition, the proposed action recommends designation of the new Finger Rock Canyon Research 

Natural Area, where climate change research is anticipated to be a primary use.

Alternative 1

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

Management of existing wilderness under alternative 1 would follow the plan components defined for 

the proposed action, which update those of the 1986 plan.

Continued management of wilderness study areas would have little effect on the characteristics and/or 

quality of wilderness on the Coronado, as they are currently managed to maintain wilderness 

character. Bunk Robinson and Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Areas currently have law 

enforcement management challenges because of restrictions on Border Patrol activities imposed by 

their status. This situation would not change under alternative 1.

Direction under alternative 1 for management of resources in wilderness and wilderness study areas to 

develop adaptation and resiliency to climate change would be the same as that of the proposed action. 

Therefore, the beneficial effects on resources during a period of climate change (see “Wilderness and 

Wilderness Study Areas” under the “Proposed Action” section above) would be the same as those 

attributed to the proposed action.

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative 1 would have the same consequences as the proposed action, but the effects would be 

increased in intensity because of the increased acreage proposed to be managed as wilderness by this 

alternative (see table 7 in chapter 2 and figure 7). Recommendation of additional areas to be managed 

for wilderness character would increase opportunities for a wilderness experience above all other 

alternatives. It would also, however, limit access for motorized and mechanized recreation and 

displace those uses to other national forest lands more than any of the other alternatives. Alternative 1 

offers a wider choice of areas for wilderness and increases opportunities for visitation when compared 

to the no-action alternative and the proposed action. 

Six recommendations are made by alternative 1 to extend the boundaries of existing wilderness areas. 

These are generally smaller parcels than the other recommended wilderness areas and are proposed 

either because they offer improved boundary management or because they present a highly 

manageable area that has minimal or no motorized use due to rugged terrain, remoteness, and lack of 

public access. Therefore, these areas are highly available for wilderness recommendation. One of 

these areas, the Mount Wrightson Addition is near the U.S.-Mexico border and has a high level of 

illegal activity that requires Border Patrol intervention. Recommending the area as wilderness may 

impede Border Patrol activities because of restrictions on motorized access, except during the pursuit 

of a crime in progress.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

366

Figure 7. Wilderness areas and recommended wilderness areas under alternative 1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

367

Illegal activity in the area may also negatively impact the wilderness character of the Mount 

Wrightson Addition. Visitors to this recommended wilderness area are likely to encounter trails and 

camps created by travelers and smugglers. The increased sights and sounds of human activity would 

detract from the solitude and wilderness character of the area. The remoteness and limited access 

associated with wilderness attract those who are seeking an escape from law enforcement. 

Consequently, visitors are even more likely to encounter evidence of illegal activity in border 

wilderness areas than they are in border nonwilderness areas. Border Patrol concerns are also 

associated with the Chiricahua Addition North and Chiricahua Addition West areas on the Douglas 

Ranger District, although to a lesser extent. Less illegal activity in these two recommended wilderness 

areas would have less impact on wilderness character and experiences. 

In addition to limitations placed on law enforcement activity, certain wilderness extensions may 

impede progress in completing treatments to improve ecosystem health and reduce fuel loading at the

wildland-urban interface because of restrictions on mechanized and motorized uses. Wilderness 

designation would require planning of alternative treatment techniques that may affect the length of 

time it takes to accomplish fuels treatments and the tools available for use to achieve the conditions 

needed to reduce risk of fire. Portions of the Mount Wrightson Addition overlap or are adjacent to the 

wildland-urban interface. Madera Canyon, which offers developed recreation, and includes private 

land with structures and administrative sites, lies northwest of the Mount Wrightson Addition. The 

Sonoita and Elgin Community Wildfire Protection Plan addresses locations within the recommended 

wilderness area in Casa Blanca Canyon where private inholdings are close to the Mount Wrightson 

Addition. Projects could still be accomplished using nonmechanized vehicles and equipment, but the 

pace of implementation would likely decrease.

Recreation activities vary across the wilderness additions that are recommended for designation. In all 

six of these areas, however, the current recreational uses and types of visitation are compatible with 

wilderness management. The Santa Teresa Wilderness Additions (North and South) as well as the 

Galiuro Addition are relatively isolated and, therefore, experience light visitation and limited 

recreational activities. Several foot and horse trails run through the area, but there are no motorized 

trails. Some dispersed recreation use occurs off motorized roads that border the areas, generating some 

degree of visitor foot traffic into the areas. 

Several of the additions to wilderness areas have higher levels of recreation activity than other 

recommended areas. In the Mount Wrightson Addition and the Chiricahua Wilderness Additions 

(North and South), there is a significant amount of recreation activity on nonmotorized trails, as well 

as off of bordering roads. Visitation consists primarily of hiking, horseback riding, camping, and 

hunting. A section of the Arizona National Scenic Trail runs through the Mount Wrightson Addition. 

As a group, these areas have the capability to provide a moderate quality wilderness recreation 

experiences for visitors. Wilderness recommendation would be unlikely to change the experience, 

except for its effects related to the prohibition on vehicle access and uses, which would enhance the 

experience for quiet recreation enthusiasts and disappoint those users who favor motorized recreation.

In other recommended additions, management of threatened and endangered species and habitat in 

accordance with wilderness restrictions affects the timeframe and methods for proposed habitat 

improvement and other management projects. These manageability concerns are offset by the value 

added by these new areas on a regional scale. Recommended wilderness areas provide additions of 

underrepresented ecosystems to the wilderness system land base. In addition, they address the need for 

wilderness based on increasing visitor pressure on existing wilderness areas.

Finally, some recommended wilderness areas proposed by alternative 1 are areas that were of 

significant interest to the public or otherwise rated highly for capability, availability, and need during 

the potential wilderness evaluation. The Dragoon, Ku Chish, Jhus Canyon, Tumacacori, Mount 

Graham, Mount Fagan, Whetstone, and Winchester Recommended Wilderness Areas present a variety 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

368

of wilderness characteristics that would contribute to their value as additions to the Coronado’s 

wilderness landscape. 

In recommended wilderness areas, construction of new roads or motorized trails would be prohibited. 

This is consistent with current recreation offerings in most of this group of recommended wilderness 

areas. Recommending wilderness for these areas is appropriate for recreation quality, as most areas 

currently offer solitude and primitive recreation in the form of nonmotorized trails and rugged crosscountry opportunities. There are a few isolated incompatible recreation uses, however. For example, 

there is currently mountain bike use in the Mount Fagan area, which is inconsistent with wilderness 

management. Mountain bike use would be permitted in recommended wilderness areas until Congress 

acts upon the recommendation for wilderness designation. The Winchester area, located on the 

Safford Ranger District, presents a highly manageable area that has minimal or no motorized use due 

to rugged terrain, remoteness, and lack of public access. Recommending wilderness for this area 

would be consistent with wilderness character. 

Overall, although a few uses would be incompatible with recommended wilderness designation, most 

current uses of these areas are compatible with wilderness character and would be able to continue. 

See the Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report for more information on each area and a more 

in-depth discussion of the effects of wilderness and nonwilderness recommendations for each area.

Undeveloped character is an important component of wilderness quality. The ability to provide a 

quality wilderness experience for this last group of recommended wilderness areas is compromised by 

evidence of human use, such as grazing developments and mining remains. In the Jhus Canyon area, 

for example, there is obvious evidence of human activity, including historical mining sites and 

homesteads throughout the area. While this detracts from the area’s undeveloped character, it may 

enhance wilderness values by adding to the unique, historical features in the area. 

Additionally, some of these areas also have high levels of illegal activity, as mentioned earlier, 

because of their proximity to the border. The Tumacacori and Mount Fagan areas on the Nogales 

Ranger District require a significant Border Patrol presence. Recommending these areas as wilderness 

may affect Border Patrol law enforcement activities by restricting its motorized activity to the pursuit 

of crimes in progress. In addition, the illegal activity in the area may negatively impact the wilderness 

character of the recommended wilderness areas. Quality solitude and undeveloped character may be 

more difficult to find in these areas, as signs of ongoing illegal activity as well as evidence of Border 

Patrol enforcement and infrastructure collectively detract from the areas’ wilderness character. 

Across all 16 areas recommended as wilderness areas by alternative 1, fuel and vegetation 

management activities may be more difficult to implement because of wilderness restrictions. This 

may affect the risk of fire in the wildland-urban interface. However, treatments are still possible with 

proper planning to use nonmechanized methods and nonmotorized access. And, the ability to use 

prescribed fire would be available in recommended wilderness areas in accordance with the 

Coronado’s wilderness fire management plan. While progress in fuel treatments may be less than that 

accomplished under the no action, proposed action, and alternative 2, increases in risk of wildland fire 

are unlikely to be significant.

Direction under alternative 1 regarding management of resources in recommended wilderness to 

develop adaptation and resiliency to climate change is the same as that of the proposed action (see 

page 360). Overall, direction for climate change under alternative 1 would benefit more than 200,000 

acres of new recommended wilderness.

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Direction under alternative 1 regarding management of eligible wild, scenic, and recreational rivers to 

develop adaptation and resiliency to climate change would be the same as that of the proposed action. 

Therefore, beneficial effects on wild, scenic, and recreational river resources during a period of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

369

climate change would be the same as those attributed to wild, scenic, and recreational river 

management under the proposed action.

Research Natural Areas

The environmental consequences associated with management of research natural areas under 

alternative 1 would be the same as those reported for the proposed action.

Direction under alternative 1 regarding management of resources in recommended research natural 

areas is intended to develop adaptation and resiliency to climate change. Beneficial effects to 

resources in research natural areas would be the same as those attributed to management of research 

natural areas under the proposed action. Designation of the Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural 

Area would make forest resources available for research about the effects of climate change and 

potential new conservation responses.

Alternative 2

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas 

Alternative 2 would continue management of already designated wilderness and wilderness study 

areas under the same updated plan components as the proposed action and alternative 1, and would 

carry forward the 1986 plan recommendation for the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area

(figure 8). Thus, it would enhance opportunities for a wilderness experience and conserve and 

preserve the characteristics of the recommended wilderness area. 

Alternative 2 does not include plan direction for management of resources in wilderness and 

wilderness study areas to develop adaptation and resiliency to climate change. It does, however, 

incorporate the strategies in appendix A of the plan for managing resources when atypical 

temperatures and rainfall patterns exacerbate natural disturbances. Therefore, alternative 2 would have 

less beneficial effects on wilderness and wilderness study areas than alternative 1 and the proposed 

action, but would be more effective than no action.

Recommended Wilderness

Alternative 2 does not include plan direction for management of resources in recommended 

wilderness to develop adaptation and resiliency to climate change. It does, however, incorporate the 

strategies in appendix A of the plan for managing resources when atypical temperatures and rainfall 

patterns exacerbate natural disturbances. Therefore, alternative 2 would have less beneficial effects on 

recommended wilderness than alternative 1 and the proposed action, but would be more effective than 

no action.

Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Alternative 2 does not include plan direction for management of eligible wild, scenic, and recreational 

rivers resources to develop adaptation and resiliency to climate change. It does, however, incorporate 

the strategies in appendix A of the plan for managing resources when atypical temperatures and 

rainfall patterns exacerbate natural disturbances. Therefore, alternative 2 would have less beneficial 

effects on eligible wild, scenic, and recreational rivers than alternative 1 and the proposed action, but 

would be more effective than no action.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

370

Figure 8. Wilderness areas and recommended wilderness area under alternative 2
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

371

Research Natural Areas

Alternative 2 is similar to the proposed action except that it does not recommend the proposed Finger 

Rock Canyon Research Natural Area. Consequently, this area within the Pusch Ridge Wilderness 

would continue to be managed under the guidelines established by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Because alternative 2 would not recommend the new Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area, this 

opportunity for climate change research on the Coronado would not be realized.

Alternative 2 does not include plan direction for management of resources in research natural areas to 

develop adaptation and resiliency to climate change. However, it does incorporate the strategies in 

appendix A of the plan for managing resources when atypical temperatures and rainfall patterns 

exacerbate natural disturbances. Therefore, alternative 2 would have less beneficial effects on research 

natural areas than alternative 1, and the proposed action, but would be more effective than no action.

Cumulative Effects 

The spatial boundary for assessing the potential for cumulative effects from management of 

designated and special areas following direction specified by each of the alternatives encompasses all 

lands of other ownership within 100 miles of the Coronado. This includes multiple ranger districts on 

the Tonto, Gila, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, as well as National Park Service, Bureau of 

Land Management, State, and private lands. The analysis includes effects from past and present 

actions and reasonable foreseeable actions over the life of the revised forest plan (15 years). 

Because forest management has been designed to conserve special areas, there have been fewer 

adverse effects on special areas’ natural resources than on the resources of nondesignated areas. 

Present management of special areas under the no-action alternative continues this trend. Future 

actions in special areas, especially wilderness, will be managed under all action alternatives to 

maintain and enhance the character and resources of each. 

Actions that may result in adverse effects on natural resources on the Coronado National Forest, 

including those in designated and special areas, include urban development on private land, road 

construction, other ground-disturbing actions proposed by other agencies and local governments, fuels 

management projects, mining and minerals exploration, grazing, and illegal activities related to the 

Mexican border. The degree of cumulative effects, however, would not be exacerbated by additive 

effects from management of designated and special areas, because none of the alternatives propose 

management that would contribute measurable adverse effects. Non-forest actions would not typically 

affect the use of lands in special areas of the Coronado, unless they significantly degrade their natural 

resources. 

Forest plan revisions proposed by the Kaibab, Prescott, Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Tonto, and Gila 

National Forests could potentially impact management of regional unroaded or wild and scenic river 

resources. Currently, the Kaibab, Apache-Sitgreaves, and Prescott National Forests have released draft 

environmental impact statements that include reasonably foreseeable proposals for new wilderness 

areas. The Kaibab National Forest proposes two additions to existing wilderness areas as well as a 

small area adjacent to proposed wilderness in Grand Canyon National Park. The Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests propose additions to two existing wilderness areas. The Prescott National Forest 

proposes eight additional areas, totaling 43,440 acres, for wilderness designation. The proposed 

addition of new wilderness areas would contribute to a positive cumulative effect because additional 

wilderness would decrease the existing visitor pressure on the Coronado, which has a high demand for 

wilderness experiences because of its proximity to urban areas.

Recommendations for new wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and research natural areas would 

enhance user recreational experiences and opportunities for scientific research on the Coronado under 

all alternatives. The greatest enhancement would result from alternative 1 because of the much larger 

acreage it recommends for designation as wilderness. Users who enjoy a wilderness experience and 

quiet recreation would benefit from management by alternative 1, while those who prefer motorized 

recreation would not. The proposed emphasis on motorized recreation by alternative 2 would have the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

372

least positive impact because it recommends no new wilderness. None of the alternatives would have 

a significant additive effect that would contribute to cumulative effects on or off the Coronado.

Management for wilderness character by all alternatives is expected to reduce resource damage 

resulting from motorized and mechanized uses. Again, alternative 1 would have the most beneficial 

effect because it proposes the largest acreage of wilderness. None of the alternatives would have a 

significant additive effect that would contribute to cumulative effects on or off the Coronado.

On the other hand, because of wilderness restrictions, management of additional areas as wilderness 

may impede Forest Service accomplishment of fuels and vegetation management projects, which 

would increase the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. It is possible that this increase would contribute to 

a cumulative effect when considered additively with other non-forest actions that increase the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire. Should such fires occur, impacts on and off the Coronado may be severe. Loss of 

property, injury, or mortality and effects on natural resources could occur. Because it recommends the 

least acreage for management as wilderness, alternative 2 would have the least impact on fuels and 

vegetation treatment projects. 

There are currently 39 wilderness areas within a 100-air-mile radius of the Coronado, including those 

on other national forests, National Park Service lands, and Bureau of Land Management lands (see 

table 1 in USDA FS 2012). Including the Coronado wilderness areas, total regional wilderness acreage 

is approximately 2 million acres. As a result, the proposed addition of more wilderness areas within 

100 air miles of the Coronado may contribute to a positive cumulative effect. That is, every wilderness 

area and recommended wilderness area on the Coronado is, on average, 62.5 miles away from another 

wilderness. Overcrowding in wilderness areas close to large metropolitan areas, such as Tucson, is a 

common concern of resource managers in the region. As a result, the addition of new wilderness areas 

on other national forests and lands of other ownership would contribute to a cumulative decrease in 

visitor pressure on the Coronado, which because of its proximity to urban areas has a high demand for 

wilderness experiences.

Motorized Activities – Affected Environment

Visitors to national forests and grasslands share a common interest in the enjoyment of outdoor 

recreation in a natural setting. On National Forest System lands, the Forest Service manages more than 

300,000 miles of roads and 35,000 miles of trails that provide visitors with motorized access to 

recreational amenities; motorized access to those who use National Forest System lands for special 

purposes, such as grazing and operation and maintenance of communication sites; and administrative 

access to agencies for fire and land management activities.

On the Coronado, there are approximately 2,000 miles of open National Forest System roads. Some 

open roads are authorized for administrative or permitted use only, but most are open to the public. 

Five National Forest System trails on the Coronado are open for motorized use, all of them located 

near Redington Pass Road. Of the total miles of road in use, approximately 1,700 miles are highclearance roads that are not designed for passenger-car use and do not require regular maintenance. 

Counties and other entities maintain about 170 miles of roads on the Coronado. The rest are 

maintained by a forest road crew on a schedule that is determined annually. 

Forest roads provide access to developed recreation sites, trailheads, dispersed camping areas, day-use 

areas, and points of interest. They are also used for commercial operations, such as ranching, 

outfitting, and guiding services; to access electronic sites, summer homes, and other locations under 

special use permits; and for private land access. In addition, National Forest System roads offer a 

broad range of motorized recreation opportunities and provide access for nonmotorized activities. 

An established motorized transportation system has been in place on the Coronado for many years. 

The system and direction regarding motorized travel originated with the approval of the 1986 forest 

plan (USDA FS 1986). Motorized travel on the Coronado has evolved over time. When the 1986 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

373

forest plan was written, typical vehicles on forest roads included passenger cars, pickups, and other 

standard-sized vehicles. Roads were used primarily to access points of interest or areas used for 

specific activities, such as hunting and picnicking. Increasingly, the roads themselves have become a 

recreational attraction, as the use of off-highway vehicles, which include four-wheel-drive vehicles, 

motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and utility terrain vehicles, has steadily increased in popularity. 

Those who visit the Coronado for motorized recreation particularly enjoy the opportunities available 

for driving loop routes. The primitive nature of some roads also makes them attractive for off-highway 

vehicle use. 

The Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) estimates that about 

9 percent of Arizona’s residents participate in off-highway vehicle use (Arizona State Parks 2008). 

Twenty-four percent of off-highway vehicle enthusiasts indicated that they would like to increase their 

motorized activities in the future. Thirty-four percent indicate they expect to drive for pleasure more. 

With Tucson and surrounding communities being among the fastest growing in the state, the 

Coronado can expect a large percentage of that increase in visitation. Many off-highway vehicle riders 

and drivers enjoy using forest roads because they provide a variety of scenery, challenges, and 

destinations. The SCORP reports many off-highway vehicle enthusiasts ride 50 miles in one day. 

The rough terrain on much of the Coronado makes it unsuitable for the development and maintenance 

of high-density road networks. Existing primitive routes lead to interesting destinations and provide 

challenging four-wheel-drive experiences. There are certain locations near Tucson and other 

communities where route densities are relatively high, and off-highway vehicle recreation is a primary 

activity of the visiting public. The Redington Pass area and the east side of the Santa Rita Mountains 

are two locations where high levels of off-highway vehicle recreation occur and where improvements 

have been made to accommodate that use. 

Properly managed off-highway vehicle recreation is a legitimate use of National Forest System lands. 

However, management of off-highway vehicle recreation became increasingly problematic in the past 

few decades, because the first Forest Service motorized travel regulations were developed before the 

increase in off-highway vehicle use and advances in off-highway vehicle technology. In December 

2005, acknowledging this shortcoming and the potential for off-highway vehicle use to adversely 

impact forest and grassland resources, the Forest Service issued a regulation known as the Travel 

Management Rule (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295).

The Travel Management Rule clarifies current Forest Service policy regarding motor vehicle use and 

provides management direction that allows sustainable access by motor vehicles, including offhighway vehicles, on national forests and grasslands. Some, but not all, Forest Service units have 

established systems of roads, trails, and areas that are managed for motorized use. The Travel 

Management Rule does not require them to change existing plans and considers previous travel 

management decisions as having been incorporated into each designated system without additional or 

retroactive transportation analysis planning and environmental analysis.

The Travel Management Rule requires each national forest and grassland that does not have a 

designated motorized travel system to establish one and for that system to be documented on a 

publicly available motor vehicle use map that will be updated annually. Designations to motorized 

travel systems may include the limited use of motor vehicles within a specified distance (corridor) of 

certain designated National Forest System roads solely for dispersed camping or big game retrieval 

(36 CFR 212.51(b)). Once a motor vehicle use map is published, all motor vehicle travel that is 

inconsistent with its designations is prohibited (36 CFR 261.13). Motor vehicle use maps are now 

available to the public at each ranger district of the Coronado free of charge.

The density of roads on the Coronado currently varies from no roads in wilderness areas and other 

roadless areas to relatively high road densities in developed recreation areas and the two popular offhighway vehicle recreation areas in Redington Pass and the Santa Rita Mountains. Guidance from the 

1986 forest plan limits road density to no more than 1 mile of road per square mile of land. However, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

374

that guidance applies to the entire forest—including inventoried roadless areas and wilderness areas—

where road density is limited by statute. 

The increase in the general public use of the forest transportation system, the proliferation of 

unauthorized roads, and the increase in the popularity of recreational off-highway vehicles has 

compounded issues related to visitor experiences that were less prevalent when the 1986 forest plan 

was developed. These issues include, but are not limited to, the following:

• effects of off-highway vehicle use on other recreation activities, including the loss of quiet places 

to camp, recreate and view wildlife

• ability of the Forest Service to adequately maintain the current road system for public use

• adequacy of the road system for desired motorized recreation uses (e.g., availability of long 

distance loop routes, off-loading areas, and informational signing)

• adequacy of the road system for access to trailheads and other nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities

• preservation of unroaded areas in which to enjoy nature and engage in quiet, nonmotorized 

recreation

Many unauthorized (not National Forest System) roads on the Coronado are the result of off-road 

driving where it is prohibited. The Forest Service has taken action to enforce regulations and block 

these roads, but many still exist. Some of these unauthorized roads may have been created as a result 

of legitimate permitted uses, such as range improvement projects or fuelwood cutting, and have 

become useful for general forest access. Some are historic roads that were never added to the 

Coronado National Forest road system. There have been many unauthorized roads developed near the 

international border. These are difficult to close because they are regularly used by the U.S. Border 

Patrol, and many have been identified as high priority for Border Patrol use. Over 390 miles of 

unauthorized roads have been identified on the Coronado to date during a transportation analysis 

planning process that preceded the creation of motor vehicle use maps for each ranger district.

Motorized Activities – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

No direct (on-the-ground) effects would result from direction given in the 1986 forest plan, the 

proposed action, alternative 1, and alternative 2. 

On the Coronado, cross-country motorized travel was prohibited in the 1986 forest plan. A 2010 

amendment was made to the 1986 plan, making direction consistent with language in the Travel 

Management Rule, and changing transportation system direction from that in the 1986 plan to 

individual district motor vehicle use maps. A motor vehicle use map prepared for each district on the 

Coronado National Forest, which will be updated annually, shows the designated roads and motorized 

trails on each ranger district. Unauthorized roads will not be shown as open for motorized travel on 

the motor vehicle use maps. The Travel Management Rule direction is common to all alternatives; 

therefore, cross-country motor vehicle travel would be prohibited by all of the alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, future changes in the miles of National Forest System roads and motorized 

trails would be evaluated site specifically as needs are identified and in accordance with the 

transportation analysis process and Travel Management Rule requirements. Public involvement and 

environmental analysis reviews for site-specific transportation projects are common to all alternatives. 

Impacts from changing the number of miles in the current motorized transportation system would vary 

according to use, location, road maintenance level, and other factors. 

No roads would be constructed in the eight designated wilderness areas (338,318 acres) and the Mount 

Graham Recommended Wilderness Area (61,315 acres), or 20 percent of the national forest. Also, the 

Bunk Robinson and Whitmire Canyon Wilderness Study Areas, which comprise 31,225 acres, would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

375

continue to be protected from road development. Inventoried roadless areas would also be excluded 

from road construction as provided by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

The proposed action and alternative 1 include direction for management of resources in response to 

climate change. No action and alternative 2 do not. The effects of climate change may compound 

damage that exists as a consequence of motor vehicle travel. However, whether or not the alternatives

and no action contain climate change direction would not, in general, affect the Coronado’s motorized 

transportation system.

No Action

This alternative would have no change on the environment affected by the current motorized 

transportation system on the Coronado. The current levels of maintenance would stay the same, and 

roads would be decommissioned or closed in compliance with the 1986 forest plan or the current 

Travel Management Rule. This alternative presents the public the most motorized access to the 

national forest because there are no additional special areas that would reduce motorized access and 

no land use zone or management area restrictions on providing additional public access for motorized 

vehicles. 

The 1986 forest plan provides direction to provide and maintain a transportation system that fulfills 

the needs of the public. If this direction continues to be followed, adverse effects would continue to 

occur. These include fragmentation of habitat, noise disturbance to species, and sedimentation impacts 

to watersheds. In addition, the widespread access to motor vehicles in the 1986 forest plan places 

heritage sites at risk to vandalism and illegal pottery or artifact searching and collection.

Management of motorized transportation would continue under forestwide and management areaspecific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in the 1986 forest plan. Current guidance for the 

density of existing and new road construction as 1 mile of road or less per square mile would continue 

to apply forestwide outside of wilderness and other protected areas, regardless of site-specific 

management objectives. When new access to the national forest is acquired, building new roads may 

require a forest plan amendment because of the potential to increase road density beyond the guideline 

limits. This alternative would result in the most even distribution of roaded areas across the Coronado 

and would, therefore, provide fewer areas for quiet recreation and lower disturbance areas for wildlife.

The 1986 plan has no specific objectives for eliminating unauthorized roads, with the consequence 

that user-created routes remain on the ground longer than necessary, continuing to cause resource 

damage. The plan also has no objective for realignment or removal of roads in wetlands or meadows, 

the consequence of which is roads remaining in place and causing continued erosion, soil compaction, 

decreased infiltration, and habitat loss or disturbance. 

The no-action alternative has no objective for the construction of hardened road surfaces at stream 

crossings where there are impacts to the surrounding vegetation, wildlife species, and watersheds.

Road construction across mountain meadows would be prohibited, which would continue to protect 

the hydrological and soil conditions of this resource.

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan under the proposed action would provide the following direction, which would 

have the effects described below.

Permanent road development would be prohibited on four recommended wilderness areas totaling 

108,890 acres, in addition to already designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, and inventoried 

roadless areas. This would have the effect of keeping erosion and sedimentation produced by roads 

out of these designated areas. This would positively impact the surrounding vegetation, wildlife 

species, and watersheds that might otherwise be disturbed by vehicle presence and use by decreasing 

noise and ground disturbance. It would also allow for quiet recreation. It is difficult to build roads in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

376

the proposed Ku Chish, Whetstone, and Chiricahua North Recommended Wilderness Areas. The 

rugged terrain and the expense make this option indifferent from the existing condition. 

Permanent roads in the Wild Backcountry Land Use Zone, which comprises about 35 percent of the 

national forest, would be constructed only to restore motorized access where it previously existed but 

was lost because of the lack of legal access. Increased miles of National Forest System roads would 

generally equate to increased motorized access and ecological impacts from roads and decreased 

opportunity for more primitive recreation. The ecological consequences of adding roads would result 

in decreased wildlife habitat connectivity, increased sedimentation, and impacts to plants and 

archaeological sites. The exact magnitude is difficult to assess at the plan scale because the 

effectiveness of achieving these effects is largely dependent on site-specific situation and design 

features.

In the remaining land use zones, which comprise about 38 percent of the national forest, changes to 

the motorized transportation system would be proposed in site-specific management actions that 

would be subject to direction in many different components of the revised forest plan. The ecological 

consequences of adding roads would result in decreased wildlife habitat connectivity, increased 

sedimentation, and impacts to plants and archaeological sites. The exact magnitude is difficult to 

assess at the plan scale because the effectiveness of achieving these effects is largely dependent on 

site-specific situation and design features.

Specific objectives in the revised forest plan under the proposed action would identify miles of nonNational Forest System roads to be eliminated each year. Removing these roads from the landscape 

would result in less motorized travel off the roads and trails designated on the motor vehicle use map, 

and it would protect wildlife, recreation, and other unique resources by reducing the influence of roads 

and unauthorized motorized travel. Also, removing these roads would improve watershed conditions 

by decreasing the number of roads that are poorly maintained or located. When roads are in poor 

condition, continued use increases soil erosion by water and wind. Decreasing this source of 

sedimentation would improve watershed conditions without decreasing administrative or public 

access.

Specific guidelines for realignment or removal of roads in wetlands and meadows would result in 

better protection of sensitive plant and animal species and soil hydrology, improved water quality, 

increased biological diversity, increased productivity and forage yields, increased infiltration, and 

subsurface flow. 

Guidelines are provided regarding the avoidance of road construction or maintenance in wetlands or 

meadows, or across sensitive soils, and mitigation measures if this cannot be avoided. This would 

have the effect of making roads less expensive to maintain in such areas; allowing for stream stability; 

reduction of erosion due to roads; and allowing habitat to flourish. Indirect routes do a better job of 

protecting sensitive wildlife and vegetative species and erosive hydrologic soils.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 reiterates the direction in the proposed action. In addition, it recommends designating 

147,018 acres more wilderness than the proposed action. Therefore, its effects on motorized 

transportation would be the same as those of the proposed action except for those associated with 

management of additional wilderness. Acreage recommended as wilderness would be unavailable for 

permanent road construction. Most of it, in fact, would be included in a Wild Backcountry Land Use 

Zone. As a consequence, proposed road construction to restore land access to specific areas of the 

Coronado may be impeded or denied.

Restrictions on motorized use in wilderness would result in less disturbance from vehicle and human 

presence than any of the other alternatives. On the other hand, the same restrictions would decrease 

motorized access to remote recreational opportunities. All road obliteration or closure proposals would 

be reviewed for effects on a site-specific basis in environmental analysis. A smaller road system is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

377

generally correlated with increased wildlife habitat connectivity, reduced sedimentation, and impacts

to plants and archaeological sites, decreased vandalism and theft of archaeological sites, and less noise 

disturbance to wildlife.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 proposes that the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone be enlarged in comparison to the 

proposed action and alternative 1. This would increase the area that could potentially be developed for 

off-highway vehicle facilities by 40,255 acres more than the area specified by the proposed action and 

alternative 1, and could result in a net increase in motorized trails, loading ramps, parking areas, or 

other facilities. The increased area is planned for designation at previously disturbed sites to minimize 

potential resource impacts. However, increasing motor vehicle use also increases the potential for 

ecosystem impacts and reduces the degree of quiet recreation available on the Coronado.

Cumulative Effects

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions but 

does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management plan does 

not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions), 

there can be no direct effects. However, there may be implications, or long-term environmental 

consequences, of managing the forests under this programmatic framework. 

The bounds of cumulative environmental consequence analysis for the Coronado are the nearby 

national forests; State and county highways that access and traverse the Coronado; cities encompassed 

by the Coronado; easements to access inholdings; Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Cochise, and Graham 

Counties encompassing the Coronado; and designated highways on the Coronado.

Areas proposed for treatment would result in increased traffic and greater variety of vehicles, 

including heavy equipment. This would result in a need for more frequent road maintenance and 

possibly road improvements in order to accommodate this increased activity safely.

Completed, proposed, and planned road projects on and in close proximity to the Coronado are 

included in the following regional road and transportation improvement plans:

• ADOT State Transportation Improvement Program FY 2011-2014 (ADOT 2010)

• ADOT Tentative 5-Year Transportation Facilities Construction Program 2012-2016 (ADOT 

2010a)

• Pima County Regional Transportation Authority Roadway Improvement Plan (Pima County 

2013)

• Cochise County Davis Road Project (Cochise County 2013)

• Santa Cruz County Palo Parado Road Project (Santa Cruz County 2012)

Road improvement and widening projects on and off the national forest could have an impact on the 

Coronado. Projects on and in close proximity to National Forest System lands could result in 

increased easements and could facilitate ease of access onto the national forest. Projects outside the 

national forest could decrease driving times to access the Coronado. In general, it is expected that 

these projects could result in more visitors to the Coronado and increased road maintenance needs. 

Increased visitation has variable effects depending on whether or not it occurs in an area with 

adequate capacity to provide recreation opportunities that are consistent with visitor expectations or 

not. However, on a forestwide scale, it is difficult to know the outcomes of increased visitation 

without site-specific information.

The Coronado road system could be impacted by the projects surrounding the national forest; 

however, the effects would be minimal. The major effects of alternatives 1 and 2 on the road system 

stem from changing recreation opportunity spectrum classifications, proposed special areas, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

378

management areas. These areas would be located in the more remote sections of the Coronado and 

would not be impacted by projects on primary travel arterials through the state. The increase in ease of 

access to the Coronado provided by some projects could increase traffic volumes on roads in close 

proximity to major arterials that travel through the Coronado. This possible increase would not change 

the maintenance level of the roads, but could possibly increase the maintenance needed to keep the 

road in the proper condition, because increased traffic increases sedimentation and runoff on the road 

surface. Increased traffic can also increase dust for nearby homeowners and recreation visitors. Visitor

expectations of road maintenance would also be expected to increase with traffic. Despite the possible 

increase in traffic volume, the sizes of the roads would not be altered due to the desired conditions 

stating that the need for public access must be balanced with the mitigation of ecological impacts. 

