Final Environmental Impact Statement 

General Management Plan 

SUNSET CRATER VOLCANO 

National Monument • Arizona

SUMMARY:

This general management plan will guide the management of the Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument for the next 10 to 15 years. Four alternatives were considered—a noaction and three action alternatives, including the National Park Service preferred

alternative. The preferred alternative would provide increased educational opportunities and

diverse experiences both within and outside of park boundaries. The park would be viewed

as a destination for education and learning. Partnerships with the USFS, affiliated tribes, and

educational institutions would provide interpretation and more consistent management of 

sites and features outside the park that are primary to the park’s purpose. Boundaries would

be adjusted for ease of management and to better protect geologic features. Most existing

uses would continue. The park would remain day-use only, with 24-hour access on FR545,

and visitor use would be spread throughout more resources. A new multiagency visitor

center would be built near US89 to serve as the primary location to orient and serve visitors,

and the existing visitor center would be adapted for use as an education center. The

environmental impact statement assesses impacts to archeological resources; historic

character of the built environment; long-term integrity of ethnographic resources, natural

systems and processes, and geological resources; threatened, endangered, and sensitive

species; visitors’ ability to experience park resources; park neighbors, local, state, and tribal

land management plans and land/resource managing agencies; and operational efficiency.

For more information about this document, contact::

Superintendent

Flagstaff Area National Monuments

6400 N. Hwy 89 

Flagstaff, Arizona 86004 

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

SUMMARY

The purpose of the general management

plan is to provide a comprehensive

direction for resource preservation and

visitor use and a basic foundation for

decision making for the monument for the

next 15 to 20 years. The plan prescribes the

resource conditions and visitor experiences

that are to be achieved and maintained in

the park over time. The clarification of

what must be achieved according to law

and policy is based on review of the park's

purpose, significance, and special

mandates.

The plan will outline the kinds of resource

management activities, visitor activities,

and development that would be 

appropriate in the monument in the

future. However, the plan will not propose

specific actions or describe how particular

programs or projects will be implemented

or prioritized. More detailed site-specific

analysis of alternatives and specific

proposals will be required in subsequent

phases of planning before any major

federal actions are undertaken. Four

alternatives are presented, and the impacts

of implementing those alternatives are

analyzed. A brief summary of the major

actions under the alternatives, as well as

the actions that are common to all

alternatives and the impacts thereof, are

presented below.

The Next Step

This Final Environmental Impact

Statement/General Management Plan,

which includes agency and organization

letters and response to all substantive

comments, will be distributed to those on

the mailing list. After distribution of this

final plan, there will be a no-action period

of at least 30 days. After this no-action

period, a final plan will be selected and

approved by the National Park Service and

a federal "Record of Decision" will be

issued to document the approval.

Actions Common to All

Alternatives

Within the broad parameters of the park

mission and mission goals, various

approaches to park resource protection,

use and development are possible.

Management zones are the tool this plan

uses to identify how different areas of the

park could be managed to achieve a 

variety of resources and social conditions

to serve recreation and resource

protections needs. Each zone specifies a 

particular combination of physical,

biological, social and management

conditions. Eight possible zones were

described that could be appropriate to

various areas in Wupatki National

Monument. They are the resource

preservation zone, the discovery zone, the

extended learning zone, the guided

adventure zone, the hiking zone, the

motorized sightseeing zone, the overview

zone, and the administrative zone.

Common to all alternatives is short range

planning already underway to meet

immediate operational needs that will

continue to exist regardless of the

alternative selected. These are identified

in National Park Service-wide initiatives, in 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments

planning documents, such as the Strategic

Plan, Annual Performance Plan,

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, Fire

Management Plan, and Resources

Management Plan, and in local action

plans to resolve safety, accessibility, facility

maintenance, and similar issues.

i
All alternatives presented recognize the

opportunity for partnerships, for the

protection of cultural and natural

resources, with the USFS, the State of

Arizona, and private landowners. USFS

lands surrounding Sunset Crater Volcano

will continue under USFS management, in

accordance with decisions reached in the

USFS Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem

Analysis (FLEA) planning process.

Planning and design of new wayside

exhibits and museum exhibits is in

progress, in accordance with the Flagstaff

Areas Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, to 

improve visitor understanding and

appreciation of Sunset Crater Volcano

resources.

New wayside exhibits will replace and

expand the existing system of interpretive

signs along FR545 and at major existing

visitor use areas. New museum exhibits

will replace the outdated and inaccurate

exhibits at the existing visitor center.

Bonito Campground will be expanded by

the USFS to provide group camping, a dayuse area for educational group gatherings,

and an upgraded amphitheater for

programs.

A new 4,000-square-foot curatorial

building will be constructed in the

administrative area to provide for the

long-term care and preservation of 

museum objects

A new 20,000-square-foot maintenance,

resources management, and ranger

support facility will be constructed in the

Sunset Crater Volcano administrative area.

It will include vehicle and equipment

storage, supplies and materials storage,

offices, and a meeting room.

The backcountry of Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument (defined as all areas

beyond designated roads, trails, or

developed facilities within the monument)

is closed to unguided entry. The closure

will be made permanent through the

formulation and publishing of a special

regulation. Although various alternatives

may allow guided activities to continue in

the park backcountry, there will be no

unguided access.

No-Action Alternative:

Existing ConditionsEntrance to Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument is via

FR545, both ends of which connect with

US89, creating a loop drive that also serves

Wupatki . A visitor center and

maintenance/housing area are one mile

further east, on Coconino National Forest

land near the monument boundary. These

facilities were constructed and are

operated by NPS under an agreement with

the Forest Service. Associated with the

visitor center are park residences, a 

maintenance facility, and a maintenance

storage area. T 

Sunset Crater Volcano is operated as a dayuse area, and the park is closed, but not 

gated, at night. Entrance fees are required

at Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument; access is limited to established

trails, roadways, and developed facilities.

Areas not designated and identified for

public activities are closed to unguided

entry.

A 20-car parking area and rest room are

provided near the Lava Flow Trail. The

one-mile Lava Flow Trail is a self-guided

loop exploring a variety of volcanic

formations. The one-mile Lenox Crater

Trail provides an opportunity to climb a 

cinder cone.

The Cinder Hills overlook near the eastern

boundary of the monument provides a 

view of numerous cinder cones in the area.

About 3.5 miles east is the Painted Desert

overlook, a small picnic area constructed

by the Forest Service and jointly operated

under a cooperative agreement.

Impacts from the No-Action alternative

would be as follows: The prehistoric and

ii
Mission 66 landscapes would have an

overall reduction of historic integrity

resulting in a moderate adverse impact.

Closure of the backcountry could help

protect ethnographic resources and have a 

moderate beneficial impact. Natural

systems and processes would continue to

have minor to moderate adverse impacts

caused by the existing main road and

visitor use in concentrated areas.

This alternative would continue to provide

major benefits to visitors wanting a brief

introduction to the volcanic landscape.

Park facilities and many features would

remain accessible and provide access to 

representative volcanic features. The

existing visitor center would continue to

provide limited space and interpretive

exhibits, contributing to an incomplete

visitor understanding of park resources, a 

moderate adverse impact.

Expected increases in visitation over time

will add to congestion, increase

maintenance needs and unintentional

damage to resources.

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

The goal of the preferred alternative is to

provide increased educational

opportunities and diverse experiences both

within and outside of park boundaries.

The park would be viewed as a destination

for education and learning. Partnerships

with the USFS, affiliated tribes, and

educational institutions would provide

interpretation and more consistent

management of sites and features outside

the park that are primary to the park purpose. Minor boundary adjustments would

be made for ease of management and to

align park boundaries and associated

fencing with topographic features rather

than along section lines. Geologic features

would be better protected within a single

jurisdiction, and management of existing

USFS secondary roads would be clarified.

Most existing uses would continue. The

park would remain day-use only, with 24-

hour access on FR545, and visitor use

would be spread throughout more

resources. A new multi-agency visitor

center would be built near US89 to serve

as the primary location to orient and serve

visitors. The existing visitor center would

be adapted for use as an education center.

In comparison to the no-action alternative,

Alternative 1 would impact a relatively

small, but concentrated number of

archeological resources near the new

visitor center. Increased USFS and NPS at

the new visitor center would provide

increased opportunities to orient and

educate visitors. Overall the impacts

would be major and adverse for specific

archeological resources. The prehistoric

and Mission 66 landscapes would have

additional pullouts and a visitor center

resulting in an overall reduction of historic

integrity, therefore creating a moderate

adverse impact. Ethnographic resources

would have moderate to major beneficial

impacts resulting from development of

agreements and continued tribal

involvement in park management and

interpretive planning.

Natural systems and processes would

continue to have minor to moderate

adverse impacts caused by the existing

main road, visitor use in concentrated

areas and some trail construction.

Alternative 1 would provide major benefits

to both park and forest visitors seeking

comprehensive information on and

interpretation of regional resources and

recreational opportunities. Construction

of a multi-agency visitor center would

provide major benefit s increasing

understanding of resources and the ability

to see the resources. The visitor center will

present some moderate adverse impacts

on visitor experiences by concentrating

greater numbers of people into existing

parking and trails.

iii
This alternative would result in some

adverse impacts to park neighbors. The

design, development and operation of a 

new visitor center would have long and

short-term impacts on staffing, requiring

additional time from both USFS and NPS

personnel. American Indian tribes would

be adversely impacted by increased

congestion and contact. Increased

congestion on would adversely impact

neighbors residing or accessing areas from

FR 545. 

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

This alternative would extend a high

degree of protection for park resources by 

removing and relocating some facilities

and would provide more diverse

experiences than the No-Action

Alternative. Visitor experience would

require slightly more effort than under the

No-Action Alternative. Primary points of 

interest would be reached as destinations

rather than roadside attractions. Visitors

would be better insulated from modern

day intrusions. The desired outcome is that

visitors would spend more time engaged in

in-depth learning activities than at 

present. The increased diversity of

experience would be provided via new

trails and new interpretive media and

activities. The park road would be gated at

night. A new visitor center and

campground would be constructed south

of Sunset Crater Volcano and both park

and forest orientation would be provided

at this location.

As in Alternative 1, visitors would be in

contact with employees from both NPS

and USFS. Short roads to key areas of the

park would eliminate the current drivethrough experience. More of the

monument would be experienced by trail

and self-guided activities. Visitors would

be able to connect the stories of Sunset

Crater Volcano and Wupatki National

Monuments by experiencing the dramatic

landscape changes along FR545, as well as 

through interpretive media within the

monuments and at waysides.

Boundaries would be adjusted for

administrative purposes, as described in

Alternative 1, and would include

significant resources located at Bonito Park

and south of existing park boundaries.

Removing all administrative and visitor

facilities (except toilets) from the heart of

the park would allow for restoration of

damaged critical resources and provide a 

more pristine experience. The ability to

close the park at night would further

protect fragile park features. Rerouting

the entrance road would allow for

placement of the visitor center so that the

public could be oriented before exploring

the park, while maintaining a drive

between Sunset Crater Volcano and

Wupatki National Monuments. Should

visitation levels dictate, numbers of people

could be controlled through use of a 

shuttle or reservation system.

Impacts from Alternative 2 would have a 

moderate adverse effect on the

archeological impacts in the vicinity of

Bonito Park and the new visitor center.

Most of these impacts would be indirect,

resulting from increased use of these

areas. This alternative would have major

adverse impacts to the Mission 66 designed

landscape, due to the proposal removal of 

several of the buildings and road access of 

the landscape. Actions of alternative 2 

would have both beneficial and adverse

effects on ethnographic resources, and

would require additional evaluation in

conjunction with the associated tribes.

Impacts to natural systems, geological

resources, and threatened, endangered

species, and sensitive species from

alternative 2 will be overall very minor.

Some minor to moderate impacts would

occur from construction of new facilities

and trails, but these would be offset by

iv
removal and rehabilitation in other areas.

Moderate impacts could occur to

pronghorn movement and fawning in the

Bonito Park area.

Alternative 2 would provide major benefits

to both park and forest visitors seeking

comprehensive information on and

interpretation of regional resources and

recreational opportunities. It would

provide particular benefit to visitors

wanting to experience resources in a 

quieter, more pristine environment.

Construction of a new multi-agency visitor

center would provide major benefits to

visitor understanding of resources and the

ability to see the 'real thing.' OHV users

would be adversely impacted by closure of 

the Cinder Hills area to the west of FR776.

