United States Department of Agriculture

Record of Decision for the

Coronado National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan

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

and Hidalgo County, New Mexico 

Forest Service Southwestern Region MB-R3-05-17 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 (e.g., 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.
Record of Decision for the

Coronado National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan

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

Hidalgo County, New Mexico

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Calvin N. Joyner

Regional Forester

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region

333 Broadway Blvd. SE 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

For information, contact: Kerwin S. Dewberry

Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service, Coronado National Forest 

300 W. Congress 

Tucson, AZ 85701 

(520)388-8300 

email: Mailroom_R3_Coronado@fs.fed.us 
i 

Contents 

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

Needs for Change ..........................................................................................................................................2

Collaboration with State and Local Governments and other Federal Agencies ............................................3

Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................................................4

Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................................4

Land and Resource Management Planning ...................................................................................................6

Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................................................7

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study ...................................................................12

My Decision ................................................................................................................................................14

Components of the Decision .......................................................................................................................16

Rationale for My Decision ..........................................................................................................................20

Response to Public Concerns ......................................................................................................................24

Environmentally Preferable Alternative ......................................................................................................26

Net Public Benefits ......................................................................................................................................27

Science Consistency ....................................................................................................................................27

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian Tribes ......................................................28

Environmental Justice .................................................................................................................................28

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................29

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities ........................................................................................31

Project Consistency .....................................................................................................................................33

Plan Implementation ....................................................................................................................................35

Maintaining the Land and Resource Management Plan and Adapting to New Information .......................35

Effective Date ..............................................................................................................................................37

Appeal Information .....................................................................................................................................37

Approval ......................................................................................................................................................39
Record of Decision

1 

Introduction 

This public Record of Decision documents my decision and rationale for approving the new 

Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (also referred to as “forest plan” 

or “plan”). This revised plan provides Coronado National Forest-specific guidance and 

information for project and activity decisionmaking, and will guide all resource management 

activities on the Coronado for the next 10 to 15 years. It replaces the previous plan, which was 

approved in 1986 and has been amended 12 times. The decision facilitates the goal of the 

Department of Agriculture, to promote sound land stewardship in partnership with communities.

Forest Setting 

The Coronado National Forest covers approximately 1.78 million acres in southeastern Arizona 

and southwestern New Mexico. The Forest is divided into five ranger districts: Santa Catalina, 

Safford, Douglas, Sierra Vista and Nogales. These districts are composed of “Sky Islands” 

encircled by desert and grasslands which isolate 16 widely scattered mountain ranges that offer an 

unusual range of vegetative types and climates. The tree-covered majestic mountains rising from 

grassy savannas and the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert lowlands are home to plant and animal 

communities described as among the most diverse found on Earth. 

The Santa Catalina District includes Forest Service managed lands in the Santa Catalina and 

Rincon mountain ranges. Pima County (population of 1,205,341) encompasses the largest 

community (Tucson) adjacent to this district. The Safford Ranger District incorporates four 

different mountain ranges, including Mount Graham, which is nearby to the community of 

Safford (9,440). The Douglas Ranger District includes the Dragoon, Chiricahua, and Peloncillo 

mountain ranges. Douglas (16,740) and Bisbee (6,390) are communities within this district. The 

Sierra Vista Ranger District includes the Whetstone, Huachuca and Patagonia mountain ranges. 

Sierra Vista (42,805) is the largest community adjacent to this district. The Nogales District

contains the San Luis, Tumacacori, Pajarito, and Santa Rita mountain ranges. The community of 

Nogales (21,375) is the largest in this district. The southernmost portion of the Coronado National 

Forest shares 58 miles of contiguous international border with the United Mexican States. 

The social and economic environment surrounding the Coronado National Forest is as diverse as 

the natural environment. It includes large urban areas, international border cities, and many rural 

communities. The six county area that surrounds the Coronado National Forest is experiencing 

rapid growth, with a nearly 60 percent population increase between the 1990 and 2010 census 

years. The Coronado National Forest plays a key role in contributing to the jobs and income 

needs of this expanding population. Goods and services provided by the Coronado National 

Forest include forage for livestock production, fuelwood, and forest products such as beargrass 

for baskets, fiddleneck ferns for flower arrangements, and manzanita branches for birdcage 

perches. The lands within what is now the Coronado National Forest continue to provide 

sustenance and spiritual values to Native American tribes. Outfitting and guiding services provide 

an important link between visitors and the ecological treasures of the Coronado. Many areas of 

the Coronado are highly mineralized, and the Forest Service has an important role in 

administering mineral exploration and extraction, like the Rosemont Copper Mine, while 

minimizing surface resource impacts, consistent with mining regulations and policy. Of primary 

and increasing importance are the watersheds and the ability to capture the precipitation that 

recharges aquifers, supplying domestic water sources to the cities (including the city of Tucson) 

surrounding and towns surrounding the Coronado National Forest. 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

2

A wide variety of year-round recreational opportunities is available within the Coronado National 

Forest. Higher elevations are more popular during the summer, offering temperatures 20 or more 

degrees cooler than the desert. Lower elevation recreation areas are located in scenic canyons and 

foothills; these are most popular during the fall, winter, and spring. Special places that are popular 

include Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, Mount Lemmon, and Madera Canyon. Recreation 

opportunities on the Coronado include over 1,100 miles of trails (including the Arizona Trail, a 

national scenic trail), three scenic byways, five lakes, rental cabins, eight wilderness areas, and 

dozens of developed campgrounds and picnic areas. Recreational opportunities also include 

skiing, historic interpretation, and private cabins. Of the jobs and income generated annually by 

the Coronado National Forest, more than half the jobs created (nearly 700) and nearly half the 

income generated (over $20 million) are attributable to recreation related activities. 

Each ranger district administers one or more ecosystem management areas with a total of 12 

ecosystem management areas that make up the Coronado National Forest. These ecosystem 

management areas range in size from approximately 28,068 acres in the Winchester Ecosystem 

Management Area to 291,558 acres in the Chiricahua Ecosystem Management Area. Each 

ecosystem management area supports a unique combination of vegetation, habitats, and wildlife, 

thus harboring an amazing amount of biological diversity. Distinct species have evolved within 

the Coronado’s sky islands due to barriers to movement. Mountain ranges harbor numerous 

endemic and rare species such as Mount Graham red squirrel, Sonora tiger salamander, Huachuca 

water umbel, and the Mexican long-nosed bat.

The vertical stacking of life zones (environments characterized by particular groupings of plants 

and animals) in these steep mountains packs tremendous species diversity into the space of each 

slope. In a day’s walk, one can climb through desert and scrub habitats characteristic of central 

Mexico, up to spruce-fir forests characteristic of Canada. Madrean encinal savanna and woodland 

are widespread at middle elevations in this region, forming one of the distinguishing features of 

the sky islands of the Coronado National Forest. 

The Coronado National Forest retains remnants from its complex historic and cultural legacy. 

From pictographs, petroglyphs, and pottery shards left by ancient peoples; to remains of old 

mines and ranches, the lands of the Coronado harbor a wealth of cultural values. Place names 

across the Coronado are reminders of cultures and people who have lived in the sky island region 

and shaped the character of the land. Native American tribal interest in the region remains strong. 

Needs for Change

The need for change and subsequent revised Forest plan is an outcome of extensive collaboration 

with State and local governments and other Federal agencies, tribal consultation, and engagement 

with the public and other groups. Forest plan revision on the Coronado National Forest was 

initiated based on legal requirements and significant changes that have occurred in conditions, 

demands, and scientific understanding since the 1986 plan went into effect. 

The 1986 plan was approved over 30 years ago, well beyond the 10 to 15 year duration provided 

by the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1606(e)(5)(A)), and does not fully address 

changes that have occurred to economic, social, and ecological conditions; new policies and 

priorities; and new information based on monitoring and scientific research. Five overarching 

“needs for change” were identified during iterative pre-revision collaborative dialogues, 

meetings, focus groups, studies, and assessments. These efforts involved State and local 

governments, other Federal agencies, tribes, and many public groups, organizations, and 

individuals. 
Record of Decision

3

A Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER; 2009) and its supplement (2010) composed the 

Analysis of Management Situation, which documented the needs for change, were developed 

from two preliminary plan revision documents: the Coronado National Forest Social and 

Economic Sustainability Report” (2008) and the “Coronado National Forest Ecological 

Sustainability Report” (2009). The five priority needs for change in plan direction as identified in 

the Comprehensive Evaluation Report are:

1. Preservation of open space: new direction is needed to support the retention of the rural 

character (ranching lifestyles, fuelwood gathering, etc.) of southeastern Arizona and 

southwestern New Mexico, while at the same time accommodating the aesthetic and 

recreational benefits of open landscapes desired by 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 State and local governments and private land owners to 

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

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

cooperation and collaboration with State and local governments, other Federal agencies, 

and other local landowners 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.

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

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

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.

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

supporting both quiet recreation areas and areas that accommodate more developed, 

rustic settings that provide opportunities for social interaction and greater human 

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

activities across the Coronado.

5. 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.

The need for change topics presented above represent a systematic framework for discussing the 

revised plan. In addition, the revised plan carries forward other management direction not 

identified as needing change or that needed only minor changes to achieve the multiple-use 

balance sought in this decision, the need for change topics were used to develop alternatives.

Collaboration with State and Local Governments and other 

Federal Agencies

Forest staff have met with local, State, and other Federal governments to discuss the revised 

Forest Plan, as the revision process progressed through to the Record of Decision. Forest Service 

planning regulations require the agency to consider other Federal, State, and local government
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

4

plans and policies. As part of the collaboration effort in developing the revised Plan, the 

Coronado National Forest engaged in a number of discussions with these entities throughout the 

duration of the plan revision effort. Concerns identified by local government focused on access. 

To address this issue, the new plan presents components to improve access by working 

collaboratively to identify and prioritize 40 to 50 existing roads and trails where permanent legal 

access can be achieved over the next ten years. The new plan was developed with input from 

these collaborative efforts and was coordinated with Federal, State, and local agencies including 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and local government 

and community leaders. 

Since the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Supervisor and other 

management team members have engaged Congressional leadership, state and local 

representatives and agencies. In general, these governmental representatives support the work of 

the Forest and appreciate the transparent communication and the dedication of the Coronado 

National Forest towards public land stewardship. Although some concerns have been expressed 

by a few counties regarding recommended wilderness areas, in particular to the premise that there 

should be no limitations or restrictions placed on the public’s ability to utilize the lands that fall 

within their counties, the counties remain in overall support of the revised plan.

Tribal Consultation

The Coronado National Forest staff consulted with 12 Native American tribes that use the 

Coronado for traditional, cultural, or spiritual activities. These tribes include the 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, and Pueblo of Zuni. The forest plan was presented to the Four Southern 

Tribes Cultural Working Group in 2013. Tribes in attendance included San Carlos, Gila River, 

Tohono O’odham and the Pascua Yaqui. In meetings and field trips, 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. Concerns identified 

by the tribes include better accommodating traditional ties and cultural uses in decision-making 

and planning; integrating the role of cultural and other noneconomic values in decision-making 

(particularly, the traditional cultural property of Mount Graham); incorporating knowledge in 

forest management and planning; protecting the privacy of cultural sites; and cooperating in the 

management of resources of mutual interests to tribes and the Forest Service. Consultation with 

affiliated tribes ensured the plan components addressed the above tribal concerns and needs with 

respect to the national forest. 

