Possible Impacts of Using Reclaimed Water on Water Resources and Other Related Issues in Flagstaff,

Item Type text; Proceedings

Authors Leao, Duncan; Tecle, Aregai

Publisher Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science

Journal Hydrology and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest

Rights Copyright ©, where appropriate, is held by the author.

Download date 24/09/2021 19:51:58

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/296600 POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF SNOWMAKING USING RECLAIMED WATER ON WATER RESOURCES AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES IN FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

Duncan Leao and Aregai Teclei

The winter season provides the public with Although snowmaking can provide many bene- numerous outdoor recreational opportunities. Ski-fits to the economy of Flagstaff, several factors ing is a major activity that many people participate must be considered before implementing a snow- in and benefit from during the winter months. In making program. The objective of this paper is to addition to its recreational value, local businesses describe the requirements for snowmaking and its such as restaurants, hotels, and equipment rental potential impacts on regional water resources and shops all profit from winter recreation and tour- many other components of the ecosystem in the ski ism. However, the absence or interruption of area and downstream from it. In addition, some tourism due to insufficient snowfall seriously recommendations are made concerning the imple- affects many businesses. The recurring drought in mentation of snowmaking in the area. the Southwest, which produces insufficient snow- fall during winter, has become a problem that is SITE DESCRIPTION affecting many ski areas in the western United Arizona Snowbowl is located 14 miles north of States. Flagstaff, Arizona, on the One solution that is employed by 91 percent of within the Coconino National Forest (Figure 1). At the ski areas in the West is artificial generation of a present, the total skiing area consists of 205 acres. sustainable snow supply (J. R. Murray, Arizona The elevation of the skiing area at Snowbowl Snowbowl manager, personal communication ranges from 9200 feet at the base to 11,500 feet at 2003). Recent abnormal weather patterns and un- the top (Murray, personal communication 2003). seasonably warm and dry winters in northern Ari- The hydrology of the area is primarily influenced zona have led the Arizona Snowbowl, a ski facility by two seasonal precipitation types: winter snow operating since 1938 near Flagstaff, Arizona, to and the summer monsoon. Of these two, spring propose making artificial snow to augment the in- snowmelt provides most of the water that re- termittently occurring natural snow in the winter. charges the groundwater system. This is so be- The proposal includes a plan to use up to 1.5 cause more infiltration and groundwater recharge million gallons of reclaimed water per day fromoccur in the winter and early spring months when November to the end of February whenever snowthe ground is saturated with snowmelt, and there deficiency occurs. The use of reclaimed water for is a prolonged period of minimal evapotranspira- snowmaking is a common practice at several ski tion loss. Summer recharge is generally from in- areas; for example, two ski areas that use re-tense thunderstorms that produce runoff into claimed water for snowmaking are Bear Mountain streams, solution channels, and sinkholes that in California and Whitetail in Pennsylvania. Cur- direct the water rapidly into the ground. However, rently, the main demand for reclaimed water high evapotranspiration rates in the summer limit during the spring and summer months in Flagstaff the amount of water that reaches the water table is for watering golf courses, cemeteries, private during less intense precipitation events (Bills et al. homes, and city parks. However, during the win- 2000). Precipitation increases with elevation. At ter months, the reclaimed water from the Rio de higher elevations such as on the San Francisco Flag Wastewater Treatment Plant is released into Peaks, 30 inches of precipitation per year is corn - the Rio de Flag, where it travels approximately 2 mon (Gavin 1998). The south and west flanks of miles downstream before it disappears into the the San Francisco Peaks are headwaters to the Rio ground. de Flag and Volunteer Wash. Most of Snowbowl ski area lies within the headwaters of Volunteer I School of Forestry, University Wash. Most of the runoff from snowmelt and 48 Leao and Tecle

