Walnut Canyon Special Study

Under Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11)

Prepared By:

Department of the Interior, National Park Service Flagstaff Area National Monuments and Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service Coconino National Forest Under Interagency Agreement (10-1A-11030411-014) and City of Flagstaff and Coconino County, Arizona

Final: January 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Forest Service / Coconino National economic values; and (3) natural and cultural Forest; National Park Service / Walnut resources. The study also summarizes public Canyon National Monument (monument); participation and the input received during City of Flagstaff, Arizona; and Coconino the study process. County, Arizona, cooperated in preparation of this congressionally mandated study to A number of management options and explore management options for the Walnut designations were explored through public Canyon Special Study Area (Study Area). The involvement and an agency workshop. A total Study Area encompasses 27,914 acres of of seven options were initially developed. federal (25,413 acres), state (2,036 acres), and Four of those options subsequently were private (465 acres) land surrounding Walnut dismissed as nonviable. Three management Canyon National Monument. The federal options were considered viable, including: lands in the Study Area are presently managed by the U.S. Forest Service as part of . continuation of current management Coconino National Forest (figures 1 and 2). by the U.S. Forest Service . congressional action establishing a The Omnibus Public Land Management Act special designation to the Study Area of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) directs the . congressional action that prohibits “Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the exchange of federal lands to other Agriculture, acting jointly, to conduct a study than federal land management of the Study Area to assess: agencies

. the suitability and feasibility of designating all or part of the Study As specified by the act, the National Park Area as an addition to Walnut Service conducted an independent national Canyon National Monument in significance assessment of cultural resources accordance with section 8(c) of in the Study Area to determine the suitability Public Law 91-383 (16 United States and feasibility of designating all or part of the Code [USC] 1a-5[c]) Study Area as an addition to Walnut Canyon National Monument. The assessment . continued management of the Study concluded that, while important cultural Area by the U.S. Forest Service, resources exist outside the current Coconino National Forest monument boundary, they do not meet the . any other designation or management level of national significance under the option that would provide both national historic landmark guidelines (see protection of resources within the appendix C). The assessment identified Study Area and continued access to cultural resources contiguous to the current and use of the Study Area by the monument boundary that, while not public” nationally significant separately or collectively, would contribute to the The ensuing study examines: (1) current uses interpretive value of Walnut Canyon and federal management actions; (2) a range National Monument. of alternative management and designation options, including evaluation of potential According to NPS Management Policies 2006, tradeoffs on Study Area resources, boundary adjustments may be necessary or recreational opportunities, and social and desirable to carry out the purposes of the

i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY national park system unit. Boundary and surrounding areas and is documented in adjustments may be recommended if they the preparation of environmental fulfill one or more of three criteria. The assessments or impact statements as outlined criteria address significant resources or in the National Environmental Policy Act opportunities for public enjoyment related to (NEPA) guideline (NPS-12). An estimate of purposes of the monument that are currently acquisition costs, basis for the estimate, and a outside the monument boundaries, statement on relative priorities within the operational and management issues such as park is also required. Preparing a NEPA access and boundary identification by document and cost estimate is outside the topographic or other natural features or scope of this Special Study process. roads, and if the expansion is necessary to protect monument resources essential to This final report contains no fulfilling the monument’s purposes. The recommendations from the U.S. Forest boundary expansion criteria are consistent Service and National Park Service with with management direction for boundary respect to a preferred management option for expansion set forth in the Walnut Canyon the entire Study Area. Rather, the final report National Monument General Management will be forwarded to the secretaries of the Plan. Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior. The secretaries may forward A proposed boundary expansion requires an the report’s findings and any departmental assessment of impacts on local communities recommendations to Congress.

Walnut Canyon

ii

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

INTRODUCTION 1 Study Overview 1 Public Law 111-11 (2009): Title VII (NPS Authorizations); Subtitle C (Special Resource Studies); Section 7201 (Walnut Canyon Study) 3 Special Study Objectives 3 Report Transmittal to Secretaries 3

STUDY AREA, PROCESS, AND RELATED PLANS 5 Coconino County 5 Study Area 5 Special Study Process and Planning Team 9 Public Involvement 9 Resource Protection 10 Uses and Access 10 Other 10 Tribal Consultation 10 Related Plans and Studies 11

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 17 Management Options Development Process 17 Management Options not Carried Forward in this Study 18 Transfer of Entire Study Area to the National Park System 18 Transfer Management Responsibility of a Selected Portion of the Study Area to Walnut Canyon National Monument 18 A Recommendation for Congressional Designation as Wilderness 20 Joint Agency Management 20 Management Options Considered Further 20 Option 1: Continued Management by U.S. Forest Service 21 Option 2: Congressional Special Management Designation 28 Option 3: Congressional Restriction on Exchange of Federal Lands 30 Nonfederal Lands in the Study Area 31 Arizona State Trust Lands 31 Options for Private Inholdings 32

CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES 35 General 35

iii CONTENTS

Cultural Resources 36 Archeological Resources 36 Ethnographic Resources 37 Natural Resources 37 Wildlife, Ecosystem, and Wildlife Habitats 37 Potential Important Ecological Sites 39 Invasive Species 40 Old-growth Ponderosa Pine Forest Stands 42 Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern 42 Watershed and Water Resources 47 Wildfire 51

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ASSESSMENT 55 Effects to Natural and Cultural Resources 55 Option 1: Continued Management by U.S. Forest Service 55 Option 2: Congressional Special Management Designation 57 Option 3: Congressional Restriction on Land Disposal or Exchanges 57 Summary/Comparison Table and Suggestions 58

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION 61 Tribal Consultation 62 Agency Involvement 62

SELECTED REFERENCES 65 Laws and Regulations 71

PLANNING TEAM 73

TABLES

Table 1. Walnut Canyon National Monument Nonnative and Invasive Plant Species 41 Table 2. Summary/Comparison Table 59

FIGURES

Figure 1. Location Map for Special Study Area 2 Figure 2. Land Ownership and Special Study Area Boundaries 6 Figure 3. Existing Infrastructure 8 Figure 4. Walnut Canyon Study Area ‒ Recreation Management 24 Figure 5. Grazing Allotments 25 Figure 6. Current Management Area 37 27 Figure 7. Sensitive Species 44 Figure 8. Fire Fuels Activities 53

iv Contents

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A: Pertinent Sections of Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11) APPENDIX B: Acronyms and Abbreviations APPENDIX C: Conclusions from an Assessment of the National Significance of Cultural Resources for the Walnut Canyon Special Resource Study, Ted Neff et al. APPENDIX D: Walnut Canyon National Monument Special Study Comments through August 2010 APPENDIX E: Walnut Canyon National Monument Special Study Comments May 2011 through July 2011 APPENDIX F: Walnut Canyon Special Study Draft Report Comments May 10 through July 10, 2013 APPENDIX G: Tribal Consultation

v CONTENTS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

vi

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National In 2002, responding to continued public Park Service (NPS), together with Coconino interest to further protect the monument and County and the City of Flagstaff, completed recommendations outlined in the Coconino this congressionally mandated special study County / Flagstaff Regional Land Use and to explore management options for the Transportation Plan (2001), the Coconino Walnut Canyon National Monument County Board of Supervisors and Flagstaff (monument) special Study Area (figure 1). City Council initiated a forum to fully engage This special study examines: (1) current land the public in discussions regarding the use and management actions and direction; monument’s long-term protection. The year- (2) a range of alternative management and long process included three public open designation options; (3) natural and cultural house events, a poll taken at one of these resources; (4) analysis of management events, distribution of an educational options and tradeoffs for resources, brochure, and a phone survey that was recreational opportunities, social values, and conducted by Northern Arizona University. local economic resources; and (5) describes Results of the survey indicated public support the public input process. to enhance measures to conserve additional land of the Walnut Canyon area from future development. Public opinion was divided STUDY OVERVIEW regarding the preferred mechanism to achieve the conservation goal. In addition, In the late 1980s, the National Parks and the survey revealed some reservation as to Conservation Association and Friends of whether a monument boundary expansion Walnut Canyon (a local organization) began was desired. promoting increased protection of Walnut Canyon National Monument through Based on the above efforts and results, the congressional action. This initiative was to Coconino County Supervisors and Flagstaff extend increased protection for cultural and City Council independently passed other resources to a broader area resolutions on unanimous votes in late 2002, surrounding the existing monument requesting assistance from Congress to boundaries. The objective of that initiative authorize a special study of land surrounding was partially achieved through a 1996 the monument. In May 2004, U.S. Senator boundary expansion. Subsequent to that John McCain (Arizona) and Congressman expansion, the support groups favored Rick Renzi (Arizona) introduced federal further expansion of current monument legislation addressing and providing for a boundaries to the proposed Study Area study of the Walnut Canyon area, as boundaries. The Study Area boundaries were discussed in the public law section. The designed to extend protection to portions of defined purpose of the special study was to: the Walnut Creek watershed and include (1) evaluate the national significance of the important riparian, old growth, and natural and cultural resources of the Walnut endangered species habitats; protect the area Canyon area, (2) evaluate the general public’s from future commercial and residential desire for recreational access to and development; preserve the natural scenery; economic benefit from the area, and (3) to reduce or eliminate motorized access; and identify which features and resource values address fire management and forest require protection and preservation. restoration.

1 INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP FOR SPECIAL STUDY AREA

2 Report Transmittal to Secretaries

PUBLIC LAW 111-11 (2009): TITLE and use of the Study Area by the VII (NPS AUTHORIZATIONS); public. SUBTITLE C (SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDIES); SECTION 7201 (WALNUT In order to accomplish the objectives, the study process includes the following tasks: CANYON STUDY)

. On March 30, 2009, President Obama signed An assessment of natural and cultural the Omnibus Public Land Management Act resources, current land use, and of 2009, which had been as passed by management actions and direction. Congress after consideration by several . Meaningful engagement with Congresses, including hearings and markups. stakeholders, including the City of The act includes section 7201 (see appendix Flagstaff and Coconino County A) directing the Secretary of Agriculture and governments, American Indian tribes, the Secretary of the Interior to jointly other local and state agencies, and the conduct a special study of management general public to determine their options for an area encompassing 27,914 desires and ideas for future acres of federal (25,413 acres), state (2,036 management. acres), and private (465 acres) land to the . Development and evaluation of the south and east of Flagstaff, Arizona (see full range of management alternatives figures 1 and 2) and within the Flagstaff and designation options. Ranger District of Coconino National Forest . Analysis of the impacts, both adverse surrounding the existing monument. and beneficial, to natural and cultural resources, recreational opportunities, the local economy, and the social SPECIAL STUDY OBJECTIVES values of any change in management or agency authority. The objectives for this study regarding future . Provide the results and findings in management of the Walnut Canyon Study this special study report. Area is to assess potential land management designations described in the act, including: REPORT TRANSMITTAL . Suitability and feasibility of TO SECRETARIES designating all or part of the Study Area as an addition to Walnut This final report contains no Canyon National Monument in recommendations from the U.S. Forest accordance with section 8(c) of Service and National Park Service with Public Law 91-383 (16 United States respect to a preferred management option for Code [USC] 1a-5[c]). the entire special Study Area. Rather, the final . Continued management of the Study report will be forwarded to the secretaries of Area by the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture and Coconino National Forest. Department of the Interior. The secretaries . Another designation or management may forward the report’s findings and any option that would provide both departmental recommendations to Congress. protection of resources within the Study Area and continued access to

3 INTRODUCTION

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

4

STUDY AREA, PROCESS, AND RELATED PLANS

COCONINO COUNTY the land area. Federal and state agencies manage the remaining land (U.S. Forest Coconino County is in north-central Arizona, Service [28%], Bureau of Land Management encompassing approximately 18,617 square [BLM] (5%], State Land Department [9%], miles (nearly 12 million acres). Elevations and the National Park Service [7%]) within the county range from 1,350 feet (Flagstaff Regional Plan 2011). above mean sea level (msl) at the bottom of the Grand Canyon to 12,633 feet msl on the The population distribution between urban volcanic San Francisco Peaks (Mount and rural areas in the county has not changed Humphreys). Forests and woodlands are significantly since the 1960s, although characterized by mixed conifers and substantial residential and commercial ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) that cover development has occurred in the southeast approximately 15% of the county in areas quadrant of the Flagstaff urban area, generally above 7,000 feet elevation; pinyon- including the area south and east of I-40/I-17, juniper woodlands have become established which borders the Study Area. county-wide on the approximately 40% occurring between 6,000 and 7,000 feet msl County-wide, American Indians comprised elevation. The remainder of Coconino 27.4% of the county population in 2010 and County, generally lying between 5,000 and 11.7% of Flagstaff’s resident population. The 6,000 feet msl, is characterized by xeric median age of residents was 25, with 6% of grasslands and shrubland vegetation types. the population over 65 years old (Flagstaff Landforms supporting regional plant Regional Plan 2011). communities include canyons, plateaus and mesas, cliffs, slopes, cinder cones, mountains, Planners in the region forecast net population valleys, floodplains, and relatively flat growth of 15% within the regional planning expanses. area in the coming decade; a rate that would result in a population of about 103,850 by The 2000 U.S. Census reported a resident 2020, with further growth to 116,600 foreseen population of 116,320 in Coconino County by 2030 (Flagstaff Regional Plan 2011). with the 2010 U.S. Census recording a population of 134,418; a 16% increase. Of the total resident population in 2010, about Study Area 88,400 residents (66% of the entire county population) live in the Flagstaff area, with The Study Area encompasses 27,914 acres much of the remaining population living in south and east of Flagstaff, Arizona. Land unincorporated rural areas. within the Study Area is administered primarily by the U.S. Forest Service in the Although Coconino County is the largest Coconino National Forest (91%), but the county in Arizona and the second-largest in overall Study Area boundary encompasses the United States in terms of land area, it is more than three sections of Arizona State also among the most sparsely populated. Land Department trust lands and some Only 13% of the county is privately owned. private land. The Study Area surrounds American Indian reservations (Navajo and Walnut Canyon National Monument (figure Hopi, including the Kaibab-Paiute, 2). Havasupai, and Hualapai) comprise 38% of

5 STUDY AREA, PROCESS, AND RELATED PLANS

FIGURE 2. LAND OWNERSHIP AND SPECIAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES

6 Coconino County

Walnut Canyon National Monument was AGFD personnel provide law enforcement established by President Woodrow Wilson relative to hunting activities under a legal through Presidential Proclamation No. 1318 mandate to manage all Arizona wildlife. The on November 30, 1915, to preserve the Study Area is within Game Management prehistoric ruins of ancient cliff dwellings. Units 11M and 5B, the latter being further The monument has since been enlarged on subdivided into Unit 5B-N and Unit 5B-S three occasions: (1) by Presidential (AGFD 2012a); however, the agency does not Proclamation No. 2300 in 1938, (2) by Public manage any land within the Study Area. The Land Order 1269 in 1965, and (3) in 1996 Arizona Game and Fish Department also when Congress expanded the boundaries of manages the Watchable Wildlife project, the monument by 1,292 acres through Public which strives to increase public awareness of, Law 104-333. The most recent expansion was and support for, wildlife through managed specifically intended to protect additional wildlife viewing-related recreational and natural and cultural resources contributing to educational opportunities, while not the monument’s purpose and significance. lessening existing hunting and fishing The monument presently comprises opportunities. The department wildlife approximately 3,600 acres (NPS 2007). biologists plan for habitat linkages to identify areas of concern for wildlife movement The Arizona State Land Department is the throughout the county. trustee for over 9 million acres of state trust land under the mission to manage trust land The following infrastructure occurs within to enhance value and optimize economic the Special Study Area (figure 3): return for 13 public beneficiaries. The Arizona State Land Department can sell or . City of Flagstaff water treatment lease land at auction. While public use of facilities including the treatment plant trust land is not prohibited, it is regulated to (22 acres), 5 miles of water line, four ensure compensation to the beneficiaries for or five wells, and access roads its use and protection. Within the Study Area, . Arizona Public Service electrical lines sections 20 (adjacent to) and 30, T21N R8E ‒ distribution lines near Lake Mary (within) the Study Area boundary have high Road (~6.5 miles, plus service to development potential due to the proximity private inholdings) to Flagstaff, accessibility, and proximity to ‒ 69kV line (Flagstaff to Winslow infrastructure (see figure 2). east-west ~6 miles)

‒ 230kV/69kV (north-south 1.5 There are existing cooperative agreements miles) between the Arizona State Land Department . CenturyLink Communications and other agencies including: (1) a multiagency agreement for wildfire ‒ local service lines (~4 miles near management, (2) an agreement with the Lake Mary Road) Coconino National Forest and Coconino ‒ east-west corridor (~6 miles) County Sheriff's Office for joint law . Coconino County water line service enforcement activity, and (3) a cooperative to Fort Tuthill program with Coconino National Forest for . UniSource Gas Lines (minor service educational activities on both forest and park lines to private lands) lands. . North Ranch homeowners access road (~0.2 miles) The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s . Campbell Mesa private road (~1.1 (AGFD) mission is to conserve, enhance, and miles) restore the diverse wildlife resources and . private water pipeline (~2.3 miles) habitats throughout the state using protection and management programs.

7 STUDY AREA, PROCESS, AND RELATED PLANS

FIGURE 3. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE Note: Graphic is based on currently available data, and may not illustrate the latest road closures and removed infrastructure.