Public Involvement

A variety of opportunities for meaningful dialogue and public involvement were provided 

throughout the plan revision process, including the initial ecological and socioeconomic 

sustainability assessments, development, and finalization of the plan, and the consideration of 

effects in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. As explained in chapter 1 of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, the plan is based in part on public involvement and 

collaboration over the course of many years. 

Informal discussions with the public regarding needed changes to the 1986 plan began during the 

spring of 2005. From spring 2005 through 2014, the Coronado National Forest hosted 38 public 

meetings, open houses, and workshops in nearby communities.
Record of Decision

5

In the spring of 2005, focus groups were conducted to identify and/or quantify attitudes toward 

and values and beliefs related to national forest lands. In June 2006, a series of six public 

workshops was held across the Coronado establishing social and working relationships with the 

public and to elucidate the “needs for change” based on the content of the 1986 forest plan. 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. To prioritize the 40 need 

for change topics, six workshops were held in September 2006 utilizing a format similar to that of 

the June 2006 meetings. Attendance was approximately 250, and there were 30 small work 

groups. 

Seven workshops were held in 2007 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. 

In 2008, seven open houses were held 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. 

A notice of intent to revise the 1986 plan and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was 

published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2010. The notice requested additional input on 

the five “need for change” topics, provided a description of changes in direction necessary to 

address revision topics and provided a general description of the revised plan content that would 

address the need for change topics.

Six open houses were held in 2010 to share the draft plan related documents and a preliminary 

working draft revised forest plan 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. 

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 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 was the Integrated Lands Assessment Project Sky Islands, which tested revised forest 

plan objectives for vegetation treatments.

Prior to the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in November 2013, the 

Coronado National Forest had received over 3,600 comments since initiation in 2005. These 

comments received early in the public involvement process were used along with science-based 

evaluations (e.g., “Analysis of the Management Situation”) to draft the initial proposed plan. 

Comments received later in the process were used to modify the proposed plan, where 

appropriate. In general, many comments fell into the following categories: forest health and 

restoration, treatment methods, wildlife needs, recreation opportunities, wilderness resources, 

wild and scenic rivers, threats to communities from wildfire, contributions to local communities 

including availability of forest products and rangelands, land exchanges, and new energy 

corridors.
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

6

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 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 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and plan revision processes. During the 

comment period, the planning team hosted five public meetings in the communities of Douglas, 

Rio Rico, Sierra Vista, Safford and Tucson Arizona to answer questions and solicit comments. In 

addition, the Forest Supervisor and planning team attended meetings with local town councils, the 

Ranching Heritage Alliance (permittees), The Malpai Borderlands Group, Friends of Redington 

Pass, Natural Resource Working Group (stakeholders with restoration focus), and the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. 

In May of 2014, the Coronado National Forest also hosted a wilderness workshop seeking input 

on individuals’ and organizations’ priorities on specific areas under consideration for 

recommendation for wilderness designation. 

As a result of the public comment period, almost 2,300 comment letters were received from 

individuals, organizations, agencies, and three tribes. These comments are summarized and 

responded to in appendix A and appendix L of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The 

comments led to minor changes throughout the plan and environmental impact statement, all of 

which were within the scope of the analysis in the draft environmental impact statement.

In general, the public likes the way things are on the Coronado National Forest. They want the 

Coronado staff to preserve the quiet places but continue to allow motorized recreation. It was 

very clear throughout the plan revision process that surrounding communities want to be 

recognized in the forest plan, and want to continue to be engaged in the management of National 

Forest lands. The new forest plan represents community interests for sustainable levels of 

tourism, recreation, mining, livestock grazing, and fuelwood cutting. And, it sets a framework for 

building on desires for continued participation by outlining management approaches that 

encourage shared stewardship and identify key groups that have a substantial interest and 

commitment to management of the Coronado National Forest.

Land and Resource Management Planning

Nature of Forest Plan Decisions

The nature of forest plan decisions is outlined in the 1976 National Forest Management Act. The 

Act requires all national forests and grasslands in the National Forest System to develop plans 

that direct resource management activities. These plans are to be revised when conditions have 

changed significantly, or on a 10 to 15-year cycle. 

The revised plan establishes a framework for future decisionmaking by outlining a broad, 

interdisciplinary program for achieving the desired goals, objectives, and future conditions of the 

Coronado National Forest. It represents decisions that are strategic in nature, does not make a 

commitment to the selection of any specific project, and does not dictate day-to-day 

administrative activities needed to conduct the Forest Service’s internal operations (such as 

personnel matters, law enforcement, fleet management, or organizational changes). By applying 

programmatic management direction, the plan is carried out through the design, implementation, 

and monitoring of site-specific activities such as relocating a trail, conducting a prescribed burn, 

or harvesting timber. Subsequent decisions for these activities will be designed to be consistent 
Record of Decision

7

with the strategic decisions made in the revised plan and are subject to separate analysis under the 

National Environmental Policy Act.

The revised plan is accompanied by a Final Environmental Impact Statement, which provides 

analysis that discloses the environmental consequences of the alternative management strategies 

considered and discusses how these alternatives respond to issues and concerns raised during 

internal and collaborative processes.

The Revised Forest Plan

Forest plan revision on the Coronado National Forest was initiated based on legal requirements 

and significant changes that have occurred in conditions, demands, and scientific understanding 

since the 1986 plan went into effect. Need for revision is based on the following:

• The plan is beyond the 10 to 15 year duration provided by the National Forest Management 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1606(e)(5)(A)).

• Assessment of the sustainability of social, economic, and ecological Forest resources in 

light of continued management under the 1986 plan indicated several needs for change, 

which are documented in the Analysis of the Management Situation, as required by the 

1982 Planning Rule. The “Needs for Change” section earlier in this document provides 

further detail.

• New science and information has become available since the current plan was developed 

more than 25 years ago.

With this decision, the selected alternative will become the new Coronado National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan. This revised plan replaces the 1986 plan. This new plan is part 

of the long-range resource planning framework established by the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993, and the 2012 Revision of the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan. The Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and revised Coronado Forest Plan were developed according to 

the National Forest Management Act, its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 219; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, and Forest Service regulations at 36 

CFR 220.

According to transition language of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), the 

responsible official may elect to complete and approve the plan revision in conformance with the 

provisions of a prior planning regulation (36 CFR part 299, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, 

revised as of July 1, 2010). For this revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, I have elected to follow these provisions, referred to collectively in this 

document as the “1982 Rule.”

This decision applies only to National Forest System lands of the Coronado National Forest 

located in the aforementioned counties. It does not apply to any other Federal, State, or private 

lands, although the effects of activities occurring on these lands and the effects of my decision on 

lands that surround the national forest are also considered.

Alternatives Considered

This section describes the alternatives considered in this Record of Decision in order to provide 

important context for the decision being made. The Coronado National Forest analyzed four 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

8

alternatives in detail: no action, the modified proposed action1, and two alternatives developed in 

response to issues raised by the public. 

All alternatives in the Final Environmental Impact Statement adhere to multiple use and sustained 

yield of goods and services (36 CFR 219.1(a), (b)). In addition, they share objectives and 

standards for managing forest resources and complying with applicable laws and policies. They 

also contain the same direction to contribute to the diversity of desired native and non-native 

plant and animal communities and contribute toward the recovery of threatened and endangered 

species. 

The need for change topics drove alternative development. The primary difference between 

alternatives is the emphasis on wilderness or motorized recreation to meet the purpose and need 

for change, and address one or more of the revision topics.

Each alternative was developed to be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, as well 

as national policy and direction. The following objectives did not change between all four 

alternatives in the Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

• comply with laws, regulations, and policies;

• 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;

• provide for and maintain a diversity of plant and animal communities to meet multiple-use 

objectives;

• 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 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 sitespecific proposed actions; 

• recommend the current Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area for congressional wilderness 

designation2

;

 

1 This alternative is a modified version of the proposed action alternative presented in the draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. This version adds two additional recommended wilderness areas to the original proposed action alternative.

2 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. 
Record of Decision

9

• 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.

The modified 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 include specific management direction for inventoried roadless areas 

because the 1986 forest plan became effective prior to the designation of inventoried roadless 

areas, and therefore, did not address them at all. Under this alternative, the inventoried roadless 

areas would still be subject to the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule at 36 C.F.R. Part 294 

(2001).

The No Action Alternative (1986 Plan)

The No Action Alternative (No Action) represents the 1986 forest plan, as amended, and 

continues current management direction. The plan describes objectives, standards, and guidelines, 

the latter of which are collectively referred to as “plan components” for each element.

• Provides direction for ecosystem maintenance and improvement for the resource elements 

of range, wildlife and fish, timber, soil, and water although it does not ensure future 

ecosystem restoration and sustainability. 

• Allocates 5,000 acres for timber production with all lands within Management Areas 4 and 

7 and portions of five additional management areas available for livestock use.

• Encourages development of open space through emphasis on consolidation of small private 

landholdings into economically viable units. 

• 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).

• Provides direction on developed recreation and non-motorized, non-mechanized activities 

within four different management areas. There is minimal direction regarding dispersed 

recreation. 

• Recommends Mount Graham Wilderness Study Area be designated as a wilderness. 

• Provides direction for seven specially designated areas including: three research natural 

areas, one research ranch (Appleton-Whittel), and three other areas totaling 6,856 acres. 

Modified Proposed Action 

The Modified Proposed Action Alternative was designed to address the needs for change by 

addressing ecosystem restoration and resiliency, visitor experiences, access to National Forest 

System lands, preservation of open space, and communities, collaboration, and partnerships.

• Provides for sustainable levels of tourism, recreation, mining, livestock grazing, and 

fuelwood cutting. Management approaches include making timber and other forest products 

available for the public either through personal-use permits or commercial sales, and 

promoting available forest product use as a result of forest management activities.

 

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.
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

10

• Encourages and emphasizes collaboration with local, county, and state governments, tribes, 

other federal agencies and the public as an effective management strategy throughout the 

life of the plan for most resource and social elements.

• Identifies areas where improved access is necessary but currently nonexistent or limited. 

Public access was one of the primary concerns expressed by the public as something they 

wanted to see protected. The challenge is that of the 300 or so access points to the 

Coronado National Forest, only 1/3 of them have permanent legal status. To address this 

issue, the new plan presents a full suite of plan components to guide the resolution of the 

legal status deficiencies on 40 to 50 existing roads and trails in the next ten years.

• Emphasizes the preservation of open space through components that address range 

management, wildlife, and scenery. The direction in preservation of open space was 

emphasized through the major conservation efforts of neighboring land owners and 

jurisdictions. In particular, the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, a landmark conservation 

plan designed to preserve endangered species in Pima County. Also, the Malpai 

Borderlands Group which has effectively provided incentives to preclude development and 

fragmentation on over 1 million acres adjacent to the Coronado National Forest. These 

efforts benefit the Forest Service goals for social and ecological sustainability, and the new 

forest plan presents plan components that lend support to neighbors who choose to preserve 

open space and rural cultural heritage.