To Grand Canyon

FLAGSTAFF GRßIC CENTER ARIZONA SNCA+YBQWL

SKI LIFT# LODGE

Figure 1. Location of Arizona Snowbowl. (Source: Arizona Snowbowl) intense rains flows in a southwesterly direction of 200 feet below the ground's surface in the through the Bellemont area to join Sycamore Can- Snowbowl area. Otherwise, the regional aquifer is yon, which is one of the tributaries of the Verde located several thousand feet (depending on land River. Only a small portion of the Snowbowl ski surface elevation from 3000 to 5000 feet) below the area lies within the headwaters of the Rio de Flag. surface along the flanks of the San Francisco Peaks. The Rio de Flag flows in a southerly direction On the surface the dominant soils in the Snowbowl through Flagstaff before it turns eastward to join area are sandy loam, which can be considered well Walnut Canyon to form San Francisco Wash. Sandrained. Permeability of these soils ranges from Francisco Wash then flows into Canyon Diablo, 0.06 inches per hourr to 1.98 in /hr (Gavin 1998). which eventually drains into the Little Colorado The soils and moisture regime in the area support River. a wide range of vegetation types, which change The geology of the Snowbowl area is complex with elevation. From 7000 feet to 12,633 feet, the because the San Francisco Peaks are erosional vegetation consists of pine, aspen, mixed conifer, remnants of a compound stratovolcano with lava and alpine tundra forest types. domes. Since the creation of the San Francisco Peaks during the late Pliocene, approximately 7.5 IMPORTANCE OF THE miles of rhyolite, dacite, and andesite have been SAN FRANCISCO PEAKS erupted (Holm 1987). The presence of multiple The San Francisco Peaks are valuable for recrea- embedded layers of dense (basalt) and porous tion, research, sources of industrial materials, (cinders) volcanic formations gives rise to several domestic water supply, and cultural heritage. Rec- perched water -bearing zones at minimum depths reationists use the mountains for hiking, camping, Impacts of Snowmaking in Flagstaff 49 backpacking, wildlife viewing, and skiing. Re- ply from the storage tank in Thorpe Park, located searchers use it to study wildfire occurrences, con- in northwest Flagstaff. Starting at a pumping trol and management, and ecological succession station at Thorpe Park, the water supply pipeline with elevation, and to learn about the mountainwould run northwest across Observatory Mesa and its various components. Industry uses the area along existing forest roads where it would connect as a source of pumice to wash denim and to make with an existing clearing for a natural gas pipeline cement blocks. The mountains are also important that crosses Snowbowl Road. It would then follow for the city of Flagstaff as the source of water and the road up to the ski area. In addition three boos- recharge area for the city's water supply wells. ter pumping stations may be installed at strategic Native Americans use the mountains for religious locations along the pipeline. When the water ceremonies and to gather medicinal native plants reaches Snowbowl, a 10 million gallon water stor- (Land Use History of the Colorado Plateau 2002). age pond would be required to store the reclaimed At the base of the San Francisco Peaks are nu- water and to ensure operational efficiency of the merous wells used as sources of water for private snowmaking process (Coconino National Forest residences and nine wells used as sources of water 2002). Considering the high infiltration rate of the for the city. Because the geology is complex, wells soils in the ski area, the storage pond would need used for private residences range anywhere from to be lined with an impervious material. The 50 to 1000 feet deep. The city wells, which are stored water could also be used for fire suppres- located in the Inner Basin on the northwest aspect sion. of the Peaks, range from 400 to 600 feet deep. In Two main types of snowmaking "guns" would the late 1950s the Snowbowl ski area attempted be used to