The area is relatively small; therefore, the

impact would be minor.

This alternative would result in some

adverse impacts to park neighbors. The

design, development and operation of a 

new visitor center would have long and

short-term impacts on staffing, requiring

additional time from both USFS and NPS

personnel. American Indian tribes would

be adversely impacted by increased

congestion and contact. The closure of FR

545 and increased traffic on FR766 could

have moderate adverse impacts on some

park neighbors.

Implementation of alternative 2 would

have long-term, major benefits to park

operational efficiency. Access to the park

would be managed, which would increase

the protection and preservation of park

resources and reduce the need for law

enforcement. This alternative would

dramatically improve the functionality and

maintenance of facilities within the park.

Alternative 3: Expand Park

Boundaries to Preserve Park

Related Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

for Visitor Use

This alternative would extend NPS

management and protection by expanding

park boundaries to the southeast to

include key features of the eruption and

geologic story of the Sunset Crater volcanic

chain (see Alternative 3 map). Boundaries

of Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument were drawn in 1930, before

scientific study revealed the full extent of

geologic features related to the eruption.

This alternative would provide consistent

protection of these resources, including

the entire Bonito and Kana-A lava flows,

the red-topped cinder cones along the

Cinder Hills fissure, Vent 512, and Double

Crater and would allow visitors to

experience the entire geologic story.

Partnerships with USFS would continue for

visitor orientation and educational

activities near the new visitor center,

resource preservation at Bonito Park, and

cooperative management of neighboring

lands.

Most existing uses would continue. The

developed areas of the park would be 

managed for day use only. FR545 would be

open 24 hours. Visitor use would be spread

throughout more resources. A new multiagency visitor center would be constructed

near US89 to serve as the primary location

to orient and serve visitors to both park

and forest lands. The existing visitor center

would be adapted for use by educational

groups. Diverse experiences would be 

provided via new trails and new

interpretive media and activities in a 

quieter natural setting.

In comparison to the no-action alternative,

Alternative 1 would impact a relatively

small, but concentrated number of

archeological resources near the new

v
visitor center. Increased USFS and NPS at

the new visitor center would provide

increased opportunities to orient and

educate visitors. Overall the impacts

would be major and adverse for specific

archeological resources. Cumulative effects

on archeological resources would be minor

and beneficial, due to the elimination of 

OHV impacts with the expanded park

boundaries.

The prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes

would have additional pullouts and a 

visitor center resulting in an overall

reduction of historic integrity, therefore

creating a moderate adverse impact.

Ethnographic resources would have

moderate to major beneficial impacts

resulting from development of agreements

and continued tribal involvement in park

management and interpretive planning.

Alternative 3 would have beneficial effects

on the integrity of natural systems within

the monument. Minor adverse impacts

would result from development of a new

visitor center. These impacts would be 

offset by the benefits of preservation that

would occur within the expanded

boundaries of the monument. Additional

benefit would result from preserving more

habitats for sensitive species

Alternative 3 would provide major benefits

to both park and forest visitors seeking

comprehensive information on and

interpretation of regional resources and

recreational opportunities. It would

provide particular benefit to visitors

wanting to explore the full range of 

volcanic features significant to the story of

Sunset Crater Volcano. Construction of a 

new multi-agency visitor center would

provide major benefits to visitor

understanding of resources and the ability

to see the 'real thing.' The visitor center

will present some moderate adverse

impacts on visitor experiences by

concentrating greater numbers of people

into existing parking and trails

OHV users would suffer a major adverse

impact resulting from the closing a 

relatively large area of the Cinder Hills

area. Approximately 25% of the designate

OHV area would be removed from use,

including some of the most heavily used

routes.

This alternative would result in some

adverse impacts to park neighbors. The

design, development and operation of a 

new visitor center would have long and

short-term impacts on staffing, requiring

additional time from both USFS and NPS

personnel. Additional adverse impacts

could result from the reduction in size and

potential relocation of the OHV

recreational area. American Indian tribes

would be adversely impacted by increased

congestion and contact. Increased traffic

on FR545 could have moderate adverse

impacts on some park neighbors.

Changes resulting from implementing

Alternative 3 would be increased

maintenance needs for facilities and trail

systems and increased resource protection

and preservation.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................i 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN.....................................................................................1 

PURPOSE OF THE GMP ...................................................................................................................1 

NEED FOR THE GMP .......................................................................................................................2 

Reaffirm What Must Be Achieved.............................................................................................3 

Description of Scoping Process................................................................................................21 

Decide What Might Be Achieved............................................................................................23 

Outstanding Park Values and Resource Concerns.....................................................................27 

ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................................31 

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................31 

Resource Analysis......................................................................................................................31 

Management Zones..................................................................................................................31 

Boundaries Expansion Criteria.................................................................................................35 

Actions Common to All Alternatives.......................................................................................37 

Alternative Descriptions...............................................................................................................38 

No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions............................................................................38 

Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning........................................................39 

Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use...................................................................................................41 

Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources and 

Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use .......................................................................43 

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Evaluation....................................44 

MITIGATING MEASURES...............................................................................................................55 

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE...........................................................................57 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE........................................................................59 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................77 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................77 

HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ..............................................................78 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES........................................................79 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES...........................................81 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES ............................................................85 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF GEOLOGIC RESOURCES..................................................................89 

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES...............................................................................91 

PARK NEIGHBORS; LOCAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS; AND 

LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING AGENCIES ...................................................................................94 

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY ..........................................................................................................97 

vii
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.........................................................................................101 

METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................101 

LONG-TERM AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................102 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................102 

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..................................................103 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................106 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................108 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................110 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .........................................................113 

Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................113 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................................................113

HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ............................................................115 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................115 

Effects Of The No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions................................................115 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................117 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................119 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................120 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.........................................................122 

Loss In Long-Term Availability Or Productivity Of The Resource To Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................122 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................122 

Long-Term Integrity of Ethnographic Resources.....................................................................123 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................123 

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..................................................123 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................125 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................126 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................127 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .........................................................127 

Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................128 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................128 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES.........................................128 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................128 

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..................................................129 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................131 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................132 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................134 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .........................................................136 

viii
Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................136 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................136 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES ..........................................................137 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................137 

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..................................................137 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................140 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................141 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................142 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .........................................................143 

Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................144 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................144 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES...........................................................144 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................144 

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..................................................145 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................147 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................149 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................151 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .........................................................153 

Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................153 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................154 

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES.............................................................................154 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................154 

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..................................................154 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................158 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................162 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................167 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .........................................................173 

Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................173 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................173 

PARK NEIGHBORS; LOCAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS; AND 

LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING AGENCIES .................................................................................173 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................173 

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..................................................173 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................176 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................177 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................180 

ix
Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .........................................................181 

Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................181 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................181 

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................182 

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................182 

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..................................................182 

Effects of Alternative 1 (Preferred): Focus on Extended Learning.....................................186 

Effects of Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet Natural Setting while Providing Diverse 

Opportunities for Visitor Use.................................................................................................189 

Effects of Alternative 3: Expand Park Boundaries to Preserve Park-Related Resources 

and Provide Diverse Opportunities for Visitor Use..............................................................191 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .........................................................193 

Loss in Long-Term Availability or Productivity of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain......................................................................................................................193 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................................193 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION....................................................................................195 

HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................................195 

AGENCY CONSULTATION...........................................................................................................195 

TRIBAL CONSULTATION.............................................................................................................195 

LIST OF RECIPIENTS.....................................................................................................................196 

Federal Agencies.....................................................................................................................196 

Indian Tribes............................................................................................................................196 

State Government ..................................................................................................................197 

Local Government ..................................................................................................................197 

Organizations/Businesses.......................................................................................................197 

Individuals...............................................................................................................................199 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN..................................................................199 

APPENDIXES/REFERENCES.........................................................................................................251 

APPENDIX A: Legislation............................................................................................................251 

APPENDIX B: RESOURCE ATTRIBUTES.....................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 

APPENDIX C: CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGES AND COSTS ......Error! Bookmark not defined. 

GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................253 

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................257 

LIST OF PREPARERS.....................................................................................................................265 

PREPARERS..................................................................................................................................265 

CONTRIBUTORS...........................................................................................................................266 

INDEX.............................................................................................................................................269 

x
TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Comparative Costs ....................................................................................... 58 

Table 2: Summary of Alternatives................................................................................................... 63 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts ............................................................................................... 69 

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives ......................................................................................... 74 

MAPS

Region.................................................................................................................................................. 1 

Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................... 49 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 50 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 51 

Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 52 

Combined Alternative 2................................................................................................................... 53 

Regional Planning Considerations.................................................................................................. 53 

xi 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

PURPOSE OF THE GMP

The purpose of the general management

plan (GMP) is to clearly define a direction

for resource preservation and visitor use at

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

(NM). Sunset Crater Volcano is currently

operating under a Master Plan approved

in June 1982. It is the intent of this

planning effort to provide a 

comprehensive direction for the next 10 to 

15 years and to arrive at that direction

through public participation. In fact this

draft GMP is the result of extensive

interaction with interested publics and

affected government agencies begun in

June 1996 (see Description of Scoping

Process and Consultation and Coordination

sections).

The approved plan will provide a 

framework for proactive decision making,

including decisions on visitor use, natural

and cultural resources management, and

park development, which will allow park

managers to effectively address future

opportunities and problems. The general

management plan will prescribe the

resource conditions and visitor experiences

that are to be achieved and maintained in

the park over time. The clarification of

what must be achieved according to law

and policy is based on review of the park’s

purpose, significance, special mandates,

and the body of laws and policies directing

park management. Management decisions

to be made where law, policy, or

regulations do not provide clear guidance

or limits will be based on the purpose of

the monument, the range of public

expectations and concerns, resource

analysis, an evaluation of the natural,

cultural, and social impacts of alternative

courses of action, and consideration of 

long-term economic costs.

Some of those conditions and experiences

are specified already in law and policy,

whereas others are open to debate and

must be determined through planning.

Based on determinations of desired

conditions, the plan will outline the kinds

of resource management activities, visitor

activities, and development that would be 

appropriate in the monument in the

future. However, the plan will not propose

specific actions or describe how particular

programs or projects will be implemented

or prioritized. Those decisions will be

1 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

deferred to more detailed implementation

planning, which will follow the broad,

comprehensive decision making outlined

in the general management plan.

NEED FOR THE GMP

There were many issues and concerns that

precipitated the need for a GMP.

Administratively, the three parks of the

Flagstaff Area (Wupatki, Sunset Crater

Volcano, and Walnut Canyon National

Monuments) were combined under one 

superintendent in 1990.Nationwide

demographics and traffic patterns (Sunbelt

migration, international visitors, aging of 

America, shorter vacations year-round)

have increased peak visitation seasons and

extended shoulder seasons. Flagstaff

growth and housing development is

occurring near park boundaries, impacting

the visitor experience and remote

character of the monument and increasing

incompatible adjacent land uses. Traffic

levels are increasing adjacent to and

through the park; views are intruded on 

by mining operations, housing

developments, and divided highways; and

noise is increasing.

When Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument was established in 1930,

boundaries were drawn around the

volcano and its primary lava flow. Many

associated features, such as the Kana-A

lava flow, Bonito Park, related cones along

the eruptive fissure line, and evidence of

the displaced prehistoric community, are

outside the monument boundary.

The park entrance road, Forest Road 545 

(FR545), is maintained by the National Park

Service (NPS) and cuts across the flank of

Sunset Crater Volcano, creating impacts on 

natural features of the park. Although

both Wupatki and Sunset Crater Volcano

are closed at night, the access road

common to both is not gated. The Park

Service provides 24-hour emergency

response along its entire 36 miles, 15 miles

of which are in the monuments.

Development on private lands between

Sunset Crater Volcano and Wupatki has

produced year-round commuter traffic,

which is increasing. Increased traffic has

resulted in increased maintenance needs,

occasional traffic accidents that need to be

investigated by NPS rangers, occasional

trash and garbage being left in park

containers or along roadsides, and an

increase in necessary contacts at the

entrance station.