8 Public Involvement

SPECIAL STUDY PROCESS . An Assessment of the National AND PLANNING TEAM Significance of Cultural Resources for the Walnut Canyon Special The U.S. Forest Service and the National Study. On-the-ground surveys were Park Service jointly initiated this study in conducted by the Museum of February 2010 to explore management Northern Arizona, of known and new options for the Study Area, per the Omnibus areas within the Study Area Public Land Management Act of 2009. The (conclusion in appendix B). City of Flagstaff and Coconino County . Development and Assessment of subsequently signed on as cooperating Management Options. Based on partners and have been participants data and public input, the study team throughout the process. A third-party developed management options that contractor coordinated the interagency would achieve desired goals and efforts for public involvement and took a lead resource conditions. Management role in preparing this special study report. options were then assessed for the meeting criteria and environmental Major steps of the study effort included: effects. . Draft Study Document. The study . Public Involvement and team prepared a draft study Consultations. The public, document describing the stakeholders, tribes, organizations, management options and potential and other agencies were engaged effects. A draft report was prepared throughout the study. A study for public review. website was established and meetings . Final Document. Following public were held in the Flagstaff vicinity. and government review, this final Meetings were held and public study document was prepared for comments solicited during three submittal to the two department phases of the project—at the secretaries. beginning, when draft options were developed, and when the draft report was released. All comments were PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT reviewed and considered throughout the process. During the final phase, The Omnibus Public Land Management Act comments received on the draft of 2009 directed the lead federal agencies to report were incorporated into the “meaningfully engage stakeholders, City of final report as appropriate to the Flagstaff and Coconino County governments, scope of this study. Summaries of American Indian tribes, other agencies, and public comments were made available the general public at local and national levels via the website at the conclusion of to determine their desires for future commenting periods, and are management of this area.” included in appendixes D, E, and F. . Data Collection and Analysis. The study team formulated and implemented Resource data were collected, a public involvement plan that included including natural and cultural compiling an initial project mailing list from resources, existing management and databases supplied by the National Park land use, recreational uses and trends, Service, U.S. Forest Service, the City of the surrounding social and economic Flagstaff, and Coconino County. Additional environment, and regional and state stakeholders were identified in response to plans and initiatives affecting the contact information provided in newsletters, Study Area. a project-specific website, press releases, and

9 STUDY AREA, PROCESS, AND RELATED PLANS open house events. (See “Management Tribal Consultation Options Assessment” for more details.) There are 13 tribes that claim cultural Public comments received during the first associations with lands within the phase of the project centered on the monument, including: following topics: Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Resource Protection Reservation Hopi Tribe of Arizona . natural resources including wildlife Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai and birds, scenic and natural Indian Reservation qualities, watershed and water Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the quality, forested canyon, old-growth Kaibab Indian Reservation pine, geology, and solitude Navajo Nation . historic, archeological, and American San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Indian resources Reservation . urban development resulting in San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe of Arizona encroachment to the monument Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation Uses and Access Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation . recreational opportunities including Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe hiking, biking, camping, climbing, Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation horseback riding, hunting, birding, cross-country skiing, and firewood Six groups, including Apaches, Hopis, gathering Navajos, Pais, Paiutes, and Zunis were . open space near Flagstaff and as a involved in an ethnographic study in 2004 by buffer around the monument Toupal and Stoffle. The Hopi, Navajo, and . educational and interpretative Zuni tribes conducted field research and opportunities identified ethnographic resources within the . free access monument.

. livelihood and economics ‒ grazing, The Study Area has not been surveyed for concessions, hunting, property values ethnographic resources and is outside the . off-road vehicles scope of this Special Study process. . existing trails Approximately 48% of the Study Area has . ‒ fire as a management tool for forest been surveyed for cultural resource sites, health including 775 acres surveyed by the Museum of Northern Arizona for this study. Museum research included a review of information Other including places of ethnographic significance (traditional cultural properties, traditional . preserve in perpetuity use areas, shrines, etc.) that have been . no development or land swap identified through previous fieldwork, . private inholdings and access roads to literature searches, and/or through them consultation with affiliated tribes. The . wildland fire – urban interface National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service

10 Related Plans and Studies

have been jointly communicating and A boundary expansion assessment consulting the 13 tribes that are traditionally initially determined that both natural associated with the Walnut Canyon area and cultural resources that contribute to throughout this project. the purpose and significance of the monument still remain outside current monument boundaries. However, RELATED PLANS AND STUDIES further expansion of the existing boundaries at Walnut Canyon was not The National Park Service, City of Flagstaff, recommended at the time because of Coconino County, and Coconino National current planning efforts and proposed Forest have completed various planning actions by adjoining and neighboring efforts over the past 15 years addressing land managing agencies. Specific aspects of land use, development and planning efforts that were taken into management, and resident population on consideration in this assessment lands near and in the Study Area. A summary included the following: of these plans follow. . The Coconino National Forest Walnut Canyon National Monument Flagstaff / Lake Mary Ecosystem General Management Plan (2007). The Analysis (USFS 2003), which Walnut Canyon National Monument General addresses public uses and recreation, Management Plan (GMP), finalized in 2007, wildlife habitat management, and fire provides management guidance for the risk reduction on national forest land monument for the next 10 to 15 years. The immediately surrounding the plan stresses preservation of untrailed monument and along the wildland expanses, unfragmented natural systems, and urban interface. relatively pristine conditions throughout . The City of Flagstaff Open Space and much of the monument. Visitation is to be Greenway Plan (1998), which serves managed with the goal of providing quality as a guide for the future protection of educational opportunities in an intimate open spaces and greenways atmosphere while striving to maintain the surrounding Flagstaff and adjacent health of the canyon ecosystem and Walnut communities, including lands Canyon as a critical wildlife corridor. administered by the U.S. Forest Visitation to the monument is to remain day Service and the National Park use only, with no recreational use except on Service, while also considering the designated trails near the visitor center in demands for growth in residential, order to protect cultural and natural commercial, and recreational uses. resources. Efforts will be pursued to provide . The City of Flagstaff and Coconino a broader range of educational offerings and County’s joint Flagstaff Area Regional to open additional archeological sites to Land Use and Transportation Plan general visitor use. The general management (2001) that applies to 460 square plan also addresses boundary expansion, miles surrounding Flagstaff and stating: addresses population growth issues adjacent to the park on the west side. During the course of this planning . Coconino County’s Comprehensive process and as specified in Section 604 of Plan (2003), which addresses ways to the National Parks and Recreation Act of protect natural landscapes 1978 (16 United States Code [USC] 1a-5 throughout the county from the et seq.) an assessment for expanding the adverse effects of unmanaged boundaries of the monument was development. conducted. . The City of Flagstaff and Coconino Country filed an application (35-

11 STUDY AREA, PROCESS, AND RELATED PLANS

107300) to have Arizona State Trust the forest in a way that maximizes long-term land sections 22, 28, and 30 included net public benefits in an environmentally under the Arizona Preserve Initiative. sound manner. A plan revision is underway, It was felt that residential or with completion expected in 2013. commercial development could result in an adverse impact on park The current forest plan was adopted in 1987, resources and negatively influence but has undergone several updates and the health of the Walnut Canyon amendments. The latter includes ecosystem. The application was later Amendment 17, adopted in 2002, a major withdrawn and these efforts were not revision to address the Flagstaff / Lake Mary continued. Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA), which includes the Study Area. The amendment provided: With these planning efforts and existing commitments by city, county, and federal . closing drainages to motorized agencies to work with the National Park vehicles Service to manage lands adjacent to the . promoting recreation opportunities monument in a compatible manner, further for the community emphasizing expansion was deemed unnecessary in 2007. daytime uses, primarily The general management plan identifies nonmotorized circumstances that would compel a . managing a portion of the area for a reevaluation of the need for a boundary quiet, almost primitive recreation expansion. The circumstances include: experience . balancing recreational demands with . Changes in land use management by protection of soil, water, vegetation, Coconino National Forest affecting and sensitive species the use of land along the interface of . protecting monument values U.S. Forest Service land with the City . maintaining scenic quality of Flagstaff. . maintaining the wildfire-urban . A softening in the City of Flagstaff’s interface commitment to limit development . maintaining and improving condition within the existing urban growth and watershed function boundary and to effectively manage . maintaining sensitive species habitat the density of development along that boundary. The FLEA amendment also provides that . A change in land use or the sale or “…no land exchanges will occur unless the exchange of state trust lands that purpose is to acquire land within this could result in the potential Management Area (MA 37) through residential or commercial exchange of national forest lands elsewhere.” development of these adjacent lands. Any subsequent amendment of the FLEA outside of a forest plan revision would Coconino National Forest Management require a separate public process under the Plan, as Amended (1987‒2008) Revision. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, The Coconino National Forest Land and as amended (NEPA), with the forest Resource Management Plan defines supervisor being the decision maker of management direction for the forest. The record. plan was prepared pursuant to the Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RRPA), as It is anticipated that the provisions and amended by the National Forest language in the FLEA amendment will be Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), and incorporated into the ongoing forest plan provides integrated multiple use and revision. The existing MA 37 boundaries are sustained yield of goods and services from depicted in figure 6. The revised forest plan is

12 Related Plans and Studies

expected to adjust the MA 37 boundary to policies included measures to protect natural include a small portion of the Study Area to and cultural resources around the monument the east of the entrance road and north of the outlining efforts to formalize various land use monument. and management commitments by federal, state, and local government agencies. The city Coconino County Comprehensive Plan and county are currently developing a revised (2003). The Coconino County Compre- Flagstaff Regional Plan. hensive Plan (2003) provides a vision and guidelines for development and land use in Flagstaff Urban Trails System Plan and the county, while providing county officials Flagstaff Loop Trail. The Flagstaff Urban with guidance for making decisions about Trails System (FUTS) is a citywide network zone changes and developments. The plan of nonmotorized, shared-use pathways used also sets policies for actions related to capital by bicyclists, walkers, hikers, and runners, improvements, road construction and both for recreation and transportation maintenance, environmental protection, land purposes. The overall master plan presently use, and energy use in buildings. The includes 130 miles of trails; just over 50 miles comprehensive plan applies to all areas of the presently exist. The overall FUTS system plan county except American Indian reservations will connect neighborhoods, shopping, and incorporated cities and towns. Although places of employment, schools, parks, open the county has no jurisdiction over public space, and the surrounding national forest, lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, and allow users to combine transportation, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land recreation, and contact with nature. Management, many policies support the According to the City of Flagstaff Citizen collaborative efforts necessary to protect the Survey 2009, 78% of Flagstaff residents had integrity of these lands. The Coconino used the urban trails system in the preceding County vision extends to the next two year. A more recent survey reported that decades while the goals and policies are more than 75% of urban trails users used the intended to serve for 10 years. trails at least once per week.

Flagstaff Area Regional Land Use and The goal of the Flagstaff Loop Trail would be Transportation Plan (2002). The Flagstaff to complement the urban trails system by Area Regional Land Use and Transportation providing a multiuse, nonmotorized Plan (Flagstaff Regional Plan) was adopted by recreational experience near the urban fringe. the Flagstaff City Council and the Coconino The vision is for a 42-mile-long route that County Board of Supervisors in 2001 and would circumnavigate Flagstaff, with linking approved by Flagstaff voters in May 2002. trails acting as spokes into the city. Future The plan provides guidance for local land use trails could also link to the communities and transportation over the next 30 years. In outside the city limits and to the network of 2010, the planning region had approximately USFS trails. The Flagstaff Loop Trail will use 88,000 residents, with forecasts of an a variety of USFS trails, abandoned roads, the additional 38,000 residents and 9,000 Flagstaff Urban Trail System, state land additional dwelling units by 2030. The department trail easements, and the Arizona Flagstaff Regional Plan applies to the city and Trail. about 460 square miles of area surrounding the city, comprising the Flagstaff Regional An Assessment of the National Planning Area. Like the Coconino County Significance of Cultural Resources for the Comprehensive Plan, the Flagstaff Regional Walnut Canyon Study Area (2011). Plan seeks to promote compact growth and Congress specifically included the suitability limit urban sprawl and contains goals and and feasibility of designating all or part of the policies to guide growth, density, infrastruc- Study Area as an addition to Walnut Canyon ture, and open space protection. The plan National Monument as an option.

13 STUDY AREA, PROCESS, AND RELATED PLANS

Consequently, the National Park Service purposes of the monument and the addition must provide decision makers and legislators of which would be eligible in order to with information regarding whether lands contribute to the purposes of this national within the Study Area satisfy NPS criteria for park system unit. The assessment concluded national significance. A new national that, while important resources exist outside monument area or additions to existing the current monument boundary, they do not national park system units must meet criteria rise to the level of national significance by for national significance, suitability, and meeting all four criteria listed above. feasibility. The National Park Service is responsible for screening proposals for new The assessment report also states that none national park system units or adding land to of the revisited/recorded sites are existing units to assure that only the most experiencing detrimental impacts. Per the outstanding resources are added to the report, all documented sites above the rim of national park system. Walnut Canyon are in good condition and show little evidence of disturbance other Units of the national park system are than the nonspecific impacts of natural managed under mandates that are fundamen- erosion processes. tally different from those guiding many other federal land management agencies. Rather Wildlife Linkages – Arizona Game and than managing resources for multiple use or Fish. In 2009 and 2010, stakeholders commodity production as are many federal representing a broad range of organizations lands, the National Park Service is responsi- and interests participated in workshops to ble for managing areas to provide for public identify and map the sites of important enjoyment in such a way that leaves resources wildlife linkages across Coconino County. “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future Participants included biologists, land generations.” To be eligible for favorable managers, planners, and other professionals consideration as a unit of the national park from federal, state, tribal, private, and system, an area must possess nationally nongovernmental organizations. The significant natural, cultural, and or recrea- workshops were supported by a partnership tional resources. A proposed unit will be between the Arizona Game and Fish considered nationally significant if all of the Department, Coconino County, and the following four standards are met: Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup known as the Coconino County Wildlife 1. It is an outstanding example of a Connectivity Assessment. The goal of this particular type of resource. partnership is to encourage biologists and 2. It possesses exceptional value or nonbiologists alike to incorporate quality illustrating or interpreting the information about wildlife linkages and natural or cultural themes of our strategies for their conservation into land use nation’s heritage. decisions. The workshops provided a forum in which stakeholders shared and discussed 3. It offers superlative opportunities for their knowledge, outlined the general recreation for public use and locations of wildlife linkages on large maps, enjoyment or for scientific study. and provided descriptive information about 4. It retains a high degree of integrity as each linkage on datasheets. According to the a true, accurate, and relatively Coconino County Wildlife Connectivity unspoiled example of the resource. Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input March 2011, a large portion of the Study Area In 2011, the National Park Service completed has important linkage for mountain lion, elk, an assessment to determine whether cultural mule deer, black bear, northern goshawk, resources existed outside the current Mexican spotted owl, neotropical migratory monument that are directly related to the birds, turkey, northern leopard frog, bats,

14 Related Plans and Studies

bald eagle, peregrine falcon, tarantula, gray can interfere with wildlife movements fox, raccoon, coyote, small mammals, cull (www.azgfd.gov). This involvement does not snakes, pronghorn, and white-tailed deer. represent the interests of Arizona State Land Participants also identified the locations of Department. barriers such as highways and railroads that

15 STUDY AREA, PROCESS, AND RELATED PLANS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

16

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS education and interpretation, DEVELOPMENT PROCESS research, etc.])? . Allow for continued public access The Omnibus Public Land Management Act (all, limited, type, etc.) and in what of 2009 directs the agencies to look at options format (fee-based, free, etc.)? that: (1) protect resources within the Study . Could the management option be Area, and (2) provide for continued public extended to encompass other areas, access to and use of the Study Area. e.g., Arizona State Land Department Representatives of the four partner agencies or private lands if such lands were for the special study and the Arizona State acquired by the federal government Land Trust participated in a two-day in the future? workshop to develop preliminary management options in March 2011. The outcomes of the workshop were distilled into seven options The workshop objectives were to: 1. continuation of current management . establish common understanding of by the U.S. Forest Service existing resources, uses, and 2. congressional action establishing a management of the Study Area special designation to the Study Area . review all public and stakeholder 3. congressional action that prohibits comments received to date the exchange of federal lands to other . define management options for the than federal land management Study Area based on this agencies understanding, public input, 4. transfer of the Study Area as a new preliminary research on land unit in the national park system designation options, and discussion 5. transfer management responsibility of between the agencies a selected portion of the Study Area . discuss the merits and tradeoffs of to Walnut Canyon National each of the preliminary management Monument, with continuation of options current management of the remaining areas by the U.S. Forest Service Following development of an initial series of 6. a recommendation for congressional management options, individual options designation of the Study Area as were discussed based on the following issues wilderness developed from public interest and input: 7. joint agency management Does the management option: The first three of these were carried forward . Fall within the range of options listed for further assessment and include continued in the act? management by the U.S. Forest Service. The latter four options were considered but not . Preserve the area from development carried forward. The basis for the decisions in perpetuity (all or part)? are summarized in the following section. . Protect resources (all, which ones)?

. Allow for continued public uses (all,

which ones [recreation, commercial,

17 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS NOT In 2011, the National Park Service contracted CARRIED FORWARD IN THIS STUDY to the Museum of Northern Arizona to conduct a literature search and an Transfer of Entire Study Area archeological assessment of the cultural to the National Park System resources in the Study Area, outside the existing monument boundaries. The Congress specifically defined designation of assessment concluded that even though all or part of the Study Area as an addition to critical and significant cultural resources exist Walnut Canyon National Monument as a within the Study Area, they did not rise to the management option. The National Park level of nationally significance by meeting the Service is responsible for screening proposals four criteria listed directly above. Conse- for new national park system units or adding quently, the Study Area as a whole does not land to existing units to assure that only meet the criteria for inclusion in the national nationally significant resources are added to park system (Neff et al. 2011). the national park system. As also noted, the national park system and individual park units are managed under mandates that Transfer Management Responsibility fundamentally differ from those guiding of a Selected Portion of the Study many other federal land management Area to Walnut Canyon National agencies. The National Park Service is Monument responsible for managing areas to provide for public enjoyment in such a way that leaves As noted above, the National Park Service resources “unimpaired for the enjoyment of conducted an archeological survey and an future generations.” Authority to modify park assessment of the national significance of the unit boundaries is included within the Land cultural resources in the Study Area. The and Water Conservation Fund Act assessment identified cultural resources amendments of June 10, 1977 (Public Law 95- contiguous to the current monument 42). boundary that, while not nationally

significant separately or collectively, would As discussed previously, an area must possess contribute to the interpretive value of Walnut nationally significant natural, cultural, or Canyon National Monument. recreational resources to be eligible for favorable consideration as a unit of the According to NPS Management Policies 2006, national park system. National significance boundary adjustments may be necessary or requires that the proposed unit or area meet desirable to carry out the purposes of the all four of the following standards are met: national park system unit. Boundary

adjustments may be recommended if they 1. It is an outstanding example of a fulfill one or more of the following three particular type of resource. criteria: 2. It possesses exceptional value or quality illustrating or interpreting the 1. Significant resources or opportunities natural or cultural themes of our for public enjoyment related to nation’s heritage. purposes of the monument. This 3. It offers superlative opportunities for criteria addresses areas or resources recreation, for public use and that are “integral” to the existing park enjoyment, or for scientific study. unit and are needed to fully carry out the purposes of the monument as 4. It retains a high degree of integrity as established by Congress. It focuses on a true, accurate, and relatively resources that were omitted from the unspoiled example of the resource.

