2/11/11

Updated Coconino National Forest Wilderness Need Evaluation

Introduction

Anything in this document that has been changed since the last version has been highlighted in Green.

The purpose of the Wilderness Need Assessment is to identify the need for additional wilderness on the Coconino National Forest and in the US Forest Service’s Southwest Region (Region 3 or Region) based on a variety of factors including visitor demand, the need to provide protections for various fish, wildlife, and plant species, and provididsng a reasonable representation of landforms and ecosystems within the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Subsection 72.3 describes the factors that are to be considered. The following report provides the complete documentation of consideration of these factors following the Forest Service’s Southwest Region working group guidance. Because most of these factors are intended to be evaluated at a regional scale, the majority of table and figures were created using data from the Region 3 Wilderness Needs Evaluation (Forest Service 2007a).

Factor #1 Factor #1, Item #1

The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and their distance from the proposed area.

1. How many, what size (# of acres), and what types of other wilderness areas exist within the general vicinity of your forest (within 100 air miles)?

There are 15 wilderness areas within the Coconino National Forest (the Forest or Coconino NF) and there are 32 Wilderness Areas within 100 air miles of the Coconino NF, including those on other National Forests (Tonto, Prescott, and Kaibab National Forests), National Park Service (NPS) administered lands, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands (Table 1). These Wilderness Areas total approximately 1.3 million acres.

2. How far from the potential wildernesses are these other areas?

Each potential wilderness has many Wilderness Areas within 100 miles (Table 2). The potential wilderness areas are on average 50-60 miles from surrounding wilderness, however, several are neighboring existing wilderness (0 miles). Strawberry Crater, Abineau, White Horse, Bismark, Railroad Draw, East Clear Creek, and Barbershop potential wilderness areas have the fewest acres of existing Wilderness within 100 miles.

1 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Table 1: Existing Wilderness Areas in the General Vicinity of the Coconino National Forest Wilderness Area Name Acres Administered by: Kachina Peaks Wilderness 18,857 Coconino NF Strawberry Crater Wilderness 11,268 Coconino NF Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness 50,312 Coconino NF Munds Mountain Wilderness 17,997 Coconino NF Sycamore Canyon Wilderness 58,818 Prescott/Coconino NFs West Beaver Wilderness 6,721 Coconino NF Woodchute Wilderness 5,790 Coconino NF West Clear Creek Wilderness 26,291 Coconino NF Kendrick Mountain Wilderness 8,200 Kaibab/Coconino NF Saddle Mountain Wilderness 41,815 Kaibab NF Kanab Creek Wilderness 775 Kaibab NF Fossil Springs Wilderness 10,754 Coconino/Tonto NF Mazatzal Wilderness 248,858 Coconino/Tonto NF Hellsgate Wilderness 38,845 Tonto NF Salome Wilderness 18,688 Tonto NF Four Peaks Wilderness 60,487 Tonto NF Cedar Bench Wilderness 16,585 Prescott NF Pine Mountain Wilderness 18,656 Prescott NF Granite Mountain Wilderness 9,850 Prescott NF Apache Creek Wilderness 5,435 Prescott NF Juniper Mesa Wilderness 7,575 Prescott NF Castle Creek Wilderness 24,477 Prescott NF Petrified Forest National Wilderness Area 9,620 NPS Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness 12,672 BLM Hells Canyon Wilderness 9,841 BLM Upper Burro Creek Wilderness 18,235 BLM Tres Alamos Wilderness 8,034 BLM Arrastra Mountain Wilderness 129,167 BLM Harcuvar Mountain Wilderness 25,465 BLM Harquahala Mountain Wilderness 22,559 BLM Rawhide Mountains Wilderness 38,208 BLM Hummingbird Springs Wilderness 30,038 BLM Big Horn Mountains Wilderness 21,444 BLM Aubrey Peak Wilderness 15,898 BLM Swansea Wilderness 17,073 BLM Wabayuma Peak Wilderness 38,561 BLM East Cactus Plain Wilderness 15,001 BLM Sierra Estrella Wilderness 14,746 BLM Eagletail Mountains Wilderness 100,511 BLM Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness 18,731 BLM Warm Springs Wilderness 5,349 BLM Signal Mountain Wilderness 13,125 BLM