Visitor use and administrative needs

exceed the capacity of the Sunset Crater

Volcano visitor center. The visitor center is

easily missed by visitors and lacks a view

of, or immediate access to, the volcano or 

any major park features. Many visitors

believe they will see a “crater,” and the

demand for a view of this aspect of the

primary resource is unmet. (The volcano

was closed to hiking in 1973 because of

resource impacts.) Interpretive media are

outdated or inaccurate, and there is no 

consistent integrated message between

this and the other two Flagstaff Area

monuments. Interpretive programs are

offered as staffing permits.

Trampling of volcanic and other natural

features has occurred both inside and

outside of the monument. Trails are

difficult to maintain on cinder and lava

surfaces, and routes are sometimes unclear

because of social trails. All of the area

immediately surrounding the monument is

managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS);

the viewshed and natural soundscapes,

however, are affected by nearby pumice

mining at the base of the San Francisco

Peaks and by off-road vehicle activities in

the Cinder Hills area. The Cinder Hills OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) Area occupies

about 13,500 acres adjacent to and

southeast of the monument. The OHV area

is visible from the Cinder Hills Overlook

and within the monument boundary. The

proximity of cinder cones that are

protected to the degree of denying

pedestrian traffic (within the monument),

2 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

so near to similar formations that are

allowed unlimited vehicular access (within

the OHV Area) often evokes visitor

comment. Substantial numbers of Cinder

Hills users choose to travel through the

monument to reach the OHV area.

In 1998, the staff of the Flagstaff Areas

undertook an in-depth review and analysis

of staffing needs for the three monuments

and for support positions in headquarters.

This process identified critical positions in 

visitor services, protection, resource

management, maintenance, and

administration that are integral to 

accomplishing the purposes of the

monuments and the National Park Service

mission. This review evaluated existing

conditions and personnel shortfalls in

terms of National Park Service abilities to

provide for a safe, educational visitor

experience and for adequate protection

and preservation of park resources. A 

number of positions were identified as

critical to maintaining operations at

acceptable levels, for both current and

future needs. These needs were identified

prior to the general management

planning process and are incorporated

into the alternatives developed.

Reaffirm What Must Be

Achieved

Each unit in the National Park System is

guided by agency-wide and park-specific

laws, regulations, and policies.

Understanding this guidance and how it

affects each park’s mission is fundamental

to planning for the park’s future. This

section highlights the mission (expressed

as park purpose, significance, and mission

goals) and legal and policy mandates that

guide management of the park. These

mission and mandate statements define

the sideboards within which all

management actions must fall. All

alternatives to be considered in the

general management planning effort must

be consistent with and contribute to

fulfilling these missions and mandates.

PARK MISSION

Sunset Crater National Monument was

established by Presidential Proclamation

No. 1911 on May 26, 1930, to provide

proper protection for certain geologic

formations. The monument name was

changed November 16, 1990, to Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument by the

Smith River National Recreation Act, P.L.

101-612. The monument occupies 3,040

acres totally surrounded by the Coconino

National Forest.

The following purpose statement is based

on and represents the agency’s

interpretation of the above-mentioned

legislative mandates and NPS policies. The

park purpose statement is the most

fundamental criterion against which the

appropriateness of all plan

recommendations, operational decisions,

and actions are tested.

• To preserve and protect Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument’s

geological formations, features, and

resources for scientific interests and

research, and for public interest,

including scenic, educational, and

recreational pursuits.

Park significance statements capture the

essence of the park’s importance to the

nation’s natural and cultural heritage.

Understanding park significance helps

managers to make decisions that preserve

the resources and values necessary to the

park’s purposes. The following significance

statements have been developed for

Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument:

• Sunset Crater Volcano is the Colorado

Plateau’s most recent eruption of the

San Francisco Peaks Volcanic Field and

provides an unparalleled opportunity

to study eruption dynamics, change,

3 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

and recovery in an arid climate

following a volcanic eruption.

• The volcanic eruption profoundly

affected people in the area and their

lifeways and left a unique

archeological and ethnographic record

of human adaptation, response, and

recovery to volcanic eruption. Sunset

Crater Volcano and its natural

resources continue to have cultural

significance to contemporary native

tribes.

• The park’s volcanic features are seen

now with few human disturbances and

provide excellent opportunities for

science, education, and interpretation,

including insight into plate tectonics,

ongoing geologic and ecological

processes, and a larger view of how 

this area is important in the context of

Southwestern U.S. and world geology.

This dramatic landscape of visually

striking and colorful geologic features

provokes introspection.

• The microhabitat and climate of Sunset

Crater Volcano create an unusual

species mix, including lichens, molds,

and endemic species that are highly

visible examples of the scientific

concepts of succession and adaptation.

MISSION GOALS

Mission goals were developed for the

three units in the Flagstaff Area National

Monuments Strategic Plan (NPS 2000).

They state that:

• Natural and cultural resources and

associated values within the three

Flagstaff Area monuments are

protected and maintained in good

condition and managed within their

broader ecosystem and cultural

contexts.

• Flagstaff Area National Monuments

actively pursue acquisition of natural

and cultural resource data through NPS

staff and funding channels and

through association with the scientific

community. Current and complete

scientific findings are available for

communication to partners, integration

into the interpretive program and use

in the management decision process.

• Facilities, services, and recreational

opportunities offered are in keeping

with site-specific requirements of

resource protection and visitor

enjoyment. Safety measures are an 

integral part of the visitor experience.

• Through on-site and off-site education,

the Flagstaff Area National

Monuments promote visitor

understanding of park purpose and

significance, enhance appreciation and

enjoyment, and promote an attitude of 

personal responsibility.

• Flagstaff Area National Monuments

use current management practices,

systems, and technologies to

accomplish their missions.

• The Flagstaff Area National

Monuments increase their capabilities

through initiatives and support from

other agencies, organizations, and

individuals.

SPECIAL MANDATES AND

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS

The monument has numerous special use

agreements with other agencies:

Law Enforcement Agreements between

USFS and NPS: National, regional, and local

agreements exist that allow law

enforcement operations on each other’s

lands.

Memorandum of Understanding with

Coconino County Sheriff’s Department:

Outlines areas of responsibility within the

national monument and provides for the

deputization of NPS protection park

rangers through the Coconino County

Sheriff’s department.

Interpretive Partnership: This partnership,

which has been in operation for seven

years, coordinates interpretive activities on

4 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

NPS and USFS lands and encourages

consistent messages through shared

staffing.

Cooperative Agreement with Department

of Anthropology, Northern Arizona

University: Provides assistance to NPS for

various cultural resource management

activities, using NAU students and faculty

to complete projects.

Memorandum of Understanding with

Museum of Northern Arizona: Allows the

museum to store and care for various

artifacts from the three Flagstaff Area

monuments, while retaining NPS

ownership of the collection.

Cooperative Agreement Western National

Parks Association (WNPA): Allows WNPA

to operate a bookstore in each of the

Flagstaff Area monuments and

headquarters, with support provided to

NPS from those sales.

Memorandum of Understanding between

USFS and NPS: Outlines the responsibilities

and uses of the administrative area at

Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument, where there are NPS facilities

on USFS lands, as well as the maintenance

and jurisdiction on FR545.

Doney Park Water Company Agreement:

Provides water for the Sunset Crater

developed area, including Bonito

Campground; establishes limits for water

consumption/use.

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES

As with all units of the National Park

System, management of Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument is guided by

the 1916 act creating the National Park

Service, the General Authorities Act of

1970, the act of March 27, 1978, relating

to the management of the National Park

System, and other applicable federal laws

and regulations, such as the Endangered

Species Act and the National Historic

Preservation Act.

Many resource conditions and some

aspects of visitor experience are prescribed

by these legal mandates and NPS policies.

Although the attainment of some of these

conditions has been deferred in the

monument because of funding or staffing

limitations, NPS will continue to strive to 

implement these policies at the monument

with or without a new GMP. The GMP is

not needed to decide, for instance,

whether or not it is appropriate to protect

endangered species, control exotic species,

improve water quality, protect

archeological sites, provide access for

visitors with disabilities, or conserve

artifacts.

The conditions prescribed by laws,

regulations, and policies most pertinent to

the planning and management of the

monument are summarized in this section.

Impairment

Current laws and policies require the

analysis of potential effects to determine

whether or not actions would impair park

resources.

Desired Condition

While Congress has given

the Service the

management discretion to

allow certain impacts

within parks, that

discretion is limited by the

statutory requirement

(enforceable by the

federal courts) that the

Park Service must leave

park resources and values

unimpaired, unless a

particular law directly and

specifically provides

otherwise.

The impairment that is 

prohibited by the Organic

Act and the General

Authorities Act is an

impact that, in the

professional judgment of 

the responsible NPS

manager, would harm the

Source

Management

Policies

5 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Desired Condition

integrity of park resources

or values, including the

opportunities that

otherwise would be 

present for the enjoyment

of those resources or 

values. Whether an impact

meets this definition

depends on the particular

resources and values that

would be affected; the

severity, duration, and

timing of the impact; the

direct and indirect effects

of the impact; and the

cumulative effects of the

impact in question and

other impacts.

Source

The fundamental purpose of the National

Park System, established by the Organic

Act and reaffirmed by the General

Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a 

mandate to conserve park resources and

values. NPS managers must always seek

ways to avoid, or to minimize to the

greatest degree practicable, adverse

impacts on park resources and values.

However, the laws do give the National

Park Service the management discretion to 

allow impacts to park resources and values

when necessary and appropriate to fulfill

the purposes of a park, as long as the

impact does not constitute impairment of 

the affected resources and values.

Although Congress has given the National

Park Service the management discretion to 

allow certain impacts within parks, that

discretion is limited by the statutory

requirement that the National Park Service

must leave park resources and values

unimpaired, unless a particular law directly

and specifically provides otherwise. The

prohibited impairment is an impact that,

in the professional judgment of the

responsible National Park Service manager,

would harm the integrity of park resources

or values, including the opportunities that

otherwise would be present for the

enjoyment of those resources or values. An

impact to any park resource or value may

constitute an impairment. An impact

would be more likely to constitute an

impairment to the extent it affects a 

resource or value whose conservation is:

• Necessary to fulfill specific purposes

identified in the establishing legislation

or proclamation of the park;

• Key to the natural or cultural integrity

of the park or to opportunities for

enjoyment of the park; or

• Identified as a goal in the park’s

general management plan or other

relevant NPS planning documents.

Impairment may result from National Park

Service activities in managing the park,

visitor activities, or activities undertaken

by concessioners, contractors, and others

operating in the park. A determination of 

impairment is made in the Environmental

Consequences section for each impact

topic.

Natural Resource Management

Requirements

Air Quality

Sunset Crater Volcano is a class II air

quality area. Current laws and policies

require that the following conditions be 

achieved in the monument for air quality:

Overall, the regional air quality is good.

Air flows generally down and away from

the adjacent San Francisco Peaks and does

not allow concentrations of most

Desired Condition

Air quality in the

monuments meets

national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS)

for specified pollutants.

Park activities do not

contribute to

deterioration in air

quality.

Source

Clean Air Act;

NPS

Management

Policies

Clean Air Act;

NPS

Management

Policies

6 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

pollutants to accumulate within the

monument. However, rapid growth and

development in the Flagstaff area could

begin to affect air quality in the parks.

Some regional haze issues already exist in

the Sunset Crater Volcano area, which is in

the same airshed as Grand Canyon

National Park. Current passive ozone

monitoring at the monument indicates

some elevation of ozone levels (ca 60 ppb) 

during the summer months prior to the

onset of the monsoon season in July.

Although the National Park Service has

very little direct control over air quality

within the airshed encompassing the

monument, the Flagstaff Areas cooperate

with the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and the

Environmental Protection Agency to

monitor air quality and ensure that air

quality is not impaired.

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to meet legal

and policy requirements related to air

quality:

• Enhance monitoring of localized air

quality by establishing long-term

monitoring stations for visibility

impairment in the Sunset Crater

Volcano area and continue monitoring

ozone at the monument. (Air quality

monitoring will be conducted in 

conjunction with regional air quality

agencies.)

• Participate in regional air pollution

control plans and regulations and

review of permit applications for major

new air pollution sources.

• Conduct park operations in compliance

with federal, state, and local air quality

regulations.

Desired Condition

The Service will

perpetuate surface

waters and

groundwaters as

integral components

of park aquatic and

terrestrial ecosystems.

The Service will

determine the quality

of park surface and

groundwater

resources and avoid,

whenever possible,

the pollution of park

waters by human

activities occurring

within and outside of 

parks.

