A-1 Allotment Management Plan Specialist Report

United States Department of Heritage Specialist Report Agriculture

Forest A1-Mountain Allotment Service

Flagstaff Ranger District, Coconino National Forest Coconino County, Arizona

Date: April 25, 2016, updated September 13, 2016

Prepared By: Jeremy Haines, Archaeologist, Flagstaff Ranger District

Signatures: /s/Jeremy Haines

*The information in this specialist report reflects analysis that was completed prior to and in conjunction with the completion of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The primary purpose of specialist reports is to provide detailed information to assist in the preparation of the EA. As the EA was prepared, review-driven edits to the broader document resulted in modifications to some of the information contained in some of the specialist reports. As a result, some reports no longer contain information and analysis that was updated through an interdisciplinary review process and is included in the EA in its entirety. This specialist report retains the additional information on the environmental consequences that was not included in the summarized information in the EA. Efforts have been made to ensure that the retained information in the specialist reports is consistent with the EA. If unintended inconsistencies exist between specialist reports and the EA, the EA should be regarded as the most current, accurate source of analysis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Description and Location ______3 Purpose and Need ______3 Grazing and Cultural Resources ______4 Affected Environment/Existing Condition ______4 Cultural Overview ______4 Previous Surveys ______6 Cultural Resource Sites______9 Cultural Resource Site Assessments ______10 Site Sample ______10 Summary of Site Assessments ______11

Desired Condition ______12 Recommendations ______12 Environmental Consequence ______12 Alternatives ______13 Future Infrastructure Improvements ______14

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction______15

References Cited ______17

Appendix A – Overview Map ______21 Figure A.1 A-1 Allotment Overview - Previous Archaeological Survey and Sites

A-1 Allotment Management Plan Specialist Report

Jeremy Haines, Flagstaff District Archaeologist

Description and Location

The A-1 Mountain Allotment (A-1 Allotment) is located on the Flagstaff Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest (CNF) and is administered and managed by the Flagstaff Ranger District. The allotment boundary begins approximately ~1-2 miles west of the City of Flagstaff. This allotment is located within all or portions of T21N R6E Sections 1-3, 10-15 and 24; T21N R7E Sections 5-8 and 17-19; T22N R6E Sections 25-27 and 34-36; T22N R7E Section 31.

Under the Proposed Action, livestock grazing would continue on A-1 Mountain Allotment with 99 head of adult cattle permitted from June 1 through October 31 equating to 498 AUMs. Seasonal utilization levels would be managed at the moderate level (up to 50%) in late spring and early summer months when sufficient opportunity exists for plant regrowth. During the late summer and fall, seasonal utilization would be managed at the conservative level (30 to 40%) when potential for plant regrowth is limited. Utilization levels would be managed at the conservative level (30 to 40%) for herbaceous vegetation.

In addition, the construction or removal of structural range improvements are necessary to better implement adaptive management, facilitate livestock management and reduce hazards to wildlife from structural range improvements that are no longer necessary. Improvements include the construction of 5,580 feet of fencing and the realignment of some 300 feet of barbed wire fence, and the construction of a permanent corral.

Ponderosa pine, which varies from open, park like stands to dense, closed canopy stands, dominate the vegetation on the A1-Mountain Allotment which ranges in elevation from 7,000 feet to 8,300 feet.

Land ownership within the A-1 Allotment includes Forest Service, state, and private land. The Forest Service only has management jurisdiction over Forest Service acreage; the remaining acreage is managed by state or private land owners. Therefore, while the allotment is approximately 6,448 acres in size, the Forest Service manages about 5,085 acres with the remaining 1,363 acres owned by the City of Flagstaff or private land owners.

Purpose and Need

The A-1 Allotment is scheduled for an environmental analysis of grazing use on the Coconino National Forest, as required by the Rescissions Act (1995). This analysis is required in order to ensure that livestock grazing is consistent with goals, objectives and the standards and guidelines of the Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (1987, as

amended). The purpose of this project is to authorize livestock grazing in a manner that maintains and/or moves the area toward Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions.

Grazing and Cultural Resources

Livestock, which share the rangelands with deer, elk, antelope and other wildlife, were introduced in the Southwest by the Spanish in the late 16th Century. By the late 1800s, cattle grazing on open ranges in Arizona and New Mexico grew to more than 1,500,000 head fostering environmental degradation, perhaps best described as a tragedy of the commons resulting in overgrazing through shared use (USFS 2007). Over grazing without sustainable practices on the open rangeland resulted in badly deteriorated range conditions. Around the turn of the century, the number of cattle slowly declined as sheep increased to more than 1,000,000 head on the newly established forest reserves. Range conditions were deteriorating as a result of years of overgrazing. In 1898, concerns about watershed and irrigation degradation led to the first grazing permit system on forest reserve lands limiting the number of cattle (Lewis, 2005).

The first Forest Service grazing permits in the Flagstaff area were issued in 1908, at the time when the San Francisco Mountain Forest Reserves became the Coconino National Forest. The initial permits provided no regulation other than a fee collected by the Forest. Although stock numbers remained relatively high throughout the early 1900s, adaptive management strategies and changes in the livestock industry have resulted in decreasing stock numbers over time.