• Supports responsible, environmentally sound energy and mineral development and 

reclamation on the Coronado National Forest to fulfill the needs of local communities for 

social and economic growth. It contains standards and guidelines aimed at minimizing 

adverse impacts from mineral extraction and mining activities, such as the Rosemont 

Copper Mine, on sensitive forest resources.

• Recommends four land use zones: Roaded Backcountry, Wild backcountry, Developed 

Recreation, and Motorized Recreation accounting for 35 percent, 37 percent, 2 percent, and 

less than 1 percent respectively. 

• Emphasizes quiet recreation on approximately 60 percent of the national forest while still 

providing for motorized opportunities. 

• Provides direction for eight designated wilderness areas totaling 338,294 acres (19 percent 

of the national forest). 

• Provides direction for two wilderness study areas totaling 31,215 acres; Bunk Robinson 

(19,052 acres) and Whitmire Canyon (12,163 acres). 

• Recommends an additional 108,890 acres for wilderness. This includes the Ku Chish (26, 

266), Whetstone (16,317), Chiricahua Addition North (5,012) and Mount Graham (61,315) 

Wilderness Study Area3

3 Mount Graham Wilderness is also proposed under the No Action Alternative.

. 

• Carries forward 14 special management areas and recommends an additional 5 areas 

including research natural areas, zoological, botanical, and biological research areas, for a 

total of 68,109 acres. 

• Identifies 16 river segments that meet eligibility criteria for future designation as wild, 

scenic, or recreational rivers. 

 
Record of Decision

11

• Facilitates the restoration and/or remediation of degraded resources and sustains healthy 

ecosystems into the future based on decades of ecological research (synthesized in GTR310, Reynolds et al. 2013) which will move frequent-fire adapted systems toward increased 

resiliency by restoring spatial arrangement, structure, and species composition of 

vegetation. Treatments are focused in those potential natural vegetation types that are most 

divergent from desired conditions and priority watersheds. Establishes desired conditions 

for 9 major vegetation communities to be sustainable over time and resilient to 

disturbances.

• Provides protection for species from the potential effects of future site-specific 

management actions and identifies when management actions are needed to sustain and/or 

improve resource conditions.

• Establishes standards and guidelines for air, water, and soil resources and objectives for 

achieving desired conditions or intervening to sustain and/or improve the physical resource 

conditions. 

• Protects biophysical habitats and states and objectives for attaining them when management 

actions are needed to sustain or improve them. Standards and guidelines are defined to 

protect them from the potential effects of future site-specific management actions.

• Identifies desired conditions for resources vulnerable to the effects of climate change and 

recommends specific management approaches focused on adaptation to improve ecosystem 

resiliency. Provides guidance for informing visitors about the risks associated with illegal 

border activity and appropriate safety precautions.

Alternative 1: Emphasis on Wilderness

Alternative 1 responds to public comments that additional wilderness areas should be designated 

and recommends 255,448 acres be recommended for wilderness designation. The remaining 

components are the same as the modified proposed action with effects to access, preservation of 

open space, and communities, collaboration, and partnerships unchanged. 

• Visitor experiences for quiet recreation and non-motorized uses would be enhanced with 

the additional acreage.

• Management for ecosystem restoration and resiliency would be dominated by natural 

processes on these recommended wilderness acres with mechanized and motorized uses 

permitted on a limited case-by-case basis to serve management purposes only and would 

not be permitted to alter the landscape permanently.

Alternative 2: Emphasis on Motorized Recreation

Alternative 2 responds to public comments that forest management should emphasize more 

motorized recreation beyond what is specified under the modified proposed action and alternative 

1. Under this alternative, the Motorized Recreation Land Use Zone would be 49,980 acres 

(45,117 more than the modified proposed action and alternative 1.

• Emphasizes motorized recreation through the provision of increased motorized recreation 

opportunities which include facilities such as off-loading ramps, courses for different skill 

levels and motorized trails. Concentration would occur in areas where motorized use is 

already prevalent and where sensitive resources are minimal. 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

12

• No new wilderness areas would be identified however the eight previously designated 

wilderness areas, three previously designated wilderness study areas, and Mount Graham 

Recommended Wilderness Area would be carried forward. 

• Responds to ecosystem restoration and resiliency by localizing the impacts from motorized 

recreation through increasing the area where motorized recreation could occur which 

disperses the use and allows resource damaged areas to recover. 

• Infrastructure is encouraged to help direct motorized and quiet recreation. 

• Visitor experiences would be enhanced for motorized users although fewer areas would 

exist for quiet recreation and non-motorized recreation due to the increase in the Motorized 

Recreation Land Use Zone. 

• Alternative 2 does not contain plan components (i.e., desired conditions and management 

approaches) for managing resources in response to climate change.

Resource Planning Act Alternative

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule regulations at 219.12(f)(6) require forest plans to 

respond to and incorporate the Renewable Resource Planning Act Program objectives for each 

national forest as displayed in regional guides. There is no longer a regional guide for the 

Southwestern Region. This was withdrawn as required by the 2000 Planning Rule at 

219.35(e)(2000 rule). The last Renewable Resource Planning Act Program was developed in 

1995. In lieu of the Renewable Resource Planning Act 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 

alternatives in this Final Environmental Impact Statement address these broad strategic 

objectives.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

In addition to the four alternatives described above, several alternatives were considered but not 

given detailed study. These alternatives considered public comments received in response to the 

proposed action and provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the plan revision process or 

already addressed by the alternatives considered in detail. The following alternatives were 

considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. Further 

detail on these alternatives can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, chapter 2.

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 the 

Coronado NF contains lands capable and suitable for livestock grazing, livestock grazing is an 

appropriate land use under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest 

Management Act, and eliminating grazing would not meet the Coronado’s need for change.
Record of Decision

13

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, and 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 it was not necessary because 

under all of the alternatives, 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 10-15 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, and since the alternative 

would arbitrarily reduce levels of grazing across the forest, this alternative was not studied in 

detail.

Potential Wilderness Areas Requested for Consideration

The Forest Service 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 would meet the 

Coronado’s need for change. Where feasible, portions of mapped areas were incorporated into 

wilderness recommendations under the modified proposed action and alternative 1.

Thirty-one Areas Recommended for Wilderness 

In the “Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation Report” 31 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, 15 of them did not 

fully meet the Coronado’s needs for change; therefore, they were excluded from detailed 

consideration in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Maximize Certain Resources 

Some comments were made that alternatives should be developed that maximize ecological 

systems for protection of wildlife, vegetation, riparian areas, watershed, soils, range and 

incorporate the effects of climate change on ecosystems. An alternative exclusively addressing 

ecological systems was eliminated from detailed consideration because 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 mandates, maximization of ecological systems at the expense of other 

resources does not meet the purpose and need. 

Minimum/No Management Alternative

Some comments were also made to consider an alternative that involves no or minimal 

management on the Coronado National Forest, to let natural processes dominate without human 

intervention. This alternative was not considered in detail because it could not meet the purpose 

and need identified in chapter 1 and it could not meet legal requirements of the National Forest 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

14

Management Act of 1976, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. Active management is also needed to maintain or move toward desired 

conditions, including to restore forest ecosystems; maintain recreation opportunities; enhance the 

management of threatened and endangered species; reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfires 

to communities, and maintain the availability of forest products. A “hands off approach” was not 

identified as a need for change from the 1986 plan (see the “Purpose and Need for Change” 

section in chapter 1 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement) and therefore, this topic did not 

drive alternative development. 

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 FR 

74689). As a result, this alternative was dropped from detailed consideration. 

My Decision

I have selected the Modified Proposed Action Alternative for the new Coronado National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan. The new plan will:

• Contribute nearly 1,300 jobs and generate up to $45 million in income annually to local 

communities.

• Provide for sustainable levels of tourism, recreation, mining, livestock grazing, and 

fuelwood cutting, making timber and other forest products available for the public either 

through personal-use permits or commercial sales, and promoting available forest product 

use as a result of forest management activities.

• Preserve open space in range management, wildlife, and scenery by managing working 

landscapes (e.g., grazing allotments) as open space, emphasizing wildlife habitat linkages 

that extend across land ownership boundaries, emphasizing healthy rangelands for grazing, 

and emphasizing aesthetic and recreational benefits of vast, open natural landscapes.

• Identify areas where improved access is necessary but currently nonexistent or limited. The 

new plan presents a full suite of plan components to guide the resolution of the legal status 

deficiencies on 40 to 50 existing roads and trails in the next ten years.

• Provide mining exploration and extraction that supports employment opportunities and 

additional income to the state and local economy. 

• Provide desired conditions that all mineral exploration and mining activities, such as the 

Rosemont Copper Mine and proposed projects similar to Rosemont in the Patagonia 

Mountains south of Rosemont on Forest lands, are operating in environmentally sound 

ways through protection and mitigation measures, including adequate post-mining 

reclamation assurances, to minimize environmental impacts to other national forest 

resources.

• Support collaboration with local, county, and State governments, tribes, other federal 

agencies, and the public for most resource and social elements to address the need for more 

effective management and for accomplishing work with the help of others through 

improved relationships. 
Record of Decision

15

• Maintain and improve motorized and nonmotorized access to the Forest through acquisition 

of rights-of-way. 

• Provide a wide range of designated visitor experiences that satisfy visitor expectations with 

approximately 60 percent of the Forest managed for quiet recreation, 38 percent managed 

for motorized access, and less than 1 percent managed for developed facilities. 

• Provide guidance for three types of management areas (Land Use Zones, wilderness areas, 

and other special designations) and geographic subdivisions called Ecosystem Management 

Areas. These areas were assigned based on administrative and user needs, and public 

comments. 

• Provide guidance for managing 16 river segments that meet eligibility criteria for future 

designation as wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. Outstanding remarkable values will be 

preserved in these segments that qualify for wild, scenic, or recreational river classification. 

• Recommend approximately 108,890 acres to Congress for Wilderness designation based on 

public interest in additional wilderness areas. These recommendations support the local 

economy by providing additional outfitter/guide opportunities managed through special use 

permits. The proposed action includes Mount Graham (61,315 acres) and Ku Chish (26,245 

acres). In addition, Chiricahua Addition North (5,012 acres), and Whetstone (16,317 acres) 

are recommended to be incorporated as discussed in the plan. Some of these areas are 

adjacent to existing wilderness, others are standalone; however all will be managed to 

retain their wilderness characteristics until a congressional decision on wilderness 

designation is made.

• Recommend four research natural areas (3,284 acres) and one other Special Management 

Area (25,764 acres) highlights a diverse assemblage of migratory and year-round wildlife. 

Recent research has found that Cave Creek Canyon harbors the United States’ densest 

known population of breeding raptors. World-class birding is a highlight of the area.

• Move vegetation towards desired conditions, reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires, 

and protect vegetation from potential effects of future site-specific management actions. 

This includes community-specific objectives guiding management, through planned and 

unplanned ignitions and mechanical treatments, to maintain species diversity and an 

appropriate diversity of open conditions and structural classes (Reynolds et al. 2013).4

4 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 the composition and structure in southwestern frequent-fire forests: a science-based 

framework for improving ecosystem resiliency. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-310.