disperse the artificial snow onto the ski but failed to drill a well for a source of domesticruns. On the lower slopes airless fan guns would water supply (D. J. Bills, USGS hydrologist, per- be used, and on the upper slopes, air /water tower sonal communication 2002). guns would be used. Airless guns are generally mounted on towers or sleds that are towed behind SNOWMAKING REQUIREMENTS a snow cat. They spray water out of nozzles while According to Wingle (1994), installing snow- an electrically powered fan disrupts the water into making facilities requires prior comprehensive small droplets that are propelled into the air. planning to ensure efficient water use, to under- Standard air /water guns use nozzles in which a stand the wind patterns that can affect snow stream of water is internally interrupted by a jet of deposition, to secure skier safety, and to minimize compressed air that creates small water droplets. installation costs and land disturbance in the To avoid collision and ensure safety, it is impor- process. As a result, proper planning for snow- tant to locate snowmaking guns and towers away making involves identifying and understanding from the direct paths of skiers (American Skiing such elements as sources of water supply, snow-Company 2003). In addition to installing a buried making infrastructure, and weather patterns. pipeline and storage pond, the snowmaking infra- According to the Arizona Department of Envi- structure would also require the burial of air, ronmental Quality (ADEQ), reclaimed water with water, and power lines along the edges of ski trails an "A" rating can be used for snowmaking (Coco- and the construction of a snowmaking control nino National Forest 2002); the reclaimed waste- building, which would require approximately 3000 water produced by the city of Flagstaff's Rio de sq ft of space (Coconino National Forest 2002). Flag Wastewater Treatment Plant (RFWTP) has an One element that dictates how much snow A rating. This means that the reclaimed water hasSnowbowl can make and when snowmaking can gone through an advanced tertiary treatment occur is the weather. In general, snow is made process that involves filtration, disinfection, and efficiently when the wet bulb temperature is complete removal of nearly all nitrogen, and that it between 28° and 20° F. When temperatures rise meets ADEQ requirements for full -body contact above 28° F, water particles from snow guns do (Rio de Flag Wastewater Treatment Plant 2002). not freeze to become snow. When temperatures go Planning for snowmaking entails the identifica- below -20° F, the weather is too cold for snow- tion of the snowmaking infrastructure. The Snow - making. However, throughout the winter, temper- bowl's proposal to the U.S. Forest Service requires atures for snowmaking at Snowbowl are optimal installation of a buried pipeline approximately 14 during the evening or early morning hours. Wind miles long to carry uphill the reclaimed water sup- can also play an important role in snowmaking 50 Leao and Tecle because high winds can carry water droplets regional aquifer. The beneficiaries of the perennial beyond the edge of the ski trail and into the trees. surface flow are the riparian vegetation and wild- As a result, on windy days ski areas usually limitlife along the Rio de Flag below the treatment snowmaking activities to wind- sheltered areas to plant; the additions to the regional aquifer may avoid wasting energy, water, and labor (American also help groundwater availability in the area. Skiing Company 2003). However, the proposed transfer of water for snow- making may reduce the reclaimed water availa- IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES bility for the above uses by 0-15 percent depend- Throughout history, human activities have ing on the availability of natural snow in a winter impacted water resources in many different ways. season. According to Springer et al. (2003), the In this case, translocation of reclaimed water, the estimated decrease in reclaimed