The no-action alternative would not affect any state, county, or city transportation systems. Any 

alterations in the size of the Coronado National Forest road system in this alternative would be 

provided in the guidelines of the 1986 forest plan. In addition, the possible changes to the National 

Forest Road System brought about by alternatives 1 and 2 would not affect the overall municipal 

transportation system throughout the region. With few exceptions, such as National Forest System 

Road 61 (Washington Montezuma Pass) or National Forest System Road 39 (Ruby Road), National 

Forest System roads are not used as primary travel routes between cities and towns. The loss of road 

mileage due to the changing recreation opportunity spectrum classifications, proposed special areas 

and management areas would neither increase or decrease traffic volumes on primary arterials such as 

Interstate 10 or Interstate 19.

The National Forest Road System is a part of the overall transportation system throughout the state of 

Arizona. Forest roads connect to collector roads as well as arterials throughout the state. The 

jurisdiction and maintenance responsibilities are divided between the State, county, and Forest Service 

using easements, permits, and cooperative maintenance agreements. For further information on this 

topic, refer to the “Land Ownership Patterns and Land Uses” section on page 383.

Revision Topic 3: Access to National Forest System Lands

Access to National Forest System Lands – Affected Environment

For many years, the Forest Service has worked diligently to acquire permanent legal access50 to 

specific areas of the Coronado where none presently exists. This is because it does not have written 

title that authorizes vehicular travel on roads occurring on private or non-Federal property within, 

adjoining, or adjacent to the Coronado boundary.

Vehicle access to non-forest roads within, and adjacent to, the Coronado is essential for both public 

use of the national forest and administrative use for resource management activities. Because of the 

unique topography of Arizona’s sky islands, National Forest System roads, public roads,

51 and private 

roads are dispersed among 12 geographically distinct ecosystem management areas of the Coronado. 

To complicate matters, embedded within the Coronado are private lands, state trust lands, and lands 

managed by other agencies and municipal jurisdictions. 

At boundary points with non-forest land, public access and often, Forest Service access, has often 

been blocked, gated, locked, or otherwise made unavailable by private and other land owners. Owners 

who block access essentially create a “national forest in my back yard,” a scenario that provides little 

benefit to the public. Issues have been exacerbated by conflicts arising when Coronado National 

Forest users travel off road to circumvent a road that has been closed to public use by the land owner 

in order to reach their destination.

 

50 Also referred to as “written title.”

51 County, State, and other Federal.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

379

At present, written title has been obtained by the Coronado to just one-third of the 300 public and 

administrative vehicular access routes from beyond the proclaimed national forest boundary, where 

most access needs predominate. In addition, the Forest Service estimates that about 1,000 miles of 

road right-of-way easements are needed on lands of other ownership and other Federal lands to ensure 

an adequate legal right of public and administrative access to the Coronado’s road and trail system.

During the past 25 years, private land owners have challenged the ownership status of many longestablished national forest access routes through their lands and where no legal right of public access 

(written title) exists, they have closed such roads to public use. Private land owners are hesitant to 

grant right-of-way easements for perpetual public access across their lands for a variety of reasons, 

including, but not limited to, the following:

• impacts from off-highway vehicle use

• undocumented alien and smuggling traffic

• litter, vandalism, and privacy issues

• perceived potential liability (although Arizona Revised Statute 33-1551 and New Mexico Statute 

17-4-7 limit a private land owner’s liability when providing recreational and educational access); 

and in some cases

• a desire for exclusive use and control of the adjoining National Forest System lands

Options being considered to meet current and future access needs where no written title exists include 

relocating National Forest System roads, reopening, and reconstructing National Forest System roads 

that have been previously decommissioned, or building new roads where long-established 

administrative and public access routes have been closed by private or other land owners.

Access to National Forest System Lands – Environmental 

Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The proposed action and alternative 1 provide plan direction for management of natural resources 

vulnerable to climate related changes. No action and alternative 2 do not. However, because climate 

change direction has no influence on resolution of issues related to public and administrative access to 

the Coronado, effects of this direction, or lack thereof, would be the same for all alternatives.

No Action

Since the current plan became effective in 1986, the Forest Service has had no organized strategy for 

acquiring written title to about 200 access points into the Coronado from beyond the proclaimed 

national forest boundary. 

The 1986 forest plan does not specify desired conditions for public and administrative vehicular 

access to those areas of the Coronado where it is presently lacking. It includes standards and 

guidelines that are no longer relevant to current access issues. In addition, the plan contains an out-ofdate list of locations where access, easements, and rights-of-way are needed. Access to some of these 

locations cannot be resolved because of current budget conditions; at other locations, access issues 

have been negated by changing user needs. The plan’s lack of desired conditions and inaccuracies in 

areas where access is needed make it difficult for Coronado National Forest managers to identify 

projects, set priorities, and measure progress toward improved access. 

Because the plan is almost 30 years old, direction regarding acquisition of access does not consider 

changes in user demand corresponding to population growth nor does it reflect the evolution of public 

interest in newer and different recreational activities and use patterns. For example, some people visit 

for a quiet recreational experience, while others prefer the energetic and challenging nature of 

motorized recreation. Vehicular access to the Coronado for quiet recreation is best satisfied by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

380

nonmotorized means, while roads are preferable for access to motorized recreation. Because the 1986 

plan does not differentiate between conflicting uses such as these, plans for acquiring access would 

not incorporate these considerations. The consequence would be that the visitor experience may not be 

optimum for either use. 

Where access is needed, users who value quiet recreation would benefit from the 1986 forest plan’s 

recommendation for one wilderness area, because the Wilderness Act imposes a restriction on 

motorized and mechanized uses in wilderness. Thus, access to wilderness would have to be by 

nonmotorized, nonmechanized means, such as on foot or horseback. These restrictions, however, 

would not favor those users with limited mobility who would have to find an alternate means of 

access. 

If the 1986 plan continues to be followed, issues related to access would continue to affect activities 

associated with public uses, such as grazing, exploration for mineral deposits, recreation, and special 

uses of National Forest System land; and administrative uses, such as fire suppression and 

management of forest vegetation, roads, facilities, and infrastructure. 

If permanent legal access is unavailable, ranchers may be unable to successfully maintain grazing 

allotment improvements, such as fences, stock tanks, pipelines and other facilities. Likewise, access 

for mineral exploration activities may be impossible for those who hold mining claims on public land 

or who must travel on national forest lands to access claims on other lands. Without access to 

preferred destinations for hunting, hiking, birding, rock climbing, horseback riding, off-highway 

vehicle use, and other recreation, outfitter/guide services authorized by special use permits and private 

recreational users would be displaced to other forest locations. Alternatively, if vehicular access is not 

accommodated for the uses described above, users may choose to illegally circumvent areas that are 

blocked or gated/locked by operating their vehicles off National Forest System roads that are 

legitimately open to motorized use. The results from off-road travel include damage to soils, 

vegetation, water resources, and habitat, among other resources, and the establishment of user-created 

roads that will likely be traveled by others who find their destination inaccessible in the same general 

area, increasing resource damage. 

Inability to administratively access areas of the Coronado also affects fire management actions and 

those that treat vegetation to reduce fuel loading, maintain or construct roads, and maintain, repair or 

construct facilities and infrastructure. If current plan direction continues to be followed, acquisition of 

access for these purposes is uncertain, because the 1986 plan contains an out-of-date list of locations 

where written title, easements, and rights-of-way are needed.

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan under the proposed action provides a strategic vision for permanent legal 

vehicular access to approximately 200 locations on the Coronado where access is presently lacking. It 

establishes desired conditions for achieving a level of access that will accommodate all essential 

administrative uses and most public uses. 

Desired conditions in the revised forest plan would guide the administrative planning process for 

acquiring access, with emphasis on tailoring both vehicular and nonmotorized access to specific areas 

and the uses they support. The revised forest plan would not define specific points of access, but 

would allow room for flexibility in negotiating access to general areas. As a result, when vehicular 

access has been successfully acquired, user conflicts and resource damage caused by off-road travel 

would be minimized (see the “No Action” section.)

Where access is needed, users who value quiet recreation would benefit from the proposed action’s 

recommendation for one more wilderness area than no action and alternative 2 and restrictions on 

motorized and mechanized uses in wilderness. Thus, any access to wilderness would have to be by 

nonmotorized, nonmechanized means, such as on foot or horseback. These restrictions, however, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

381

would not favor those users with limited mobility who would have to find an alternate means of 

access. 

If revised plan direction is followed, permanent legal access to, and within, the Coronado National 

Forest by public and administrative users would be achieved at most locations. This would reduce 

conflicts between public and administrative users and private and other land owners who have blocked 

access to national forest lands. It would also facilitate access for permittees to grazing improvements, 

mining claim holders to their claims, recreational users to their preferred destinations, and Forest 

Service personnel to locations essential to fire suppression and management of vegetation, water 

resources, habitat, and other forest resources. 

If the proposed action is implemented successfully, the Coronado would be easily accessible on a 

system of arterial, collector, and local roads and trails that are interconnected with public roads, 

highways, and trails adjacent to, adjoining, and within the national forest.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have the same effects as described above for the proposed action with one 

exception. Additional effects would result from its recommendation that Congress designate 

additional acreage on the Coronado as wilderness. Because of Wilderness Act restrictions on 

motorized and mechanized uses in wilderness, 16 parcels of National Forest System land would be 

precluded from having vehicular access of any kind, as well as access by mechanical means, such as 

mountain bikes.

Users who value quiet recreation would benefit under alternative 1 more than the other alternatives, 

because of restrictions on motorized and mechanized uses. Vehicular access would not be permitted 

except under certain circumstances and with regional forester approval. Access to wilderness would 

have to be by nonmotorized, nonmechanized means, such as on foot or horseback. These restrictions 

would not favor those users who have limited mobility, causing them to find an alternate means of 

access. 

Designation of wilderness may affect those members of the public who currently have motorized

access to their property under special use authorizations. Their ability to access private land using 

motorized transportation may be affected by wilderness restrictions if, and when, Congress designates 

a parcel as wilderness. However, the Forest Service is required by law to permit access to private land 

users within the national forest boundary. This conflict would have to be resolved if and when such 

issues arise.

Access to implement forest health projects may also be affected by the additional wilderness 

recommended under alternative 1.

Alternative 2

The effects of alternative 2 would be the same as those of the proposed action with one exception. 

Alternative 2 would recommend only one wilderness area. Therefore, the benefit to quiet recreation 

enthusiasts because of wilderness restrictions, which would affect both access to and travel within 

wilderness, would be less than the proposed action. There would be corresponding decrease in effects 

on those with limited mobility who cannot access wilderness by motorized or mechanized means. 

The increased acreage allocated by alternative 2 would have no adverse effects on land access issues 

on the Coronado. Depending on where access is needed, motorized recreation zones may facilitate 

access to the national forest by off-highway vehicle, especially in locations of rugged terrain.

Cumulative Effects

The geographic area that may be cumulatively affected by direction given in each alternative plan and 

the 1986 plan regarding access to the Coronado would include all of the national forest and adjacent 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

382

lands in Pima, Graham, Santa Cruz, Cochise, and Pinal Counties in Arizona; and Hidalgo County in 

New Mexico. The timeframe of analysis would be the life of the plan.

The sky islands of the Coronado play an important role in the Forest Service’s ability to successfully 

manage land boundary management issues and provide for public access. Private and other agency 

managed land are intermingled among roads, highways, and the national forest. The Coronado shares 

common boundaries with six counties, as well as: 

• Arizona State Land Department; 

• New Mexico State Lands Office; 

• Arizona State Parks Department; 

• National Park Service (Saguaro National Park East, Coronado National Memorial, and Chiricahua 

National Monument); 

• Bureau of Land Management; 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge); 

• Fort Huachuca Military Installation; 

• San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation; and

• United Mexican States.

Lands managed by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) are of particular interest with regard 

to access.

The Arizona State Land Department manages a significant amount of State Trust property adjacent to 

the Coronado according to its mission, which differs markedly from that of the Forest Service. That is, 

department manages State Trust lands and their resources to enhance the land value and optimize 

economic return for trust beneficiaries in a manner consistent with sound stewardship, conservation, 

and business management principles that support socioeconomic goals now and in the future. In 

contrast, the Forest Service mission is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable 

multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people.

State Trust lands are generally not open to the public without a permit (or lease), which is issued by 

Arizona State Land Department for a fee. An exception to this is when an individual user is actively 

hunting or fishing in season with a valid hunting or fishing license issued by the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department or New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Use of roads across State Trust lands 

to the Coronado by public land users in Arizona requires either a permit purchased and held by an 

individual user or family, or a public road right-of-way purchased from the Arizona State Land 

Department by private individual(s), agencies, or other entities.

Cumulative effects from providing access in and to the Coronado have historically occurred when the 

Forest Service has sought to obtain rights-of-way easements from the Arizona State Land Department

to relocate and construct a new road alignment across State Trust lands. However, because of 

impasses between both agencies regarding indemnification and differences in Federal and State 

appraisal requirements, the Forest Service is currently unable to acquire perpetual, exclusive rights-ofway from the Arizona State Land Department for proposed new road alignments as well as for 

existing road alignments across State Trust lands. 

The mission of the New Mexico State Land Office also differs from that of the Forest Service, making 

acquisition of land in New Mexico for access to the Coronado difficult as well. This office is 

responsible for administering 9 million acres of surface and 13 million acres of subsurface land for the 

beneficiaries of its trust. Each acre of land is designated to a specific beneficiary, with public schools 

receiving more than 84 percent of the acreage. The goals of the trust are to optimize revenues while 

protecting the health of the land for future generations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

383

Private lands are present both in and around the Coronado. There are desirable parcels of private land 

within the national forest boundary that may be acquired directly, by exchange, or by donation. 

Cumulative positive effects result from a Federal land management agency’s acquisition of isolated 

private inholdings within its legislated boundaries, because the efficiency of managing these areas 

increases with the need for fewer rights-of-way and other land issues across the greater landscape. 

Private investors continue to submit applications to county governments for permits to construct 

subdivisions that adjoin several of the Coronado’s ecosystem management areas. However, most of 

these investors are not willing to agree to provide permanent legal public access. In fact, they often 

advertise their properties as having “exclusive or private access to the adjoining forest.” These actions 

contribute to denial or blocking of public access to the Coronado and the “forest in my backyard” 

philosophy. 

When considered in combination with the encumbrances on access attributed to issues with other 

agencies and private land owners, alternative 1 is the only alternative that has the potential to 

contribute to cumulative effects related to legal land access issues facing the Coronado. Its restriction 

on motorized access to new areas proposed as wilderness would restrict motorized use in specific 

locations. However, this limitation was considered during the evaluation of various parcels for 

designation as wilderness. For the most part, areas currently having access issues were determined to 

be less viable than others for recommendation as wilderness. Thus, it is not likely that cumulative 

effects on land access would result from additional wilderness management under alternative 1.

Revision Topic 4: Preservation of Open Space

Land Ownership Patterns and Land Uses – Affected Environment

In the area surrounding the Coronado, land use varies from farming and ranching in rural areas to 

dense concentrations of residential, industrial, and commercial uses in and around urban centers. 

Preservation of open space is a predominant land use issue in the planning area, given both the 

public’s desire to maintain the “rural character” of county lands and the need to accommodate rapidly 

growing populations and municipalities. As county comprehensive plans indicate, planners struggle to 

balance the growing demands for housing, recreation, and water supplies with the preservation of a 

shrinking natural resource base that contributes to Arizona’s highly valued rural character and open 

space. 

The debate over preservation of open space has gained increased attention as regional efforts, such as 

the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan in Pima County, Arizona, and the Malpai Borderlands group in 

Cochise County, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico, draw support from diverse stakeholders. 

Voters in Pima County, Arizona, have strongly supported bond issues for the acquisition of land or 

development rights in order to preserve open space. The Malpai Borderlands Group has effectively 

protected 75,000 acres of private land from development through conservation easements.

Land ownership across the six-county area surrounding the Coronado National Forest differs from 

overall ownership patterns for the States of Arizona and New Mexico in that there are relatively large 

amounts of private acreage and State Trust land. These other land ownerships are likely to have a 

considerable influence on future development patterns throughout the region. 

In the 6-county planning area as of 2005, Hidalgo County, New Mexico, and Cochise and Santa Cruz

Counties, Arizona, were reported to have the highest percentage of private land while Pima and 

Graham Counties, in Arizona had the lowest. The percentage of State Trust land was greatest in Pinal 

and Cochise Counties, Arizona. The largest percentage of National Forest System land is located in 

Santa Cruz County, Arizona. The highest percentage of land owned by Native American tribes is in 

Graham and Pima Counties, Arizona.

Land ownership within and along the boundaries of the Coronado National Forest (see figure 9) 

presents unique challenges to Forest Service managers. The noncontiguous nature of the Coronado 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

384

results in a large proportion of boundary interface with lands of other ownership as compared to other 

national forests in Arizona. For example, the Coronado has 0.39 mile of boundary per square mile of 

national forest land compared with 0.11 mile per square mile for the Coconino National Forest, and 

between 0.23 and 0.28 mile per square mile for the rest of the Arizona national forests. In addition, the 

Coronado National Forest shares 60 miles of international boundary with the Republic of Mexico. 

There are also an estimated 56,000 acres of private lands and lands of other ownership within the 

Coronado’s proclaimed boundaries. Most of these lands are either patented mining claims or lands 

settled under homesteading laws. As the population of the area increases, private lands in and around 

the Coronado are increasingly subject to subdivision and development.

Figure 9. Land ownership in southeastern Arizona, including the Coronado National Forest (see also 

figure 1)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

385

Land ownership patterns that developed as a result of homesteading laws persist today in and around 

public land. Within and along the national forest boundary, private lands generally occupy small, flat, 

and fertile areas with natural water sources. Much of the homesteaded land in and around the 

Coronado is today associated with grazing allotments. According to a recent survey of Coronado 

livestock grazing permittees, 81 respondents (61 percent of those surveyed) collectively own 274,276 

acres of private land related to their livestock operations (Conley et al. 2007). The average private 

land holding of respondents was 3,657 acres. Considering the number of nonrespondents (39 percent), 

it is reasonable to speculate, based on information from those who responded, that a significant 

amount of additional private land is associated with the remaining Coronado National Forest grazing 

allotments. 

As awareness of the ecological benefits provided by ranch lands increases, there is a potential for 

recognition that the “production” value of ranch lands is greater than what is reflected solely in the 

market for beef cattle (Brunson and Huntsinger 2008). That is, ranch lands provide benefits in the 

form of open space and wildlife habitat, as well as production of forage for livestock. These values are 

increasingly being capitalized through the sale of conservation easements and other transfers of 

development rights. Access to national forest grazing lands is likely a key to sustaining ranching on 

private and State Trust lands in southeastern Arizona and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. Given the 

relatively high percentage of these lands in proximity to the Coronado, future uses will be highly 

relevant to forest management.

Land Ownership Patterns and Land Uses – Environmental 

Consequences

No Action

The 1986 forest plan references maps in the land ownership adjustment plan that prioritize lands 

desirable for acquisition. The maps have not been revised to show completed lands adjustments or 

changing priorities. Important opportunities to acquire properties with high resource values may be 

lost because the maps are not updated regularly. Open space values are not addressed in the 1986 plan, 

although there are classification criteria to identify important resources for acquisition or retention.

Proposed Action

The proposed action identifies open space as a desired condition in the following sections of the 

revised forest plan: “Range Management,” “Land Ownership Adjustments and Boundary 

Management,” “Species Diversity and Viability,” and “Scenery” and “Recreation.” In the “Range 

Management” section of the revised forest plan, the desired condition statement recognizes that 

providing forage for livestock production is a key component to preserving open space in southeastern 

Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. By supporting livestock production on working landscapes 

with an extensive, low impact land use, the proposed action would help preserve large areas of 

unfragmented open space. These open spaces would sustain biological diversity and ecological 

processes and help to preserve the rural cultural heritage in the planning area. The proposed action 

continues to allow livestock grazing on 1.5 million acres.

The management direction provided in the proposed action for land ownership adjustments and 

boundary management will help to prioritize land ownership adjustments, and lead to better decisions 

for preserving open space within the national forest boundaries. There is also a suggested management 

approach that the Forest Service should work with willing land owners, communities, local 

governments, and partners to promote voluntary open space conservation. This management direction 

is consistent with the Forest Service open space conservation strategy, and should result in more lands 

in the planning area being protected from fragmentation and development.

Proposed action wildlife components emphasize wildlife habitat linkages along the national forest 

boundary that extend into neighboring lands. This will result in consideration of maintaining these 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

386

linkages in all future actions and activities. Land use decisions that favor the maintenance of wildlife 

linkages will result in protection of open space.

Scenic quality components emphasize the aesthetic and recreational enjoyment of vast, open natural 

landscapes, which means that Forest Service activities will be conducted with maintenance of open 

space as a goal where possible. The interconnected nature of recreation activities on National Forest 

System lands and adjacent open land, such as trails, is recognized in the proposed action. This will 

bring attention to help preserve the recreation experience provided across ownerships. Overall, the 

proposed action is preferable to the no action because it is proactive in conserving open space through 

explicit goals and management approaches. 

Alternative 1

The effects of alternative 1 would be the same as those for the proposed action.

Alternative 2

The effects of alternative 2 would be the same as those for the proposed action.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for open space are described at the end of the “Topic 4” section.

Land Ownership Adjustments and

Boundary Management – Affected Environment

The current complicated and fragmented land ownership pattern within and adjoining the Coronado 

National Forest combined with rapid population growth and increased development of private land in 

southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico and the nature of the noncontiguous sky islands 

that comprise the Coronado, has resulted in the loss of traditional public access routes, conflicts in 

land uses within and adjacent to the national forest boundary, higher administrative costs, and unique 

challenges for forest management. Much of the non-Federal (private, State, county, and other 

ownership) land scattered throughout the Coronado are small rectangular or irregular shaped parcels 

ranging between 20 and 640 acres in size. In addition, the Coronado is the only national forest in the 

Nation that adjoins the international boundary with Mexico. Effects from illegal activities and U.S. 

Border Patrol tactical and law enforcement activities extend many miles into the Coronado, not just 

along the actual physical border.

Certain National Forest System lands in individual ecosystem management areas may be better suited 

for private uses because administration is more costly due to the complexity of the adjoining and 

surrounding land ownership pattern or the permitted use on them. Conversely, some non-Federal lands 

in or adjoining an ecosystem management area have national forest characteristics; acquisition of 

these lands would protect public access, open space, and scenic resources; reduce ecosystem 

fragmentation, improve landscape-level management of forest resources, and eliminate the need to 

encumber the surrounding National Forest System lands with special use authorizations for roads and 

private infrastructure.

Since 1986, the Coronado participated in 24 completed land exchanges. Approximately 16,725 acres 

of non-Federal (private and State) lands valuable for public access, open space, scenic qualities, and 

the protection of natural resources were acquired by the United States, acting by and through the 

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. In exchange for the non-Federal (private and State) lands, 

the United States conveyed approximately 5,522 acres of National Forest System lands into nonFederal ownership that had essentially lost their national forest character. 

The interspersion of private lands within the Coronado and development of private lands adjacent to, 

adjoining, and within its boundaries has resulted in increased occupancy trespass and the need to 

survey and post property boundaries to standard. Only about 15 percent (approximately 230 miles) of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

387

the approximately 1,600 miles of property boundary (about 942 miles of exterior and 658 miles of 

interior property boundaries) between National Forest System and non-Federal lands have been 

marked and posted to Forest Service standard. 

Appropriations for land and interests in land purchases have always been extremely limited and highly 

competitive. Donation of non-Federal lands is very infrequent, and the authority to sell National 

Forest System lands has very limiting requirements. Whenever possible, land exchanges and Small 

Tracts Act52 cases will continue to be the primary methods used for land ownership adjustments on the 

Coronado National Forest.

Land Ownership Adjustments and

Boundary Management – Environmental Consequences

No Action

The 1986 plan includes a low-priority guideline that recommends attempted acquisitions of land from 

willing private owners to provide open space for recreation. It also emphasizes consolidation of small, 

private landholdings into economically viable units, therefore, encouraging development, rather than 

preservation of open space, within the national forest boundary.

The 1986 forest plan, as amended, identifies a classification system of lands with criteria for land 

acquisition and lands available to convey. The 1986 plan includes categories for land acquisition, each 

with separate detailed criteria. These detailed criteria are helpful for evaluating land adjustment cases 

and providing information to potential proponents about how land adjustment proposals may be 

considered, however, they are too detailed for the programmatic nature of modern forest plans. 

The 1986 forest plan includes a list of specific lands to acquire, many of which have not yet have been 

acquired. The list has not been modified to keep up with lands adjustments or with changed priorities. 

Important opportunities to acquire properties with high resource values may be lost because the list of 

high priority properties is not updated regularly. Open space values are not addressed in the 1986 plan, 

although there are classification criteria to identify important resources for acquisition or retention.

Specific boundary and landline direction is stated in the plan but timeframes are not reflective of 

current limitations in budget and the flexibility of the Forest Service to determine priority work. 

Encroachments continue to occur and long-term encroachments are not resolved. Goals for boundary 

line posting and maintenance have not been met, which increases the potential for new encroachments 

as adjacent non-Federal land is developed. Not resolving existing and long-term encroachments results 

in the appearance of the national forest being privately owned and promotes additional encroachment 

further into National Forest System lands. Encroachments can adversely impact cultural resources, 

wildlife habitat, soil, and water resources. Adverse impacts on encroached lands generally result from 

illegal vehicle use, road and trail building, or other disturbances. These disturbances cause the removal 

of vegetation and compaction of soil, both of which result in accelerated water runoff and soil erosion. 

Wildlife habitat degrades as fewer plants are available for food or cover. Cultural resources on 

encroached lands are susceptible to collection, direct destruction by vehicle impact or other means, or 

indirect destruction caused by soil erosion. 

Proposed Action

The proposed action includes guidelines that describe characteristics of lands to be acquired or 

conveyed, instead of identifying specific lands to be acquired or conveyed. The criteria in the 1986 

plan are replaced with guidelines that are more focused on specific resources and less specific to 

 

52 Small Tracts of 1983: Give regional foresters the discretionary authority to sell, exchange, or interchange certain 

National Forest System lands or interest to resolve certain encroachment problems and management problems 

associated with mineral survey fractions and unused rights-of-way (see 36 CFR 254, subpart C) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

388

location on the landscape. This action focuses on acquisition of specific resources but does not address 

the more indirect effects of development of inholding that do not have key resource values, such as 

requests for improved road access and infrastructure needs which could impact scenery, recreation 

experience, and general wildlife habitat values. Without site-specific direction for acquisitions and 

conveyances, managers will have to rely on clear understanding of the resource characteristics of 

inholdings when evaluating land ownership adjustments. However, managers will have more 

flexibility to consider opportunities for land exchanges as they arise, and shift priorities without 

changing or amending the forest plan.

Removing the list of lands to be conveyed also removes direction to limit treatment and other resource 

activities on parcels that were identified as such. Eliminating this restriction allows for fuel treatments 

and other management activities on parcels nearby communities and better achieves vegetation 

objectives or community wildfire protection plan objectives.

The proposed action identifies open space values to be retained as a desired condition. This statement 

could be interpreted by communities and neighbors as any National Forest System land they consider 

valuable for their open space, and would lead to support for proposals for acquisition of inholdings. 

The proposed action continues to allow for conveyance of lands to meet community and public needs 

and adds loss of wildland character to the list of lands that could be conveyed. This could provide 

incentive for non-Federal neighbors to protect those values in order to reduce the potential for land 

exchange or sale, which would result in more lands adjacent to the Coronado retaining wildland 

character. 

The proposed action has guidelines for prioritizing landline location surveys. The highest priorities 

include suspected encroachments. This will encourage early response to encroachments, and should 

reduce the damage caused by unauthorized uses along the national forest boundary. Overall, the 

proposed action is preferable to the no action because it is proactive in conserving open space through 

explicit goals, guidelines, and management approaches.

Alternative 1

The effects of alternative 1 would be the same as those for the proposed action.

Alternative 2

The effects of alternative 2 would be the same as those for the proposed action.

Cumulative Effects

Conversion of private parcels from farming and ranching to more urban land uses has outpaced 

population growth over the last several decades (USDA FS 2005a). Hansen et al. (2005) report that 

low density rural home (exurban) development is the fastest growing form of land use in the United 

States and has been since 1950. This trend is mirrored in the analysis area and has serious implications 

for management of the Coronado National Forest. In the assessment area, this shift has been especially 

dramatic in Pinal County. While recent county comprehensive plans reflect the positive values of open 

space (appendix B) and have initiated zoning strategies to encourage it, many areas along national 

forest boundaries have already been slated for subdivision. There is increasing awareness of the 

important role of State Trust lands in conserving natural resources; however, these lands are subject to 

disposal in order to generate funds for public benefit. Given the relatively high percentage of private 

and State lands in proximity to the Coronado National Forest, future uses will be highly relevant to 

forest management. 

Exurban development can create disproportionately high ecological and economic impacts per 

housing unit because each rural residence occupies more land than urban residences (USDA FS 

2007a). Development along the boundaries has the potential to result in further restrictions in the 

ability of the public to gain access to the Coronado National Forest (see “Topic 3” and the following 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

389

section). It has also been shown that exurban development has significant negative impacts on native 

species that may manifest over several decades (Hansen et al. 2005) and can extend several hundred 

meters beyond the developed area (Lenth et al. 2006). Fire management is more expensive and 

complicated. There are more frequent human-caused fire ignitions along national forest boundaries 

with more development, and there are also more structures needing protection. Development of any 

kind severely restricts the ability of the Forest Service to use fire for ecosystem restoration purposes. 

Because the Forest Service is required to coordinate management activities with neighboring owners, 

increased numbers of owners along boundaries will complicate resource planning on the Coronado, 

and make administration of Forest Service lands more expensive. As open space outside national 

forest boundaries becomes scarcer, the values of open space within the Coronado will become higher. 

This could lead to increased visitation to the Coronado as people seek places to enjoy open space.

As noted above, the 1986 forest plan does not recognize open space as a value to be conserved. The 

proposed action and alternatives 1 and 2 are proactive in conserving open space through explicit goals, 

guidelines, and management approaches. For this reason, the action alternatives would be more 

effective in mitigating the cumulative effects associated with exurban development.

Revision Topic 5: Communities, Collaboration, and Partnerships

Communities

Background

Between the 15th and 19th centuries in what is now Arizona, the Athabaskan (including Apache and 

Navajo), Hispanic, and Anglo-American cultures converged on the Native American communities 

already living in the area, particularly the O’odham people (formerly Papago-Pima). In 1540,

Francisco Vasquez de Coronado entered what is now the southern boundary of the United States. 

Coronado was in search of gold and other precious minerals that legends claimed were in the area. 

While Coronado never found his treasure—it would be centuries before the mining industry boomed 

in region—his entrance laid the foundation for Spanish colonization over the next 300 years.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, O’odham populations declined due to emigration; high mortality rates in 

the face of Mexican and Spanish settlement, which brought disease and confrontations; and 

appropriation of riverine farmlands. The Apache groups resisted Euro-American settlement and 

colonization until the second half of the 19th century. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ended 

the U.S. war with Mexico and brought California, New Mexico, and northern Arizona under U.S. 

control. The 1853 Gadsden Purchase incorporated southern Arizona, including modern-day Coronado 

lands, into the United States. For nearly 40 years, continued aggression between the Apaches and 

westward-bound Americans kept the area sparsely populated. U.S. military conquest of Native 

American groups opened the doors to large-scale Anglo settlement. In the latter 19th century, mining 

activities and the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad brought many more Euro-Americans to the 

area. Demand for natural resources increased over this period. 

The present-day Coronado National Forest had its origins in 1902 when the Santa Rita, Santa Catalina, 

Mount Graham, and Chiricahua Forest Reserves were established to protect timber and watershed 

resources. Today, the scattered holdings of the Coronado National Forest cover over 2,600 square 

miles of land ranging from 3,000 to over 10,000 feet in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New 

Mexico. The Coronado’s variety of elevations allows for year-round recreational uses (USDA FS 

2008).

Communities – Affected Environment

The Coronado National Forest extends into six counties: 5 in southeastern Arizona (Cochise, Graham, 

Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties) and 1 in southwestern New Mexico (Hidalgo County). These 6

counties form the study area for the social and economic analysis. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

390

Existing social and economic conditions are necessary to establish the baseline from which to estimate 

potential consequences of Forest Service management actions. The proceeding section analyzes the 

current conditions and trends related to the social and economic environment of the planning area, 

including population and demographic changes, potential environmental justice populations, 

employment and income conditions, and the Coronado’s contribution to the local economy. 

Population and Demographics

This section highlights population and demographic trends in the study area. Population is an 

important consideration in managing natural resources. In particular, population structure (size, 

composition, density, etc.) and population dynamics (how the structure changes over time) are 

essential to describing the consequences of forest management and planning on a social environment 

(Seesholtz et al. 2004). Population increases may lead to conflicts over land use, travel management, 

recreation activities, and values. These are conflicts that Forest Service managers attempt to balance 

when making management decisions.

Population Growth

The 6-county region is home to 1,576,913 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Table 117 provides 

county-level population figures for 1990, 2000, and 2010.

All 5 Arizona counties experienced population growth between 1990 and 2010. The highest growth 

rates occurred in Pima and Pinal Counties. Pima Country grew approximately 47 percent between 

1990 and 2010. Pinal County experienced the most dramatic growth; the population more than tripled 

between 1990 and 2010, with the majority of the growth occurring during the last decade. In contrast, 

Hidalgo County (New Mexico) lost population during period. Although population remained 

relatively steady in the county between 1990 and 2000, between 2000 and 2010 Hidalgo County lost 

more than 17 percent of its population. 

High population growth rates may signal expanding economic opportunities, desirable amenities, or 

both. Much of the growth in Pinal County can be attributed to its central location between the Phoenix 

and Tucson metropolitan areas. Indeed, since 1997 the percentage of income earned outside of the 

county by its residents has rapidly increased. This finding suggests that Pinal County is absorbing 

much of the growth of its neighboring metropolitan areas (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006).