Natural floodplain

values are preserved

or restored.

The natural and

beneficial values of 

wetlands are

preserved and

enhanced.

Source

Clean Water Act;

Executive order

11514; NPS

Management

Policies

Clean Water Act;

Executive Order

12088; NPS

Management

Policies

Executive Order

11988; Rivers and

Harbors Act; Clean

Water Act; NPS

Management

Policies

Executive Order

11990; Rivers and

Harbors Act; Clean

Water Act; NPS

Management

Policies

Water Resources

Current laws and policies require that the

following conditions be achieved in the

monument for water resources:

Surface water resources within Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument are

almost nonexistent, except for local

catchments upon lava flows and seepage

areas around the perimeter of lava flows.

There are relatively deep aquifers beneath

the monument, one of which is used for

drinking water. The monument includes

areas of deep cinder deposits, and overlies

aquifer-bearing geologic formations that

are extensively fractured by volcanic vents

and fissures. In this regard the monument

may serve as a local aquifer recharge area.

7 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Desired Condition Source

Geologic features will be 

protected. Certain fragile

geologic features will be 

monitored to determine if

measures are needed to

prevent or stop humancaused damage (areas of 

special management

considerations will be

determined through

management zoning

decisions in the GMP).

Monuments’

enabling

legislation; NPS

Management

Policies

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to meet legal

and policy requirements related to water

resources:

• Apply best management practices

(BMP) to all pollution-generating

activities and facilities in the parks,

such as NPS maintenance and storage

facilities and parking areas; minimize

use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other

chemicals and manage them in keeping

with NPS policy and federal

regulations.

• Promote greater public understanding

of water resource issues and encourage

public support.

Geologic Resources

Current laws and policies require that the

following condition be achieved in the

park for geologic resources:

Sunset Crater Volcano is very young in

geologic time and one of the few

undisturbed cinder cone volcanoes within

northern Arizona. The volcano offers

unique insight into fresh lava and cinder

weathering processes, soil formation, and

pioneering vegetation establishment.

Geologic resources in the monument are

adversely affected by disturbance to 

unique cinder volcano, lava flow, cinder

barren, spatter cone, and other volcanic

features caused by human activities inside

and outside park boundaries. Inside the

park, some areas receiving heavy visitor

use suffer from severe erosion on cinder

cone slopes, and the breakage and loss of

lava and spatter cone surfaces. This is

particularly evident on the abandoned

crater overlook trail and along the Lava

Flow Trail. Areas of deep cinder deposits

are easily disturbed by human trampling,

which hinders the development of soils

and survival of vegetation.

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to comply with

legal and policy requirements related to

geologic resources:

• Inventory and map specific volcanic

features in order to determine their

relative uniqueness and assess current

damage levels.

• Initiate studies of the deep cinder

deposits to understand off-trail

trampling impacts to natural soil

formation and vegetation

establishment processes.

• Take actions appropriate to the

management zone to deter further

damage to unique volcanic features,

possibly including the strategic

placement of handrail barriers and

information on the sensitivity of these

features.

Species of Special Concern

Current laws and policies require that the

following conditions be achieved for

species of special concern in the park:

Desired Condition

Federal- and state-listed

threatened and

endangered species and

their habitats are

sustained.

Populations of native plant

and animal species

function in as natural a

condition as possible

except where special

management

considerations are

warranted. (Areas with

Source

Endangered

Species Act;

NPS

Management

Policies

Monuments’

enabling

legislation; NPS

Management

Policies

8 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Desired Condition

special management

considerations will be

determined through

management zoning

decisions in the GMP.)

The Service will strive to 

restore extirpated native

plant and animal species

to parks when specific

criteria are met.

Management of 

populations of exotic plant

and animal species, up to

and including eradication,

will be undertaken

wherever such species

threaten park resources or 

public health and when

control is prudent and

feasible.

Source

Monuments’

enabling

legislation; NPS

Management

Policies

NPS

Management

Policies;

Executive Order

13112, Invasive

Species

Many natural areas support populations of 

species that are sensitive to human

disturbance and development. If these

species are in serious decline, they are

protected by law. Preserving the

prehistoric landscape of Sunset Crater

Volcano may also provide a unique refuge

for certain species that are sensitive to 

other land uses. Two unique plant species

are found only within the areas of deep

cinder deposits. Fractured lava flows and

lava tube features may provide habitat for

rare bat species and other unique wildlife.

Certain rare plant species may be subject

to collection for cultural reasons, and

better information on them is needed to 

ensure that populations remain stable.

In addition, the monument provides

foraging habitat for the endangered

Mexican spotted owl and northern

goshawk, which are known to occur

nearby in surrounding U.S. Forest Service

lands. Although not officially listed as

threatened or endangered, pronghorn

antelope are declining in the region.

Seasonal pronghorn antelope movements

are completely thwarted in areas where

fenced roadsides form continuous barriers.

Development for visitor access, visitor use,

and administrative activities within the

monument influences plant and animal

species distribution. Roads divide natural

areas, and act as barriers or create crossing

hazards for wildlife. Roads, trails, and

disturbed areas also function as corridors

for invasive species to move into the

monument, which may alter unique

habitats and completely displace rare

species. A sustained effort is needed to 

control these threats to native vegetation

and wildlife habitats.

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to comply with

legal and policy requirements related to

native species and to manage the park “in

as natural a condition as possible”:

• Inventory and catalog the plants and

animals occurring in the monument.

• Regularly monitor the distribution and

status of selected species that are (1)

indicators of healthy ecosystem

function and inherent biodiversity, (2)

rare or protected, (3) nonnative, and

(4) native species capable of creating

resource problems (e.g.,

overpopulation may result in undue

competition or alter available habitat

for other species).

• Nurture research that contributes

relevant knowledge for conserving

native species and ecosystem processes.

• Restore species populations and their

habitats where feasible.

• Manage native species in management

zones designated for historic scene,

active recreation, operations, or other

prescribed uses; plantings of nonnative

species in such zones would follow NPS

policies (e.g., limited use of noninvasive

plants only where justified by historic

scene or operational needs).

• Control or eliminate nonnative invasive

plants and animals where there is a

reasonable expectation of success and

9 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

sustainability; control efforts would be

prioritized in order of:

• threat to legally protected or uncommon

native species and habitats

• threat to visitor health or safety

• threat to scenic and aesthetic quality

• threat to common native species and

habitats

• Manage diseases and pests in similar

priority order to those listed above for

nonnative species.

• Educate visitors and neighbors on 

threats to native species and ways to 

conserve these species.

• Cooperate with Arizona Game and

Fish, the U.S. Forest Service, Arizona

Department of Transportation (ADOT),

and local landowners to sustain the

regional pronghorn antelope herd.

Wildland Fire

Current laws and policies require that the

following conditions be achieved

regarding wildland fire in the park:

A fire management plan and

environmental assessment will be

prepared for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument. The plan will identify

the appropriate tactics for suppressing

wildfires and the objectives for using

management-ignited fire. Aggressive

suppression tactics are only proposed

when human life, property, and adjacent

ranch lands are threatened. Sunset Crater

Volcano has agreements with neighboring

fire protection agencies to efficiently share

local personnel, equipment, and funds for

fire emergency response. In the event a 

large, regional fire should occur, the

monument would participate in an

appropriate response as coordinated by 

the National Interagency Fire Center.

Although Sunset Crater Volcano’s 3,000

acres are dominated by expanses of barren

lava and cinder deposits, there are pockets

of mature ponderosa pine forest and

pinyon woodland that could sustain a 

wildfire. Forest vegetation surrounding

the monument likely burned more

frequently in the past, which promoted

native herbaceous cover and biodiversity,

thinned trees, and prevented dead wood

accumulation and intensely hot fires.

Limited management-ignited fires may be 

proposed, mainly to restore the role of fire

to local forests and meadows.

The Park Service will take the following

kinds of actions to comply with legal and

policy requirements related to fire

management:

• Suppress all unwanted wildfires as

quickly as possible.

• Initiate research into the role of fire in 

maintaining natural vegetation within

the monument; use the results to

identify desired vegetation condition

and management-ignited fire

objectives; revise the Fire Management

Plan accordingly.

• Ensure management-ignited fires

comply with Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality air quality

regulations.

Desired Condition Source

Park fire management

programs are designed to

meet park resource

management objectives

while ensuring that

firefighter and public

safety are not

compromised. All

wildland fires are

effectively managed

through application of 

the appropriate strategic

and tactical management

options.

NPS

Management

Policies,

National Fire

Management

Plan

10 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Night Sky 

The monument’s night skies are features

that contribute to the visitor experience.

Desired Condition Source

The Service will preserve,

to the greatest extent

possible, the natural

lightscapes of parks,

which are natural

resources and values that

exist in the absence of

human-caused light.

Recognizing the roles that

light and dark periods

play in natural resource

processes and the

evolution of species, the

Service will protect

natural darkness and

other components of the

natural lightscape in

parks. To prevent the loss

of dark conditions and of 

natural night skies, the

Service will seek the

cooperation of park

visitors, neighbors, and

local government

agencies to prevent or

minimize the intrusion of

artificial light into the

night scene of the

ecosystems of parks.

NPS

Management

Policies

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to comply with

this policy:

• Monument staff will work with local

communities and other agencies to

encourage protection of the night

skies.

• Monument staff will evaluate impacts

on the night skies caused by facilities

within the monument. If light sources

within the monument are determined

to be affecting night skies, monument

staff will study alternatives, such as

shielding lights, changing lamp types,

or eliminating unnecessary sources.

Natural Soundscapes

An important part of the NPS mission is to 

preserve or restore the natural

soundscapes associated with national

parks. The sounds of nature are among the

intrinsic elements that combine to form

the environment of our national parks.

The natural ambient soundscape is the

aggregate of all the natural sounds that

occur in parks, together with the physical

capacity for transmitting natural sounds.

Natural sounds occur within and beyond

the range of sounds that humans can

perceive and can be transmitted through

air, water, or solid materials. Natural

sounds are slowly and inexorably

disappearing from most NPS units.

Desired Condition Source

The National Park Service

will preserve, to the

greatest extent possible,

the natural soundscapes of 

parks. The Service will

restore degraded

soundscapes to the natural

condition wherever

possible and will protect

natural soundscapes from

degradation due to noise

(undesirable human-caused

sound).

NPS

Management

Policies

Using appropriate

management planning,

superintendents will

identify what levels of

human-caused sound can

be accepted within the

management purposes of 

parks. The frequencies,

magnitudes, and durations

of human-caused sound

considered acceptable will

vary throughout the park,

being generally greater in

developed areas and

generally lesser in

undeveloped areas. In and

adjacent to parks, the

Service will monitor human

activities that generate

noise that adversely affects

11 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Desired Condition

park soundscapes, including

noise caused by mechanical

or electronic devices. The

Service will take action to 

prevent or minimize all

noise that, through

frequency, magnitude, or 

duration, adversely affects

the natural soundscape or 

other park resources or 

values, or that exceeds

levels that have been

identified as being

acceptable to, or 

appropriate for, visitor uses

at the sites being

monitored.

Source

The Park Service will take the following

kinds of actions to comply with this policy:

• Activities causing excessive or

unnecessary unnatural sounds in and

adjacent to parks, including lowelevation aircraft overflights, will be

monitored, and action will be taken to

prevent or minimize unnatural sounds

that adversely affect park resources or

values or visitors’ enjoyment of them.

• NPS will work with the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), tour

operators, commercial businesses, and

general aviation interests to encourage

aircraft to fly outside of the

monument, especially for those flights

where the presence of the monument

is incidental to the purpose of the

flight (i.e., transit between two points).

Actions that might be considered to

encourage pilots to fly outside the

monument include identifying the

monument on route maps as a noisesensitive area, educating pilots about

the reasons for keeping a distance

from the park, and encouraging pilots

to fly in compliance with FAA

regulations and advisory guidance, in a 

manner that minimizes noise and other

impacts.

• Monument staff will continue to

require tour bus companies to comply

with regulations that reduce noise

levels (e.g., turning off engines when

buses are parked).

Noise generated by NPS management

activities will be minimized by strictly

regulating administrative functions such as

aircraft use and use of motorized

equipment. Noise will be a consideration

in the procurement and use of equipment

by park staff.