By the 1970s, with strong federal regulation and Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 in place, the USFS entered into an era of land management that dramatically changed how grazing is managed on public lands. On the Coconino National Forest the number of grazed cattle have been at an all-time low with 19,000 permitted in 1970 to 16,271 permitted in 2000 (Hanneman, 2006).

In the A-1 Allotment little change has occurred over the last 10 years with cattle numbers fluctuating with dry years and wet years. Overall, the management in place over the last 10 years has resulted in grazing utilization below the 35 percent allowable use guideline (USFS 1987: 66- 1)

Affected Environment /Existing Condition

Cultural Overview1

Human occupation on the Colorado plateau goes back at least 12,000 years. The cultural- historical framework used in following discussions consists of a five period general chronology applicable to the project area: Paleoindian (ca. 10,000 to 7,000 B.C.), Archaic (7,000 B.C. to A.D. 500), Formative (500 B.C.to A.D. 750), Protohistoric (A.D. 1300 to 1540) Historic (A.D.

1 Taken from Laurila (2015) with modifications. 4

1540 to 1950).

The Paleoindian period describes a time in the Americas when social organization revolved around mobility and an economy based on the gathering of wild resources (Irwin-Williams, 1979:31); and supplemented by the hunting of Pleistocene megafauna to varying degrees (Meltzer, 2009:95-136). Evidence of Paleoindians in the project area is sparse. Mike Lyndon (2005) found evidence of a Clovis presence, which was restricted to around twenty-two Clovis points discovered as surface finds. Evidence of later Folsom peoples in Northern Arizona is sparse as well, amounting to two possible Folsom points found near Ashfork, Arizona.

The intervening period between the attenuation of the Paleoindian cultures and the widespread adoption of maize agriculture in the Southwest around A.D. 500 is known as the Archaic period. The Archaic period within the project area is generally separated into four periods marked by changes in projectile point style correlated to ecological change (Smiley, 2002; Lyndon, 2005): Early (7,000 to 4,200 B.C.), Middle (4,200 to 2,600 B.C.), Late (2,600 to 500 B.C.), and Basketmaker II (500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 500). The Archaic period is marked by a subsistence strategy based on the gathering and hunting. Settlement and subsistence during the Archaic period is marked by increasing sedentism, or living in one place for longer periods of time,2 coupled with high degrees of local mobility, specialized exploitation of small game animals, and an increased reliance on gathering (Lyndon, 2005:116).

Archaic period sites most often appear as lithic scatters with diagnostic projectile points, bifacial tools, basin and flat/concave metates (Adams, 2002:120-123), and a lack of ceramic containers (Van West, 1994). These sites are generally small and lack dense occupational refuse, elaborate storage facilities or structures. Common flaked-stone sources include San Francisco volcanics (especially Government Mountain obsidian), Kaibab chert, and petrified wood.

The Basketmaker II period (500 B.C. to ca. A.D. 500) defines the process wherein the agricultural way of life slowly integrated into established Archaic lifestyles (Woodbury and Zubrow, 1979:43). Basketmaker II people practiced part-time maize horticulture, but continued to rely heavily on gathering and hunting organized around a seasonal round. They occupied caves, rock shelters, and open air sites and stored their agricultural surpluses in rock lined cists and buried their dead in those same locales (Smiley, 2002:43). Perishable items recovered from caves and rock shelters such a wood, clothing, and elegant basketry are hallmarks of this culture, but pottery is conspicuously absent. Evidence of Basketmakers in the project area dating to this period consist of scatters of lithic material, campsites, and small hamlets containing pit houses (Colton ,1946; Van West, 1994). The broad distribution of these sites over the plateau indicates that, at the very least; Basketmaker II people were interested in procuring San Francisco igneous stone for tool-stone (Lyndon, 2005:142-143).

The Formative period (A.D. 500 to 1300) in the project area defines the period wherein localized Basketmaker II populations developed three distinct cultural traditions known as Cohonina, Kayenta Anasazi, and Sinagua. Each is primarily defined by the temporal/spatial distribution of specific ceramic types known as “index wares,” (Colton, 1946) with the Cohonina defined by

2 In cultural anthropology, sedentism (sometimes called sedentariness) simply refers to the practice of living in one place for a long time. The majority of the Western population belong to sedentary cultures. 5

San Francisco Mountain Gray Ware, the Kayenta Anasazi by Tusayan Gray Ware, and the Sinagua by Alameda Brown Ware. In addition to their index wares, dedicated chronologies and suites of social and technological traits peculiar to the respective traditions define each archaeological culture (Colton, 1946; Cartledge, 1986; Pilles, 1996; Downum and Garcia, 2012; Cureton, 2014). These range from projectile point styles, to public architecture design, to forms of settlement and subsistence. The distribution of the previously mentioned index wares on the landscape and the boundaries they share are taken to represent Cohonina, Kayenta Anasazi, and Sinagua regions (Colton, 1946; Garcia, 2004). The Cohonina region broadly maps onto the boundaries of the Coconino plateau, with the Kayenta Anasazi occupying the areas to the east, and the Sinagua occupied areas to the southeast. San Francisco Mountain acts as a geographic fulcrum of sorts around which each of these archaeological cultures came together. The A-1 Mountain area falls within a transition area between Sinagua and Cohonina culture groups.