Table 117. Population growth, 1990-2010, for counties in the Coronado National Forest planning area

County

1990 

Population

2000 

Population

Percent 

Change

1990-2000

2010 

Population

Percent

Change 

2000-2010

Cochise (AZ) 97,624 117,755 20.6 131,346 11.5

Graham (AZ) 26,554 33,489 26.1 37,220 11.1

Hidalgo (NM) 5,958 5,932 -0.4 4,894 -17.5

Pima (AZ) 666,880 843,746 26.5 980,263 16.2

Pinal (AZ) 116,379 179,727 54.4 375,770 109.1

Santa Cruz (AZ) 29,676 38,381 29.3 47,420 23.6

Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 40.0 6,392,017 24.6

New Mexico 1,515,069 1,819,046 20.1 2,059,179 13.2

United States 248,709,873 281,421,906 13.2 308,745,538 9.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010

Changing population size may affect demand for recreation and other resources on the Coronado 

National Forest. Population growth may place particular pressure on popular recreation sites near 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

391

urban centers. Additionally, population growth may lead to the expansion of the wildland-urban 

interface, which affects the cost and difficulty of managing wildfire. Shrinking population, as in 

Hidalgo County (New Mexico), may indicate fewer economic opportunities. Economic opportunities 

on National Forest System lands, therefore, may be particularly important to community livelihoods in 

areas with low or negative population growth.

Median Age 

Table 118 provides the median age for the counties, states, and the Nation. In general, the age patterns 

in the planning area are similar to state and national trends. Cochise and Hidalgo Counties have the 

oldest populations, with a median age above 40.

Table 118. Median age in the planning area of the 

Coronado National Forest

Location Median Age (2010)

Cochise County (AZ) 39.7

Graham County (AZ) 31.6

Hidalgo County (NM) 40.9

Pima County (AZ) 37.7

Pinal County (AZ) 35.3

Santa Cruz County (AZ) 35.6

Arizona 35.9

New Mexico 36.7

United States 37.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP-1

In contrast to the older populations in Cochise and Hidalgo Counties, Graham County has the 

youngest population in the planning area. Graham County’s residents are younger than both the State 

and national medians, as well. The low median age in Graham County is likely due to the presence of 

the San Carlos Reservation, where the average age is only 21.9 years (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

A population’s age may affect community values and uses associated with national forest lands. The 

range of median ages across the planning area suggests diversity among Coronado users. For instance, 

older populations are more likely to demand easily accessible recreation opportunities to allow for 

participation by individuals with limited mobility. Median age may also influence the composition of 

personal income in a county. Older populations are more likely to collect investment earnings and 

age-based transfer payments. The relationship between age and income is discussed below, in the 

“Employment and Income” section.

Educational Achievement

Table 119 lists the educational achievement by county. Hidalgo and Santa Cruz Counties have the 

lowest percentages of high school graduates. Both counties have a substantially smaller proportion of 

high school graduates among their residents than their respective states. Far fewer planning area 

residents hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. In all counties expect Pima, the percentage of adults with 

at least a bachelor’s degree is below the State and national rates.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

392

Table 119. Educational attainment by county in Coronado National Forest planning area 

(percent of persons age 25+, 2010)

Location High School Graduate Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

Cochise County (AZ) 84.8 21.4

Graham County (AZ) 81.8 13.4

Hidalgo County (NM) 77.7 15.6

Pima County (AZ) 86.8 29.6

Pinal County (AZ) 83.7 17.9

Santa Cruz County (AZ) 70.9 17.3

Arizona 85.0 26.3

New Mexico 82.7 25.5

United States 85.0 27.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP02

High educational attainment rates signal economic opportunities for educated adults. Pima County, 

which has the highest percentage of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree, is home to the 

University of Arizona and a number of professional services and high-tech industries. Areas with 

more educated populations tend to be more resilient to economic changes. Changes to forest 

management, therefore, are less likely to affect the economic well-being of highly educated counties.

Forest Use

Table 120 reports Coronado National Forest visitor activity participation. Hiking/walking, viewing 

natural features, and viewing wildlife are activities in which more than half of Coronado National 

Forest visitors engage. Hiking/walking is the most common main activity (the primary purpose of the 

visit), followed by viewing natural features, driving for pleasure, and relaxing.

These findings suggest that Coronado National Forest visitors engage in a diverse range of activities, 

including both motorized and nonmotorized uses in developed and undeveloped areas.

Table 120. Percentage of participation in various activities on the Coronado National Forest

Activity

Participate in 

Activity (Percent)

Participate as Main 

Activity (Percent)

Average Hours

Participation

Hiking/Walking 75.6 52.1 2.7

Viewing Natural Features 67.4 9.3 2.6

Viewing Wildlife 65.9 4.6 2.8

Relaxing 45.9 5.3 7.7

Driving for Pleasure 23.8 6.0 2.8

Nature Center Activities 17.2 0.8 1.7

Nature Study 15.7 0.7 2.1

Picnicking 12.8 3.3 3.4

Visiting Historic Sites 8.5 0.6 2.5

Some Other Activity 6.9 4.5 2.2

Developed Camping 6.4 3.5 29.9

Off-highwayVehicle Use 4.5 1.1 3.8

Fishing 3.7 2.5 6.7

Hunting 3.2 3.1 12.4
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

393

Activity

Participate in 

Activity (Percent)

Participate as Main 

Activity (Percent)

Average Hours

Participation

Motorized Trail Activity 3.2 1.3 2.2

Primitive Camping 3.1 0.7 22.7

Gathering Forest Products 2.7 0.2 3.0

Bicycling 1.9 1.1 4.6

Backpacking 0.9 0.1 73.9

Other Nonmotorized 0.7 0.1 8.3

Nonmotorized Water 0.5 0.0 0.0

Resort Use 0.5 0.0 30.0

Other Motorized Activity 0.5 0.3 1.1

Horseback Riding 0.1 0.0 2.7

No Activity Reported 0.0 0.1 --

Snowmobiling 0.0 0.0 0.0

Motorized Water Activities 0.0 0.0 0.0

Downhill Skiing 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cross-country Skiing 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: USDA FS 2012 (National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey)

Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898. This order directs Federal agencies to 

focus attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income 

communities. The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately 

high, and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations 

(see glossary, page 444 for specific definitions).

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal agency 

decision makers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with respect to 

minority and low-income populations and identify alternatives that would avoid or mitigate those 

impacts. The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy 

environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has interpreted health effects with a 

broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or social 

impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, or Indian Tribes ... when those impacts 

are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (CEQ 1997).

Table 121 shows the poverty rate for the planning area counties, Arizona, New Mexico, and the U.S. 

Most planning area counties have poverty rates above the State and national rates. Pinal County is the 

sole exception, where 13.5 percent of the residents live below the poverty rate. This is below both the 

State and national poverty rates. Graham, Hidalgo, and Santa Cruz Counties have the highest poverty 

rates, with more than one-fifth of the population living below the poverty rate. Environmental justice 

issues are more likely to arise in these counties and management actions that could negatively affect 

the economic well-being of Graham, Hidalgo, and Santa Cruz Counties merit particular scrutiny.

Table 122 breaks down race and ethnicity for each of the six counties. Data for Arizona, New Mexico, 

and the U.S. are also included to enable comparisons. All planning area counties have a larger 

percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents than the Nation; however, this trend is also present in both 

New Mexico and Arizona. Santa Cruz and Hidalgo Counties have sizable Hispanic/Latino
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

394

populations, even relative to their states’ percentages. Graham and Pinal Counties have the largest 

percentages of American Indian/Alaska Native residents.

Table 121. Poverty rate, 2010, in the Coronado National 

Forest planning area

Location Poverty Rate

Cochise County (AZ) 15.7

Graham County (AZ) 20.0

Hidalgo County (NM) 22.6

Pima County (AZ) 16.4

Pinal County (AZ) 13.5

Santa Cruz County (AZ) 25.2

Arizona 15.3

New Mexico 18.4

United States 13.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP03

Table 122. Race and ethnicity in the Coronado National Forest planning area and at larger 

geographic scales

Location White Black

American 

Indian/Alaska 

Native Asian

Hawaiian 

/ Pacific 

Islander

Some 

Other 

Race

Two or

More 

Races

Hispanic 

or Latino

Cochise County, AZ 78.5 4.2 1.2 1.9 0.3 9.9 4.0 32.4

Graham County, AZ 72.1 1.8 14.4 0.5 0.1 8.2 2.8 30.4

Hidalgo County, NM 85.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.0 11.0 1.8 56.6

Pima County, AZ 74.3 3.5 3.3 2.6 0.2 12.3 3.7 34.6

Pinal County, AZ 72.4 4.6 5.6 1.7 0.4 11.5 3.8 28.5

Santa Cruz County, 

AZ

73.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.0 22.9 2.0 82.8

Arizona 73.0 4.1 4.6 2.8 0.2 11.9 3.4 29.6

New Mexico 68.4 2.1 9.4 1.4 0.1 15.0 3.7 46.3

United States 72.4 12.6 0.9 4.8 0.2 6.2 2.9 16.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP-1

Economic Conditions and Trends

Employment and Income

Employment and income data are key measures of the economic well-being of a local area. All 

counties in the planning area have a median household income below the median for their state and 

the Nation. Table 123 lists the median household income for planning area counties, Arizona, New 

Mexico, and the U.S. Hidalgo and Santa Cruz Counties have the lowest median household incomes, 

which is consistent with their low educational attainment rates, relatively high poverty rates, and 

concentration of minority residents.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

395

Table 123. Median household income by county in the Coronado National 

Forest planning area

Location Median Household Income (2010)

Cochise County (AZ) $44,876

Graham County (AZ) $41,683

Hidalgo County (NM) $36,733

Pima County (AZ) $45,521

Pinal County (AZ) $51,310

Santa Cruz County (AZ) $36,519

Arizona $50,448

New Mexico $43,820

United States $51,914

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, table DP03

The relatively low median household income across the planning area suggests that residents may be 

more vulnerable to economic changes. Lower median household incomes correspond with fewer 

household assets to allow consumption smoothing during difficult economic circumstances. Economic 

consequences must be considered in the local context—a small absolute change in income will have a 

relatively larger effect in poorer areas.

Nonlabor income includes investment income (i.e., dividends, interest, and rent) and transfer 

payments (e.g., Medicare and unemployment insurance benefits). Nonlabor income accounts for a 

higher percentage of total personal income in all planning area counties than it does in either the states 

or the Nation. Table 124 displays the role of labor and nonlabor income in total personal income for 

1970 and 2009. The role of nonlabor income has increased across all considered geographies since 

1970. However, the change has been most dramatic in the planning area. In 1970, nonlabor income 

accounted for only 18 percent of total personal income in Cochise County. By 2009, however, this 

figure had more than doubled to 43 percent. Similarly, substantial changes occurred in other planning 

area counties. For Arizona, New Mexico, and the United States, the change in nonlabor income has 

been less pronounced.

Table 124. Percent contribution of labor and nonlabor income to total personal income, 1970 and 

2009, in the Coronado National Forest planning area

Location 1970 Labor 1970 Nonlabor 2009 Labor 2009 Nonlabor 

Cochise County (AZ) 82 18 57 43

Graham County (AZ) 76 24 50 50

Hidalgo County (NM) 77 23 56 44

Pima County (AZ) 71 29 55 45

Pinal County (AZ) 80 20 60 40

Santa Cruz County (AZ) 73 27 51 49

Arizona 74 26 62 38

New Mexico 78 22 62 38

United States 77 23 65 35

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2011a, REIS table CA05N
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

396

Nonlabor income is not tied directly to employment; therefore, it can be more resistant to economic 

downturns. However, as the most recent recession demonstrated, asset markets can be quite volatile, 

and nonlabor income that depends on investment returns may be unstable. 

The increase in nonlabor income reflects the changing demographic profile of the planning area. 

Retirees rely on nonlabor income, including age-based transfer payments (e.g., Social Security and 

Medicare) and investment earnings. High percentages of nonlabor income likely indicate higher 

concentrations of retirees. If the influx of retirees into the planning area continues, the growing role of 

nonlabor income in the economy can also be expected to continue. Older users may have different 

needs and preferences. Retirees have more leisure time than working-age adults have and may, 

therefore, be avid national forest users. Retirees are also more likely to have mobility concerns, which 

make easily accessible sites more important. The demographic and economic characteristics of 

planning area residents will mediate the consequences of management actions. 

The communities of southeastern Arizona and, to a lesser extent, southwestern New Mexico, have 

long been dependent upon the Coronado’s natural resources for commodity production, tourism, 

traditional use, and aesthetic enjoyment. Table 125 displays the economic contribution of activities on 

the Coronado National Forest to the local economy.

Overall, Forest Service activities on the Coronado are responsible for approximately 0.2 percent of 

total employment (1,226 jobs) and 0.15 percent of labor income ($43 million) in the 6-county area. 

Government, lodging and food services, retail trade, and agriculture support the most jobs related to 

the Coronado. The discrepancy between national forest-related jobs relative to labor income (0.2 

percent versus 0.15 percent) indicates that jobs related to national forest activities compensate less 

than jobs not related to such activities. The high concentration of jobs in the retail trade, agriculture, 

and accommodation and food services industries is consistent with the discrepancy. Many jobs in 

these industries use low-skilled labor, seasonal labor, or both. Therefore, jobs in these industries 

provide lower wages than jobs in other industries.

Livestock production is an extensive and historic use of public lands in Arizona both on and off the 

Coronado. Although the number of grazing permittees on the Coronado has been stable since 2001, 

the number of cattle permitted to graze national forest land has decreased. This change was the result 

of adjustments to permits made as part of an adaptive management strategy to conserve natural 

resources. Livestock production on public lands has also been associated with nonmarket values, such 

as open space and ecological services (see “Revision Topic 4”). 

The collection of forest products also provides market and nonmarket values. Products include, but are 

not limited to, fuelwood, sawtimber, ferns, and beargrass. Collection of forest products is a relatively 

minor use on the Coronado National Forest. However, the collection of certain forest products, such as 

beargrass, is quite significant to the traditional and cultural practices of Native Americans. In addition 

to collecting, forest products are often offered as a byproduct of other management activities, such as 

vegetation management. 

With a recent trend in the market value of minerals and metals, commercial mining activity has 

increased in Arizona, including requests for approval to explore and mine on the Coronado. Despite 

this trend, the Coronado has recommended the withdrawal of several areas from mineral entry in order 

to protect and preserve their natural resource values and integrity. Mining activity on the Coronado is 

addressed in detail in the “Minerals” section of this document.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

397

Table 125. Economic contribution by sector in the Coronado National Forest planning area

Industry

Employment 

(jobs)

Labor Income 

(thousands of 

2009 dollars)

Output 

(thousands of 

2009 dollars)

Area

Totals

FS

Related

Area

Totals

FS

Related Area Totals

FS

Related

Agriculture 7,881 58 $192,851 $838 $1,265,853 $9,066

Mining 4,118 0 $451,206 $8 $2,359,341 $81

Utilities 2,888 3 $283,799 $351 $1,451,849 $1,793

Construction 35,423 6 $1,709,314 $315 $4,687,514 $634

Manufacturing 29,630 18 $2,498,139 $553 $12,956,414 $6,044

Wholesale Trade 13,815 30 $829,141 $1,811 $2,234,724 $4,881

Transportation and

Warehousing

14,544 19 $635,164 $816 $1,700,535 $2,034

Retail Trade 70,530 108 $2,069,147 $2,938 $4,833,536 $7,604

Information 9,966 11 $472,642 $456 $2,711,087 $2,735

Finance and Insurance 23,099 15 $902,422 $600 $3,510,501 $2,431

Real Estate and Rental and

Leasing

23,120 18 $639,302 $497 $8,384,408 $6,047

Prof, Scientific, and Tech 

Services

39,566 35 $2,430,513 $1,663 $4,723,496 $5,633

Management of Companies 3,127 3 $193,263 $192 $509,802 $506

Administration, Waste Mgmt.,

and Removal Services

40,238 25 $1,248,329 $744 $2,510,247 $1,523

Educational Services 6,638 5 $189,332 $145 $355,703 $277

Health Care and Social 

Assistance

68,877 41 $3,267,727 $1,968 $6,148,271 $3,656

Arts, Entertainment, and 

Recreation

11,507 56 $212,096 $1,337 $707,766 $5,223

Accommodation and Food 

Services

45,089 424 $900,076 $9,979 $2,688,780 $29,765

Other Services 36,593 30 $832,785 $712 $2,090,966 $1,805

Government 136,165 321 $8,892,563 $17,732 $11,264,448 $7,038

Other $0 $14,246

Total 622,813 1,226 28,849,810 43,654 $77,095,242 $113,021

Forest Service as 

Percent of Total

– 0.20% – 0.15% – 0.15%

Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2008

FS = Forest Service

Economic Diversity

Economic diversity generally promotes stability and greater employment opportunities. Highly 

specialized economies (i.e., those that depend on very few industries for the bulk of employment and 

income) are prone to cyclical fluctuations and offer more limited job opportunities. Determining the 

degree of specialization in an economy is important for decision makers, particularly when the 

dominant industry can be affected by changes in policy. For Forest Service decision makers, this is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

398

likely to be the case where the forest products industry or the tourism and recreation industries, for 

instance, are reliant on the local national forest. 

Figure 10 provides a breakdown of employment by industry in the study area. The study area 

economy is quite diverse, with no single sector dominating the local economy. Government, retail 

trade, and the health and social services sectors are the largest employment sectors in the local 

economy. These industries are consistent with findings discussed in the demographic section; namely 

a substantial government presence due to public land management, a large retiree population that 

consumes health and social services, and amenities that attract tourists who contribute to the retail 

trade sector.

Figure 10. Employment by industry in the Coronado National Forest planning area

(Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2009)

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project identified communities that were 

specialized with respect to employment. This method is applied here using the ratio of the percent 

employment in each industry in the region of interest (study area) to an average percent of 

employment in that industry for a larger reference area (Arizona). For a given industry, when the 

percent employment in the analysis region is greater than in the reference area, local employment 

specialization exists in that industry (USDA FS 1998a). Using this criterion applied with 2009 data, 

the study area can be characterized as specialized with respect to several industries, particularly 

government, mining, and utilities (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2009). Figure 11 provides the 

employment specialization index for all industries in study area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

399

Whereas figure 10 considers the study area in isolation, figure 11 compares industry concentration in 

study area to the state as a whole. The numbers on the x-axis (horizontal) of figure 11 show the degree 

of specialization in the local economy. A score of one indicates that the study area and the State are 

equally specialized in the sector. A score above one indicates that the study area is more specialized in 

the sector than the State. A score below one indicates that the study area is less specialized in the 

sector than the State. As the two figures demonstrate, these two methods of data analysis can suggest 

quite different results. Mining accounts for just 1 percent of employment in the study area—a 

relatively modest figure until it is put in the context of the State. A resident of the study area is more 

likely to be employed in the mining sector compared to residents of Arizona as a whole.

Figure 11. Employment specialization in the Coronado National Forest planning area

(Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2009)

Government employment in the study area is large in both absolute and relative terms: it accounts for 

the largest percentage of employment in the study area, and it accounts for a higher proportion of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

400

employment in the study area relative to the State. Public lands (national forests, national parks, BLM 

managed public lands, and state owned lands), military installations, and tribal lands are present 

throughout the study area. The study area also has a large number of State and local government 

employees—approximately 80 percent of government employees in Arizona work for State or local 

government (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2011b). All of these features contribute to a relatively 

large government presence.

Payments to States and Counties

The Forest Service makes payments to states and counties that contain national forest lands. These 

payments fall into two categories: payments in lieu of taxes53 (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act of 200054 (SRSCS) payments. Table 126 displays the payments to 

counties from the Coronado National Forest. 

Table 126. Payments to states and counties in the planning area by the Coronado National Forest 

Location SRSCS (FY09) PILT (FY10) Total FS Payments

Cochise County (AZ) $619,188.40 $1,011,056.48 $1,630,244.88

Graham County (AZ) $921,101.56 $949,891.84 $1,870,993.40

Hidalgo County (NM) $134,860.77 $57,026.22 $191,886.99 

Pima County (AZ) $436,531.80 $682,364.33 $1,118,896.13

Pinal County (AZ) $50,304.92 $39,938.47 $90,243.39 

Santa Cruz County (AZ) $839,839.96 $312,144.52 $1,151,984.48

Coronado NF $3,001,827.41 $3,052,421.86 $6,054,249.27

SRSCS = Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act; PILT = payment in lieu of taxes; FS = Forest 

Service (Source: USDA FS 2010 and Department of Interior PILT 2010)

Federal agencies do not pay property taxes; therefore, payments in lieu of taxes are distributed to 

counties to compensate for the local services that support activities on Federal lands. These services 

include law enforcement, road maintenance, and fire departments. SRSCS payments are intended to 

improve public schools, maintain infrastructure, improve the health of watersheds and ecosystems, 

protect communities, and strengthen local economies.

Communities – Environmental Consequences

The previous sections reported past and current social and economic conditions. The following section 

will consider the potential consequences of alternative management scenarios on the social and 

economic environment, in accordance with the 1982 Planning Rule. Section 219.12(h) of the 1982 

rule directs the planning team to “evaluate the significant physical, biological, economic, and social 

effects of each management alternative that is considered in detail. The evaluation shall include a 

comparative analysis of the aggregate effects of the management alternatives and shall compare 

present net value, social and economic impacts, outputs of goods and services, and overall protection 

and enhancement of environmental resources.” 

 

53 P.L. 94-565, 1976

54 P.L. 106-393
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

401

Economic Impact Analysis

Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0.55 Data on use levels under 

each alternative were collected from the Coronado’s resource specialists. In most instances, the 

precise change is unknown. Therefore, the changes are based on the professional expertise of the 

Coronado’s resource specialists (1982 rule, 219.12(g)). 

Regional economic impacts are estimated based on the assumption of full implementation of each 

alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on individuals taking advantage of the 

resource-related opportunities that would be supported by each alternative. If market conditions or 

trends in resource use were not conducive to developing some opportunities, the economic impact 

would be different than estimated here. 

Economic impact analysis estimates the employment and labor income consequences of Forest 

Service management actions. Current management of the Coronado contributes approximately 1,226 

jobs and $44.5 million dollars in labor income to the economy of the 6-county area. Table 127 and 

table 128 identify the estimated jobs and income associated with each alternative. Under all 

alternatives, no significant change to the economic impact of national forest management (see table 

127) is anticipated.

The consistency of employment and income effects between alternatives does not indicate that 

management would be consistent between alternatives. Alternative 1 proposes an increase in the acres 

of recommended wilderness areas, and alternative 2 would increase motorized recreation 

opportunities. However, in economic terms, these actions are not expected to create a net change in 

employment or income in the local economy. 

For instance, different recreation emphases (i.e., wilderness recreation or motorized use) are not 

expected to cause a change in the amount of recreation that occurs on the Coronado National Forest. 

However, these management actions are expected to change the distribution of recreational uses (e.g., 

more motorized use and less nonmotorized use under alternative 2). Analysis of visitor expenditure 

profiles revealed that differences in visitor expenditures between recreational use types are generally 

not statistically significant (White and Stynes 2010). In other words, a change in the distribution of 

recreational use would not lead to a difference in local economic effects. 

As noted under the “Affected Environment” heading, activities on the Coronado account for 

approximately 0.2 percent of employment in the study area. Labor income includes employee 

compensation (i.e., salaries and wages paid to employees) and proprietors’ income (i.e., business 

owners’ income). Forest-related labor income accounts for 0.15 percent of labor income in the study 

area.

 

55 IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) is an input-output model which estimates the economic impacts of 

projects, programs, policies, and economic changes on a region. IMPLAN analyzes the direct, indirect, and induced 

economic impacts. Direct economic impacts are generated by the activity itself, such as the value of cattle grazed on 

the forest. Indirect employment and labor income contributions occur when a sector purchases supplies and services 

from other industries in order to produce their product. Induced contributions are the employment and labor income 

generated as a result of spending new household income generated by direct and indirect employment. The 

employment estimated is defined as any part-time, seasonal, or full-time job. In the economic impact tables, direct, 

indirect, and induced contributions are included in the estimated impacts. The IMPLAN database describes the 

economy in 440 sectors using Federal data from 2008. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

402

Table 127. Comparison of total Forest Service-related jobs by alternative and resource area

Resource No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Recreation: nonlocal only 680 680 680 680

Wildlife and Fish: nonlocal only 64 64 64 64

Grazing 107 107 107 107

Timber 0 0 0 0

Minerals 0 0 0 0

Ecosystem Restoration 2 2 2 2

Payments to States/Counties 55 55 55 55

Forest Service Expenditures 363 363 363 363

Total Forest Management 1,271 1,271 1,271 1,271

Source: IMPLAN 2008

Table 128. Comparison of Forest Service-related income by alternative and resource area*

Resource No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Recreation: nonlocal only $20,336 $20,336 $20,336 $20,336

Wildlife and Fish: nonlocal only $2,019 $2,019 $2,019 $2,019

Grazing $1,883 $1,883 $1,883 $1,883

Timber $0 $0 $0 $0

Minerals $0 $0 $0 $0

Ecosystem Restoration $69 $69 $69 $69

Payments to States/Counties $2,603 $2,603 $2,603 $2,603

Forest Service Expenditures $17,548 $17,548 $17,548 $17,548

Total Forest Management $44,458 $44,458 $44,458 $44,458

* Measured in thousands of 2009 dollars (source: IMPLAN 2008)

Financial Efficiency Analysis

A financial efficiency analysis, which is a type of cost-benefit analysis, was completed using the 

program QuickSilver Version 6.56 Input to this financial efficiency analysis incorporated Forest 

Service program revenues and expenditures. This analysis does not account for all costs and benefits 

of forest management—in order for the Coronado to meet adaptive management objectives, the new 

plan will not prescribe specific management activities. This allows the flexibility to manage resources 

under ever-changing environmental conditions. 

The current resource programs managed by the Coronado generate revenue from sale of forest 

products, permits for various activities, and leases for minerals. The programs generating revenue are 

recreation, range, minerals, and timber. 

Table 129 presents the expected annual revenue and expenditures. The figures are based on 3-year 

averages (fiscal years 2009 to 2011) to reduce the effect of year-to-year variations. No alternative is 

 

56 QuickSilver is a financial efficiency analysis tool that compares the anticipated Forest Service expenditures and 

revenues, by alternative, over the life of the forest plan. Refer to the socioeconomic specialist report, located in the 

project record, for further details.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

403

expected to alter the expenditure streams. While the type of expenditures is likely to vary between 

alternatives, the sum of expenditures is not expected to change. 

Table 129. Expected annual revenue and expenditures from 

Coronado National Forest management

Resource Program Revenue Expenditures

Grazing $225,990 $925,692

Recreation $331,600 $2,999,963

Minerals $0 $269,953

Timber $17,600 $159,449

Land Use/Power $352,157 $288,840

For instance, how recreation funding is disbursed would differ between alternative 1, which 

emphasizes wilderness recreation, and alternative 2, which emphasizes motorized recreation. In 

addition, Federal budget allocations will be the chief determinant of Forest Service expenditures. 

Changes in management between alternatives are unlikely to drive future differences in expenditures. 

Due to the uncertainty of future budgets, it is not possible to predict changes in future expenditures.

In summary, the expenditures do not vary between alternatives because (1) changes in national forest 

management would shift expenditures, not change the net amount and (2) Federal budget allocations 

will be the chief determinant of future expenditures. Federal budget allocations will not be affected as 

a result of Coronado National Forest management actions. 

The revenue streams do not change between alternatives for the same reason that economic impacts do 

not vary. Different management emphases (e.g., wilderness or motorized recreation) may shift 

revenue, but is not expected to change net revenue. If national forest management makes motorized 

recreation more attractive, but nonmotorized recreation less attractive, some recreation receipts would 

increase while others decrease. This would not change the net revenue coming in to the Coronado. 

Nevertheless, the consistency among the financial efficiency figures does not indicate a lack of 

variation between alternatives. Present net value (PNV) is the discounted sum of benefits minus the 

discounted sum of costs. A federally prescribed discount rate of 4 percent is used in this analysis 

(Forest Service Manual 1900). Inflation is also a variable that can affect the present net values 

associated with each alternative. However, due to the uncertainty of future inflation, OMB Circular A94 recommends the avoidance of making assumptions about the inflation rate whenever possible. 

Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, inflation is left at zero.

Table 130 provides present net values in dollars by alternative. No alternative is expected to affect the 

value of Forest Service receipts. Any change in program revenues would occur as a result of supply 

and demand, based on tastes and preferences of stakeholders in the study area. This would occur 

regardless of the chosen alternative. Therefore, the same revenue streams used for the no-action 

alternative are assumed to carry though under the action alternatives. As explained above, the 

differences between alternatives are unlikely to affect Forest Service expenditures. Therefore, the 

present value of costs is consistent across alternatives.

Table 130. Summary of present net value, present-value benefits, and present-value costs by 

alternative

Present Net Value No Action Proposed Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Present Net Value ($46,144,923) ($46,144,923) ($46,144,923) ($46,144,923)

Present Value-Benefits $9,057,377 $9,057,377 $9,057,377 $9,057,377

Present Value-Costs ($55,202,300) ($55,202,300) ($55,202,300) ($55,202,300)

Source: QuickSilver 2010
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

404

Social Impact Analysis

The social impacts analysis uses the baseline social conditions reported earlier, the Coronado National 

Forest National Visitor Use Monitoring profile (USDA FS 2012) and information from the economic 

and social sustainability assessment (USDA FS 2008c) to discern the primary values that the 

Coronado provides to area residents and visitors. 

Social effects are measured in terms of the interaction of identified values with estimated changes to 

resource availability and uses. The sky islands of the Coronado are known for their unique natural and 

cultural resources. Area residents and visitors attach numerous values to the Coronado National 

Forest. For some, National Forest System lands provide economic opportunities in rural communities. 

To others, the Coronado National Forest is valued for leisure. These generalized classifications, 

however, do not capture the nuances of peoples’ values. Furthermore, many individuals are likely to 

rely on the Coronado National Forest for both economic opportunities and leisure pursuits. 

A number of social values have been identified with Southwestern Region forests, including: (1) 

preservation of open space, (2) protection of ecosystem service and other national forest-related 

amenity values, (3) economic opportunities from both commodity and noncommodity sources, (4) 

accessible and varied outdoor recreation opportunities, and (5) traditional tribal uses, such as gathering 

boughs and visiting sacred sites (USDA FS 2008c). Lands recommended for wilderness is the main 

source of potential social and economic variation among the alternatives. 

Most of the land in the study area is publicly owned (Arizona Department of Commerce 2008). This 

suggests that Forest Service decisions, and other Federal actions, may have a substantial effect on 

social and economic well-being of the communities in the study area, such as providing recreational 

opportunities, clean water and healthy ecosystems, and employment. 

Table 131 lists the acres most likely to support nonmarket and ecosystem service values on the 

Coronado National Forest by alternative. Designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, wilderness 

study areas, very high scenic integrity values, primitive recreation opportunities, and eligible wild and 

scenic river segments serve as a proxy for relatively undisturbed areas that contribute to resource 

protection values. Loomis and Richardson (2001) identify numerous values related to wilderness and 

other protected lands, including increases in amenity-based migration, education and research 

activities, and individual and community health benefits. 

Alternative 1 is expected to appeal to people and groups who seek additional primitive recreation 

opportunities, the protection of national forest resources, or both, as it has the greatest acreage with 

related values. The proposed action provides the second-highest acreage, followed by alternative 2 and 

no action. 

Table 131. Nonmarket value areas of the Coronado National Forest, acres by alternative

Nonmarket Values No Action

Proposed 

Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Designated Wilderness, Recommended 

Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas

430,824 457,090 593,742 457,090

Visual Quality Objective: Preservation/Scenic 

Integrity Objective: Very High 

399,604 425,865 598,739 399,608

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: Primitive 120,723 510,630 510,630 510,630

Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segments 26,412 26,412 26,412 26,412
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

405

Environmental Justice

Forest management is most likely to affect low income and minority groups in Graham, Hidalgo, 

Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties. Particular attention is paid to the above identified counties, due to the 

higher percentages of low income and minority residents.

The study area has large shares of minority residents and high poverty rates. These findings raise the 

likelihood of observing disproportionate adverse effects to low income residents, minority residents, 

or both. However, an analysis of the decisions to be made under the alternatives did not identify 

environmental justice consequences. Since all alternatives continue to support similar levels of 

employment and income, none of the decisions is expected to exacerbate the poverty rate or 

disproportionately worsen the economic well-being of low-income individuals. None of the 

alternatives is expected to disproportionately adversely affect racial minority individuals, ethnic 

minority individuals, or both.

No Action

The no-action alternative would support approximately 1,271 jobs and $44.5 million in labor income 

in the local economy on an average annual basis. Table 127 and table 128 detail the breakdown of 

employment and income by resource area. Among national forest uses, recreation is the largest 

contributor to employment and income in the local economy, accounting for approximately 50 percent 

of the Coronado National Forest’s economic impact. 

The present net value of the no-action alternative is estimated to be negative $46,144,923. This figure 

is the discounted sum of program revenues minus program expenditures over a 15-year period. The 

present net value is estimated to be equivalent across all alternatives.

The no-action alternative does not provide climate change direction. As a result, this alternative does 

not systematically respond to climate change, which may make forest resources more vulnerable to 

disturbances and may cause resource conditions to depart further from desired conditions. Vegetative 

vulnerability can lead to disruptions in forest product markets, reduce forage availability, change 

water supply, and degrade recreation opportunities. These consequences could change resource 

availability and use on the Coronado, which would alter the economic effects estimated above. For 

example, higher frequency and intensity of drought could reduce grazing-related employment and 

income.

Proposed Action

According to the economic impact analysis, the proposed action is predicted to have the same 

economic effect as the no-action alternative. Table 127 and table 128 provide the estimated jobs and 

income supported by national forest management under the proposed action. Recreation, Forest 

Service expenditures, and grazing are the largest contributors to employment from Forest Service 

activities. Recreation, Forest Service expenditures, and payments to states/counties are the largest 

contributors to labor income from Forest Service activities. While grazing accounts for approximately 

twice as many jobs as payments to states and counties, its contribution to labor income is lower due to 

the relatively low-wage nature of many jobs in the agriculture sector. 

The stream of benefits and costs is also expected to remain the same under the proposed action. Table 

130 shows that the present net value of the proposed action is negative $46,144,923. This figure may 

be affected by the specific projects that are implemented. However, information on potential projects 

is not currently available. Future project-level National Environmental Policy Act analyses may 

provide more detailed efficiency analyses.