18 Management Options not Carried Forward in this Study

original monument boundary, educational interest and to properly care for inadvertently or intentionally. and manage the cultural and natural resources of historic, social, and scientific 2. Address operational and management interest within Walnut Canyon National issues such as access and boundary Monument. identification by topographic or other natural features or roads. This The first three criteria focus on the quality criterion addresses lands needed for and character of the resources within or operational purposes and the adjacent to the current monument boundary. advantages of having park boundaries Boundary adjustments may be appropriate correspond to natural and human- for any one of these conditions; all three do made features that are readily not have to be satisfied. However, both of the identifiable in the field. Many park next two criteria would have to be satisfied boundaries are drawn along section before the National Park Service would lines or property ownerships that do recommend a boundary adjustment. not correspond to rivers, watersheds, ridges, roads, canyon rims, and other 1. The added lands will be feasible to similar features that can facilitate administer considering size, cost-effective administration of the configuration, ownerships, costs, and monument for both law enforcement other factors. This criterion requires and resource management an assessment of the practical ability responsibilities. of the National Park Service to manage and operate the revised 3. To protect monument resources monument boundary. essential to fulfilling the monument’s purposes. This criterion concerns 2. Other alternatives for management adjustments to prevent harm caused and resource protection are not by activities on adjacent lands where adequate. This criterion recognizes these activities pose a direct and the roles of other federal, state, and substantial threat to the continued local agencies and private sector existence of the monument’s primary partners in the protection of resources and values. This criterion monument resources. Boundary addresses boundary changes that are expansions justifiable under any of essentially to protect resources within the previous criteria would not be the monument. “Critical to fulfilling recommended if alternatives are the park’s purpose” should be adequate to protect resources and interpreted to focus on the resources make them available for public that were the reason for the park enjoyment consistent with NPS being established. For purposes of standards. this criterion, monument purposes should be defined by the specific A proposed boundary expansion requires an resources referenced in the assessment of impacts on local communities authorizing legislation, subsequent and surrounding areas and is accomplished amendments, and related planning within the NPS planning process. The documents interpreting park unit process and findings are documented in the purposes. preparation of environmental assessments or impact statements as outlined in NEPA The purpose for Walnut Canyon National guideline—NPS-12. An estimate of Monument is to protect ancient cliff acquisition costs, basis for the estimate, and a dwellings and associated resources that are of statement on relative priorities within the great ethnographic, scientific, and monument is also required. Preparing a

19 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

NEPA document and cost estimate is outside wilderness in other federal the scope of this Special Study process. ownership, regardless of size.

Additional information on the process can be A Recommendation for found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ Congressional Designation coconino/landmanagement/planning/?cid=st as Wilderness elprdb5335067.

With passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 USC 1131 et seq.), Congress declared it to Joint Agency Management be national policy to secure for present and future generations the benefits of enduring A joint management structure involving the wilderness resources. The purpose of two federal agencies, and possibly the City of wilderness designation, which is Flagstaff and Coconino County, had been accomplished solely by congressional action, suggested by the public and was discussed at is to preserve and protect wilderness the management options workshop in 2011 characteristics and values over the long term, and subsequently dismissed by consensus while providing opportunities for solitude or among the four partner agencies. The federal primitive and unconfined recreation. agencies, the city, and county currently cooperate on many planning and The U.S. Forest Service completed an management concerns. Formalizing this inventory of potential wilderness areas for management structure for the Study Area Coconino National Forest in 2009. The Study through congressional concurrence and the Area was not carried forward for wilderness subsequent administrative requirements for evaluation because it does not meet the compliance with the Federal Advisory criteria for inventory in U.S. Forest Service Committee Act, creating yet another layer of Handbook 1909.12, chapter 71.1. The bureaucracy, was the major drawback for this handbook states that areas considered for option. Concerns were voiced by all of the potential wilderness must meet the following partner agencies that joint management criteria: would require increased commitment of staff and other resources at a time when resources . areas that do not contain forest roads, are stretched thin. In addition, joint or other permanently authorized management would require implementation roads of special management procedures by the Coconino National Forest since U.S. Forest . areas that are at least 5,000 acres in Service personnel are generally not currently size or less than 5,000 acres but meet assigned to a specific management area. one or more of the following criteria:

‒ area can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural MANAGEMENT OPTIONS conditions CONSIDERED FURTHER ‒ area is a self-contained ecosystem, such as an island, that Under the three management options carried can be effectively managed as a forward for further assessment, the U.S. separate unit of the National Forest Service retains management of the Wilderness Preservation System lands and current uses are relatively stable. ‒ area is contiguous to an existing Special designation could result in more wilderness, primitive area, visitation or use restrictions depending on administration-endorsed the type of designation and legislation. wilderness, or other potential

20 Management Options Considered Further

During the management option workshop, and sleigh riding (in the winter), and rock the boundaries of the Study Area were climbing. There are also special events in the discussed. It was determined by the team that Study Area, which include Boy Scout altering or adjusting the Study Area jamborees, a benefit walk hosted by a local boundaries was outside the scope of this elementary parent-teacher organization, and special study. Therefore, all management a bike race sponsored by the Flagstaff options include the Study Area in its entirety. Athletic Club. Other special events may be It is acknowledged that Congress could alter permitted by request. the Study Area boundaries if a new management option is authorized. Fisher Point is a popular destination for hikers, mountain bikers, and outfitter/guided horseback riding trips. Canyon Vista is Option 1: Continued Management popular for climbing. North and west of by U.S. Forest Service Walnut Canyon, the area provides dispersed recreation opportunities and receives heavy The U.S. Forest Service currently manages use adjacent to private land and Lake Mary the majority of the federal land within the Road. The areas south and east of Walnut Study Area boundary. USFS management Canyon provide more remote dispersed balances resource protection with a multiple- recreation opportunities. use mission. Under the umbrella of the forest plan, the U.S. Forest Service plans and Recent management projects in the area implements a wide variety of site-specific include changing the management of travel activities and projects, including fire hazard access by motorized vehicles. A firearm reduction, forest health, grazing allotments, discharge order that closed areas to firearms firewood cutting, trail and recreational discharge for recreational shooting has facility development, materials quarries, expired, although signs in the area still reflect wildlife habitat management, riparian firearm restrictions. Hunting is allowed in restoration, invasive vegetation management, designated areas and managed in consulta- and off-road recreation management. tion with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Recreational Use, Access, Use Fees, and Aesthetic Qualities. Forest resources include ponderosa pine, pinyon pine, and Utah juniper, which attract Recreational Uses— Traditional and current woodcutters seeking firewood. Wildlife forest uses by residents and visitors to the resources in the area include pronghorn, elk, Flagstaff area include horseback riding, deer, black bear, mountain lion, turkey, and recreational vehicle uses, hiking, camping, waterfowl, exemplifying the diverse habitat rock climbing, hunting, birding, woodcutting, so close to city development and attracting shooting, and mountain biking. Recreational hunters and wildlife viewers. facilities include the Canyon Vista Campground (concessioner operated); the Woodcutting, shooting/hunting, and off-road Arizona National Scenic Trail; several trails vehicle activities are evident throughout the connecting to the Flagstaff Urban Trail Study Area. Although the monument has a System; approximately 32 miles of USFS- fenced boundary, occasionally, these managed hiking, biking, and equestrian trails; incompatible activities occur on monument and an approximately 8-mile segment of the property (NPS 2007). future Flagstaff Loop Trail is planned within the Study Area. A section of the Arizona Trail Access and Roads— In 2005, the U.S. Forest passes by the northwest corner of the Service published a rule for providing motor monument (see figure 4). There are currently vehicle access to national forests and two special uses permits for horseback riding grasslands. The rule requires each national

21 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS forest and grassland to designate those roads, city of Flagstaff and a paved 3.0-mile entrance trails, and areas open to motorized use. The road (2.1 miles long before entering Coconino National Forest signed a Record of monument boundaries). The entrance road Decision on the travel management plan on was constructed in 1963 and was built September 28, 2011. The decision and final specifically to provide access from I-40 to the environmental impact statement are available monument. The entrance road provides the on the Coconino National Forest website: primary access to the north rim and to the (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coconino/lan residential area and maintenance complex. dmanagement/projects/?cid=stelprdb The road terminates at a loop parking lot 5263010). Implementation of these new rules immediately adjacent to the visitor center. went into effect on May 1, 2012, and, since Three small turnouts with picnic areas were that time the U.S. Forest Service has been constructed along the roadway; two are on closing many miles of informal and two-track the west side of the road and one is on the roads throughout the forest including some east side (NPS 2007). within the special Study Area. This plan does not preclude the U.S. Forest Service from Forest Road 128 is accessed via I-40 at the constructing temporary roads to address Townsend/Winona exit, approximately 6 resources and fuel issues, but these miles east of the Walnut Canyon exit. Forest temporary roads would not expand Road 128 accesses Anderson Mesa and transportation routes in the forest. Marshall Lake, terminating at Lake Mary at the intersection of Forest Highway 3 (Lake The Study Area has a system of roads and Mary Road) (USFS 2011a). trails maintained primarily by Coconino National Forest see (figure3 ).Walnut Canyon The National Park Service maintains the Monument Entrance Road (NF 622) is entrance road (NF 622); use of the entrance maintained by the National Park Service and road and Forest Road 303 is not restricted; owned by the U.S. Forest Service1; other however, the entrance to the monument is named roads north of the monument and gated just beyond the entrance station and south of I-40 include East Old Walnut locked at night. There are two official USFS Canyon Road, South Cosnino Road, South roads (303 and 622) to the west and north- Tall Tales Road, and East Wapia Trail. U.S. west of the monument boundary (USFS Forest Service road and trail segments within 2011a). the Study Area include: B 301, NF 128, NF 303, NF 790, NF 9121, NF 9125, NF 9129, NF Trails within the monument are minimal and 9135, NF 9160, NF 9169, NF 9170, NF 9172, include the 0.9-mile-long Island Trail, 0.7- NF 9475, NF 9481, NF 9482, NF 9483, NF mile-long Rim Trail (plus a short spur), and a 9484, and NF 9489. No paved roads or utility short trail to the picnic area (NPS 2007). The corridors occur except on the boundaries. Island Trail is paved and includes 240 steps to Road maps are available on the Coconino traverse the 185-feet elevation gain, which National Forest website. The travel map is allows interpretation and observation of expected to be revised in April 2013, and each Sinagua structures. A section of the Arizona year the U.S. Forest Service will revisit the Trail passes the northwest corner of the travel management plan. Walnut Canyon and monument and is used by local and regional its major side drainages are closed to visitors for recreational purposes. Because of motorized vehicles. this proximity, occasional inappropriate uses occur on monument property, including The principal access to the monument is via trespass, shooting, and hunting. I-40, approximately 5 miles southeast of the Public access via U.S. Forest Service roads on

1 the south rim of Walnut Canyon and the lack Final determination of the administrative jurisdiction of the of NPS presence make protection of entrance road is outside the scope of this study.

22 Management Options Carried Forward managed resources difficult. The extensive logged between 1880 and 1925 and a series of travel time (approximately one-hour via salvage cuts was conducted during the 1960s. Forest Road 128) to the south rim poses Terrain south of the canyon rim is much less difficulties in responding to emergencies in a accessible and was not extensively logged timely fashion. The inability to regulate the until the 1970s. use of Coconino National Forest roads adjacent to monument boundaries makes In addition to federal regulations and USFS protection of resources difficult and management policies, the primary manage- unauthorized access often occurs (NPS ment guidance is presented in the Coconino 2007). National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Under the umbrella of the General access and use of USFS lands within forest plan, the U.S. Forest Service plans and the Study Area is currently at no charge. Per implements a wide variety of site-specific the Recreation Enhancement Act, fees may activities and projects, including fire hazard be charged for developed sites (including reduction, forest health, grazing allotments, trailheads), however, there is currently no firewood cutting, trail and recreational authority to charge fees for general access to facility development, materials quarries, forest-managed lands. There are overnight wildlife habitat management, riparian camping fees for Canyon Vista Campground. restoration, invasive plant management, and There are day use fees for the monument for off-road recreation management. As federal users who do not have annual or lifetime agencies, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Parks Service or Federal National Park Service routinely communicate Recreational Lands pass. and participate in planning activities that mutually affect resources and agency Aesthetic Quality— The scenery is described missions. Forest resources include ponderosa by the U.S. Forest Service as spectacular. The pine, pinyon pine, and Utah juniper, which canyon itself supports a multitude of attract woodcutters seeking firewood. There vegetation types and habitats from steep are pronghorn, elk, mule deer, black bear, north-facing mixed conifer, to riparian mountain lion, and Merriam’s turkey that vegetation at the canyon bottom. Lands attract big-game hunters and wildlife viewers outside the canyon are populated by (NPS 2007). ponderosa pine with Gambel oak understory, and some pinyon and juniper. Developments There are portions of three grazing permit such as roads, trails, camping, day-use sites, allotments administered by Coconino and trailheads mimic local materials and National Forest and used by local ranchers in landscape characteristics to blend with the the Study Area (see figure 5). A number of adjacent natural-appearing landscape. Flagstaff, Coconino county, and private water wells and waterlines are in the Study Area, as Current Study Area Management and are numerous stock watering tanks with the Other Land Uses. The west and associated water rights claims pending northwestern portion of the Study Area is a adjudication. Other infrastructure within the checkerboard pattern of sections of Study Area includes the City of Flagstaff Coconino National Forest and Arizona State water treatment facilities, Arizona Public Trust Lands, while the southern boundary Service electrical lines, telecommunication adjacent lands are managed by Coconino lines, gas lines, home owner access and National Forest. The easily accessible forests private roads. adjacent the north canyon rim were heavily

23 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

FIGURE 4. WALNUT CANYON STUDY AREA ‒ RECREATION MANAGEMENT Note: Graphic is based on currently available data and may contain errors.

24 Management Options Carried Forward

FIGURE 5. GRAZING ALLOTMENTS

25 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Information from the U.S. Geological Survey forest and associated habitats in the Marshall (USGS) indicates that some lands in the project area. The ponderosa pine forests of Study Area have geological deposits for oil northern Arizona were primarily adapted to a and coal; however these resources are not to low intensity, high frequency fire regime that be of an industrial scale (Haines, USFS 2013). burned the forest floor every 2 to 12 years Geothermal resources have been identified and left most large trees alive. However, fire outside the Study Area near Sunset Crater, suppression during the last 125 years has and are currently being studied by the U.S. resulted in a lack of low intensity, high Geological Survey and private corporations frequency fires. Many stands are at high risk for potential geothermal development. for severe, stand-replacing wildfires that are Minerals, including cinder, pumice, gypsum, not natural to this ecosystem, have long term miscellaneous clays, sulfur, and uranium, are ecological impacts, and pose threats to reported in the Study Area. There are no human safety and property. This project is on active mineral rights in the Study Area hold pending the outcome of this study (Haines, USFS 2013), and it is unknown to (Haines, USFS 2013). what extent these minerals exist at commercially valuable levels in the Study Four national forests (Kaibab, Coconino, Area (NPS 2007). Apache-Sitgreaves and Tonto) are actively engaged in a collaborative, landscape-scale The northwestern boundary of the initiative designed to restore fire-adapted monument coincides with the incorporated ecosystems in the Southwestern Region. The boundary of Flagstaff and is currently within overall goal of the Four Forest Restoration 2 miles of the present limit of residential Initiative (4FRI) is to restore the structure, development on the edge of the city. In pattern and composition of fire-adapted addition, unincorporated neighborhoods are ecosystems to provide for fuels reduction, spreading outside the city limits to the north forest health, and wildlife and plant diversity and northwest of the monument. USFS and (USDA 2011a). NPS staff are cooperating in the long-range land use planning efforts of the City of In 2012, the City of Flagstaff purchased 480 Flagstaff and Coconino County. User acres near the water treatment plan in a state activities and resource protection needs land auction which it has wanted to protect occasionally involve U.S. Forest Service, from development for 30 years. Picture Arizona Department of Game and Fish, City Canyon holds ancient petroglyphs and lush of Flagstaff, Coconino County, and other vegetation that hosts wildlife. units of the national park system (NPS 2007). As the City of Flagstaff continues to grow The current Coconino National Forest additional residential and commercial Management Plan for Management Area 37 development would occur along the western (MA 37), which includes the Study Area, edge of the Study Area. Recreational use in states that no land exchanges will occur the area would also be expected to increase, unless the purpose is to acquire land within along with the potential for human-wildlife MA 37 through exchange of lands of national interactions, including with mountain lions. forest elsewhere (figure 6). Under this policy, the U.S. Forest Service could possibly trade The Coconino National Forest developed the lands elsewhere to acquire inholdings within Marshall fuels reduction and forest MA 37, but no USFS lands within the restoration treatments on approximately management area would be exchanged in 12,000 acres southeast of Flagstaff, roughly order to acquire lands or resource interest between Lake Mary Road and Walnut outside MA 37. This limitation on exchanges Canyon (USDA 2010). The Marshall project represents the strongest management policy is to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic that can be made at the individual forest level. wildfire and to improve the health of the

26 Management Options Considered Further

FIGURE 6. CURRENT MANAGEMENT AREA 37

27 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

Forest plans, significant amendments, and designation may proceed where the forest plan revisions are approved by the designation could only be removed by an regional forester. This policy language is official occupying the same position or higher expected to be carried forward in the forest as the one who designated it. plan revision currently being developed; with a draft to be available during the fall/winter of A regional forester special area designation 2012‒13. (For more information on the forest could heighten the current forest plan plan revision, see the Coconino National direction to the next level; however, the U.S. Forest website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/ Forest Service does not currently have plans detail/coconino/landmanagement/planning/ to manage this area as a designated special ?cid=stelprdb5334655). area.

