cochise stronghold hazardous fuel...

United States Department of Agriculture

Cochise Stronghold Hazardous Fuel Reduction

Draft Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Coronado National Forest Douglas Ranger District September 2017

For More Information Contact:

Travis Thompson Assistant Fire Management Officer

Douglas Ranger District 1192 West Saddle View Road

Douglas, Arizona 85607 520-388-8457

[email protected]

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: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html


i

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1 Background ...............................................................................................................................................1 Location of the Proposed Project Area .....................................................................................................1

Need for the Proposal ....................................................................................................................................4 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...................................................................................................................5

Public Involvement and Scoping ..............................................................................................................5 Issues .........................................................................................................................................................6

Proposed Action and Alternatives .................................................................................................................6 No Action ..................................................................................................................................................6 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................7

Treatment Descriptions .........................................................................................................................9 Treatment Phases ...................................................................................................................................9 Design Features .....................................................................................................................................9 Project Monitoring...............................................................................................................................13

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...............................................................14 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ................................................................................14 Fire and Fuels ..........................................................................................................................................15 Range ......................................................................................................................................................17 Recreation ...............................................................................................................................................18 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................19 Water Resources .....................................................................................................................................21 Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................................22 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species .....................................................................................23

List of Tables

Table 1. Potential treated acres by treatment unit .........................................................................................7 Table 2. Acres of proposed treatments by phase ...........................................................................................9 Table 3. Project monitoring .........................................................................................................................14 Table 4. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions ..........................................................................15 Table 5. Summary of determinations for threatened and endangered species ............................................24 Table 6. Summary of effects to sensitive species ........................................................................................28 Table 7. Management indicator species selected for analysis by group ......................................................30

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Vegetation Condition Class ...........................................................................................................3 Figure 3. Treatment Units..............................................................................................................................8


1

Introduction The Forest Service is proposing to thin, pile, and burn approximately 3,069 acres of woodlands in strategic, defensible locations directly adjacent to private land. These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Douglas Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest.

This environmental assessment (EA) was prepared to determine whether implementation of

thinning woodlands on the Douglas Ranger District may significantly affect the quality of the

human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement.

The preparation of this EA fulfills agency policy and direction to comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed

Action and Alternatives section of this document.

Background Fire has played an important ecological role in the history of the grassland and woodland

ecosystems of southeastern Arizona and the Coronado National Forest (Forest). Regular intervals

of naturally-occurring fire restrict the growth of shrubs in grasslands, thin forests of fire-intolerant

trees, increase stream flows, and renew wildlife habitat. Since the beginning of the early 20th

century, the frequency of natural fire has decreased dramatically through a concerted effort of fire

suppression. This decrease corresponded with an increased demand for wildland fire suppression

to protect life and property and the reduction of fine fuels by livestock grazing.

The private communities in and around the Dragoon Mountains consist of various residences and

infrastructure. Due to decades of fire exclusion, forest fuels surrounding these inholdings have

reached climax conditions and consist of overgrown dead, mature chaparral and grass. This is

represented by VCC (Vegetation Condition Class), a metric that can be spatially displayed to

show this departure from the reference succession class distribution. The Dragoon Mountains are

in Vegetation Condition Class’s 2 and 3, or moderately and highly departed from the reference

succession class distribution. Previous extreme wildfires in the area (Monument, Horseshoe, and

Horseshoe 2 Fires) have exhibited high rates of spread and have burned private residences that

border the Forest. There is a need to reduce wildfire hazard, while also improving the vegetative

condition and wildlife habitat within the analysis area and its effect on overall forest health.

Location of the Proposed Project Area The project area lies within the Dragoon Mountains which span elevations from 4,600 feet to

7,519 feet on Mount Glenn. The Forest manages 54,000 acres (most of the range) that are

surrounded by blocks of private and state land. The rugged and rocky Dragoons offer a diversity

of recreation uses, including premiere rock climbing opportunities. Livestock grazing occurs in

the lower elevations of the mountain range. The communities of Sunsites, Pearce, Dragoon, St.

David, and Tombstone surround the Dragoons, and development in the wildland-urban interface

(WUI) is becoming a fire management consideration in these areas.


2

Figure 1. Vicinity Map


3

Figure 2. Vegetation Condition Class


4

Need for the Proposal The purpose of this project is to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire to the wildland-urban

interface and to begin the reestablishment of a fire-adapted, resilient, and diverse forest

ecosystem. The needs are to (1) reduce fuel loadings and crown fire potential in the vegetation

around the WUI communities in the Dragoon Mountains; (2) reduce the buildup of natural fuels

to reduce the threat of uncharacteristically severe stand-replacing fire and post-fire sedimentation

and flooding; and (3) shift the vegetation condition class from high and moderate departure to

dominantly low departure for historical conditions.

The Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, or “forest plan” (USDA

Forest Service 1986, as amended) establishes standards and guidelines for fire and fuels

management, and the restoration, maintenance and protection of a variety of ecosystem

components. In 2005, the forest plan was amended to incorporate the policies of the 2001 Federal

Wildland Fire Management Policy and Review. The forest plan, as amended, calls for an

appropriate management response to wildland fires. This includes an appropriate suppression

response and the ability to allow natural fire ignitions to play their natural ecological role as

nearly as possible forestwide (USDA Forest Service 1986, p. 45).

The following forest plan direction (pp. 9-11, 45) provides guidance for the Cochise Stronghold

Hazardous Fuel Reduction project:

Firefighter and public safety shall be the first priority in all fire management activities.

All human-caused fires shall be suppressed using appropriate suppression response

strategies.

Wildland fire suppression responses shall minimize costs of suppression, resource

impacts, and risks to life and property.

The appropriate management response for each natural ignition will vary across the

Forest but will include the full spectrum of options, from aggressive initial attack to

management to achieve resource objectives.

For all management areas, management of lightning-caused fires should be considered to

restore fire’s natural role in maintaining a healthy, diverse, and resilient ecosystem

resistant to natural disturbances.

Reduce the costs, resource damage, and threats to public and firefighter safety from

future wildland fires.

Create and maintain fuel conditions for low risk of extreme fire behavior and high-

intensity wildland fires.

Cooperate with other Federal, State and local regulatory agencies to protect air quality as

required by the Clean Air Act.

Provide for ecosystem diversity by at least maintaining viable populations of all native

and desirable nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species through improved habitat

management.


5

Continue a program that enhances other resource values, and that effectively utilizes the

wood fiber produced. Carry out silvicultural practices to improve stand health when such

practices are consistent with other resource objectives.

Provide a favorable water flow in quantity and quality for off-Forest users by improving

or maintaining all watersheds to a satisfactory or higher level.

Unplanned ignitions managed for resource objectives shall follow direction specific to

the Coronado’s Fire Management Plan. Use the established protocols identified in the

Fire Management Plan for minimizing resource impacts.

It should be noted that the Coronado National Forest is currently revising this forest plan1. The

current draft revised forest plan includes management direction similar to the 2005 amendment

for management response to wildfires and for management of fire-adapted landscapes.

Agencies and Persons Consulted The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies

during the development of this environmental assessment:

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

US Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, Arizona State Lands

Department, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona Department of Agriculture, Cochise

County, Hidalgo County, Graham County, Pinal County, Santa Cruz County, Pima County

Tribes

Tribal consultation, as directed by 36 CFR 800 and the Programmatic Agreement, was conducted

by the Coronado National Forest. The Coronado National Forest normally consults with 12

Native American tribes who have ancestral ties to lands currently managed by the Coronado

National Forest. These tribes include the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Ft. Sill Apache Tribe, Gila

River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Pasqua 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 original scoping letter

for the Cochise Stronghold Hazardous Fuel Reduction was sent to the tribes on March 15, 2017.