The proposed action recommends specific management approaches to improve resource resiliency to 

climate change. This direction may decrease climate related threats to socioeconomic well-being in 

the plan area, including the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire to human health and property. Direction 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

406

that improves resource resiliency would better preserve the economic and social values of the 

Coronado, such as the local economic activity that results from visitor spending and livestock grazing.

Changes to national forest visits and uses are unlikely to result in economic consequences under the 

proposed action compared to current conditions, and diverse opportunities will remain on the 

Coronado. 

Alternative 1

The primary difference between alternative 1 and the proposed action is its increased emphasis on 

wilderness character. Alternative 1 recommends 16 wilderness areas on the Coronado. However, 

along many measures, alternative 1 would continue current management. As with the proposed action, 

alternative 1 is not expected to change current conditions or trends. The economic effects of 

recreation, forest product and mineral extraction, and grazing on the Coronado are not expected to 

differ across alternatives. However, proponents may be hesitant to propose projects in recommended 

wilderness areas. The increase in recommended wilderness areas could cause fewer individuals to take 

advantage of economic opportunities on the Coronado, even if resource availability does not change. 

The observed employment and income consequences, therefore, may be lower than the effects 

estimated here. As table 127 and table 128 show, alternative 1 supports the same employment and 

income levels as the proposed action and the no-action alternative. 

The flow of costs and benefits of national forest management are expected to be the same as the 

proposed action and current conditions. Table 130 shows that the present net value of alternative 1 is 

negative $46,144,923.

Alternative 1 recommends specific management approaches to improve resource resiliency to climate 

change. This direction may decrease climate related threats to socioeconomic well-being in the plan 

area, including the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire to human health and property. Direction that 

improves resource resiliency would better preserve the economic and social values of the Coronado, 

such as the local economic activity that results from visitor spending and livestock grazing.

Numerous values have been associated with protected areas, such as those identified in table 127. 

Species habitat, nutrient cycling, and the cultural/spiritual values are several of the many ecosystem 

services and other nonmarket values that these areas provide. However, several factors on the 

Coronado National Forest complicate the assessment of the economic consequences of designated 

wilderness and other protected areas, namely: 

1. Relative scarcity – a number of protected areas already exist on the Coronado. The marginal 

value of each additional acre is expected to decrease. The marginal values are unknown, so a 

monetary estimate of value is not possible. 

2. The self-limiting nature of parts of the Coronado means that, in practice, many nondesignated 

areas are already protected from motorized access. In these instances, special resource 

protections are unlikely to add value. 

3. Potential unintended consequences may counteract the economic benefits. Several potential 

unintended consequences have been identified, which may degrade ecosystem health. 

Potential consequences include increased difficulty of trash pickup, increased difficulty of 

ecosystem restoration treatments, and increased difficulty of fuels management, which may 

increase the probability of catastrophic fires. The balance of tradeoffs is difficult to analyze 

given the presence of low probability high-cost events (e.g., catastrophic fire).

Despite this uncertainty, alternative 1 is expected to improve the quality of life of individuals who 

value the Coronado National Forest primarily for resource protection.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

407

Alternative 2

The primary difference between alternative 2 and the other alternatives is that it creates a larger 

Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone. However, along most measures, alternative 2 continues current 

management. As with the proposed action and alternative 1, alternative 2 is not expected to change 

current conditions or trends. The economic effects of recreation, forest product and mineral extraction, 

and grazing on the Coronado are not expected to differ across alternatives. However, proponents may 

be hesitant to propose projects in recommended wilderness areas. The increase in recommended 

wilderness areas could cause fewer individuals to take advantage of economic opportunities on the 

Coronado, even if resource availability does not change. The observed employment and income 

consequences, therefore, may be lower than the effects estimated here. As table 127 and table 128

show, alternative 2 supports the same employment and income levels as the proposed action, 

alternative 1, and the no-action alternative. 

The flow of costs and benefits of national forest management are expected to be the same as the other 

alternatives and current conditions. Table 130 shows that the present net value of alternative 2 is 

negative $46,144,923.

Alternative 2 provides limited climate change direction. As a result, this alternative does not 

systematically respond to climate change, which may make forest resources more vulnerable to 

disturbances and may cause resource conditions to depart further from desired conditions. Vegetative 

vulnerability can lead to disruptions in forest product markets, reduce forage availability, change 

water supply, and degrade recreation opportunities. These consequences could change resource 

availability and use on the Coronado, which would alter the economic effects estimated above. For 

example, higher frequency and intensity of drought could reduce grazing related employment and 

income.

Alternative 2 is expected to improve the quality of life of individuals who primarily value motorized 

national forest access. However, as all alternatives provide diverse and plentiful recreation 

opportunities, the social consequences of alternative 2 are not expected to meaningfully differ from 

the other alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

The geographic scope for the social and economic cumulative effects analysis is the six-county region 

identified in the “Affected Environment” section.57 This analysis considers how past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions on lands throughout the region may interact with decisions made 

under the proposed plan to affect the social and economic environment. The social and economic 

analysis of the proposed plan is unique among the resources and uses in that the effects occur 

primarily off the Coronado. In this way, the indirect effects described above are cumulative in nature –

they evaluate the role of Forest Service decisions under the proposed plan both on and off the 

Coronado National Forest. However, the indirect effects analysis does not address how actions taken 

on adjacent lands will affect the social and economic consequences of the proposed plan. Cumulative 

effects in this section are common to all alternatives.

The proposed plan would allow for mining activities under all alternatives. It is reasonably foreseeable 

that mining activities will increase on and near the Coronado National Forest. The Rosemont Copper 

Project will significantly expand mining activities within the social and economic analysis area. The 

spillover activities (e.g., increased employment in mining support activities) could lead to higher local 

employment from other mining activities that will occur under this project on the Coronado National 

Forest. 

 

57 Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties in Arizona and Hidalgo County in New Mexico.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

408

The recreation related effects identified in the social and economic environmental consequences 

section may be influenced by trends and activities that occur off the national forests. In fiscal year 

2010, Arizona State Parks closed 13 of its 28 parks. Although most of these parks have reopened, a 

number are open on a reduced schedule. Furthermore, the possibility of future closures remains due to 

ongoing budget uncertainty. The reduction in recreation opportunities on state lands may increase 

demand for recreation on the Coronado National Forest. Under all alternatives, the proposed plan 

supports diverse recreational opportunities on the forests. Increased recreational use on the Coronado 

National Forest would lead to a higher economic impact than predicted in the indirect effects 

discussion. However, other adjacent lands (Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and 

other National Forest System lands) continue to emphasize the provision of recreation opportunities in 

their land and resource management plans. These actions may counterbalance the consequences of 

reduced opportunities elsewhere in the State. 

Under the proposed plan, portions of the Coronado National Forest may provide a corridor to support 

reasonably foreseeable alternative energy development in the region. This could facilitate alternative 

energy development in the region, which would support local area employment.

Special Use Authorizations – Affected Environment

Currently, the Coronado National Forest administers over 620 special use authorizations for a wide 

variety of activities on National Forest System lands, including, but not limited to: outfitting and 

guiding, research, various types of utility lines, communications sites, road permits and easements, 

and recreation residences. Also included are permits for campground, marina and general store 

facilities, filming, and numerous recreation events. The Coronado also authorizes military, law 

enforcement, and Department of Homeland Security support activities using special use 

authorizations. 

Uses for which authorizations may be granted include, but are not limited to, those listed below:

• Privately owned improvements authorized 

for groups (such as organizational camps)

• Noncommercial, privately owned 

improvements authorized for individual 

use (such as recreation residences)

• Hotel, motel, and resort

• Concessions involving government owned 

improvements

• Recreation events

• Concession services (except outfitter and 

guide service)

• Outfitter and guide service

• Winter recreation

• Crops and agricultural improvements

• Range facilities not associated with a 

grazing permit

• Signs marking and preserving points of 

public interest

• Sanitary systems

• Service uses (including schools and public 

service buildings)

• Feasibility, site, and resource survey

• Research – research study

• Research – weather station

• Research – experimental and 

demonstration, weather modification

• Research – observatories

• Military training and education centers

• Cultural resources nondisturbing and 

disturbing use

• Treasure hunting

• Construction camps and residence

• Storage of timber and timber products, 

fuel, sand, gravel, ore, construction 

supplies, materials, equipment, highway 

department sheds and storage, and other 

items not an integral part of a use under 

another category

• Manufacturing

• Arts

• Sites related to timber activities on lands 

outside national forest

• Wind power facility

• Electric distribution 

• Electric transmission 

• Marine

• Railroads

• Pipeline – nonenergy related
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

409

• Tramway and conveyor

• Communication sites

• Telephone and telegraph lines

• Water transmission 

• Water impoundment

• Water development

• Water measurement

Special Land Uses

Because the Coronado is home to many unique species of fauna and flora, it attracts scientists from 

around the world, many of whom apply for a special use permit that authorizes them to conduct a 

variety of research studies on National Forest System lands. Special use permits are also issued by the 

Forest Service for land uses that support utility distribution and transmission lines in specific 

designated corridors at various locations on the Coronado. These provide (but are not limited to) 

telephone, fiber optic, electric, water, and gas services within an intermingled ownership of private 

and public lands. These include small-scale utilities as well, such as water systems managed by 

homeowners associations. Resource monitoring activities, such as weather stations, by State and 

Federal agencies is also authorized by special use permit.

Seven sites on the Coronado facilitate long-distance communications in southeastern Arizona under 

special use authorizations. Many road use permits and easements authorize ingress and egress to 

private inholdings within the national forest boundary. Easements are granted to State and/or county 

agencies as special use authorizations to maintain their roads on National Forest System land. Special 

use permits are issued to authorize facilities that support military training and surveillance and 

Department of Homeland Security (Border Patrol) surveillance facilities and road use.

Special Recreational Uses

The occupancy of National Forest System lands for the purpose of constructing family oriented, 

privately owned recreation residences was granted by the Act of March 4, 1915. Currently, 243

seasonally occupied recreation residences are permitted on 3 of 5 ranger districts on the Coronado. No 

authorizations are being granted for new residences.

Across the Coronado, special use permits establish terms and conditions for operation of campground, 

marina, and general stores in developed recreation areas.

On the Coronado, outfitter and guiding permits have been granted to service providers for, but are not 

limited to, the following recreational activities: bird watching, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, rock 

climbing, jeep and van touring, bicycling, and outdoor/environmental education. Outfitting and 

guiding services on the Coronado have noticeably increased over the past few decades. In 2010, 58 

outfitter and guide permits were authorized on the Coronado. Based on recent history, the demand for 

these permits is expected to increase. Traditional commercial guiding for large game and game bird 

hunting will continue but will most likely not increase substantially.

Suitability Criteria for Special Uses

The 1986 plan allows for the widest range of special use authorizations and permitted sites of all the 

alternatives. No suitability criteria were established for special uses in the 1986 plan. Thus, proposals 

for new special use permits undergo a general consistency review against the plan’s resource-based 

guidelines. Applications are accepted if the use meets the special uses screening criteria (36 CFR 251) 

and is determined to be consistent with the plan. The no-action alternative does not provide direction 

on a mechanism to set capacity limits or to determine what level of resource impacts is acceptable. 

In contrast to 1986 plan direction, the three action alternatives include components for management of 

special uses suitable in proposed land use zones, designated and recommended wilderness and 

research natural areas, and other special areas. Determinations of the suitability were made based on 

the desired conditions and standards and guidelines that apply to each zone or area. Table 144 in 

appendix G provides an example of suitability determinations of specific lands for selected special 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

410

uses. The table includes neither all potential special uses nor all areas of the Coronado for which 

special use permits may be requested. 

Suitability determinations are intended to balance public needs for national forest land use with public 

needs for recreational uses. For example, in the Developed Recreation Land Use Zone, outfitter/guide 

permits and recreation events are generally not suitable because they may constrain the use of this 

zone by the public. Exceptions may be made if the terms and conditions of a special use permit can 

mitigate an incompatibility.

Some special uses are suitable only in designated areas. Special use permits for communication sites, 

which may be suitable in several management areas or zones, are issued only for facilities at currently 

occupied communication sites. Thus, they would not be allowed to occur at random sites in 

management areas.

Certain special uses may be authorized by exception only when the use is unavoidable and/or would 

not result in a trend away from desired conditions. For instance, in the Wild Backcountry Land Use 

Zone, concessionaire managed government sites, electrical transmission lines, weather stations and 

experimental research are generally incompatible with the desired conditions for the zone. 

Authorization of the special use may be granted, if the only feasible site for it to be located lies within 

the Wild Backcountry Zone, if the scale of use can be minimized so it does not visibly alter the natural 

character of the zone, or both.

Special Use Authorizations – Environmental Consequences

No Action

Outfitter/guide permits would be issued in accordance with direction in the 1986 plan. The effects of 

these activities on forest resources are generally not adverse, and outfitter/guide permits are not 

renewed if an operator does not comply with terms and conditions of the permit. 

The 1986 plan would allow permits to be accepted without a capacity limit. Without a limit, various 

components of utility linear infrastructure, such as pipelines and power transmission lines, may 

become unwieldy in number, and depending on the location, their presence may increasingly disturb 

wildlife and disrupt the natural setting that supports scenic integrity and recreation activities.

Special land and recreation uses are governed by direction specific to individual resources and 

management areas in the 1986 plan. In general, effects on resources are minimized by mitigation and 

avoidance requirements specified in terms and conditions of permits that reflect standards and 

guidelines developed to conserve and preserve forest resources.

The 1986 plan provides no direction regarding management of resources to develop their adaptability 

and resiliency to climate change. Scientific predictions for the Southwest include atypical temperature 

and rainfall patterns that could adversely affect soils, water resources, vegetation, plant and wildlife 

species, and recreational settings (see the various resource headings under Topic 1 for specific effects 

of climate change). Degradation of resources may decrease the desirability of some areas for specific 

uses authorized by special use permits, such as outfitter and guide services. For example, changes in 

vegetation in riparian areas may reduce populations of species that attract bird watching and nature 

tours offered by outfitters and guides. 

Requests for special use permits for other special uses that do not depend on the integrity of natural 

resources, such as utility infrastructure, road use and maintenance, and siting and operation of 

communication sites, would not be expected to change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

411

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan under the proposed action establishes desired conditions, an objective, and 

standards and guidelines that apply to various types of special use authorizations. Desired conditions 

are as follows:

Special use activities on National Forest System lands provide needed services to 

communities that cannot be reasonably accommodated on non-Federal lands. These 

activities supplement and complement services that the Coronado provides. Any negative 

environmental, social, and visual impacts are minimized; the permit area and duration are 

the minimum necessary to accommodate the use.

Recreation-based special uses of the Coronado are widely dispersed in pattern and have minimal 

adverse effects on resources in specially designated areas and recreation settings. They are generally 

short term and, therefore, have a low potential for displacing other uses of national forest land. Even 

in wilderness, which has restrictions on motorized and mechanized activities, some special uses may 

be appropriate, depending on the proposed activity.

As reported for the no-action alternative, recreation activities authorized by special uses generally 

have minimal adverse effects on natural resources. Under improved direction in the revised forest 

plan, natural and recreation settings affected by special uses would be better conserved than under the 

1986 plan and would remain more intact in terms of habitat connectivity, scenery, and visitor 

experience.

Direction in the revised forest plan under the proposed action prohibits the following special uses on 

the Coronado: concessionaire operated private lodging (such as timeshares and hotels); long-term, 

full-time residences; religious facilities; fossil fueled power plants; and weighing and scaling stations. 

In the past, applications for these uses have not been approved because the actions could not meet 

screening criteria. The restrictions imposed under the proposed action would continue to constrain the 

type of permitted activities that would be approved in the future. 

Special conditions related to prohibited uses apply to 5 permanent residences on the Santa Catalina 

Ranger District near Oracle, Arizona, which were approved in the late 1940s as part of a benefit 

offered to World War II veterans; and a Native American religious facility on the Nogales Ranger 

District. The latter is specifically excluded from suitability requirements of the revised forest plan, 

which would allow it to continue to operate as long as permit terms and conditions continue to be met. 

The proposed action indicates that special use permits for these 5 residences would not be renewed 

upon their expiration in 2028. At that time, National Environmental Policy Act analysis and public 

comment would precede a decision to deny future permits for these residences. If the permits are 

terminated, these properties would be vacated following the appropriate procedures to notify the 

occupants, and the structures would be removed.

Desired conditions and management approaches specified on page 19 of the revised forest plan

encourage the adaptability and resilience of natural resources during ongoing climate change. Along 

with implementation of strategies for addressing climate change in appendix A of the revised forest 

plan, they would help to avoid adverse effects of atypical temperature and rainfall patterns on forest 

soils, water resources, vegetation, plant and wildlife species, and recreational settings (see “Topic 1” 

under various resource headings for more details about the specific effects of climate change). Thus, 

special uses that rely upon the integrity of natural resources and settings would remain desirable, and 

requests for permits for these activities would continue at or above current levels.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 includes the same components established in the revised forest plan under the proposed 

action with regard to special use authorizations. Effects on forest resources would likely be of the 

same nature as those described above for the proposed action. However, because alternative 1 

recommends more acreage for wilderness designation than all other alternatives, fewer acres would be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

412

available for special uses, and the potential for adverse effects would be lessened because of 

restrictions on motorized and mechanized uses in wilderness. 

Five additional ecosystem management areas on the Coronado would have acreage recommended for 

designation as wilderness areas under alternative 1. This would make siting of linear infrastructure 

across these landscapes more difficult, and would result in fewer and smaller scale projects of this 

type over the life of the forest plan.

Wilderness restrictions resulting from management under alternative 1 would require that 

outfitter/guide activities be conducted in the absence of motorized and mechanized vehicles on areas 

recommended for designation.

Climate change direction under alternative 1 would be the same as that of the proposed action. 

Therefore, the benefits to natural resources and recreation settings reported under the “Proposed 

Action” heading above would also be the same. Special uses that rely upon the integrity of natural 

resources and settings would remain desirable, and requests for permits for these activities would 

continue at or above current levels.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 includes the same direction established in the revised forest plan under the proposed 

action with regard to special use authorizations. Effects on Coronado National Forest resources would 

likely be the same as those described above for the proposed action. In addition, because of its 

emphasis on providing greater motorized recreation opportunities than the other alternatives, 

alternative 2 may encourage an increase in special use authorizations of outfitter/guide services for 

motorized recreation. This, however, has the potential to increase the intensity of effects of motorized 

use on natural resources.

Alternative 2 provides no direction regarding management of climate change. However, in appendix 

A, it includes strategies for addressing the natural disturbances resulting from climate change and their 

consequent effects. Alternative 2 would be slightly less effective than the proposed action and 

alternative 1 in maintaining the integrity of natural resources and settings, especially vegetation, water 

resources, and wildlife habitat. This may decrease the desirability of some areas for recreational uses 

authorized by special use permit, such as outfitter and guide services.

Cumulative Effects

Special uses are unique to the lands within the Coronado. However, the effects of authorized activities 

may—in combination with other past, present, and future uses of lands outside the Coronado—result 

in cumulative effects. The cumulative effects boundary for this analysis is the southwestern portion of 

Arizona in Pima, Pinal, Cochise, and Graham Counties, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. Effects on 

uses of national forest lands over the past 5 years and at present and those from activities proposed by 

others, are considered to be additive. 

Population growth in southern Arizona has increased demand for special uses related to public goods 

and services, such as utilities, in and around the Coronado. Bureau of Land Management and State 

lands in the surrounding area have seen an increase in the development of alternative energy facilities 

and infrastructure. These trends have increased demand for electrical transmission and distribution. 

Southern Arizona’s atmospheric conditions make it an area of high demand for development of 

astrophysical facilities; however, future demand for locating such facilities is unknown.

Popular recreational uses of the Coronado and adjacent areas are greater in the summer on the sky 

islands and more popular at lower elevations during the winter. This special use is likely to increase

correspondingly with population growth in southeastern Arizona.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

413

Direction under the no-action alternative is unlikely to affect the degree or location of special uses on 

the Coronado. Therefore, its contribution to cumulative effects with non-forest special uses is 

unlikely.

Recommendations for designation of wilderness and research natural areas under the proposed action 

and alternative 1 would prohibit certain uses on the Coronado or constrain where they are allowed to 

occur. As a consequence, outfitter/guide uses and recreation events and placement of utility 

infrastructure may be displaced to lands of other ownership. This may increase the cost of doing 

business to the service provider or utility and affect resources near, but outside the Coronado. 

Resource effects from outfitter/guide activities and recreational events are for the most part minimal. 

Considering the effects of such national forest activities together with those that are displaced outside 

the national forest, future cumulative effects are also expected to be minimal. This conclusion is based 

on the recognition that effects from each activity, if any, would be highly localized either within or 

outside the national forest. Thus, while both may occur within the boundaries of the cumulative effects 

analysis area, it is unlikely that both would affect the same localized resources at the same time.

Under the three action alternatives, special uses of land for private ingress and egress and for siting of 

private facilities would occur only in areas where the use is suitable. Therefore, such uses may be 

denied or displaced to locations outside the Coronado National Forest. Displacement may result in 

effects of varying degree outside the national forest, but these would offset the same effects that would 

have occurred on the national forest if these special uses were allowed.

The limited plan direction to manage resources against the effects of climate change under alternative 

2 may indirectly decrease the desirability of some areas for recreational uses authorized by special use 

permit, such as outfitter/guide services, especially if vegetation, water resources, wildlife habitat, or 

some combination of these things are degraded. Other special uses, such as utility infrastructure, road 

use and maintenance, and siting and operation of communication sites would not be affected.

Forest Products – Affected Environment

Common forest products available from the Coronado National Forest include sawlogs, fuelwood, 

cactus, and beargrass. Sawlogs and fuelwood are generally available as byproducts of forest 

restoration or forest fuels reduction projects. Other less common forest products include manzanita, 

ferns, and mushrooms. 

It is unclear how a changing climate may alter the availability of forest products in the future. Some 

species that are better adapted to drier climates may be more abundant, while others may become less 

abundant. An increased need for fuels reduction and restoration projects to restore ecosystem 

resilience may increase the availability of sawlogs and fuelwood during some periods.

Forest Products – Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives

Each alternative contains plan direction that the Coronado should provide a sustainable supply of 

forest products with consideration to multiple-use objectives and consistent with desired conditions. 

Under all alternatives, direction is that a sustainable supply of wood products (e.g., small roundwood, 

sawlogs, biomass, fuelwood) and other products (e.g., Christmas trees, beargrass, cactus, ferns, and 

fungi) be made available to the pubic within the capacity of the land to produce these goods. Forest 

products, especially those derived from wood fiber, would become available as a result of ecosystem 

restoration, habitat improvement, and fuels treatment projects. 

Forest products are expected to continue to be available in the future at the current rate, which is 

displayed in table 132 for several products. Although the 1986 plan identifies 5,000 acres of suitable 

timber, sawtimber availability has been low because of accessibility and feasibility of production (see 

appendix C). Availability is not expected to change under any alternative. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

414

Forest products available under all alternatives provide economic and cultural benefits in local 

communities and among Native American tribes. All alternatives would also include plan direction to 

make forest products, such as boughs and herbaceous plants, available to Native Americans for 

religious and traditional purposes.

Under all alternatives, forest product removal in special areas, such as wilderness areas, wilderness 

study areas, and recommended wilderness areas, would be permitted only for traditional collection. 

Collection in research natural areas is never permitted. The locations of forest products could vary by 

alternative over time depending on ecosystem conditions, ease of access, and restrictions associated 

with special area designations.

Table 132. Average annual quantities of forest product removal on the Coronado (5-year average)

Forest Product

Current 

Annual 

Removal

No 

Action

Proposed 

Action

Alternative

1

Alternative

2

Softwood sawtimber (CCF1) 16 16 16 16 16

Hardwood sawtimber (CCF) 0 0 0 0 0

Posts and poles (CCF) 1,062 1,062 1,062 1,062 1,062

Fuelwood (cords2) 1,436 1,436 1,436 1,436 1,436

Christmas Trees and other plants 

(each)

143 143 143 143 143

All other products (lbs.) 4,549 4,549 4,549 4,549 4,549

1. CCF=hundred cubic feet

2. A cord is defined as a stack of wood 8 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 4 feet high.

The sustainable supply of forest products available to surrounding communities and Native Americans 

would ensure the continuation of commercial, personal, and traditional uses of the Coronado. The 

removal of wood products would help support the local wood products industry and reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire in the forested communities and high-severity fire in the wildland-urban 

interface on the Coronado.

No Action

The no-action alternative lacks forest product-specific desired conditions. However, it does encourage 

forest product availability and removal in conjunction with prescriptive silvicultural practices directed 

at improving timber and wildlife habitat and reducing hazardous fuel loadings. 

The sustainability of forest products (that originate as vegetation) would likely decline under 

continued management under the 1986 plan, because it lacks management direction to develop 

resiliency and adaptation in resources to atypical temperature and rainfall patterns. Vegetation is 

particularly vulnerable to climate change. This could result in a decrease in the quantity of forest 

products. And, given scientific predictions of a warmer, drier climate in the Southwest, the 

accumulation of forest product may increase fuel loadings on the Coronado, which may increase the 

threat of uncharacteristic wildfire occurring.

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan under the proposed action provides specific direction for forest products, 

including desired conditions. Plan components promote the availability and removal of forest products 

as secondary to fuel reduction projects and ecosystem restoration activities.

Its inclusion of direction on climate change and a recommendation for designation of four additional 

wilderness areas and one research natural area have the potential to impact the availability and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

415

sustainability of forest products. Motorized access to and within recommended wilderness areas and 

the use of mechanized equipment therein, are not allowed, except under special circumstances that 

must be approved by the regional forester. Because of this, collection of forest products would have to 

occur on foot or by some other nonmotorized, nonmechanical means. This may affect the availability 

of forest products to the public, including Native Americans. In addition, in research natural areas, 

availability of some products may be limited or restricted because of studies ongoing or proposed in 

the area.

The proposed action includes a desired condition of maintaining forest product sustainability and 

availability during climate change. Plan direction that guides the management of resources to become 

resilient and adapt to climate change would help ameliorate adverse effects from atypical temperatures 

and rainfall patterns on forest products. Progress toward desired conditions, especially with regard to 

forest products that are vegetative in nature, would be expected.

Alternative 1

The effects of alternative 1 on forest products would, for the most part, be the same as those of the 

proposed action, except for those that result from its recommendation that much more acreage than the 

others be designated as wilderness. Motorized access to and within recommended wilderness areas 

and the use of mechanized equipment therein, are not allowed, except under special circumstances that 

must be approved by the regional forester. Because of this, collection of forest products would have to 

occur on foot or by some other nonmotorized, nonmechanical means. This would reduce forest plan 

collection opportunities on more acres than the other alternatives. However, many newly 

recommended wilderness areas currently have limited collection opportunities because of terrain and 

other access limitations. For these, additional restrictions on mechanized and motorized uses may not 

appreciably affect the availability of forest products. Alternative 1 includes direction on climate 

change, the effects of which are reported above under the proposed action.

Alternative 2

The type of effects of alternative 2 on forest products would be the same as the proposed action, with 

two exceptions. First, access for collection of forest products may increase over the other alternatives, 

because off-road vehicle travel would be permissible in designated Motorized Recreation Land Use 

Zones. An increase in forest product collection would decrease the quantity of fuels that contribute to 

uncharacteristic wildfire. Off-road access may also facilitate the collection of forest products by 

Native Americans for traditional uses. Second, alternative 2 provides only limited direction for 

management of resources to become resilient and adapt to climate change, including various 

vegetation communities. Because of this, the type and availability of forest products from vegetation 

sources may change and decline with corresponding negative effects of atypical temperatures and 

rainfall patterns. Secondary effects may occur with increased uncharacteristic wildfire and decreasing 

water available for sustaining plant growth.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary is identical to that which is defined in the “Vegetation Communities, 

Fuels and Fire” section under “Revision Topic 1” of this final environmental impact statement.

Cumulative effects on forest product availability and collection opportunities may result if, for any 

reason, their availability declines on other lands in the local area or region. If this happens, public 

demand for forest products may exceed availability on the Coronado. This may result in conflicts 

among those who collect and use forest products. 

When compared to the no-action alternative and the proposed action, alternative 1 has a slightly 

greater potential than the others to decrease collection opportunities for forest products, because of its 

restrictions on the use of motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment during harvest. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

416

Alternative 2 has a slightly higher potential to improve access to their collection because of its 

emphasis on motorized use.

Overall, the availability of forest products and opportunities for collection would not be affected 

additively by other actions outside the national forest, and cumulative effects are unlikely to result.

Mineral Resources – Affected Environment

Introduction

Public domain lands on the Coronado National Forest are available for exploration, development, and 

extraction of mineral resources except where lands have been withdrawn from mineral entry and 

discovery of a valuable mineral was not made prior to the withdrawal. Mineral exploration and mining 

activity on the Coronado falls into three federally recognized legal and regulatory mineral categories: 

1. Locatable: Locatable minerals are those that may be “located” with a mining claim58 under 

the General Mining Law of 1872 (Act of May 10, 1872 (17. Stat. 92; 30 U.S.C. 28)), as 

amended. Locatable minerals include, but are not limited to, gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, 

platinum, precious gems, uranium, bentonite, and chemical grade limestone. 

2. Salable: Also known as mineral materials, salable minerals include common variety mineral 

materials such as petrified wood, common varieties of sand, rock, stone, cinders, gravel, 

pumice, clay, most building stone, and other similar materials.

3. Leasable: According to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, leasable minerals 

include coal, phosphate, potassium, oil, oil shale, gas, and sodium resources that occur on 

public domain lands. The Mineral Leasing Act was amended to include minerals associated 

with lands acquired by the United States and, by the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, to 

include geothermal resources. Additionally, locatable minerals on acquired lands may fall 

under the Mineral Leasing Act; however, their leasing is at the discretion of the Forest 

Service and is subject to all standards and guidelines for other resources.

The Forest Service recognizes minerals are fundamental to the Nation’s well-being and, as policy, 

encourages the exploration and development of mineral resources on lands it is authorized to manage. 

The Agency’s role in managing mineral resources is to provide reasonable protection of surface 

resources while allowing use of the land for operations authorized by U.S. mining laws. To this end, 

the Secretary of Agriculture has authorized regulations (36 CFR 228) that ensure surface resource 

protection, while encouraging the orderly development of mineral resources on National Forest 

System lands.

Management of the Coronado’s minerals program supports the goal of environmentally sound energy 

and minerals development and reclamation; therefore, operations on the Coronado are required to be 

conducted to minimize adverse environmental impacts to National Forest System surface resources. 

Minerals-related proposals require site-specific analysis to evaluate compliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and with the forest plan. Where there are conflicts with direction in the forest plan 

regarding locatable and leasable mineral management, specific amendments to the forest plan may be 

considered on a project-by-project basis.

This environmental impact statement neither evaluates nor provides information in support of a 

decision to approve any mining-related activity (e.g., leasing) on the Coronado. The Forest Service 

itself generally does not initiate exploration or development of mineral or energy resources. Rather, 

proposals for access to, exploration for, and development of mineral resources are driven by external 

 

58 There are four types of claims: lode, placer, millsite, and tunnel. The Coronado National Forest contains thousands of 

active claims, primarily lode (hard rock) and placer (sedimentary deposits), that have been filed with the Bureau of 

Land Management.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

417

parties and market forces. As they are received and determined to be ready for consideration, 

individual proposals are evaluated on a site-specific basis and mitigated individually under a separate 

NEPA review that follows Forest Service policy regarding the approval of mineral plans of operation.

Regulatory Framework

Minerals management on National Forest System lands is subject to laws, regulations, and Forest 

Service policies in the Forest Service Manual 2800, Forest Service Handbook 2800, and 36 CFR Part 

228. These include the following.

Locatable Minerals

The Forest Service is obligated to process, administer, and manage mining operations on National 

Forest System lands that are conducted under the authorities of the following laws and regulations: 

The U.S. Mining Laws of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91 as amended 30 U.S.C. 31-54), the Organic 

Administration Act of 1897 (Ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 477-482, 551), and Public Law 

91-631, entitled the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. Regulations promulgated on September 

1, 1974, enacted 36 CFR 228 Subpart A, which “sets forth rules and procedures through which use of 

the surface of National Forest System lands, in connection with operations authorized by the United 

States mining laws, which confer a statutory right to enter upon public lands to search for minerals, 

shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System 

surface resources.” Additional direction for locatable mineral management can be found in Forest 

Service Manual 2810. 

All lands on national forests are open to operations under the General Mining Law of 1872, as 

amended, except those formally withdrawn from mineral entry by Congress or the Secretary of the 

Interior, or otherwise exempted. The General Mining Law grants every U.S. citizen the right to 

prospect and explore public domain lands that are open to mineral entry. This right of access is 

guaranteed; that is, denying access to minerals on public land is not a Forest Service discretionary 

action. Upon discovering a valuable mineral deposit, citizens have the right to locate a mining claim 

and remove the mineral resources. 

A citizen holding a mining claim (the claimant) is responsible for initiating mining activities and 

investing the money required to conduct mineral exploration, site development, mine operation, and 

reclamation of the site. The Forest Service works with mining claimants to provide reasonable access 

to their claims, minimize adverse environmental effects on surface resources, and ensure reasonable 

reclamation of lands disturbed by their actions.

The Coronado protects surface resources by reviewing a plan of operations submitted by the claimant; 

publicly disclosing impacts of the proposed mining operations in a site-specific National 

Environmental Policy Act document; approving only those activities that are reasonably necessary for 

the proposed operation; monitoring the claimant’s operations to ensure that environmental standards 

are met; and ensuring prompt and reasonable reclamation of disturbed areas. 

Salable Minerals

Common variety mineral materials include deposits that have economic value, but tend to be more 

widely available than other categories of mineral resources and do not have a distinct and special 

value. These minerals are most commonly used as building, landscaping, and construction materials. 