Once a “no exchange” policy using lands in MA 37 has been adopted, a future change is Option 2: Congressional Special technically possible; however, in practical Management Designation terms, future changes are unlikely and could be implemented only through a management Congress can designate special management action subject to public involvement. Final areas within the national forest system and decisions regarding changes to the forest other public lands. Nearly 100 special plan, following public involvement, are under management areas have been established on the authority of the forest supervisor, while federal lands. The legislation establishing actual land exchanges can only be authorized each special management area is unique, but at a higher level by the regional forester. the designations generally are assigned to one Anything more restrictive with respect to of the following categories: national limitations on land exchanges or disposal monuments, game refuges, scenic areas, would require congressional action. recreation areas, and other protected areas.

Regional Forester Special Area Relationships between regional federal, state, Designation. Under 36 Code of Federal and local agencies are strong and cooperation Regulations (CFR) section 294 Special Areas, is excellent. Emergency responses in the the U.S. Forest Service can designate special Walnut Canyon area originate from the areas to recognize special values of certain various land management agencies and public areas and to tailor land uses to interpret, safety organizations. The National Park maintain, and enhance those special features. Service provides assistance with law Special areas can be designated for scenic, enforcement, search and rescue, emergency geologic, botanic, zoologic, paleontologic, medical assistance, and wildfire management archeologic/historic, or recreation values, or in the immediate area. Coconino County combinations of these values. deputizes NPS rangers and members of the NPS staff serve as crew on national forest Of the regional forester special area fire-fighting teams. Coconino County also designations, recreation area would be the provides law enforcement and search and most appropriate designation. rescue services. The U.S. Forest Service provides law enforcement relative to During review of existing special areas, a recreation, consumptive uses, grazing, and USFS responsible official may determine that wildfire suppression. Arizona Department of an area no longer fits the desired conditions Game and Fish provides law enforcement and/or designation applied to it. In this case, relative to hunting activities. The Arizona the designation should be removed. If the Department of Public Safety provides law area is within the designation authority of the enforcement (traffic) on primary roads and responsible official, then removal of the air support in search and rescue operations

28 Management Options Considered Further

(NPS 2007). The City of Flagstaff (Guardian Greenways Plan, which has been incorpor- Ambulance) provides medical emergency ated into the Flagstaff Regional Plan. Other responses (ground and air). Arizona State Land Department lands are less developable and thus would have lower There are several cooperative agreements value, raising the possibility for future with other agencies. There is a multiagency conservation through sale, exchange, or agreement for wildfire management. There is placement of a conservation easement or an agreement (updated in 2012) with the other mechanism. National Park Service, Coconino National Forest, and Coconino County Sheriff’s Office Legislation establishing special management for joint law enforcement activity. The areas asserts the importance of the area. National Park Service and Coconino While most acts creating special management National Forest have a cooperative program areas express similar purposes for designa- for educational activities on both forest and tion, there are subtle differences between park lands. There is also an annual contract specific designations. For example, between the National Park Service and the preservation of scenic and natural resources City of Flagstaff for structural fire is prioritized in the designation of scenic and suppression (NPS 2007). other protected areas. Recreation is protected, but not prioritized. On the other Permanent Protection. Nonfederal lands hand, legislation setting aside recreation areas adjacent to and within the Study Area are usually includes specific provisions to protect managed by the Arizona State Land appropriate recreational uses within the area Department and within the planning while also asserting resource protections. framework of the Flagstaff and Coconino Most of the focus in the legislation is to County. The City of Flagstaff has annexed all consolidate lands within the special lands adjacent to the northern and western management area. An area-specific land boundaries of the Study Area. Flagstaff is management plan may outline the rapidly expanding and residential circumstances for retention or exchange of development is also occurring on private land within or adjacent to the special lands to the northeast of the Study Area near management area. the communities of Cosnino and Winona. A National Conservation Area (NCA) is a The planning frame work recognizes the BLM designation for lands that feature potential for future residential and “exceptional scientific, cultural, ecological, commercial development in the southeast historical, and recreational values.” The first portion of urban area adjacent to the Study National Conservation Area was established Area, but discourages development across in California in 1970 (Kings Mountain NCA). most of the area. State land section 20 is Currently there are 16 National Conservation within a long-term planning reserve area Areas. Most are in the West (Alaska, defined in the Flagstaff Regional Plan and has California, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, high development potential such that it is New Mexico, and Idaho), including four generally anticipated that they will be established in 2009. developed within the next 10 to 30 years. Recognizing local interest in compact Legislation establishing a National Conserva- development, and also open space tion Area typically defines a site’s core values conservation and limiting impacts on public and general management guidelines. For lands, the state, county, and city hope to example, recent National Conservation Areas achieve internal buffering of lands adjacent to have been established to protect ”cultural, the national forest. State land section 30 was economic, ecological, and social health” of assigned first priority for retention as open the Steens Mountain area in Oregon and space in the Flagstaff Open Spaces and “protect, conserve, and enhance the unique

29 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS and nationally important historic, cultural, Conservation Areas, when such uses do not scientific, archeological, natural, and undermine the purposes for which the educational resources” of caves in Lincoln National Conservation Area was established. County, New Mexico. While all established National Conservation To protect against loss of land by exchange, Areas have been primarily on BLM-managed Congress frequently incorporates the lands, there are National Conservation Areas statement, “Subject to valid existing rights, all that contain National Park Service (El Federal lands within [the specific entity] are Malpais, New Mexico; Gunnison Gorge, hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry, Colorado), U.S. Forest Service (Red Cliffs, appropriation, or disposal under the public Utah), and other federal lands (Snake River land laws.” For example, those words were Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, used to protect both Black Canyon of the Idaho). Almost all National Conservation Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Areas encompass some nonfederal lands. Gorge National Conservation Area in 1999. Legislation establishing most National Congress has used that statement when Conservation Areas stresses that they are to establishing all national conservation areas be managed cooperatively with applicable except the first two (14 out of 16 national federal, state, and local agencies and/or be conservation areas). Thus, the legislation that advised by an interagency advisory panel. created an overwhelming majority of these areas contains the highest level of protection There does not appear to be a prohibition against loss of land by exchange that preventing Congress from establishing a Congress can confer. National Conservation Area encompassing primarily USFS lands. Based on public input There is precedent for Congress establishing to conserve and preserve the natural National Conservation Areas with a environment and maintain existing provision that federal lands not be exchanged recreational activities, the most appropriate or subdivided unless such an action will serve special management designations for the the public interest. The legislation lands considered in this Study Area are establishing Steese National Conservation “National Conservation Area” or “National Area in Alaska, for example, specifies that “no Scenic Area.” public lands within the national conservation area shall be transferred out of Federal It is important to note that the U.S. Forest ownership except by exchange pursuant to Service is not a current lead agency on any §206 of the Federal Land Policy and National Conservation Area and that a Management Act.” Public Law 96-487, Title designation such as a National Conservation IV Section 402 (b), Section 206 of the Federal Area would require policy and operational Land Policy and Management Act, however, guidance development at the agency level to provides considerable leeway for manage the area. determining “public interest,” including community expansion. Nonetheless, there does not appear to be any reason that Option 3: Congressional Restriction Congress cannot include a stronger on Exchange of Federal Lands proscription on land exchanges. Congress could write legislation for focused Many National Conservation Areas specifications for land management, i.e., encompass wilderness (including Red Cliffs restriction on federal land disposal. No and Beaver Dam Wash, Utah; El Malpais, concrete examples for this scenario were New Mexico; and Sloan Canyon, Nevada). discovered during the research phase of this Extant recreation and grazing activities however are protected in all National

30 Nonfederal Lands in the Study Area

study. Under this scenario, it is assumed that government due to the conservation value the U.S. Forest Service would continue to and a low likelihood for development. manage the land as described under option 1. Because the congressional legislation did not indicate an intent or disposition to direct procurement, that option was not explored as NONFEDERAL LANDS IN part of this study. Furthermore, the location, THE STUDY AREA resource values, and access of these lands led the study group to determine that their The Study Area includes Arizona trust lands inclusion or exclusion would not and other private lands and inholdings. substantively alter the assessment of the Because the act did not suggest acquisition of management options. additional lands, management options couldn’t be incumbent on the acquisition of Arizona State Trust Lands Adjacent to and nonfederal lands, nor could such acquisition within the Study Area Boundary ‒ be factored into the evaluation. Therefore, Sections 20, 30, and 10. Section 20 the options presented above would not be (adjacent to the Study Area), section 30 applied to private lands or Arizona State (within the Study Area) and section 10 (north Trust lands unless these lands are acquired by of I-40, outside the Study Area) are viable for the federal government. development. The Arizona State Land Department and the City of Flagstaff are working cooperatively on the regional plan Arizona State Trust Lands update to address land uses, including open space, on state trust land. The Arizona State The Arizona State Land Department is the Land Department considers a buffer zone on trustee for over 9 million acres of state trust the east and south sides of sections 20 and 30 land. Its mission is to provide management to as a viable condition of sale for development. maximize revenues for 13 beneficiaries—a The Arizona State Land Department also responsibility that distinguishes Arizona State would consider designating the area in Land Department management and land use section 10, south of I-40 as open space from permitted use of public land such as subject to density considerations in parks or national forests. While public use of subsequent general plan / zoning actions. state trust land is not prohibited, it is regulated to ensure compensation to the Given current pressures on budgets and the beneficiaries for use and land protection. The location of these lands relative to existing value of state trust land is established by monument boundaries, acquisition through appraisal and approved by the State Land purchase of these lands by the U.S. Forest Department Board of Appeals. The Arizona Service is not considered a foreseeable State Land Department would work option. Proposition 119 ‒ Arizona State Trust cooperatively with the federal government Land Amendment, passed November 2012, for acquisition of state trust land and to reach could allow the exchange of Arizona state an agreement on the appraised value. The lands to the federal government (http://www Arizona State Land Department is also .azsos.gov/election/2012/Info/PubPamphlet/ working with the City of Flagstaff Regional english/Prop119.htm). At this time, however, Plan to address proposed land use on state there are no policies on how this legislation lands. will be implemented. Acquisition strategies are beyond the scope of this Special Study Arizona State Trust Lands within Study due to the wide range of variables and lack of Area Boundary ‒ Sections 22 and 28. The policies. Since the Arizona State lands are not Arizona State Land Department has within the legislative boundaries of the acknowledged that sections 22 and 28 are monument, purchase or exchange would not appropriate for acquisition by the federal occur with the National Park Service,

31 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS however, a land exchange may be possible policies would only apply to these lands if with the U.S. Forest Service in the future. If they were acquired and became subject to the U.S. Forest Service acquires the State federal management. Trust Lands, these lands would be managed under the same plans and regulations as the The national forest lands within the Study surrounding national forest lands. Area are primarily reserved lands that are open for mineral location and entry under None of the options or management current management. This includes minerals strategies presented in this report would be that are considered under the locatable directly applicable to the Arizona State Trust minerals regulations (metals and those Lands. For example, the Coconino National minerals that have unique characteristics). Forest Transportation Management Plan Mining claims could be filed on the lands that addressing road closures does not apply to are not withdrawn or segregated from state trust lands. If the Study Area were to mineral entry. receive a special management designation, state trust lands would become inholdings There are two areas of national forest system within the designated boundary. (Currently, lands within the Study Area boundaries that the state trust lands can be viewed as are currently segregated from mineral entry. inholdings within Coconino National These are the roadside zone along Forest Forest.) The rights of the State Land Highway 3 (under PLO 3584) and 1,000 feet Department would be preserved. Options, either side of the Walnut Canyon Access road land and resource management strategies and (Executive Order 10355). designation, and federal agency policies would apply to these state lands only, if and Most of Coconino National Forest, including when they have been transferred to federal within the Walnut Canyon Study Area, has agency management. been identified as low mineral favorability according to the Bureau of Mines Mineral The boundaries of any special management Availability System / Mineral Industry area would be defined so that any state trust Location System (MAS/MILS database). In lands within the Study Area that may be addition, a review of the Bureau of Land acquired subsequently by purchase, Management (BLM) LR2000 website exchange, or donation are retained within the indicates there are no active mining claims boundaries of the special management area. within the Study Area. Mining claims have Otherwise, a subsequent act of Congress been filed within the Study Area in the past would be required to incorporate the but are identified as closed in the BLM purchased, exchanged, or donated areas into database. There is also no record of interest the special management area. or previous exploration for other leasable minerals such as oil and gas in the Study Area.

Options for Private Inholdings Saleable mineral activities, which are characterized as common variety minerals None of the management options presented such as sand and gravel, decorative rocks, earlier in this report would be directly and other common-use materials, are at the applicable to the private land, surface or discretion of the U.S. Forest Service. There is mineral inholdings within the Study Area. evidence of material sites in the project area, Options, land and resource management but there is no activity occurring within the strategies and plans, and federal agency Study Area

32 Nonfederal Lands in the Study Area

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLYCliff Dwelling LEFT BLANK

33 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

34

CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Throughout the study and during the public 4,500 feet (1,372 m) msl elevation typically involvement periods, certain resources were receives fewer than 7.0 inches (17.8 cm) of identified by the public as important aspects precipitation per year. Winter daytime to consider for this special study. This section temperatures are typically 10°F to 15°F provides a brief description of those warmer than Flagstaff—summer temperatures resources, but not an exhaustive discussion of often exceed 100°F. Above 10,000 feet (3,048 all resources of the area. m) msl elevation on the adjacent San Francisco Peaks, annual precipitation exceeds 40.0 inches (101.6 cm), temperatures are GENERAL considerably cooler, and the growing season is remarkably shorter (NPS 2007). The Study Area is within the southern portion of the Colorado Plateau biotic province; Climate records from the monument and within the Mogollon Highlands-Coconino applicable to the Study Area have been Plateau region surrounding the Study Area, recorded since 1910 (WRCC 2012) (accessed elevations vary from 2,400 feet msl at the online at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/). As bottom of the Grand Canyon to 12,670 feet summarized by Neff et al. (2011), the mean above msl at the crest of the San Francisco annual temperature for the Study Area is Peaks (NPS 2007). The region has been approximately 50.3°F, while the mean of the shaped by erosion to expose geologic average monthly maximum temperatures is outcrops of red sandstone and white 65°F. The mean of the average monthly limestone. The Study Area surrounding the minimum temperatures is approximately monument is also characterized by an 35.7°F. The hottest month is July, with a mean extensive volcanic field, the San Francisco of 72.4°F. The coldest months are January and Volcanic Field, which includes the basalt- December, both averaging 31.8°F. Neff et al. capped Anderson Mesa and some cinder (2011) determined that all of the high monthly deposits. Soil types vary within the Study Area extreme temperatures have occurred in the depending on whether they are derived from past decade, with the exception of December weathered limestone, sandstone, shale, 1910. cinders, or volcanic bedrock. Precipitation data recorded within the The Study Area lies within a semiarid, monument establish the mean annual continental climate typified by a moderately precipitation total of 18.12 inches (46.0 cm). hot and moist summer, cool and dry spring There is a bimodal precipitation pattern, with and fall, and cold, periodically wet, winter the summer season receiving an average of (Hansen et al. 2004). Monsoon-like 5.52 inches (14.0 cm) and the winter season precipitation events, often in the form of precipitation averaging 4.93 inches (12.5 cm); violent thunderstorms, occur principally from the highest monthly average precipitation July through September. The regional climate occurs in August in response to monsoon varies with elevation above msl. The weather patterns and the lowest average monument (6,900 feet [2,103 meters [m]) msl precipitation occurs in June. Snowfall during elevation) receives approximately 18 inches the 1972‒1973 winter season was 129.0 inches (45.7 centimeters [cm]) of precipitation per (327.7 cm)—the deepest on record. Recently, year, and temperatures typically range from the 2009‒2010 season recorded 100 inches near 0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in winter to (254 cm) of snow within the monument; mid-90°F in summer. Thirty miles to the northeast, the Little Colorado River basin at

35 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES average annual snowfall is 55 inches (140 cm) visit the area for hunting, gathering, and (WRCC 2012). ceremonial purposes. During the following centuries, the area around Walnut Canyon was visited by ancestors of the Yavapais and CULTURAL RESOURCES Havasupais, and after the 1700s by Apaches and Navajos for seasonal hunting and Archeological Resources gathering activities (NPS 2007).