2 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Table 2: Proximity of potential wilderness to existing Wilderness Areas within the general vicinity of the Coconino National Forest Potential Number of Existing Acres of Existing Wilderness Wilderness Wilderness areas within within 100 miles1 100 Miles Strawberry Crater 19 667,981 PW-03-04-001 Abineau 20 745,868 PW-03-04-002 White Horse 20 750,764 PW-03-04-003 Bismark 20 739,626 PW-03-04-004 Railroad Draw 24 104,1621 PW-03-04-006 Deadwood Draw 26 779,120 PW-03-04-018 Walker Mountain 27 895,102 PW-03-04-019 Cedar Bench 28 1,054,022 PW-03-04-022 Black Mountain 29 1,061,003 PW-03-04-023 Cimmaron- Boulder 30 1,235,215 PW-03-04-025 Hackberry 33 1,149,791 PW-03-04-026 Tin Can 28 938,754 PW-03-04-027 Davey’s 30 1,117,015 PW-03-04-028 East Clear Creek 24 941,457 PW-03-04-036 Barbershop 25 960,849 PW-03-04-037 *Average Distance is the average of the distances between the potential wilderness center and the center of each existing wilderness. Factor #1, Item #2

Accessibility of existing and potential wildernesses to population centers and user groups.

1 Acres of private inholdings were removed from wilderness acres.

3 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

1. How accessible are existing and potential wilderness areas in the vicinity to population centers in the planning area?

Current Wilderness Distribution Southwestern Region

In Region 3, out of a total of 20.8 million acres of Forest Service lands, 2.7 million are designated Wilderness, representing 13 percent of the Forest Service landbase within the Region. Compared to the national figure, there are about five percent fewer wilderness acres in Region 3. For wilderness acres in the region to be at the national average would require the addition of about 1 million acres.

In Arizona, most wilderness is located in the southwestern quadrant of the state (see Table 3 below). The least amount of wilderness is in the northeast quadrant. Wilderness within the northwest and northeast quadrants, which contain the Coconino NF, are below the national average of 17 percent of federal lands designated as wilderness. Therefore, although the state of Arizona as a whole is close to the national average, existing Wilderness is less accessible to the communities of Northern Arizona than it is to communities in other parts of Arizona.

Table 3: Wilderness Acres by Quadrant, Arizona, 2007 Quadrant of Managing Agencies Number of Total Federal Wilderness Arizona Wilderness Acres (BLM, Acres/Total Acres in FWS, FS, NPS Federal Acres Quadrant only) (BLM, FWS, FS, NPS only) Northwest BLM, FWS, FS, NPS 1,028,820 12,508,980 8% Northeast BLM, FS, NPS 173,036 2,855,187 6% Southwest BLM, FS, FWS, NPS 2,287,391 7,564,100 30% Southeast BLM, FS, NPS 1,232,699 7,628,459 16%

Accessibility to Wilderness for Coconino National Forest Communities

Table 4 shows the acres of Wilderness within 100 miles of the major population centers in and around the Coconino NF. Communities were chosen based on their size, proximity to the Forest and National Visitor Use Monitoring data. The Flagstaff population is underserved, compared to other surrounding communities. Strawberry Crater, Abineau, Whitehorse, Bismark, and Railroad Draw potential wilderness are best able to meet that need as they are the closest to Flagstaff.

An argument can also be made that the Phoenix Metropolitan area is underserved base on the size of the area’s population compared to the acres of available wilderness. The approximately 1.5 million acres of wilderness serves a population of 4,160,999 people (US Census 2008). Overcrowding in wilderness areas close to Phoenix is a common concern of resource managers throughout central Arizona.

Table 4: Wilderness Acres within 100 Miles of Coconino National Forest Communities Population Center Acres of Wilderness within 100 miles

4 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Cottonwood-Verde Valley 1,165,257 Flagstaff 696, 936 Payson 919,485 Prescott 1,228,043 Prescott Valley 1,267,444 Sedona 901,566 New River (North Phoenix Metro) 1,495,368 Factor 1 Rating Criteria:

Potential wilderness that were both distant from existing Wilderness and could serve underserved populations (Flagstaff) were rated as “high” need. Potential wilderness that were both distant from existing Wilderness or could serve the Phoenix Metropolitan area were rated as “medium” need. Those potential wildernesses that had more than a million acres of Wilderness area within 100 miles and were not within close proximity to underserved communities were rates as “low” need.