Unlike locatable minerals, the Forest Service has complete discretion on management of salable 

mineral resources. These minerals are disposed of by either contract sale, issuance of free use permits, 

or under contracts for in-service needs. Management direction for salable minerals is found in 36 CFR 

228, Subpart C, and Forest Service Manual 2850. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

418

Leasable Minerals

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 established a comprehensive system for managing oil and gas and 

other leasable minerals on Federal lands. Since then, numerous modifications have amended this law, 

including the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. Forest Service management direction for oil 

and gas resources is found in 36 CFR 228, Subpart E, and Forest Service Manual 2820. 

Leasable minerals under Federal ownership, including oil, gas, potassium, phosphate, sodium, and 

others, are available for development in accordance with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management leasing program. The Forest Service role in managing leasable mineral 

resources is to consult with the Bureau of Land Management about proposals that involve National 

Forest System land and, in some cases, provide an opinion on whether leases for these commodities 

should be issued and specifying any surface resource protections that may be needed.

Current and Future Trends for Mineral Resources

The Coronado has abundant locatable mineral resources, some salable mineral materials, and very 

little leasable resources. Following is a summary of current minerals activity and the expected future 

interest for each mineral category. 

Locatable Minerals

Past and current locatable minerals activity on the Coronado has produced copper, gold, silver, 

molybdenum, tungsten, lead, zinc, limestone, marble, agate, turquoise, and opal and the potential 

exists for future production. Past activities have included, and future activities may include, 

exploration for locatable minerals, including drilling and underground or surface mining, including 

open pit mining. Commodities would include precious metals such as gold and silver; strategic and 

base metal deposits such as copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, and manganese; gemstones such as opal 

and turquoise, and uncommon varieties of limestone and marble. Mining and exploration interests are 

currently strongest for copper, silver, gold, and molybdenum, but interest in these commodities is 

highly influenced by market conditions. Copper and other locatable deposits potentially exist in 

different locations on the Coronado, and future development proposals are probable if the demand for 

these commodities continues to increase.

At present, the Coronado has no approved plans of operations, but several proposed operations are 

currently in review. Plans of operation under review include proposals for small-scale placer (stream 

gravel) and lode (bedrock) activities, involving trenching and exploratory drilling, as well as one 

large-scale plan of operations for construction and operation of an open-pit copper mine (Rosemont 

Copper Project). In addition to plans of operations, the Coronado annually receives an average of 20 

notices of intent for activities such as panning and exploration with hand tools. Current locatable 

mining activity on the Coronado is moderately high, and the interest in exploration and extraction of 

locatable minerals is anticipated to increase if market conditions prevail. As market commodity prices 

increase, private industry would be likely to invest more in exploration and development, making 

additional areas desirable for potential mineral extraction projects.

Salable Minerals

Common variety mineral materials production on the Coronado includes crushed and pit run 

aggregate, fill material, landscape rock, and decorative stone. Some of these are used administratively 

by the Forest Service in constructing or maintaining roads, while other salable resources are under 

contract for sale to the public. There is currently one commercial limestone quarry in operation on the 

Nogales Ranger District. 

Extraction of salable resources on the Coronado has been variable in recent years. Demand for 

common variety mineral materials is influenced by industrial and commercial activities and economic 

conditions. Current salable mining activity on the Coronado is moderate and is expected to remain the 

same or slightly increase with the local increase in demand. In the near future, the operator of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

419

limestone quarry is expected to request an extension of operations. As current markets rebound, the 

Forest Service may experience an increased demand for salable minerals. 

Leasable Minerals

Historically, uranium and potassium resources have been explored across the Coronado. Currently, 

there is some interest in potassium exploration (for potash minerals), but in general, interest in 

leasable resources on the Coronado is low because of past unsuccessful attempts to locate and develop 

these resources. Any approved plans for exploration or development of this resource would be the 

responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management, who has permitting authority. The future potential 

for exploration of leasable resources will depend on the availability of lands open to leasable 

exploration and extraction.

A parcel of land near Greaterville, Arizona, on the Nogales Ranger District, which is commonly 

referred to as the “50/50 land,” has a split mineral estate that was established during acquisition by the 

Forest Service. Mineral ownership is one-half private and one-half acquired minerals status. Interest 

has been expressed about gold prospecting at this location.59 However, other interest in minerals at 

this site has been complicated by issues related to the split mineral estate and the requirement for a 

prospecting permit from the Bureau of Land Management.

Abandoned Mines

A complete inventory of the abandoned mines lands (AML) on the Coronado has not been compiled; 

however, there have been reports documenting over 1,500 different sites, with new ones being 

recorded every year. Some of the abandoned mine sites have significant safety hazards, health 

hazards, or both (i.e., there are open shafts, emissions of toxic gases, falling debris). To date, over 150 

sites have been safely remediated under the Region 3 AML Remediation Program by installing 

fencing, bat-friendly gates, foam plugs, or back filling. Fifty-one additional sites are scheduled for 

mitigation in 2018. In addition to the safety hazards, many of the sites have environmental 

contamination. To date, under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, the Coronado 

has remediated seven abandoned mine sites of environmental hazards. Future AML and CERCLA 

remediation will be, in part, dependent on financial resources and other Forest Service priorities

Mineral Resources – Environmental Consequences

Most direction that protects forest resources from adverse effects associated with access to, 

exploration for, and extraction of mineral resources originates in the laws, regulations, and policies 

described above under the “Regulatory Framework” heading. These are independent of forest plan 

direction and are the same for each alternative evaluated in this environmental impact statement, 

including the 1986 plan.

On the other hand, the 1986 plan and each of the three action alternatives differ in plan components 

and direction regarding national forest management, in general, and minerals management, in 

particular. These include different recommendations of areas for designation as wilderness, research 

natural areas, or other special areas; different recommendations for specific parcels to be withdrawn 

from mineral entry; different allocations of national forest land to specific management areas and 

zones; and different direction regarding management in response to climate change. These differences 

will be noted below in the discussions of effects of each alternative.

The differences in direction regarding climate change will have no effect on development of mineral 

resources and the effects of such.

 

59 The minerals resource is leasable on this land because of its “acquired lands” status.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

420

Effects Common to All Alternatives

As noted above, both congressional and regulatory agency direction in laws and regulations and Forest 

Service directives specific to minerals management would be the same for all alternatives. Therefore, 

the resources potentially at risk of the effects of minerals project activities would be managed 

similarly. Sources of effects from minerals projects may include, but are not limited to:

• removal of vegetation

• disturbance of soils

• water consumption

• water contamination

• wastes and tailings disposal

• noise

• blasting

• atmospheric emissions

• road and facilities 

construction

• drilling

• vehicle and equipment 

operation/traffic

• increased traffic

Eligible wild, scenic, and recreational rivers classified as “wild” are not available for any mineral 

actions under all alternatives, because Forest Service policy is to protect their eligibility status pending 

a suitability determination. If and when a stream or segment is established as a wild, scenic, or 

recreational river by statute, it will be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. However, valid 

existing locatable mineral rights are an exception to this policy.

Forest Service policy allows segments of eligible “scenic” and “recreational” rivers to be open to 

locatable, leasable, and salable mineral disposal for all alternatives. It specifies that they be subject to 

requirements established to protect the values of the segment that characterizes them as scenic or 

recreational. 

No Action

Direction for minerals resource management in the 1986 plan was based on Forest Service policy and 

Federal law and regulations applicable to locatable, salable, and leasable mineral resources. Together, 

the laws, regulations, and policy minimize the adverse effects of minerals projects on the Coronado 

while concurrently supporting sound energy and mineral exploration and development. 

The 1986 plan emphasizes management of minerals operations through the use of operating plans, 

bonds, and reclamation and also provides for the timely analysis and processing of mineral 

prospecting, exploration, leasing, and development proposals. Protection of resources in the future 

under the no-action alternative would be the same as current protection under the 1986 plan.

Specific areas are recommended for withdrawal from locatable and leasable mineral entry in the 1986 

plan. These include 2,629 acres in Management Area 2A to protect habitat for threatened and 

endangered species and to facilitate astronomical research. In Management Area 8, the plan 

recommends that existing mineral withdrawals be maintained and that three recommended research 

natural areas be recommended for withdrawal. Since the 1986 plan was signed, however, the forest 

supervisor decided not to withdraw these areas after other methods of surface resource protection were 

identified. 

The 1986 forest plan acknowledges designation of the Mount Graham, Bunk Robinson, and Whitmire 

Canyon Wilderness Study Areas by the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984 (see discussion in chapter 2). 

Additionally, it recognizes the past designation of eight wilderness areas, all of which were withdrawn 

from mineral entry. The 1986 plan recommends designation of one new wilderness area (until 

designation, this is the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area, formerly a wilderness study 

area). Since the 1986 plan was signed, the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area has been 

managed to maintain wilderness character. If and when Congress acts on its designation, the Mount 

Graham Recommended Wilderness Area would be withdrawn from mineral entry.

Overall, the 1986 plan would have less effects on minerals resource management than the proposed 

action and alternative 1, and effects equal to alternative 2, because it recommends only one new 

wilderness area (Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area), where minerals development 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

421

would be constrained by restrictions on motorized and mechanized uses, and because it has no 

restrictions on “scenic” and “recreational” eligible rivers that have mineral potential.

Locatable Minerals

Management of locatable mineral resources would not change if the 1986 plan continues to be in 

effect. Mineral proposals would continue to follow the direction of laws, regulations, and policies, and 

operations would be conducted to minimize adverse environmental impacts to National Forest System 

surface resources. 

The economic effect of withdrawal of the Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area on mineral 

resources would depend on the locatable mineral resource potential of the area. If potential is high, a 

withdrawal of the area would preclude the opportunity for future mining and development of a 

valuable economic resource. If potential is low, the economic value of mineral resources would be low 

and a mineral withdrawal may not be necessary. Other available options for protecting sensitive 

resources, such as populations of special-status species and their habitat, should be explored before 

withdrawal is recommended for wilderness, research natural areas, and other areas having special 

designation. Further discussion of the effects of wilderness designation on minerals resources and 

development is provided under the proposed action discussion below.

Salable Minerals

Common variety minerals may not be removed for any purpose in Management Area 2A (Mount 

Graham/Pinaleño Mountains), Management Areas 8 and 8A (existing and proposed research natural 

areas), and Management Area 14 (South Fork Cave Creek and Guadalupe Canyon). Because of this, 

these materials would be unavailable to the Forest Service for use in road maintenance and 

construction, ground cover for parking areas, and landscaping at administrative and developed 

recreation sites. If supplies of national forest salable minerals from other locations dwindle, the 

Coronado may have to purchase materials from a commercial vendor to augment its needs for 

aggregate and rock materials.

Leasable Minerals

The 1986 plan is outdated with respect to leasing authorities and the role of the Bureau of Land 

Management and Forest Service in managing these resources. The 1986 forest plan has restrictive 

standards and guidelines for leasable minerals that include no surface occupancy in Management Area 

8 and a recommendation for no surface occupancy in Management Area 14 and Management Area 15

(Wild Chile Botanical Area). This means that structures or facilities associated with leasable minerals 

activity would be constrained to certain areas. The restrictions may be overly conservative if other 

methods are available to protect natural resources in the restricted parcels. If not, the restrictions 

would constrain the potential for a leasable mining operation in specific areas of the Coronado. 

Abandoned Mines

Access to accomplish closures of abandoned mine features and to mitigate any other potential hazards 

would continue as guided by the 1986 plan.

Proposed Action

The proposed action establishes desired conditions that support administration of mineral activities 

under current laws. Consistent with regulations and policy, environmentally sound minerals 

development is emphasized. Compliance with law and regulation is also emphasized without 

reiterating specific requirements. 

The revised forest plan under the proposed action does not list areas recommended for mineral 

withdrawal, but rather sets desired conditions to protect resources that are very limited or unique and 

that are not already protected by law, regulation, and policy for specially designated areas 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

422

(wilderness). This management approach contrasts with recommendations for withdrawal made in the 

1986 plan, because this approach would protect resources by means other than withdrawal.

Special Areas

Direction under the proposed action differs from the 1986 plan by recommending (1) four additional 

wilderness areas totaling 108,889 acres (Ku Chish, Chiricahua Addition North, Whetstone, and Mount 

Graham Wilderness Study Area); and (2) a new proposed research natural area (Finger Rock) in 

addition to the extension of three research natural areas that were carried forward as proposed in the 

1986 plan. With regard to alternative 1, the proposed action recommends much less acreage for 

wilderness designation, and with regard to alternative 2, the proposed action adds four wilderness

areas, a new research natural area, and three research natural area extensions, and direction regarding 

climate change. 

Effects of management of special areas under the proposed action include the following:

Wilderness

Wilderness is typically withdrawn from mineral entry, with recognition of any valid mineral 

rights existing at the time of withdrawal. Historic mining, abandoned mine features, and active 

claims filed with the Bureau of Land Management may be present in those areas recommended by 

the proposed action for wilderness designation. It is possible for mineral activities to occur prior 

to withdrawal and for valid rights to be established before designation, which would allow 

continued mineral operations in a designated wilderness area. Mining in wilderness would be 

prohibited if no valid existing rights have been established at the time of withdrawal.

The proposed action’s recommendation for an additional wilderness area would have greater 

potential to constrain the development of the minerals resource than the no-action alternative and 

alternative 2, and less potential to constrain it than that of alternative 1, which recommends more 

areas be designated as wilderness areas than the other three alternatives.

Locatable Minerals: There are producing mines in proximity to designated wilderness 

boundaries; thus, it is likely that locatable minerals potential extends into designated wilderness 

areas. Similarly, although none of the four recommended wilderness areas is within a mineral

district, there may be mineral deposits extending underground beneath them. If valuable mineral 

deposits are identified nearby, their exploration, mine development, and extraction in such areas 

would be constrained by restrictions imposed to maintain wilderness character. If and when 

recommended wilderness is designated by Congress, access to these mineral resources would be 

extremely difficult, and their development would be unlikely. 

The development of locatable minerals on recommended wilderness would be constrained by 

restricted access. Potential effects on development of a minerals resource and other natural 

resources will be reported in future site-specific reviews of individual mineral proposals in areas 

having special designation. Existing claims with valid existing rights will remain; however, if a 

determination is made to withdraw one of these areas, no future claims will be allowed, and the 

exploration for and extraction of locatable minerals would be constrained by restrictions 

necessary to maintain wilderness character. 

Salable Minerals: The proposed action’s recommendation for designation of new wilderness 

would result in a loss of any salable common variety aggregate resources within wilderness. 

Potential constraints on management affect mining-related roads, mine workings, pits, and other 

areas of operation.

Leasable Minerals: By regulation (36 CFR 228.102), certain lands are legally unavailable for 

leasing, including lands withdrawn from mineral leasing, lands recommended for wilderness 

designation by the Secretary of Agriculture, and lands designated by statute as wilderness study 

areas (unless oil and gas leasing is specifically allowed by the statute designating the study 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

423

area). The consequences of recommending additional wilderness areas would be a loss of 

potential leasable resources within the wilderness in addition to potential constraints on the 

development of mining-related roads, mine workings, pits, and other operation areas adjacent to 

the wilderness area.

Research Natural Areas

Proposed research natural areas would be open to mineral development, but activities would be 

subject to restrictions on access, exploration, and extraction activities to protect the values that 

characterize a parcel. Mineral resource exploration and extraction are, in general, incompatible 

with the desired conditions established by the proposed action for research natural areas.

Locatable Minerals: Locatable mining claims, exploration, and mining may be allowed on 

research natural area lands if valuable mineral deposits are present and the research natural area 

has not been withdrawn from mineral entry. The proposed new Finger Rock Canyon Research 

Natural Area is located within an existing wilderness area that has been previously withdrawn 

from mineral entry; therefore, mineral resource activities would not be permitted there. The 

other recommendations for research natural areas carried forth from the 1986 plan are not 

within withdrawn parcels.

Salable Minerals: Proposed research natural areas would be open to salable mineral disposal. 

Salable mineral use and development is a Forest Service discretionary action. Because salable 

mineral activities may conflict with management goals for specific areas, decisions to approve 

them would likely be made on a case-by-case basis.

Leasable Minerals: Restrictions on surface occupancy and specific requirements for protecting 

unique or rare resources in research natural areas may discourage leasable mineral exploration 

and development.

Abandoned Mines

Abandoned mine management and mine reclamation activities are established as objectives in the 

proposed action. Guidelines for reclamation would provide for restoration of landforms and 

hydrological features to reduce contrast with the surrounding landscape. As a result, evidence of past 

mining would be less apparent to visitors and would result in a plant community and ecosystem 

functions that more closely resemble pre-mining conditions. Abandoned mines would be managed for 

both the wildlife habitat they provide and for the public safety concerns they present. Balancing these 

two needs would improve the availability of the resource for bats and other cave-dependent wildlife 

because it would preserve entrance and exit from the mine shafts while limiting human access where 

the mines pose a safety risk.

Alternative 1

The type of effects of management under alternative 1 on wilderness and research natural areas are the 

same as those described under the “Proposed Action” heading. Because 147,018more acres of 

wilderness are recommended by alternative 1 than the proposed action, its negative impact on mineral 

resource development would be greatest among the alternatives. On the other hand, protection of 

natural resources in these areas for their intrinsic values would be greatest under alternative 1.

Locatable Minerals

Among the alternatives, alternative 1 would have the greatest negative effect on development of 

locatable resources because several recommended wildernesses have mineral resource potential, 

which would be constrained from development by management for wilderness character. On the other 

hand, management to retain the character of recommended wilderness and the unique resources in 

research natural areas would reduce the potential for adverse effects on natural resources that typically 

occur with locatable mineral exploration and extraction activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

424

Salable Minerals

Management under alternative 1 would further reduce the acreage available for salable mineral 

materials because it precludes development of salable minerals in wilderness. On the other hand, the 

management of such areas for wilderness character would reduce the potential for adverse effects on 

natural resources that typically occur with salable minerals extraction.

Leasable Minerals

Alternative 1 would reduce the greatest amount of acreage available for future mineral leases. Lands 

recommended as wilderness would be closed to new mineral leases, and development of facilities to 

serve leases in adjacent areas would be allowed only at the discretion of the forest supervisor.

Abandoned Mines

Remediation of abandoned mine features and their health and environmental hazards are expected to 

continue each year. Plan direction in alternative 1 would restrict motorized access and mechanized 

uses in wilderness, which may impede progress in completing remediation as compared to the other 

alternatives.

Alternative 2

The intensity of effects of alternative 2 would be equal to or very similar to the no-action alternative, 

except that management direction under alternative 2 would be more current than that which appears 

in the 1986 plan. The lack of direction on climate change under alternative 2 would not have an effect 

on mineral resources.

Locatable Minerals

Under alternative 2, a larger land base would remain open to mineral entry and would not be subject to 

a potential mineral withdrawal, thereby allowing for a larger area of potential locatable mineral 

resources and fewer constraints on resource exploration and development. However, with the 

increased potential for development, there would be an increased potential for adverse effects on other 

resources.

Salable Minerals

A larger land base would be available for the development of salable mineral material resources both 

for internal use on roads and for external commercial use. However, with the increased potential for 

development, there would be an increased potential for adverse effects on other resources.

Leasable Minerals

A larger land base would remain open for mineral leasing of potential resources with fewer constraints 

on the resource exploration and development. However, with the increased potential for development, 

there would be an increased potential for adverse effects on other resources.

Abandoned Mines

Alternative 2 would increase the land base open for motorized vehicle access, which is often needed 

for abandoned mine site hazard mitigation. Consequently, it may improve access to abandoned mine 

areas described earlier.

Cumulative Effects

The geographic boundary for actions that may result in cumulative effects on the Coronado is the 

southeastern portion of Arizona, including Pima, Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz, and Graham Counties, 

and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. The temporal bound for the same is the life of the forest plan, 

which is estimated to be 10 to 15 years. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions, with emphasis 

on mining activities on and off-Forest, are potential sources of effects that may additively affect 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

425

mineral resource production and disturbances. Existing conditions are used as a proxy for the effects 

of past actions because they reflect the aggregate impact of all prior actions that have affected access 

and might contribute to cumulative effects.

Locatable Minerals

Ongoing locatable mineral operations are active in the Santa Catalina, Santa Rita, Huachuca, Dragoon, 

and Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Areas of the Coronado. Active mineral exploration areas 

often coincide with those where there has been past historic mining, mineral districts, and similar 

favorable geologic conditions. The natural progression for minerals resources projects is from 

exploration to a mining plan of operation; therefore, it is foreseeable that some, but not all, of the 

current and future mineral exploration prospects will develop into actual mining operations and 

contribute a positive cumulative effect to minerals production. 

The only foreseeable large-scale mining operation on the Coronado is the Rosemont Copper Project in 

the Santa Rita Ecosystem Management Area. The project is on approximately 3,670 acres of National 

Forest System land, in addition to 1,085 acres of private land, with connected actions occurring on 

Bureau of Land Management and State lands. The mine life, including construction, operation, 

reclamation, and closure, is approximately 25 years (USDA FS 2011b).

Increased values of minerals, such as copper, have led to expanded mineral interest throughout the 

cumulative effects area. Presently, there are several large active mines, rock quarry operations, and 

exploratory mining activities on other Federal, State, and private land in the cumulative effects area. 

Within the cumulative effects area, there are several large producing copper mines including the 

Mission, Silver Bell, Bisbee, Sierrita, and Tohono mines that are on private, State, tribal, Forest 

Service and BLM lands. Additionally, the following copper mines are under exploration and 

development: Safford, Johnson Camp, Rosemont, and Oracle Ridge (Niemuth et al. 2007). The trend 

is for more copper being mined from open pit methods and to a lesser extent from underground 

methods. Overall, there is positive trend for mining and production of locatable minerals such as 

copper, molybdenum, silver, and gold within the cumulative effects area from mining on lands outside 

the Coronado boundary.

Salable Minerals

The Coronado has a small number of salable minerals resources (pits and quarries) available or being 

developed in contrast to a large amount of common variety resources on private, State, tribal and other 

Federal lands within the cumulative area. Administrative use of mineral material sources may be 

reduced by changes to the Coronado’s transportation system, as there may be fewer roads to maintain.

However, the external uses for salable resources are expected to be in demand with an increase in 

pressure to develop the resources in response to population growth and economic recovery that may 

spawn increased building and road construction. Overall, the cumulative effects of salable mineral 

materials activities (disturbance and resource contribution effects) would be minor in proportion to the 

effects of the activities that are ongoing outside the Coronado National Forest within the cumulative 

effects area.

Leasable Minerals

If potash (potassium) resources were to be developed, cumulative effects and economic benefits 

would be similar to those of locatable exploration and development of surface resources. However, the 

proposed areas of recommended wilderness would become closed to new mineral leases, thereby 

reducing the available acres for mineral development. The restrictions placed on acquired lands for 

locatable minerals (i.e., hardrock leasable) would have no cumulative effect on the environment 

because there are only a small number of acres scattered across the Coronado.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

426

Abandoned Mines

Reclamation is anticipated to increase on the Coronado as more mine adits and shafts are identified 

and prioritized for closure or gating. Similar efforts are underway on other State, tribal and Federal 

lands. This would be a beneficial cumulative effect in combination with the efforts on other lands in 

the cumulative effects area.

Cultural Resources – Affected Environment

The Coronado has a long legacy of human presence, which is evidenced by the Coronado having a 

large and diverse assemblage of archaeological and historic sites. People have used plant, animal, and 

mineral resources of the Coronado for at least 10,000 years, and their use has often had a major effect 

on local ecosystems. 

To date, inventory surveys for cultural resource sites have covered only about 5 percent of the 

Coronado, because of the predominance of steep mountain slopes in many areas, which are not 

conducive to either human occupation or archaeological surveys. Habitations are largely confined to 

the lower elevations of the Coronado, along the bases of the mountains. Still, more than 2,400 cultural 

resource sites have been identified and documented on the Coronado. Of these, 141 sites are listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places, one of the highest among all national forests. 

Historical-period sites include a wide variety of structures, features, artifact scatters, roads and trails 

related to ranching, mining, military defense activities, government programs (e.g., the Civilian 

Conservation Corps), and forest administrative and recreational uses. The most common Native 

American sites are artifact scatters that include materials from flaked-stone tool manufacture, ground 

stone, and ceramics. Other sites are documented to have been food processing camps, roasting pits, 

rock shelters, petroglyphs, and pictographs. 

Several cultural artifacts collected during Forest Service led surveys and projects have been curated 

and archived at the forest supervisor’s office in Tucson. The collection, curation, and archival of 

diagnostic surface artifacts was the norm from the 1970s through the early 1990s, but this practice has 

since been virtually discontinued in adherence to an informal noncollection policy for all but 

extraordinary situations. Today, almost all cultural items collected during excavations by 

archaeological consultants to the Coronado are currently curated at the State Museum, which is the 

standard repository in Arizona. The State Museum also houses collections from past research surveys 

on the Coronado, including those conducted by museum personnel. All relevant items that were 

archived in pre-1990 collections at the State Museum have been repatriated to tribal governments in 

accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Many cultural resource sites on the Coronado have been negatively affected by past and ongoing 

activities. Cultural resources have been lost or damaged by past land management activities, including 

those dating from before national forest designation, from visitor use, and as a result of natural events. 

Many activities were initiated prior to implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended. Some roads in use since the turn of the 20th century have had a cumulative longterm adverse effect on cultural sites. 

Prior to the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act, many cultural sites were damaged or 

destroyed by ground-disturbing activities, such as Federal, State, and local road and facility 

construction. Adverse effects have decreased over time because today, significant sites are typically 

identified during project planning, allowing for design to avoid and/or mitigate potential effects before 

implementing an action. Despite this improvement during project planning, many sites, particularly 

historic-period sites with highly combustible materials, have been damaged or destroyed by 

uncharacteristic wildfires.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

427

Cultural Resources – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Forest plan direction common to all alternatives is that every proposed Forest Service action must 

comply with the consultation and other requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. This 

direction, if followed properly, will result in the developing of avoidance and/or mitigation strategies 

to address potential adverse effects on cultural resources before projects are actually implemented. 

Also, all alternatives provide direction specific to the identification, evaluation, inspection, 

stabilization, and maintenance of cultural resources. For this reason, artifact collections and the 

Coronado’s historical documents would continue to be managed and preserved in a beneficial manner 

to afford opportunities for access to them by other agencies, institutions, and tribes.

No Action

The 1986 plan provides specific direction regarding various facets of cultural resource management, 

including project clearance procedures, site protection, enhancement and interpretation, research, and 

curation of collections. Most of these elements are required by various laws, regulations, policies, and 

agreements, particularly the cultural resource protection compliance and clearance process specified 

by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 1986 plan includes identification of sites 

through nonproject inventory (section 110 of the Act) and public interpretation of historically 

significant sites. 

The no-action alternative does not include direction regarding issues and mandates for cultural 

resource preservation and management that have arisen since 1986. It also does not address 

management of collected artifacts and cultural items nor the need to have them catalogued and curated 

in accordance with current standards. Specifically, the plan predates the passage of the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the 1992 amendment to the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the latter of which called attention to procedures for the identification of traditional

cultural properties.

While the 1986 plan is devoid of direction regarding compliance with many recent laws and 

regulations that protect cultural resources, Coronado archaeologists are cognizant of the latest 

regulations and ensure that their requirements are followed. Finally, most of the objectives for cultural 

resource management in the 1986 forest plan have been accomplished, have become standard 

operating procedures, or are now irrelevant. 

The no-action alternative does not provide direction on managing resources in response to climate 

change. Because of this, the quality of forest products, availability of forest products, or both for 

traditional native uses may decline. Cultural sites are typically not vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change, except for natural features (waterfalls, specific vegetation types) that are considered by tribes 

as a sacred place or traditional cultural property. Thus, the quality of sacred places and settings and 

traditional cultural properties may degrade because of climate-induced changes on soils, water 

resources, vegetation, and habitat.

Proposed Action

Cultural resource management direction in the forest plan, as revised under the proposed action, 

would have no measurable direct or indirect adverse effects on cultural resources. The revised forest 

plan’s emphasis on treating vegetation with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire to restore historic 

(desired) conditions, however, would benefit historic properties in the long term, because the 

probability of uncharacteristic wildfire would decrease with improved and increased vegetation 

management. This, in turn, would reduce the likelihood that cultural sites would be significantly 

damaged or destroyed by wildfire.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

428

Like the 1986 plan, the proposed action would continue to require that cultural sites be flagged during 

pre-project planning, allowing for projects to be designed for avoidance of known sites or mitigation 

to be developed to minimize impacts. Under the proposed action, goals for restoring historic 

vegetation conditions and the natural fire cycle would decrease the likelihood of uncharacteristic 

wildfire, which would correspondingly decrease the likelihood that cultural sites would be adversely 

affected by fire suppression and related human activity. 

The proposed action recommends four areas for wilderness designation on the Coronado. Because of 

prohibitions and restrictions on the use of mechanized equipment and motorized vehicles in 

wilderness, this additional acreage would be less vulnerable to physical damage or destruction caused 

by vehicles and equipment than if it were managed by the 1986 plan or alternative 2.

Few cultural-resource sites have been identified and recorded within the recommended additional 

wilderness areas. Because no historic structures are known in these areas, wilderness restrictions 

would not pose any limitation on preservation work at historic sites.

The proposed action provides direction on managing resources in response to climate change. Cultural 

sites are typically not vulnerable to the effects of climate change, except for natural features 

(waterfalls, specific vegetation types) that are considered by tribes as a sacred place or traditional 

cultural property. Therefore, this direction, which would foster adaptation and resiliency in natural 

resources, would benefit certain cultural resources. Effects of climate change direction on tribal uses 

of forest products are discussed below under the “Native American Interests” heading.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 emphasizes additional wilderness on the Coronado, proposing 147,018 more wilderness 

than the other alternatives. Prohibitions on the use of mechanized equipment and motorized vehicles 

would apply to the new wilderness areas. Such constraints would decrease the probability of damage 

or destruction of sites by vehicles and equipment and reduce the potential of vandalism associated 

with motorized access. Sites would be less prone to defacement, littering, and illegal collection of 

artifacts. 

Under alternative 1, proposed new wilderness areas would be inaccessible by motor vehicle, and the 

use of mechanical equipment would not be allowed. This would affect the ease of administrative 

access to the new wilderness areas for repairs, maintenance, and fire suppression of historic structures 

and for vegetation management to return the Coronado to historic conditions. Because the number of 

structures within the proposed new wilderness areas is low, effects to cultural resources would be 

negligible. 

Alternative 1 provides the same direction as the proposed action for managing natural resources in 

response to climate change. Thus, it would maintain the quality and integrity of cultural sites in the 

same way as described under the “Proposed Action” heading on the previous page.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 emphasizes increased opportunities on the Coronado for motorized recreation. The 

proposed expansion of acreage designated for motorized recreation may predispose cultural sites to 

damage by vehicles and road maintenance equipment and make them more accessible for looting, 

vandalism, and illegal collection of artifacts. Although the total acreage that would be designated for 

motorized recreation is small compared to the total area of the Coronado (about 3 percent) and that 

allocated by each of the other alternatives, the three proposed locations for adding motorized 

recreation—Redington Pass, Stockton Pass, and the eastern flank of the Santa Rita Mountains—are 

documented by past surveys to have a relatively high density of prehistoric cultural resource sites.

Alternative 2 does not provide plan components to guide management of resources in response to 

climate change. It does, however, incorporate strategies for managing natural disturbances resulting 

from climate change that affect forest resources (see appendix A of the plan). Cultural sites are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

429

typically not vulnerable to the effects of climate change, except for those natural features (waterfalls, 

specific vegetation types) that are considered by tribes as a sacred place or traditional cultural 

property. Thus, alternative 2 would be slightly less effective than the proposed action and alternative 1 

in maintaining the quality of sacred places and settings and traditional cultural properties during 

climate change and slightly more effective than no action.

Cumulative Effects

The area of potential effects for cultural resource impacts includes all of southern Arizona and 

Hidalgo County, New Mexico, over a timeframe including the past 10 years through the next 15 years. 

Unlike many resources, cultural resources are nonrenewable; the loss or damage of sites is 

characteristically permanent. The destruction or damage of archaeological sites means the loss of 

information important to the understanding of the record of human history, loss of interpretive 

opportunities, and the incremental loss of the cultural resource base.

The rapid population growth and urbanization in southern Arizona, in general, has resulted in the 

extensive loss of archaeological sites, often unmitigated, particularly since localities favored for 

occupation in modern times were also favored in the past. The loss of cultural resources to urban 

development on private lands is putting greater significance on the cultural resources located in the 

national forests. The cultural resources on National Forest System lands are afforded a higher level of 

protection than those resources on private lands; thus, the public looks to the national forest cultural 

resources as a valued resource. 

Without knowledge of what type or how many actions that could affect cultural resources will be 

proposed by other entities over the effective period of the revised forest plan, it is not possible to 

identify specific cumulative effects on cultural resources. It is possible, however, to assess the relative 

increment of effects that would result from each of the four alternatives. 

In this regard, all alternatives are similar in their foreseeable contribution to cumulative effects. Each 

alternative emphasizes compliance with laws and regulations that serve to protect and preserve 

cultural resources on national forest lands. No increment of adverse effects is expected because of this. 

Alternative 1 would contribute less to cumulative effects that no action and the proposed action 

because of its recommendation of additional wilderness acreage, management of which will afford 

greater protection of cultural resources than the other alternatives. Alternative 2, which proposes an 

increase in the motorized recreation areas in a location of high cultural resource site density, is more 

likely than the other alternatives to result in loss of nonrenewable cultural resources, thereby 

contributing the largest increment to cumulative effects in the analysis area.

Native American Interests – Affected Environment

Traditionally, Native Americans have extensively used a wide variety of resources in the mountains 

now comprising the sky islands of the Coronado National Forest. Use of resources was greatly 

curtailed when native peoples were located on reservations, access to traditional lands restricted, and 

national forests established. However, Native American collection of plants on the Coronado has 

continued and increased in recent decades as the Forest Service has made the availability of forest 

products better known and accessible among nearby tribes. 

With regard to proposed actions and as an outreach activity, Coronado heritage staff and the forest 

supervisor frequently consult with 12 tribes having ancestral and ongoing associations to lands now 

managed by the Coronado. These tribes include the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Fort Sill Apache 

Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Hopi, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Salt River 

Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O'odham Nation, White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Pueblo of Zuni.