The Coconino National Forest land Archeological surveys had previously been surrounding the monument contains conducted on 12, 815 acres of the Study Area. thousands of archeological sites. Most of the An archeological inventory was conducted on sites and associated artifacts are the physical a 734-acre portion of the Study Area in remains of a prehistoric farming culture that 2010/2011 (Neff et al. 2011). The recent flourished in what is now the Flagstaff region inventory included four survey areas; one from about AD 600 until AD 1400. This survey in the west portion of the canyon, and culture is referred to by archeologists as three areas to the west of the entrance road. “Sinagua” in reference to the early Spanish The survey team recorded or re-recorded 68 name for the highland region “Sierra Sinagua” sites and 72 components (Neff et al. 2011). meaning a mountain range without water Analysis of the newly recorded sites and an (NPS 2007). Sinagua families cultivated the additional 3,015 Sinagua sites in a 292,552- Study Area uplands around Walnut Canyon acre area surrounding the monument for centuries growing primarily small gardens documents several archeological surveys near of corn, squash, and beans. The Sinagua lived the monument including large areas to the in subterranean pit structures initially, but by south and additional areas to the west. The the early 1100s most habitations included at evaluation found the majority of known sites least some aboveground structures. During to be east and north of the monument. The the 1100s in the Walnut Canyon area, there report concludes that the sites within the was also a notable shift toward living in cliff Study Area do not form a coherent cluster alcoves (NPS 2007). associated with the Elden Phase Walnut Canyon Village cluster in the monument and By the mid-1100s, a large segment of the local that the sites do not meet the criteria to be Sinagua population moved into the limestone individually or collectively eligible for national alcoves below the canyon rim, constructing historic landmark status thus not nationally substantial dwellings with locally available significant (Neff et al. 2011). stone and clay. The Walnut Canyon community thrived for about 150 years, The Assessment of the National Significance growing crops on scattered plots in the of Cultural Resources for the Walnut Canyon surrounding forest, raising children, making Study Area (Neff et al. 2011) also concluded stone tools and other implements, and likely that none of the revisited/recorded sites are following the ancient ceremonial cycles that experiencing detrimental impacts. Per the that had been passed down for generations report, all documented sites above the rim of (NPS 2007). Walnut Canyon are in good condition and show little evidence of disturbance other than The Sinagua population in the Flagstaff region the nonspecific impacts of natural erosion peaked in the mid-1100s through the early processes. 1200s, coincident with the peak occupation of Walnut Canyon, but declined precipitously in the following century. By the early 1300s, the Sinaguas had moved out of Walnut Canyon, presumably to Anderson Mesa or farther south and east; their descendants continued to

36 Cultural Resources

Ethnographic Resources sites, and other signs of previous use are important as well. Traditional uses of the area The Study Area is part of a region lying centered on ceremonial activities including between extensive high-altitude national star observation, spiritual experiences and forest lands to the southwest and semidesert teachings, plant gathering, hunting, and mesas of the Hopi and Navajo reservations to farming (Toupal 2004). the northeast; the reservations represent the largest block of American Indian tribal lands The Hopi, Zuni, and Navajo tribes conducted in the United States (more than 25,000 square field research to identify ethnographic miles). These contemporary reservations resources within the monument. The Navajo represent a small portion of the land occupied Nation has identified 14 culturally significant aboriginally and historically by the tribes and plant species within Walnut Canyon, in to which the tribes retain deeply rooted addition to white clay, a culturally significant traditional associations. The three Flagstaff mineral. The Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni Area National Monuments (Walnut Canyon, identified the archeological resources in Wupatki, and Sunset Crater Volcano) are an Walnut Canyon, including pre-Columbian integral part of this larger traditional architectural remains and petroglyphs, as part landscape (NPS 2007). of their traditional histories and contemporary cultural identities (NPS 2007). Within the three monuments many geographic features and natural and cultural The Study Area has not been surveyed for resources identified by the tribes as culturally ethnographic resources. However, the significant are historically or ceremonially existence of so many ethnographic resources interconnected with other landscape features within the monument boundary and the and archeological sites throughout the tribes’ number of recorded archeological resources entire customary land base. In addition to the within the Study Area indicates that there is a Hopi and Navajo tribes, who currently occupy high probability for ethnographic resources the tribal lands adjacent or near the within the Study Area. monuments, many of the other tribes originally consulted by the National Park Service retain customary associations with NATURAL RESOURCES many of the same resources and places throughout the region (NPS 2007). Wildlife, Ecosystem, and Wildlife Habitats The literature documents up to 13 tribes who claim cultural associations with lands within The Study Area provides important wildlife the monument, including the White Mountain habitats and migration corridors that have Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Zuni remained relatively undisturbed under Tribe, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, Hualapai historic regional management plans and Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Kaibab applications (NPS 2007). The relative lack of Band of Paiute Indians, Navajo Nation, San disturbance is largely attributed to the Carlos Apache Tribe, San Juan Southern ruggedness of the canyon terrain, Paiute Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, and Fort characteristic vegetation cover, and reliable McDowell Yavapai Nation. Six groups, precipitation. The long-term closure of the including Navajos, Hopis, Apaches, Paiutes, backcountry area within the monument has Zunis, and Pais, were involved in an also minimized human presence and noise ethnographic study in 2004 by Toupal and disturbance to a variety of wildlife species. Stoffle. All six groups identified plants and the Observations by the National Park Service, archeological sites as culturally significant. Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Plants are the primary resource of concern; USFS biologists and managers confirm that however, wildlife, minerals, the archeological Walnut Canyon is a locally important wildlife

37 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES habitat and movement corridor for elk, Birds characteristic of the coniferous pronghorn, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), forest/woodland and canyon habitats include black bear (Ursus americanus), and Merriam’s Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), (wild) turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), pygmy The proximity of the Study Area to suburban nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea), black-throated gray development is of management concern; warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), Grace’s however, large mammals are diverse and warbler (D. graciae), red-faced warbler occasional-to-common, including mountain (Cardellina rubrifrons), mourning dove lion (Puma concolor), black bear, elk, and (Zenaida macroura), northern flicker mule deer in the canyons and surrounding (Colaptes auratus), hairy woodpecker forest/woodland habitats. Collared peccaries (Picoides villosus), western wood-pewee or javelina (Pecari tajacu) are uncommon and (Contopus sordidulus), ash-throated flycatcher important because the Study Area represents (Myiarchus cinerascens), violet-green swallow the northern edge of their range. Common to (Tachycineta thalassina), mountain chickadee abundant small-to-medium-sized mammals (Poecile gambeli), rock wren (Salpinctes include Abert’s or tassel-eared squirrel obsoletus), and canyon wren (Catherpes (Sciurus abertii), gray-collared chipmunk mexicanus). (Tamias cinereicollis), little brown myotis bat (Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat (Eptesicus Amphibians are uncommon within the Study fuscus), deer mouse, brush mouse, and pinyon Area because of the general scarcity of surface mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus, P. boylii, and water and wetland habitat. P. truei), Stephens' woodrat (Neotoma stephensi), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), Generally, vegetation of the Study Area is ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), hog-nosed skunk diverse and ecotonal in species composition (Conepatus mesoleucus), gray fox (Urocyon (Hansen et al. 2004). It ranges from low cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and elevation grasslands to high elevation coyote (Canis latrans). A small number of woodland and forest communities. Tree pronghorn inhabit Coconino National Forest species that often intermix (are codominant) lands adjacent to the northeastern and in the habitats (on other areas on the southeastern boundary of the monument Colorado Plateau these species are dominant (NPS 2007). Domestic cattle graze on national on the landscape) and form a broad transition forest and Arizona State Trust lands of the zone include pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), Study Area, as permitted. Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), and ponderosa pine The Study Area supports a variety of raptors (Pinus ponderosa). High elevation species, including the winter migrant bald eagle riparian obligates, and more mesic species (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle occur in abundance due to north-facing (Aquila chrysaetos), northern goshawk slopes and mesic canyon walls and canyon (Accipiter gentilis), peregrine falcon (Falco bottoms. These mesic and cooler environ- peregrinus), Mexican spotted owl (Strix ments support species that typically occur at occidentalis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), higher elevations such as dense patches of sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus Cooper’s hawk (A. cooperii), red-tailed hawk scopulorum), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco menziesii), and New Mexican locust (Robinia sparverius), prairie falcon (F. mexicanus), neomexicana). The canyon floor supports a flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), and great diverse community with the overstory horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Birds that are composed mainly of deciduous trees and common to several area habitats include the shrubs, primarily box-elder (Acer negundo), wild turkey, band-tailed pigeon (Columba dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), New Mexican fasciata), and common raven (Corvus corax). olive (Forestiera pubescens), Arizona walnut

38 Natural Resources

(Juglans major), New Mexican locust (Robinia sampling on the Colorado Plateau to deter- neomexicana), Arizona rose (Rosa arizonica), mine if they represent local vegetation types and snowberry (Symphoricarpos unique to the Study Area and possibly rotundifolius). considered ecologically critical or if they are more widely distributed across the landscape. Woodlands are the most common vegetation The assemblages are: (1) Chamaebatiaria type in the Study Area and range from dense millefolium ‒ Forestiera pubescens Shrubland stands of trees on north-facing canyon walls, (Fernbush – New Mexico Privet Shrubland); canyon bottoms, and in fire-suppressed areas (2) Acer negundo / Forestiera pubescens – to open stands of sparse trees in meadow-like Symphoricarpos rotundifolius Temporarily areas. The most common trees in the upland Flooded Shrubland (Box-elder – New Mexico environments of mid- to high-elevations are Privet ‒ Roundleaf Snowberry Temporarily ponderosa pine in Black Canyon NP and Flooded Shrubland); and (3) Ericameria Curecanti NRA and pinyon pine and Utah nauseosa ‒ Gutierrezia sarothrae Shrubland juniper occurring mainly on the mid- to low- (Rubber Rabbitbrush – Snakeweed elevation sites. In the early 1900s, large Shrubland). ponderosa pine trees were logged and the natural fire regime was altered, allowing Of the regional rare plant species, several are ponderosa pine to regenerate quickly and endemic to the Mogollon Highlands and San change the vegetation community from open Francisco Mountains and their habitat may be meadows with low densities of ponderosa considered under ecological critical areas. pine to areas of high density of ponderosa Included are the San Francisco Peaks pine with a sparse understory community groundsel (Senecio franciscianus), listed as (Covington and Moore 1994). Much of the federally threatened and occurring above Study Area supports a dense ponderosa pine timberline, and Bebb’s willow (Salix stand structure due to these activities; bebbiana). The Sunset Crater penstemon however, some larger ponderosa pines have (Penstemon clutei) and cinder lady’s tresses withstood these management activities. In the (Phacelia welshii) are endemic to the volcanic more mesic areas, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga cinder deposits surrounding the San menziesii) and Rocky Mountain juniper are Francisco volcanic field. Riparian areas the most common tree species, occurring in support numerous plant species of concern, forest vegetation types or stands. A wide range such as Navajo sedge (Carex specuicola) and of tree species occur in smaller patches in the alkali grass (Puccinella parishii), which occur linear corridors of the canyon bottom, at lower elevations in wetter sites north of the including willow, box-elder, narrowleaf Little Colorado River, and alcove bog orchid cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), and (Platanthera zothecina). A number of species Arizona walnut. Many of these tree species are inhabit ponderosa pine forests and may restricted to mesic sites and require depend on fire to maintain an open forest intermittent water flow. These community canopy so that sunlight penetrates to the types typically have high cover and diversity of ground. Many species within the cactus family shrubs and understory species due to the occupy specific habitats and are sensitive to additional water flow and moist soils. Riparian disturbance, including livestock grazing. obligate species include sedges (Carex sp.) and Because of their popularity with horticultur- willows, among others. ists, all native cactus species within Arizona are protected under state law (NPS 2007). The U.S. Forest Service conducts surveys on an as- Potential Important Ecological Sites needed basis for specific projects.

Three local plant assemblages were identified as being unique to the Study Area (Hansen et al. 2004); these assemblages require further

39 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Invasive Species tation of a development project or roadway maintenance. The spread of invasive species is recognized as one of the major factors contributing to Nonnative species may rapidly colonize areas ecosystem change and instability throughout where the ground surface is heavily disturbed the world (NPS 2007). An invasive species is by equipment, constant foot traffic, burning, “a nonnative species whose introduction does, burrowing small mammal activity, etc. Within or is likely to cause, economic or environ- the Study Area, stands and populations of mental harm or harm to human, animal, or cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), mullein plant health” (Executive Order 13112, 1999). (Verbascum thapsus), filaree (Erodium Invasive species may include all organisms cicutarium), common horehound (Marrubium ranging from microscopic insects to large vulgare), and Dalmation toadflax (Linaria mammals, which can invade any ecosystem. dalmatica) have infested disturbed areas along These species have the ability to displace or road and trail corridors, developed areas, eradicate native species, alter fire regimes, areas of heavy visitation, or prairie dog towns. damage infrastructure, and threaten human Although these species are commonly livelihoods. Almost all national park system observed, the National Park Service conducts units have incorporated invasive species limited, yet annual treatment, mainly in the management into long-range planning goals visitor use areas. Coconino National Forest for natural and cultural landscapes, as well as conducts annual noxious weed control day-to-day operations. programs in the Study Area and treats when located. At least 31 species of noxious plants, invasive plant species, and nonnative plants have Success in controlling invasive plants is predi- become dispersed into the Study Area cated on early detection of infestations before (table 1). Noxious plants are invasive, mostly they become established across the landscape nonnative species identified by the U.S. and on the availability of ecologically sound Department of Agriculture and the State of and affordable technology. The best measures Arizona to be of particular concern (CCCP to control these plant species are proactive 2012). Invasive, nonnative plants must be planning of access routes and ground- addressed on a parcel-by-parcel and large- disturbing activities to minimize the potential scale basis by land management agencies, for establishment and spread. USFS roadway maintenance staff, private property management of the Walnut Canyon watershed owners, and developers. Coconino County has the greatest potential to affect natural policies focused on noxious and invasive plant systems and processes within the monument. species, include: (1) promoting the protection The U.S. Forest Service provided noxious of threatened and endangered vegetation weed control in various locations, including species and encouraging the preservation of the Study Area, in Coconino National Forest native, noninvasive vegetation and retention each year to improved habitat for native plants of other significant vegetation features for all and animals by removing nonnative plant new development proposals; (2) to the extent competition, and improved native community possible, revegetation and restoration of resiliency for all species including threatened, disturbed areas with native species shall be endangered, and sensitive plants and animals required; and (3) Coconino County shall (USFS 2010). The National Park Service require appropriate action to prevent the addresses interagency concerns through spread of noxious plants prior to implemen- monitoring ecosystem conditions and participating in the USFS planning process.

40 Natural Resources

TABLE 1. WALNUT CANYON NATIONAL MONUMENT VICINITY NONNATIVE AND INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

Scientific Name Common Name Agropyron desertorum desert wheatgrass Bassia scoparia Kochia Bromus rubens red brome Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed Centaurea solstitialis yellow star‐thistle Centaurea virgata squarrose knapweed Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed Dactylis glomerata orchardgrass Descurainia sophia herb sophia Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian‐olive Eragrostis lehmanniana Lehmann lovegrass Erodium cicutarium redstem stork's bill Euphorbia esula leafy spurge Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Linaria genistifolia Dalmatian toadflax Malva neglecta common mallow Marrubium vulgare common horehound Medicago sativa alfalfa Melilotus officinalis yellow sweetclover Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle Plantago lanceolata narrowleaf plantain Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed Portulaca oleracea little hogweed Salsola tragus prickly Russian thistle Tamarix spp. salt‐cedar, tamarisk Tragopogon dubius yellow salsify Verbascum thapsus common mullein Verbena bracteata bigbract verbena

Source: Hansen et al. 2004; USFS 2012; San Francisco Peaks Weed Management Area 2012

41 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Old-growth Ponderosa Pine invertebrate species that are formally listed as Forest Stands threatened or endangered. There are another 54 plant, 51 animal (including fish), and 5 Stands of mature forest and woodland types invertebrate species that may be exceedingly within the Study Area include associations of rare and are being monitored by the U.S. Fish Douglas-fir (mesic slopes within canyons and and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish on canyon floor sites), ponderosa pine, and Department, U.S. Forest Service, the National pinyon pine sampled and described for the Park Service, and Navajo Natural Heritage monument and adjacent Study Area (Hansen Program (AGFD 2012). The U.S. Forest et al. 2004). Within Coconino National Forest, Service does not officially monitor for species existing and potential old growth is evaluated in the Study Area; however, Northern Arizona at the project level to provide habitat; there University students have monitored for are approximately 2,042 acres of developing species over the years. old growth and 648 acres of existing old Many rare, threatened, and endangered plant, growth in the Study Area (USFS 2010). vertebrate animal, and invertebrate species

require perennial streams, wetlands, or During sampling to create the vegetation riparian habitats, which are uncommon in the classification, the largest ponderosa pine tree Study Area. Most of these habitats have been measured 52 inches (132 cm) diameter-breast- altered for urban or livestock water supply height. In the early 1900s, large ponderosa and forage production (Hansen et al. 2004). pine trees were logged and the natural fire On grazing allotments that support threatened regime was altered, allowing ponderosa pine or endangered species and their habitat, to regenerate quickly and change the mitigation measures are required and may vegetation community from open meadows include: (1) livestock management activities with low densities of ponderosa pine to areas such as salting, herding, and construction of high density ponderosa pine with a sparse actions associated with grazing operations understory community (Covington and within the allotment (fencing, etc.), which will Moore 1994). Much of the monument not occur within a certain distance of roosts, supports a dense ponderosa pine stand nest sites, den sites, etc.; (2) monitor grazing structure due to historic logging activities; use in specified habitats by cattle and wildlife; some ponderosa pines remain. (3) follow best management practices associated with watershed protection; and (4) Threatened and Endangered Species specified placement and management of salt, and Species of Special Concern mineral block, or supplements (USFS 2012).

Old-growth coniferous forests and wood- Plants. The Study Area supports eight lands, shrublands, and herbaceous vegetation sensitive plant species habitats determined communities in the region, combined with following the comparison with summary physiographic features including canyons, floristic checklists compiled by the National cliffs, bluffs, and mountains, provide habitat Park Service (2001) and Hansen et al. (2004). for a number of threatened, endangered, and In addition, a survey for special status plant sensitive species. The Arizona Heritage Data individuals and populations within the Management System (AGFD 2012b) was Flagstaff Area National Monuments, consulted via the Internet to generate a list of including Walnut Canyon, was completed by threatened and endangered species, and other Huisinga and others (2000). Currently, no species of concern for Coconino County, federally listed threatened or endangered Arizona. Within Coconino County, there are plant species are known to occur in the six plant, nine animal (including fish), and one monument (NPS 2007).

42 Natural Resources

Arizona Black Walnut

43 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

FIGURE 7. SENSITIVE SPECIES

44 Natural Resources

Coconino National Forest monitors several winter, and most adults remain in the same sensitive plant species and an agreement was territory year after year. Actions that open up established between Coconino National or remove mature or old-growth forests Forest and the Arboretum at Flagstaff to (timber harvest, wildfire, road or site update a management plan in the Verde Valley construction that results in fragmentation of for an area with a number of sensitive plant the forest) are detrimental to the local species (USFS 2010). The plant species of Mexican spotted owl population; human concern that are known to be in the Study activity (hiking, shooting, off-road vehicle Area includes Flagstaff false pennyroyal activity) in or near nesting, roosting, or (Hedeoma diffusum). Other species of special foraging sites may result in abandonment of concern that may occur in the Study Area an area and indirectly may affect habitat include Arizona bugbane (Actaea [Cimicifuga] parameters from trampling, vegetation arizonica), Arizona leather-flower (Clematis removal, or increased fire risk. hirsutissima var. arizonica), Chiricahua (Blumer’s) dock (Rumex orthoneurus), Arizona (desert) columbine (Aquilegia desertorum), rock fleabane (Erigeron saxatalis), Rusby milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi), and Arizona cliffrose (Purshia subintegra).