Euro-American entry into the area followed the Beale Wagon Road, which clips the northern margin of the allotment. Incipient settlers in the Ft. Valley area were Mormon ranchers who ultimately procured railroad ties for the oncoming railroad (Cline 1976). Early settlers also attempts to grow crops in this agriculturally marginal area (Olberding, 2007). Euro-American settlement of the Fort Valley area was well under way by the late nineteenth century (Cline, 1976; Olberding, 2002). The economy of early settlers revolved around logging, cattle ranching, and sheep herding.

By 1882, the Santa Fe railroad linked Northern Arizona to the national economy, opening up the area's vast ponderosa forests for exploitation. Beginning in 1887, an extensive network of logging railroads, temporary logging camps, and portable sawmills appeared in the ponderosa pine forests around Flagstaff (Stein, 1993); with one of first established at Big Leroux Spring in Fort Valley (Cline, 1976; Stein, 1993). The Fort Valley portion of the A-1 project area hosted railroad logging operations run by Saginaw & Manistee Lumber Company between 1903 and 1925.

Livestock grazing within the A-1 Allotment area has occurred since the time of initial historic settlement -1870s, and has been managed by the US Forest Service since the early 1900s. The present A-1 Allotment is a combination of the antecedent A-1 Allotment, Pinewood Allotment, and portions of the Ft. Valley Allotment. The current administrative boundary of the A-1 Allotment was created sometime in 1955 or 1956 (USFS, 1963).

The A-1 Allotment is in an area of low prehistoric and historic settlement. Despite the fact that nearly 50% of the allotment has been previously surveyed for cultural resource sites, only 15 sites have been recorded.

Previous Surveys

During the past 30 years, some 36 archaeological surveys enacted for National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance for various undertakings have been performed within the A-1 Allotment (see Table 1). Archaeological surveys are pedestrian in nature, resulting from field personnel walking the landscape. These surveys resulted in a cumulative survey of 2,360 acres or 46.5% of Forest Service lands in the A-1 Allotment.

Table 1. Previous archaeological surveys within the A-1 Allotment. REPORT YEAR REPORT/PROJECT NAME ORGANIZATION/AUTHOR(S) CNF REPORT# 1976 STUMPWOOD TIMBER SALE USFS, PILLES, P.J. REPORT INCOMPLETE R1976030400020 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; KUEHN, D. 1976 MARVIN TIMBER SALE ROADS D.,AUTHOR R1976030400037 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; KUEHN, D. 1977 BELLE TIMBER SALE D.,AUTHOR R1976030400081 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; KUEHN, D. 1977 BELLE TIMBER SALE D.,AUTHOR R1976030400081 MUSEUM OF NORTH IDAHO,AUTHOR; 1978 PROP BURIED ELECTRIC LINE WEAVER, D. E.,AUTHOR R1977030400115 1981 AL BELLE SPRING REFORESTATION Stein, Pat H.,FS ARCHAEOLOGIST R198103040047A USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE PARA- A-1 ALLOTMENT ROAD PIT TANKS- ARCHEOLOGIST,AUTHOR; BRADLEY, J. 1984 1984 - NEW ACRES W.,AUTHOR R1984030400034 STEBBINS, S. T.,AUTHOR; NORTHLAND 1985 FLEX LD EXCH WEST OF FLAG RESEARCH, INC.,AUTHOR R198403040150A USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE PARA- ARCHEOLOGIST,AUTHOR; CAMPER, R. 1986 RIORDAN TIMBER SALE H.,AUTHOR; JACOBS, K.,AUTHOR R1986030400111 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE FLAGSTAFF DIST. FY1989 LEV. AND SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; HOVEZAK, M. 1989 2 ROADS J.,AUTHOR R198803040062D EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO DECHAMBRE, D. J.,AUTHOR; NORTHLAND 1990 PIPELINE RESEARCH, INC.,AUTHOR R195003040001E BEALE ROAD THRU COCONINO INSTITUTION NOT RECORDED,AUTHOR; 1990 FOREST 1989 SMITH, S. J.,AUTHOR R1989030400085 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; BRADLEY, J. 1990 ROAD PIT TANKS PROJECT W.,AUTHOR; CAMPER, R. H.,AUTHOR R1990030400011 DOSH, S. G.,AUTHOR; NORTHLAND 1992 EL PASO PIPELINE SHOOFLY AREAS RESEARCH, INC.,AUTHOR R195003040001F EL PASO PIPELINE-ADD'L DOSH, S. G.,AUTHOR; NORTHLAND 1992 SHOOFLIES, PONDS, & ROAD RESEARCH, INC.,AUTHOR R195003040001G TRANSWEST PIPELN CLEARANCE BINFORD, M. R.,AUTHOR; UNIVERSITY OF 1992 CONSTR PHASE II NEW MEXICO,AUTHOR R195903040001F TRANSWESTERN PLINE: FLAG. 1992 LATERAL PIPELINE SWCA,AUTHOR; PURCELL, D. E.,AUTHOR R195903040001G TRANSWESTERN PLINE: FLAG. 1992 LATERAL PIPELINE SWCA,AUTHOR; PURCELL, D. E.,AUTHOR R195903040001G TRANSWESTERN BLAD & ACCESS NOYES, P. T.,AUTHOR; UNIVERSITY OF NEW 1992 RD ALONG PIPELINE MEXICO,AUTHOR R195903040001H