Factor 1 Results:

Table 5: Factor 1 Wilderness Need Ratings for Coconino National Forest Wilderness Areas. Potential Wilderness Factor 1 Rating Strawberry Crater PW-03-04-001 High Abineau PW-03-04-002 High White Horse PW-03-04-003 High Bismark PW-03-04-004 High Railroad Draw PW-03-04-006 High Deadwood Draw PW-03-04-018 Med Walker Mountain PW-03-04-019 Med Cedar Bench PW-03-04-022 Med MaybBlack Mountain PW-03-04-023 Med Cimmaron-Boulder PW-03-04-025 Med Hackberry PW-03-04-026 Med Tin Can PW-03-04-027 Med Davey’s PW-03-04-028 Med East Clear Creek PW-03-04-036 Med Barbershop PW-03-04-037 Med

Generally, those areas in the Northern part of the Forest (Strawberry Crater, Abineau, Whitehorse, Bismark and Railroad Draw potential wildernesses) were rated as High Need for Factor 1. These potential Wilderness areas are near Flagstaff and distant from the Wilderness south of the Forest. East Clear Creek and Barbershop potential wilderness rated medium because they are on the east side of the Forest and therefore distant from existing wilderness.

5 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Factor #2 Factor #2, Item #1

Present visitor pressure on other wildernesses.

1. What is the level of current use in Forest Service Wilderness areas, as well as other Wilderness in the area?

Current Wilderness Use - Forest Service Southwestern Region

Wilderness in the Southwestern Region experienced a total of 1.9 million visits, in the years 2000 – 2003, according to Round 1 of National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM). Only two rounds of visitor use data has been collected for most forests, so statistically valid trend information is not available. Wilderness visitation ranged from a low of almost 9,500 visits on the Kaibab NF to a high of almost 760,000 visits on the Cibola NF. Based on this data, four forests are considered to have high wilderness use (Gila, Cibola, Coronado, and Coconino), four have moderate use (Apache-Sitgreaves, Santa Fe, Carson, and Tonto), and three have low use (Prescott, Lincoln, and Kaibab).2 The following table shows the estimated number of wilderness visits by forest.

Table 6: Annual Wilderness Visitation Use Estimate by Forest National Forest Visits*(1,000s) 80% Confidence Percent of Interval +/- Visits for Region Cibola 577.4 62.2% 32% Coronado 528.2 27.8% 29% Coconino 269.8 62.3% 15% Gila 140.7 96.5% 8% Tonto 109.4 30.9% 6% Santa Fe 46.6 8.3% 3% Apache-Sitgreaves 38.1 46.9% 2% Carson 33.1 30.6% 2% Lincoln 23.0 33.3% 1% Prescott 15.8 29.5% 1% Kaibab 10.8 35.9% 1% All Forests Combined 1,792.8 24.9% 100% * A National Forest Visit is defined as the entry of one person upon a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an unspecified period of time. A National Forest Visit can be composed of multiple Site Visits. + Confidence interval - Defines the upper and lower bounds of the visitation estimate at the 80% confidence level, for example if the visitation estimate is 100 +/- 5%, one would say “at the 80% confidence level, visitation is between 95 and 105 visits”.

2 This is based on use categories developed by the Forest Service Wilderness Advisory Group, with low use defined as 0-10,000 visits, medium as 10,001 – 30,000 visits, and high being greater than 30,000 visits. Total wilderness use for a forest from NVUM was divided by the number of wildernesses the forest is lead for, to get an average amount of use per wilderness.

6 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Current Wilderness Use - Other Agencies

The National Park Service sells backcountry permits to those using wilderness-like areas in national parks and national monuments. The national parks in the vicinity of the Coconino NF sell the most permits in the state of Arizona, predominantly at Grand Canyon National Park, which is less than 100 miles away.

Table 7: National Parks Backcountry Permits (2006) State Backcountry Permits Sold Arizona 305,739 California 175,041 New Mexico 2,777 Utah 117,033

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) reports 44,963 annual visitors to BLM Wilderness areas in Arizona (date from Fiscal Year 2005). Most of these visits occurred in southern Arizona.

Conclusion - Coconino National Forest Wilderness Use/Demand

Some Wilderness areas on the Coconino NF do not experience high use because they are either difficult to access or have few developed trails. Other wilderness areas control access through a permit system in order to prevent resource damage, which may direct excess demand to similar wilderness areas nearby. However, several Wilderness areas on the Coconino NF (e.g. Red Rock-Secret Mountain Wilderness, Kachina Peaks Wilderness) are very accessible to Forest visitors, are close to communities, and have developed trailheads and, therefore, these areas account for most of the wilderness use on the Forest. These visitors often participated in short day hikes, and on average visitors spend just 2.8 hours per wilderness visit.