Others

The Forest Service provided information on this project to approximately 79 individuals who are

identified on the project mailing list, located in the project administrative record. This list

includes Dragoon Mountains recreation user groups, outfitters, guides, range permittees,

environmental groups, and other interested parties.

Public Involvement and Scoping Scoping is a process for gathering comments about a site-specific proposed federal action to

determine the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying issues related to the proposed

action (40 CFR 1501.7). The Forest Service uses public involvement and an interdisciplinary (ID)

1 Current information about the Coronado National Forest plan revision is available at the following

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

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


6

team of resource specialists to identify issues and develop possible solutions. Opportunities for

comments enable concerned citizens, resource specialists from other agencies, and local

governments to express their ideas and views. The Forest Service consulted individuals, tribal

entities, and Federal, State, and local agencies during the development of this EA.

This proposal was first listed on the Coronado National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions

(SOPA) in October of 2016. The proposal has been listed on every SOPA since this date. This

schedule is available electronically at https://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110305. The

project information packet and maps were posted on the Forest website for public viewing in

March 2017. The project information is available on the Forest website at

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48906.

On March 15 and 17, 2017, a legal notice announcing the start of the 30-day scoping period was

published in the Douglas Dispatch, The Tombstone News and San Pedro Valley News-Sun

Arizona Range News. On March 20, 2017, a letter announcing the official scoping period for this

project was sent to approximately 79 individuals and organizations, including State and local land

management agencies, Tribal leaders, range permittees, and other interested parties.

The Forest Service received one comment letter, from the White Mountain Apache Tribe Office

of Historic Preservation, during the scoping period. The comments received did not describe any

unresolved conflicts to refine the proposal described in the scoping letter.

Issues Issues are points of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects of the proposed

action. Issue are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed

action and because of their extent, duration, or intensity of effects makes them important in

deciding the best course of action to address the purpose and need. The Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7,

“…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have

been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3).”

There were no public comments received that raised concern for the project or led the ID team to

develop additional alternatives.

Proposed Action and Alternatives Two alternatives were analyzed in detail: the No Action (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action

(Alternative 2). The proposed action was developed to maximize attainment of the purpose and

need. Alternative 1 was analyzed to provide a baseline of the environmental condition if no

agency action is taken. The site-specific maps apply to the proposed action. For Alternative 1, no

activities would occur in the areas shown on the maps. These alternatives are described in more

detail below.

No Action No action, which is the option of not treating vegetation and fuels in the Cochise Stronghold

Hazardous Fuel Reduction project area, is included as an alternative in this analysis to provide an

environmental baseline against which the effects of the proposed action may be compared. For

the proposed project, taking no action implies that:

https://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110305

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48906


7

1. The status of the ecological components in the proposed treatment areas would remain

the same over the timeframe planned for implementation of the proposed action, with the

exception of changes resulting from natural phenomena (such as wildfire, earthquakes,

landslides, growth, and decay);

2. If other non-Forest Service fuel and fire management projects or agreements are proposed

over the timeframe of the proposed action, their environmental effects would be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis by each agency.

Proposed Action The Douglas Ranger District is proposing to thin, pile, and burn 3,069 acres of woodlands in

strategic, defensible locations directly adjacent to private land. The homeowners have taken the

initiative to utilize Firewise2 procedures on their private land and have requested that the Forest

Service do the same on adjacent National Forest System lands to increase the effectiveness of

their treatments. Treatment areas have been broken down into four locations with slightly

differing activities (see Figure 3):

Table 1. Potential treated acres by treatment unit

Treatment Unit Treatment Type Approximate Potential

Treatment Acres

Cochise Stronghold Fuelbreak Thin, pile, broadcast burn 191

Middle March Road Fuelbreak Thin, pile, broadcast burn 304

Cobre Mine Prescribed Burn (RX) Broadcast burn 630

China Peak Prescribed Burn (RX) Broadcast burn 1944

2 The Firewise Communities approach emphasizes community responsibility for planning in the design of a

safe community as well as effective emergency response, and individual responsibility for safer home

construction and design, landscaping and maintenance. The Firewise Communities/USA Recognition

Program was designed as a tool that forestry and fire service professionals can use to work with residents to

obtain voluntary compliance with existing wildfire safety rules, as well as to motivate community action

toward wildfire safety in the absence of strict ordinances or laws. The Recognition Program encourages and

acknowledges citizen involvement in reducing community wildfire risk. Source: Firewise Communities - A

User Guide to the Firewise Communities/USA Recognition Program, www.firewise.org.


8

Figure 3. Treatment Units


9

Treatment Descriptions

Treatments fall under two categories: thinning and piling, and prescribed burning. Approximately

3,069 acres are identified as treatment units, with 2,574 of those acres as prescribed burning alone

and 495 acres of thinning, piling, and prescribed burning. Prescribed burning may take place

whenever conditions (e.g., weather, wind, fuel moisture) are present that would meet project

objectives. Design features described below will further protect resources during project

implementation.

If monitoring indicates that project objectives are not being met, the treatments will be evaluated

to determine the need to modify or cease treatments.

Thinning and Piling

This treatment would be done by hand using chainsaws. Brush and chaparral species will be cut

and piled by hand as well as trees less than 5 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). Trees

larger than 5 inches in diameter will be limbed up to 4.5 feet high to remove ladder fuels, the

resulting branches will be hand piled. As best practicable, the brush piles will be around 6 feet in

diameter, with a height of 6 feet. Approximately 495 acres are initially planned to be treated using

this technique.

Prescribed Burning

This treatment involves using backing, strip, and head firing to allow fire to move across the

landscape in a controlled manner to reduce fuels. Existing roads and trails will be used in addition

to constructing hand lines to hold fire spread in the project area. Approximately 3,069 acres are

planned to be treated, to include burning piles as a result of thinning in the fuel breaks.

Treatment Phases

Project activities may be implemented in phases over a period of approximately 1–5 years. The

phases represent the District’s best approximation for project implementation. Phases may be

combined or treatments applied in a different order if monitoring or experience indicates that such

a change would be beneficial to meeting project objectives.

Table 2. Acres of proposed treatments by phase3

Phase 1, FY2018 Phase 2, FY2019 Phase 3, FY2020 Phase 4, FY2021 Phase 5, FY2022

100 acres thinning Cochise Stronghold, 2574 acres broadcast burn China Peak and Cobre Mine RX

91 acres thinning Cochise Stronghold, 100 acres pile burn (prior year thinning)

152 acres thinning Middle March Road, 91 acres pile burn (prior year thinning)

152 acres thinning Middle March Road, 152 acres pile burn (prior year thinning)

2574 acres broadcast burn – final treatment China Peak and Cobre Mine RX

Design Features

The design features listed below provide resource protection measures to mitigation potential

impacts of implementing the project. These features were developed in accordance with

3 Treatment area acreages may vary on the ground to facilitate project implementation. Phases may be

combined and implemented in a single year if conditions allow.


10

applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction,

as well as law and regulation. These design features may be modified or changed, or new

measures may be added in response to public comments and the environmental analysis process.