ADDENDUM TRANSWEST. 1992 PIPELINE LATERAL LINE VISUAL SWCA,AUTHOR; PURCELL, D. E.,AUTHOR R195903040001I DOSH, S. G.,AUTHOR; NORTHLAND 1992 REALIGNMT & CLOSURE F.RD. 506 RESEARCH, INC.,AUTHOR R1992030400116 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE 1992 MARS HILL FUEL REDUCTION SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; BEARD, C. D.,AUTHOR R199203040013B USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE AZ GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; FARNSWORTH, L. 1993 WL WATERS C.,AUTHOR R1992030400138 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE 1993 SUNSET PARK UNDERBURN SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; NELLANS, B.,AUTHOR R1993030400032 ROXLAU, R. B.,AUTHOR; KINLANI 1994 A-1 ECOSISTEM MAGMT. GUIDE ARCHAEOLOGY LTD.,AUTHOR R1993030400037 ROXLAU, R. B.,AUTHOR; KINLANI 1994 A-1 ECOSISTEM MAGMT. GUIDE ARCHAEOLOGY LTD.,AUTHOR R1993030400037 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE PEAKS DISTRICT FIRE CAMP SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; HARPER, C. 1995 LOCATIONS L.,AUTHOR R1995030400034 USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE ARCH SURV&CULT RES CLER FT SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; FARNSWORTH, L. 1998 VLLY ECOSYS REST PROJ C.,AUTHOR R199803040034B USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; MALONEY, E. 2002 A-1 TEMPORARY ROAD R.,AUTHOR R199303040037Q USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE A-1 E. FUELS RED. & TREE SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; COOPER, H. 2002 REMOVAL TEMP ROADS M.,AUTHOR R199303040037R STONEMAN LK RD/RATTLESNAKE USFS CULTURAL RESOURCE 2003 WILDLIFE IMPROVEMENT SPECIALIST,AUTHOR; VALDEZ, S.,AUTHOR R200303040036A AZ SNOWBOWL PROP RECLAIMED DOSH, S. G.,AUTHOR; NORTHLAND 2004 WATER PIPELINE RESEARCH, INC.,AUTHOR R198003040089E PEAKS/MORMON LAKE RD,FS PEAKS-MORMON LAKE LEVEL 2 ARCHAEOLOGIST; Swarts, Kelly L,FS 2007 ROAD MAINTENANCE, FY 2007 ARCHAEOLOGIST R200703040032A FLAGSTAFF LOOP TRAIL - ARIZONA 2008 STATE LAND SEGMENTS NEWSOME, D. K.,CONTRACTOR R200703040045B FOUR FOREST RESTORATION INITIATIVE HERITAGE SURVEY, Roberts, Ted, CONTRACTOR; Mitchell, 2011 PHASE 1 Doug,CONTRACTOR R201003040038A FOUR FOREST RESTORATION INITIATIVE, FORT VALLEY TASK LOGAN SIMPSON DESIGN, LAURILA, E., 2015 ORDER SURVEY AUTHOR R201403040027A

The total amount of previous survey well exceeds 10 percent inventory, considered a baseline for project inventory as per the Forest Plan (1986). From these inventories and from other incidental and/or non-survey based field recordings, a total of 15 cultural resource sites are previously recorded.

Cultural Resource Sites

Per the Coconino National Forest heritage INFRA and Geospatial Data Bases, a total of 15 cultural resource sites are documented in the A-1 Allotment (see Table 2).

Simplified, the sites consist of 8 historic-era sites, and 7 prehistoric sites. Historic sites consist of the remains of historic structures, trash scatters, segments of the Bellemont logging railroad (1903-1930s), and the Beale Wagon Road (1857-1880s).

Prehistoric sites consist of low density lithic scatters, dominated by Government Mountain obsidian, and one fieldhouse site, excavated in the early 1950s. The lithic scatter sites lack diagnostic artifacts and are not currently dated. The single room fieldhouse is ascribed to either the Cohonina or Sinagua (Bliss et al., 1956).

None of the sites listed above are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, however, a segment of the Beale Wagon Road within the Petrified National Forest is listed on the National Register.