water availability construction of a snowmaking infrastructure, and for groundwater recharge because of the proposed the snowmaking process will affect the hydrology snowmaking is 6 percent. and water resources in Flagstaff and in the vicinity In addition to its effect on the city of Flagstaff, of Snowbowl. Approximately two- thirds of thesnowmaking at Snowbowl may also affect the Flagstaff water supply comes from wells that tap watershed conditions on the Peaks. Artificial snow the regional aquifer. The wells have been pumped generally melts slower than naturally occurring at increasing rates over the past several years be- snow because it is denser and has a higher water cause of growing population and demand (Spring- content (American Skiing Company 2003). Fur- er et al. 2003). However, Flagstaff's current water thermore, snowmaking will help extend the skiing shortage problems are due not only to heavy season, resulting in a deeper snow pack. The avail- consumption, but also to drought, as evidenced by ability of more snow and water may have some the record low amounts of precipitation during the effect on the ecosystem. The extra snow could last 3-4 years (Flagstaff Activist 2002). increase surface and groundwater supplies and During the summer months of 2002, one of the could benefit drought- stressed trees as well as driest seasons on record, Flagstaff used between providing abundant water sources for wildlife 724,000 and 840,000 gallons of reclaimed water per (Murray, personal communication 2003). The sur- day for watering parks, cemeteries, golf courses, face water availability may also recharge perched and other landscapes within the city. The totalaquifers in the area and enhance groundwater amount of reclaimed water used during the sum- supply availability in local wells and the 20 springs mer accounted for approximately 17 percent of the found on the San Francisco Peaks. According to a reclaimed water produced at the RFWTP duringstudy conducted by Gavin (1998), the perched the entire year (Rio de Flag Wastewater Treatment aquifers and springs on the San Francisco Peaks Plant 2003). A maximum daily use of reclaimed have localized characteristics that respond strongly water at Snowbowl of 1.5 million gallons during to recharge from snowmelt. These springs provide the ski season would consume approximately 25 water to the threatened Bebb willow (Salix bebbia- percent of annual reclaimed water production at na); about 150 animal species depend on the pres- the RFWTP. However, according to Kim Clark, ence of this willow for survival. director of skiing at Snowbowl (Clark, personal The ecosystem may also be adversely affected communication 2002), a more realistic amount of from increased runoff and sediment yield, soil water used for snowmaking is 700,000 gallons pererosion, and changes in the water chemistry (Bills, day. This would account for 15 percent of the personal communication 2003). However, accord- annual reclaimed water produced at the RFWTP. ing to Murray (2003), during past skiing seasons at Hence, implementation of the proposed snowmak- Snowbowl where snowpack and the skiing season ing project along with the city's current summer lasted into March, there has been no flooding from use would consume about 39-47 percent of annual increased runoff or major erosion problems. Run- reclaimed water production at the RFWTP, de-off and erosion values can be estimated using pending on whether the summer water use goes empirical equations, but the results would be the on for 6-8 months, respectively. same due to the presence of very porous cindery As stated earlier, the RFWTP discharges most of soils and volcanic rocks, and because of the large its reclaimed water downstream into the Rio deamount of sublimation that occurs in the Snow - Flag where it becomes a perennial water supplybowl area. This is corroborated by a study in the for wetland habitat while also recharging the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Impacts of Snowmaking in Flagstaff 51