Cultural Resource Management

Requirements

Archeological Resources

Current laws and policies require that the

following conditions be achieved for

archeological resources in the park:

Portions of the park have not been

systematically surveyed or inventoried.

Precise information about the location,

Desired Condition Source

Archeological sites

are identified and

inventoried, and

their significance is

determined and

documented.

Archeological sites

are protected in an

undisturbed

condition unless it is

determined through

formal processes

that disturbance or

natural

deterioration is

unavoidable.

In those cases where

disturbance or

deterioration is

unavoidable, the site

is professionally

documented and

salvaged.

National Historic

Preservation Act;

Executive Order

11593; Archeological

and Historic

Preservation Act;

Archeological

Resources Protection

Act; the Secretary of

the Interior’s

Standards and

Guidelines for

Archeology and

Historic Preservation;

Programmatic

Memorandum of 

Agreement among

the NPS, Advisory

Council on Historic

Preservation, and the

National Council of 

State Historic

Preservation Officers

(1995); NPS

Management Policies

12 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

characteristics, significance, and condition

of the majority of archeological resources

in the park is lacking, and impacts are

difficult to measure. The National Park

Service will take the following kinds of

actions to meet legal and policy

requirements related to archeological

sites:

• Survey and inventory archeological

resources and document their

significance.

• Treat all archeological resources as 

eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP),

pending a formal determination by the

National Park Service and the Arizona

State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO) as to their significance.

• Protect all archeological resources

determined eligible for listing on, or

listed on, the NRHP; if disturbance to 

such resources is unavoidable, conduct

formal consultation with ACHP, SHPO,

and affiliated American Indian tribes in 

accordance with the National Historic

Preservation Act.

Historic Properties

Current laws and policies require that the

following conditions be achieved in the

park for historic properties (e.g., buildings,

structures, roads, trails, cultural

landscapes):

Desired Condition Source

the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards

(unless it is 

determined through

a formal process

that disturbance or

natural

deterioration is

unavoidable).

Council on Historic

Preservation, and the

National Council of 

State Historic

Preservation Officers

(1995); NPS

Management Policies

Many of the historic properties in the park

exhibit various stages of deterioration

owing to a lack of systematic preservation

maintenance. A study of planning and

architecture of the NPS Mission 66 

program is under way. The study will

provide the park with baseline data

necessary for the long-term preservation

of these resources.

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to meet legal

and policy requirements related to historic

properties:

• Complete a survey, inventory, and

evaluation of historic properties under

National Register criteria.

• Complete a survey, inventory, and

evaluation of cultural landscapes.

• Submit inventory/evaluation results to 

SHPO with recommendations for

eligibility to the National Register.

• Determine the appropriate level of

preservation for each historic property

formally determined to be eligible for

listing, or listed on, the National

Register (subject to the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards).

• Implement and maintain the

appropriate level of preservation for

such properties.

• Analyze the design elements (e.g.,

materials, colors, shape, massing, scale,

architectural details, site details) of

historic structures and cultural

landscapes in the monument (e.g.,

buildings, bridges, trails, roads and

Desired Condition Source

Historic properties

are inventoried and

their significance

and integrity are

evaluated under

National Register

criteria.

The qualities that

contribute to the

eligibility for listing

or listing of historic

properties on the

NRHP are protected

in accordance with

National Historic

Preservation Act;

Executive Order

11593; Archeological

and Historic

Preservation Act; the

Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards

and Guidelines for

Archeology and

Historic Preservation;

Programmatic

Memorandum of 

Agreement among

the NPS, Advisory

13 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Desired Condition Source

Anticipated impacts to

Indian trust resources are

addressed in

environmental

documents.

Secretarial

Order 3175; NPS

Management

Policies

intersections, curbing, signs, picnic

tables) to guide rehabilitation and

maintenance of sites and structures.

Indian Trust Resources

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any

anticipated impacts to Indian trust

resources from a proposed project or 

action by Department of Interior agencies

be explicitly addressed in environmental

documents. The federal Indian trust

responsibility is a legally enforceable

fiduciary obligation on the part of the

United States to protect tribal lands,

assets, resources, and treaty rights, and it

represents a duty to carry out the

mandates of federal law with respect to

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes.

Although there are no Indian trust

resources in Sunset Crater Volcano,

resources important to Indian tribes were

identified during the scoping process by 

the tribes themselves, and that

information was carefully incorporated

into the design of alternatives so that

these resources would be protected under

any alternative considered.

Ethnographic Resources

Certain contemporary American Indian

and other communities are permitted by 

law, regulation, or policy to pursue

customary religious, subsistence, and other

cultural uses of park resources with which

they are traditionally associated. The

National Park Service plans and executes

programs in ways that safeguard cultural

and natural resources while reflecting

informed concern for the contemporary

peoples and cultures traditionally

associated with those resources.

To accomplish these goals, NPS will do the

following:

• Survey and inventory ethnographic

resources and document their

significance.

• Treat all ethnographic resources as

eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places, pending a 

formal determination by NPS and

Arizona SHPO as to their significance.

• Protect all ethnographic resources

determined eligible for listing or listed

on the NRHP; if disturbance to such

resources is unavoidable, conduct

formal consultation with ACHP and

SHPO in accordance with the National

Historic Preservation Act.

• Conduct regular consultations with

affiliated tribes to continue to improve

communications and resolve any

problems or misunderstandings that

occur.

• Continue to encourage the

employment of American Indians on 

the park staff to improve

communications and working

relationships and encourage cultural

diversity in the workplace.

• Provide for access to and use of natural

and cultural resources in parks and

collections by American Indians that is 

consistent with park purposes, does not 

unreasonably interfere with American

Indian use of traditional areas or sacred

resources, and does not result in

degradation of park resources.

Through consultation, an agreement

with tribes on access issues will be

developed.

In addition, consultation with affiliated

Indian tribes was conducted throughout

the course of the planning process. Tribes

were funded to identify ethnographic

resources within the three Flagstaff Area

monuments, and this information was

considered in developing alternatives.

14 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Desired Condition

Ethnographic information will be collected through collaborative

research that recognizes the sensitive nature of such information.

All agencies shall accommodate access to and ceremonial use of

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoid

adversely affecting the physical integrity of these sacred sites.

The National Park Service acknowledges that American Indian

tribes, including Native Alaskans, treat specific places containing

certain natural and cultural resources as sacred places having

established religious meaning and as locales of private

ceremonial activities. Consistent with E.O. 13007, the Service will,

to the extent practicable, accommodate access to and ceremonial

use of Indian sacred sites by religious practitioners from

recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, and avoid

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.

Other federal agencies, state and local governments, potentially

affected American Indian and other communities, interest

groups, State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation will be given opportunities to

become informed about and comment on anticipated NPS actions

at the earliest practicable time.

All agencies shall consult with tribal governments prior to taking

actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments. These

consultations are to be open and candid so that all interested

parties may evaluate for themselves the potential impact of

relevant proposals. Parks will regularly consult with traditionally

associated American Indians regarding planning, management,

and operational decisions that affect subsistence activities, sacred

materials or places, or other ethnographic resources with which

theyare historically associated.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; Presidential

Memorandum of April 29, 1994, on Government-to-Government

Relations with Tribal Governments; NPS ManagementPolicies

Certain research data may be withheld from public disclosure to

protect sensitive or confidential information about archeological,

historic, or other NPS resources when doing so would be

consistent with FOIA. In many circumstances, this will allow the

NPS to withhold information about ethnographic resources.

American Indians and other individuals and groups linked by ties

of kinship or culture to ethnically identifiable human remains will

be consulted when remains may be disturbed or are encountered

on park lands.

Source

NPS Management Policies

Executive Order 13007 on American Indian

Sacred Sites

NPS Management Policies, E.O. 13007 on

American Indian Sacred Sites

National Historic Preservation Act;

Programmatic Memorandum of

Agreement among the NPS, Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, and the

National Council of State Historic

Preservation Officers (1995); Executive

Order 11593; American Indian Religious

Freedom Act, American Indian Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive

Order 13007 on American Indian Sacred

Sites; Presidential Memorandum of April

29, 1994, on Government-to-Government

Relations with Tribal Governments; NPS

Management Policies

NPS Management Policies

NPS Management Policies; American

Indian Grave Protection and Repatriation

Act

15 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Collections

Current laws and policies require that the

following conditions be achieved in the

park for museum collections:

Desired Condition Source

All museum objects

and manuscripts are

identified and

inventoried, and their

significance is

determined and

documented.

The qualities that

contribute to the

significance of 

collections are

protected in

accordance with

established

standards.

National Historic

Preservation Act;

American Indian

Religious Freedom

Act; Archeological

and Historic

Preservation Act;

Archeological

Resources Protection

Act; American Indian

Graves Protection

and Repatriation

Act; NPS

Management

Policies

The Flagstaff Area curatorial/museum

collections are at risk. Improper storage

and lack of adequate security and fire

protection systems at facilities that house

the collections threaten their safety and

integrity. Significant portions of the

archeological and historical collections

remain uncataloged, and the collections

continue to be scattered throughout

various facilities.

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to meet legal

and policy requirements related to 

collections:

• Ensure objects are housed in proper

storage. Ensure that museum

collections not housed in NPS

repositories are preserved, protected,

and documented, according to

National Park Service standards.

• Acquire and catalog all park museum

collections in accordance with

standards in the NPS Museum

Handbook. All cataloging information

will be made accessible in the

Automated National Catalog System.

• Develop a collection management

program according to NPS standards to 

guide protection, conservation, and use

of museum objects.

• Implement the collection management

program.

Visitor Experience and Park Use

Requirements

Current laws and policies require that the

following conditions be achieved in the

parks regarding visitor experience and

park use:

Desired Condition Source

Visitor and employee

safety and health are

protected.

NPS Management

Policies

Visitors understand

and appreciate park

values and resources

and have the

information necessary

to adapt to park

environments; visitors

have opportunities to

enjoy the parks in

ways that leave park

resources unimpaired

for future generations.

NPS Organic Act;

Monuments’

enabling

legislation; NPS

Management

Policies

Park recreational uses

are promoted and

regulated, and basic

visitor needs are met

in keeping with park

purposes.

NPS Organic Act;

Monuments’

enabling

legislation; Title 36

of the Code of 

Federal

Regulations; NPS

Management

Policies

All reasonable efforts

will be made to make

NPS facilities,

programs, and services

accessible to and

usable by all people,

including those with

disabilities.

Americans with

Disabilities Act;

Architectural

Barriers Act;

Rehabilitation Act;

NPS Management

Policies

Visitors who use

federal facilities and

services for outdoor

recreation may be

NPS Management

Policies; 1998

Executive Summary

to Congress,

16 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Desired Condition

required to pay a 

greater share of the

cost of providing those

opportunities than the

population as a whole.

The park has

identified

implementation

commitments for

visitor carrying

capacities for all areas

of the unit.

Source

Recreational Fee

Demonstration

Program, Progress

Report to Congress,

Volume I— 

Overview and

Summary (U.S.

Department of the

Interior, National

Park Service, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife

Service, Bureau of

Land Management;

U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest

Service)

1978 National Parks

and Recreation Act

(P.L. 95-625); NPS

Management

Policies

These laws, regulations, and policies leave

considerable room for judgment regarding

the best mix of types and levels of visitoruse activities, programs, and facilities. For

this reason, most decisions related to 

visitor experience and use are addressed in

the Decide What Might Be Achieved

section and in the alternatives. However,

the authority to charge fees is dictated by

law and is therefore the same for all

alternatives.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund

Act (16 USC 460l et seq.) allows NPS to

collect recreation fees of the appropriate

type for its parks, facilities, and programs.

Fees are to be reasonable and are

determined in accordance with the criteria

and procedures contained in the Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act and

regulations in 36 CFR 71. Fees collected

under this authority are returned to the

U.S. Treasury. Fees are also being collected

for special park uses under 16 U.S.C. 3(a)

and 31 U.S.C. 3701, in accordance with

OMB Circular A-25. Under this authority,

NPS recovers the costs incurred for

providing special park uses, but returns to 

the U.S. Treasury any revenues in excess of

costs.