Table 2. Sites recorded within the A-1 Allotment. *indicates sites that were field assessed per this project. ** indicates that the site was not located. Site Number Nation Register Site Type Description (03-04-) Status 02-1672* Eligible Beale Wagon Rd Segments of the Beale Wagon Rd, currently FR9004x (closed); and FR6149 (open) 03-0040* Unevaluated Homestead, Kline Homestead, 1880s-1900s. Site is located off highway 180 foundation/masonry and off the Beale road. A.Kline House on 1889 GLO Map. No structural remains patent records - indicating that the homestead went unpatented. 03-0060* Unevaluated Historic Structure Log, masonry and earth structural ruins. Masonry wall on north and east side still standing. Large center beam collapsed and dirt walls caved in. 03-0285 Unevaluated Lithic Scatter ~50 obsidian flakes, mostly Gov't Mt. obsidian. Probable lithic tool reduction site. 03-0294 Unevaluated Lithic Scatter ~25 flakes, 2 projectile point preforms and 2 retouched flakes. Obsidian and chert present. The entire site was collected during a 1981 recording. 03-0549** Eligible/Mitigated Field House Rectangular fieldhouse, either Cohonina or Sinagua. Excavated in in the early 1950s and referenced in the Pipeline Archaeology Report (Bliss et al. 1956). No evidence of feature or artifacts at site location. 03-0580* Eligible Structural Dispersed remains of a historic log cabin and its foundation, foundation, trash dispersed planks from several outbuildings, and limestone scatter rockpiles. The site was dated to 1915 using dendrochronology. 03-0736 Not Eligible Trash Dump Cans, auto parts, clear and aqua glass. Previously determined not eligible per Transwestern Pipeline Report (1959-1-G) per correspondence dated 01/01/1992. 03-0741 Eligible Trash Dump Earthen ramp partially enclosed by old barb wire. Associated trash dump, artifacts dating from the 1880s-1980s. Used a loading area for cattle. 03-0912 Unevaluated Lithic Scatter ~100 Government Mountain obsidian flakes stretched along FR6149 (Beale Wagon Rd) at the edge of a meadow. Mostly small thinning flakes.

03-0915* Unevaluated Lithic Scatter Prehistoric scatter of Government Mountain obsidian primary, secondary, and tertiary flakes--2 primary flakes showing signs of expedient tool use, 1 bifacial fragment, 3 primary Kaibab chert flakes. 03-0916 Not Eligible Agricultural Field Multiple berms running parallel NE across open meadow. Historic era farming in the Ft. Valley area. Previously determined not eligible in project: Forest Road 518C Realignment (1996- 27-B), per correspondence dated 04/06/1996. 03-1037 Unevaluated Lithic Scatter Basalt stone debitage, ~300 flakes and tested cobbles. Mostly low quality basalts. The site apparently served as source for basalt cobbles used in stone tool manufacture. Roberts (2010) reports minimal disturbance caused by a cattle trail along a fenceline at the southern extent of the site. 03-1038 Unevaluated Lithic Scatter Basalt stone debitage, ~250-300 flakes and tested cobbles. Nearly identical to 03-1037. Mostly low quality basalts. The site apparently served as source for basalt cobbles used in stone tool manufacture. Roberts (2010) reports minimal disturbance caused by a cattle trail along a fenceline bisecting the site. 03-900 Eligible/Ineligible Logging Railroad Bellemont Line, logging railroad, built by the Saginaw & segments segments Manistee Timber Co, starting in 1903 and used through the 1920s. NRHP eligibility determinations for segments of this line were made in Bellemont Logging Railroad Survey (R2003- 30-B); per correspondence dated 12/26/2003.

Cultural Resource Site Assessments

In general, range conditions may affect cultural resource sites. Throughout the Southwest Region efforts to reduce the numbers of livestock and implement sound rangeland management practices have been successful in improving range conditions. In addition, various activities associated with rangeland management, such as salt placement and water sources, have the potential to affect historic (i.e. listed, eligible and undetermined) properties. In most cases, this effect will not be adverse. Guidelines developed in consultation with Region 3 and the Arizona and New Mexico Historic Preservation Offices serve to standardize NHPA requirements for Allotment Management Plans (US Forest Service, 2007). Site condition assessments/inspections are recommended under this guidance.

Methods

Applying the USFS Region 3 Programmatic Agreement Appendix H (2007) regarding cattle grazing permit renewals, the Flagstaff Ranger District attempted to assess what, if any, effects there are to properties as a result of cattle grazing. In turn, a sample of sites within the allotment were inspected and assessed for effects.

Site Sample

The Region 3 Programmatic Agreement Appendix H (2007) recommends assessing sites that may be affected by cattle grazing, including ruins with free-standing walls, rock shelters, historic

structures and rock art sites, particularly if these are in places where cattle are likely to be attracted to or congregate.

Using the aforementioned guidance, a sample of five previously recorded cultural resource sites were revisited using the information and data gathered during the literature review. A sixth site, 02-549, could not be located during this assessment. Two of these sites, 03-04-03-40 and 03-04- 03-60 are both historic structures that have some elements of standing masonry.

Summary of Site Assessments Archaeological site assessments were performed at a sample of six sites within the A-1 Mountain Allotment. The assessments were performed by archaeologist Jeremy Haines and volunteer Alisha Stalley on November 11, 2015. The site sample was selected by CNF personnel, through a GIS sampling exercise that identified sites considered vulnerable to grazing effects within a reasonable distance to watering sources. This site-assessment endeavor sought to assess effects of cattle grazing activities to archaeological sites and to provide appropriate measures to mitigate any such effects.

Of the six archaeological sites chosen for evaluation, one site, 03-04-02-549, could not be located during this assessment. None of the assessed sites had evidence of on-site cattle grazing (such as cow pies and cattle bedding areas). As a result, none of the assessed sites were determined to have sustained adverse effects caused by cattle grazing activities.