With approximately 270,000 annual visits to existing Wilderness, the Coconino NF ranks third in the Region for Wilderness use. In general, there is already very high use of wilderness use in Northern Arizona, including the National Parks Service backcountry areas. Generally, high current use supports the need for additional designations. Factor #2, Item #2

Trends in use, changing patterns of use, population expansion factors, and trends and changes in transportation.

National Trends in Wilderness Use

Data from the first round of NVUM data, shows that wilderness use on all national forests amounted to about 8.6 million visits annually (USDA, Forest Service 2007). Looking to the future, it is expected that wilderness visitation will continue to increase over the next 50 years because of the increasing population nationally, however, per captia visits are expected to decline (Bowker et. al. 2006). According to Bowker et. al. (2006), income, gender (male), immigrant status (born in the United States), and environmental awareness are positively

7 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11 correlated with wildland recreation participation. Race (black and other), ethnicity (Hispanic), age, distance, and urban dwelling negatively correlate to wildland recreation participation (Bowker et. al. 2006).

Population Expansion Factors and Demographics – Southwest Region

Population growth in both Arizona and New Mexico exceeded U.S. population growth during the period 1990 to 2000. During this time period the United States grew at a rate of 13.2 percent, while the Arizona growth rate was 40 percent, and New Mexico grew at a rate of 20 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2005).

Growth predictions in Arizona are that its population will increase by 109 percent between 2000 and 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). Bowker predicts that population growth in expanding cities in the West and Southwest, in particular, will result in increased use in wildernesses in the vicinity (Bowker et al 2006). It can also be expected that population increases in the communities adjacent to the National Forests will occur because of their attractiveness in terms of the availability of quality outdoor recreation experiences, clean air and water, and a natural setting.

The demographics of Arizona and New Mexico in terms of race and ethnicity3 are different from the United States as a whole. The major differences between the United States as a whole and Arizona and New Mexico are the lower proportion of African American and Asian people, and the higher percentage of Native American/American Indians, and persons of Hispanic/Latino origin. Even though low population growth is expected for the white population in Arizona and New Mexico, a moderate increase in wilderness use is expected from this demographic. All other races and ethnicities are predicted to have higher population growth rates, but lower increases in wilderness use.

Trends and Changing Patterns in Use – Coconino National Forest

The Coconino National Forest “Analysis of the Management Situation” (USFS 2010) summarizes recreation trends on the Forest, saying: Recreation use on the Coconino NF increased 72 percent in just five years, between 2000 and 2005. …The rapid increase in the population of Arizona (Maricopa and Yavapai counties, in particular), and improved transportation infrastructure enables rapid movement of people from the lower elevations of the state and region to the higher elevation and cooler climate of the Colorado Plateau contribute to the increase in recreation visits to the Coconino NF…Based on known trends, it is anticipated that use and pressure on all Wilderness Areas within the Coconino NF will increase as Arizona’s population increases. There is also expected to be an increased awareness and appreciation for the primitive character of wilderness. Some wilderness areas on the Coconino National Forest are easily accessible and are in close proximity to local communities, making them very popular and sometimes overcrowded

3 Race and ethnicity are defined as separate concepts by the federal government. People of a specific race may be of any ethnic origin, and people of a specific ethnic origin may be of any race.

8 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11 recreation areas. At times, this makes it difficult to maintain a quality wilderness experience and to protect the wilderness character of an area. The high volume of visitors, particularly in areas with perennial water, may conflict with those seeking a wilderness experience that offers more solitude. These areas may meet the demand for wilderness users with lower expectations of solitude, particularly those who come from large urban areas.

The Forest’s riparian wilderness areas have increasing levels of use in the summer season as many use these areas to gather and enjoy the cooler climate and swimming holes. As an example of how these visitors may have different expectations of wilderness, wilderness staff has noted use by those with “flip flops and boom-boxes,” and people often gather in groups larger than 10 people. Watersheds and riparian areas could experience resource damage, and wilderness values such as solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation may be affected. Visitation of the most popular Wilderness Areas is expected to increase as population increases and awareness or publicity of these recreation sites spreads. Managing wilderness character in these areas is a significant challenge and limits or restrictions may be needed in the future to protect the resource. At the same time that restrictions or limitations may be necessary, there is still a need to satisfying high demand for wilderness on the Forest. Therefore, it is unlikely that existing wilderness could be managed in a way to accommodate the increasing demand without the designation of additional wilderness.