Traditional tribal uses of the Coronado include the collection of medicinal plants, wild plant foods, 

basketry materials, and fuelwood. Tribal members recognize both specific places, such as springs and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

430

shrines, and larger landscapes as places of continuing traditional and cultural significance. Therefore, 

tribes share an interest in how the Coronado is managed and in protecting important natural and 

cultural resources. 

Two of the prominent mountain ranges of the Coronado have been identified as traditional cultural 

properties because of their continuing cultural and religious importance to tribes: Dzil Nchaa Si’an, 

the Western Apache60 name for the Pinaleño Mountains, and Ce:wi Duag, the O’odham name for the 

Santa Rita Mountains. Both of these have been determined to be eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places. The Mount Graham Recommended Wilderness Area, which is included under all 

alternatives, is within the boundary of the Dzil Nchaa Si’an Traditional Cultural Property, recognized 

as an important cultural place for Western Apache people. The Mount Wrightson Wilderness Area 

(one of eight existing wilderness areas on the Coronado) is within the boundary of the Ce:wi Duag

Traditional Cultural Property.

In the past decade, the most common organized tribal activity has been the collection of basketry 

materials. O’odham basket makers collect the leaves of beargrass (Nolina microcarpa) and soaptree 

yucca (Yucca elata) and the roots of banana yucca (Y. baccata). Western Apache basketmakers use 

limber branches of skunkbush (Rhus trilobata). Primary food items still being collected are acorns, 

particularly of Emory oak (Quercus emoryii), which are collected by both Apache and O’odham 

groups. Tribal members also collect mesquite fuelwood for traditional uses.

Native American uses occur throughout the country and have effects on different aspects of the 

Coronado. Within each vegetation community different activities can occur. Many plant species are 

collected for traditional uses some of which include: willows, which are an important plant for 

basketry; the light wood from cottonwoods was used for construction, certain tools, and coals for 

roasting food; mesquite continues to be widely used for fuel and food; and walnuts are a traditional 

food. Among aquatic plants, cattail (Typha dominguez) was used for basketry and food, and yerba 

mansa (Anemopsis californica) has medicinal uses. 

Native American Interests – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives provide direction that requires continued Forest Service dialogue and consultation 

with tribes about forest management, the effects of proposed undertakings, and the identification of 

historic places, including traditional cultural properties. Such dialogue encourages native collection 

and uses of traditionally important plants and minerals, cooperation in making Coronado National 

Forest facilities available for meetings and educational activities, and facilitation of access to special 

places.

No Action

The 1986 forest plan provides little direction or narrative about tribes and their interests. The plan 

indicates that work will be done to “identify areas of Native American religious use during the project 

scoping portion of the environmental analysis process.” Since 1986, several laws, executive orders, 

and policy direction pertinent to tribal outreach and relations have been established. The 1986 plan is 

out of date and in need of revision; however, the Coronado has developed an ongoing tribal relations 

and consultation program not specified by the 1986 plan as part of its heritage program.

The 1986 plan predates the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

and the 1992 amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act, the latter of which called attention 

 

60 Western Apache refers to the Apache peoples living today primarily in east-central Arizona. Most live within 

reservations. The Fort Apache, San Carlos, Yavapai-Apache, Tonto Apache, and Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache 

Indian reservations are home to the majority of Western Apache and are the bases of their federally recognized 

tribes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

431

to procedures for the identification of traditional cultural properties. Hence, the 1986 plan does not 

address management of collected tribal artifacts and the need to have them properly catalogued 

according to current curation standards, nor does it require repatriation of certain cultural items under 

the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

With regard to forest uses and products, the lack of direction in the 1986 plan regarding competitionand fire-induced mortality of native desert species and conversion of desert habitat to nonnative 

grassland could threaten the sustainability and availability of plants collected by Native Americans for 

traditional uses. In general, however, the degree of negative impacts on forest products collected and 

used by Native Americans is variable and depends largely on type of product.

The no-action alternative does not provide direction on managing resources to develop adaptation and 

resiliency in response to climate change. Because of this, the quality and/or availability of forest 

products for traditional native uses may decline. Likewise, the natural resources that comprise sacred 

places and settings and traditional cultural properties may degrade because of climate-induced 

changes.

Proposed Action

The proposed action provides direction regarding the preservation and continued use of resources and 

landscapes in which tribes have expressed significant interest. Echoing sentiment expressed by native 

peoples for the restoration of vegetation and the landscape to pre-European settlement conditions, the 

proposed action emphasizes strategies that target restoration of historic vegetation conditions using 

mechanical methods and prescribed fire. The Ku Chish Recommended Wilderness Area is within the 

traditional Chiricahua Apache homeland. Its preservation as wilderness will provide opportunity for 

quiet recreation and minimize adverse effects from motorized and mechanical uses. 

The proposed action calls for continued free access to the Coronado by native peoples for collection of 

plants and other forest products and the use of special places. Moving riparian vegetation toward 

desired conditions would enhance the availability of plants that are collected by Native Americans for 

traditional uses. Additionally, small-scale removal of nonnative buffelgrass in desert communities 

would conserve the survival of native species important to Native Americans and may improve 

availability at localized scale. Increased fire presence may also increase the abundance of some forest 

products collected by Native Americans (Anderson 2004).

The revised forest plan under the proposed action provides direction on managing resources in 

response to climate change as plan components and management approaches. It also incorporates 

strategies for managing the effects of natural disturbances resulting from climate change that can 

adversely affect forest natural resources (appendix A of the plan). Because of this, the quality 

and/availability of forest products for native uses would be maintained. 

Cultural sites are typically not vulnerable to the effects of climate change, except for natural features 

(waterfalls, specific vegetation types) that are considered by tribes as a sacred place or traditional 

cultural property and forest products derived from vegetation. Therefore, the direction in the revised 

forest plan under the proposed action, which would foster adaptation and resiliency in natural 

resources, would benefit certain cultural resources.

Alternative 1

Restrictions on motorized access and mechanized uses in the additional acres of wilderness 

recommended under alternative 1 would facilitate the movement of vegetation and the landscape 

toward desired conditions expressed by the tribes with regard to a return to pre-European settlement 

conditions. Free access to the Coronado would be offered to native peoples for collection of plants and 

other forest products and the use of special places. The effects on forest products available for Native 

American traditional uses would be the same as those reported for the proposed action.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

432

Alternative 1 provides the same direction as the proposed action for managing natural resources in 

response to climate change. Thus, it would maintain the quality and integrity of cultural sites and the 

quality and availability of forest products in the same way as described under the “Proposed Action” 

heading on the previous page.

Alternative 2

The designation of specific areas for motorized recreation use under alternative 2 has the potential to 

impede the return of pre-European settlement conditions in landscapes of tribal interest and the 

damage of cultural sites, including ancestral homes and spiritual places. However, this would likely 

not occur, because the areas specified for motorized use under this alternative were carefully selected 

to avoid such landscapes as well as locations to which tribes have traditional ties, where forest 

products are available, and/or where other cultural resources may be present.

Alternative 2 does not provide plan components to guide management of resources in response to 

climate change. It does, however, incorporate strategies for managing natural disturbances resulting 

from climate change that affect forest resources (see appendix A of the plan). Thus, with regard to the 

effects of climate change on natural resources (see effects under “Topic 1” for vegetation, soils, water, 

and air quality), alternative 2 would be slightly less effective than the proposed action and alternative 

1 in maintaining the quality and availability of forest products for native uses and the quality of sacred 

places, settings, and traditional cultural properties, and slightly more effective than no action.

Cumulative Effects

The area of potential effect with regard to tribal relations includes all of southern Arizona and Hidalgo 

County, New Mexico, over a timeframe including the past 10 years through the next 15 years. The 

tribes that have historically occupied this region view its entirety as a landscape of continuing 

traditional and cultural importance. 

Without knowledge of what type or how many actions that could impact tribal relations and resources 

will be proposed by other entities over the effective period of the revised forest plan, it is not possible 

to identify specific cumulative effects on them. It is possible, however, to assess the relative increment 

of effects that would result from each of the four alternatives. 

Tribal members are concerned about the cumulative degradation of open spaces and the modification 

of cultural landscapes. Places of historical, traditional, and cultural significance to the tribes, whether 

or not they are identified as traditional cultural properties, and traditional forest product collection 

areas are located across these landscapes. Many of these important areas are located on nontribal 

lands, and in particular, on the mountains managed by the Coronado. Across this overall cultural 

landscape, there has been a trend toward the degradation of places of traditional cultural importance. 

As with cultural resource sites, many of which are considered ancestral homes of tribal members, 

losses of traditional use areas and places of traditional importance has been high in urbanized areas 

and on developed private lands. 

Tribal relations would be enhanced under the revised forest plan direction contained in the proposed 

action, alternative 1, and alternative 2. And, all would protect traditional cultural properties, important 

resources, and traditional use areas on the Coronado. No action would not change the way that tribal 

relations are managed. 

Alternative 2, more than the other three, has the greatest potential to adversely alter the landscape and 

result in negative impacts, because of its emphasis on motorized recreation. Alternative 1 has the 

greatest potential to benefit landscapes and access to traditional places because of its proposed 

addition of about 255,908 acres of new wilderness, which will exclude motorized and mechanized 

uses and emphasis on quiet recreation. The proposed action, alternative 1, and alternative 2 would all 

provide free access to native peoples for use of forest resources. Even though the 1986 plan states no 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

433

direction about native access, it is freely allowed in the same way that it is proposed by the other 

alternatives.

International Relations – Affected Environment

Activities at and beyond the Coronado’s international border with the Republic of Mexico have 

varying degrees of influence on the management and sustainability of its resources and uses. Portions 

of three ranger districts (Sierra Vista, Nogales, and Douglas) are contiguous with the border. Ports of 

entry on the border accommodate thousands of Mexican citizens and American citizens who travel to 

and from the U.S. for business, work, or pleasure. Many Mexican citizens avail themselves of the 

recreational amenities of the Coronado. Since the 1990s, cross-border sharing of resource 

management knowledge and experience—especially in the fields of fire ecology, wildlife research, 

range management, archaeology, and historic preservation—has been facilitated by the Forest Service 

International Forestry Program

Over the past few decades, illegal uses of the border for trafficking in people, drugs, and weapons 

have complicated management of the Coronado, presenting public health and safety hazards, 

degrading natural resource conditions, and greatly increasing the occurrence of wildfires. As a 

consequence, the role of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement agencies has escalated on both sides of the border. Hence, cooperative 

interrelationships between the Forest Service, agencies, and local governments are essential.

Management of forest resources in border areas is challenging because it must balance conservation 

efforts with the potential negative effects of enforcement vehicles traveling on and off National Forest 

System roads, such as damage or loss of vegetation; degradation of soils and related sedimentation of 

surface waters; fugitive dust emissions; disturbance of wildlife and habitat; disturbance of historic 

and/or archaeological sites; and disruption of recreational use. The Coronado must also accommodate 

infrastructure associated with border surveillance, including observation towers and communication 

facilities and equipment, which degrade the scenic quality of natural settings and viewsheds.

International Relations – Environmental Consequences

No Action

The 1986 plan provides no direction or management emphasis or guidance for recognizing and/or 

enhancing the Coronado’s relationship with the Republic of Mexico, which would continue to be 

important to resource management. However, the relationship between the Coronado and Mexico that 

has developed over recent years because of border issues would continue to be fostered.

Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2

Under the action alternatives, specific goals are established for managing values and resources that are 

shared with the citizens of Mexico. Every action alternative sets desired conditions for clean and safe 

recreation sites in the three ranger districts contiguous with the border; for high scenic quality in 

viewsheds that include Mexico; and for unimpeded movement of wildlife dependent on unfragmented 

habitats both in Mexico and on the Coronado.

Partnerships – Affected Environment

In addition to traditional economic values defined by commodity production, the Coronado National 

Forest has a high amenity value to communities of place and interest. One measure of that value is the 

contributions to the Coronado in time, money, and energy that are expended in the form of formal 

partnerships or informal volunteer projects. 

In 2010, a conservative estimate for the number of volunteer hours on the Coronado was 53,349 with 

an estimated value of $1,112,327. Fundraising efforts by partners are significant, yielding about 

$20,000 per year in cash contributions and usually more from in-kind contributions, such as materials 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

434

donated in group volunteer projects. In 2007, concerned Tucson donors raised $800,000 in private 

funds to help restore the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, which was badly damaged by flooding and 

debris flows during 2006 summer rainstorms. 

In the past 25 years, partnerships with the public, organizations, and other agencies have become 

increasingly important in the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and interpretation of cultural 

resources. At Kentucky Camp and Brown Canyon Ranch, “friends” groups have contributed 

thousands of hours each year, and Passport in Time volunteers serve as caretakers at those and other 

historic sites. Site stewards not only monitor the condition of many significant archaeological sites on 

the Coronado, but have also instituted site recording. Cochise College has sponsored several volunteer 

rock art recording projects. 

In cooperative partnerships with conservators, architects, masons, and resource specialists from the 

National Park Service and Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, historic adobe 

buildings have been preserved on the Coronado. Under “Service-First” interagency agreements, the 

Coronado National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Buenos 

Aires National Wildlife Refuge) share personnel and expertise to reduce staffing costs.

Other partners known as “cooperators” contribute significantly to funding projects that are of mutual 

benefit to the Forest Service and the cooperator. Examples include the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, Quail Unlimited, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Fort Huachuca (U.S. Department of 

Defense), U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management.

Partnerships – Environmental Consequences

No Action

The 1986 plan provides no direction or management emphasis or guidance for recognizing and/or 

enhancing the Coronado’s relationship with various partners, who would continue to be important to 

resource management. However, the relationships between its partners that have developed over 

recent years would continue to be fostered by the Forest Service in the best interest of conserving and 

preserving resources. Only positive effects on resource management are expected.

Proposed Action

The revised forest plan under the proposed action explicitly recognizes partnerships and emphasizes 

collaboration with partners in the desired conditions, objectives, guidelines, and management 

approaches it establishes for various resources and geographic areas. The incorporation of this 

direction in the revised forest plan will encourage continued partnerships that serve to improve and 

maintain the integrity and condition of each resource. Only positive effects on resource management 

are expected.

Alternative 1

The environmental consequences of direction under alternative 1 would be the same as those reported 

for the proposed action. However, because of its emphasis on adding wilderness to the national forest 

in response to the public sentiment, alternative 1 may encourage new partnerships with wilderness 

advocacy, quiet recreation, and other environmental organizations. If these are realized, improvements 

and protection of forest resources would be greater than those expected under the proposed action, no 

action, and alternative 2.

Alternative 2

The environmental consequences of direction under alternative 2 would be the same as those reported 

for the proposed action. However, because of its emphasis on adding motorized recreational acreage 

to the Coronado, alternative 2 may encourage new partnerships with groups who champion motorized 

recreation and related activities. If these are realized, new opportunities for recreational use of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

435

Coronado may result. If motorized recreation zones are added to the national forest in previously 

disturbed areas, as proposed, effects on sensitive and vulnerable resource areas would decrease over 

those that occur under management by the 1986 plan. Partnerships developed as a result of alternative 

2 may result in cooperative efforts to remediate damaged resources in exchange for increased 

opportunities for motorized recreation.

Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity

The National Environmental Policy Act requires that decision makers examine the potential 

consequences of proposed actions as they affect “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). In 

Section 101 of the Act, Congress explained that this includes using all practicable means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote 

the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in 

productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Implementation of national forest management in accordance with the direction provided by any of 

the alternatives evaluated in this environmental impact statement would not result in adverse impacts 

to the long-term productivity of the affected environment because of the short-term uses of natural and 

human resources on the Coronado. This is because the direction in the forest plan was carefully 

developed to guide the use of these resources in a manner that achieves short-term conservation 

objectives and long-term sustainability.

As an example, achievement of the desired condition of vegetation communities, as envisioned in the 

revised forest plan, would require a dramatic increase in treatments, such as mechanical thinning or 

prescribed fire. Treatments also benefit other forest resources (e.g., soils, wildlife, and water) that 

depend on healthy and sustainable vegetation communities. Widescale disturbance on the Coronado to 

move rapidly toward desired conditions would have adverse effects on these other resources in the 

short term. Over the long term, these same resources would benefit from more sustainable and 

productive ecosystems that are at a reduced risk to loss to catastrophic wildfire or insect and disease 

outbreaks.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Implementation of national forest management in accordance with direction provided by any of the 

alternatives evaluated in this environmental impact statement would not result in unavoidable adverse 

environmental effects.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of 

time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a 

power line rights-of-way or road.

None of the alternatives evaluated in this environmental impact statement would cause either an 

irreversible or an irretrievable commitment of resources.

Other Required Disclosures

The regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) 

directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements 

concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental review laws and executive orders.” As a 

proposed Federal project, the proposed plan decisions are subject to compliance with other Federal 

and State laws. Determinations and decisions made in the proposed plan have been evaluated in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

436

context of relevant laws and executive orders. Throughout the development of the proposed plan, 

there has been collaboration with various State and Federal agencies. The following actions have been 

taken to document and ensure compliance with laws that require consultation and/or concurrence with 

other Federal agencies.

• Endangered Species Act, Section 7: Consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, regarding federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species and 

designated and proposed critical habitat, has been completed.

• National Historic Preservation Act: Consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Officer is mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Southwestern 

Region also subscribes to a programmatic agreement with the Arizona and New Mexico State 

Historic Preservation Officers for ways in which consultation can be conducted. The various 

appendices of the programmatic agreement are particularly directed to Southwestern Region 

projects and issues.

Government-to-government consultation was completed with Native American tribes who have 

aboriginal territory within the lands now part of the Coronado National Forest, as required by the 

National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Orders 13007 and 13175; and the 2003 “First Amended 

Programmatic Agreement between the Forest Service and State Historic Preservation Officers in 

Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma.”
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

437

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

The following is a list of the Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, and individuals who were 

consulted or involved in the preparation of the environmental impact statement during this National 

Environmental Policy Act review. Lists of all persons, groups, officials, and others who were 

contacted during the forest plan revision and National Environmental Policy Act review processes are 

filed in the project record. 

State Agencies and Officials

• State Historic Preservation Offices of Arizona and New Mexico

• Arizona Game and Fish Department

Local Agencies and Officials

• Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal and Santa Cruz Counties

Tribes

O’odham 

• Tohono O’odham Nation

• Gila River Indian Community

• Ak-Chin Indian Community

• Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community

Western Apache

• San Carlos Apache Tribe

• White Mountain Apache Tribe

• Yavapai-Apache Nation

Chiricahua Apache

• Fort Sill Apache Tribe (Oklahoma)

• Mescalero Apache Tribe (New Mexico)

Pueblo People

• Hopi Tribe

• Pueblo of Zuni

Yaqui People

• Pascua Yaqui Tribe

List of Preparers

Following are the credentials of Forest Service resource specialists who contributed to the content of 

this environmental impact statement.

Albert Peralta

Position: Office Automation Clerk, Coronado National Forest

Education: A.A.S., Administration of Justice, Cochise College

B.S., Criminal Justice Administration, University of Arizona (in progress)

Experience: 3 years

Contribution: Editing and record keeping

Andrea Wargo Campbell

Position: Forest NEPA Coordinator, Coronado National Forest 

Education: B.S., M.S., Biology, Wilkes University 

Experience: 33 years

Contribution: Advisor, NEPA Policy and Procedure; Chapters 1 and 2; EIS Team Leader (2012/13) 

DEIS revision (2013); writer/editor
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

438

Ann Lynch

Position: Research Entomologist, Forest and Woodlands Ecosystem Program, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station

Education: B.S., Forest Science, Pennsylvania State University

M.S., Natural Resources/Pest Management, University of Michigan

M.F., Natural Resource Biometrics, University of Michigan

Ph.D., Natural Resources/Pest Management, University of Michigan

Experience: 31 years

Contribution: Vegetation communities, insect and disease information

Cheri Bowen

Position: Patrol Captain, Law Enforcement, Coronado National Forest

Education: B.S., M.S. Aerospace Management, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Experience: 23 years

Contribution: Safety and law enforcement (2012)

Christopher Stetson

Position: Fire and Fuels Specialist, Coronado National Forest 

Education: B.S., Forestry, Northern Arizona University 

Experience: 15 years

Contribution: Vegetation and fuels management

Craig Wilcox

Position: Forest Silviculturist, Coronado National Forest 

Education: B.A., Forest Science, Texas A&M University 

Experience: 20 years

Contribution: Forest vegetation survey, Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool

Daniela Zormeier

Position: Plan Draft and Resource Tech, Coronado National Forest (resigned)

Education: A.A., Visual Arts, Pima Community College, Tucson, AZ

Experience: 3 years

Contribution: Formatting, editing, and recordkeeping

Debby Kriegel 

Position: Landscape Architect, Coronado National Forest

Education: B.S., Animal Health Science, University of Arizona

M.L.A., Landscape Architecture, University of Michigan

Experience: 26 years

Contribution: Recreation and scenic quality

Delilah Jaworski

Position: Social Scientist, USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Education: M.S., Environment and Development, London School of Economics

Experience: 3 years

Contribution: Socioeconomics 

Dustin Walters

Position: Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Education: M.S., Natural Resource Conservation, University of Montana

Experience: 10 years

Contribution: Soils analysis

Eli Curiel

Position: Transportation Engineer/Environmental Engineer

Education: B.S. Civil Engineering

Experience: 22 years

Contribution: Motorized transportation (2012)
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

439

Erin Boyle

Position: Assistant Forest Planner, Coronado National Forest (resigned)

Education: B.S., Geology, Evergreen State College

M.S., Hydrology, University of Arizona

Experience: 8 years

Contribution: Proposed action, alternatives (2010, 2011)

George McKay

Position: Region 3, Title Claims Specialist

Education: Registered Land Surveyor, State of Arizona

Experience: 30 years

Contribution: Access, lands, and boundary management analysis (2012)

Janet Moser

Position: Wildlife Biologist, TEAMS Enterprise Unit

Education: B.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Idaho

Experience: 23 years

Contribution: Wildlife analysis

Jennifer Morrissey

Position: Recreation Planner, Crimson Planning

Education: A.B., Harvard University

M.S., Natural Resources Planning, University of Vermont

Experience: 19 years

Contribution: Wilderness analysis

Jennifer M. Ruyle

Position: Forest Natural Resources and Planning Staff Officer, Coronado National Forest 

Education: B.S., Soil Resource Management, University of California (Berkeley);

M.S., Soil and Water Science, University of Arizona 

Experience: 30 years

Contribution: Plan revision and EIS team leader

Jeremy Sautter

Position: Lands Assistant, Coronado National Forest (resigned)

Education: B.S., Regional Development, University of Arizona

M.S., Community Planning, Kansas State University

Experience: 2 years

Contribution: Access, lands, and boundary management analysis

Judy York

Position: Writer-Editor

Education: B.S. Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho

M.S. Natural Resources Communications, University of Idaho

Experience: 28 years

Contribution: Document editing and publication 

Kenna Schoenle

Position: Assistant Forest Planner (Detail: July – November 2012)

Education: M.A., Arizona State University, Geographic Information Systems

B.A., Urban Planning, Arizona State University 

Experience: 2 years

Contribution: Maps; coordination of DEIS revision
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

440

Larry Jones

Position: Forest Biologist 

Education: B.S., Zoology, M.S., Biology, California State University (Long Beach)

Experience: 34 years

Contribution: Wildlife effects analysis 

Laura White

Position: Region 3, Arizona National Scenic Trail Administrator

Education: B.S., Natural Resource Management, University of Arizona

Experience: 21 years

Contribution: Recreation, wilderness

Linda Peery

Position: Planning Biologist, Coronado National Forest (resigned)

Education: B.S., Conservation Biology, University of Arizona

Experience: 2 years

Contribution: Comment, issues, and data analysis; wildlife effects analysis 

Mary Farrell

Position: Heritage Program Leader and Tribal Liaison (retired) 

Education: B.A., Anthropology, University of Virginia

M.A., Anthropology, University of Arizona

Experience: 30 years

Contribution: Heritage resources and tribal relations

Mindi Lehew

Position: Natural Resources Specialist, Coronado National Forest

Education: B.S., Environmental Science, University of Arizona

Graduate Certificate, Water Policy, University of Arizona

M.S., Natural Resources Studies, University of Arizona (2013)

Experience: 1 year

Contribution: Wilderness, research natural areas analysis

Mindy Sue Vogel

Position: Minerals and Geology Program Manager / Forest Geologist

Education: B.A. Geology and Business Management, University of Minnesota, Morris

M.S. Geology, Washington State University

Experience: 8 years

Contribution: Mineral resources

Nicholas Laluk

Position: Tribal Relations/Archaeologist

Education: B.A., Anthropology, Arizona State University

M.A., Anthropology, University of Arizona

Experience: 8 years

Contribution: Heritage resources and tribal relations

Rachael Biggs

Position: District Forester, Santa Catalina Ranger District, Coronado National Forest

Education: B.S., Forestry, Northern Arizona University

Experience: 4 years

Contribution: Vegetation analysis
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

441

Robert Lefevre

Position: Forestry and Watershed Program Manager, Coronado National Forest (retired)

Education: B.S., Forestry, Michigan Technological University

M.S., Watershed Management, University of Arizona

Experience: 36 years

Contribution: Input to soils, air, and water resources analysis

Richard Gerhart

Position: Program Leader, Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants; Coronado National Forest (retired)

Education: B.S., Wildlife Ecology, University of Arizona

Experience: 32 years

Contribution: Wildlife effects analysis

Rosamond Robinson

Position: Forest Planner, Coronado National Forest (July 2016)

Education: B.S., Fisheries & Wildlife Biology, Iowa State University

M.Ag., Animal Science, Pennsylvania State University

Experience: 26 years

Contribution: Planner

Salek Shafiqullah

Position: Hydrologist, Coronado National Forest

Education: B.A., Geology, University of Arizona

Registered Professional Geologist, Arizona

Registered Professional Civil Engineer, Arizona

Experience: 19 years

Contribution: Water resources analysis

Sara Dechter, AICP

Position: Acting Forest Planner (Detail: March–June 2012)

Education: B.A., Sociology (minor: Public Policy), University of Notre Dame, IN

M.S. in Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University

Experience: 8 years

Contribution: Assistant planner (detail), interdisciplinary team leader (detail)

Sarah Davis, ASLA

Position: Landscape Architect, Coronado National Forest (retired)

Education: B.S., Psychology, University of Maryland

B.L.A., University of Arizona

M.S., Renewable Natural Resource Studies, University of Arizona 

Experience: 32 years

Contribution: Communities, collaboration, and partnerships

Sharon Biedenbender

Position: Ecologist/Invasive Species and Pesticide Coordinator, Coronado National Forest

Education: M.S., Rangeland Ecology and Management, University of Arizona

Ph.D., Rangeland Ecology and Management, University of Arizona

Experience: 14 years

Contribution: Vegetation (riparian and invasive species) analysis

Tami Emmett

Position: Realty Specialist, Coronado National Forest 

Education: B.S., Psychology, Weber State University

Experience: 24 years

Contribution: Input to access, lands and boundary management; special uses
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

442

Terry Austin

Position: Geographic Information Systems Coordinator, Coronado National Forest

Education: B.S., Business Management and Administration, University of Phoenix

Experience: 27 years

Contribution: Geographic Information System support

William Gillespie

Position: Heritage Program Leader and Tribal Liaison, Coronado National Forest

Education: B.A., M.A., Anthropology, University of Colorado (Boulder) 

Experience: 30 years

Contribution: Heritage resources and tribal relations

Yolynda Begay

Position: Forest Planner 

Education: B.A., Criminology, University of New Mexico

M.A., Community and Regional Planning, University of New Mexico

Experience: 6 years

Contribution: Planner, interdisciplinary team leader 

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to, or made electronically available to, over 

4,000 individuals and groups who specifically requested a copy of the document or commented during 

public involvement opportunities. In addition, copies have been sent (or in some cases made 

electronically available) to Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, 

and organizations that have requested to be involved in the development of this analysis. These 

entities include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. 

Department of the Interior; Federal Highway Administration; Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation; USDA National Agricultural Library; State wildlife and fisheries management agencies; 

county commissions; and local community governments. Due to the number of people, agencies, and 

organizations, a complete listing has been omitted from this environmental impact statement but is 

available upon request or on the Coronado Web site at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coronado/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fswdev7_018702
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

443

Glossary

Alternatives: The different means by which objectives or goals can be attained. One of several 

policies, plans, or projects proposed for decision making.

Access: In this document, it primarily refers to vehicular access on National Forest Road Systems, but 

can also refer to the ability to get to a certain area whether on foot or by other means. 

Airshed. Subset of air basin, the term denotes a geographical area that shares the same air because of 

topography, meteorology, and climate.

Ambient: A term used to describe the environment as it exists at the point of measurement and against 

which changes (impacts) are measured.

Ambient air quality standard: Air pollutant concentrations of the surrounding outside environment 

that cannot legally be exceeded during fixed time intervals within a specific geographic area.

Aquatic: Growing, living in, frequenting, or taking place in water; in this environmental impact 

statement, used to indicate habitat, vegetation, and wildlife in freshwater.

Archaeological resource: Place(s) where the remnants (e.g., artifacts) of a past culture survive in a 

physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains. Archaeological resources can be 

districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects and can be prehistoric or historic in nature.

Biological assessment: A document prepared by or under the direction of a Federal agency; addresses 

listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may be present in the 

action area, and evaluates the potential effects of the action on such species and habitat.

Candidate species: Plant and animal species that, in the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, may become endangered or threatened (FSM 2670 09/23/2005). These are documented in the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s program advice to its regional directors for preparation of listing packages 

or documented in a current Federal Register Notice of Review (categories 1 and 2) for threatened or 

endangered listing.

Carbon monoxide (CO): Colorless, odorless gas that forms when carbon in fuel does not burn 

completely. Carbon monoxide is a component of exhaust from motor vehicles and engines.

Class I air quality area: One of 156 protected areas such as national parks, wilderness areas, national 

memorial parks, and international parks that were in existence as of August 1977, where air quality 

should be given special protection. Federal Class I areas are subject to maximum limits on air quality 

degradation called air quality increments (often referred to as prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) increments). All areas of the United States not designated as Class I areas are Class II areas. 

The air quality standards in Class I areas are more stringent than national ambient air quality 

standards.

Coarse woody debris: Woody material on the ground greater than 3 inches in diameter, including 

logs. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules published in 

the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

Concern: A point, matter, or question raised by management or the public that must be addressed in 

the planning process.

Consultation: Exchange of information and interactive discussion; it refers to consultation mandated 

by statute or regulation that has prescribed parties, procedures, and timelines (e.g., Consultation under 

NEPA or section 7 of the Endangered Species Act).

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President of the United 

States; established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal programs for 
Glossary

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

444

their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on 

environmental matters.

Criteria air pollutants: The six most common air pollutants in the U.S.: carbon monoxide (CO), lead 

(Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5 – inhalable and 

respirable particulates), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Congress has focused regulatory attention on these 

six pollutants because they endanger public health and the environment, are widespread throughout 

the U.S., and come from a variety of sources. Criteria air pollutants are typically emitted from many 

sources in industry, mining, transportation, electricity generation, energy production, and agriculture.

Critical habitat: Areas designated as critical by the Secretary of the Departments of the Interior or 

Commerce for the survival and recovery of listed species (50 CFR Parts 17 and 226). Because use of 

the term has legal implications, the Forest Service limits its use to only those habitats officially 

determined as critical by the Secretary.

Cultural resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by humans in the past, historic or 

prehistoric. More recently referred to as heritage resources.

Cumulative effects or impacts: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions, taken place over a 

period of time.

Desired conditions: Aspirations that set forth desired social, economic, and ecological attributes for 

the management of National Forest System lands. 

Diversity: An expression of community structure; high if there are many equally abundant species; 

low if there are only a few equally abundant species. The distribution and abundance of different plant 

and animal communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

Draft environmental impact statement (DEIS): The draft statement of the environmental effects of 

a major Federal action, which is required under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, 

and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review.

Ecosystem: Spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous units of the Earth that include all interacting 

organisms and elements of the abiotic environment within its boundaries.

Ecosystem management area: Geographically defined areas that include one or more mountain 

ranges. These mountain ranges are used to distinguish the ecosystem management area’s unique social 

and ecological issues with appropriate plan components. Also known as “geographic areas.”

Effect: Environmental change resulting from a proposed action. Direct effects are caused by the action 

and occur at the same time and place, while indirect effects are caused by the action, but are later in 

time or further removed in distance, although still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include 

growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, 

including ecosystems. Effect and impact are synonymous as used in this document.

Emissions: Releases of pollutants into the air from a source, such as a motor vehicle or a factory.

Endangered species: Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range; plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of the Interior as 

endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

Environmental justice: According to USDA DR5600-002 (USDA 1997), Environmental Justice, 

minority, minority population, low-income, and human health and environmental effects, are defined 

as follows:

“Environmental Justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all 

populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are 
Glossary

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

445

allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a 

disproportionately high and adverse manner by, government programs and activities affecting 

human health or the environment. 

Minority means a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian 

or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

Minority Population means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or 

activities.

Low-Income Population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or 

activities. Low-income populations may be identified using data collected, maintained, and 

analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty thresholds 

from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty.

Human Health and/or Environmental Effects as used in this Departmental Regulation includes 

interrelated social and economic effects.”

Environmental impact statement (EIS): An analytical document prepared under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that portrays the potential impacts to the environment of a 

preferred action and its possible alternatives. An ElS is developed for use by decision makers to weigh 

the environmental consequences of a potential decision.

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geologic agents, 

including gravitation creep.

Final environmental impact statement (Final EIS): A revision of the draft environmental impact 

statement that includes public and agency comments on the draft.

Fire regime: Patterns of fire that occur over a long period of time across an appropriately scaled area 

and its immediate effects on the ecosystem in which it occurs. An ecosystem’s natural fire regime is 

the one that existed prior to human-facilitated interruption of fire frequency, extent, or severity.

Forest plan: see land and resource management plan.