Hampshire, which found that downstream flows Table 1. Comparison of the reclaimed water chemistry at the Rio de Flag Wastewater Treatment Plant with U.S. during snowmelt seasons from clearings such as national drinking water standards (Van der Leeden ski runs are not significant. However, the Hubbard 1990). Brook study revealed that a mountainside clearing Reclaimed Drinking Water could change the timing of the runoff, resulting in Parameter Water Standards its occurrence being 4-8 days earlier in the spring (American Skiing Company 2003). Another con- pH 7.05 -7.81 6.5-8.5 cern is that although reclaimed water has been Hardness (CaCO3) < 116,000 gg /L< 500,000 µg/L used for watering parks, golf courses, and other Total dissolved solids 1000 µg /L < 500,000 µg/L landscapes, it has not been thoroughly studied to Coliform < 2.0 CFU /L < 1 CFU/L determine whether the water chemistry of the Lead 1.0 µg /L < 50 µg/L runoff from snowmelt could pose a problem to Copper 9.4 µg /L < 1000 µg/L wildlife, vegetation, groundwater, and other com- Zinc 45.0 µg /L < 5000 µg/L ponents in the ecosystem. However, this concern Sulfate NODI < 250,000 µg/L may be laid to rest by comparing the chemical Nitrate NODI < 10,000 µg/L quality of the reclaimed water with that of drink- Sulfide NODI < 250,000 µg/L ing water standards, and the chemical quality of Selenium NODI <10µg/L the precipitation in the area. Silver NODI < 50 µg/L RFWTP techniciansreport monthly Cadmium NODI < 0.10 µg/L laboratory test results for the reclaimed water Chlorine NODI < 250,000 µg/L effluent. Table 1 compares the reclaimed water Mercury NODI < 2 µg/L quality test results for December of 2002 with the Units are expressed as micrograms per liter (µg /L) and coli- U.S.National Drinking Water Standards. form units per liter (CFU /L). NODI is none in the discharge. Although values for precipitation are not given in Table 1, atmospheric water contains chemicals such as bicarbonates and Mn and F salts. In addition, the pH of precipitation around Flagstaff CFU /L. This amount is significantly lower than is between 5.0 and 5.5; this is relatively acidic the amount of bacteria found in the soil (Bachus compared to the pH of 7.0 to 7.8 found in 1998). Furthermore, when the reclaimed water is reclaimed water (Van der Leeden et al. 1990). No converted to snow in the snowmaking process, any nitrogen or sulfur compounds were detected in the bacteria found in the water is destroyed before it reclaimed water from the RFWTP. This is melts. important because atmospheric acid deposition on forest ecosystems is caused in large part by IMPACTS ON OTHER ISSUES industrial pollution (the release of nitrates and Stakeholders interested in what happens at sulfates into our atmosphere) and this can alter soil Snowbowl include facility operators, recreationists, chemical properties and nutrient cycling (Van Native Americans, government agencies, employ- Miegroet et al. 1998). The RFWTP reclaimed water ees, and environmental groups, all with a wide contains very small amounts of lead, zinc, and range of opinions about snowmaking. Snowbowl copper, with concentrations of 1.0, 45.0, and 9.4 officials have predicted that the skiing facility will µg /L, respectively. These values are well withineventually close without snowmaking (Ghioto the national drinking water standards, making the 2002). Hence, any decision on snowmaking will reclaimed water safe for drinking as far as these impact all of these stakeholders in one way or chemicals are concerned (Van der Leeden et al. another. 1990). Other metals were not detected in the re- Many local recreationists use Snowbowl during claimed water sample from the RFWTP effluent. In the winter for skiing and snowboarding. Recrea- spite of this the reclaimed water is not safe to drink tionists argue that without snowmaking there is a because there are trace quantities of bacteria meas- loss of opportunity for the people of Flagstaff and ured as coliform units (CFU). According to the surrounding areas to participate in and benefit national drinking water standards, the maximum from winter recreation. In the past, Snowbowl has allowable amount of bacteria in drinking water ishad a ski club or team that produced top -notch 1.0 CFU /L; however, the reclaimed water is slight-skiers and Olympic hopefuls. However, in recent ly above the maximum with counts about 2.0 years, the ski team has had to visit other ski areas 52 Leao and Tecle to practice, which puts team members at a severe local restaurants (Lopez 2003). Considering all of disadvantage (Ghioto 2002). these types of activities, a continuously operating The San Francisco Peaks are sacred to at least 13 Snowbowl that remains open from November to Native American tribes. They include the , mid -April with the help of snowmaking would , Zuni, Tewa, , Havasupai, - contribute more than 20 million dollars to the local , Yavapai- Prescott, Tonto Apache, White economy. Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, San Juan Before proceeding with the snowmaking proj- Southern Paiute, Fort McDowell Mohave Apache, ect, several other potential impacts on the eco- and Acoma. These tribes value the San Francisco system must be considered. For example, the Peaks because they are used to gather medicinal disturbances from installation of the snowmaking plants and herbs as well as being a place for reli- infrastructure along the way from Flagstaff to gious ceremonies and spiritual practices (Flagstaff Snowbowl could increase the proliferation of non- Activist 2002). Many people fear that the reclaimed native species, which often spread and compete water is not pure, and therefore applying it to with native species, and which may inadvertently Snowbowl through snowmaking would desecrate be introduced when straw bales or other forms of the sacred place. Although the reclaimed water is biomass are used to protect the soil (Kaibab Na- almost safe to drink, the water is not pure enough tional Forest 1999). In addition several species of to use comfortably for drinking (Arizona Dailywildlife including some threatened and endan- Sun Staff 2002). Also, tribal members argue that gered species may be affected by the installation of altering the ecology by making snow is wrong the infrastructure and the subsequent noise and because constructing a pipeline disturbs the earth light produced during snowmaking in the evening and adding reclaimed water affects wildlife, vege-hours. This could cause wildlife to avoid the ski tation, and sacred spirits living on the Peaks (Ray- area, and ultimately result in the displacement of ner 2002). wildlife species that live in the area during the Snowbowl has a significant impact on the over- winter (Flagstaff Activist 2002). all economy of Flagstaff, especially during winter months. In a good ski season Snowbowl attracts CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS between 125,000 and 180,000 visitors. The Coconi- The proposed plan to use reclaimed water for no National Forest (2002) estimates the economic snowmaking must be carefully evaluated to deter- impact of Snowbowl at 20 million dollars, which mine its advantages and disadvantages with comes in different forms. During an average ski respect to various water resources and environ- season, Snowbowl employs about 400 people to mental issues. The environmental impact of run the skiing operation. Of the 400 people, 200 are snowmaking is addressed in the required environ- full -time seasonal employees who depend on win- mental impact statement (EIS), which was released ter employment for most of their income (Murray, to the public in the fall of 2003. Although the EIS is personal communication 2003). Another way in the primary basis for the decision to implement the which Snowbowl helps the local economy is proposed project, we have several important ele- through the nearly 200 local companies that sellments to consider and recommend for snowmak- directly to Snowbowl items such as food, ski ing at Snowbowl. equipment, cleaning supplies, and restroom sup- The greatest long -term impact of the proposed plies (Lopez 2003). In addition, during the last 10 snowmaking project is on the city of Flagstaff. years, approximately 76 percent of Snowbowl Snowmaking will reduce water availability in the visitors have come from outside the city of Flag- area due to significant water losses to the atmos- staff. The majority of these out -of -town visitors phere by sublimation of the artificial snow. Con- come from Phoenix and other areas in Arizona to sidering that the population of Flagstaff and ski or snowboard, and many of them use local surrounding areas is fast increasing, it may not be hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, sporting goods wise to export the city of Flagstaff water resources stores, and other establishments to meet their for use outside its boundaries unless deemed needs during their stay in the area (Rayner 2002). necessary. About 33 percent of the out -of town visitors corn- Considering that Snowbowl would use the ing to Flagstaff for skiing and snowboarding spend reclaimed water only on 200 acres of the ski area one night in a Flagstaff motel, paying an average and that snowmaking may not be necessary dur- nightly room rate of 63 dollars. Also, each out -of- ing most of the ski season, the negative impacts of town visitor spends an average of 28 dollars at snowmaking on both city of Flagstaff water Impacts of Snowmaking in Flagstaff 53 resources and the watershed conditions in the ski its original location and snowmaking on the local area may be overemphasized. Historically, the environment. Then, if it is determined that the impacts of high periods of snowmelt on increased riparian habitat is suffering from decreased runoff, erosion, and sediment yields at Snowbowl reclaimed water flows in the Rio de Flag and /or have been minimal. However, these impacts may there is a significant decrease of recharge into the be greater due to ground -disturbing activities dur- regional aquifer, the snowmaking process may be ing the initial implementation of the snowmakingscaled back to ensure the availability of adequate process. Furthermore, the impact of changes in the water for various uses in the area. Last, we water chemistry may not be significant because the recommend that any expansion of the ski area reclaimed water is mostly as clean as drinking should seek acceptance from concerned Native water after it has frozen and melted. Likewise, the American tribes. impacts of snowmaking on wildlife and vegetation may not be that great because many species of LITERATURE CITED wildlife already tend to avoid large crowds of American Skiing Company. 