Conclusions - Demand for Wilderness in the Region and on the Coconino National Forest

1. Increased demand for additional wilderness in both Arizona and New Mexico should be anticipated based on population growth during the period of 1990 to 2000, which exceeded the national growth rate. 2. Assuming Arizona continues to grow at a rate greatly outpacing the national rate (predicted to be about 3 times the national rate), the number of visits to existing wilderness will continue to increase, and Arizona in particular could benefit from additional wilderness. 3. Public demand increases with proximity to six population centers in the Southwestern Region: Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tucson, Santa Fe, Taos, and Albuquerque. Consider wilderness recommendations within 100 miles of those cities to provide for that demand. 4. Some additional public demand for wilderness in the Southwestern Region will occur from the influx of people moving to communities in the vicinity of the National Forests. 5. In terms of geographic distribution of wilderness, the Southwestern Region is under- represented with 12% percent of federal land in wilderness acres as compared with the 17% nationally. One of the most under-represented quadrants is northeast Arizona which is at 6 percent or less in the number of wilderness acres (compared with total federal wilderness acres). 6. Desirability of the scenic mountainous settings available in the rural communities within and adjacent to national forests in the Southwestern Region provides a quality of life features that will attract new retirees and others, further contributing to a growth in wilderness visitation. Factor 2 Rating Criteria/Results:

9 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Based on population increases, the high existing use on the Coconino National Forest, the high demand for wilderness in Northern Arizona, and the fact that Northern Arizona is under- represented compared to National Wilderness Preservation System, there is a high need for wilderness on the Coconino National Forest, and thus, all potential wilderness areas are rated as “high” for Factor 2.

Factor #3

The extent to which non-wilderness lands on the NFS unit or other Federal lands are likely to provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences.

1. Are there non-wilderness lands on or near the unit that are likely to provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences? 2. If so, what types of lands are they, where are the lands located, and how might they meet demands for “unconfined outdoor recreation experiences”.

There are various land designations that are not wilderness, but are likely to provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences within 100 miles of the Coconino National Forest. The Forest Service uses the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to classify settings for recreational opportunities. The Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and Primitive ROS classifications are likely to provide a “like-wilderness” setting. In addition, Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) may provide an unconfined outdoor recreation experience. These land designations imply that there is limited roads and, therefore, reduced evidence of human use. These lands can provide an unconfined recreation experience similar to wilderness. There are over 160,000 acres of these “wilderness-like” areas on the Coconino (Table 8).

In addition, the Grand Canyon National Park, administered by the National Park Service, though not designated Wilderness, provides opportunity for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences below the rim and away from the main hiking trails.. There is no motorized traffic below the rim of the canyon and few signs of human use, aside from several large campgrounds and well-used hiking trails. Therefore, a significant portion of the Park provides unconfined recreation, similar to Wilderness. However, use within this area is limited due to the physical terrain, and a backcountry permit is needed for overnight visits.

There are no BLM Wilderness Study Areas within the 100 mile of the Coconino NF.

There are over 3 million acres of “wilderness-like” areas within 100 miles of the Coconino NF (Table 9).

Table 8: Wilderness-like Areas on the Coconino NF Wildernesses-Like Areas within Description Acres 100 Miles Padre Canyon IRA 9,423 Lower Jacks Canyon IRA 776 Jacks Canyon IRA 2,855

10 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Walker Mountain IRA 6,375 Barbershop Canyon IRA 1,310 Cimarron Hills IRA 5,297 Hackberry IRA 17,864 Boulder Canyon IRA 4,548 East Clear Creek IRA 491 East Clear Creek IRA 1,120 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized ROS 117,951 Primitive ROS 535 TOTAL 168,546

Table 9: Wilderness-like Areas in and near the Coconino NF Wilderness-like Areas within 100 Ownership Acres Miles Inventoried Roadless Areas Coconino, Tonto, Prescott, Kaibab, and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 406,177 Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized - ROS Coconino, Tonto, Prescott, Kaibab, and Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 1,288,667 Primitive – ROS Coconino, Tonto, Prescott, and Kaibab NFs 479,589 Grand Canyon National Park NPS 1,207,944 TOTAL 3,382,377

Factor 3 Rating Criteria/Results:

There are significant opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation experiences outside of the designated Wilderness Areas within 100 miles of the Coconino National Forest, including over 3 million acres of Federal Lands. This is more than double the amount of designated Wilderness within 100 miles of the Coconino NF. Therefore, all potential wilderness areas received a “low” need rating for Factor 3.