 

• Protect and improve air, soil and water resources that support aquatic and terrestrial habitat 

and contribute to high levels of biodiversity including fens, bogs, springs, and over 2,500 

plant and animal species. 

• Protect and improve biophysical habitats including caves, abandoned mines, and adits 

through objectives and desired conditions when management action is needed to sustain 

and /or improve conditions. 

• Provide for the viability of all species through habitat desired conditions needed by those 

species, and standards, guidelines and objectives that address species-specific needs. 

 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

16

• Restore and remediate degraded resources and sustain healthy ecosystems into the future by 

addressing the resource threats posed by invasive, nonnative plants and animals, and 

reducing threats to aquatic species. 

• Improve resiliency and increase capacity to adapt for affected resources to changing 

biological, chemical, and physical conditions such as drought and atmospheric warming. 

I have considered how the revised plan responds to the concerns of State, local, and tribal 

governments, public comments, internal management concerns, and national direction and policy. 

My decision is based on the management direction in the revised plan, the analysis of effects 

disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the planning record in its entirety. 

The decision components are fully supported by the environmental analysis documented in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, as required by law and regulation. This decision applies 

only to National Forest System lands on the Coronado National Forest. It does not apply to any 

other Federal, State, or private lands, although the effects of these lands and the effects of my 

decision on lands surrounding the Coronado National Forest were considered.

Components of the Decision

Components of plan decisions are outlined in the National Forest Management Act (1976) and 

Forest Service implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 219. A plan establishes a framework for 

future decision making by outlining a broad, interdisciplinary program for achieving the desired 

conditions of the National Forest. A plan does not make a commitment to the selection of any 

specific project and does not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on the 

Forest Service’s internal operations. However, the plan is implemented through the design, 

execution, and monitoring of site-specific activities that are consistent with the plan.

The decisions I am making in this Record of Decision for the new Coronado Forest Plan are as 

follows:

Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals (characterized by 

desired conditions) and objectives (1982 Rule, Section 219.11 (b))

Forestwide goals, termed in this plan as desired conditions, are found in chapter 2 of the revised 

plan. While the plan addresses multiple uses and values of the Coronado National Forest, the 

desired conditions emphasize: 

1. Livestock grazing and wood fiber harvest activities contribute to aspects of the social, 

economic, and cultural structure and stability of rural communities. 

2. The composition, density, structure, and mosaic of vegetative conditions minimize the 

threat of uncharacteristic wildfire hazard to local communities and ecosystems.

3. Enhancing Madrean Encinal woodland with fires of low and mixed severity and occur 

between April and July, resulting in an overstory canopy of less than 20 percent on about 

60 percent of the landscape.

4. Water quality, stream channel stability, and aquatic habitats retain their inherent resilience 

to natural and other disturbances, including climate variability and change.

5. Access to areas where it is currently nonexistent or limited.

Objectives provide ways of achieving the desired conditions through specific actions and are 

established in chapter 2 of the plan for a full array of resources, uses, goods and services. Desired 

conditions are also established in chapter 3 for the management areas described above.
Record of Decision

17

Establishment of forestwide management requirements (standards 

and guidelines) (1982 Rule, Section 219.27)

Forestwide standards and guidelines are found in chapter 2 of the revised plan. Standards are 

limitations on actions or thresholds that are not to be exceeded. Guidelines are requirements that 

must be followed unless a different management action demonstrably achieves the same intent as 

the guideline. After careful review, I believe that the standards and guidelines provide sufficient 

requirements for management, provide for resource protection, and reflect the intent of the 

revised plan. To simplify the planning document and to keep it up to date, laws, policies, Forest 

Service Manual, and Forest Service Handbook direction or other regional directives are 

incorporated by reference from the original source and are not duplicated in the plan. 

Establishment of management prescriptions and associated 

standards and guidelines (1982 Rule, Section 219.11 (c))

The revised plan provides direction for management areas that have specific management 

direction that differs from the general forest. Management areas are described in chapter 3 of the 

plan and are mapped in chapter 4 by geographic subdivisions, called ecosystem management 

areas. The management areas span a continuum of management emphasis from passive approach 

with little human-caused change to more active management with substantially more humancaused change designed to sustain the social, economic, and sociological attributes of the Forest. 

The management area allocations were the primary difference between the three action 

alternatives. Two types of management areas are identified: designated areas and land use zones. 

Designated areas (also known as special areas) are lands given special designation through statute 

or a preexisting administrative process due to their unique or special characteristics. They are 

designated to ensure protection of specific biological and zoological communities. The plan 

provides desired conditions, standards and guidelines for 19 special management areas which 

includes research natural areas, botanical, zoological, and other special areas. Research natural 

areas are areas that have been designated to be permanently protected and maintained in natural

condition, so they may serve as experimental research controls and monitoring sites for the 

particular ecosystem they represent. These areas are to be used for education. Botanical and 

zoological areas are designated for a special feature such as a rare plant or animal. Several of 

these areas overlap with designated wilderness areas. 

Land use zones are delineated to aid in management and provide plan direction for specific sites. 

Land use zones established in the revised plan are wild backcountry, roaded backcountry, 

developed recreation, and motorized recreation. 

Land within the Coronado National Forest may be assigned to more than one management area. 

For example, Finger Rock Canyon Research Natural Area is almost entirely within Pusch Ridge 

Wilderness. In such cases, the most restrictive plan direction would apply to the area of overlap.

Table 1 (next page) displays the management area allocations included in the decision.

Determination of land that is suitable for timber production (1982 

Rule, Section 219.14) and establishment of the allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ) of timber (1982 Rule, Section 219.16)

The determination of lands suitable for timber production is found in chapter 5 of the revised 

plan. The suitability and allowable sale quantity analysis is found in Appendix C of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement.
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

18

The land area designated suitable for timber production on the Coronado National Forest is zero 

acres because the Coronado has zero acres for timber production, zero acres for long-term

sustained yield calculation, and zero allowable sale quantity. Lands having potential commercialgrade timber are located at very high elevations and are isolated and difficult to access, making it 

extremely unlikely for a single processing facility to develop a feasible business model that could 

incorporate most timbered lands, therefore it is not cost efficient in meeting timber production 

objectives.

Recommendations for non-wilderness allocations and 

recommendations for wilderness status (1982 Rule, Section 219.7) 

During the analysis process leading to this decision, a total of about 417,485 acres in 33 areas 

were found to have wilderness potential. After considering the public value of wilderness and 

reviewing the suitability evaluations in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, I am 

recommending to Congress the addition of 108,890 acres for addition to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. This includes Mount Graham (61,315 acres), Ku Chish (26,245 acres), 

Chiricahua Addition North (5,012 acres), and Whetstone (16,317 acres). Existing wilderness 

areas are utilized by local outfitter/guides to offer recreational tourism experiences that are 

administered through special use permits. Additional recommended wilderness areas could 

expand these opportunities.

My recommendation is similar to what was included in the 1986 plan for the addition of Mount 

Graham Recommended Wilderness Area (currently known as Mount Graham Wilderness Study 

Area). This recommendation is carried forward because the area received high rankings for 

capability. Although this area ranked medium for availability and low for need, it is recommended 

largely based on the existing congressional status as a wilderness study area. As such, this area 

has been consistently managed to preserve wilderness character since its congressional 

designation in the Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984.

Ku Chish is recommended for wilderness designation because it ranked highly for both capability 

and availability of the area as potential wilderness. Based on the evaluation, the areas rugged 

condition and high quality wilderness character combined with its manageability made it the 

strongest candidate for recommendation. 

Chiricahua Addition North and Whetstone are recommended for wilderness designation because 

both these areas have attributes that are fitting as wilderness and because interest in these areas 

was supportive from local collaborative groups. These areas both ranked high for availability 

although low for need in the wilderness evaluation. Chiricahua Addition North ranked medium 

for capability although the adjacency to existing wilderness provides for better manageability of 

the existing wilderness. Whetstone ranked high for capability due to this area being surrounded 

by Forest Service lands. Both areas have unique rock formations and spectacular views further 

contributing to their wilderness characteristics. 

Until Congress considers this recommendation, the plan has management direction for these areas 

to improve and/or maintain wilderness character. This recommendation is a preliminary 

administrative recommendation that will receive further review and possible modification by the 

Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. 

Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. 
Record of Decision

19

Table 1. Land use zones, wilderness areas, and other special management areas and acreages

Management Area

Acres Allocated by 

Proposed Action

Land Use Zones

Roaded Backcountry 595,787

Wild Backcountry 596,317

Developed Recreation 36,784

Motorized Recreation 4,862

Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas

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

Special Management Areas

Proposed Cave Creek Canyon Birds of Prey 25,764 

South Fork of Cave Creek Zoological-Botanical Area 786 

Pole Bridge Research Natural Area 460 

Proposed Pole Bridge Research Natural Area Extension 122

Guadalupe Canyon 3,436 

Wild Chile Botanical Area 2,836 

Goodding Research Natural Area 540 

Proposed Goodding Research Natural Area Extension 1,673

Sabino Canyon Recreation Area 1,423

Elgin Research Natural Area 245 

Proposed Canelo Research Natural Area 386 

Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch 1,746 

Goudy Canyon 558 

Wet Canyon Talus Snail 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
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

20

Recommendations for wild and scenic rivers or other special use 

designations as appropriate (1982 Rule, Section 219.7)

The eligibility review process for wild and scenic rivers completed under this forest plan revision 

analysis resulted in finding no new rivers or river segments eligible for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 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. More information is available in the Eligible Wild, Scenic, and recreational 

Rivers section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

As previously described, the revised plan provides management direction in chapters 2 and 3 for 

designated areas that have been established through statute or a preexisting administrative process 

because of their unique or special characteristics. 

Designation of lands suitable for grazing and browsing (1982 Rule, 

Section 219.20)

Approximately 97 percent of the Coronado National Forest is suitable for livestock grazing. The 

areas designated unsuitable for grazing include research natural areas and recommended research 

natural areas. The plan sets the framework for site-specific determinations relating to allotment 

management, such as the grazing systems (e.g., season of use, permitted livestock numbers, 

forage use levels) to meet desired conditions and the range developments needed to implement 

those systems. The “Range Management Section” in chapter 2 and the “Grazing Capability and 

Suitability” section in chapter 5 of the revised plan and Appendix E of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement contain more information about the grazing suitability and capability 

determinations on the Coronado National Forest. 

Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (1982 Rule, 

Section 219.11 (d))

Monitoring and evaluation requirements are found in chapter 6 of the revised plan. Specific 

monitoring questions are identified regarding achievement of desired conditions and objectives or 

meeting regulatory requirements. The monitoring strategy strives to be realistic in terms of budget 

and capacity, provides for robust study designs, and statistically valid conclusions, and will 

facilitate adapting management in response to results and new information. Application of this 

monitoring strategy will inform achievement of the desired conditions and objectives, and serve

as the basis for adjusting the Land and Resource Management Plan.