Fire and Fuels

1. Prescribed burn plans will be developed according to agency standards and approved

prior to initiating any burning operation. Activities will incorporate prescription elements

into the prescribed fire plan including such factors as weather, slope, aspect, soils, fuel

type and amount, and fuel moisture in order to minimize high soil negative impacts to

soils.

2. Prescribed burns will be implemented and tactically executed to protect identified values

at risk and hold fire spread within the identified project area.

3. All burning would be coordinated daily with the Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ). Burning would not take place on any portion of the project without

prior approval from ADEQ.

4. Prescribed fire would only be implemented between October 1 and March 31 to avoid

disturbing lesser long-nosed bat populations in the area.

5. Piles generated from thinning will be constructed in locations without an overstory

canopy to mitigate damage to larger trees’ crowns.

6. No permanent or temporary road construction would be allowed. Any off-road vehicle

trails resulting from proposed activities would be obliterated and restored. Established

National Forest System roads will be utilized for access to the treatment units. Off-road

vehicle activity during fire activities would be kept to a minimum.

Soil and Water

7. Erosion control structures would be constructed in fire lines as needed, especially on

steep hillsides.

8. Sufficient groundcover would be retained to prevent erosion of the burned site.

9. Intense prescribed fire should be avoided on sensitive soils, to prevent water repellency,

nutrient leach and erosion.

Riparian and Aquatic Areas

10. Important aquatic habitat, including seeps, springs, streams, ponds, stock tanks and

washes, and drainages will be evaluated by resource specialists (i.e., biologists and

hydrologists), to determine the best way(s) to mitigate the effects of the treatment and

preserve the functionality and integrity of the aquatic system.

11. Prescribed fire control action in riparian areas should apply minimum impact suppression

tactics to minimize damage to stands of native vegetation and soils from prescribed fire

operations. When possible, use existing features and natural barriers to manage

prescribed fire in riparian areas.


11

12. Placement of prescribed fire support sites (e.g., staging areas and refueling sites) would

be located outside riparian areas or river/stream corridors and will utilize spill

containment systems to minimize impacts.

13. If water is drafted from a stock tank or other body of water for prescribed fire activities, it

shall not be refilled with water from another tank, lake or other water source that may

support non-native fishes, bullfrogs, crayfish or salamanders. Only water drawn from a

municipal water supply or well water shall be used to refill stock tanks. Use of

containment systems for portable pumps to avoid fuel spills in riparian or aquatic systems

would be required.

14. Retain all age classes of riparian species (defined in FSM 2526, Riparian Watershed

Management) and madrone (Arbutus arizonica).

15. To the extent possible, large, downed woody materials and snags that are not a hazard to

firefighters would be retained. Large logs (>12 inches) diameter and greater and >8 feet

long should not be cut into sections.

16. In riparian areas, only use existing features and natural barriers to manage prescribed fire.

17. Crossings for motorized vehicles across a perennial stream would not be permitted unless

an established road already exists or where dry, intermittent sections occur.

18. Avoid use of heavy mechanical equipment in wet riparian drainages or on wet upland

soils if rutting greater than 3 inches (8 cm) is occurring.

19. For priority fire/fuels management areas (e.g., WUI areas) with federally listed species or

designated critical habitat downstream, a biologist and other resource specialists, as

appropriate, would determine: (1) The number of acres and the number of projects or

phases of projects to occur within the watershed per year; and (2) An appropriately sized

buffer adjacent to perennial streams and ponds (e.g., lowest discernable bench above the

stream but outside the high-water mark) in order to minimize soils and ash from entering

the aquatic system.

Range

20. Livestock grazing deferment, when used to protect revegetation of treated areas, will be

determined on a case-by-case basis.

21. The rangeland management specialist will coordinate with permittees to achieve

management objectives within grazing allotments.

22. Range improvements will be protected during project activities. If a fence segment that

has been maintained to standard by the permittee is damaged or removed during

management activities, the Forest Service will replace or repair it as necessary.

Recreation

23. Recreation improvements, including the Cochise Stronghold Campground, will be

protected during project activities and repaired as necessary.


12

24. Inform forest visitors about activities within the project area and make them aware of

potential impacts when visiting this part of the Forest. Provide information about

implementation activities on the Forest website.

25. Issue news release(s) as appropriate when forest restoration activities are scheduled to

occur and describe how it may affect forest visitation.

26. If it is necessary to close National Forest System roads or areas of the Forest during

burning or harvesting operations, notices and signs would be posted at key locations

adjacent to and within the project area to inform the public of these closures.

Cultural Resources

27. Prior to implementation of any treatments, the treatment area will be cleared through

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO) concurrence.

28. Prior to implementation, District personnel will consult with the District heritage staff

regarding protective measures for significant sites. No wheeled or tracked vehicles will

be allowed in significant sites. Prescribed fire may be allowed after consultation with

District heritage staff.

29. The District heritage staff will re-examine significant cultural resource sites following

prescribed fire activities. Results will be forwarded to SHPO.

Caves and Abandoned Mines

30. Design criteria for caves and mines will be determined on a site-by-site basis. Caves and

abandoned mines will be surveyed prior to project implementation to determine use by

wildlife. Efforts will be made to preserve vegetation around cave entrances and maintain

the integrity of the site.

Wildlife, Fish and Plants4

31. Resource specialists would be consulted regarding all treatment activities. They would

also be responsible for coordination with the agencies on federally listed endangered and

threatened species. They would monitor fire and vegetation management activities to

ensure the protective measures are implemented.

32. Resource specialists should coordinate site-specific burn and implementation plans with

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Arizona Game and Fish Department

(AGFD) to identify site-specific measures to identify site-specific measures to protect

federally listed and sensitive species, and species of concern.

33. Implementation activities in habitats of threatened, endangered, sensitive species, and/or

species of concern will include oversight or coordination with wildlife staff. Prior to the

start of any treatment activities, coordination will occur with the district biologist to

4 A list of project design features specific to individual wildlife species can be found in the biological

assessment, available from the project administrative record.


13

minimize potential impacts to wildlife and fish species and sensitive areas including

breeding and roosting locations.

34. Retention of cavity bearing live trees, snags and or decadent trees will be part of the burn

prescription based on input from the resource specialists.

35. Retention areas will emphasize hiding, escape, bedding and thermal cover around feeding

and watering areas, in drainages, and along roads.

36. Minimize mechanical disturbance of soils to reduce the impact of habitat manipulation on

small mammal and reptile communities.

37. Within a calendar year, consider the spatial scale of treatments relative to distribution of

individual species of concern (e.g., the proportion of habitat treated) in the planning area

when implementing project(s).

38. The spatial distribution and contiguous size of planned burn/treatment areas would be

considered in order to reduce the effects of peak flow change on stream channels.

39. Post treatment monitoring of occupied stock tanks shall occur to determine the need for

sediment filters to avoid ash loading into the tank.

40. Areas of increased human activity during prescribed fire activities, such as equipment

staging areas, shall not be located on or adjacent to sites known to be occupied by

threatened or endangered species.

41. To minimize adverse effects to lesser long-nosed bat forage plants and roosts, any dense

stands of agave will be flagged and avoided by the treatment activity. In agave stands,

personnel would avoid driving off-road and over plants, piling slash on top of plants, and

burning on or near plants. Staging areas for fire crews or helicopters would be located in

previously disturbed sites, if possible.

42. Treatment activities should avoid any known sensitive plant populations. Construct slash

piles at least 10 to 20 feet away from known populations of sensitive plants to the extent

practicable.