Factor #4

The need to provide a refuge for those species that have demonstrated an inability to survive in less than primitive surroundings, or the need for a protected area for other unique scientific values or phenomena.

1. Are there species on the forest that require primitive surroundings for survival, or are there areas that need protection for other unique scientific values or phenomena? 2. Does retaining the primitive conditions in these areas provide a benefit in terms of habitat connectivity for species?

11 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Table 10: Rankings for Species that Benefit from Primitive Surroundings Potential Species that Benefit from Primitive Surroundings Factor 4 #1 Wilderness Name within the Potential Wilderness Area4 Ranking Strawberry Crater None known Low Abineau None known Low Whitehorse None known Low Bismark Mexican Spotted Owl Medium Railroad Draw None known Low Deadwood Draw Northern leopard frogs, Golden Eagle, four spotted Medium skipperling, spotted bat, greater mastiff bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Allen’s lappet browed bat Walker Mountain Gila chub, Black Hawk, Lowland leopard frogs, Medium Narrow-headed gartersnake Cedar Bench None known Low Black Mountain Golden Eagle Medium Cimmaron- Lowland and Chiricahua leopard frog, Narrow-headed Medium Boulder and Mexican gartersnake Hackberry Mexican free-tail bat, Red bat, Townsend’s bat, Spotted Medium bat, Greater Western Mastiff, Lowland leopard frog, Both gartersnakes, Yellow-billed cuckoo Tin Can Chiricahua leopard frog Medium Davey’s Fossil springsnail, Spikedace, Loach minnow, Medium Razorback sucker, Gila topminnow, Roundtail chub, Headwater Chub, Longfin dace, Desert sucker, Sonora sucker East Clear Creek Little Colorado Spinedace Medium Barbershop Little Colorado Spinedace, Mexican Spotted Owl Medium

Factor 4 Item 1 Rating Criteria: Those potential wildernesses that contain habitat for or individuals of a species that needs primitive surroundings to survive received a “high” rating. Those potential wildernesses that contain habitat for species that would benefit from primitive surroundings, but does not require it to survive received a “medium” rating. If a potential wilderness has neither individuals nor habitat for a species that needs primitive surroundings it received a “low” rating.

The biology staff considered 18 bird species, 15 fish, 8 amphibians and reptiles, 33 invertebrates, 18 mammals and 98 plants based on the above criteria. It was assumed that “primitive surroundings” includes low human disturbance and conditions where natural disturbances prevail.

4 Individuals may be present within the area or areas of habitat that are un-surveyed but could support a population.

12 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Factor 4 Item 2 Rating Criteria:5

Another factor that the public requested be considered as part of wilderness evaluation is whether retaining the primitive conditions in these areas provides a benefit in terms of habitat connectivity for species. In order, to examine this element of primitive habitat, the Coconino National Forest is using the Arizona Game and Fish Wildlife Linkages data to determine if the area is in a wildlife linkages corridor. The linkages data identifies paths of wildlife movement and barriers such as major roads. Potential Wilderness Areas in a wildlife linkages corridor were given a rank of “high” if there were no wildlife barriers within 1/4 mile. If the area was both in a wildlife corridor and was within ¼ mile of a barrier it was given a rank of “medium.” If the area is not within one of the identified wildlife corridors it was given a rank of “low.”

Factor 4 #2 Rationale Potential Wilderness Name Ranking Strawberry Crater High In Grassland north and east of San Francisco Peaks - east of Anderson Mesa corridor and not near any barriers. Provides for movement of Pronghorn, Gunnison’s prairie dog, jackrabbit, golden eagle, milksnakes, birds, bats. Abineau Medium In San Francisco Peaks – North of Peaks and South Rim - San Francisco Peaks - Woody Ridge/Bellemont area but also near Forest Road 418 barrier. Provides for movement of elk, mule deer and potentially Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Whitehorse Medium In San Francisco Peaks – North of Peaks and nearby South Rim - San Francisco Peaks - Woody Ridge/Bellemont area but also near Forest Road 418 barrier. Provides for movement of elk, mule deer and potentially Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Bismark Medium In San Francisco Peaks – North of Peaks and nearby South Rim - San Francisco Peaks - Woody Ridge/Bellemont area but also near Forest Road 418 barrier. Provides for movement of elk, mule deer and potentially Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Railroad Draw Low Near Sycamore Canyon wildlife corridor but not connective because the area is above the rim of the canyon. Deadwood Draw Need Yavapai County data in order to rank Walker Mountain Need Yavapai County data in order to rank

5 Note: This analysis has not yet been completed for 6 of the 15 Potential Wilderness Areas because for Yavapai county data is not yet available. Please provide comments on the methodology below for the areas that are not ranked. Updated rankings will be provided in the next draft of this report.