Determination of lands administratively available for oil and gas 

leasing (36 CFR 228.102 (d))

This determination is not a part of the revised plan. 

Rationale for My Decision

My decision to select the Modified Proposed Action Alternative as the new Coronado Forest Plan 

is based on a careful and reasoned comparison of the environmental consequences of and 

responses to issues and concerns for each alternative. I selected the Modified Proposed Action 

Alternative because it represents the best mix and balance of management strategies that: 
Record of Decision

21

• is responsive to the diverse needs, issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed by State 

and local governments, tribes, other Federal agencies, organizations, and the public; 

• manages land uses in ways that are ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable;

• promote sound land stewardship in partnership with local communities to conserve rural 

character; 

• establishes ambitious but achievable objectives for maintenance and improvement of 

ecosystem health, managed recreation, and community-forest interaction; 

• meets the purpose of and need for action by addressing the priority needs for change and 

major themes that drove plan revision; and

• provides the direction necessary for moving the Forest’ resources toward desired conditions 

while including measures to protect sensitive ecological and cultural elements of the Forest; 

The new Coronado Forest Plan will provide direction and guidance for accomplishing the 

following management activities.

Contributing to Social and Economic Sustainability

The revised plan contributes to social and economic sustainability. Analysis shows that it will 

contribute approximately 1,300 jobs to the local economy and $45 million in labor income 

primarily through recreation and livestock grazing. 

Preserving Open Space

The revised plan identifies open space as a desired condition to sustain biological diversity and 

ecological processes and help to preserve the rural cultural heritage in the planning area. To 

determine lands to be acquired or conveyed, the Coronado is more focused on specific resources 

and less specific to location on the landscape.

Managing Mining Operations

The revised plan supports 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 provide a contribution to the social 

and economic development of local communities while minimizing impacts to other Forest 

resources. 

Increasing Access

The revised plan aims to increase the number of permanent legal access routes to and within the 

Coronado National Forest by resolving legal status deficiencies of 40 to 50 existing and proposed 

national forest roads and trails every 10 years.

Providing for Tribal Uses

The revised plan provides for traditional tribal uses such as the collection of medicinal plants, 

wild plant foods, basketry materials, and fuelwood; tribal members’ access to sacred sites for 

traditional ceremonies and rituals; and maintaining or improving the integrity of sacred sites.
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

22

Providing and Managing Recreation Opportunities

The revised plan provides a mix of recreation opportunities with a balanced approach in 

providing developed, dispersed, motorized, and non-motorized recreation opportunities. This 

alternative provides land use zones that better reflect public use patterns and activities in various 

areas. Land use zones complement recreation opportunity 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. My decision does affect 

future options to consider designating additional miles or areas for motorized use following sitespecific analysis. The revised plan provides a balance to accommodate reasonable assurances of 

motorized and non-motorized recreation choices while protecting forest resources.

Recommending Wilderness

The revised plan recommends 108,890 acres for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. This includes Mount Graham (61,315 acres), Ku Chish (26,245 acres), Chiricahua 

Addition North (5,012 acres), and Whetstone (16,317 acres). As described in the “Response to 

Public Comment” section below, public opinion regarding wilderness recommendation varies 

widely. I recognize the complexity of public concerns over recommended wilderness and 

considered public comments related to recommended wilderness boundary changes and new 

recommended wilderness inclusion between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact 

Statements. Some commenters wanted more wilderness while others wanted no additional 

wilderness. I selected the Chiricahua Addition North and Whetstone from Alternative 1 because 

they had public support and because they contain outstanding wilderness characteristics. Mount 

Graham is a recommendation carried forward from the 1986 plan based largely on the existing 

congressional status as a wilderness study area. I recognize that Graham County Supervisors are 

in opposition of this recommendation on the basis that they do not support any restriction of uses 

or activities. Recent conversations with them have emphasized that important economic 

opportunities such as livestock grazing will continue in recommended wilderness areas. Ku 

Chish is recommended for wilderness designation due to its rugged condition and high quality 

wilderness character combined with its manageability. Wilderness is highly valued by many and 

represents deeply held values and beliefs. Yet, recommendation and potential Congressional 

designation of lands for wilderness will necessarily result in losses of other opportunities such as 

mountain biking within these areas. The revised plan provides a balance of opportunities in 

response to the broad range of public values. 

Providing Research Natural Areas

The revised plan 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), and a new recommended research natural area (Finger Rock) would enhance the 

preservation and conservation of these biologically rich lands. Over a decade of research has 

already been conducted on this area regarding climate change. The primary objective of this area 

is to continue climate change research. These areas total approximately 3,285 acres and serve as 

experimental research controls and monitoring sites for the ecosystem they represent providing 

opportunities for research, observation, and study.

Improving Vegetation

The revised plan will effectively maintain or move vegetation towards desired conditions by 

providing direction to improve vegetation conditions which will increase resistance and resiliency 
Record of Decision

23

to disturbance, including climate change. The revised plan contains desired conditions for forest 

composition, structure, density, and objectives for management activities that will more 

vegetation towards these conditions. Standards and guidelines protect components of vegetation, 

providing for habitat diversity, and maintaining and enhancing scenic integrity. The analysis in 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement provided a foundation for how terrestrial vegetation 

may influence other resources such as wildlife habitat, aquatic resources, and fire risk (consistent 

with GTR-310, Reynolds et al. 2013).5

 

Managing Wildland Fire

The revised plan allows the use of planned and unplanned natural ignitions and mechanical 

treatments in all vegetation communities except desert communities. In desert communities 

wildland fire will not be utilized as a management tool except as a strategy to control invasive 

vegetation in limited areas where appropriate. The direction also emphasizes hazardous fuels 

reduction in the wildland-urban interface through landscape-scale planning for wildfire across 

jurisdictional boundaries, support for community wildfire protection plans, and education of 

property owners about defensible space. Treatment of 5,000 to 10,000 acres annually in the 

wildland-urban interface through both mechanical and wildland fire (planned and unplanned 

ignitions) will maintain or move vegetation towards desired conditions in the wildland-urban 

interface to protect communities and improve public safety. 

Promoting Healthy Watersheds 

The revised plan promotes healthy watersheds through desired conditions, and objectives that 

protect and improve soil, water resources, riparian, and upland vegetation conditions. The plan

will improve viability of aquatic species and the climate resiliency by maintaining a more 

complex ecosystem resulting from the objectives to apply for ten instream flow water rights on 

streams and the completion of three stream restoration projects. The additional instream flow 

water rights and stream restoration projects will provide for the recovery of plant and/or animal 

species including benefiting aquatic species.

How the Modified Proposed Action Compares to the Other 

Alternatives 

I selected the Modified Proposed Action Alternative rather than the No Action Alternative 

because the No Action Alternative does not address the needs for change identified in the 

Analysis of the Management Situation. The current plan has no articulated desired conditions for 

the Coronado National Forest vegetation communities. There are very few desired conditions for 

other resources. After reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Statement and summary in Table 

7 of the statement, it is clear to me that The No Action Alternative is generally the poorest of all 

the alternatives in terms of its ability to achieve desired conditions. 

I selected the Modified Proposed Action Alternative rather than Alternative 1 for several reasons. 

Although the Modified Proposed Action Alternative and Alternative 1 both received “very good” 

ratings for all five Need for Change topics, I felt the Modified Proposed Action Alternative better 

met the needs of all recreational activities, including mountain biking. Alternative 1 would 

increase areas managed for wilderness characteristics by approximately 14 percent, which could 

exclude some user groups because motorized and mechanized uses are prohibited in wilderness. 

 

5 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 the composition and structure in southwestern frequent-fire forests: a science-based 

framework for improving ecosystem resiliency. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-310.
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

24

Because of restrictive standards and guidelines for motorized and mechanical uses in wilderness, 

Alternative 1 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. This is most problematic in recommended wilderness areas that are highly departed 

from desirable conditions, have heavy fuel loads, and high vegetation densities.

I selected the Modified Proposed Action Alternative rather than Alternative 2 for several reasons. 

Alternative 2 would have the greatest negative effect on the desert, grassland, interior chaparral, 

and Madrean encinal woodland, and Madrean pine-oak woodland vegetation communities due to 

increased motorized use. These communities account for almost 94 percent of the Coronado. 

Alternative 2 had the greatest potential negative effects on both soils and water due to potential 

for increased compaction and erosion and runoff resulting from vehicle use and ground 

disturbance. Alternative 2 was less successful at fostering adaptation and resiliency to the effects 

of climate change than the Modified Proposed Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would have a 

positive effect on motorized recreation by increasing the allocation of land for motorized uses 

however this would increase the potential impacts to ecosystems and reduce the degree of quiet 

recreation available. Further, one recommended wilderness would be carried forward (as 

identified from the 1986 plan). Overall, Alternative 2 was rated as poor for meeting the 

Ecosystem Restoration and Resiliency, Visitor Experiences, and Communities, Collaboration, and 

Partnerships “Need for Change” topics. 

The Modified Proposed Action Alternative is responsive to the Forest Service’s National Strategic 

Plan (2015-2020) and meets our legal obligations to the people and environment that surrounds 

them. The full implementation rate for the new plan could require higher funding levels in some 

areas than those currently allocated; however, I believe the management direction changes 

envisioned in the new plan are attainable under current budget levels. The achievement of desired 

conditions and outputs in some areas, however, may be prolonged or reduced if future budgets 

decrease. 

In summary, I believe the Modified Proposed Action Alternative sets the framework for future 

decisions better than the other alternatives because it best addresses the needs for change to the 

current plan. It is overall best in achieving desired conditions and therefore best provides for 

social, economic, and ecological sustainability on the Coronado National Forest.

My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows thorough incorporation of relevant 

scientific information, a consideration of opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete 

or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk.

Response to Public Concerns

Many stakeholders shared their concerns and preferences during the collaboration and public 

involvement for the Coronado National Forest plan revision. I have made my decision to select 

the Modified Proposed Action Alternative with due consideration of the input from those diverse 

stakeholders. This section describes the key concerns and comments expressed during the plan 

revision process and how my decision responds to those concerns.

Keep Things the Same – An overwhelming response by the public and stakeholders was to 

keep things the same, so the Coronado could continue to provide the experiences, goods and 

services that are currently available. 
Record of Decision

25

Grazing – Some commenters want to eliminate, reduce, or increase livestock grazing. Some 

commenters question the range capability and suitability determinations. Alternatives to 

eliminate reduce, or increase livestock grazing were considered in the environmental impact 

statement but eliminated from detailed study because elimination is not consistent with the 

multiple-use mission of the Forest Service and stocking decisions are made at the project level. 

The plan was reviewed; the guidelines to balance livestock grazing with available forage and 

manage towards desired conditions are considered adequate to manage livestock grazing. The 

Coronado National Forest contributes to the local economy in both jobs and income based on 

utilization of national forest grazing allotments. The Coronado followed national and regional 

guidance to complete the capability and suitability determinations. 