Functioning at risk: Watershed condition that exhibits moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition.

Geology: The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the Earth; the structure of a 

specific region of the Earth’s surface.

Greenhouse gas: A gas that absorbs and emits thermal radiation within the lowest layers of the 

atmosphere. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse 

gases that are considered air pollutants are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 

and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Groundwater: Water found beneath the land surface in the zone of saturation below the water table.

Guidelines: Components with which a project or activity must be consistent, in either of two ways:

1. The project or activity is designed exactly in accord with the guideline; or

2. The project or activity design varies from the exact words of the guideline, but is as effective 

in meeting the purpose of the guideline to contribute to the maintenance or attainment of the 

relevant desired conditions and objectives.
Glossary

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

446

Habitat: The natural environment of a plant or animal, including all biotic, climatic, and soil 

conditions, or other environmental influences affecting living conditions. The place where an 

organism lives.

Impaired watershed function: A watershed has impaired function because some physical, 

hydrological, or biological threshold has been exceeded. Substantial changes to the factors that caused 

the degraded state are commonly needed to set them on a trend or trajectory of improving conditions 

that sustain physical, hydrological, and biological integrity.

Impaired water quality: A water body is listed as impaired by the state environmental quality 

department when it does not support one or more of its designated uses. Examples of designated uses 

include: recreation, water supply, aquatic life, and agriculture. A water body whose designated use is a 

water supply must meet higher water quality standards than one designated for agriculture.

Indirect impacts: Impacts that are caused by an action, but are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, although still reasonably foreseeable.

Irretrievable: A term that applies to losses of production, harvest, or commitment of renewable 

natural resources.

Irreversible: A term that applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or 

cultural resources, or to those factors that are renewable only over long time spans, such as soil 

productivity. Irreversible also includes loss of future options.

Land and resource management plan: Also referred to as a forest plan, a comprehensive land 

management planning document prepared by and for the Forest Service under requirements of the 

National Forest Management Act.

Land management: The intentional process of planning, organizing, programming, coordinating, 

directing, and controlling land use actions.

Land use zones: Areas defined by the types of uses and desired settings that would occur in them 

under the revised forest plan. They occur across districts, mountain ranges, and ecosystems but have 

commonalities that make their overarching land uses similar.

Landscape: The sum total of the characteristics that distinguish a certain area on the Earth’s surface 

from other areas; these characteristics are a result not only of natural forces, but also of human 

occupancy and use of the land. An area composed of interacting and interconnected patterns of 

habitats (ecosystems) which are repeated because of geology, landforms, soils, climate, biota, and 

human influences throughout the area.

Leasable minerals. Oil, gas, coal, phosphate, potassium, sodium, sulphur, gilsonite, oil shale, 

geothermal resources, and hardrock minerals. A lease grants the exclusive right to explore for,

develop, and produce the mineral commodity identified in the lease. Lease stipulations are used to 

limit or constrain those rights. Lease regulations for the Forest Service are found in 36 CFR 228 

Subpart E.

Listed species: Species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (as amended).

Locatable minerals: Minerals that may be located and removed from Federal lands under the General 

Mining Law of 1872 as amended and were not excepted in later legislation. Locatable minerals 

include, but are not limited to, gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, platinum, precious gems, uranium, 

bentonite, and chemical grade limestone.

Maintenance level: The service level of a road is determined by its maintenance level (ML). 

ML 2 roads are suitable for high-clearance vehicles, but not passenger sedans. 

ML 3 roads are open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard passenger cars. 

Roads are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts, and spot surfacing. 
Glossary

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

447

ML 4 roads provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel 

speeds. Most are double lane and aggregate surfaced, but some roads may be single lane. 

ML 5 roads provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads are typically 

double lane, paved facilities.

Management approaches: Forest plan content which briefly describes the principal approaches to 

management that a responsible official is inclined to take. Management approaches do not make 

commitments of resources. They may illustrate suggestions as to how desired conditions and/or 

objectives could be met, convey a sense of priority among objectives, or indicate a possible future 

course of change to a program; partnership opportunities and collaborative arrangements may be 

discussed, as well as potential processes such as further analysis or inventory.

Management area: The assignment of a management emphasis to particular land areas with the 

purpose of achieving the goals and objectives of some specified use(s) (e.g., campgrounds, wilderness, 

logging, and mining).

Migratory: Moving from place to place, daily or seasonally.

Minority: A person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian or 

Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

Minority population: Any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in geographic 

proximity to, and if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically 

dispersed/transient persons who would be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities.

Mitigation: Steps taken to: (1) avoid an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an 

action; (2) minimize an impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation; (3) rectify an impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; (4) reduce or eliminate an impact over time by preserving and maintaining operations 

during the life of the action; and, (5) compensate for an impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments (40 CFR Part 1508.20).

Memorandum of understanding (MOU): Usually documents an agreement reached among Federal 

agencies.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act declaring a national policy to encourage 

productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment; promote efforts to 

prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of 

humanity; enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 

Nation; and establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

National Forest System road (NFS road): A road wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving 

the National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

resources.

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM): Systematic process to estimate annual recreation and 

other uses of National Forest System lands through user surveys. The National Visitor Use Monitoring 

process includes a survey to develop statistically accurate estimates of national forest visitor use; the 

survey began in 2000, and will continue indefinitely, during which 20 percent of all national forests 

will participate in a given year. Use information is gathered in five categories: day use developed 

sites, overnight use developed sites, general forest areas, wilderness, and viewing corridors.

NOx: Mono-nitrogen oxides, including nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). It is formed 

when naturally occurring atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen are combusted with fuels in automobiles, 

power plants, industrial processes, and home and office heating units.

Nonattainment area: A geographic area that does not meet one or more of the Federal air quality 

standards. Class I areas include international parks, national wilderness areas exceeding 5,000 acres in 
Glossary

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

448

size, national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres in size, and national parks exceeding 6,000 acres. 

Class II areas comprise all the remaining areas that are not class I.

Noxious weed: A legal term applied to plants regulated by Federal and state laws, such as plants 

designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible state official. 

Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult 

to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insect or disease, and being not 

native or new or not common to the United States or parts thereof.

Objectives: Concise, time-specific statements of measurable planned results that make progress 

toward or maintain desired conditions.

Old growth: Old growth in southwestern forested ecosystems is different than the traditional 

definition based on northwestern infrequent fire forests. Due to large differences among Southwest 

forest types and natural disturbances, old-growth forests vary extensively in tree size, age classes, 

presence, and abundance of structural elements, stability, and presence of understory. Old growth 

refers to specific habitat components that occur in forests and woodlands—old trees, dead trees 

(snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and structure diversity. These important habitat features 

may occur in small areas with only a few components, or over larger areas as stands or forests where 

old growth is concentrated. In the Southwest, old growth is considered “transitional,” given that the 

location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree 

growth and mortality). Some species, notably certain plants, require “old forest” communities that 

may or may not have old-growth components but have escaped significant disturbance for lengths of 

time necessary to provide the suitable stability and environment.

Particulates: Small particles suspended in the air, generally considered pollutants.

Particulate matter: Tiny particles or liquid droplets suspended in the air that can contain a variety of 

chemical components. Larger particles are visible as smoke or dust and settle out relatively rapidly. 

The tiniest particles can be suspended in the air for long periods of time and are the most harmful to 

human health because they can penetrate deep into the lungs. Some particles are directly emitted into 

the air.

Per capita income: Total income divided by the total population. 

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A special permit procedure established in the Clean 

Air Act, as amended, used to ensure that economic growth occurs in a manner consistent with the 

protection of public health and preservation of air quality related values in national special interest 

areas.

Properly functioning condition: Watershed condition that exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition and are functioning properly.

Public scoping: A process whereby the public is given the opportunity to provide oral or written 

comments about the influence of a project on an individual, the community, and/or the environment.

Record of decision (ROD): A document separate from, but associated with, an environmental impact 

statement, which states the decision, identifies alternatives (specifying which were environmentally 

preferable), and states whether all practicable means to avoid environmental harm from the alternative 

have been adopted and, if not, why not (40 CFR § 1505.2).

Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS): A framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation 

opportunities the public might desire, and identifies that portion of the spectrum a given national 

forest area might be able to provide. The broad classes are: 

Primitive: Characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment. Interaction between 

users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. Essentially free from evidence of 

human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is generally not permitted. 

Very high probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and 

risk. 
Glossary

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

449

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM): Characterized by a predominantly natural or naturalappearing environment. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other 

users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be 

present, but are subtle. Motorized use is generally not permitted. High probability of experiencing 

solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and risk. 

Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM): Characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing 

environment. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is 

managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present, but are 

subtle. Motorized use is generally permitted; roads are usually unpaved and often primitive. 

Moderate probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and 

risk. 

Roaded Modified (RM): Characterized by a predominately natural or natural-appearing 

environment. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is 

managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present, but are 

subtle. Roads are well maintained and provide easy access. Moderate probability of experiencing 

solitude, closeness to nature, self-reliance, and risk.

Roaded Natural (RN): Characterized by a predominantly natural-appearing environment with 

moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of other humans. Areas are usually road corridors 

where people drive to enjoy the scenery and are often on their way to a developed site (such as 

campgrounds, picnic area, or visitor center). Facilities harmonize with the natural environment, 

though interaction between users may be moderate to high. Roads are passable by low-clearance 

vehicles. Roaded natural areas often have rural and urban recreation opportunity settings along 

them, where there are opportunities to affiliate with other users in developed sites. 

Rural (R): Characterized by a modified natural environment. The natural setting is the attraction, 

but there are many facilities such as buildings, roads, and signs. The sights and sounds of humans 

are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to high. Facilities are 

often provided for special activities (such as campgrounds, organization camps, and summer 

homes). Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is important, as is convenience of 

facilities. 

Urban (U): Characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the background 

may have natural-appearing elements. Characteristics include intensive use, clustered facilities, 

large numbers of people, and specialized activities. Examples include major recreation sites (such 

as large visitor centers) and other human needs (such as astrophysical structures and electronic 

sites). The opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is very important, as is 

convenience of facilities.

Riparian: Occurring adjacent to streams and rivers and directly influenced by water. A riparian 

community is characterized by certain types of vegetation, soils, hydrology, and fauna and requires 

free or unbound water or conditions more moist than that normally found in the area.

Resiliency: The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the 

same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to 

adapt to stress and change.

Restoration: The process of assisting in the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, 

damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, 

pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem 

sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future conditions.

Salable minerals: Also known as mineral materials, salable minerals include common variety mineral 

materials such as petrified wood, common varieties of sand, rock, stone, cinders, gravel, pumice, clay, 

most building stone, and other similar materials.
Glossary

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

450

Scoping process: A part of the National Environmental Policy Act process; early and open activities 

used to determine the scope and significance of the issues, and the range of actions, alternatives, and 

impacts to be considered in an environmental impact statement (40 CFR § 1501.7).

Sensitive species: Those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which 

population viability is a concern. 

Significant: The description of an impact that exceeds a certain threshold level and requires 

consideration of both context and intensity. The significance of an action must be analyzed in several 

contexts, such as society as a whole, and the affected region, interests, and locality. Intensity refers to 

the severity of impacts, which should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence.

Sky islands: Widely scattered mountain ranges that rise dramatically from the desert floor and contain 

unique and geographically isolated ecosystems.

Socioeconomic: Pertaining to or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic 

factors.

Special areas: Lands that have designations by Congress or another delegated authority. Special areas 

are designated because of their unique or special characteristics.

Special use permit: A permit issued under established laws and regulations to an individual, 

organization, or company for occupancy or use of Federal or state lands for some special purpose.

Standards: Constraints upon project and activity decision making. A standard is an absolute 

requirement to be met in the design of projects and activities.

Suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices (uses) to a 

particular area of land. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined uses.

Terrestrial: Of or relating to the Earth, soil, or land; inhabiting the Earth or land.

Threatened species: A plant or animal species likely to become an endangered species throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.

Unauthorized road: Road that is not a National Forest System road or a temporary road and is not 

included in a forest transportation atlas.

Vegetation community: A vegetation complex, unique in its combination of plants, which occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences. A vegetation community is a reflection of integrated 

environmental influences on the site, such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope 

aspect, and precipitation.

Viable population: A population that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive 

individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range (or range 

required to meet recovery for listed species) within the planning area.

Water quality: The interaction between various parameters that determines the usability or nonusability of water for onsite and downstream uses. Major parameters that affect water quality include: 

temperature, turbidity, suspended sediment, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific ions, 

discharge, and fecal coliform.

Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstance do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include habitats such as 

swamps, marshes, and bogs.

Wild and scenic river. A river selected for nomination and/or designation through the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 for possessing outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish 

and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 
Glossary

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

451

Wilderness: Land designated by Congress as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. For an area to be considered for wilderness designation it must be roadless and possess the 

characteristics required by section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. These characteristics are: (1) 

naturalness—lands that are natural and primarily affected by the forces of nature; (2) roadless and 

having at least 5,000 acres of contiguous public lands; and (3) outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive and unconfined types of recreation. In addition, areas may contain “supplemental values” 

consisting of ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical 

importance.

Wildland-urban interface: The zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development. 

The area where houses and private structures meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland 

vegetation.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

452

References

Anable, M.E., M.P. McClaran and G.B. Ruyle. 1992. Spread of introduced Lehmann lovegrass in Southern 

Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 61: 181-188.

Anderson, Michelle D. 2004. Rhus trilobata. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis (accessed April 15, 2012).

Arizona Department of Agriculture. Annual Report FY 2009−2010. Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Department of Commerce. 2008. Arizona County Profiles. Available online at: 

http://www.azcommerce.com (accessed May 24, 2012).

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2003. Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

for the State of Arizona. Published December 23, 2003. Available online at:

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/haze/download/2sip.pdf (accessed November 2, 2011). 

———. 2007. Air quality exceptional and natural events policy.

———. 2009. 2006/2008 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) 

Assessment and 303(d) Listing Report. 

———. 2011. Arizona State Implementation Plan, Regional Haze. Section 308, Federal Regional Haze 

Rule. 

Arizona Department of Transportation. 2010. Arizona State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 

Fiscal Years 2010−2013. Phoenix, AZ. Available online at: 

http://www.azdot.gov/MPD/Priority_Programming/index.asp.

———. 2010a. What Moves You Arizona, State Long Range Transportation Plan, Goals and Objectives. 

Phoenix, AZ. Available online at: http://www.whatmovesyouarizona.gov/your_home.asp.

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 2011. Missions and Goals. Phoenix, AZ. Available online at: 

http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/PublicInformationOfficer/MissionAndGoals.htm.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1993. Arizona riparian inventory and mapping project. Arizona Game 

and Fish Department. Phoenix, AZ.

———. 1997. Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the 

Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. 

On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2000. Spiranthes delitescens. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data 

Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. 

———. 2001. Native Fishes Workshop: Coronado National Forest’s Sensitive Species. Unpublished 

report. On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2006. Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 2005−2015. Phoenix, AZ.

———. 2007. Wildlife 2012 Strategic Plan. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, AZ.

———. 2011. Rare ocelot observed in southern Arizona. Online article dated February 8, 2011. Available 

online at: http://azgfd.net/artman/publish/NewsMedia/Rare-ocelot-observed-in-southernArizona.shtml

Arizona Geological Society. Available online at: http://services.usgin.org/azgs/geologic-map-arizona.html

(accessed December 17, 2012).

Arizona National Forests Socioeconomic Assessment Team. 2005. Socioeconomic Assessment of the 

Coronado National Forest. The University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources: Tucson, AZ. 

176 pp.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

453

Arizona State Land Department. 2011. State Land Department Historical Overview. Phoenix, AZ. 

Available online at: http://www.land.state.az.us/history.htm.

Arizona State Forestry Division. 2010. Arizona Forest Resource Strategy. Available online at: 

http://www.azsf.az.gov/forest_strategy.asp

Arizona State Parks. 2008. Arizona 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 

Phoenix, AZ.

———. 2009. Arizona Trails 2010: A Statewide Motorized and Non-Motorized Recreational Trails Plan. 

Phoenix, AZ.

———. 2010. Arizona State Parks FY09/10 Annual Report July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010. Phoenix, AZ.

Baker, Jr., Malchus B. Compiler. 1999. History of Watershed Research in the Central Arizona Highlands. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 56 pp.

Bailey, R.G. 1983. Delineation of ecosystem regions. Environmental Management 7:365−373.

Barrett, S., D. Havlina, J. Jones, W. Hann, C. Frame, D. Hamilton, K. Schon, T. Demeo, L. Hutter, and J. 

Menakis. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0 [Homepage of 

the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy]. [Online], Available: http://www.frcc.gov [September 

2012].

Beck, George K. 2013. Testimony by Dr. George K. Beck, Colorado State University at U.S. Congressional 

hearing on invasive species. May 16, 2013: Washington, DC.

Bock, J.H and C.E. Bock, 1986. Habitat relationships of some native perennial grasses in southeastern 

Arizona. Desert Plants 8:3-14.

Borelli, S., P.F. Ffolliott, and G.J. Gottfried. 1994. Natural regeneration in the encinal woodlands of 

southeastern Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 39(2):179−183.

Brown, D.E. ed. 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. Salt 

Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Brown, D.E., and C.H. Lowe. 1974. A digitized computer-compatible classification of natural and potential 

vegetation in the Southwest with particular reference to Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy 

of Science 9 (Suppl 2):1-56.

Brooks, J.E. 1982. Sycamore creek survey – Gila ditaenia. Inter-office memo, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Phoenix. AZ. 2 pp.

Brunson, M. and L. Huntsinger. 2008. Ranching as a conservation strategy: Can old ranchers save the new 

west? Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:137−147.

Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Safford District Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Safford, AZ.

———. 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Arizona 2011 NEPA Project 

Log.

Cable, D.R. 1965. Damage to mesquite, Lehmann lovegrass, and black grama by a hot June fire. Journal of 

Range Management 18(6):326−329.

Carleton, O. 1991. General Ecosystem Survey. On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

Tucson, AZ.

Carman, S.M. 2006. Colorado River Basin chubs, roundtail chub (Gila robusta), Gila chub (Gila 

intermedia), headwater chub (Gila nigra), Recovery Plan. New Mexico Department of Game and 

Fish, Santa Fe, NM.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

454

Carpenter, J. 1982. Summer habitat use of Sonora chub in Sycamore Creek, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. 

M.S. Thesis, University of Arizona, AZ. 83 pp.

Clarkson, R.W., and J.C. DeVos, Jr. 1986. The bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana Shaw, in the lower Colorado 

River, Arizona-California. Journal of Herpetology 20(1):42-49.

Cochise County Arizona. 2002. Cochise County Comprehensive Plan. Available online at: 

http://cochise.az.gov/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Zoning/Comprehensive%20Plan%202006%20-

%20Final.pdf.

Cochise County, Arizona. 2013. Memorandum to the board of supervisors regarding proposed alteration to 

the establishment of Davis Road. Available online at: 

http://agenda.cochise.az.gov/docs/2013/BOS/20130507_457/1235_ExecutiveSummaryForDavisR

oadAlteredEstablishment.pdf 

Cohen, N.W., and W.E. Howard. 1958. Bullfrog food and growth at the San Joaquin Experimental Range, 

California. Copeia: 223-225

Conley, J.L., M.E. Fernandez-Gimenez, G.B. Ruyle, and M. Brunson. 2007. Forest Service grazing 

permittee perceptions of the Endangered Species Act in Southeastern Arizona. Rangeland Ecology 

and Management. 60:136−145.

Cordell, H.K. 2008. The latest on trends in nature-based outdoor recreation. Forest History Today, Spring 

2008, 4−10.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President.

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure: Changes since EuroAmerican settlement. Journal of Forestry 92(1):39−47.

Cox, J.R. and G.B. Ruyle. 1986. Influence of climatic and edaphic factors on the distribution of Eragrostis 

lehmanniana Nees in Arizona, USA. Journal of the Grassland Society of South Africa. 3(1): 25-

29.

Crimmins, T., M. Crimmins, and C.D. Bertelsen. 2010. Draft Establishment Record for the C. David 

Bertelsen Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area. Pima County, AZ. 

Culver, M., S. Malusa, J.L. Childs, K. Emerson, T. Fagan, P.M. Harveson, L.E. Haynes, J.G. Sanderson, 

J.H. Sheehy, T. Skinner, N. Smith, K. Thompson, and R.W. Thompson. 2016. Jaguar surveying 

and monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1095, 228 

pp.

Driscoll, J.T., K.V. Jacobson, G.L. Beatty, J.S. Canaca, and J.G. Koloszar. 2006. Conservation assessment 

and strategy for the bald eagle in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 173. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Dudley, R.K. and W.J. Matter. 2000. Effects of small green sunfish (Lepomis cyanella) on recruitment of 

Gila chub (Gila intermedia) in Sabino Creek, AZ. Southwestern Naturalist 45:24–29.

Earl, S.R. and D.W. Blinn. 2003. Effects of wildfire ash on water chemistry and biota in south-western 

U.S.A. streams. Freshwater Biology 48:1015–1030.

Federal Highway Administration. 2010. Planning Update 1: Long Range Transportation Plan for Forest 

Highways in Arizona. U.S. Department of Transportation. 

———. 2011. Who We Are. Web site of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration. Available online at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/whoweare/whoweare.htm

Finkral, A.J. and A.M. Evans. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on the carbon stocks in a northern 

Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255:2743−2750.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

455

Ffolliott, P.F., G.J. Gottfried., C.L. Stropki., H. Chen, and D.G. Neary. 2011. Fire effects on tree 

overstories in the oak savannas of the southwestern borderlands region. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-86. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station. 13 pp.

Gobster, Paul H. 1994. “The aesthetic experience of sustainable forest ecosystems.” In: Covington, W. 

Wallace, and Leonard F. Debano, tech. coord., Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an 

Ecological Approach to Land Management, 1993 July 12−15; Flagstaff, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM247, pp. 246−255. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Graham County Arizona. 1996. Graham County Comprehensive Plan. Available online at: 

http://www.graham.az.gov/Graham_CMS/uploadedFiles/County_Offices/Planning_and_Zoning/O

rdinances_and_Permits/Zoning%20Ord%20March%2011.pdf.

Gray, K.M. and R.J. Steidl. 2012. Effects of buffelgrass on habitat use of Sonoran Desert tortoises. In: 

Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of Southwestern 

United States and Northwestern Mexico. May 2012. Conference proceedings to be published.

Grissino-Mayer, H.D., C.H. Baisan, and T.W. Swetnam. 1995. Fire history in the Pinaleño Mountains of 

southeastern Arizona: Effects of human-related disturbances. In: L.F. Debano, G.J. Gottfried, R.H. 

Hamre, C.B. Edminster, P.F. Ffolliott, and A. Ortega-Rubio, eds. Biodiversity and Management of 

the Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of Southwestern United States and Northwestern 

Mexico. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM 264: 399−407.

Gucker, C.L. 2007. Nolina microcarpa. In: Fire Effects Information System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (accessed May 9, 2012).

Hadley, D. and T.E. Sheridan. 1995. Land use history of the San Rafael Valley, Arizona (1540−1960). 

General Technical Report GM-GTR-269. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Hann, W.J. and D.L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across 

multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire: 10(4):389−403.

Hansen, A.J., R. Knight, J.M. Marzluff, S. Powell, and K. Brown. 2005. Effects of exurban development on 

biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications 15:1893−1905.

Haufler, J.B., et al. 1996. Using a coarse-filter approach with species assessment for ecosystem 

management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24:200-08.

Headwaters Economics. 2009. Economic Profile System. Available online at: 

http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt (accessed October 1, 2010).

Healy, W.M. 1997. Thinning New England oak stands to enhance acorn production. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry 14(3):152−156.

Helmbrecht, D. 2013. Analysis of vegetation condition on the Coronado National Forest. Unpublished 

report on file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

Hendrickson, D.A. and L. Juarez-Romero. 1990. Los peces de la cuenca del Rio de la Concepcion, Sonora, 

Mexico, y el estatus del charalito sonorense, Gila ditaenia, una especie en amenaza de extinction. 

Southwest Naturalist 35:177−187.

Hendrickson, D.A. and W.L. Minckley. 1984. Cienegas − vanishing climax communities of the American 

Southwest. Desert Plants 6(3):131−175.

Herrington, R.E. 1988. Talus use by amphibians and reptiles in the Pacific Northwest. In: Management of 

Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report RM-166, 216−221.

Hurteau, M.D., G.W. Koch, and B.A. Hungate. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: Toward a 

full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 6(9):493−498.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

456

Jenkins M.J., E. Hebertson, W. Page, and C. A. Jorgensen. 2008. Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications 

for forest management in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 254:16−34.

Jones, L.L.C. and M.J. Sredl. 2005. Chiricahua Leopard Frog Status in the Galiuro Mountains, Arizona, 

with a Monitoring Framework for the Species’ Entire Range. In: Connecting Mountain Islands and 

Desert Seas: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago II. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report RMRS-P-36, 88−91.

Keith, S.B., 1973, Index of mining properties in Cochise County, AZ. Arizona Bureau of Mines Bulletin.

187, 98 pp.

Keith, S.B. 1974. Index of mining properties in Pima County, AZ. Arizona Bureau of Mines Bulletin. 189, 

156 pp.

Keith, S.B. 1975. Index of mining properties in Santa Cruz County, AZ. Arizona Bureau of Mines Bulletin.

191, 94 pp.

Keith, Stanley B., Gest, D.E., DeWitt, E., Toll, N.W., and Everson, B.A. 1983. Metallic mineral districts 

and production in Arizona. Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology. Tucson, 58 pp.

Koprowski, J.L., M.L. Alanen, and A.M. Lynch. 2005. Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: Response of 

endemic Mount Graham red squirrels to catastrophic forest damage. Biological Conservation 126: 

491-498.

Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. 

Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 142. Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Laughlin, D.C., J.D. Bakker, M.T. Stoddard, M.L. Daniels, J.D. Springer, C.N. Gildar, A.M. Green, and 

W.W. Covington. 2004. Toward reference conditions: Wildfire effects on flora in an old-growth 

ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 199:137−152.

Lee, B.V. R. Smith, and J. Bate. 2006. Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 3. 

The Nature Conservancy. Available online at: 

http://azconservation.org/dl/TNCAZ_SWFAP_DiversityReport_Coronado.pdf

Lee, D. S., C.R. Gilbert, C H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of 

North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.

Lenart, M. 2007. Global Warming in the Southwest: Projections, Observations and Impacts. Unpublished 

report. Climate Assessment for the Southwest. University of Arizona. On file at: Coronado 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ. 88 pp.

Lenth, B.A., R.L. Knight, and W.C. Gilgert. 2006. Conservation value of clustered housing developments. 

Conservation Biology 20:1445−1456.

Loomis, John, and Robert Richardson. 2001. Economic Values of the U.S. Wilderness System. 

International Journal of Wilderness 7(1):31−34.

Lynch A.M. 2003. Spruce aphid in high elevation habitats in the Southwest. In S.L.C. Fosbroke and K.W. 

Gottschalk, eds. Proceedings of the USDA Interagency research forum on gypsy moth and other 

invasive species, 2002. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-300, Northeastern 

Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 60−63.

———. 2009. Spruce aphid, Elatobium abietinum (Walker) life history and damage to Engelmann spruce 

in the Pinaleño Mountains, Arizona. In H.R. Sanderson and J.L. Koprowski, eds. The Last Refuge 

of the Mount Graham Red Squirrel: Ecology and Management. Tucson, AZ: The University of 

Arizona Press. 318−338.

Lynch, J.A., J.W. Grim, and V.C. Bowersox. 1995. Trends in Precipitation Chemistry in the United States: 

A National Perspective, 1980–1992. Atmospheric Environment Vol. 29, No. 11.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

457

Marshall, D.B. 2003. Yellow-billed cuckoo. In D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, eds. Birds 

of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 305−307.

Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing 

in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8):2145–2151.

Miller, R.R. 1946. Gila cypha, a remarkable new species of cyprinid fish from the lower Colorado River 

basin, Arizona. Journal Washington Academy Science 36:206–212.

———. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Michigan Academy of Science, 

Arts, Letters 46:365–404.

Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 293 pp.

———. 1980. Gila purpurea (Girard), Yaqui Chub. In: Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. D.S. 

Lee et al., eds., North Carolina State Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, NC.

———. 1985. Native fishes and natural aquatic habitats in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Region II west of the 

Continental Divide. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Department of 

Zoology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Minckley, W.L. and D.E. Brown. 1994. Wetlands. Part 6. In D.E. Brown, ed. Biotic Communities of the 

American Southwest. Boyce Thompson Arboretum, Superior, AZ, USA. 222−287 and 333−351.

Minckley, W.L. and G.K. Meffe. 1987. Differential selection by flooding in stream-fish communities of the 

arid American southwest. In: W.J. Matthews and D.C. Hines, eds. Community and Evolutionary 

Ecology of North American Stream Fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 93−104.

Minckley, W.L. and P.C. March. 2009. Inland fishes of the greater Southwest, Chronicle of a vanishing 

biota. University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group. 2008. IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group. 2009. IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0.

Mittermeier, R.A., P.R. Gil, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C.G. Mittermeier, J. Lamoreux, and 

G.A.B. Da Fonseca. 2004. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered 

Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX, S.A. de C.V., Agrupacion Sierra Madre, S.C. Primero de Mayo 

249, 03800 Mexico City, Mexico, asmupc@infosel.net.mx

Morafka, D.J. 1977. A Biogeographical Analysis of the Chihuahuan Desert through its Herpetofauna. Dr. 

W. Junk B.V., Publishers, The Hague.

Moser J.D., B.A. Fitzgibbon, and K.D. Klepzig. 2005. The Mexican pine beetle, Dendroctonus mexicanus: 

first record in the United States and co-occurrence with the southern pine beetle – Dendroctonus 

frontalis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae or Curculioniidae). Entomological News 116:235−243.

National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning: Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. No. 

242, Friday, December 18, 2009, pages 67059-67075. Available online at: 

https://federalregister.gov/a/E9-30171

National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning: Final Rule and Record of Decision. 

Federal Register Vol. No. 77, April 9, 2012, pages 21161-21276. Available online at: 

https://federalregister.gov/a/2012-7502

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life (web application). Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (accessed 

June 20, 2012).

Nehls, H.B. 2003. Mountain Plover. In: Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. 

Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Nelson B. 1993. Spawning characteristics of Gila chub (Gila intermedia) in Cienega Creek, Pima County, 

Arizona. Report for Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Resource Area, Tucson, AZ.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

458

Niemuth, N J., Bain, D.R., and F.S. Kimbler. 2007. Active Mines in Arizona – 2007. Department of Miners 

and Mineral Resources Directory 51. 48 pp.

New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED). 2010. New Mexico State Implementation Plan, 

Regional Haze. Published December 20, 2010. Available online at: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/documents/Proposed_RH_SIP_309g.pdf

Office of the President. 1994. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Population and Low-income Populations. February 1994.

Olsson, A.D., J. Betancourt, M.P. McClaran, and S.E. Marsh. 2012. Sonoran desert ecosystem 

transformation by a C4 grass without the grass/fire cycle. Diversity and Distributions 18:10−21.

Pagel, J. E., D.M. Whittington, G.T. Allen. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; 

and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Pavek, D.S. 1994a. Quercus emoryi. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available 

online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (accessed November 14, 2012).

——— 1994b. Quercus arizonica. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available 

online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (accessed November 14, 2012).

Pima Association of Governments website. 2009. Available online at: 

http://www.pagnet.org/RegionalData/Population/tabid/104/Default.aspx.

Pima County, Arizona. 2013. Regional Transportation Authority Roadway Improvement Plans. Available 

online at: http://dot.pima.gov/

Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. 2009 Air Quality Summary Report for Pima 

County, Arizona. On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

Pinal County Arizona. 2001. Pinal County Comprehensive Plan. Available online at: 

http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/PlanningDevelopment/ComprehensivePlanUpdate/Docume

nts/Complete%20CompPlan.pdf.

Potter, D.U. and C.M. Huber. 2007. Using the Critical Load Concept to Protect Ecosystems from 

Acidification. In: M. Furniss, C. Clifton, and K. Ronnenberg, eds. 2007. Advancing the 

Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Sciences Conference, 

San Diego, California, 18−22 October 2004, PNWGTR-689, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. 1987. The legacy the challenge, with case studies: The 

report of the President’s Commission. Island Press. 426 pp.

Rasmussen, J.C. 2012. Coconino National Forest Potential Wilderness Areas. Report on file at the 

Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

Reynolds, R.T., A.J. Sanchez Meador, J.A. Youtz,T. Nicolet, M.S. Matonis, P.L. Jackson, D.G.

DeLorenzo, and A.D. Graves. 2013. Restoring composition and structure in Southwestern 

frequent-fire forests: A science-based framework for improving ecosystem resiliency. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-310. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 76 pp.

Rhodes, J.J. 2007. Watershed impacts of forest treatments to reduce fuels and modify fire behavior. 

Prepared for: Pacific Rivers Council. Eugene, OR.

Rieman, B. and D. Isaak. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems and fishes in the Rocky Mountain 

West: implications and alternatives for management. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, GTR-RMRS-250, Fort Collins, CO.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

459

Rinne, J.N. 1975. Changes in minnow populations in a small desert stream resulting from natural and 

artificially induced factors. Southwestern Naturalist 20:185–195.

———. 2004. Forests, fish and fire: Relationships and management implications for fishes in the 

southwestern USA. In: G.J. Scrimgeour, G. Eisler, B. McCulloch, U. Silins, and M. Monita, eds. 

Forest Land–Fish Conference II – Ecosystem Stewardship through Collaboration. Proceedings of 

the Forest-Land-Fish Conference II, April 26−28, 2004, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 151–156.

Rinne, J.W. and W.L. Minckley. 1991. Native Fishes of Arid Lands: A Dwindling Resource of the Desert 

Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep RM-GTR-206. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 45 pp.

Robinett, D. 2010. Coronado National Forest Potential Native Plant Communities. Unpublished report. 

Rangeland Resources LLC, Tucson, AZ. On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office, Tucson, AZ.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Fort Collins, CO: Wildland Hydrology. 