2003. Everything you ever wanted to know about snowmaking. Available online people, and the impacts on vegetation from con- at http: / /www. peaks .com /htmll.experience.snow / struction of snowmaking infrastructure can be snow_2.html. mitigated with best management practices. Arizona Daily Sun Staff. 2002. Will snowmaking pass The impact of snowmaking at Snowbowl on 'sacred test.' Arizona Daily Sun. September 8. Flag- staff. Native American cultural heritage is a serious Bachus, R. C. 1998. Abstract: Comments on how com- concern for many Native Americans, because munities are using a process developed by Delta many tribes consider the mountain to be a sacred Engineering to turn waste into snow. Christian Science Monitor 90(77): 13. area and source of spiritual healing. Therefore, it is Bills, D., M. Truini, M. Flynn, H. Pierce, R. Catchings, important to develop close collaboration with the and M. Rymer. 2000. Hydrogeology of the regional tribes and to incorporate their views and feelings aquifer near Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994 -97. Water - Resources Investigations Report 00 -4122. U.S. Depart- during both the planning and implementation of ment of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. the snowmaking process. Coconino National Forest. 2002. Snowbowl proposal Although there are potential adverse impacts highlights and background information. Accessed online 2003 at http: / /www.fs.fed.us /r3 /Coconino/ from snowmaking at Snowbowl, there are many news_Snowbowl_background.shtml. positive impacts as well. Benefits include increased Flagstaff Activist. 2002. Snowbowl snowmaking. Ac- groundwater recharge to nearby aquifers, in- cessed online 2003 at http: / /www.flagstaffactivist. org/snowbowl/snow.htmI. creased water availability for vegetation and Gavin, A. J. 1998. Hydrogeology and numerical simu- wildlife, continuous availability of recreation for lation of a spring -dominated, high- elevation riparian skiing enthusiasts, and increased jobs and revenue community, Hart Prairie, Arizona. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. for the city of Flagstaff and nearby communities. Ghioto, G. 2002. Speaking out on snowmaking. Arizona The use of reclaimed water for snowmaking may Daily Sun. October 11. Flagstaff. also promote further use of reclaimed water Holm, R. F. 1987. San Francisco Mountain: A late Ceno- zoic composite volcano in northern Arizona. In Cen- regionally and nationally, giving Flagstaff the tennial Field Guide Volume 2, edited by S. S. Beus. opportunity to set a precedent for public accept- Rocky Mountain Section of the Geological Society of ance of such use of recycled water. A model of America. Kaibab National Forest. 1999. Draft environmental im- expanded use of reclaimed water may free millions pact statement regarding the expansion of Williams of gallons of drinking water that is currently being ski area, Coconino County, Arizona. USDA Forest used for snowmaking and other purposes around Service, Kaibab National Forest, Williams AZ. Land Use History of the Colorado Plateau. 2003. San the country. Therefore, we recommend that ex- Francisco Peaks. Accessed online 2003 at http: // tensive monitoring be conducted to determine the www.cpluhria.nau.edu/Places/san_francisco_peaks. impacts of snowmaking with reclaimed water on htm. Lopez, J. 2003. Flagstaff economy is not driven by snow- regional water resources, vegetation, and wildlife fall. The Lumberjack. January 22 -28, Northern Arizo- resources. Also, a more comprehensive study na University, Flagstaff. should be conducted to determine the demogra- Rayner, L. 2002. City ok's reclaimed water for snowmak- ing. Flagstaff Tea Party 3(4). Flagstaff AZ. Accessed phy of the various recreationists who use Snow- 2003 online at http:www.flagteaparty.org/ Publica- bowl and to help determine the actual contribution tions / Headilines /Pages / 2002March_ApriI2002 /Snow of snowmaking to the economy of Flagstaff. bowl. Likewise, there would be a need for an extensive Rio de Flag Wastewater Treatment Plant. 2003. Rio de Flag plant overview. A pamphlet available from the study to determine the short -term and long -term Rio de Flag Wastewater Treatment Plant, Flagstaff AZ. impacts of both the diversion of water away from 2 pp. 54 Leao and Tecle

Springer, A., P. Schwartzman, and C. Avery. 2003. Snowmaking will have impact on groundwater. Ari- zona Daily Sun. Accessed online 2003 at http: / /www. flagstaffactivist.org/snowbowl/hydrologist.html. Van der Leeden, F., F. L. Troise, and D. K. Todd. 1990. The water encyclopedia. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea MI. Van Miegroet, H., D. W. Cole, D. Binkley, and P. Sollins. 1998. The effect of nitrogen accumulation and nitrifi- cation on soil chemical properties in alder forests. Effects of air pollution on western forests. APCA Transactions Series 16, Pittsburg PA. Wingle, P. H. 1994. Planning considerations for winter sports resort development. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.