Mining – Some commenters feel the Forest Service should prohibit open pit mining or 

extraction activities, such as Rosemont Mine, to preserve the long-term ecological and 

economical sustainability of the region. The revised forest plan contains standards and 

guidelines aimed at minimizing adverse impacts from mineral extraction and mining activities 

on sensitive forest resources. Most of the guidance for mining is governed by law, regulation, 

and policy, which are outside of the scope of the forest plan. As stated in the plan, it is Forest 

Service policy to support responsible, environmentally sound energy and mineral development 

and reclamation on the Coronado National Forest. 

Access – Public access was one of the primary concerns expressed by the public as something 

they wanted to see protected. The challenge is that of the 300 or so access points to the National 

Forest, only 1/3 of them have permanent legal status. To address this issue, the new plan 

presents a full suite of plan components to guide the resolution of the legal status deficiencies 

on 40 to 50 existing roads and trails in the next 10 years.

Open Space – The theme of preservation of open space was revealed through recognition of 

major conservation efforts of neighboring land owners and jurisdictions. In particular, the 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, a landmark conservation plan designed to preserve 

endangered species in Pima County. Also, the Malpai Borderlands Group which has effectively 

provided incentives to preclude development and fragmentation on over 1 million acres 

adjacent to the Coronado National Forest. These efforts benefit the Forest Service goals for 

social and ecological sustainability, and the new forest plan presents plan components that lend 

support to neighbors who choose to preserve open space and rural cultural heritage.

Cooperation with Tribes – Tribal comments showed support for Alternative 1, which provides 

additional recommended wilderness areas than the Modified Proposed Action Alternative. 

Tribes also commented that the Coronado National Forest should include a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the various tribes. I agree that establishing a memorandum with the tribes 

is beneficial. Additional language is added to the plan to cooperatively develop a memorandum

with neighboring tribes for routine tribal consultation, policy development, proposed plans, 

projects, programs, and national forest activities that have a potential to affect tribal interest.

Wilderness – Some comments show support for and against the amount of recommended 

wilderness. Some preferred keeping the parcels of land for multiple use (mountain biking in 

particular), while others pushed for much more recommended wilderness (alternative 1). The 

amount I recommend for wilderness is based on suitability evaluations and public input. 

Chiricahua Addition North will improve manageability of the Chiricahua Wilderness. With 

these additions, the amount of designated wilderness, study areas and recommended wilderness 

areas is approximately 26 percent of Coronado National Forest lands. The Coronado’s
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

26

wilderness evaluation process is consistent with the 1982 Planning Rule, chapter 70 of the 

directives, and regional guidance. 

Aquatic and Riparian Resources – Some commenters want more direction to protect water, 

riparian, and aquatic ecosystems using a watershed approach and additional standards and 

guidelines. A review of the plan verified it contains desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines to adequately protect water resources, riparian and aquatic habitat. The plan contains 

a guideline to utilize the watershed condition framework and classification system to prioritize 

and assess watersheds. Furthermore, watershed restoration action plans should be used to guide 

completion of essential watershed projects. 

Cave and Karst Resources – The Central Arizona Grotto of the National Speleological 

Society requested that we add additional direction for management of caves and karsts. I agree 

that a cave and karst management plan is needed and the Coronado National Forest is currently 

developing such a plan. Additional management guidelines are being developed in coordination 

with cave and karst stakeholders such as the Central Arizona Grotto of the National 

Speleological Society, through the Cave Management Plan process. In addition, a cave and 

karst management guide has recently been developed in collaboration with local Grottos. The 

revised forest plan incorporates this guide by reference.

Climate Change – Some commenters support how we address climate change while others do 

not. Some concerns request a more thorough discussion and disclosure of the effects of climate 

change on multiple resources; include management strategies to adapt to climate change and 

this affects ranchers and adjacent land owners. The revised forest plan contains a section 

outlining desired conditions and management approaches to help address climate change that 

follows regional direction. Further, plan components are found in the “Vegetation 

Communities” and “Natural Water Sources” sections that are designed to adapt those resources 

to climate change. The Forest Service addresses climate change at the project level in all 

National Environmental Policy Act assessments, and any potential effects of Forest Service 

activities to ranchers or adjacent land owners would be analyzed and disclosed at that point. 

I appreciate all the stakeholder’s constructive contributions to the development of the Coronado 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. That input has resulted in an improved 

plan that will serve the Coronado National Forest, its priceless resources, and the public well into 

the future.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality has defined the “environmentally preferable” alternative 

as: “...the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the 

National Environmental Policy Act’s section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that 

causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative 

which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.”

The Modified Proposed Action Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative. This 

alternative’s desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines best provide the direction 

and management flexibility necessary to maintain and improve ecosystem health, manage 

recreation, and facilitate community-forest interaction. The Modified Proposed Action Alternative 

achieves maintenance of a safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

Forest better than the other alternatives because it provides the best mix of resource utilization, 

active and passive management, and motorized and non-motorized recreation uses along with the 
Record of Decision

27

safeguards provided by standards and guidelines for maintaining water quality, scenery, and 

wildlife habitat. The Modified Proposed Action Alternative provides increased levels of 

recommended wilderness with 26 percent of the Coronado National Forest being currently 

designated or recommended wilderness, or wilderness study areas recommending the best of our 

backcountry areas for this designation. It also ensures the protection of soil and watershed 

function; provides for threatened, endangered, sensitive, rare, and narrow endemic species; 

protects historic and cultural resources, and mitigates the effects of climate change.

The Modified Proposed Action Alternative facilitates restoration of the structure, composition, 

and processes of the Forest’ vegetation types and protects and restores rare and unique resources 

that support important habitats. This alternative outlines appropriate desired conditions at 

multiple scales and provides climate change direction for each vegetation community. The 

Modified Proposed Action Alternative promotes resilient ecosystems by reducing the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire and is found to have the greatest ability to maintain viable wildlife 

populations over time, allowing wildlife species to cope with climate change. When compared to 

Alternative 1, the Modified Proposed Action Alternative is better able to meet desired conditions 

for vegetation structure, composition and function due to increased ability to modify vegetation 

through mechanical means. Compared to Alternative 2, the Modified Proposed Action Alternative 

lessens the negative impacts of motorized recreation and better facilitates management under 

climate change.

Net Public Benefits

The 1982 National Forest Management Act implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.1) state that 

plans “...shall provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services...in a way that 

maximizes long term net public benefits...” Section 219.3 defines net public benefits as “...the 

long term value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all associated inputs 

and negative effects (costs) whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Net public benefits 

are measured by both quantitative and qualitative criteria rather, than a single measure or index.”

There are two economic analyses required by the 1982 Rule Provisions—economic impact 

analysis and financial efficiency analysis. Economic impact analysis estimates the employment 

and labor income consequences and compares the relative effects of the alternatives. All 

alternatives provide the same level of employment and income. Financial efficiency analysis 

compares forest expenditures and revenues for the expected life (10 to 15 years) of the Forest 

Plan and the efficiency measure is present net value. Present net value is the difference between 

program revenues and program expenditures over a 10 year period, using a four percent discount 

rate. Present net value is negative and the same dollar amount for all alternatives. With no 

differences between alternatives for economic impacts or financial efficiency I chose the 

Modified Proposed Action Alternative based on consideration for how the revised plan responded 

to public comment, internal management concerns, and national direction and policy. 

Science Consistency

The revised plan contains a strong framework for adapting management of Coronado National 

Forest resources as new scientific information becomes available and plan monitoring reveals 

new or changing needs. Furthermore, I find that science was considered and applied throughout 

the revision process. Peer reviewed science was used whenever available, reliable, and applicable 

throughout the assessment process, the development of the plan, and preparation of the 

Environmental Impact Statement. Extensive site-specific peer reviewed literature was available 

and used in the development of many plan components for many resource areas. In addition to 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

28

published scientific literature and reports, the Coronado National Forest solicited input from 

subject matter experts, used state-of-the-art ecological modeling, including the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator and the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool.

I find this decision to be consistent with the application of the best available scientific 

information used throughout the plan development process during assessment of the original 1986 

plan for needs for change to better reflect management of the Coronado National Forest, during 

plan development and evaluation, and during development of the plan monitoring program. 

Scientific conclusions are drawn from well-supported data sources, and data availability is 

disclosed. No unproven or controversial data or methods are used in analyses. Sources of 

information are referenced, and syntheses do not go beyond what the data indicate.

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian 

Tribes

Forest Service planning regulations require the agency to consider other Federal, State, and local 

government and tribal plans and policies. As part of the collaboration effort in developing the 

revised Plan, the Coronado National Forest engaged in a number of discussions with these entities 

throughout the duration of the plan revision effort. The new plan was developed collaboratively 

and was coordinated with Federal, State, and local agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and local government and community leaders. 

Consultation with affiliated tribes ensured the plan components reflect tribal concerns and needs 

with respect to the national forest. Appendix B of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

details the collaboration and coordination between the Coronado National Forest and other public 

agencies and tribes throughout the plan revision process and that no conflicts were identified.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (59 Federal Register 7629, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and 

address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations in the local communities. I have determined, 

from the analysis disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, that the revised plan is 

in compliance with Executive Order 12898. 

There are high concentrations of American Indian and Hispanic/Latino residents within the area 

addressed by the plan. In addition, according to the 2010 census, all of the counties within the 

planning area have higher percentages of persons living in poverty than the national average (13.8 

percent) with the exception of Pinal County which has a poverty rate of 13.5 percent. The Final 

Environmental Impact Statement analyzed the potential impacts to these groups and identified no 

environmental justice consequences. Since all alternatives, including the plan, would continue to 

support similar levels of employment and income, they would not exacerbate the poverty rate or 

disproportionately worsen the economic well-being of low-income individuals. None of the 

alternatives were expected to disproportionately adversely impact racial and or ethnic minority 

individuals.

Because of the high proportion of minority populations and high poverty rates, decisionmakers on 

the Coronado National Forest will pay careful attention to the potential health and environmental 

impacts of management actions upon these groups. Overall, the themes that form the foundation 

of the revised plan (maintenance and improvement of ecosystem health, managed recreation, and 

community-forest interaction), should make the Coronado National Forest a healthy and 
Record of Decision

29

enjoyable place to work, reside near, or visit. Therefore, I find no disproportional effects to 

minority or low-income populations will occur from implementing the selected alternative.

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Coronado National Forest prepared a biological assessment to evaluate the potential effects 

of the revised plan on federally proposed and listed species and, where appropriate, their critical 

habitats. The biological assessment analyzed the potential effects on a total of 27 species; this 

includes 24 listed species, 1 candidate species, and 2 species that have been extirpated but are 

either close and/or have habitat within the boundary of the Coronado National Forest. 

Additionally, where applicable, critical habitat is included in table 2 (next page). 

The biological assessment determined that implementation of the plan may affect, and is likely to 

adversely affect 22 listed species that include the Jaguar, Mount Graham red squirrel, Ocelot, 

lesser long-nosed bat, Mexican spotted owl, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Sonoran tiger 

salamander, Chiricahua leopard frog, northern Mexican gartersnake, New Mexico ridge-nosed 

rattlesnake, Gila chub, Yaqui chub, Gila topminnow, Gila trout, Apache trout, Sonora chub, loach 

minnow, spikedace, Yaqui catfish, desert pupfish, Huachuca water umbel, and Pima pineapple 

cactus. It also determined the plan may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect two listed 

species: Mexican long-nosed bat and Canelo Hill’s ladies-tresses. For the extirpated Mexican 

gray wolf within the proposed 10j area and Northern Aplomado falcon, a determination of not 

likely to jeopardize was made.