43. No treatments will be conducted within a 200-foot buffer area around known lesser long-

nosed bat roost sites.

44. Utilize weed washes as applicable (e.g., resources coming in from areas known to contain

invasive species) to help minimize the spread of invasive exotic plant species.

Project Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is planned for this project. Implementation monitoring evaluates

whether treatments are being applied as described in the project Decision Notice.

Treatment areas may require periodic maintenance to remain effective for enhanced habitat and

range conditions and fire behavior modification. Monitoring would contribute to assessing

changes in habitat characteristics and fuel loads in the treatment areas, and maintenance may be

initiated when project objectives are no longer met. Maintenance treatments would be the same as

treatment options described in the Proposed Action.


14

Table 3. Project monitoring

Item to be Monitored Monitoring Method(s) Responsibility Frequency

Implementation of design features, Forest Plan standards and guidelines

Site visits Forest Service District Fire Staff

Throughout implementation

Occurrence(s) of invasive plant species

Site visits Forest Service District Range, Wildlife, Fire Staff


Livestock and forage utilization levels

Site visits Forest Service District Range Staff


Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and the no action alternative

as analyzed by an interdisciplinary team of District resource specialists. The analysis tiers to the

Forest Plan and its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision. Many

of the larger-scale effects were addressed in the Forest Plan FEIS, allowing us to narrow the focus

of this analysis to the site-specific effects of implementing the Cochise Stronghold Hazardous

Fuel Reduction project.

This section focuses on the issues raised during the formal scoping period. Analyses beyond those

documented here were completed to support the Responsible Official’s decisions and to ensure

compliance with laws and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic

Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Forest Management Act. Those analyses

and associated references are part of the project administrative record and available for public

review at the Douglas Ranger District office or by request to the ID Team Leader.

Analyses are based on a variety of information sources including field surveys, topographic maps,

forest geographic information system data, forest resource information databases, relevant

available scientific literature, and professional judgment. Analyses assume that all treatments and

design features will be implemented as described.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless

of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes the action (40 CFR 1508.7). To

result in cumulative effects, the effects of an activity must overlap in space and time with the

effects of the alternative analyzed.

A catalog of certain actions occurring within the cumulative effects analysis areas is summarized

in the table below. These actions may contribute effects to some or all affected resources

analyzed.


15

Table 4. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions

Resource Area Proposed/Implemented Activities

Range Livestock grazing

Range improvement, construction and maintenance

Fire and Fuels Lizard Fire (June 2017)

Permitted wood cutting

Minerals Mining and mineral exploration

Recreation Administrative operations and visitor use of developed campgrounds

Administrative maintenance and visitor use of National Forest System Trails

Dispersed recreation (e.g. rock climbing, OHV and equestrian use)

Cabin rental program

Special Uses Permitted special use activities (e.g. equestrian and bike events)

Roads Administrative maintenance and visitor use of National Forest System Roads

Non-FS Actions Homeland security and Border Patrol activities

Illegal wood cutting

Fire and Fuels

Alternative 1 – No Action

The effects of no action on vegetation communities would be a continuation of the same trends

that have resulted in the current conditions described in the Fire and Fuels Report, located in the

project administrative record. Overall, it is expected that shrub lands and woodlands would

continue to expand resulting in further loss of grasslands. This trend would be slower than in the

past due to the conversions that have already occurred. Likewise, we would expect tree densities

in the woodland to continue to increase to some degree.

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effect to fuels under this alternative. The no action alternative would not

alter the fuel profile to reduce fire behavior and would not meet the purpose and need of this

project. Potential fire behavior characteristics would be similar to those described under the

existing condition summarized in the Fire and Fuels Report.

In the absence of human-caused or natural disturbance such as vegetation treatment activities and

wildfire, there may be an increased accumulation of surface and ladder fuels due to insect and

disease activity, fire and the progression of forest succession. Increased fuel loading levels would

continue to pose a threat to communities, property and ecosystems as fire suppression becomes

more difficult. The no action alternative may indirectly lead to increased surface, ladder and

crown fuels that affect flame length, contribute to the torching of trees, and make crown fire more

likely (Peterson et al. 2005, Graham 2004). Increases in fuel loading will make over story trees

more susceptible to damage from wildfire. Wildfires that escape initial attack may impact

adjacent private lands and other resource values. It is probable that a large wildfire may threaten

adjacent private lands just as the Lizard Fire of 2017 did. Direct suppression tactics by

firefighting forces would not be as effective in the analysis area under the no action alternative.


16

The no action alternative would restrict local fire managers from utilizing fire for meeting various

land management objectives and would not be consistent with agency direction. It would not

contribute to the desired condition, address the purpose and need of the project, or respond to the

National Fire Plan goals.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action


The proposed treatments would reduce surface, ladder and crown fuels and change the fuel model

profile. Raising canopy base heights and reducing tree density in thinning units would reduce

ladder fuels and potential for crown fire initiation. It is expected the fire behavior potential would

be substantially reduced with the proposed treatments and the risk of wildfire impacts to adjacent

private lands and other resource values would be reduced. The prescribed burn treatments would

reduce fuels and break up contiguous vegetation to create a heterogeneous fuels landscape so that

areas with high fire behavior potential are interspersed with areas of mixed and low fire behavior

potential, thereby limiting the potential for high-intensity fire to spread towards the wildland-

urban interface. Forest restoration and fuel management activities aid in the reduction of wildfire

and also help to reestablish the natural fire regimes.

In low-intensity prescribed burns there would likely be mortality in many of the smaller diameter

understory trees in forested areas. It is anticipated this would create areas that are more open and

still contain a multi-storied canopy. Mixed-severity prescribed burns are expected to create a

mosaic of vegetation with open and closed single-story, multi-story, and early seral

grass/forb/shrub openings. The effects of all treatments would last for many decades. Eventually,

forested stands would become more closed, and as regeneration occurs the understory would fill

in. Treatments would help fire managers introduce more low-intensity prescribed fire in the

future. National Forest System land and adjacent private land would be positively affected from

the reduction of hazardous fuels and subsequent modification of potential fire behavior. The

existing condition has been influenced by fire exclusion. The proposed action combined with

other fuels reduction activities would modify fire behavior by contributing to the overall

reduction of surface, ladder, and crown fuels, thereby reducing fire intensity and crown fire

potential within the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impacts may result from a combination of the proposed action with other past,

current, and foreseeable activities. The cumulative effects analysis area was determined to be the

Dragoon Mountains and the temporal boundary is 5 years. Current, past and future activities that

are occurring, have occurred and would occur include, but are not limited to, use and maintenance

of: trails, developed campgrounds, picnic areas, interpretive sites, administrative facilities,

parking areas and roads, managed grazing, range water improvements, range fencing, mining and

mine exploration, rural and urban development, prescribed burning, fuelwood cutting, mechanical

thinning, and wildfires.

For analyzing cumulative impacts to fire and fuels management, only those activities including

wildfires and fuels reduction activities will be discussed in more detail. Impacts from the other

listed activities typically occur in small, localized areas, in relation to the large size of the analysis

area, and therefore the impact is relatively small. There has been some small scale thinning and

weed eating in the East Stronghold area. This work was implemented to reduce hazardous fuels.

Fuelwood cutting and utilization has also been implemented at small scale. Past wildfires (within


17

last 5 years) include the 2014 Middlemarch Fire (19 acres), 2015 Lemarch Fire (290 acres) and

the 2017 Lizard Fire (15,230 acres).