One site, 03-04-03-40 is within 200 meters of a stock tank and showed evidence of ungulate bedding within a historic house foundation (Feature 1). However the bedding is from deer and/or elk, as this particular pasture has been closed to cattle for over 20 years (Gary Hase and Mandy Ball, Flagstaff Ranger District Range Staff, personnel communication February 2016). The feature in question was damaged by vandals sometime between 1993-1995 and repaired/reconstructed by Forest Service archaeologists in 1995 (Farnsworth, 1993/CNF Report 1993-37C).

Site 03-04-03-60 also has standing masonry, a standing masonry wall on its north side, but has no evidence of bedding or any other associated risk from cattle within the site. The wall appears sturdy and no protection measures are recommended.

The results show no clear evidence of disturbance or adverse effect to the monitored sites. However, should cattle grazing be reintroduced to the Fort Valley Pasture, then protection measures are recommended for site 03-04-03-40, as to deter cattle from gaining access to Feature 1.

Archaeological site assessment within the A-1 Allotment demonstrates that cattle grazing is not resulting in adverse effects to cultural resource sites. Accordingly, the reauthorization of seasonal grazing of 99 head of cow/calf pairs permitted from June 1 through October 31, equating to 498 AUMs will result in no adverse effect to cultural resources.

Tribal and SHPO consultation regarding this proposed action and determination of effect are ongoing as of the date of this report. Native American Indian tribes were contacted regarding this

project in correspondence dated April 4th 2016 outlining the Coconino National Forest’s schedule of proposed actions. The correspondence included an invitation to participate, comment, and convene regarding the project. Contacts include the following: Dine’ Medicine Man’s Association, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Zuni, San Carlos Apache Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Nation, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe. To date no tribes have expressed concern or objection to the proposed action.

Updated information regarding the results of these consultations will be available in Coconino National Forest Heritage Report# 2016-21-A.

Desired Condition

Desired conditions for heritage resources would consist of allotment renewal resulting in no effect, or at a minimum, no adverse effect to cultural resource sites. Grazing activities should be benign to cultural resource sites and not adversely affect their national register status. Increases in count of livestock or grazing intensity would not be desirable, as change to a more intensive grazing management system may adversely affect cultural resources. In turn, it is desirable to keep livestock at current numbers and seasonal use.

It is desirable that management practices which tend to concentrate livestock (and most likely wild ungulates) such as placement of salt, haying, placement of water troughs, etc., will be located away from cultural resources. Cattle should be kept away from any discovered rock shelters, sensitive historic structures, and prehistoric sites with standing architecture.

Recommendations

From site assessments performed it is apparent that current cattle grazing and related practices are not resulting in adverse effects to sites within the A-1 Allotment. However, site monitoring should be conducted throughout the allotment when conducting other inventories, as a part of day to day field work (US Forest Service, 2007). Any opportunities to minimize adverse effects of grazing to cultural resource sites should be taken.

Figure 1. Standing masonry wall at site 03-04-03-40. The wall was largely reconstructed in 1995 after it was vandalized. A barbed or smooth wire fence is recommended around this feature.

Cattle should be kept away from any discovered rock shelters, sensitive historic structures, and prehistoric sites with standing architecture, specifically site 03-04-03-40. Prior to the reintroduction of grazing within the Fort Valley Pasture, protection measures, will need to be employed. It is recommended that a smooth or barbed wire fence, be installed around this feature to keep cattle from entering and bedding within the feature, which could result in disturbance or damage to standing masonry.

Environmental Consequences

A total of four alternatives were developed and analyzed in detail, two alternatives and one no action alternative. These alternatives have been analyzed to address issues that arose during the comment period. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects boundaries for this analysis consider cultural resource site locations within the A-1Allotment area. Effects analysis are temporally bound by the most recent recording of each cultural resource site, which ranges from 5-40 years in the past. It is anticipated that this analysis will remain temporally relevant for at least the next 10 years.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Alternative 1 is a no action alternative. Under this alternative, livestock grazing would not occur and as a result, there would be no direct or indirect effects from cattle grazing on cultural resources within the A-1 Allotment.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, livestock grazing would continue on the A-1 Allotment with 99 head of cattle (cow/calf pair) permitted from June 1 through October 31 equating to 498 AUMs.

Grazing would occur using a deferred rotation or a deferred, rest-rotation management system, which would allow for plant growth and recovery. The proposed action also includes structural range improvements to better implement adaptive management and facilitate livestock management.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Site assessment within the A-1 Allotment demonstrates that there is minimal interface of cattle and cultural resource sites within this allotment. No field observations indicate adverse effects from livestock grazing. In the event that livestock grazing be reintroduced into the Forth Valley Pasture, it is recommended that fencing be placed around a rock foundation at site 03-04-03-40, the Kline Homestead. Provided this mitigation measure is met, this alternative would result in no adverse effect to cultural resources.

Any proposed structural improvement areas will be inventoried for cultural resource per Region 3 Programmatic Agreement standards and all National Register eligible properties will be avoided.