For the one candidate species (roundtail chub) considered in the biological assessment, a 

determination of not likely to jeopardize was made.

The biological assessment determined that the implementation of the plan may affect, and is likely 

to adversely affect critical habitat for the jaguar, Mount Graham red squirrel, Mexican spotted 

owl, Chiricahua leopard frog, Gila chub, and Sonora chub, loach minnow, spikedace and 

Huachuca water umbel. If proposed critical habitat becomes designated for the western yellowbilled cuckoo and the Northern Mexican gartersnake, implementation of the plan is not likely to 

result in destruction or adverse modification of the habitat.

The biological assessment was transmitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 6, 2015 

with a request for formal consultation, conferencing, and concurrence on the biological 

assessment’s effects determinations. In an April 13, 2017 biological opinion, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service concurred with the determinations on the above list of species. 

The proposed action described within the Coronado revised plan and associated biological 

assessment is a “framework programmatic action” as defined in 50 CFR 402.02, where 

framework programmatic action only establishes a framework for the development of specific 

future action(s) but does not authorize any future action(s). Under those circumstances, the 

programmatic action in and of itself does not result in incidental take of listed species. Because a

framework programmatic action does not itself authorize any action to proceed, no take is 

anticipated to result, and, therefore, no incidental take statements were issued as part of the 

biological opinion. Furthermore, since there are no incidental take statements within the 

biological opinion, there are equally no implementing terms and conditions.
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

30

Table 2. Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species; and designated or proposed critical habitats 

analyzed in the biological assessment

Species or Habitat Status Determination

Jaguar

(Panthera onca) 

Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Jaguar critical habitat (not applicable) May affect, likely to adversely affect

Mount Graham red squirrel

(Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis) 

Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Mount Graham red squirrel critical habitat (not applicable) May affect, likely to adversely affect

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Lesser long-nosed bat

(Leptonycteris yerbabuenae) 

Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Mexican long-nosed bat

(Leptonycteris nivalis)

Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) Extirpated Not likely to jeopardize within proposed 

10(j) area.

Mexican spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis lucida)

Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect

Mexican spotted owl critical habitat (not applicable) May affect, likely to adversely affect

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect

Western yellow-billed cuckoo proposed critical 

habitat

(not applicable) Not likely to result in destruction or 

adverse modification

Northern Aplomado falcon

(Falco femoralis septentrionalis)

Non-essential 

experimental in 

AZ and NM

Not likely to jeopardize

Gila chub (Gila intermedia) Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Gila chub critical habitat (not applicable) May affect, likely to adversely affect

Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea) Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Gila topminnow

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis) Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect

Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apache) Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Spikedace critical habitat (not applicable) May affect, likely to adversely affect

Loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Loach minnow critical habitat (not applicable) May affect, likely to adversely affect

Sonora chub (Gila ditaenia) Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect

Sonora chub critical habitat (not applicable) May affect, likely to adversely affect

Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) Candidate (If listed) Not likely to jeopardize

Yaqui catfish (Ictalurus pricei) Threatened May affect, like to adversely affect

Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius) Endangered May affect, like to adversely affect

Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses

(Spiranthes delitescens) Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Huachuca water umbel

(Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurve) Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Huachuca water umbel critical habitat (not applicable May affect, likely to adversely affect

Pima pineapple cactus 

(Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect
Record of Decision

31

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities

I have considered the statutes governing management of the Coronado National Forest, and I 

believe that this decision represents the best possible approach to fulfilling the current statutory 

duties of the USDA Forest Service. Following are summaries of how the revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan addresses the National Forest Management Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, Clean Air 

Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule. 

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act requires the development, maintenance, amendment, and 

revision of land and resource management plans for each unit of the National Forest System. 

These plans help create a dynamic management system so an interdisciplinary approach to 

achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences will be 

applied to all future actions on the unit (16 U.S.C. 1604(b), (f), (g), and (0)). Under the Act, the 

Forest Service is to ensure coordination of the multiple uses and sustained yield of products and 

services of the National Forest System (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)).

The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate 

regulations for developing and maintaining forest plans. On April 9, 2012, the Department of 

Agriculture issued a final Planning Rule for National Forest System Land and Resource 

Management Planning (2012 Rule; see 77 FR 68 [21162-21276]). According to transition 

language of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), the responsible official may elect to 

complete and approve the plan revision in conformance with the provisions of a prior planning 

regulation (36 CFR part 299, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010). 

For this revision of the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, I have 

elected to follow these provisions, referred to collectively in this document as the 1982 Planning 

Rule or 1982 Rule. References in this Record of Decision to sections of 1982 Planning Rule 

version of 36 CFR are indicated in the citations.

My review of the planning process, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the 

information provided in the Record of Decision indicates the revised plan and its preparation 

meet requirements for revising plans under the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, as allowed 

in the transition provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17. Therefore, the revised 

plan is fully compliant with the National Forest Management Act.

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires public involvement and consideration of 

potential environmental and social effects of implementing Federal actions. The environmental 

analysis and public involvement process outlined in the Final Environmental Impact Statement

complies with the major elements of the requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental 

Quality for implementing the Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). These include (1) considering a range of 

reasonable alternatives, (2) disclosing cumulative effects, (3) using best scientific information, 

(4) consideration of long-term and short-term effects, and (5) disclosure of unavoidable adverse 

effects.

The Coronado National Forest considered a range of alternatives in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and has compiled a comprehensive record of the effects relevant to the 

alternatives (long-term, short-term, and cumulative), considering best scientific information. The 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

32

revised plan adopts all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. These means 

include provisions for providing the ecological conditions needed to support biological diversity 

and standards and guidelines to mitigate adverse environmental effects that may result from 

implementing various management practices. The revised plan includes monitoring requirements 

and an adaptive management approach to assure needed adjustments are made over time.

The revised plan does not represent an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. The 

revised plan is a programmatic level planning effort and does not directly authorize any grounddisturbing activities or projects. Future ground-disturbing activities and projects will be consistent 

with this revised plan and subject to additional site-specific public involvement, environmental 

analysis, and pre-decisional review processes. Therefore, the revised plan is fully compliant with 

the National Environmental Policy Act and Council on Environmental Quality implementing

regulations.

Endangered Species Act 

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon 

which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide for the 

conservation of such endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires 

federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. In addition, the 

Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that any agency action does not 

jeopardize the continued existence of the species (ESA Section 7(a)(2)). The Act also requires the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service, respectively, to base the biological opinion and 

subsequent agency action on the use of best scientific and commercially available data [16 U.S.C. 

1536(a)(2)].

In accordance with section 7(c) of the Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified the listed and 

proposed threatened or endangered species that may be present on the Coronado National Forest. 

As described above, a biological assessment was prepared for the revised plan and biological 

opinion rendered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding effects of implementing the 

plan on the threatened, endangered, and candidate species present on or near the national forest.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act requires National Forest lands to be administered to 

provide for multiple uses such as recreation, range, timber, watersheds, wildlife, and fisheries. 

The revised plan establishes a strong multiple use framework by providing desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines related to ecosystem structure, process, and function; 

wildlife and fisheries; recreation; traditional and cultural resources; livestock grazing; forest 

products; special uses; mining and minerals extraction; and energy transmission and 

development.

Clean Air Act

According to the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Forest 

Service has the responsibility to protect the air, land, and water resources from the impacts of air 

pollutants produced within the Forest Service boundaries and to work with states to protect air 

resources from degradation associated with the impacts of air pollution emitted outside of Forest 

Service lands. The revised plan contains desired conditions and a guideline to protect air quality. 

Furthermore, analysis of the effects plan implementation on air quality in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement indicates that all alternatives are expected to achieve the desired conditions for 
Record of Decision

33

air quality; however, Alternative 2 would move the forest ecosystem toward desired conditions 

more slowly than the Modified Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative or Alternative 1. 

Clean Water Act

The revised plan contains desired conditions, standards, and guidelines to provide for the 

maintenance or improvement of water quality in the streams and water bodies of the Coronado 

National Forest. Overall, implementation of the revised plan is expected to contribute to 

protecting or restoring the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of water resources of the 

Coronado in accordance with the Clean Water Act. 

National Historic Preservation Act

The revised plan is a programmatic action and does not authorize any site-specific projects. 

Projects undertaken in response to direction in the revised plan will fully comply with the laws 

and regulations that ensure protection of cultural resources. The revised Plan contains direction 

for cultural resource management, including direction to integrate such management with other 

resource management activities. Since the revised plan does not authorize ground-disturbing 

activities, consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office under the National 

Historic Preservation Act is not required, per the 2003 programmatic agreement between the 

Forest Service’s Southwestern Region and the State Historic Preservation Officers of Arizona, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. It is my determination that the revised Plan complies with 

the National Historic Preservation Act and other statues that pertain to the protection of cultural 

resources. 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Management activities in Inventoried Roadless Areas are conditional on the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. During the development of the issues and alternatives in the Environmental 

Impact Statement, the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was subject to litigation. However, 

on March 1, 2012, the nationwide injunction on implementing the rule was vacated and the 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule was placed back in effect. Consequently, the 2001 rule’s 

restrictions on timber harvesting and road building apply to all inventoried roadless areas. 

However, zero acres of land area is designated suitable for timber production on the Coronado 

National Forest; therefore, the management direction in the plan is consistent with the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Project Consistency

I am providing the following transition direction to ensure the orderly implementation of the 

revised forest plan that is made in this Record of Decision. The new direction will apply to all 

project decisions made on or after the effective date of this decision. The new direction does not 

apply to any projects that have had decisions made prior to the effective date of this decision. 

Projects currently under contract, permit, or other authorizing instrument are not affected by the 

decision; however, projects may be modified to adopt all or part of this direction where Forest 

Service managers deem appropriate. Reissuance of existing authorizations will be treated as new 

decisions, which must be consistent with the new direction described in the revised forest plan 

subject to valid existing rights.

As required by the National Forest Management Act and the 2012 Planning Rule, subject to valid 

existing rights, all projects and activities authorized by the Forest Service after approval of this 

revised plan must be consistent with the applicable plan components (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) as 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

34

described at 36 CFR 219.15 of the 2012 Planning Rule. (Although the transition provisions at 36 

CFR 219.17 of the 2012 Planning Rule allow revision of this plan under the 1982 regulations, 

subsequent projects or activities approved on units with plans revised under a prior planning rule 

must comply with the consistency requirement at 219.15 of the current rule.)

Consistency with the revised plan will be achieved by developing management activities that are 

designed specifically to achieve the desired conditions and objectives of the new plan and are 

guided by relevant standards and guidelines. To the extent practicable, documentation for such 

projects should identify the elements of the desired conditions, goals, or objectives to be achieved 

by the project. It should not be expected that all projects or activities would contribute to all 

desired conditions, goals, or objectives, but rather to a limited subset. It should also be recognized 

that some projects designed to contribute to some desired conditions, goals or objectives may 

have consequences considered adverse to the achievement of other desired conditions, goals, or 

objectives. In this situation, the responsible official for the project needs to identify and disclose 

these effects in the project documentation and make a decision that balances these considerations.