Congress authorized the recreational fee

demonstration program to begin on

October 1, 1995, and to end on September

30, 2002. The program authorizes NPS and

other agencies to implement and test new

fees. The program allows the participating

agencies to retain all of the demonstration

project revenues and to retain at least 80

percent of the revenues at the sites where

they are collected. These revenues yield

substantial benefits because they provide

on-the-ground improvements at local

recreation sites. For NPS, the majority of

new recreation fee revenues are dedicated

to reducing identified backlogged

maintenance, infrastructure, and resource

management needs. Some of the

demonstration fee revenues are reinvested

into infrastructure and new collection

methodologies to prepare additional areas

to collect fees and provide for overall

collection efficiency across NPS.

Regulations governing visitor use and

behavior in units of the National Park

System are contained in Title 36 of the

Code of Federal Regulations and

Superintendent’s Compendium. These

regulations have force of law and address

a number of use limitations, such as limits

on commercial activities.

Under the 1978 National Parks and

Recreation Act (P.L. 95-625), NPS is

required to address the issue of carrying

capacity in its general management plans.

The concept of carrying capacity is

intended to safeguard the quality of park

resources and visitor experiences.

Identifying desired resource conditions

and visitor experience by zone is part of 

general management planning. At this

level of decision making, the desired

resource conditions and experiences

describe carrying capacity in qualitative

terms. These qualitative terms are then

17 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

translated into quantitative standards over

time during implementation planning.

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to meet legal

and policy requirements related to visitor

experience and park use:

• Provide opportunities for visitors to 

understand, appreciate, and enjoy the

park (management directions are

explored in the alternatives within this

broad policy).

• Continue to enforce the regulations in

36 CFR.

• Ensure that all park programs and

facilities are accessible to the extent

feasible.

• Complete a carrying capacity

implementation plan, which will

succeed this GMP. This plan will

identify indicators and standards,

develop a monitoring strategy, and

identify management actions needed

to address conditions when standards

are reached or exceeded.

• Implement a carrying capacity

monitoring program.

• Take management action as necessary

to keep resource and visitor experience

conditions within established

standards.

Relations with Park Neighbors and

Other Agencies

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

is managed as part of a greater ecological,

social, economic, and cultural system.

Current policy requires the following:

Desired Condition Source

community surroundings.

The Service will actively seek

out and consult with

existing and potential

visitors, neighbors, people

with traditional cultural ties

to park lands, scientists and

scholars, concessioners,

cooperating associations,

gateway communities, other

partners, and government

agencies. The Service will

work cooperatively with

others to improve the

condition of parks; to

enhance public service; and

to integrate parks into

sustainable ecological,

cultural, and socioeconomic

systems.

In the spirit of partnership,

the Service will also seek

opportunities for

cooperative management

agreements with state or

local agencies that will

allow for more effective and

efficient management of

the parks, as authorized by

section 802 of the National

Parks Omnibus

Management Act of 1998

(16 USC 1a-2l).

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to meet legal

and policy requirements related to park

neighbors:

• Continue to establish and foster

partnerships with public and private

organizations to achieve the purposes

and mission of the monument.

Partnerships will be sought for resource

protection, research, education, and

visitor enjoyment purposes.

• Park staff will keep landowners, land

managers, local governments, and the

general public informed about park

management activities. Periodic

consultations will occur with

Desired Condition Source

Public participation in

planning and decision

making will ensure that the

Park Service fully

understands and considers

the public’s interests in the

parks, which are part of 

their national heritage,

cultural traditions, and

NPS

Management

Policies

18 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

landowners and communities affected

by park visitors and management

actions. The Park Service will work

closely with local, state, and federal

agencies and tribal governments whose

programs affect, or are affected by,

activities in the monument. Monument

staff will continue their regular

consultations with the Arizona State

Historic Preservation Office, the

Arizona State Game and Fish

Department, and Indian tribes. In

particular, NPS will maintain a close

working relationship with the U.S.

Forest Service to meet mutual

management needs with staff from the

Peaks and Mormon Lake Ranger

Districts on the Coconino National

Forest. Park staff will continue to meet

as needed with staff from Northern

Arizona University (NAU) Departments

of Anthropology, Geography, Geology,

and School of Forestry; the Museum of

Northern Arizona; the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS); U.S.G.S. National

Resources Division, Colorado Plateau

Field Station at NAU; Coconino Plateau

Natural Reserve Lands; City of Flagstaff;

Arizona State Lands Department;

Coconino County; Natural Resources

Conservation Services; and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. Organizations

that the monument staff periodically

keep informed-depending on the issueinclude Grand Canyon Trust, National

Parks and Conservation Association,

Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club,

Friends of Walnut Canyon, and

neighboring national parks.

• Monument staff will continue to

participate in cooperative regional

planning to ensure that the

monuments are treated as issues of 

regional concern.

Sustainable Design/Development

Sustainability can be described as the

result achieved by doing things in ways

that do not compromise the environment

or its capacity to provide for present and

future generations. Sustainable practices

minimize the short- and long-term

environmental impacts of development

and other activities through resource

conservation, recycling, waste

minimization, and the use of energy

efficient and ecologically responsible

materials and techniques.

Desired Condition

Facilities are integrated

into the park landscape

and environs with

sustainable designs and

systems to minimize

environmental impact.

Development does not 

compete with or dominate

park features, or interfere

with natural processes,

such as the seasonal

migration of wildlife or 

hydrologic activity

associated with wetlands.

Any facility development,

whether it be a new

building, a renovation, or 

an adaptive reuse of an 

existing facility, includes

improvements in energy

efficiency and reduction in

“greenhouse gas”

emissions for both the

building envelope and the

mechanical systems that

support the facility.

Maximum energy

efficiency is achieved

using solar thermal and

photovoltaic applications,

appropriate insulation and

glazing strategies, energyefficient lighting and

appliances, and renewable

energy technologies.

Energy-efficient

construction projects are

used as an educational

opportunity for the

visiting public.

Source

NPS

Management

Policies

19 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

The NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable

Design (1993) directs NPS management

philosophy. It provides a basis for

achieving sustainability in facility planning

and design, emphasizes the importance of 

biodiversity, and encourages responsible

decisions. The guidebook articulates

principles to be used in the design and

management of tourist facilities that

emphasize environmental sensitivity in 

construction, use of nontoxic materials,

resource conservation, recycling, and

integration of visitors with natural and

cultural settings. Sustainability principles

have been developed and are followed for

interpretation, natural resources, cultural

resources, site design, building design,

energy management, water supply, waste

prevention, and facility maintenance and

operations. The Park Service also reduces

energy costs, eliminates waste, and

conserves energy resources by using

energy-efficient and cost-effective

technology. Energy efficiency is

incorporated into the decision-making

process during the design and acquisition

of buildings, facilities, and transportation

systems that emphasize the use of

renewable energy sources.

In addition to abiding with these

principles, the following will also be

accomplished:

• Park staff will work with appropriate

experts to make the monument’s

facilities and programs sustainable.

Value analysis and value engineering,

including life cycle cost analysis, will be

performed to examine the energy,

environmental, and economic

implications of proposed park

developments.

• The park staff will support and

encourage suppliers, permittees, and

contractors to follow sustainable

practices.

• Park interpretive programs will address

sustainable park and nonpark practices.

Special Use Management

Requirements

Rights-of-Way and Telecommunication

Infrastructure

Current laws and policies require that the

following conditions be achieved in the

park:

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 

directs all federal agencies to assist in the

national goal of achieving a seamless

telecommunications system throughout

the United States by accommodating

requests by telecommunication companies

for the use of property, rights-of-way, and

easements to the extent allowable under

each agency’s mission. Unlike with other

nonconforming uses, the National Park

Service is legally obligated to permit

telecommunication infrastructure within

the parks if such facilities can be structured

to avoid interference with park purposes.

Desired Condition

Park resources or 

public enjoyment of

the parks are not

denigrated by 

nonconforming uses

Telecommunication

structures are

permitted in the

parks. to the extent

that they do not 

jeopardize the park’s

mission and resources.

No new

nonconforming use or 

rights-of-way will be

permitted through

the parks without

specific statutory

authority and

approval by the

director of the

National Park Service

and only if there is no 

practicable alternative

to such use of NPS

lands.

Source

Telecommunications

Act; 16 USC 5; 16

USC 79; 23 USC 317;

36 CFR 14; NPS

Management

Policies; Director’s

Order 53A, Wireless

Telecommunications

20 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

The National Park Service will take the

following kinds of actions to meet legal

and policy requirements related to special

uses of park lands:

• Determine appropriate locations and

stipulations before permitting

telecommunication infrastructure on

NPS lands in order to ensure the

protection of park resources and

quality visitor experiences while

endeavoring to respond positively.

Applications, sites, and stipulations will

be based on the management zoning

scheme determined by the GMP.

Description of Scoping

Process

NOTICES, NEWSLETTERS, AND

MEETINGS

The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was

published in the Federal Register May 19,

1997 (62 FR 27272). The NOI indicated

availability of the first newsletter, from

which comments were accepted until June

30, 1997. The first newsletter (April 1997)

described purpose and significance

statements for all three Flagstaff Area

parks and identified preliminary issues. A 

mail-back comment form was included,

asking the public if they agreed with the

material in the newsletter, if they had

recommendations on improvement, and if

there were issues or problems that had

been missed. Comments from the

newsletter were collated and presented at

an open house August 20, 1997, in

Flagstaff. Twenty-nine comment forms

were returned by mail. Additional

comments were taken at the open house.

Primary issues added by the public

included funding, access, and the planning

process.

The second newsletter, released in

February 1998, detailed public response to

the first newsletter, described the final

purpose and significance statements, and

explained the preliminary range of 

management zones. Another mail-back

comment form was included, which asked

the public if the management zones

included the experiences they felt were

important and if they recommended any

changes. Nine responses were received.

A third newsletter, issued in November

1998, combined and organized comments

received from newsletters #1 and #2 into

decision points and related problems to be 

solved by alternatives in the draft

environmental impact statement. This

newsletter also introduced draft

alternatives for the three parks and two

alternatives proposing a combination of 

Sunset Crater and Wupatki. Again, a mailback form was included. This newsletter

was followed by another public open

house, held in Flagstaff, December 3, 1998,

and attended by about 60 people.

The third newsletter and the open house

that followed elicited a large response

compared with the previous newsletters.

One hundred and twenty-eight individual

responses were received, along with a 

petition that had 1,200 signatures and 541 

copies of a form letter. The issue

generating the petition and form letter

was the proposal to expand the

boundaries at Sunset Crater and Wupatki

and eliminate the use of off-highway

vehicles. Other actions proposed in the

alternatives (increased access, road

closures, and road expansion) received

small numbers of responses, relatively

equal for and against.

The fourth newsletter, issued in May 1999, 

described the decision to prepare a plan

concurrently with the Forest Service.

All newsletters were posted on the

Internet on the National Park Service

planning web page. All comments that

were received through June 1999 were

considered in this EIS.

A number of meetings were held with

staff from the Forest Service and Arizona

21 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Game and Fish Department to discuss

impacts that the alternatives might have

on adjacent recreational activities and

impacts to wildlife and their movement

corridors and to try to ensure that NPS

planning would be in support/harmony

with other agencies’ planning efforts.

Many of the conversations focused on 

joint or comanagement of resources and

visitor uses. A number of meetings were

held with the affiliated tribes, including

Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualupai

Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Juan Paiute

Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White

Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai Apache

Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and Zuni

Tribe. Meetings with the tribes were held

to determine traditional uses, desired

continuing uses, ethnography information,

sacred sites data, consultation protocol,

and issues related to repatriation of

human remains and artifacts.

TRIP FACT SHEETS

To determine if existing park visitors’

needs were being met, trip fact sheets

were set out in each of the three visitor

centers. Visitors filled out the sheets

voluntarily. The trip fact sheets were a 

one-page check-off that asked visitors

where they were from, why they came to 

the park, how they preferred to learn

about the park, and what they would take

advantage of, if it were available. A total

of 4,091 trip sheets, spanning a 15-month

time frame, were collected and collated.

Responses were fairly consistent for the

three monuments. The following five

items were considered highly desirable by 

visitors to the three monuments:

• Want short and longer hiking trails.

• Want to be able to step off the trail for

picture taking.

• Want self-guided activities.

• Want to learn by ranger programs.

• Want to learn by museum exhibits.

VISITOR USE STUDY

As a complement to the public meetings,

newsletters, and trip fact sheets, a visitor

use study was conducted to gather more

in-depth information on visitors, their

experience, behavior, and how behavior

affects resources.