Monitoring

In accordance with recommendations in the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement, Appendix H, cultural resource monitoring will be conducted as part of the day-to-day activities of the professional cultural resource specialists. Grazing allotments cover most of any given forest, and when archaeologists are in the field conducting surveys for timber sales or fuelwood sales, for example, they are most likely surveying within a grazing allotment. The archaeologists will use these opportunities to observe and report on grazing activities, the effectiveness of the grazing strategy, and potential impacts to cultural resources.

Alternative 3: Current Management

Under the current management alternative, livestock grazing would continue on the A-1 Mountain Allotment with 99 head of cow/calf pairs permitted from June 1 through October 31, equating to 498 AUMs. Seasonal utilization levels would be managed at the light to moderate (21 to 50%), and utilization levels would be managed at the conservative level (35%) for herbaceous vegetation.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Any proposed structural improvement areas will be inventoried for cultural resource per Region 3 Programmatic Agreement standards and all National Register eligible properties will be avoided.

Monitoring In accordance with recommendations in the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement, Appendix H, cultural resource monitoring will be conducted as part of the day-to-day activities of the professional cultural resource specialists. Grazing allotments cover most of any given forest, and when archaeologists are in the field conducting surveys for timber sales or fuelwood sales, for example, they are most likely surveying within a grazing allotment. The archaeologists will use these opportunities to observe and report on grazing activities, the effectiveness of the grazing strategy, and potential impacts to cultural resources.

Alternative 4 – Closing of South Flag Pasture to Livestock Grazing and Removal of South Flag Pasture from the A-1 Mountain Grazing Allotment Under this alternative livestock grazing would continue in all pastures on the A-1 Mountain Allotment except for South Flag Pasture. This alternative would reduce allotment acres from 5,085 to 4,454, and the grazing capacity for this allotment from 791 AUMs to 677 AUMs. These reductions would require a decrease in AUMs from 498 to 423, which would result in either a reduction in permitted numbers (from 99 head of adult cattle to 84 head of adult cattle), a reduction in the length of the grazing season (from 153 days to 130 days), or a some combination of the two.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Any proposed structural improvement areas will be inventoried for cultural resource per Region 3 Programmatic Agreement standards and all National Register eligible properties will be avoided.

Cumulative Effects

Cultural resources in the project area are subject to impacts from land use such as hiking, hunting, road use, and dispersed camping. Natural processes such as snow, rain, wind, and fire also naturally degrade cultural resource features and artifacts. Proposed or ongoing Forest Service projects within the allotment, such as the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), avoid sites per stipulations in the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, Appendix J.

As none of the proposed actions will result in a greater number of cattle or longer periods of grazing, and as site assessments do not show evidence of impacts from cattle, then it is expected that cumulative impacts to cultural resources from other land uses and natural processes will not be augmented by continued cattle grazing in this allotment.

Future Range Infrastructure Improvements

Any additional ground disturbing range developments or treatments proposed within the A-1 Allotment will comply with the existing Region 3 Programmatic agreement with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, dated December 24, 2003, and shall constitute an additional undertaking for Section 106 compliance outside of this Allotment Management Plan Report.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction

Federal Laws

Protection and management of heritage resource on National Forest System land is mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act, 1966 as amended (NHPA), 36 CFR 800, and Forest Service Manual 2360, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Archaeological Resource Protection Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Programmatic Agreement

In addition, the Southwest Region has developed alternative procedures, per 36 CFR 800.14, in the form of the Region 3 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities. An appendix to this Agreement, APPENDIX H STANDARD CONSULTATION PROTOCOL FOR RANGELAND MANAGEMENT establishes standard procedures for NHPA compliance for Rangeland Management related undertakings.

Any future improvements and ground-disturbing management practices will be contingent upon completion of the identification and protection of historic properties and compliance with applicable provisions of NHPA. This will include acceptance of the inventory report by the Forest Archaeologist or other FS archaeologist with delegated responsibilities and appropriate SHPO and tribal consultation. 16

Coconino Forest Plan

The 1986 Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended, provides general direction for the management of historic and cultural resources significant to our national heritage. The plan provides direction for forest-wide management of cultural resources. General management direction for cultural resources is outlined below:

The forest-wide standards and guidelines pertinent to this analysis are detailed in the Forest Plan pp. 53-54; Amendment 1, p. 50; Amendment 9, pp. 52-3 to 52-4; and the FSM, Section 2360. These are summarized below:

Forest Plan (1986) • Project undertakings are inventoried for cultural resources and areas of Native American traditional use. Inventory intensity complies with Regional policy, and the settlement agreement in the Save the Jemez Lawsuit, and is determined in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Generally, inventory standards are: o One hundred percent survey of all projects causing surface disturbance; o When less than 100 percent survey is deemed appropriate, the proportion of survey is generally greater than 10 percent and is determined in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Factors determining the appropriate inventory sample include the nature and extent of project impact, site density, site type, and ground cover; o Consultation with appropriate Native American groups; o Consultation with the SHPO, and if necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) before project implementation.