Birds. The Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, ranked G3T3/S3S4, is considered vulnerable under the NatureServe (2012) global/state ranking, and occurs as a breeding species within the Study Area, including Walnut Canyon and adjacent rim habitats. In southern Arizona and New Mexico, Mexican spotted owls use the Mexican Spotted Owl mixed conifer, Madrean pine-oak, Arizona cypress, encinal oak woodlands, and associated riparian forests in addition to Mexican spotted owl breeding activity has canyon habitat dominated by vertical-walled been monitored at various times between 1989 rocky cliffs within complex watersheds, and 1998; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service including tributary side canyons. Canyon recently designated the entire monument as habitat may include small isolated patches or critical habitat for the species. The National stringers of forested vegetation including Park Service is cooperating with the U.S. Fish stands of mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine, and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service to pine-oak, pinyon-juniper, and/or riparian implement the management actions identified vegetation in which Mexican spotted owls in the Mexican spotted owl Recovery Plan regularly roost and forage. Mexican spotted (USFWS 1995). Specific actions include owls usually occur in areas with some type of monitoring nesting activity and breeding water source (i.e., perennial stream, creeks, success, protecting critical habitat from and springs, ephemeral water, small pools wildfire, and managing forest vegetation to from runoff, reservoir emissions). Mated pairs conserve specific microhabitat attributes (NPS are territorial and breeding season activity 2007). The Study Area contains five Mexican centers tend to be smaller than the spotted owl protected activity centers. nonbreeding season activity centers (with considerable overlap between the two). Adults The U.S. Forest Service limits activities in the may or may not leave the territory during the protected activity centers during the breeding

45 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES season and do not permit groups greater than mature stands with high canopy closure 12 people. To date, the U.S. Forest Service has (60%‒95%) and sparse ground cover near the not determined season closures are needed in bottom of moderate slopes and near water. the area. Forest-wide northern goshawk monitoring Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), continued under a cost-share agreement with previously listed as threatened (status is the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory with 49 currently delisted due to recovery) under the transects (grids) completed in habitats forest- Endangered Species Act, routinely occur wide. Vegetation data were collected at the during the winter in the Mogollon Highlands beginning of each transect. No northern area. Although bald eagles are not known to goshawks were detected. Additionally, the regularly use winter roost sites within the Flagstaff Ranger District conducted 15,655 Study Area, individuals are occasionally acres of presence and absence surveys, but no observed perching in dead tree snags and northern goshawks were found. The amount feeding on elk carrion. The nearest active bald of suitable habitat and population trends are eagle nesting sites are in the lower Lake Mary managed at appropriate levels to prevent the area within the Coconino National Forest; northern goshawk from being listed as a there are several regularly used winter threatened or endangered species (USDA/ roosting sites on forested lands (NPS 2007). USFS 2010). There are six northern goshawk post-fledging areas in the Study Area. The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is delisted due to recovery and occurs within Walnut Canyon and other portions of the Study Area. Peregrine falcons nest on steep cliff ledges and erosional features within the study region. Within the monument, one known aerie is in the backcountry closure area; another occurs within the 1996 western boundary expansion area and is on a cliff that has been subject to recreational climbing activity historically. No NPS management activities, including visitor activities, are currently occurring or are proposed on or above cliffs known to support Mountain Lion peregrine falcon aeries (NPS 2007).

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is Mammals. The mountain lion (Puma ranked G5/S3 and is considered secure under concolor) is a year-round resident within the NatureServe (2012) global/state ranking habitats of the Study Area including Walnut and uses habitats within the Study Area. Canyon. As a game species, a season is set by Northern goshawks are relatively solitary the Arizona Game and Fish Department in raptors that prefer forest interior habitats and which hunting with use of dogs and other nest in a wide variety of forest types including methods is allowed outside monument deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests, but boundaries (mostly on Coconino National typically nests in mature or old-growth forests Forest land) to licensed individuals. This and generally will select larger tracts of forest species is of concern for the public and over smaller tracts. In the western United resource management agencies because it is a States, the northern goshawk character- large predator with an important ecological istically nests in coniferous forests including role and with the potential to attack humans those composed of ponderosa pine. The nests or pets on public lands within and around the are generally in the largest trees of dense, monument. Mountain lions have expansive

46 Natural Resources

home ranges that include the entire project Park with several species documented (Drost area. The National Park Service currently has 2009). little information on the distribution and abundance of mountain lions within the Walnut Canyon area, but suspects the canyon WATERSHED AND WATER provides good denning sites—they have been RESOURCES spotted in the monument. Surface water within the Study Area flows into Bat species are considered to have specialized the Little Colorado River watershed habitat requirements and sensitivity to (Hydrologic Unit Code 15020015 ‒ Canyon environmental impacts. Thirteen bat species Diablo Drainage Area) (AZDEQ 2012). The are listed as present or probably present in the Walnut Creek watershed (Hydrologic Unit monument (NPSpecies Database 2011) and 12 Code 1502001502) encompasses approxi- species are currently monitored within mately 124,160 acres (194 square miles) within Coconino County as species of concern. the approximately 26,794-square-mile Old/mature trees, large dead snags, and the Canyon Diablo Drainage Area (USDA/NRCS fractured limestone faces of Walnut Canyon 2011b). The headwaters of Walnut Creek provide bat habitat. The National Park Service occur in the Mormon Mountain-Mormon has little information on bat fauna, but is Lake area more than 20 miles south of the inventorying them within the monument monument. Prior to 1900, the creek is believed (NPS 2007). to have ephemerally flowed through the bottom of Walnut Canyon on a bi-annual On the Coconino National Forest, 20 sites cycle driven by snowmelt and seasonal were mist-netted to determine bat species thunderstorm and monsoon rain activity. composition (USFS 2010). At known and suspected roost sites, nine emergence counts The entire watershed is defined by the Little were conducted (using infrared binoculars Colorado River from the headwaters to the and infrared videography); five roosts were Colorado River and tributaries to the San inspected for the presence of bat species. In Juan River, which flow north and east into total, 18 bat species were identified, of these, 3 New Mexico and Utah. Elevations range species are sensitive, e.g., Allen’s big-eared bat from 12,600 feet on Humphreys Peak to (Idionycteris phyllotis), pale Townsend’s big- 2,700 feet near the Colorado River; most of eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), and western red bat (Lasiurus the watershed is above 5,000 feet elevation. blossevillii). The region is characterized by horizontally stratified sandstone and limestone that have Additional species of note present in the Study eroded to form canyon and plateau Area, although not threatened and endan- landforms; in a few areas, igneous rocks gered, include the golden eagle, deer, elk, and have deposited on sedimentary formations pronghorn. due to volcanic activity (AZDEQ 2012). Land ownership is divided approximately The U.S. Forest Service has not completed as: 60% tribal, 12% federal, 12% private, site-specific surveys in the Study Area. Habitat and 6% state for the entire watershed and is present for several sensitive bat species such 92% U.S. Forest Service, 2% National Park as spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), Allen’s Service, 5% private, and <1% Arizona State lappet-browed bat (Idionycteris phyllotis), pale Trust Lands for the Walnut Creek water- Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus shed (USDA/NRCS 2011). The entire townsendii pallescens) and western red bat watershed is sparsely populated outside the (Lasiurus blossevillii). Studies have been City of Flagstaff (total of 236,500 people, conducted within Walnut Canyon National

47 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

2000 census). Land use is primarily livestock Fisher Point to the monument boundary. A grazing, forestry, recreation, and mining. less-dense drainage network flows into The watershed supports four national Walnut Canyon downstream of the visitor monuments, four wilderness areas, and two center, draining the eastern edge of Anderson national forests with varying levels of use Mesa. The dominant trend of all Study Area restrictions (AZDEQ 2012). drainages is toward the northeast, in the direction of the Painted Desert and the Little The surface drainage patterns of the Study Colorado River. Area are directly related to the underlying geologic framework (Neff et al. 2011). North Reliable flows typically occurred early each of Walnut Canyon, the dominant drainage year during the period of spring snowmelt and direction is toward the north and northeast, less predictable flows likely occurred later away from the canyon. Only the area each year during the summer and fall thunder- immediately along the rim drains into the storm season (NPS 2007). The natural canyon. To the west, the headwaters of Skunk hydrology within the Walnut Canyon and Fay canyons drain into Walnut Creek drainage was severely altered when the City of below Fisher Point. At some time in the past, Flagstaff began impounding Walnut Creek for perhaps prior to about 800,000 years ago, use as its public water supply, collected and Walnut Creek did not flow through the Lake stored in Upper Lake Mary. The dams Mary graben (linear feature that shows significantly disrupted seasonal water flows downward movement of bedrock relative to through the canyon; Walnut Creek ceased its sides), but more likely emanated from flowing. Since 1941, the canyon has flooded headwaters in Fay and Skunk canyons (Rauuci only a few times during extremely wet et al. 2003). Walnut Canyon currently seasons, which completely filled both lakes. supports an intermittent drainage channel, but Flows of lesser magnitude occur about once a it likely flowed more often approximately 800 decade from smaller tributary watersheds years ago during habitation by the Sinagua below the lakes. (Chronic 1988). Perennial pools likely occurred, as the steep canyon walls and Small, internally drained basins that hold riparian vegetation provided shade and the water year-around characterize the surface of scoured bedrock created small depressions Anderson Mesa; the largest is Marshall Lake that could fill with water. (in the north-south trending Marshall Lake graben). This hydrologic process is thought to The upper watershed has been dammed to relate to extension of the Earth’s crust as it is provide water for the City of Flagstaff, pulled apart along normal faults. This creating Upper and Lower Lake Mary downward movement, which likely occurred (completed in 1905 and 1941 ‒ elevated in millions of years ago, created linear valleys 1952, respectively) (USFWS 2011). The lakes filled with alluvium eroded from upslope are situated in a faulted graben south of sources (Neff et al. 2011). Anderson Mesa and capture a significant portion of the Walnut Creek flow / water Watershed conditions of Coconino National volume, which results in less flow through the Forest lands are monitored, regulated, and canyon within the monument (Hansen et al. assessed to: (1) meet federal regulation; (2) 2004). Water from Lake Mary reaches Walnut ensure that forest watersheds are in Canyon only when lake elevation exceeds the satisfactory condition by 2020; (3) assure that spillway elevation (Neff et al. 2011). Water the productivity of the land is maintained; (4) draining into Lake Mary flows mostly from Watershed Condition Framework for 6th the southwest including the tributaries of hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed Priest and Howard draws. A dense drainage conditions include evaluating 12 indicators; network south of Walnut Canyon drains the (5) a standard watershed condition inventory western edge of Anderson Mesa, from about is conducted according to R-3 Hydrology

48 Watershed and Water Resources

Note 14 for soil condition; (6) photograph will resume in the next three-year cycle. Water points, ocular estimates to determine quality results by stream are stored on this trends/acres are conducted as are step A for Internet link: http://www.azdeq.gov/ 6th HUC assessments, 10% annually for soil environ/water/assessment/assess.html. condition; (7) baseline watershed condition assessments (step A) were completed on all The occurrence of shallow groundwater in the 101 6th HUC watersheds following the Study Area is expressed via seeps from watershed condition framework process; (8) sedimentary rock fractures and bedding assessments were a qualitative and planes (NPS 2007). Numerous localized seeps quantitative look at watershed condition and have been recorded in the fractures and evaluated 12 resource indicators serving as an bedding planes of the steep canyon walls; indication of watershed condition; (9) the prominent seeps occur in the tributary information was input into a web-based canyons on the south side of the monument. It application called Watershed Classification is believed that the seeps are recharged via and Assessment Tracking Tool; and (10) the local fractures and limestone “karst” erosion majority of 6th HUC watersheds (65%) are in features in the watershed, and there is little functional at risk condition followed by threat of contamination or aquifer depletion properly functioning (21%), and impaired under current land uses within the watershed. function (14%) (USFS 2010). The only reliable groundwater beneath the monument occurs at a depth greater than Limited water quality data are available for 1,500 feet within the regional Coconino Upper and Lower Lakes Mary (AZDEQ Aquifer. The National Park Service maintains 2012). In 2002, the U.S. Environmental a well into the aquifer to supply operations at Protection Agency reported mercury in fish the monument—the water table has declined tissue in Upper Lake Mary (861 acres in size). about 10 feet over the last 30 years (NPS In 2004 and 2005 analyses, there were 2007). exceedances reported (AZDEQ 2012) for dissolved oxygen, mercury, nickel, and During the Walnut Canyon National hydrogen sulfide. In 2002, the U.S. Environ- Monument General Management Plan (2007) mental Protection Agency reported mercury preparation, the primary concern expressed in fish tissue in Lower Lake Mary (764 acres in about wetlands, floodplains, and riparian size); in 2004 and 2005 analyses, there were habitat was ensuring that the unique riparian exceedances reported (AZDEQ 2012) for pH resources are conserved within Walnut and hydrogen sulfide. Canyon and its tributaries. The southern Colorado Plateau receives a limited amount of Water quality was monitored in 2010 for precipitation and surface water is limited. exceedances in fecal coliform pathogens at Streams, wetlands, and riparian habitats several sites along Oak and Spring creeks by harbor a high percentage of regional the Arizona Department of Environmental biological diversity and are important Quality and Friends of the Forest per forest resources (NPS 2007). Fish species include plan and state and federal regulations (USFS several that are formally protected under the 2010). Results indicated water quality Endangered Species Act (AGFD 2012). exceeded standards on busy days at Slide Numerous protected and sensitive plants, Rock and consequently, both Spring Creek animals, and invertebrates are restricted to and Oak Creek remain listed as impaired for perennial streams, wetlands, or riparian pathogens; reasons include unsanitary habits habitats. of swimmers and leaky septic systems on adjacent non-Coconino National Forest land. Many perennial streams and ephemeral Lake water quality monitoring discontinued at tributary washes of the region and Study Area Upper and Lower Lake Mary, Soldiers Lake, are affected by human uses, primarily Soldiers Annex, and Lower Long Lake, but

49 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES livestock grazing but also by damming, seasonally by local snowmelt and rainfall, and diversion, and groundwater withdrawals for provide important water sources for wildlife. public water supply, hydropower generation, limited agriculture and industry, and public Coconino National Forest, the National Park recreation. Narrow galleries of cottonwood, Service, and the City of Flagstaff are active willow, and sycamore (Platanus spp.) trees members of the Lake Mary-Walnut Creek once occupied most streambanks; these native Watershed Technical Advisory Committee. species are now largely replaced by stands of The purpose of the committee is the nonnative tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) and development of study proposals designed to disturbance-tolerant desert scrub. Available evaluate and implement, where appropriate, riparian habitat and natural stream and spring best management practices, reservoir waters for wildlife have diminished during the modifications, and/or operational criteria to last century, especially for bird species. address the quality and quantity of the municipal water supply, increase the Reliable springs and seeps are rare through- likelihood of flood flows, and improve the out the region and even scarcer in the inner canyon environment in Walnut Canyon northern half. Although springs support small National Monument (USFS 2010). Water riparian areas, these are usually rich in plant quality results by stream/lake are presented on species and provide important surface water this AZDEQ link: http://www.azdeq.gov/ for wildlife including elk (Cervus elaphus),deer environ/ water/assessment/assess.html. (Odocoileus spp.), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana). Springs emerge from shallow, Some of the impacts of diminished natural perched aquifers or from the large, regional water sources for wildlife have been mitigated Coconino Aquifer (Bills et al. 2000). Winter by the development of livestock tanks. Passive precipitation is important to recharge these precipitation catchment systems or guzzlers aquifers. Most spring water within the inner have recently become popular for supporting basin of the San Francisco Mountains is wildlife, ranching, and recreational activities. completely used as part of the public water However, they are not naturally distributed supply for the City of Flagstaff and many across the landscape and have likely changed reliable springs that are near areas with good species population numbers, seasonal ranges, rangeland have been fully contained and vegetation browse levels, and species diverted for livestock use and are less available interaction patterns, including natural to wildlife. Oak Creek and a few other sites are predator-prey relationships. now popular public recreation attractions. Riparian resources are buffered from most Wetland, floodplain, and riparian resources water quality degradation by surrounding within the Study Area are restricted to the undeveloped Coconino National Forest and narrow canyon bottom and a number of Arizona State Trust Lands. However, the City perennial seeps found in the tributary canyons of Flagstaff has annexed all lands to the north on the south side. The floor of Walnut and west boundary of Walnut Canyon Canyon supports approximately 80 acres of National Monument, including a relatively wetland and riparian woodland and shrubland large area contiguous to the canyon rim and vegetation, which is locally characterized by tributary canyons upstream of the monument. stands of Arizona walnut and narrowleaf Development of these lands within the cottonwood trees; box-elder, New Mexico relatively pristine canyon watershed could locust, Arizona wild rose, and red osier significantly increase nonpoint source dogwood shrubs; and sedges in the pollution, such as motor and exhaust residue herbaceous layer. In the narrow reaches of the from streets, and fertilizers, herbicides, and canyon, water catchment basins are scoured pet waste from lawns, which would negatively into Coconino sandstone bedrock, filled affect wetland and riparian habitat and water quality.