Approximately 1,200 mail-back

questionnaires were distributed in

conjunction with an on-site interview. A 

total of 885 questionnaires were returned-

-287 for Sunset Crater Volcano, 304 for

Walnut Canyon, and 294 for Wupatki. The

on-site survey repeated the questions

asked in the trip fact sheets, whereas the

mail-back questionnaire provided more

detailed information. The following

information was asked:

• What sites did visitors visit, and how

long did they stay at each site?

• In which activities did visitors

participate?

• What problems did visitors encounter?

• What were visitors’ feelings about

seeing other visitors?

• What added to or detracted from their

park experience?

Sunset Crater Volcano attracts visitors

interested in looking at the scenery,

looking at visitor center exhibits, taking

pictures, hiking and walking, exploring the

lava flows, and taking a self-guided tour.

Things that bothered visitors included not 

being able to go to the top of the volcano

and confusing and missing trail markers.

When asked about what they would like

to see changed, most visitors responded,

“nothing.” They did say they wanted

more, longer trails, access to the top of 

Sunset Crater, more interpretive

information, and better information on 

volcano formation (Lee and Treadwell

1999).

22 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Decide What Might Be

Achieved

ISSUE ANALYSIS AND CONCERNS

Many issues and concerns were identified

by the park staff, other agencies, and the

general public as part of the scoping for

this general management plan. These

issues and concerns were then categorized

according to how they could be resolved.

The list of things to be addressed in the

general management plan will include

major planning issues (decision points), the

resources and values that could be at stake

in choosing one course of action over

another (impact topics), and the range of 

management prescriptions (management

zones). These elements are described

below. The impact topics are also

addressed in the evaluation of alternatives

in the Environmental Consequences

section of this plan.

DECISION POINTS

Based on public comments and NPS

concerns, there are four major points

about which decisions must be made in

this GMP. The considerations following

each statement were actual scoping

comments received.

1. We need to decide to what extent we

can provide visitor access to cultural and

natural resources without unacceptable

impacts to those resources.

Considerations:

• Monitoring and protection of resources

is difficult.

• Popular resources are trampled by 

visitors.

• Additional research is needed to

understand the relationships between

numbers of visitors and resource

impacts.

• There is a need to understand tribal

requirements for access to and use of

resources without disruption by visitor

use.

• Trail use often exceeds design capacity,

causing safety and resource protection

concerns (trails are subject to erosion

and rockfalls).

2. Important park goals are to ensure

adequate visitor orientation and

education and to minimize use impacts.

We need to decide whether to accomplish

this by increasing facilities and services or

by limiting entrance points and visitor

circulation.

Considerations:

• Existing buildings do not meet current

visitor or employee needs; visitation

often exceeds visitor center and

parking lot capacities.

• Visitors do not receive necessary

information before they encounter

sensitive resources.

• Resources are being lost because of 

vandalism and theft.

• Visitor centers and exhibits do not 

reflect current scientific thinking or

relationships between sites and people.

• Some facilities are located in prime

resource areas and may be causing

undue impacts on those resources;

other facilities are not sustainable or

designed for the landscape.

• Existing staffing and budget levels limit

visitor services.

3. We need to decide the extent to which

park operations, visitor experiences, and

resource protection can be integrated

across the three Flagstaff Area parks or

whether they need to be treated

separately.

Considerations:

• There is redundancy and inefficiency in

park facilities and infrastructure; much

of the infrastructure is antiquated and

inadequate.

23 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

• Park units and park operations are not 

consistently integrated and structured

to address prioritized needs.

• Systems and programs do not ensure

clear and effective communication

among the staff or with visitors.

• Static funding and staffing levels

require maximum use and efficiency of 

park facilities, infrastructure, and

programs.

4. We need to determine to what extent

we can protect park values through

agreements and/or partnerships with park

neighbors and inholders and/or boundary

adjustments and land acquisition.

Considerations:

• Rapid regional growth and

development adjacent to parks

increase the potential for damage to

resources, viewsheds, and visitor

experience.

• Confusion sometimes arises from the

presence of multiple agencies with

common boundaries and/or resources

but different management policies and

visitor use regulations.

• There are land management, land

trades, and “friendly condemnation”

issues near park boundaries involving

the state and the U.S. Forest Service.

• Strategies are needed for dealing with

private land in the parks while

preserving private property rights.

RESOURCES/VALUES AT STAKE IN

THE PLANNING PROCESS

During scoping, the resources and values

that could potentially be at stake in

selecting various future directions for the

parks were identified. Public and park staff

input was considered. The following

impact topics were derived from this

scoping input for Sunset Crater Volcano:

• Long-term integrity of archeological

resources

Scientific integrity of cultural resources

• Historic character of built environment

Historic resources

Cultural landscapes

• Ethnographic Resources

Long-term scientific and traditional

integrity of culturally sensitive areas

(shrines, gathering sites, landforms,

resource collection areas, etc.)

• Natural Systems and Processes

Conserving native plant and animal

communities

Maintaining natural geomorphic and soil

formation processes

Preserving unfragmented natural systems

Conserving wildlife populations

Maintaining the natural character/condition

of ponderosa pine forest and pinyon

woodland

Controlling the spread of invasive,

nonnative plant species

Maintaining the integrity of natural systems

for ecological research

• Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive

Species

Federally listed threatened and endangered

species, “species of concern,” and critical

habitats

Other sensitive plants, animals, and unique

habitats identified during the scoping

process

• Geologic Resources

Preserving unique geologic features such as

cinder volcanoes, lava flows, lava tubes,

cinder barrens, spatter cones

Preserving the integrity of geological

resources for scientific research

• Ability to experience park resources

Access to park resources by the general 

public 

Access to a full spectrum of park resources 

for visitors with disabilities 

Uncrowded visitor experiences 

Personal freedom (inside and outside park 

boundaries) 

Traditional employee/visitor experiences 

(interpretation through personal services, 

access to favorite sites) 

Traditional recreational activities (biking, 

climbing, etc.) 

Access to information provided by 

collections (ability to see the “real thing”) 

Minimally altered environment 

Ability to experience scenic, recreational, 

and educational pursuits 

24 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

Visibility of night skies 

Natural soundscapes, ability to hear natural 

sounds 

Ability of public to understand park 

resources 

Visitor understanding of regional context 

• Effects on park neighbors; local, state,

and tribal land management plans; and

land/resource managing agencies

Effects on neighbors’ access and emergency

response

Economic contribution of park to local

economies

Access to culturally sensitive areas by

traditional users

Traditional land uses external to boundary

Possible conflicts between the proposed

action and local, state, or Indian tribal land

use plans, policies, or controls for the area

concerned

• Operational efficiency

Employee and visitor health and safety 

Ability to enforce park regulations and 

protect park values 

Staff 

Facilities 

Distance to work 

Management of collections and other 

resources 

Ease of communication 

Utilities 

Employee housing 

TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER

ANALYSIS

Socially or Economically

Disadvantaged Populations

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations,”

requires all federal agencies to incorporate

environmental justice into their missions

by identifying and addressing

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects of

their programs and policies on minorities

and low-income populations and

communities. None of the alternatives

considered would result in any identifiable

adverse human health effects. Therefore,

there would be no direct or indirect

adverse effects on any minority or lowincome population or community. The

impacts on the natural and physical

environment that occur from any of the

alternatives would not significantly and

adversely affect any minority or lowincome population or community.

Although there are several Indian tribes

nearby, a series of consultation meetings

has resulted in alternatives carefully

crafted to incorporate and resolve the

tribal concerns identified. Therefore

environmental justice was dismissed as an

impact topic.

Prime and Unique Agricultural

Lands

In August 1980, the Council on 

Environmental Quality directed that

federal agencies must assess the effects of

their actions on farmland soils classified by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) as prime or unique. Prime or 

unique farmland is defined as a soil that

particularly produces general crops such as

common foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed;

unique farmland produces specialty crops

such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts.

According to NRCS, none of the soils in the

project area are classified as prime or

unique farmlands. Therefore, the topic of 

prime and unique farmlands was dismissed

as an impact topic in this document.

Air Quality

The President’s Council on Environmental

Quality guidelines for preparing

environmental impact statements require

the lead agency to analyze the impacts of

the proposed action and alternatives on 

air quality. Under each of the proposed

management alternatives for Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument, visitor use

and administrative operations would

generate similar levels of air pollutant

emissions from motor vehicles and

motorized equipment, water and sewage

treatment operations, propane and

natural gas-fueled appliances, and wood25 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

burning stoves used to heat employee

residences. Some dust and fumes would be 

generated during the maintenance,

improvement, construction, or removal of

roads, trails, and other facilities. The NPS

would follow established policy requiring

the use of energy-efficient and

environmentally friendly products and

processes whenever possible. Although

public visitation and motor vehicle use are

expected to increase during the next 20 

years, levels of vehicle exhaust are not

expected to dramatically increase or

significantly contribute to regional air

pollutant loads. Although the NPS

proposes the limited use of fire to manage

ponderosa pine forest within the

monument, further analysis of air quality

impacts is deferred until a fire

management plan and environmental

assessment can be prepared.

None of the identified air pollutant

sources would generate enough quantities

to require a discharge permit under U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality regulations. The impacts of these

emissions are deemed to be negligible on

the local environment and regional air

quality for the proposed action and all

alternatives. Therefore, they are excluded

from further environmental analysis.

Water quality

The President’s Council on Environmental

Quality guidelines for preparing

environmental impact statements require

the lead agency to analyze the impacts of

the proposed action and alternatives on 

water quality. Impacts to intermittent

drainage systems, wetlands/floodplains,

and riparian environments are assessed

separately in the Environmental

Consequences section. Under each of the

proposed management alternatives for

Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument, visitor use and administrative

operations would require similar amounts

of drinking water and generate similar

levels of water pollutants from road runoff, facility maintenance operations, and

water and sewage treatment operations.

All wastewater and sewage from the

visitor center, employee housing, and

toilets is treated and discharged through

infiltration fields. None of the existing or 

proposed facilities would be located in the

vicinity of regulated surface waters.

Although infiltration systems are located

in proximity to as much a 700 feet of

highly porous cinder deposits and

volcanically fractured bedrock, the nearest

reliable aquifer beneath these facilities is 

at least 1,900 feet deep. The aquifer may

be hydraulically isolated from the surface

by horizontal rock formations of limestone

and sandstones. Water pollutant

discharges would be managed in

compliance with U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency and Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

regulations. The NPS would follow

established policy requiring the use of 

water-conserving technology and

environmentally friendly products.

Although public visitation and motor

vehicle use are expected to increase during

the next 20 years, the level of incidental

hydrocarbon run-off from roads is not 

expected to dramatically increase or

contaminate local waterways. For these

reasons, the proposed action and all

alternatives are deemed to have a 

negligible impact on the environment and

water quality and this topic is excluded

from further environmental analysis.

Wetlands, Floodplains, and

Riparian Habitats

The Clean Water Act, Executive Order

11990, Executive Order 11988, and the

President’s Council on Environmental

Quality guidelines for preparing

environmental impact statements require

the lead agency to analyze the impacts of

the proposed action and alternatives upon 

wetlands and floodplains. In addition,

public scoping typically identifies

26 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

widespread concern over riparian habitat

conditions within the Southwestern United

States. The geologic events that formed

Sunset Crater Volcano resulted in areas of

deep cinder deposits and highly fractured

basalt flows. Surface water from

precipitation events quickly percolates

deep underground and generally does not 

accumulate on the surface. The monument

boundary includes an area of high terrain

relative to the surrounding topography,

and no intermittent drainage features are

evident. There are virtually no surface

water resources within the monument,

except for seasonal water catchments

upon and local seepage around the

perimeter of lava flows. None of these

features are believed to meet jurisdictional

wetland criteria under the Clean Water

Act, and no areas within the monument

function as floodplains. For these reasons,

the proposed action and all other

alternatives are deemed to have negligible

impacts upon the regional environment,

and this topic is excluded from further

analysis.

OUTSTANDING PARK VALUES

AND RESOURCE CONCERNS

Sunset Crater Volcano represents the

Colorado Plateau’s most recent volcanic

eruption. It is the youngest, least-eroded

cinder cone in the San Francisco Volcanic

Field. The significance of Sunset Crater

Volcano extends well beyond the

geological events themselves. The

powerful geologic processes that formed

the volcano profoundly affected the way

of life of local inhabitants during the 11th

and 12th centuries and shaped both the

landscape and the ecology of the area.