These activities combined with the action alternatives would reduce surface, ladder and crown

fuels throughout the analysis area. Cumulatively, these activities result in reductions in flame

length (fire line intensity) and crown fire. Because some areas may be impacted by more than

one activity, there would be greater reductions in fire line intensity and potential crown fire in

those areas. All of the activities discussed would cumulatively break up fuel continuity on the

landscape. These combined activities would greatly facilitate restoring and sustaining ecological

processes in fire-dependent ecosystems and move vegetation and fuel conditions toward their

historic succession class distribution (VCC 1). It would also help fire management to manage

naturally occurring fires in fire-dependent ecosystems.

The effects of future wildland fire starts in the analysis area were not analyzed in detail because it

is impossible to predict when and where a wildfire may occur in the future, or the subsequent

effects of that fire.

Range



Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct effects as proposed activities would not occur.

Current conditions and processes would continue. There would be little if any change in forage

conditions that would benefit the range resource. However, there could be indirect effects if a

wildfire were to occur. Because wildfire events are unplanned and unexpected in regards to

location, intensity, and extent, and because they often resist control, they present a much greater

potential to negatively affect forage resources, threaten livestock, destroy or damage structural

range improvements, disrupt allotment management efforts, and have greater negative economic

effect on the local ranching economy.

Cumulative Effects

If no treatments occurred, the only cumulative effects that could occur would result if there were

a high-intensity, large-scale wildfire. In combination with other actions or events, a wildfire

would prevent or defer grazing on allotments, and likely lead to an overall reduction in available

forage.



The proposed action allows for treatments best suited for bringing the rangeland resource closer

to the desired condition (explained in the forest plan) with the least negative effects. While fire

often presents an immediate danger to livestock and may cause damage to critical livestock

resources, the benefits of its prescribed use can exceed its negative effects. The Middlemarch

allotment in particular would benefit from the proposed action simply because it has experienced

a lack of fire for several decades. The Granite Springs allotment has also been without

widespread fire for many years, but the benefits that could be realized from the proposed action

are localized to portions of three pastures, which do not make up the majority of the capable

grazing acreage of the allotment. Both the Granite Springs and Middlemarch allotments will gain


18

greater flexibility through increased capable acreage. Once these areas are recovered and

available for grazing, flexibility will be enhanced and the potential need to limit permitted

livestock numbers because of disturbances like wildfires should be reduced.

Cumulative Effects

From the range management standpoint, cumulative effects would mainly be realized on an

allotment-by-allotment basis. The primary exception to this will be community economics.

Actions similar to the proposed action have been occurring on the district for many years. Recent

treatments or incidents similar to the proposed action include several wildfires in the Chiricahua

and Peloncillo Mountains, including the Horseshoe and Horseshoe 2 Fires, the Hog Fire, the

Pasco Fire, the Guadalupe Fire and the Baker 2 Prescribed Fire. All of these fires have reduced

canopy cover and encouraged herbaceous species growth to varying extents. It should be noted,

however, that increased livestock distribution has occurred on all of the allotments that were

affected by these fires.

Recreation



Under the no action alternative, there would be minimal to no change to current visitor recreation

experiences and opportunities in the Dragoon Mountains. Encroaching fuels may reduce access to

trails, developed sites and facilities. In the absence of treatments, future catastrophic wildfires

may occur and result in closures and/or damage to recreation sites and trails. Closures may occur

both during wildfire suppression efforts and after wildfire events due to flooding, erosion and tree

mortality. This action would have a negative effect on the recreation users’ experience by

reducing opportunities for recreation activity.

Cumulative Effects

Under the no action alternative, future catastrophic wildfires may occur and result in both

recreation site and trail closures. These closures may extend post-wildfires due to safety concerns

with flooding, erosion and hazard trees present in recreation areas. The no action alternative

would have a negative effect on the recreation users’ experience by reducing long-term

opportunities for recreation activity. A recent example of the potential negative effects associated

with a no action approach can be seen at Cave Creek and Rustler Park recreation sites. A wildfire

caused extensive damage to these recreation areas because minimal vegetation maintenance

occurred.

In the long term (over 5 years), the accumulation of fuels and dense overgrown vegetation

increases the probability of extreme wildfire. Without the Cochise Stronghold Hazardous Fuel

Reduction, forest health would continue to decline and risks of severe wildfire would grow.

Additional negative impacts from major wildfires would be expected as these incidents trigger

future suppression efforts that may further impact recreation areas. Long-term economic impacts

to the project area may also occur under the no action alternative, as recreation conditions

continue to deteriorate and create a disinterest from the public.



19


The proposed action would have a short-term, negative effect on recreation activities as

developed recreation sites are temporarily closed for public safety during and immediately after

implementation. For the extent of the closures, recreation opportunities would decrease at sites

within the project area. Disturbances associated with burning and cutting activity, such as

equipment noise and dust from falling and moving vegetation, may affect recreation use and

experiences, depending on the locations of the operations in relation to the recreation users. As a

result, a short-term reduction in use is expected within the project area during the proposed

activities.

Recreational use would continue for the long term in the project area after implementation. The

proposed action would allow for at least five years of maintained brush control, resulting in a

safer and more enjoyable recreation experience in the long term. The risk of potentially severe

wildfire damage would be reduced for at least five years following project implementation. The

creation of defensible space in the wildland-urban interface would provide increased protections

for recreation sites and facilities during future unplanned ignitions. Long-term benefits would

result as natural vegetation types are restored and the sustainability of the vegetation and wildlife

habitat are improved, thus creating enhanced recreation opportunities.

Cumulative Effects

Actions similar to the proposed action have been occurring on the Coronado National Forest for

many years and have proven to provide examples of successful defensible space for the wildland-

urban interface, and have created a more inviting, enjoyable outdoor experience.

Past and present trends in the project area include continued population growth of the

communities surrounding the project area and increasing use of National Forest System lands as a

result. Various past and present land uses have impacted the recreation resources in the project

area. Some activities, such as managed grazing, have little impact on recreational use. Other land

uses that affect recreation uses include fuelwood harvesting and vegetation management. Natural

disturbances that affect recreation include wildfires (e.g., Lizard Fire) and resulting flooding and

erosion.

The proposed action would result in additional burned areas which, when combined with past

wildfires, would result in short-term cumulative effects due to similar effects such as burned and

blackened vegetation. As more treatments are implemented, the frequency of suppression efforts

would likely diminish over time as fire begins to play a more natural role and overall forest health

improves. Therefore, no long-term cumulative effects are expected.

Actions that occur in the same time and space as this project have limited extents and mostly

short-term impacts. Because past, present, and future actions, when combined with treatments

proposed under the Cochise Stronghold Hazardous Fuel Reduction, would not alter recreation

resources in the Dragoon Mountains in the long term, no cumulative effects from this project are

expected.

Cultural Resources



20


The no action alternative would not cause direct effects to cultural resources or traditional cultural

properties because no activities likely to affect such resources would be undertaken. Indirect

effects may occur under the no action alternative because cultural resources within the area could

be affected by future unplanned wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, surface fuel loading is expected to increase over time, and the chance of a

severe wildfire occurring would remain high. Wildland fire and suppression activities are

potential sources of impacts to cultural resources. Cultural resources would be more susceptible

to damage from these activities without the protections that could be achieved by the proposed

action.