50 Wildfire

WILDFIRE ignitions per year, while within the City of Flagstaff alone, there are roughly 60 to 80 The Coconino National Forest surrounds the wildfires each year (CWPP for Flagstaff & entire city of Flagstaff. Forest types are largely Surrounding Communities 2004). In the past characterized by ponderosa pine in addition 10 years, the number of fires in Coconino to forest and woodland stands characterized National Forest have ranged from 122 (2012 by pinyon pine-Utah juniper and the resultant and 2010) to a high of 410 (2003) forest-wide mixed conifer communities (USFS 2010). (USFS Stakeholder Report 2012). Urban areas that intermingle with forested lands are known as the urban interface. The A number of efforts are underway to reduce Flagstaff urban interface consists of about the risk of catastrophic wildfire within the 180,000 acres of Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff urban interface, they include: (1) Arizona State Trust, military, National Park Grand Canyon Forests Partnership ‒ analyze Service, City of Flagstaff, and privately and treat forests for the reduction of managed/owned lands (GFFP 2012). catastrophic wildfire and restoration of forest health using thinning and prescribed fire; (2) Changes in historic fire regimes, along with Coconino National Forest ‒ conducts other events, have resulted in changes in numerous thinning and prescribed burning successional dynamics, altered insect and projects annually (see figure 6); (3) Arizona disease dynamics, decreased understory State Land Department ‒ manages forest fuels productivity, decreased tree health, growth conditions by thinning; (4) Flagstaff Fire and vigor, increased fuel accumulation and Department ‒ reduces catastrophic fire continuity, increased crown fire potential, and conditions using prescribed fire, a seasonal increased fire size and intensity (USFS 2010). thinning crew, fuel management officer, and upgraded wildland fire equipment; and (5) Presently, wildfires are infrequent but of high Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council ‒ conducts a intensity; on average about 50% of a modern fuel management program within developed wildfire represents a stand-replacement event areas of member fire departments (GFFP (usually in very large patches from 100s to 2012). 1,000s of acres in size). Annually, in the Coconino National Forest, an average of 1,500 The City of Flagstaff and Coconino County forested acres are catastrophically burned. have encouraged homeowners to assume Since 1947, approximately 40,000 acres of more responsibility for preventing damage forest and woodland have been consumed in and loss from wildfires, including fire safety stand-replacement wildfire (approximately education, homeowner responsibilities for fire 5% of the Coconino National Forest prevention, and actions for reducing damage ponderosa pine forest type). The rate of acres and loss from potential wildfires in and lost to catastrophic wildfire in the vicinity of around private homes and property. Building the city of Flagstaff is increasing geometrically. codes and zoning regulations address private The associated ecological loss in the vicinity of property requirements, with a land develop- Flagstaff includes six each of Mexican spotted ment code that dictates the amount of tree owl territories and northern goshawk removal allowed in city areas; new territories lost or badly damaged between subdivisions require forest stewardship plans 1994 and 2001 (GFFP 2012). that have a review process by the Flagstaff Fire Department for compatibility with wildland Wildfire is the number one fire threat to fire protection. Flagstaff and surrounding communities. The greater Flagstaff area averages around 150

51 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Cliff Dwelling

52 Wildfire

FIGURE 8. FIRE FUELS ACTIVITIES

53 CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES

The U.S. Forest Service, in the Flagstaff / Lake and Walnut Canyon National Monument, and Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) amend- includes part of Anderson Mesa. The primary ments, developed desired future conditions purpose of this project is to reduce the risk of for the Study Area to reduced threat of and uncharacteristic wildfire and to improve the potential for destructive crown wildfire, health of the forest and associated habitats in especially in the Urban / Rural Influence and the Marshall Project Area, according to Wildland / Urban Interface zones (USDA Coconino National Forest Plan guidance. As Forest Service 1987, amended). This involves the project falls within the Flagstaff / Lake reducing ladder fuels, crown canopy and Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) area and competition between closely spaced trees in within the Study Area. The Forest Plan some areas to promote future large trees faster guidance dictates that “use of wildland fire is and to achieve desired tree sizes and canopy not acceptable or desirable. Therefore, future closures outlined in the Forest Plan, and to management actions for wildfire in the project increase in the forest’s resistance to insects area will continue to be full suppression and disease. Desired future conditions also (USFS 2010). involve maintaining the presence of fire in a “natural ecological role within the constraints Coconino National Forest staff is also actively of human health and safety” (USDA Forest engaged in a collaborative, landscape-scale Service 1987 amended). initiative designed to restore fire-adapted ecosystems in the Southwestern Region. The The U.S. Forest Service recently prepared an overall goal of the Four Forest Restoration environmental assessment for the proposed Initiative (4FRI) is to restore the structure, Marshall Fuels Reduction and Forest pattern and composition of fire-adapted Restoration project. The Marshall Fuels ecosystems, which will provide for fuels Reduction and Forest Restoration project area reduction, forest health, and wildlife and plant is approximately 12,000 acres southeast of diversity (USDA 2011). Flagstaff, roughly between Lake Mary Road

54

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

Under all management options, it is assumed and private inholdings). The U.S. Forest that the U.S. Forest Service would continue to Service is mandated by federal laws, comply with regulations, policies, and regulations, executive orders, and USFS directives and manage forest resources under policies and directives, and regional and forest the forest plan, forest plan revisions, and other orders to manage and protect cultural and resource management plans for lands under natural resources. The U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service responsibility. The plans would continue to define management support multiple use and plan objectives, objectives and strategies in the forest plan, strategies, and actions strive to balance forest plan revisions, and other resource resource protections with use. It is acknow- management plans, which are subjected to the ledged, however, that the programs could be National Environmental Policy Act and public affected by changes to levels of funding, involvement. The U.S. Forest Service is also policies and the need for additional resource constrained by budgets. It is not anticipated protection to offset user impacts. It is also that current management of cultural or acknowledged that currently access to the natural resources would be significantly forest is free. Per the Recreation Enhance- altered due to implementation of one of the ment Act, fees may be charged for developed management options. sites (including trailheads), however, there is currently no authority to charge fees for In addition to complying with regulations and general access to forest managed lands. policies, Coconino National Forest has programs for invasive species, water This study does not assume a specific time line resources, and wildfire described below. It is for actions required by the secretaries of not anticipated that these programs would agriculture and interior, which could be change based on implementation of one of the submitting the special study to Congress, with management options; although it is or without a recommendation. There is also acknowledged that the programs could be no assumption of when Congress could act on affected by changes to levels of funding. a recommendation.

Under all three options, the U.S. Forest OPTION 1: CONTINUED Service retains management of the lands and MANAGEMENT BY U.S. current uses are relatively stable—there would FOREST SERVICE be no to minimal changes to the local economy. Special designation could result in Under this option, the U.S. Forest Service more visitation or use restrictions depending would continue to manage the Study Area. on the type of designation and legislation. USFS management is dynamic to balance Special designation could have an effect on resource protection with the multiple-use USFS operating costs. mission. There are portions of three grazing allotments within the Study Area. Recrea- tional activities include camping, mountain EFFECTS TO NATURAL AND biking, horseback riding, rock climbing, CULTURAL RESOURCES hunting, and hiking, which would be allowed to continue. Recreational facilities include In all management options, the U.S. Forest Canyon Vista Campground (concessioner Service would retain management of the Study operated), the Arizona Trail, several trails Area (excluding Arizona State Trust Lands connecting to the Flagstaff Urban Trail

55 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

System, Fisher Point, and approximately 32 Fish Department in addressing regional land miles of USFS-managed hiking, biking, and use and land use issues. equestrian trails, including the Campbell Mesa trail system, and an approximately 8-mile The Coconino National Forest currently has segment of the future Flagstaff Loop Trail, all regional forester special area designations, of which would be maintained. including research natural areas and botanical and geological areas. Research natural areas The Coconino National Forest Management (RNAs) and botanical and geological areas are Plan states that for this management area (MA designated to ensure protection of specific 37, no land exchanges will occur unless the biological and geological communities. purpose is to acquire land within MA 37 Research natural areas are experimental through exchange of lands of national forest controls for a particular vegetation type, and elsewhere. This means that the U.S. Forest botanical and geological areas are designated Service may possibly trade lands elsewhere to for a special feature such as a rare plant or acquire inholdings within MA 37, but that no exemplary geological formation. There are national forest lands within MA 37 would be four existing research natural areas in exchanged in order to acquire lands or Coconino National Forest: Casner Canyon, resource interests outside MA 37. This is the G. A. Pearson, Oak Creek, and San Francisco strongest management policy that can be Peaks. The G. A. Pearson is within the Fort made at the local U.S. Forest Service level. Valley Experimental Forest. Oak Creek and Although a future change in policy is possible, the San Francisco Peaks research natural areas once such a policy is adopted, future changes are within designated wilderness. The draft are unlikely and could only be implemented revised forest plan is proposing three new through a management action subject to research natural areas: West Clear Creek, public involvement. Final decisions regarding Rocky Gulch, and an expansion of the San changes to the Forest Plan, after public Francisco Peaks research natural area. West involvement, are under the authority of the Clear Creek and the expansion of Francisco forest supervisor, while actual land exchanges Peaks are within existing wilderness areas. can only be authorized at a higher level, by the There are four botanical areas: Verde Valley, regional forester. Mogollon Rim, Fossil Springs, and Fern Mountain, and one geological area: Red Nonmotorized access is virtually anywhere Mountain (USFS 2011). along the boundary and at this time access to the forest is free. Motorized access is on To conserve and protect the natural and designated roads and management currently scenic qualities of the Study Area are high under the travel management plan (2011). priorities; therefore, the most likely special management designations for the lands In the future, the U.S. Forest Service may be considered in the Study Area are “National able to trade for Arizona State Trust Lands. Conservation Area” and “National Scenic Although, the U.S. Forest Service can accept Area.” A national recreation area designation donated land, the Arizona State Land Trust could result in additional recreation types and cannot donate lands. development. A special designation could potentially limit future community/public Maintaining current management supports infrastructure development in the area. the local interest in maintaining existing multiple use while allowing the locally based Given the amount of existing infrastructure in Coconino National Forest decision authority the Study Area and the close proximity of of future management, while working urban interface, a special designation could cooperatively with the National Park Service, also limit agency flexibility to effectively Flagstaff, Coconino County, Arizona State manage for threats to public health and safety. Land Department, and Arizona Game and

56 Option 2: Congressional Special Management Designation

OPTION 2: CONGRESSIONAL In most cases, management provisions for SPECIAL MANAGEMENT scenic and recreational areas include DESIGNATION restrictions on mineral leasing and timber harvest (except to protect resource Congress designates special management conditions). Historical/traditional public areas within the national forest system. Nearly access, use, and recreational opportunities are one hundred special management areas have typically retained, though some areas limit off- been established on federal lands. Most areas road vehicle use or other activities that have been created out of National Forest land, conflict with the purpose for which the area but this is not always the case. The special was set aside. Legislation often establishes an management area designation continues to be advisory council or some other type of used regularly by Congress. cooperative committee to direct or assist in management planning. Pursuing a special The legislation establishing each special designation would result in an increased management area is unique, but the emphasis on the specific purpose noted, designations generally fall into the following potentially resulting in long-term changes that categories: national monuments (Mount St. restrict other desired uses. Helens National Volcanic Monument, Washington), game refuges (Newberry A special management designation could Wildlife Refuge, Oregon), scenic areas (Seng subject future actions involving land Mountain National Scenic Area, Virginia), acquisition / disposal / exchange to other protected areas, and recreation areas congressional approval if Congress writes this (Sabino Canyon National Recreation Area, language into the enabling legislation. The Arizona). public could provide input into what the enabling legislative contains, but it is Legislation establishing the special manage- ultimately written by Congress. Congress ment areas asserts the importance of the area. could also include language in the legislation While most acts creating special management to withdraw lands from mineral extraction. areas express similar purposes for designation, The special designation would not apply to there are subtle differences between designa- Arizona State Trust Lands nor change the tion types. For example, the preservation of status of Arizona State Trust Lands, unless scenic and natural resources is prioritized in acquisitions or exchanges were approved. the designation of scenic and other protected areas. Recreation is protected, but not prioritized. Acts setting aside recreation areas, OPTION 3: CONGRESSIONAL on the other hand, usually include specific RESTRICTION ON LAND DISPOSAL provisions to protect appropriate recreational OR EXCHANGES uses within the area while also asserting resource protections. In each case, when To address the primary concern to protect the Congress withdraws the lands comprising the land from development in perpetuity, special management area it does not usually Congress could approve legislation for provide explicit language (but can) barring the specific land management direction, i.e., U.S. Forest Service from exchanging lands. restriction on disposing of land out of federal Most of the focus is in the provision of ownership. No concrete examples for this mechanisms to consolidate lands within the scenario were discovered during the research area under U.S. Forest Service management. phase of this study. Even if the legislation was silent on this issue, an area’s specific land management plan may This type of congressional restriction would outline the circumstances for retention or raise land disposal actions to requiring an act exchange of land within or adjacent to the of Congress. This would not change the status area’s boundary.

57 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ASSESSMENT of Arizona State Trust Lands unless SUMMARY/COMPARISON TABLE acquisitions were approved. AND SUGGESTIONS

Table 2 provides a brief summary of how each option meets goals, objectives, and public concern.

Cliff Dwelling on Island Trail

58 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

TABLE 2. SUMMARY/COMPARISON TABLE

Option 3: Option 1: Continue Option 2: Congressional Special Congressional

Management by USFS Management Designation Restriction on Disposal Continued management by the Same as Option 1 - Support current range USFS—use emphasis could Continued Yes. of multiple use. change, resulting in either increases management by the or decreases in some use. USFS. Local decision making to respond to changes Yes. More constrained than Option 1. Same as Option 1. in future needs. Protection of cultural No change; protected by current Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. resources. federal law and regulation.

No change; continue to manage Natural resources. resources per regulatory Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. requirements.

No change; continue to manage Water resources. resources per regulatory Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. requirements.

No change; continue to manage Fire management. resources per regulatory Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. requirements.

Threatened, endangered, and No change; protected by current Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. species of special federal law and regulation. concern. Use responds to growth, changes Recreation and visitor Could increase or decrease in activities; supports FUTS and Same as Option 1. use. depending on designation. Loop Trail. Same as Option 1 unless increased Public access and No change in fees; Coconino emphasis on developed recreation, Same as Option 1. fees. Travel Management Plan. or restriction to protect resources. Allowable land uses may be defined No change; allowable land use by congressional action. Land use in the consistent with U.S. Forest Designation could limit agency Same as Option 1. Special Study Area. Service policies and local site flexibility to effectively manage for and planning considerations. threats to public health and safety. No proposed change in Adds additional layer of planning management objectives are and staffing responsibility; may USFS management. defined under forest plan. A Same as Option 1. change depending on the regional forester designation designation. could be considered in the future. Arizona State Trust No change; Forest plan would be Lands / private amended to include any acquired Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. inholdings. lands. Achieves primary goal Land disposal would of protecting the land Land exchange approved at Land disposal would require act of require act of from development in forest or USFS region level. Congress. Congress. perpetuity.

59 MANAGEMENT OPTIONS ASSESSMENT

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

60

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION

The U.S. Forest Service and the National Park convenience on the project website or on the Service jointly initiated the special study in comment forms. A total of 328 pieces of February 2010 to explore management correspondence was received during the first options for the Study Area, per direction from public outreach period. All correspondence the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of was analyzed for comments and summarized 2009. One of the directives of the act and in a report. This document is available on the objectives of this project was to “meaningfully project website and is incorporated by engage stakeholders, City of Flagstaff, and reference (Walnut Canyon National Coconino County governments, American Monument Special Study Comments, through Indian tribes, other agencies, and the general August 2010). The comments were reviewed public at local and national levels to determine and discussed for the development of the their desires for future management of this management options. area.” The second phase of public outreach was The planning team developed a public initiated on May 10, 2011, through July 31, involvement plan that included compiling an 2011. A second newsletter was prepared and initial project mailing list from databases sent to the updated project mailing list. This supplied by the National Park Service, U.S. newsletter provided current project and open Forest Service, the City of Flagstaff, and house schedules, brief descriptions of Coconino County officials, newsletters, a preliminary management options, options for project-specific website, press releases, and state trust lands, and a summary of the open house events. management options workshop held with representatives of Coconino National Forest, The initial public outreach period was Walnut Canyon National Monument, conducted from March 22 through July 26, National Park Service Intermountain Region, 2010. A newsletter was sent to the initial City of Flagstaff, and Coconino County. The project mailing list. Information was also website was updated with new project posted to the project-specific website. Press information and a press release was sent to releases were prepared to announce the local newspapers, radio stations, and project and public meetings and were sent to organizations totaling over 100 media outlets. local newspapers, radio stations, and organizations totaling over 100. The U.S. The U.S. Forest Service, National Park Forest Service, National Park Service, Service, Coconino County, and Flagstaff Coconino County, and Flagstaff representatives hosted a second series of open representatives hosted a series of open house house events in May 2011. The open house events in April 2010. events provided an opportunity for the public to hear a presentation on the process and The open house events provided an preliminary management options, engage in opportunity for the public to engage in dialogue with the partner agencies, ask dialogue with the partner agencies; to learn questions, and discuss concerns. about the special study (history, purpose, outcomes, etc.); ask questions; and discuss Opportunities were available for group and concerns. Opportunities were available for one-on-one discussions. The public was one-on-one discussions as well as to look and encouraged to provide input and comment in listen. The public was encouraged to provide their own words, either at the open house input and comment in their own words, either events or at their convenience on the project at the open house events or at their website or on the comment forms. A total of

61 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION

113 comments were received during this Advisory Council on Historic phase of public involvement. Comments were Preservation summarized in a report. This document is Arizona Department of Commerce available on the project website and is incorporated by reference (Walnut Canyon Arizona Department of Environmental Special Study Comments, May 2011 through Quality July 2011). Arizona Department of Game and Fish Arizona Department of Mines and The third phase of public scoping occurred Mineral Resources with the public release of the draft study Arizona Department of Transportation report on May 10, 2013. The review period lasted for 60 days, ending July 10, 2013. A Arizona Department of Water Resources public open house event was held June 13, Arizona Governor’s Office 2013, at the City Hall Council Chambers in Arizona Historical Society Flagstaff, Arizona. A presentation on the process and findings of the study was Arizona Housing Allowance provided and the audience had an Arizona Public Service opportunity for questions and answers with Arizona State Historic Preservation the partner agencies. There were 31 people Office from the public in attendance. Four written comments were received during the event and Arizona State Land Department an additional 46 comments were received City of Flagstaff through the website and in hardcopy form or City of Sedona letter for a total of 50 comments (see appendix F). Coconino County Coconino County Parks & Recreation Coconino County Public Works TRIBAL CONSULTATION Federal Highway Administration In April 2010, the National Park Service and Flagstaff Public Library U.S. Forest Service sent a joint letter to the 13 Grand Canyon National Park tribes traditionally associated with the Walnut Canyon area to initiate the project. A second National Park Service letter was sent on July 28, 2011, containing the National Resources Conservation Service newsletters with project summaries. A letter Northern Arizona Intergovernmental was received from the Hopi Tribe providing Public Transportation Authority comments and accepting an invitation to meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and discuss the Special Study. A third letter was sent in April 2013 announcing the U.S. Forest Service availability of the draft report and a summary U.S. Geological Survey of the management options. The letters are U.S. Naval Observatory included in appendix G. U.S. Senator John Kyl U.S. Senator John McCain AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, As part of the public involvement process, National Park Service, City of Flagstaff, and newsletters were also sent to local, state, and Coconino County make up the planning team. federal agencies, including: Representatives from Arizona State Trust

Lands also participated in the management

62 Agency Involvement

options workshop. Arizona Game and Fish included in the summary reports referenced Department provided letters during both above. public involvement phases—these letters are

63 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

64

SELECTED REFERENCES

Anonymous 2012d Watchable Wildlife Program. 1992 A checklist of the birds of Accessed online at: Walnut Canyon National http://www.azgfd.gov/outdoor Monument. Southwest Parks _recreation/watchablewildlife/ and Monuments Association, ArizonaWatchableWildlifePro Tucson, AZ. gram.shtml.