A project or activity approval document must describe how the project or activity is consistent 

with the plan by the criteria listed at 36 CFR 219.15(d) (2012 Planning Rule). Where a proposed 

project or activity would not be consistent with plan direction, the responsible official has the 

following options (36 CFR 219.15(c) 2012 Rule):

1. Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable plan 

components;

2. Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity;

3. Amend the plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended;

4. Amend the plan contemporaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the 

project or activity will be consistent with the plan as amended. This amendment may be 

limited to apply only to the project or activity, and may be adopted at the same time as the 

approval of the project or activity (36 CFR 219.15(c)(4) 2012 Rule).

Any resource plans (such as travel management plans) developed by the Forest Service that apply 

to the resources or land areas within the planning area must be consistent with the plan 

components. Resource plans developed prior to plan decision (desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, guidelines, suitability), must be evaluated for consistency with the plan and amended if 

necessary (36 CFR 219.15(e) 2012 Rule).

Authorizations for occupancy and use made before the final Record of Decision may proceed 

unchanged until time of reauthorization. At time of reauthorization, all permits, contracts, and 

other authorizing instruments must be made consistent with the revised plan, subject to existing 

valid rights, as provided at §219.15(d) (2012 Rule).

A forest plan is used as a direction source for future projects, plans, and assessments. It is not 

expected that this new direction be used to reevaluate or change decisions that have been made 

under the 1986 plan. A smooth and gradual transition to the new plan is anticipated, rather than 

one that forces an immediate reexamination or modification of all contracts, projects, permits, and 

other activities that are already in progress. As new project decisions, contracts, permits, 

renewals, and other activities are considered, conformance to the revised plan direction is 

expected.
Record of Decision

35

Plan Implementation

Throughout the life of the Plan the Forest will build community relations, foster partnerships and 

enhance tribal relations through a Community Leadership Vision. This vision by the Forest 

Supervisor:

• Provides for economic contributions to communities for mining, recreation, grazing and 

timber as a by-product to support vibrant communities.

• Paints the vision for furthering partnerships and expectations through collaboration and 

vibrant communities to expand and strengthen both tribal relationships and diverse 

community ties. 

• Foresees how sustainable recreation is key to our visitor experiences and vibrant 

communities.

• Adds to valuing places and people across our 16 sky islands which touch upon both rural 

and urban communities, our special places including wilderness areas, research natural 

areas and the Arizona National Scenic Trail.

• Prepares diverse ecosystems to retain their function to survive natural disturbances, such as 

fire and drought, threats to sustainability and an increasing human population with local 

and regional needs.

Implementation Schedules and Budgets

The revised plan will be implemented through a series of project-level decisions based on sitespecific environmental analysis and public involvement. These analyses will be documented in 

the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act analysis documents. The plan seeks to guide 

management activities and projects by establishing clear desired conditions for the Coronado 

National Forest rather than by establishing schedules for actions. This approach should leave 

more flexibility for managers to adapt program and project selection as changes take place in 

budgets, resource capabilities, and management priorities.

Outputs in the Final Environmental Impact Statement are projections of probable outcomes. They 

were used to approximate activities and practices, in order to estimate the likely environmental 

effects of following the direction provided by the revised plan.

Maintaining the Land and Resource Management Plan and 

Adapting to New Information

Adaptive Management

A land management plan is an integral part of an adaptive management cycle that guides future 

management decisions and actions. Adaptive management includes:

• Defining measurable management objectives;

• Monitoring management outcomes and changing circumstances; and

• Revising management strategies accordingly (with appropriate environmental analysis).

This adaptive management cycle enables the Coronado National Forest to identify and respond to 

changing conditions, changing public desires, and new information. The Coronado National 

Forest monitoring strategy is an integral part of this adaptive management cycle, and consists of 
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

36

monitoring questions and metrics (see chapter 6 of the revised plan for additional information 

about the monitoring plan).

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation are used to assess the degree to which on-the-ground management is 

maintaining or making progress toward the desired conditions and objectives in the plan. The 

monitoring strategy is described in chapter 6, “Monitoring and Evaluation,” of the plan. This 

monitoring program was developed collaboratively and focuses on key plan components where 

management projects and activities are likely to cause a change over time. 

Specific monitoring questions are identified and directly linked to plan desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, and specific regulatory requirements. Only selected goals, objectives, and 

standards are monitored. Relevancy to issues, compliance with legal requirements, scientific 

credibility, administrative feasibility, long- and short-term budget considerations, and impact on 

work force all influence monitoring priorities.

Monitoring information will be evaluated and used to update inventory data, improve current and 

future mitigation measures, and assess the need to change the strategies used in plan 

implementation. Evaluation of monitoring results is directly linked to the decisionmaker’s ability

to respond to changing conditions, emerging trends, public concerns, and new information and 

technology. No single monitoring item or parameter automatically triggers a change in plan

direction. An interdisciplinary approach is used to evaluate information and decide what changes 

are needed.

The 2012 Planning Rule requires that forest plans that are developed under prior planning 

regulations, including the 1982 Planning Rule, follow the updated 2012 rule guidance on the 

required content in the monitoring plan. The Coronado developed its plan monitoring program 

consistent with the requirements of the 1982 rule, but also with an eye towards meeting the 2012 

rule monitoring requirements. A monitoring program, consistent with 2012 rule monitoring 

requirements, is to contain one or more monitoring questions and associated indicators addressing 

nine monitoring categories, consistent with the monitoring requirements identified in the 2012 

rule planning directives (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 30).

The majority of the nine items are addressed in the plan monitoring and evaluation chapter. 

However, one 2012 rule monitoring requirement, that is not a requirement of the 1982 rule, is not 

directly addressed: focal species. Soon after the revised Coronado plan is approved, a monitoring 

transition process will be undertaken to identify focal species that should be part of the Coronado 

plan monitoring requirements.

Plan Amendments

A forest plan may be amended at any time based on a preliminary identification of the need to 

change the plan. The preliminary identification of the need to change the plan may be based on a 

new assessment, forest plan monitoring, or other documentation of new information and changed 

conditions or circumstances. The amendment and administrative change process is described at 

36 CFR 219.17(b)(2) of the 2012 Planning Rule.

The revised plan is a dynamic instrument that can be changed with appropriate public 

involvement and environmental analysis. Throughout the life of the plan, amendments may be 

needed to incorporate new information, new policy and direction, or changing values and 

resource conditions. Amendments will keep the plan current, relevant, and responsive to agency 
Record of Decision

37

and public concerns. Amendments are needed whenever any of the plan decisions should be 

changed due to any of the above conditions. The plan also can be amended for specific projects if 

during project design it is determined that the best method of meeting goals and objectives 

conflicts with standards and guidelines in the plan. Deviation from a guideline must be specified 

in either the decision document or elsewhere in the project record with supporting rationale. 

When deviation from a guideline does not meet the original intent, a plan amendment is required. 

Any deviation from a standard requires a plan amendment.

A 3-year transition period for plan amendments began on the effective date of the 2012 Planning 

Rule, on May 9, 2012. Plan amendments initiated prior to May 9, 2015, may proceed under the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, or may conform to the requirements of the 2012 Planning 

Rule. All plan amendments initiated after the transition period (after May 9, 2015) must conform 

to the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule.

Under the 1982 planning provisions, amendments may be significant or non-significant. The 

Forest Supervisor may implement non-significant amendments to the revised forest plan after 

appropriate public involvement and environmental analysis. The Regional Forester approves 

significant amendments.

Effective Date

The revised Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan will become 

effective 30 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability 

of the Final Environmental Impact Statement appears in the Federal Register (per 36 CFR 

219.17(a), 2012 Rule).

Appeal Information

This decision is subject to administrative review. According to 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), if the 

responsible official chooses to complete an ongoing planning process under the provisions of the 

prior planning regulation, the responsible official can choose to allow for either an administrative 

appeal or can follow the objection process identified in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. When the option 

is made to proceed under the 1982 regulations and to follow the administrative appeal process, 

the “Optional Appeal Procedures Available during the Planning Rule Transition Period” (the 

former 36 CFR 217 appeal procedures that were in effect prior to November 9, 2000) are to be 

used. For this decision, I have decided to use the “Optional Appeal Procedures”.

A written notice of appeal must be filed in duplicate and postmarked or received within 90 days 

after the date the legal notice of this decision is published in the newspaper of record for the 

Coronado National Forest (The Arizona Daily Star). The appeal must clearly state that it is a 

Notice of Appeal being filed pursuant to the Optional Appeal Procedures. Appeals must meet the 

content requirements of Section 9 of the Optional Appeal Procedures, which are available for 

review at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/PlanAppealProceduresDuringTransition.pdf
Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

38

Appeals must be filed with the Chief of the Forest Service using one of the following methods:

Physical address (for UPS and FedEx deliveries):

USDA Forest Service

Attn: Appeal Reviewing Officer

201 14th Street, SW

Yates Building, EMC, 2CE

Washington, DC 20024

(Note: If a phone number is needed for carrier delivery, use: 202-205-1449)

Regular mail:

USDA Forest Service

Attn: Appeal Reviewing Officer

1400 Independence Ave., SW

EMC, Mailstop 1104

Washington, DC 20250

Electronically:

Appeals may also be faxed to 202-649-1172, or appeals may be mailed electronically in a 

common digital format to:

appeals-chief@fs.fed.us

The notice of appeal must be fully consistent with the optional appeal procedures and include at a 

minimum:

• A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to the optional appeal 

procedures;

• The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant;

• Identification of the decision to which the appeal is being made;

• Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, date 

of the decision, and name and title of the deciding officer;

• Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which the appeal is made;

• The reasons for appeal, including issues of fact, law, or regulation, or policy and, if 

applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy;

• Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks.

Requests to stay the approval of this land and resource management plan shall not be granted 

(optional appeal procedures, section 217.10 (b)).

Final decisions on proposed projects will be made on a site-specific basis using appropriate 

analysis and documentation in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Project 

decisions may be subject to the appropriate administrative review procedures, at the time the 

project decision is made. 

Recommendations for designations such as additions to the National Wilderness System are 

preliminary administrative recommendations that will receive further review and possible 
Record of Decision

39

modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and/or the President 

of the United States. The Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on 

wilderness on Federal lands; therefore, wilderness recommendations in the revised plan are not 

appealable under the agency’s administrative appeal procedures (section 4 of the optional appeal 

procedures).

I encourage anyone concerned about the revised Coronado National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan or Final Environmental Impact Statement, or who would like more 

information, to contact:

Kerwin S. Dewberry

Forest Supervisor 

Coronado Forest Supervisor’s Office

300 West Congress

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 388-8300

Approval

I am pleased to announce my decision to select Modified Proposed Action Alternative for the 

revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Coronado National Forest. This new plan 

has been built on a strong foundation of engagement with State and local governments, tribes, 

other Federal agencies, citizen collaboration and engagement with commodity-based, 

conservation, and other organizations, and incorporates the best available science.