With respect to this project, direct effects are those that will occur during project implementation.

Any activity that has the potential to disturb the ground has the potential to directly affect cultural

resources. Specific activities in the proposed action that have the potential to directly affect

cultural resources include construction of hand and mechanical fire line, staging areas, water bars

and other erosion control features.

Cultural resource sites that contain combustible materials would be prepared prior to project

implementation by removing heavy fuels within the site and excluding the site from prescribed

burning operations by establishing a black line, hand line, or wet line around the site periphery.

There would be no ignition points or staging of personnel and/or equipment within the boundaries

of these sites.

The Forest Archaeologist found that the proposed action would have no adverse effects upon

cultural resources provided the recommended mitigation and/or avoidance measures are adhered

to.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects may result from a combination of the proposed action with other past, current,

and foreseeable activities. Reasonably foreseeable actions that could potentially affect cultural

resources include a host of land-use practices. Although these activities could affect cultural

resources and their contexts in a variety of direct and indirect ways, those actions must comply

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and are planned and managed

whenever possible to minimize their effects through the use of design measures that mitigate

potential disturbance.

Managed grazing does not have an adverse effect on cultural resources when the grazing strategy

is designed to match herd size with capacity and distribute livestock as evenly as possible across

the allotment. Based on anticipated improvements in range condition and trend, no long-term

cumulative effects to cultural resources are expected.

Wildland fire and suppression activities are potential sources of impacts to cultural resources. In

the past, historic properties have been damaged by wildfires. Properties could be adversely

affected by high intensity wildfire and by suppression efforts. Under the proposed action


21

alternative, fewer historic properties would likely be damaged by wildfire and/or suppression

activities due to the removal of hazardous fuels. Known cultural resource sites would receive

protection from project activities, either through avoidance or controlled, low intensity burning to

reduce fuel loads within site boundaries. There could be beneficial cumulative effects from the

proposed project through the reduced potential for high intensity wildfires.

Water Resources



As a result of the no action alternative, the existing vegetation would remain in its current

condition and would continue with the trend of increasing tree/shrub encroachment and density if

other management actions are not taken to prevent it. In the short term, it can be expected that

water quality would not be impacted over existing impacts. However, as tree/shrub density and

encroachment increases, it can be expected that herbaceous cover would continue to decrease

with time. As a result, there will be less ground cover over the soil, increasing the opportunity for

soil erosion and sediment introduction into streams.

Cumulative Effects

There are plans including range allotment management plans, wildlife habitat improvement

projects, and fuels management projects in place that document potential effects of past, present

and reasonably foreseeable future projects to water quantity and water quality. None of these

actions in themselves or in combination with effects of the no action alternative discussed above

would have a significant effect to water resources.



Thinning and prescribed burning would expose more soil to erosion in the short term. However,

thinning and prescribed burning would allow more herbaceous vegetation to establish and

proliferate over time in areas that are currently dominated by shrubs. Increases in herbaceous

vegetation would result in more ground cover, reducing soil erosion over time, therefore

decreasing sediment transport to streams in the long term. Some delays in vegetation

establishment may be expected in areas with increased fire severity, but these areas are expected

to be much more limited in extent than with wildfire due to planning and management for less

damaging fire conditions.

Fires can have detrimental effects on soil. Although some of these negative effects can occur

with prescribed burns, they would be expected to occur over a smaller area and be of a lesser

magnitude than unplanned ignitions. Since low intensity prescribed fires have reduced negative

effects to soils, watersheds and vegetation can recover more quickly.

After a fire, a substantial rainfall event can move sediment and ash into downslope drainages,

possibly overwhelming the capacity of the drainages to hold the flow. These effects would be

expected to be less with a prescribed burn than with a catastrophic wildfire. Prescribed burns

would be implemented and tactically executed to hold fire spread within the identified project

area, as opposed to catastrophic wildfire, which can burn over a much larger area and until

contained. Also, prescribed burning would be managed to occur when burning intensity would be


22

minimized due to factors such as weather, wind, and vegetation moisture. Lastly, thinning and

other management is done as needed prior to the prescribed burn to ensure that the vegetation

structure available for the burn does not result in more damaging and intense fires. As such, it is

expected that prescribed burning would result in fewer areas where burning intensity results in

severe impacts to soil resources. Increases in erosion and flood flows can be expected for

prescribed burn areas in the short term until vegetation establishes and the watershed recovers,

however, it would be projected to be much less than if a catastrophic wildfire were to occur. The

magnitude of flood flows would be expected to decrease over time as soil condition improves,

vegetation re-establishes to hold the soil in place, and watershed conditions stabilize.

There may be short term negative effects to air quality through the implementation of the

proposed action due to smoke and wind erosion. However, these effects will be minimized

through planning the prescribed burns for good to excellent smoke dispersal days and for good

site conditions. This planning is in contrast to wildfires, which can occur whenever ignition and

conditions allow.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present and foreseeable future projects or actions that have affected or would affect the

project area include grazing, fuelwood harvest, prescribed and natural fires, wildfire suppression,

road maintenance, trail maintenance, developed recreation areas, administrative facilities, fuels

management, and water developments. There are plans including range allotment management

plans, wildlife habitat improvement projects, and fuels management projects in place that

document potential effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects to water

quantity and water quality. None of these actions by themselves or in combination with effects of

the proposed action discussed above would be considered to have a significant effect to water

resources.

Projects, activities, and circumstances occurring in the past are not included in this cumulative

effects analysis since they can reasonably be expected to affect the current environment, which

has already been assessed through the Affected Environment and No Action Alternative sections

of the Watershed Resource Report, available in the project administrative record.

Vegetation



As a result of the no action alternative, open areas would continue to be invaded by species like

mesquite, madrone, and manzanita. These brush species may occupy space that could be used for

tree species and/or grasses. Fuel levels from course woody debris would continue to accumulate,

increasing the probability of severe fire behavior. As the area becomes more congested with

woody plants, the recreational value would decrease as the locations for activities such as

camping and observing wildlife decrease.

Cumulative Effects

The potential impact of severe, uncharacteristic wildfires is the primary cumulative impact on the

plant communities within the project area. Reduction of this impact is also the primary purpose of

the project. Increasingly drier and warmer conditions will likely result in more severe fires in the

future. Fire seasons will lengthen and fire behavior will become more intense, creating challenges


23

for managers (Stephens et al. 2013). These conditions would not be mitigated under the no action

alternative.



As a result of the proposed action, the probability of a stand replacement fire would be reduced.

Some regeneration may be lost, particularly Mexican pinyon pine. However, the temporary

reduction in ground cover may allow for the regeneration of some species. Meanwhile, reduced

competition from woody, brush species would spur the growth of grasses and forbs. Visual

quality would improve by removing some of the standing dead trees and down woody debris.

Reduced competition for resources would spur growth.

Cumulative Effects

The potential impact of severe, uncharacteristic wildfires is the primary cumulative impact on the

plant communities within the project area. Reduction of this impact is also the primary purpose of

the project. It is likely that fires with severe impacts will continue to occur before, during and

after completion of the project but we expect that these impacts will be substantially lessened as a

result of the treatments. Increasingly drier and warmer conditions will result in more severe fire

conditions and also lengthen the fire season. These conditions will likely result in a higher

occurrence of severe fire behavior and impacts, creating challenges for managers. The proposed

action would help mitigate these future negative impacts.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species The project biologist prepared a biological assessment, biological evaluation, and a report on

management indicator species to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed action on special-

status wildlife, fish and plant species and their habitat in the project area. Included are species

listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened, endangered, or proposed for listing

under the Endangered Species Act; designated critical habitat for species listed under the Act;

species designated as sensitive by the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service (USDA Forest

Service 2007); and management-indicator species on the Coronado National Forest (forest plan

1986, as amended). Only the key findings and determinations from the biological assessment,

evaluation and management indicator species report are summarized in this section. The full

reports are available in the project administrative record.