13 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Factor 4 #2 Rationale Potential Wilderness Name Ranking Cedar Bench Need Yavapai County data in order to rank Black Mountain High In the West Clear Creek - Fossil Springs Wilderness corridor with no nearby barriers. Provides for movement of white- tailed deer, mule deer, elk, black bear, javelina, turkey, mountain lion. Cimmaron-Boulder High In the West Clear Creek - Fossil Springs Wilderness corridor with no nearby barriers. Provides for movement of white- tailed deer, mule deer, elk, black bear, javelina, turkey, mountain lion. Hackberry Need Yavapai County data in order to rank Tin Can /High In the West Clear Creek - Fossil Springs Wilderness corridor with no nearby barriers. Provides for movement of white- tailed deer, mule deer, elk, black bear, javelina, turkey, mountain lion. Need Yavapai County data in order to complete ranking. Davey’s Need Yavapai County data in order to rank East Clear Creek Medium In Blue Ridge Reservoir/Clear Creek - Mogollon Rim corridor but also near Forest Road 95 and 139 barrier. Provides for movement of Mexican spotted owl, black bear, bats, neotropical migratory birds. Barbershop Medium In Blue Ridge Reservoir/Clear Creek - Mogollon Rim corridor but also near Forest Road 95 and 139 barrier. Provides for movement of Mexican spotted owl, black bear, bats, neotropical migratory birds.

Factor 4 Results: No species were identified as requiring primitive surroundings. However, 23 species were determined to benefit from primitive surroundings. Four of the potential wilderness areas were not known to have either habitat for or individuals of any species that would particularly benefit from primitive or low human disturbance environments. No specific unique scientific values or phenomena were identified.

In terms of habitat connectivity, Strawberry Crater, Black Mountain and Cimarron-Boulder ranked High for connectivity. At the time of this draft being published data was only available for Coconino County wildlife corridors. The Plan Revision Team will complete ranking these areas once data for Yavapai County is available.

14 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Factor #5

Within social and biological limits, management may increase the capacity of established wildernesses to support human use without unacceptable depreciation of the wilderness resource.

1. Are there opportunities to alter management of existing wildernesses to accommodate additional demand without unacceptable depreciation of the wilderness resources?

Altering existing Wilderness management to accommodate demand would not be possible without unacceptable depreciation of wilderness character. First, recreation staff has observed that some of our existing areas show evidence of being above capacity already (though this has not been quantitatively measured, reported, or analyzed). Therefore, management may be needed to reduce the visits to these areas rather than increase use to accommodate demand. Second, areas that have less recreation use provide valuable wilderness character that might be diminished if use were redirected to these areas because the riparian resources in these areas are sensitive to increased human disturbance. The parts of existing wilderness that are further away from riparian areas tend to have less use because of the lack of drinking water sources and difficult terrain. Factor 5 Rating Criteria/Results: In general, existing wilderness on the Forest cannot accommodate increased use without depreciation of wilderness resources. This demonstrates a need for additional designations. Therefore, all potential wilderness was given a “high” rating for this factor.

Factor #6

An area’s ability to provide for preservation of identifiable landform types and ecosystems.

1. Does the potential wilderness area contain any regionally under-represented ecosystem and landform types?

R3 guidance identified under-represented ecosystems as those potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) that represent less than 3% of existing wilderness in the Southwest Region. Table 11 shows the potential wilderness with under-represented ecosystems.

Table 11: Under-represented Ecosystems in Potential Wilderness Potential Wilderness Under-represented ecosystem Acres Strawberry Crater None 0 PW-03-04-001 Abineau Mixed Conifer with Aspen 358 PW-03-04-002 White Horse Mixed Conifer with Aspen 202 PW-03-04-003 Spruce-fir Forest 75

15 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Bismark Mixed Conifer with Aspen 466 PW-03-04-004 Montane/Subalpine Grasslands 775 Spruce-fir Forest 535 Montane Willow Riparian <1 Railroad Draw Montane/Subalpine Grassland 8 PW-03-04-006 Deadwood Draw None 0 PW-03-04-018 Walker Mountain Interior Chaparral 1,715 PW-03-04-019 Cedar Bench Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 14 PW-03-04-022 Black Mountain Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 17 PW-03-04-023 Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 170

Cimmaron-boulder Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 38 PW-03-04-025 Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 45

Hackberry Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest 411 PW-03-04-026 Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 55

Tin Can None 0 PW-03-04-027 Davey’s Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest 30 PW-03-04-028 East Clear Creek None 0 PW-03-04-036 Barbershop Mixed Conifer Forest with Aspen 18 PW-03-04-037

R3 guidance identified under-represented landforms as those landscapes that represent less than 3% of existing wilderness in the Southwest Region. The only potential wilderness with under- represented landforms is the Strawberry Crater (PW-03-04-001) (Table 12).