Arizona Department of Environmental Bailey, R. G. Quality (AZDEQ) 1995 Updated 2002. Ecoregions of 2012 Little Colorado River the United States. Accessed Watershed Data. Accessed online at: online at: http://www.ADEQ http://www.fs.fed.us/im/ecore _Water_Quality_Data.pdf. gions/products/map- ecoregions-united-states/. 2012 Water Quality Information. Accessed online at: Bausch, D. B. and D.S. Brumbaugh http://www.azdeq.gov/environ 1997 Flagstaff Community /water/assessment/assess.html. Earthquake Hazard Evaluation, Coconino County, Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Arizona. Accessed online at: Resources (ADMMR) http://www.cefns.nau.edu/Org 2012 Mineral Rights and Mining s/aeic/reports/flag.html. Claims. Accessed online at: Arizona Earthquake http://mines.az.gov/info/miner Information Center. Northern alrights.html. Arizona University. Flagstafff, AZ. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 2012a Game Management Unit 5B. Bowker M. A. and Belnap J. Accessed online at: 2008 Spatial modeling of biological http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/hun soil crusts to support land ting_units_5b.shtml. management decisions. Department of Environmental 2012b Heritage Data Management Science, Northern Arizona System. Special Status Species University and U.S. Geological by County, Taxon, and Survey. Published Report- Scientific Name. Accessed 653532. online at: http://www.azgfd .gov/w_c/edits/documents/sss Brian, N. pecies_bycounty_007.pdf. 1992 Historical review of water flow and riparian vegetation at 2012c Landowner Relations Walnut Canyon National Program. Accessed online at: Monument, Arizona. www.azgfd.gov. Technical report (Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit [Tucson, AZ]); no. 44.

65 SELECTED REFERENCES

Bright, J. L., and C. van Riper III Drost C. 2000 Pronghorn home ranges, 2009 Inventory of Mammals at habitat selection and Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and distribution around water Sunset Crater National sources in northern Arizona. Monuments. Natural U.S. Geological Survey, Forest Resource Technical Report. and Rangeland Ecosystem NPS/SCPN/NRTR–2009/278. Science Center, Colorado National Park Service Natural Plateau Field Station Tech. Resource Program Center. Report. Fort Collins, CO. Published USGSFRESC/COPL/2000/. Report-663821.

Chronic, H. Flagstaff Regional Plan 1988 “Pages of Stone.” The 2011 Draft Community Profile Mountaineers. Seattle, WA. (Community_Profile_063011.p df). Flagstaff, AZ. City of Flagstaff, Arizona 1998 Open Spaces and Greenways Graham, J. Plan; Greater Flagstaff Living 2008 Walnut Canyon National with Open Spaces. Accessed Monument Geologic Resource online at: Evaluation Report. Natural http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/D Resource Report ocumentCenter/Home/view/7 NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR— 959. 2008/040. National Park Service, Denver, CO. Coconino County 2012 Comprehensive Plan: Natural Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP) Environment. Accessed online 2004 Community Wildfire at: Protection Plan for Flagstaff http://www.coconino.az.gov/c and Surrounding ommdevelopment/Comprehe Communities in the Coconino nsivePlan/NaturalEnvironmen and Kaibab National Forests t.ASP. of Coconino County, AZ. http://library.eri.nau.edu/cgi- Coconino County and City of Flagstaff bin/library. 2001 Joint Flagstaff Area Regional Land Use and Transportation 2012 Sustaining Our Forest and Plan. Completed and adopted Flagstaff Area Wildfire Risk by the Flagstaff City Council Assessment. Accessed online and the Coconino County at: www.gffp.org. Board of Supervisors in 2001 and approved by Flagstaff Hansen, M., J. Coles, K. Thomas, D. Cogan, voters in May 2002. Flagstaff, M. Reid, J. Von Loh, and K. Schulz AZ. 2004 USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program: Walnut Covington, W. W. and M. M. Moore Canyon National Monument, 1994 Southwestern ponderosa Arizona, Vegetation forest structure: changes since classification and Distribution. Euro-American settlement. J. USGS Southwest Biological For. 92 (1), 39–47. Science Center. Flagstaff, AZ.

66 Selected References

Hiebert, R. and H. Hudson National Park Service (NPS) 2010 Inventory of exotic plant 2007 Walnut Canyon National species occurring in the Monument. Final Resource Preservation Zone Environmental Impact of Walnut Canyon National Statement and General Monument, Arizona. Natural Management Plan, January Resource Technical Report. 2007. NPS/SCPN/NRTR— 2010/314. National Park 2011 Inventory and Monitoring Service, Natural Resource Program, NPSpecies Database. Program Center. Fort Collins, 2011. Certified Species Lists CO. Published Report- for all Taxonomic Categories 2166460. in Walnut Canyon National Monument. Integrated Hoffmeister, D. F. Resources Management 1986 Mammals of Arizona. Applications. Accessed online University of Arizona Press at: https://irma.nps.gov and Arizona Game and Fish /App/Portal/Home. Department. Phoenix, AZ. NatureServe Explorer Huisinga, K., P. Hogan, K. Wright, 2012 An Online Encyclopedia of H. Hamilton, and S. Crow Life. Accessed online at: 2000 Special Status Plants of the http://natureserve.org/explore Flagstaff Area National r/. Monuments. Final Report to the National Park Service, Neff, T., T. Gibbs, K. Spurr, K. C. Anderson, Arizona Ethnobotanical J. Nez, and B. Carey, with essay by D. R. Research Association. Wilcox 2011 An Assessment of the National Middleton, L. T., D. K. Elliott and M. Morales Significance of Cultural 2003 Coconino Sandstone in Grand Resources for the Walnut Canyon Geology, edited by Canyon Special Resource S. S. Beus and M. Morales. Study. Cooperative Agreement New York: Oxford University No.: H1200090005, Task Press, 2nd edition. Agreement and Requisition No.: J7470100419, Project No.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric MNA-42. Museum of Administration (NOAA) Northern Arizona. Flagstaff, 2010 Precipitation data from AZ. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climat e/online/coop-precip.html for Nowak, E. M., T. B. Persons and A. J. the Walnut Canyon reporting Monatesti station. Temperature data 2003 2002 Progress report on from www.ncdc.noaa.gov herpetofauna inventories of /ol/climate/climatedata.html southern Colorado Plateau for the Flagstaff area. Accessed national parks. Report to 1997‒2003. Southern Colorado Plateau Inventory and Monitoring Network. USGS Colorado Plateau Field Station, Flagstaff, AZ.

67 SELECTED REFERENCES

NPSpecies Database ology/inventory/publications/ 2011 Accessed online at: map_graphics/ http://science.nature.nps.gov/i waca_map_graphic.pd) m/apps/npspp/. Pearthree, P. A., K. R. Vincent, R. Brazier, and Omernik, J. M. D. M. Kendricks 1987 Ecoregions of the 1996 Plio-Quaternary faulting and conterminous United States. seismic hazard in the Flagstaff Map (scale 1:7,500,000). area, northern Arizona: Annals of the Association of Arizona Geological Survey American Geographers Bulletin 200. 77(1):118-125. Santucci, Vincent L. and V. Luke Santucci Jr. Phillips, K. A. 1999 An inventory of 2009 Arizona Land Ownership paleontological resources Status. Circular No. 2. Arizona from Walnut Canyon National Department of Mines and Monument, Arizona. In Mineral Resources. Phoenix, National Park Service AZ. Paleontological Research. Vol. 4. Edited by Vincent L. Persons T. B. and E. M. Nowak Santucci and Lindsay 2008 Inventory of Amphibians and McClelland. GRD Technical Reptiles for Twelve National Report NPS/NRGRD/ Parks in the Southern GRDTR- 99/03, p. 118- 120. Colorado Plateau Network. National Park Service, United Schon, K. States Geological Survey, 2000 Saguaro National Park and Northern Arizona University. Walnut Canyon National Unpublished Report-660457. Monument 2000 Fire Effects Report. Fire Effects Raucci, Jason, Michael Ort, Ronald C. Blakey, Monitoring Program, Saguaro Paul J. Umhoefer, Nathan O. Blythe, and National Park, AZ. Mark Manone 2004 National Park Service geologic Short, M. S. resource evaluation; geologic 1988 Walnut Canyon and Wupatki: mapping of Walnut Canyon A History. M.S. Thesis. National Monument and Northern Arizona University. Petrified Forest National Park, northern Arizona. Boulder: Solomonson, M. G. Geological Society of America, 1973 The Mammals of Walnut Abstracts with Programs, Vol. Canyon National Monument. 36, 230. Plateau 43(1).

Raucci, J., N. Blythe, M. Ort, and M. Manone Southwest Vegetation Management 2003 Geologic Map of the Greater Association Walnut Canyon National 2012 San Francisco Peaks Weed Monument Area. Scale Management Area. Accessed 1:12,000. Northern Arizona online at: http://www.swvma University. Unpublished .org/sanfranciscopeakswma.ht digital map. m. (http://www.nature.nps.gov/ge

68 Selected References

Toupal, Rebecca S. and Richard W. Stoffle U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2004 Traditional Resource Use of Natural Resources Conservation Service the Flagstaff Area Monuments, (NRCS) Final Report. Bureau of 2011 Wildfire Recovery Tips for Applied Research in Soil Erosion. Accessed online Anthropology, University of at: http://www.az.nrcs Arizona, Tucson, AZ, July 19, .usda.gov/news/releases/ 2004. Arizona-Wildfire-Recovery- Tips.html. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2012 Natural Resource Information U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest System: Threatened, Service, Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff Endangered, and Sensitive Ranger District Species and Invasive Species 2012 Grazing Annual Operating Information. Instructions. Signed in 2012 by Deputy District Ranger, J. J. 2012 Official Soil Series Hensiek. Flagstaff, AZ. Descriptions. Accessed online at: http://soilseries.sc.egov U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest .usda.gov/OSD_Docs/html. Service, Coconino National Forest 1987 Revision Management Plan, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Forest Plan Revision. Accessed Service, Climate Change Resource Center online at: (http://www.fs.usda. 2012 Western U.S. Bark Beetles and gov/detail/coconino/landman Climate Change. Accessed agement/planning/?cid=stelpr online at: db5334655) http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topi cs/incects- 2010 Monitoring and Evaluation disturbanec/barkbeetles.shtml. Report, FY 2010. Signed in 2011 by Forest Supervisor, M. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Earl Stewart. Flagstaff, AZ. Forest Service, Coconino and Kaibab National Forest U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 2011 Proposed Action for Four- Resources Conservation Service and Forest Restoration Initiative University of Arizona, Water Resources http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nep Research Center a_project_exp.php?project=34 2011 Canyon Diablo Watershed, 857 Rapid Watershed Assessment Report. In cooperation with : U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Coconino Natural Resource Forest Service, Southwest Region Conservation District; Arizona 2005 Final Environmental Impact Department of Agriculture; Statement for Integrated Arizona Department of Treatment of Noxious or Environmental Quality; Invasive Weeds. Coconino, Arizona Department of Water Kaibab, and Prescott National Resources; Arizona Game & Forests within Coconino, Gila, Fish Department; Arizona Mojave, and Yavapai State Land Department; USDA Counties, AZ. Coconino Forest Service; and USDI National Forest. Flagstaff, AZ. Bureau of Land Management. Tucson, AZ.

69 SELECTED REFERENCES

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and gov/detail/coconino/landman Wildlife Service and Arizona Game and Fish agement/planning/?cid=stelpr Department db5334655). 2011 Biological Assessment of the AGFD Statewide and Urban 2010 Environmental Assessment Fisheries Stocking Program; Marshall Fuel Reduction and Little Colorado River Forest Restoration Project. Watershed. Accessed on line: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nep U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and a_project_exp.php?project=31 Wildlife Service (USFWS) 437 1995 Recovery plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl: vol. I. USDI Fish 2011 Draft Land Management Plan. and Wildlife Service, Management Areas. Flagstaff, Albuquerque, NM, USA. AZ.

2011 Draft Recovery Plan for the 2011 Record of Decision, Travel Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix Management Project and Final occidentalis lucida), First Environmental Impact Revision. U.S. Fish and Statement. Accessed online at: Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ NM, USA. coconino/landmanagement/pr ojects/?cid=stelprdb5263010. 2012 Coconino County Threatened and Endangered Species 2012 Stakeholder Report. Accessed Tabular Information. online: http://www.fs.usda.gov Accessed online at: /Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS http://www.fws.gov/southwest /stelprdb5408235.pdf /es/arizona/Documents/ CountyLists/Coconino.pdf 2012 Invasive Weeds. Accessed online at: http://prdp2fs.ess U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .usda.gov/detail/coconino/lan 2012 Ecoregion and Watershed dmanagement/resourcemanag Information. Accessed online ement/?cid=fsbdev3_054805. at: http://www.epa.gov. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Coconino 2009 Geographic Information National Forest System Coverages for the 2003 Flagstaff/Lake Mary Special Study Area. Accessed Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) online at: http://biology.usgs Area. Forest Plan Amendment .gov/npsveg/waca/images/wac Number 17. Accessed online avegmap.pdf. at: http://www.fs.usda.gov /detailfull/coconino/landmana U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and National gement/projects/?cid=stelprdb Park Service (NPS) 53461838&width=full#02Dec 2012 Vegetation Map for the Entire 20. Walnut Canyon Study Area, Produced in 2009. Accessed 2008 Revision Management Plan, online at: http://biology.usgs Forest Plan Revision. Accessed .gov/npsveg/waca/images/wac online at: (http://www.fs.usda. avegmap.pdf.

70 Selected References

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) 11); The Recreation Coordination and 2009 Omnibus Public Land Development Act (Public Law 88-29, Management Act of 2009. approved May 28, 1963, 77 Stat. 49). Accessed Public Law 111-11; 123 online at: http://www.fws.gov/laws/ STAT.991. 11th Congress. lawsdigest/LWCONS.html. Washington, D.C. Wilderness Act (16 USC 1131 et seq.). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 1964. (P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890 amended. (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 USC 4321-4347, as amended; 16 USC January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, 1131(note), 1131-1136). July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Accessed online at: Pub. L. 97-258, § 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982). http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Inter Accessed online at: http://ceq.hss.doe. net/FSA_File/wilderness_act.p gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm. df. National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) Public Law 95-625; 92 STAT 3467 (16 USC 1a- 2012 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. 5et seq.). 95th Congress. Accessed online at: Desert Research Institute. http://www.nps.gov/mawa/upload/Public- Reno, NV. Law-95-625.pdf.

Public Law 111-11 – Omnibus Public Land LAWS AND REGULATIONS Management Act of 2009

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act The White House, Executive Order 13112. amendments. June 10, 1977 (Public Law 95- 1999. Invasive Species. Accessed online at: 42) (91 Stat. 210). Increased the authorizations http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/eos13112.ht for acquisition of certain previously ml. authorized areas. LWCF (16 USC 460l - 460l-

71 SELECTED REFERENCES

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

72

PLANNING TEAM

U.S. Forest Service / Coconino Joanne Keene, Government Relations National Forest Director, Coconino County

Mike Chaveas, former Acting District City of Flagstaff Ranger Mike Elson, District Ranger Bob Caravona Franklin Thomas, Resource Information Celia Barotz Specialist Kimberly Sharp, AICP, Acting Yewah Lau, Forest Planner Comprehensive Planning Manager, Jennifer J. Hensiek, Deputy District City of Flagstaff Ranger Jim Cronk Jeremy Haines, District Archeologist Arizona State Trust Lands National Park Service Ed Dietrich (retired) Kayci Cook, Superintendent, Flagstaff Mark Edelman Area Monuments Victoria Carella Leah McGinnis, Former Acting Gordon Taylor Superintendent, Flagstaff Area Lillian Moodey Monuments Diane Chung, former Superintendent, Arizona State Forestry Division Flagstaff Area Monuments Lisa Leap, Chief of Resource Al Hendricks Management, Flagstaff Area Monuments Arizona Game and Fish Skip Meehan, Office of Planning, Intermountain Regional Office, Mark Ogonowski, Urban Wildlife National Park Service Planner, Region 2 Office Kat Eisenman, Management Assistant, Rick Miller, retired Flagstaff National Monuments Joshua J. Kleinman, Compliance AARCHER, Inc. Archeologist, Flagstaff Area National Monuments Jayne Aaron, Planner and Facilitator Karstin Carmany-George, Archeologist Coconino County Wanda Gray Lafferty, Editor Jim Von Loh, Biologist Liz Archuleta, District 2 Supervisor, Ron Dutton, Socioeconomist Coconino County Board of (subcontractor) Supervisors Mandy Metzger, Chair, Coconino HDR, Inc. County Board of Supervisors, District 4 Supervisor Mark West, Website Manager Steve Peru Nancy Jepsen, Public Involvement Sue E. Pratt, AICP, Interim Director, Support Coconino County Community Development

73 PLANNING TEAM

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

74