Gaps: None

• Page 53 of the 1986 states: "Significant, or potentially significant, inventoried sites are managed to achieve a "No Effect" determination, in consultation with the SHPO and ACHP (36 CFR 800)." and "Management strives to achieve a 'No Effect' determination." o A recent Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2015) removed this language, thus removing any interpretive conflict between striving to achieve a No Effect determination, per the Forest Plan, and a No Adverse Effect per this allotment management plan.

Gaps: None

• Within project areas, site condition is monitored during and after project implementation.

Gaps: None

• Sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places are visited at least biannually.

Gaps: Limited by workloads and funding constraints

• Cultural resource sites are interpreted through lectures, tours, papers, reports, publications, brochures, displays, films, trails, signs, and other means.

Gaps: Limited by funding constraints

• Survey priorities are to: • Provide clearance for projects; • Fill in gaps in existing inventory coverage; • Survey areas of known high site density; • Survey areas that would do the most to answer current archaeological questions.

Gaps: Limited by funding constraints

References Cited Adams, Jenny L. 2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Babbitt, James E. and John G. DeGraff III 2009 Flagstaff. Arcadia Publishing.

Bliss, Wesley, et al. Ed. Fred Wendorf 1956 Pipeline Archaeology. Reports of Salvage Operations in the Southwest on El Paso Natural Gas Company Projects 1950-1953. Joint Publication of the Laboratory of Anthropology and the Museum on Northern Arizona. On file, Museum of Northern Arizona. Flagstaff.

Carteldge, Thomas R. 1986 Prehistory and History of the Coconino Plateau Region, Northern Arizona: A Cultural Resource Overview. Manuscript on file, Kaibab National Forest, Williams, Arizona.

Cline, Platt 1976 They Came to the Mountain: The Story of Flagstaff’s Beginnings. Northland Publishing and Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Colton, H. S. 1946 The Sinagua: A Summary of the Archaeology of the Region of Flagstaff, Arizona. Bulletin 22. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Cureton, Travis B. 2014 Cohonina Social Organization and the Role of Forts in Integration and Interaction: A View from the Pittsberg Community. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, Oxford.

Downum, Christian E., and Daniel Garcia 2012 Peoples of the Sierra Sin Agua. In Histat’sinom: Ancient Peoples in a Land without Water, edited by C. E. Downum, pp. 69–78. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe. Elson, Mark (editor)

Farnsworth, Linda 1995 A-1 EM Area Site 03-913 [03-40] Site Repair. CNF Report # 1993-37C. Report on file at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff.

Garcia, Daniel G. 2004 Prehistoric Ceramic Boundaries in the Flagstaff Region of Northern Arizona. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Hannemann, Mike 2006 Range and Watershed Specialist Report-Angell Allotment. Available at the Coconino National Forest Flagstaff Ranger Station, Range Office.

Irwin-Williams, C. 1979 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 7000-2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Vol. 9: Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 31–42. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Laurila, Erick 2015 An Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Clearance Report for the Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI), Fort Valley Task Order Area, CNF Report #2014- 27A. Coconino National Forest. Report on file at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff.

Lewis, James G. 2005 The Forest Service and the Greatest Good: A Centennial History. The Forest History Society, Durham.

Lyndon, M.G. 2005 Projectile Points as Indicators of Preceramic Occupation of the Coconino Plateau. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Pilles, Peter J. and Pat H. Stein 1981 A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coconino National Forest. Manuscript on file at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Flagstaff.

Pilles, Peter J., Jr. 1996 The Pueblo III Period Along the Mogollon Rim: The Honanki, Elden, and Turkey Hill Phases of the Sinagua. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World A.D. 1150-1350, pp. 59–72, edited by Michael A. Adler The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Olberding, Susan D. 2007 Fort Valley Then and Now: A look at an Arizona Settlement. Revised ed. Fort Valley Publishing, Flagstaff.

Smiley, Francis. E. 2002 Black Mesa Before Agriculture. In Prehistoric Culture Change on the Colorado Plateau: Ten Thousand Years on Black Mesa, edited by Shirley Powell and Francis E. Smiley, pp. 13-34. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Stein, Pat H. 1993 Logging Railroads of the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests: Supplemental Report to a National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. SWCA Archaeology Report No. 93–16. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff.

US Forest Service 1963 A-1 Allotment Analysis. Report on file at the Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff Ranger Station, Range Office.

1987 Coconino Forest Plan. Report on File at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Flagstaff, AZ.

2007 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Developed pursuant to Stipulation IV.A. of the Region 3 Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities; Appendix H: Standard Consultation Protocol for Rangeland Management. Programmatic Agreement on file at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Flagstaff, AZ.

2015 Programmatic Forest Plan Amendment for Cultural Resource Protection Standards and Guidelines. Decision Memo on file at the Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office. Flagstaff, AZ.

Van West, C. R. 1994 Rivers, Rain, or Ruin. Intermittent Prehistoric Land Use Along the Middle Little Colorado River. Statistical Research Series No. 53, Tucson.

Woodbury, Richard B., and E. B. Zubrow 1979 Agricultural beginnings, 2000 B.C.-A.D. 500. In Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 9:43–60. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C.

Appendix A Overview Map Figure A.1 A-1 Allotment Overview - Previous Archaeological Survey and Sites Redacted per 36 CFR 296.18