Table 12: Under-represented Landforms in Potential Wilderness Potential Wilderness Under-represented landform Acres Strawberry Crater Coconino Plateau Woodland 96 PW-03-04-001 Kaibab Woodland 5,728 Painted Desert Steppe Grassland 885 Deadwood Draw White Mountains Scarp Woodland- 1,182 Coniferous Forest

16 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Factor 6 Rating Criteria:

Those areas that had more than 100 acres of an under-represented ecosystem or landform were rated as “high” need. Those areas that had an under-represented ecosystem or landform less than 100 acres in size were rates as “medium” need. Those with neither an under-represented ecosystem nor landform were rated as “low” need. Factor 6 Results: Table 13: Factor 6 Wilderness Need Ratings for Coconino National Forest Wilderness Areas. Potential Wilderness Factor 6 Rating Strawberry Crater High Abineau High Whitehorse High Bismark High Railroad Draw Med Deadwood Draw High Walker Mountain High Cedar Bench Med Black Mountain High Cimmaron-boulder Med Hackberry High Tin Can Med Davey’s Med East Clear Creek Low Barbershop Med

Summary of Factors Based on the above Factors, each potential wilderness was given a rating for each factor (Table 14). Next, overall ratings were given to each potential wilderness based an average of the individual factors contributing to need. These ratings translate into the following qualitative values:

 High: The area contributes considerably to recreational and ecological needs for wilderness.  Medium: The area contributes moderately to a recreational or an ecological need for wilderness.  Low: The area would not add desirable visitor opportunities or contribute to ecological diversity.

17 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

Table 14: Summary of Need Ratings for Each Potential Wilderness Potential Wilderness FACTOR Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strawberry Crater High High Low (Low) High High High PW-03-04-001 Abineau High High Low (Low) High High High PW-03-04-002 Whitehorse High High Low (Low) High High High PW-03-04-003 Bismark High High Low (Med) High High High PW-03-04-004 Railroad Draw High High Low (Low) High Med Med PW-03-04-006 Deadwood Draw Low High Low (Med) High High High PW-03-04-018 Walker Mountain Low High Low (Med) High High High PW-03-04-019 Cedar Bench Low High Low (Low) High Med Med PW-03-04-022 Black Mountain Low High Low (Med) High High High PW-03-04-023 Cimmaron-boulder Low High Low (Med) High Med Med PW-03-04-025 Hackberry Low High Low (Med) High High High PW-03-04-026 Tin Can Low High Low (Med) High Med Med PW-03-04-027 Davey’s Low High Low (Med) High Med Med PW-03-04-028 East Clear Creek Med High Low (Med) High Low Med PW-03-04-036 Barbershop Med High Low (Med) High Med Med PW-03-04-037 Items in parentheses are preliminary until Factor 2 Item 2 can be completed.

18 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011 2/11/11

References:

Bowker J. Michael; Murphy, D.; Cordell, H. Ken; English, Donald B.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Starbuck, C.M.; Betz, C.J.; Green, G.T. 2006. Wilderness and Primitive Area Recreation Participation and Consumption: An Examination of Demographic and Spatial Factors. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 38(2):317-326.

Cole, David N. 1995. Trends in Wilderness Visitors and Visits. Research Paper INT-RP-483. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1996. “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025”, US Census Bureau Population Division.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. American FactFinder.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Interim State Population Projections, 2005. US Census Bureau, Population Division.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates: Phoenix- Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area. US Census Bureau, Population Division.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. “R3 Wilderness Needs Evaluation.” Southwestern Region Wilderness Evaluation Working Group.

USDA, Forest Service. 2007b. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program – National Project Results – 2001 through 2003.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. (Coconino NF 2010) “Coconino National Forest Analysis of the Management Situation.”

19 Coconino NF Wilderness Needs Assessment - DRAFT 2/17/2011