Russell, J.C. and P. Adams-Russell. 2005. Values, Attitudes and Beliefs about National Forest System 

Lands: The Coronado National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, 

NM, USA. 45 pp.

Russell, J.R. 2006a. Topics, Threads, and Themes: A Catalog of Results from Initial Collaboration 

Meetings for Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan. 

On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2006b. Coronado National Forest: Engagement Report for Collaboration Meetings September 

2006. On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2007. Engagement Analysis Report. Desired Conditions: Fall 2007 Public Meetings For Revision 

of the Land and Resource Management Plan, Coronado National Forest. On file at: Coronado 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

Ryan, R. L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aesthetics and 

fuels management, Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station.

San Carlos Apache Tribe. 2010. San Carlos Apache Tribe—Recreation and Wildlife. San Carlos, Arizona: 

University of Arizona. Available online at: http://www.scatrwd.com/.

———. 2011. San Carlos Forestry Web site. Available online at: http://forestry.scatnsn.gov/publicweb/forestry.html

Santa Cruz County Arizona. 2004. Santa Cruz Comprehensive Plan. Available online at: 

http://www.co.santa-cruz.az.us/com_development/pdf/complete-plan-2005.pdf.

Santa Cruz County, Arizona. 2012. Santa Cruz County Palo Parado Road Project. Online at: 

http://www.co.santa-cruz.az.us/public_works/projects/paloparado/construction/index.html

Schussman, H. and D. Gori. 2004. An ecological assessment of the Bureau of Land Management’s current 

fire management plans: Materials and recommendations for future fire planning. The Nature 

Conservancy.

Schussman, Heather and Dave Gori. 2006. Historical range of variation and state and transition modeling 

of historical and current landscape conditions for Madrean pine-oak of the Southwestern U.S. 

Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, 

Tucson, AZ. 35 pp.

Schussman, H. and E. Smith. 2006. Historical range of variation and state and transition modeling of 

historic and current landscape conditions for potential natural vegetation types of the Southwest. 

Southwest Forest Assessment Project. The Nature Conservancy. Tucson, AZ. 79 pp.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

460

Scott, J.H. 2006. Off the Richter: Magnitude and Intensity Scales for Wildland Fire. Extended Abstract. 

Association for Fire Ecology Fire Congress, November 2006, San Diego, CA. 3 pp.

Scott, J.H. and R.E. Bergen. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: A comprehensive set for use with 

Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Seager, R., M. Ting, I. Held, Y. Kushnir, J. Lu, G. Vecchi, H. Huang, N. Harnik, A. Leetmaa, N. Lau, C. 

Li, J. Velez, and N. Naik. 2007. Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid 

climate in southwestern North America. Science 316:1181−1184.

Seesholtz, D., D. Wickwar, and J. Russell. 2004. Social Economic Profile Technical Guide. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inventory Monitoring Institute.

Silberman, J. and K.L. Andereck. 2006. The Economic Value of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation. Journal 

of Leisure Research 38(2):208−223.

Snyder, J.D. 1998. Ecology, management, and intellectual history of native and introduced species. Thesis, 

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

Stamer, Marc. Personal Communication. May 2, 2012

Steinberg, P. 2001. Yucca elata. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available 

online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (accessed May 23, 2012).

Stratton, R.D. 2004. Assessing the Effectiveness of Landscape Fuel Treatments on Fire Growth and 

Behavior. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 102, Number 7, October/November 2004, 32−40.

———. 2006. Guidance on Spatial Wildland Fire Analysis: Models, Tools, and Techniques. USDA Forest 

Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-183. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 pp.

Swetnam, T.W., C.H. Baisan, and H.D. Grissino-Mayer. 2009. Tree-ring perspectives on fire regimes and 

forest dynamics in mixed-conifer and spruce-fir forests on Mount Graham. In: H.R. Sanderson, 

and J.L. Koprowski, eds. Ecology of endangerment: the last refuge of the Mount Graham red 

squirrel. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, USA. 57−69.

Tesky, J.L. 1993. Dasylirion wheeleri. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory 

(Producer). Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ (accessed May 14, 2012).

The Arizona Experience, http://arizonaexperience.org/live-maps/metallic-mineral-districts

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. P.L 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. Available on line at: 

http:/ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm.

United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. Regional Economic Information System (REIS), Table 

CA91. Available online at: http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt (accessed October 

1, 2010).

———. 2011a. Regional Economic Information System (REIS), Table CA05N. Available online at:

http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt (accessed April 2, 2012).

———. 2011b. Employment by NAICS Industry, Table CA25N. Economic Profile System – Human 

Dimensions Toolkit available online at: http://www.headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt

(accessed May 12, 2012).

United States Census Bureau. 1990. American FactFinder. Available online at: http://factfinder.census.gov

(accessed: June 20, 2012).

———. 2000. American FactFinder. Available online at: http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed: June 20, 

2012).
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

461

———. 2009. Population Estimates. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html

(accessed September 29, 2010).

———. 2010. American FactFinder2. Available online at: http://factfinder2.census.gov (accessed: June 20, 

2012).

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1974. The visual management system. Agricultural 

Handbook 462. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office.

———. 1995. Agricultural Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

———. 1997. Environmental Justice. Departmental Regulation 5600-002. Available online at: 

http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/DR5600-002.pdf (accessed April 6, 2011).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (USDA FS). [No date]. Forest Service manual 

and handbooks. USDA Forest Service Headquarters, Washington, DC. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/.

———. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management: Volume 2, Chapter 1. Agriculture Handbook 462. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 47 pp.

———. 1976. National Forest Management Act of 1976. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf. 

———. 1982. 1982 Rule. National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning. Available 

online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html

——— 1984. Coronado National Forest. Riparian Area Study Committee. On file at: Coronado National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 1986. Coronado National Forest Plan. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 1989. Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation System. On file at: Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 1990. ROS Primer and Field Guide. Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources. Washington, 

DC. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5139544.pdf

———. 1991. Southwestern Region, General Ecosystem Survey. On file at: Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ. 

———. 1993. Resource Information Report: Potential Wild, Scenic, Recreational River Designation, 

National Forests of Arizona. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 375 

pp.

———. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management (Agricultural handbook 701). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

———. 1996. Coronado National Forest Plan, change notice 2. On file at: Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ. 

———. 1998. Coronado National Forest Plan, Amendment 4. On file at: Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ. 

———. 1998a. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and Social Characteristics of 

Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of Effects on Communities from the 

Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin DEIS. Portland, OR: Pacific 

Northwest Research Station.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

462

———. 2002. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Air. General Technical Report RMRSGTR-42 Vol. 5. Ogden, UT: Rocky Mountain Research Station. December 2002. 79 pp.

———. 2004. Biological Assessment for 11 Land and Resource Management Plans. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. 723p p. + appendices.

———. 2004a. Forest insect and disease conditions in the Southwestern Region, 2004. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, Forestry and Forest Health. Albuquerque NM. 39 pp.

———. 2005. Monitoring for Sustainability. Fort Collins, CO, Inventory and Monitoring Institute, 2005: 2.

———. 2005a. Loss and fragmentation of open space. Forest Service Policy Position Paper. 5 p. Available 

online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/loss-of-open-space-position-paper.pdf.

———. 2007. Coronado National Forest Plan, as amended. On file at: Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2007a. National Forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s National Forests and 

Grasslands. Portland, OR. Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNWGTR-728. 26 pp.

———. 2008. Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Program. Annual Report June 10, 2005–June 10, 2007. On 

file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2008a. Coronado National Forest Comprehensive Evaluation Report. On file at: Coronado 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2008b. Final National Forest Statement of Receipts (ASR-13-1) FY07. Available online at: 

http://fsweb.asc.fs.fed.us/bfm/programs/financial-operations/receivablescollections/asr/documents/reports/2007/asr.13.1.2007.final.pdf (accessed October 5, 2010).

———. 2008c. Coronado National Forest Social and Economic Sustainability Report. On file at: Coronado 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2008d. Wild and scenic rivers evaluation of 1993 eligibility analysis: Coronado National Forest. 

Unpublished report on file at Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009a. Coronado National Forest Social and Economic Sustainability Report. On file at: Coronado 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009b. Coronado National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report. On file at: Coronado National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009c. Coronado National Forest Comprehensive Evaluation Report. On file at: Coronado 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009d. Region Three Desired Condition Statements. On file at: Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009e. Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool Modeling Meeting. On file at: Coronado National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009f. Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool Outputs. On file at: Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009g. Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool Meeting Notes. On file at: Coronado National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009h. Coronado National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Trends Analysis (1986−2009). On 

file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2010. Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Program. Annual Report January 1, 2009–December 30, 

2009. On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

463

——— 2010a. Coronado National Forest Comprehensive Evaluation Report Supplementary Document 

(Analysis of Management Situation). On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

Tucson, AZ.

———. 2010b. Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework Implementation Guide. On file at: 

Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2010c. Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning. A Guide for Addressing 

Climate Change in Forest Plan Revisions for Southwestern National Forests and National 

Grasslands. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. May 2010. 46 pp. 

———. 2010d. FEAST: Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool. Available online at: 

http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/imi/economic_center/FEAST%20Economic%20 Analysis%20Tool

(accessed September 13, 2010).

———. 2010e. QuickSilver Version 6.0 available online at: 

http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/PAG/Economics_Center/software/Quick-Silver/index.shtml

(accessed October 14, 2010).

———. 2010f. Determining lands suitable and capable for livestock grazing – Southwestern Region (R3) 

Plan Revisions. Version 3.1, January 2010. On file at Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office, Tucson, AZ. 

———. 2010g. National roadmap for responding to climate change. July 2010. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/pdf/roadmap.pdf

———. 2011. Biological Assessment for the Coronado National Forest. Unpublished report. On file at 

Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2011a. Responding to climate change in national forests: A guidebook for developing adaptation 

options. 109 pp.

———.2011b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemont Copper Project. On file at 

Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2012. Visitor Use Report for Coronado National Forest: National Visitor Use Monitoring Data 

Collected FY2007 (Last updated May 23, 2012). On file at Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2012a. National best management practices for water quality management on National Forest 

System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. Washington, DC. 165 

pp.

———. 2013. Coronado National Forest Wilderness Need Evaluation. Potential Wilderness Area 

Evaluation Report. On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2013a. Coronado National Forest Scenery Management System Implementation Guide. On file at 

Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2015. Biological Assessment for the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Unpublished report. On file at Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2016. Third supplement to the biological assessment for the Rosemont copper project. U.S. Forest 

Service, Coronado National Forest, Tucson, Arizona.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA FS) and United States Department of 

Interior (USDOI). 2010. LANDFIRE (homepage of the LANDFIRE Project is available online at: 

http://www.landfire.gov/index.php (accessed October 28, 2010)).

U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Inventory: 1990−2008. 2011. Climate 

Change Program Office, Office of the Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Technical Bulletin No. 1930. June 2011. 159 pp.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

464

United States Department of the Interior. 2010. Payments in Lieu of Taxes. Available online at 

http://www.doi.gov/pilt (accessed October 1, 2010).

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (No Date) 

(ECOS)Environmental Conservation Online System: New Mexican Ridge-Nosed rattlesnake 

(Crotalus willardi obscurus). Retrieved from: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=3657

———. 1967. Native fish and wildlife: endangered species. Federal Register 32(48):4001.

———. 1975. Threatened status for three species of trout. Federal Register 40(137). 

———. 1978. Listing of the New Mexican Ridge-nosed Rattlesnake as a Threatened Species with Critical 

Habitat. Federal Register 43(151).

———. 1982. Endangered status for U.S. population of the ocelot. Federal Register 47(140):31670–

31672.

———. 1983. Arizona trout (Apache trout) recovery plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 43 pp.

———. 1984. Final Rule to determine the Yaqui Chub to be an endangered species with critical habitat and 

to determine the beautiful shiner and yaqui catfish to be threatened species with critical habitat. 

Federal Register 49(171).

———. 1984a. Recovery Plan for Gila and Yaqui Topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis Baird and 

Girard). Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

———. 1985. New Mexico Ridgenosed Rattlesnake Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. iii + 59 pp.

———. 1986. Determination of the Northern Aplomado Falcon to be an endangered species; Final Rule. 

Federal Register 51(37).

———. 1986a. Determination of endangered status and critical habitat for the desert pupfish. Federal 

Register 51(61).

———. 1986b. Determination of threatened status for the loach minnow. Federal Register 51(208).

———. 1986c. Final rule to determine the Sonora chub to be a threatened species and to determine its 

critical habitat. Federal Register 51(83).

———. 1987. Determination of Endangered Status for the Mount Graham Red Squirrel. Federal Register

52(106).

———. 1988. Determination of Endangered Status for Two Long-nosed Bats. Federal Register 53(190). 

———. 1990. Designation of critical habitat for the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus grahamensis). Federal Register 55(4):425−429.

———. 1991. Loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis recovery plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 38 pp. 

———. 1991. Spikedace recovery plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 38 pp.

———. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia). Albuquerque, NM. 50 pp.

———. 1993. Desert Pupfish Recovery Plan. Phoenix, Arizona. 67 pp.

———. 1993a. Determination of endangered status for the plant Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha 

scheerl var. robustispina). Federal Register 58:49875−49879.

———. 1993b. Final Rule To List the Mexican Spotted Owl as a Threatened Species. Federal Register

58(49). 

———. 1993c. Gila Trout Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 113 pp.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

465

———. 1993d. Mount Graham Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis Recovery Plan. 

Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. On file at: 

Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ. 179 pp.

———. 1994. Mexican Long-nosed Bat (Leptonycteris nivalis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 91pp. 

———. 1995. Fishes of the Rio Yaqui Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 48 pp.

———. 1995a. Lesser Long-nosed Bat Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 45 pp.

———. 1995b. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), Vol. 1. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 172 pp.

———. 1997. Determination of Endangered Status for Three Wetland Species Found in Southern Arizona 

and Northern Sonora, Mexico. Federal Register 62(3):665−689.

———. 1997a. Final rule to extend endangered status for the jaguar in the United States. Federal Register 

62(140):39147–39157.

———. 1999. Biological Opinion for Southwestern Region U.S. Forest Service, Ongoing Livestock 

Grazing Activities on Allotments, Final. January 15, 1999. On file at: Coronado National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 1999a. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Huachuca Water Umbel, a Plant. Federal Register

64(132).

———. 2001. General species information: Western Yellow-billed cuckoo. Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office, USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2001a. General species information: Northern Aplomado falcon. Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office, USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2001b. General species information: Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses. Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office, USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2001c. General species information: Lemmon’s fleabane. Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office, USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2002. General species information: Masked bobwhite. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 

USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2002a. General species information: New Mexico ridged-nosed rattlesnake. Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office, USFWS Web site available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2002b. Listing of the Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis); Final Rule. Federal 

Register 67(114).

———. 2002c. Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ.

———. 2003. Gila trout recovery plan (third revision). Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-vii + 78 pp.

———. 2004. Biological opinion on proposed issuance of a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act 

to construct four road crossings in unnamed washes along an approximately 4,100-foot extension 

of Camino de la Canoa to reach the 96-acre Canoa Hills Estates, 02-21-03-F-0374. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. Phoenix, AZ, USA.

———. 2004a. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal 

Register 69(168).
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

466

———. 2005. Final rule listing the Gila chub as endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register

70(211)66,664–66,721.

———. 2005a. Programmatic Biological and Conference Opinion for the Continued Implementation of the 

Land and Resource Management Plans for the Eleven National Forests and National Grasslands of 

the Southwestern Region. June 10, 2005. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. Phoenix, AZ. 

830 pp. + appendices.

———. 2006. Draft Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. +Appendices A-N.

———. 2006a. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Northern Aplomado Falcons 

in New Mexico and Arizona. Federal Register 71(143).

———. 2006b. General species information: Gila trout. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, USFWS 

Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2006c. Reclassification of the Gila Trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) From Endangered to Threatened; 

Special Rule for Gila Trout in New Mexico and Arizona. Federal Register 71(137).

——— 2007. Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) recovery plan. Region 2, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp.

———. 2007a. Five Year Species Review, Lesser Long-nosed Bat. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services. Tucson, AZ. 45 pp.

———. 2007b. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. United States Department of Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.

———. 2008. Biological Opinion for the Proposed Construction of a Fish Barrier in Redrock Canyon. 

22410-2008-F-0029, 22410-1990-F-0119a. Arizona Ecological Service Office. Phoenix, AZ. 41 

pp.

———. 2008a. General species information: Apache trout. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 

USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2008b. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. [Online version 

available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds]

———. 2008c. 12-month finding on a petition to list the northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophus 

eques megalops) as threatened or endangered with critical habitat; Proposed Rule. Part III. Federal 

Register 73(228):71788–71826.———. 2008d. Mount Graham Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus grahamensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Phoenix, Arizona. 

———. 2009. Biological Opinion (BO) for the Peterson Ranch Pond Maintenance Project in the Huachuca 

Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona. On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

Tucson, AZ.

———. 2009. Apache Trout (Oncorhynchus apache) Recovery Plan, Second Revision. Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 76 pp.———. 2010. Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) 5-Year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix, 

Arizona. 43pp.

———. 2010a. General species information: Desert pupfish. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 

USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. (2010b, January) General Species Information: Roundtail chub. Retrieved from: 

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Roundtail%20Chub%20RB.pdf

———. (2010c, March) General Species Information: Yaqui Catfish. Retrieved from: 

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Yaqui%20Catfish%20RB.pdf
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

467

———. 2010d. Mexican Wolf Conservation Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest 

Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

———. 2010e. Sonora Chub/Charalito Sonorense/Carpa Sonorense (Gila ditaenia) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation (First Draft). On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

Tucson, AZ.

———. 2011. Draft Recovery Plan for the Mount Graham Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

grahamensis), First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, 

NM. 85 pp. + appendices A−D.

———. 2011a. General species information: Southwestern willow flycatcher. Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office, USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2011b. General species information: Mountain plover. Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 

USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2011c. General species information: Desert tortoise (Sonoran popn.). Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office, USFWS Web site available online at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.

———. 2012a. Biological and Conference Opinion: The Continued Implementation of the Land and 

Resource Management Plan for the Coronado National Forest of the Southwestern Region. 

Unpublished Report. On file at Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

———. 2012. Biological Opinion: The continued implementation of the land and resource management 

plan for the Coronado National Forest of the southwestern region U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 350 pp. 

———. 2012a. Designation of critical habitat for jaguar; Proposed rule. Part II. Federal Register 

77(161):50214–50242.

———. 2012b. Endangered status and designations of critical habitat for spikedace and loach minnow. 

Federal Register 77(36)

———. (2012c, June) General Species Information: Loach Minnow. Retrieved from: 

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Loach_Minnow_RB.pdf

———. (2012d, June) General Species Information: Spikedace. Retrieved from: 

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Redbook/Spikedace_RB.pdf

———. 2012e. Listing and designation of critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. Federal Register

77(54).

———. 2012f. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 179pp.

———. 2012g. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form − Thamnophis eques ssp. 

megalops (Northern Mexican gartersnake). Available online at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2012/r2/C04Q_V01.pdf (accessed June 20, 2012).

———. 2013. Designation of critical habitat for the jaguar; Revised proposed rule; Reopening of comment 

period. Federal Register 78(126):39237-39250

———. 2013a. Designation of critical habitat for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-headed 

Gartersnake; Proposed rule. Part III. Federal Register 78(132):41550-41608.

———. 2013b. Proposed threatened status for the western distinct population segment of the Yellowbilled Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Proposed rule. Federal Register 78(192). 

———. 2013c. Threatened status for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-headed Gartersnake; 

proposed rule. Part II. Federal Register 78(132):41500-41547

———. 2014. Designation of critical habitat for the Jaguar; Final Rule. Federal Register 79(43).
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

468

———. 2014a. Designation of critical habitat for the western distinct population segment of the Yellowbilled Cuckoo. Federal Register 79(158). 

———. 2014b. Determination of threatened status for the western distinct population segment of the 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Federal Register 79(192). 

———. 2014c. Huachuca Water Umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva). 5-Year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services, Tucson Sub-Office, 

Tucson, Arizona. 59pp.

———. 2014d. Threatened status for the Northern Mexican Gartersnake and Narrow-headed Gartersnake; 

Final rule. Part II. Federal Register 79(130):38678-38746.

———. 2015. Endangered status for the Mexican wolf and regulations for the nonessential experimental 

population of the Mexican wolf; Final rules. Part II. Federal Register 80(11):2488-2512.

———. (2015a, February, 13). 2014 Mexican wolf population survey complete - Population exceeds 100. 

Retrieved from: 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mexicanwolf/pdf/fNR_Mexican_Wolf_winter_count_joint_Feb

13-2015.pdf.

———. 2015b. Gila chub (Gila intermedia) draft recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest 

Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 118 pp. + Appendices A-C.

———. 2015c. Revision to the regulations for the nonessential experimental population of the Mexican 

wolf; Final rule. Federal Register 80(11):2512-2567

———. 2015d. Threatened species status for the Headwater Chub and a distinct population segment of the 

Roundtail Chub; Proposed rule. Federal Register 80(194). ———. 2016. Amended final 

reinitiated biological and conference opinion for the Rosemont Copper Mine, Pima County, 

Arizona. Consultation 22410-2009-F-0389R1. Arizona Ecological Services Office, Phoenix.

———. 2016a. Game and Fish News: Jaguar photograph taken by Fort Huachuca trail camera. Retrieved 

from: 

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/Jaguar/AZJaguarSighting.pdf

———. 2016b. Draft recovery plan for Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva (Huachuca water umbel). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Tucson, Arizona. 85 pp.

———. 2016c. Jaguar draft recovery plan (Panthera onca). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest 

Region, Albuquerque, NM. 197 pp.

———. 2016d. Recovery plan for the Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), first revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

———. 2016e. Species status assessment for the lesser long-nosed bat. December 2016. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 96 pp.

———. 2017. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register 82 FR 4.

———. Consultations – Overview. United States Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

On file at: Coronado National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Tucson, AZ.

United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USDI NPS). 2011. Chiricahua National 

Monument Air Quality Information page. Available online at: 

http://nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/aris/chir/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. Clear Skies Basic Information Page. 

Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/basic.html.

———. 2011a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Web site. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed September 22, 2011).
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

469

———. 2011b. Water Quality Standards Academy Basic Course: Supplemental Topics - 303(d) 

Submissions: Integrated Reporting Categories. Available online at: 

http://water.epa.gov/learn/training/standardsacademy/page7.cfm

———. 2012. Particulate Matter (PM-10) Nonattainment State/Area/County Report. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/pncs.html

University of Arizona. 2005. Socio-Economic Analysis of the Coronado National Forest. Prepared for the 

Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service. 

———. 2008. Mount Graham Biology Program Clark Peak and Nuttall Fires – Wildfires within red 

squirrel habitat. Available online at: http://ag.arizona.edu/research/redsquirrel/mgrs-data.html

Accessed October 2, 2008.

———. 2011. Southeast Arizona Climate page. Available online at: 

http://walter.arizona.edu/climate/so_az_climate.asp.

Unmack, P., G.W. Knowles, and M. Baltzly. 2003. Green sunfish impacts on Gila chub, a natural 

experiment thanks to a waterfall. Abstract. November 20−23, 2003. Desert Fishes Council 

Meeting, Furnace Creek, Death Valley National Park, California.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1977. In: Readers’ Forum. Fire Technol. 13(4):349−350.

Vander Lee, B., R. Smith, and J. Bate. 2006. Chapter 4: Ecological and Biological Diversity of the 

Coronado National Forest. In: Ecological and Biological Diversity of National Forests in Region 

3. The Nature Conservancy.

Wahl, C.R., S.R. Boe, J.A. Wennerlund, R.A. Winstead, L.J. Allison, and D.M. Kubly. 1997. Remote 

sensing mapping of Arizona intermittent stream riparian areas. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife 

Program Technical Report 112. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Ward, D.E. and C.C. Hardy. 1991. Smoke emissions from wildfires. Environmental International. 17:117–

134.

Weedman, D.A, and K.L. Young. 1997. Status of the Gila topminnow and desert pupfish in Arizona. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 118, Phoenix, AZ. 141 pp.

Weedman, D., A.L. Girmendonk, and K.L. Young. 1996. Status review of Gila chub, Gila intermedia, in 

the United States and Mexico. Technical Report 91, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, AZ.

Weedman, D.A. 1998. Gila Topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, Revised Recovery Plan. U. 

S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 83 pp.

Weiss, J.L. and J.T. Overpeck. 2005. Is the Sonoran Desert losing its cool? Global Change Biology 11 

(2065-2077).

White and Stynes. 2010. Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity. 

Joint Venture between USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR. 40 pp.

Wilderness Act of 1964. Available online at: http://wilderness.nps.gov/document/WildernessAct.pdf.

Winstead, R.A. 1997. Statewide riparian inventory and mapping project: methodology and updated 

accuracy assessments for perennial waters. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Technical Report 

111. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 73 pp.

Wright, H.A. 1980. The role and use of fire in the semidesert grass-shrub type. INT-GTR-85, Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2002. Pronghorn Antelope. Habitat Extension Bulletin 28. 8 pp.
References

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

470

Yasinski, F.M. and D.A. Pierce. 1958. Forest Insect Conditions in Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas −

1957. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station No. 30. Fort 

Collins, CO. 10 pp.

Ziemba, R.E., A.T. Storfer, J. Warren, and J.P. Collins. 1998. A survey of genetic variation among 

populations of the Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi). Report to Arizona 

Game and Fish Department Heritage Program, Phoenix, AZ.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

471

Index

access, iii, v, 28, 36, 81, 379, 380

acorn woodpecker, 317, 318, 319

air quality, 55, 190, 192, 194, 196, 460, 470

airsheds, viii, 193

class I areas, 191

emissions, 196, 200

nonattainment areas, 193

pollutants, 190

visibilty, 192, 194, 195

alternatives

alternative 1, 22, 37

alternatives eliminated from detailed 

consideration, iii, 40

described, iii, 19, 21

no-action alternative, 19

Apache Tribes, 430

Arizona National Scenic Trail, 76, 330, 334, 

339, 351, 368, 442

bats

lesser long-nosed bat, 227, 271, 467, 468

Mexican long-nosed bat, 228, 274, 467

border (U.S.-Mexico), 189

border patrol, 327, 331, 341, 342, 353, 375, 

387

boundary management, 386, 387, 388

buffelgrass, 104, 160, 167, 209, 256, 304, 

329

Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses, 250, 298

chaparral, 46, 113, 114, 116, 210, 221, 257

Chiricahua leopard frog, 234, 282, 458, 467, 

468

Clean Air Act, 5, 55, 190, 191, 192, 195, 

197, 198, 202, 450

Clean Water Act, 5, 179, 180, 185, 467

climate change, 36, 43, 56, 202, 203, 204, 

307, 314, 315, 316, 465

communities, collaboration, and 

partnerships, iii, v, 12, 28, 37, 84, 91, 209, 

221, 390, 401, 443, 455, 459, 461, 463

Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER), 

11, 464, 465

cultural resources, 15, 89, 427, 428, 429, 

433

decision, iii, 13

demographics, 391

desert vegetation, 102, 105, 107, 209, 221

desired conditions, 8

eagles, 324, 325

economic conditions and trends, 395

economic impact analysis, 402

ecosystem restoration and resiliency, 26

employment and income, 392, 395

Endangered Species Act, ix, 4, 5, 27, 41, 57, 

207, 218, 224, 230, 260, 268, 273, 274, 

276, 278, 279, 281, 282, 285, 286, 288, 

291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 299, 

437, 445, 446, 448, 456

environmental justice, 394, 406, 446, 456, 

460, 463

financial efficiency analysis, 403

fire and fuels, 94, 97, 100, 101, 158, 317, 

318, 319, 320, 416

fire regime condition class, 144, 318

fish

Apache trout, 246, 288, 468

desert pupfish, 244, 288, 466

Gila chub, 239, 288

Gila topminnow, 242, 288, 471

Gila trout, 245, 288, 466, 468

loach minnow, 247, 288, 469

roundtail chub, 247, 288, 470

Sonora chub, 243, 288, 469

spikedace, vii, 69, 220, 246, 247, 264, 

288, 294, 466, 469

Yaqui catfish, 241, 288, 468

Yaqui chub, 240, 288, 459, 466

focus groups, 11, 13

forest products, 394, 414

geographic areas, 35

grasslands, 42, 45, 95, 102, 108, 110, 113, 

209, 210, 257, 309, 464, 465, 468

greenhouse gases, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 

207, 447

guidelines, 9

Hopi Tribe, 430

Huachuca water umbel, 249, 296, 467, 470

illegal activities, 353

immigration, 150, 171, 239, 327, 341, 353

international relations, 434

issues, 17, 379

jaguar, vi, 57, 218, 222, 223, 261, 265, 266, 

268, 329, 456, 469, 470
Index

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

472

land ownership and uses, 379, 384, 386

land use zones

developed recreation, 31

motorized recreation, 31

roaded backcountry, 31

wild backcountry, 30

law enforcement, 78, 341, 354, 369, 387

Madrean encinal woodland, 47, 117, 119, 

121, 122, 211

Madrean pine-oak woodland, 48, 122, 124, 

127, 211, 258

management approaches, 10

management areas, 9

management indicator species, 73, 316, 318, 

322

Mexican gray wolf, 224, 265

Mexican spotted owl, 229, 276, 278, 317, 

319, 320, 466, 467, 469

migratory birds, 322, 323

minerals and mining, 417, 419, 420, 460

abandoned mines, 420, 422, 424, 425, 427

leasable minerals, 419, 420, 422, 423, 

424, 425, 426

locatable minerals, 418, 419, 422, 423, 

424, 425, 426

salable minerals, 418, 419, 422, 423, 424, 

425, 426

Mining Law of 1872, 417, 418, 448

mixed-conifer forest, 133, 135, 136, 137, 

139, 140, 142, 143, 213

modeling

Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool 

(VDDT), ix, 97, 119, 124, 125, 130, 

137, 141, 440, 464

monitoring and evaluation, 10

motorized recreation, 39, 189

motorized vehicle use, 373, 375

Mount Graham

Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area, 2, 

22, 23, 28, 32, 43, 98, 100, 101, 112, 

115, 121, 126, 133, 139, 143, 147, 154, 

198, 259, 266, 276, 278, 334, 336, 346, 

355, 356, 360, 423

Mount Graham International Observatory, 

147, 269, 358

Mount Graham red squirrel, 33, 226, 268, 

458, 466, 467, 468, 469

mountain plover, 459

National Forest Management Act NFMA), 5

National Historic Preservation Act, 5, 427, 

428, 431, 437

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, 2, 427, 428, 431

Native American tribes, 2, 3, 15, 16, 21, 

384, 415, 437, 442

need for change, iv, v, 13, 44, 75, 76, 79, 80, 

81, 82, 83, 84, 91

needs for change, 26, 35, 38, 39

northern Aplomado falcon, 232, 279, 466, 

468

objectives, 8

ocelot, vi, 57, 218, 223, 224, 261, 265, 268, 

470

off-highway vehicles (OHVs)

trails, 363, 365, 368, 369, 375, 378

old growth, 99, 132

1986 forest plan, 99

treatment of, 99, 132, 139, 142, 147

open space, iii, v, 28, 37, 82, 83, 384

Organic Act, 4

partnerships, iii, v, 28, 37, 84, 91, 390, 434, 

435, 436

Pascua Yaqui Tribe, 15, 430, 439

payments to states and counties, 401

Pima pineapple cactus, 248, 295

ponderosa pine, 49, 128, 129, 133, 150, 212

population growth, vii, 168, 200, 341, 391, 

413

poverty rate, 84, 394, 395, 406

present net value (PNV), 404

proposed action, 20, 29

public involvement, iii, 13

public safety, 353

purpose and need, 11

race and ethnicity, 394

recreation, 393

research natural areas, 33, 42, 43, 80, 357, 

359, 362, 365, 370, 372, 424

riparian areas, 52, 95, 148, 151, 214, 259, 

288

roadless areas, 357, 358

rock climbing, 216, 312, 330, 334, 381, 410

scenery, 77, 341, 343, 345, 386, 463, 465

sensitive species, 251, 299

sky islands, 4, 94, 142, 191, 213, 326, 328, 

329, 341, 379, 383, 387, 405, 413, 430

snags, 126, 131, 139, 141, 147

snakes
Index

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 

Revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

473

New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake, 237

northern Mexican gartersnake, 238, 282, 

469, 470

social impacts, 405

soil, 53, 168, 170, 171, 248, 315, 440

management, 172

Sonoran mud turtle, 317, 318, 319, 321

special areas, 9, 33

special uses, 409, 411

spruce-fir forest, 143, 145, 214

standards, 9

suitability, 9

threatened and endangered species, iv, vi, 3, 

4, 21, 25, 32, 57, 218, 266, 270, 283, 327, 

328, 368, 421

Tohono O'odham Nation, 430

total maximum daily load, ix, 178

Travel Management Rule, 41, 78, 374, 375, 

376

vegetation communities, 44, 94, 97, 100, 

101, 158, 209, 210, 255, 256, 289, 315, 

317, 318, 319, 320, 416

vegetation condition class (VCC), 103, 209

visitor experiences, iii, iv, 27, 36, 76, 79, 80, 

330

water

groundwater, 181, 304, 447

surface water, 180, 182, 454

water quality, 177, 179, 471

water quantity, 180, 181

watersheds, 182, 183

Water

water quantity

instream-flow, 180, 185

western yellow-billed cuckoo, 230, 279

wild scenic, and recreational rivers

eligible streams, iv, 34

wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, 33, 43, 

356, 359, 360, 365, 369, 370

wilderness, 98, 355, 358

alternative 1, 366

alternative 2, 370

effects of all alternatives, 358

existing, 31

no-action alternative, 359

proposed action, 362

recommended, 32, 36, 42, 65, 98, 100, 

101, 106, 112, 121, 126, 133, 140, 143, 

266, 273, 277, 289, 335, 356, 363, 368, 

377

vegetation and fuels management, 98

Wilderness Act of 1964, 32, 355, 372, 453, 

471

wilderness study areas, iv, 30, 32, 37, 42, 

101, 277, 283, 284, 289, 347, 355, 356, 

358, 359, 360, 362, 365, 366, 370, 375, 

405, 421

Zuni Pueblo, 15, 430, 439