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding this proposed action and federally

listed species was completed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion that

is consistent with the analysis presented in this environmental assessment.


Effects of No Action on Threatened and Endangered Species

Under the no action alternative, there would be no direct effects to species or their habitat from

treatment activities. In the absence of any kind of human-caused or natural disturbance, indirect

effects would occur from the natural succession of vegetative growth and change. Fire risk in the

project analysis area would likely increase and contribute to stand-replacing wildfires. It is likely

that wildfires would continue to occur at recent levels or increase in frequency and severity.

When evaluating potential wildfires, the effects are especially difficult to assess because of the


24

many and great uncertainties related to management of such fires. The timing, location, extent,

and severity cannot be accurately predicted. However, wildfires could result in a reduction of

important habitat features such as travel corridors, nesting or foraging habitat, and hiding cover.

Effects of No Action on Sensitive Species

Under the no action alternative, there would be no direct effects to sensitive species. However,

indirect effects could occur if stand-replacing wildfires continue to occur at recent levels. This

would result in a reduction of important habitats or loss of individuals. Intense crown fires have

the potential to affect those species that depend on forest canopies for nesting and foraging.


Effects of the Proposed Action on Threatened and Endangered Species

The following table lists the species analyzed in the biological assessment and what the effects

determination is for each species and its habitat. The information following the table summarizes

the effects analysis and provides a rationale for the effects determinations for each listed species

analyzed. The complete analysis and rationale is available in the biological assessment; effects

are expected to be insignificant and/or discountable.

Table 5. Summary of determinations for threatened and endangered species

Common name Scientific name Listing Status Critical Habitat in Project Area

Effects Determination5

Chiricahua leopard frog

Lithibates chiricahuensis

Threatened Yes MANLAA

Lesser long-nosed bat

Leptonycteris curasoae

Endangered No MANLAA

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Western

U.S. distinct population segment)

Coccyzus americanus

Threatened NA MANLAA

Mexican spotted owl and critical

habitat

Strix occidentalis lucida

Threatened No MANLAA

Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered No MANLAA

Ocelot Leopardus pardalis Endangered NA MANLAA

Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Determination of Effects

No direct effects are anticipated to Chiricahua leopard frogs because of the conservation measures

being implemented and buffer protection zones at the Middlemarch Mine breeding site and

dispersal corridors in designated Critical Habitat. However, implementation will occur at the start

5 May affect, not likely to adversely affect (MANLAA) - the effects on listed species are expected to be

discountable or insignificant. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the

scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best

judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects;

or (2) expect discountable effects to occur.


25

of CLF breeding season in March, so it is possible that the proposed action could indirectly result

in death or injury if individual frogs are dispersing or utilizing upland habitats. The proposed

action could also cause increased runoff of floodwaters, deposition of debris and sediment, which

has the potential to degrade CLF habitat. However, we believe that our conservation measures

and buffer zones render the likelihood of these possible effects insignificant. Due to indirect

effects from mechanical treatment and prescribed burning within the action area, the proposed

action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Chiricahua leopard frog.

Rationale

Treatments will not occur in Designated Critical Habitat, or any known breeding sites, of

Chiricahua leopard frog.

Numerous Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices will be implemented

to avoid and/or mitigate potential effects of the proposed action on aquatic systems.

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) will consult and provide implementation guidance to

ensure that all potential resource concerns are being addressed and the appropriate design

criteria are used. If appropriate, the IDT will coordinate implementation plans with the

USFWS to address any additional concerns regarding federally listed species and their

designated critical habitat.

Lesser Long-nosed Bat


Lesser long-nosed bat may be indirectly affected by proposed activities if food sources are

damaged or destroyed, thus, the cumulative treatment of suitable foraging habitat could result in a

slight change in bat numbers or distribution. During mastication treatments, dense stands of agave

would be flagged during the planning process and avoided by the masticator to protect foraging

habitat. Ladder fuels around patches of agaves and other nectar plants will be removed to lessen

the impact of fire on individual plants. Removal of ladder fuels around agaves will help prevent

torching of individual plants during broadcast burns. The proposed project incorporates these

conservation measures among others to minimize effects to bat roosts and foraging habitat, the

proposed treatments are not likely to change the species distribution. Therefore, it is the

determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the

lesser long-nosed bat.

Rationale

Treatments are expected to take place during the timeframe of October 1st – March 31st

and will not occur from May 1st – September 30th when lesser long-nosed bat are present

within the action area.

Known post-maternity roosts will be avoided for treatments near known roosts, and

Conservation Measures listed in Section VI of the Biological Assessment will be

implemented to protect the integrity of the roost.

Prescribed burns will be designed to be low to moderate severity to minimize adverse

effects to agave plants.


26

Dense stands of agaves (Agave palmeri) will be flagged and avoided by the treatment

actions.

Treatments would be phased to minimize adverse effects to lesser long-nosed bat forage

plants.

Treatments will reduce the potential for high intensity wildfire in lesser long-nosed bat

foraging and roosting habitat.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo


Yellow-billed cuckoos are one of the latest neotropical migrants to arrive on the Coronado

National Forest (late May-early June). Because project implementation occurs when yellow-

billed cuckoo are not present on the Coronado National Forest, there will be no direct effects to

the species. However, treatments will target areas adjacent to drainages and riparian areas and

will remove some woody species in order to promote the desired condition of the Madrean

encinal woodland vegetation community. Because yellow-billed cuckoo have been found utilizing

habitats that do not necessarily require drainages with flowing water, they may utilize portions of

these upland woodland areas targeted for treatment. Changes to the vegetation structure that result

from the proposed action may cause shifts in habitat use. Due to indirect effects from mechanical

treatment and prescribed burning within the action area, the proposed action may affect, but is

not likely to adversely affect the yellow-billed cuckoo.

Rationale

Treatments will not occur within or adjacent to, occupied habitat during the breeding

season.

Treatments will avoid all riparian areas and high-gradient streams, and are located outside

drainages.

Treatments will be designed to reduce the likelihood of a high-intensity wildfire

occurring within riparian areas and drainages.

The planning and implementation of the proposed action will take into account the

distribution and size of treatments within a watershed. Because the application of the

action will occur at multiple scales (i.e., planning block, watershed and the entire action

area), effects to marginal yellow-billed cuckoo habitat are expected to be insignificant.

Mexican Spotted Owl


Due to indirect effects from mechanical treatment and prescribed burning within the action area,

the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl

and its critical habitat.

Rationale

There is no Mexican spotted owl designated critical habitat or protected activity centers

located within or in the vicinity of the project area.


27

Treatments would only overlap with the first month (March) of the breeding season

(March 1st – August 31st).

Treatments may affect wintering Mexican spotted owl through auditory or visual

disturbance.

Prescribed burning or thinning activities may indirectly affect the Mexican spotted owl

by changing the vegetation structure.

Changes to vegetation successional communities might have a beneficial influence on the

availability of MSO prey.

The main objective of the proposed action is to reduce the likelihood of stand-replacing

fire while maintaining suitable owl habitat.

Site-specific treatments will adhere to the guidelines of the Mexican spotted owl

Recovery Plan.

Jaguar



the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the jaguar.

Rationale

Negative effects are expected to be temporary and not result in long-term habitat

degradation.

The proposed action is designed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildlife that could

provide beneficial effects on the quality and quantity of jaguar habitat in the project area.

There have not been any historical or recent jaguar observations in the Dragoon

Mountains.


availability of jaguar prey.

Ocelot



the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the ocelot.

Rationale

Negative effects are expected to be temporary and not result in long-term habitat

degradation.

The proposed action is designed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire that could

provide beneficial effects on the quality and quantity of ocelot habitat in the project area.


28

There have not been any historical or recent ocelot observations in the Dragoon

Mountains.


availability of ocelot prey.

Effects of the Proposed Action on Sensitive Species

Forty-five species were analyzed for potential effects (see biological evaluation). All these species

had determinations of “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward Federal

listing or loss of viability”. Reasons for this determination vary between species but generally

consist of the following:

Modification of habitat and forage areas

Direct mortality of individuals

Indirect effects to prey species

Short-term effects to pond, stream and riparian habitats

Short-term effects to nesting and roosting areas

Reduced risk of extreme fire within occupied habitat

Conservation measures and project design criteria are intended to avoid or minimize such effects.

However, some short-term effects are likely therefore a “may impact” determination is necessary.

In addition, long-term effects of proposed treatments are expected to be beneficial to most species

by reducing the risk of catastrophic fire, and trending ecological processes toward historic levels.

Please refer to the biological evaluation for detailed analyses.

Table 6. Summary of effects to sensitive species

Species Effects Determination6

Birds

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) MII

Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) MII

Arizona grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum ammolegus) MII

Common black-hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus) MII

Lucifer hummingbird (Calothorax lucifer) MII

Northern beardless-tyrannulet (Camptostoma imberbe) MII

Broad-billed hummingbird (Cynanthus latirostris) MII

Northern Buff-Breasted Flycatcher (Empidonax fulvifrons pygmaeus) MII

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) MII

White-eared hummingbird (Hylocharis leucotis) MII

Whiskered screech owl (Megascops trichopsis) MII

Varied bunting (Passerina versicolor) MII

6 MII = May impact individuals but is not likely to result in downward trend toward federal listing as

threatened or endangered or a loss of viability.


29

Species Effects Determination6

Abert’s towhee (Pipilo aberti) MII

Mammals

Northern pygmy mouse (Baiomys taylori ater) MII

Mexican Long-Tongued Bat (Choeronycteris mexicana) MII

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) MII

Greater western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) MII

Allen’s lappet-browed bat (Idionycteris phyllotis) MII

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) MII

Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) MII

California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus) MII

Hooded skunk (Mephitis macroura milleri) MII

White-nosed coati (Nasua narica) MII

Cockrum’s desert shrew (Notiosorex cockrumi) MII

Pocket free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) MII

Reptiles

Giant Spotted Whiptail (Aspidoscelis burti stictogrammus) MII

Reticulate Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum suspectum) MII

Slevins bunchgrass lizard (Sceloporus slevini) MII

Green ratsnake (Senticolis triaspis) MII

Yaqui black-headed snake (Tantilla yaquia) MII

Plants

Lemmon milkweed (Asclepias lemmonii) MII

Maguire’s (coppermine) milkvetch (Astragalus cobrensis var. maguirei) MII

Chihuahuan sedge (Carex chihuahuensis) MII

Cochise sedge (Carex ultra) MII

Trans-pecos Indian paintbrush (Castilleja nervata) MII

Arid throne fleabane (Erigeron arisolius) MII

Wislizeni Gentian (Gentianella wislizeni) MII

Arizona alum root (Heuchera glomerulata) MII

Arizona coralroot (Hexalectris spicata var. arizonica) MII

Lemmon’s lupine (Lupinus lemmonii) MII

Catalina beardtongue (Penstemon discolor) MII

Hinckley’s polemonium (Polemonium pauciflorum ssp. hinckleyi) MII

Huachuca groundsel (Senecio multidentatus var. huachucanus) MII

Nodding blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium cernuum) MII

Shade Violet (Viola umbraticola) MII

Management Indicator Species

National Forest Management Act implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.19) and Forest Service

Manual (FSM) 2600 guidance require that forest plans identify certain vertebrate and/or


30

invertebrate species as management indicator species, and that these species be monitored “in

order to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of

other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent (FSM 2620.5).” Thirty-three

management indicator species and one group (primary and secondary cavity nesters) in eight

indicator groups are identified in appendix G of the Coronado forest plan (USDA Forest Service

1986, pages 128-129).

Of the 33 management indicator species, at least one from each group is known to occur within

the project area, except for species needing dense canopy. Northern beardless-tyrannulet has been

used as a representative species, but has never been documented in the project area. These species

and the indicator groups that they represent are displayed in the table below. Several species

occur in more than one group and/or are also classified threatened, endangered, or sensitive

species so analysis is not repeated here. More detailed analysis for these species can be found in

appendix A to the biological evaluation.

Table 7. Management indicator species selected for analysis by group

Management Indicator Group Species

Group 1 - Cavity Nesters Copper tailed “elegant” trogon

Sulphur-bellied flycatcher

Group 2 - Riparian Species Black Bear

Blue-throated hummingbird

Northern beardless-tyrannulet


Copper tailed “elegant” trogon

Group 3 - Species Needing Diversity White-tailed deer

Buff-breasted flycatcher



Group 4 - Species Needing Herbaceous Cover White-tailed deer

Mearn’s quail

Baird’s Sparrow

Group 5 - Species Needing Dense Canopy Northern beardless-tyrannulet

Group 6 - Game Species White-tailed deer

Black bear

Mearn’s quail

Group 7 - Special Interest Species Mearn’s quail

Blue-throated hummingbird

Buff- breasted flycatcher



Group 8 - Threatened and Endangered Species See Biological Assessment

Cumulative Effects

ESA cumulative effects are those of future State or private activities, not involving Federal

activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject

to consultation [50 CFR §402.02]. Federal agencies manage the majority of lands that are

important wildlife habitat within the action area. Activities on federal land that could affect

wildlife are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to


31

section 7 of the Act. Examples of these kinds of actions include: management of Forest Service

grazing permits, travel management and mineral activities.

Activities in the vicinity of the action area that are reasonably certain to occur in important

wildlife habitat but are not subject to section 7 analysis include illegal activities and action on

private lands. Examples of illegal activities that may affect wildlife include: inappropriate use of

off-highway vehicles, illegal woodcutting, the distribution of restricted live wildlife (especially

aquatic invasives), and poaching. Illegal activities are difficult to predict and are assumed to

occur indefinitely and uniformly throughout the vicinity of the action area and are not expected to

significantly contribute to the adverse impacts from the proposed action.

Activities occurring on private lands may include residential development, farming/ranching,

road construction and maintenance, and mineral exploration. These activities could potentially

affect wildlife through habitat destruction or degradation and harassment of individuals. Many of

the private lands near or within the action area have already been developed, and no new major

developments of private lands are expected to occur; therefore, future activities on private lands

are not expected to significantly contribute to adverse impacts to wildlife from the proposed

action.

cochise stronghold hazardous fuel...

Documents