Furthermore, the young age of this

volcano and its location in a relatively

undeveloped landscape provides an

unparalleled opportunity to study plant

succession processes and ecological change

in an arid volcanic landscape.

At the time of the monument’s

establishment, the precise timeframe and

geologic processes responsible for the

creation of Sunset Crater were unknown.

Geological work beginning in the 1970s 

dated some features near Sunset Crater

cinder cone and analyzed the sequence of

Sunset Crater’s eruptions. Geologists

continue to work out the details of the

eruptions but are now confident in the

identification of those features that

compose the Sunset Crater volcanic event.

According to Volcanoes of North America

(Wood and Kienle 1990), “The eruption

began with the opening of a 15-km-long

fissure, accompanied by curtain of fire

activity and the growth of a small lava

flow at the southeast end. Strombolian

fountaining then localized near the

northwest end and Sunset Scoria Cone

grew, with the simultaneous deposition of 

a widespread scoria layer. At the same

time the 11-km-long Kana-A lava flow

issued from the cone. This was followed by

further cone building and production of

the Bonito Lava Flow.”

It is commonly held among the geologists

who have studied Sunset Crater that the

volcanic features along Sunset Crater’s

fissure form a line of successively older

parts of the Sunset Crater volcanic event

(Richard Holm, pers. comm.). According to

Holm and Moore (1987): “Volcanic

deposits formed during the Sunset Crater

eruption include the scoria cone of Sunset

Crater, two basalt lava flows that extruded

from its base, three rows of small scoria

and agglutinate cones east-southeast of 

Sunset Crater, a basalt lava flow from vent

512 about 6.2 mi (10 km) east-southeast of 

Sunset Crater, and a tephra blanket that

originally covered 800 mi2 (2,080 km2).”

They further indicate there is evidence

that the Sunset Crater tephra blanket was 

laid down while Gyp Crater and Vent 512 

deposits were still hot. They also state that

“the rows of small cones east-southeast of 

Sunset Crater probably resembled the

27 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

well-known ‘curtain of fire’ eruption style

on Hawaii.”

Prior to the eruption of Sunset Crater, the

area in and immediately surrounding the

monument was occupied by farmers who

lived in small, scattered hamlets adjacent

to their fields. When Sunset Crater

erupted, the prehistoric inhabitants of the

area, whom archeologists call Sinagua,

apparently moved out of harm’s way. No

evidence has been found indicating that

the people were surprised by the

eruptions, and no human remains have

been found indicating deaths occurred as

a direct result of the volcanic activity.

There are some indications of prayer

offerings given as lava flowed from the

base of the volcano. The Sinagua soon

discovered that the deep cinder/ash fall in

the immediate vicinity of Sunset Crater

was not farmable, but as they moved

northward and the depth of ash

diminished, they found that the cinder

cover acted as a moisture-retaining mulch,

allowing low elevation areas that were

previously unsuitable for farming to 

produce successful crops. Most

archeologists believe that the creation of

this new farmland by the Sunset Crater

eruption was a primary reason for the

development of the complex culture in

what is today Wupatki National

Monument.

Dr. Harold Colton, founder of the Museum

of Northern Arizona (MNA), first

recognized the connection between

Sunset Crater and nearby buried pithouse

ruins in the early 1930s, several years after

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

was established. Research by MNA

archeologists revealed that the people

who built these pithouses had witnessed

Sunset Crater’s birth in 1064. It was treering dating of timbers found in these

pithouses and the nearby pueblo

structures of Wupatki that gave geologists

a more definitive date for the beginning

of the Sunset Crater eruption.

Several contemporary American Indian

tribes, including Hopi, Navajo, YavapaiApache, and White Mountain Apache,

maintain ties to Sunset Crater and its

associated volcanic features. Hopi shrines

situated within and outside of the current

boundaries of Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument are part of a sacred

landscape linking the Hopi Mesas with the

San Francisco Peaks. Several shrines are

located along a prehistoric trail that

crosses the Little Colorado River near Black

Falls, then passes through the Wupatki

area and the Cinder Hills to the north en

route to Sunset Crater. The trail then

contours around the northern flank of 

Sunset Crater and Bonito Park to the west,

before descending toward Flagstaff and

the eastern slope of the San Francisco

Peaks.

Hopi oral traditions include stories about

the eruption of Sunset Crater. The Hopi

believe that their ancestors’ spirits, the

Kachinas, travel from the San Francisco

Peaks to Hopi and back each year via

Sunset Crater and Bonito Park, and some

deities are believed to reside in the

immediate area. (Kana-A lava flow is

named after a Hopi deity associated with

Sunset Crater Volcano).

The Navajo and Apaches also have oral

traditions about Sunset Crater, and they

consider the Cinder Hills area in general to

be a traditional cultural property because

of events that took place there in the

mythical past.

Sunset Crater is the most recent volcano

on the entire Colorado Plateau. As such,

Sunset Crater and its associated volcanics

are a valuable resource for the study of

ecological succession. The story of

ecological succession on the cinder cones

of the San Francisco Volcanic Field is not 

well understood. Succession in this arid

region is exceedingly slow, and biologists

believe the 250-year-old pinyons in the

area are the first colonists of this relatively

new landscape. Recent work by ecologists

28 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

has established that the pinyon pines are

physiologically stressed and may lend

insight to how plants can cope with

stressors such as global warming. The

complex web of plant and animal

interactions in the pinyon forest around

the volcano is under a great deal of study

by biologists (Whitham 1999, pers. com.).

The plants colonizing the cinders and lava

flows today are especially fragile.

Furthermore, the Cinder Hills surrounding

Sunset Crater provide the primary habitat

for one sensitive endemic species,

Penstemon clutei.

Although the volcanic features and

ecology within the current monument

boundaries remain relatively undisturbed,

this is not the case immediately outside

the monument boundaries. Since the

1970s, a popular off-highway vehicle

(OHV) use area has been located adjacent

to Sunset Crater within the Coconino

National Forest. The current management

plan for Coconino National Forest specifies

continued use of the red-topped cinder

cones by OHVs. Despite official closure to

off-road vehicle use, the Kana-A lava flow

and the cinder fall area to the east and

north of the monument are subject to

trespass OHV use, which also occurs within

the monument on an occasional basis.

OHV tracks cause long-term scarring and

erosion to the cinder cones and other

geological features of the fissure. The

difficulty in rehabilitating erosional scars

on cinder cones is exemplified by the

history of the footpath on Sunset Crater

Volcano. The trail to the top of Sunset

Crater was closed in 1973 because of

excessive erosion (in places foot traffic and

erosion had caused the trail to become a 

hip-deep rut). Despite intensive efforts to 

obliterate the trail and extensive

rehabilitation efforts, the scar remains

visible on the crater’s side. OHV tracks on

cinder cones are typically on very steep

grades and have caused deep rutting on 

slopes of features that are part of the

Sunset Crater volcanic chain.

Although mining of cinders does not 

currently occur on the lands surrounding

Sunset Crater Volcano, mining of pumice

deposits is currently occurring in close

proximity. Pumice mining on the slopes of 

San Francisco Mountain affects the

monument viewshed. This impact is

particularly noticeable from the Lava Flow

Trail, where the story of Sunset Crater and

its relation to the greater San Francisco

Volcanic Field is most actively interpreted.

29 

ALTERNATIVES

DEVELOPMENT OF

ALTERNATIVES

Resource Analysis

As the first step in the alternatives

development process, landscape units

were plotted, sensitive resource areas were

mapped, and existing visitor experiences

(driving, hiking, viewing archeological

sites) were identified. Natural and cultural

resource inventories were evaluated.

Visitor use statistics were gathered and

studied. The planning team also discussed

areas where visitors or park staff have

noted problems in the past and sought the

underlying reasons for those problems.

Landscape units plotted for Sunset Crater

Volcano included: steep timbered hills,

rolling timbered hills, timbered cinder hills,

cinder hills, pristine black dune, crater, and

lava flow. The appropriateness of these

landscape units for use and development

was considered.

Information on the following

issues/existing conditions and resources

was overlaid to create maps highlighting

areas that were particularly sensitive to

human use: boundary/adjacent uses, visitor

use, roads/trails/development,

boundaries/fences, impact areas,

ethnographic/sacred sites,

threatened/endangered/endemic

species/habitat, wetlands, soils/geologic

features, sensitive cultural areas, pristine

areas, and safety concerns. In meetings

with the Forest Service, maps showing

cultural resource information (traditional

cultural properties, National Register of 

Historic Places properties, collecting areas,

inventoried archeological site densities,

and historic uses), sensitive species, current

rules and regulations, stakeholders, and

experiences were prepared.

This analysis aided in the development and

placement of management zones and

facilities in different alternatives. Desirable

resource conditions and visitor experiences

for each zone were identified. This analysis

and the sensitive areas maps were

consulted when decisions were made

about how to place zones and facilities in 

different alternatives. Other measures

taken to check feasibility and determine

potential impacts included field-checking

alternative ideas and proposals and

consulting with resource experts and other

agencies. Input from newsletters and

scoping was also used to draft alternatives.

Input from visitor surveys provided a 

better understanding of what visitors

value, what their expectations are, and

what problems they experience.

The goal was to ensure that the draft

alternatives did not include actions with

unacceptable effects on park resources or 

visitors or actions having no public

support. For example, sensitive eagle areas

were mapped, and those areas were

considered off limits for visitor use in order

to protect the eagles. An alternative

considered early in the process would have

closed the loop road connecting Wupatki

and Sunset Crater Volcano; this alternative

was rejected because of the lack of public

support.

Management Zones

Within the broad parameters of the park

mission and mission goals, various

approaches to park resource protection,

use, and development are possible.

Different approaches can be used to

address the decision points previously

identified in the planning process (Purpose

31 
ALTERNATIVES 

and Need, Decide What Might Be 

Achieved section). For all three Flagstaff

Area monuments, potential management

zones were identified and then applied for

each monument to meet the different

alternative concepts developed.

Management zones identify how different

areas of the park could be managed to

achieve a variety of resources and social

conditions and to serve recreational needs.

Each zone specifies a particular

combination of physical, biological, social,

and management conditions. Different

actions would be taken by the Park Service

in different zones with regard to the types

and levels of uses and facilities.

Ten possible zones were described that

could be appropriate to various areas in

the three Flagstaff Area monuments. Ideas

for the range of zones came from

responses to the newsletters and from

park staff. In formulating alternatives for

future park conditions and management,

preparers placed these zones in different

locations or configurations on the ground,

based on different alternative concepts.

The eight zones applicable to Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument are

described below.

RESOURCE PRESERVATION ZONE

Resource Condition or Character

Resources in this area are fragile and may

be in a range of conditions from pristine

to endangered. Management actions for

resource protection would be high, and

tolerance for resource degradation would

be very low.

Visitor Experience

Access to these areas would be restricted

and permitted only for the purposes of 

research, traditional cultural activities, or

other well-justified special uses. The areas

would provide maximum preservation of 

fragile and/or unique resources,

endangered species, sacred sites, and so 

on. Although access would be restricted,

visitors could benefit from the experience

of learning that particularly sensitive

resources are preserved for future

generations.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities

There would be no facilities or

developments for visitors, but off-site

interpretation would be extensive, to 

promote visitor education about the value

of resource protection. As noted, access

would be by permit only for approved

activities. Telecommunication

infrastructure would not be permitted in

this zone.

DISCOVERY ZONE

Resource Condition or Character

Resources would appear pristine. On-site

controls and restrictions would be minimal

and subtle. The tolerance for resource

modifications and degradation would be 

very low.

Visitor Experience

Visitors would explore remote areas in a 

wilderness-like setting, free from modern

intrusions. These areas could be trailed or 

untrailed. Trails would be primitive in 

nature (unsurfaced and no wider than 2 

feet), and no other facilities would be

present. Solitude, natural soundscape, and

undirected discovery would be key to this

experience. Opportunities for

independence, closeness to nature,

challenge, and adventure would be 

common, and visitors would need to have

individual outdoor skills and be selfsufficient. There would be a very low

probability of encountering other visitors

or evidence of visitor impacts. Off-site

management of visitors could include

eligibility requirements before entering

such an area, and limits on numbers of 

visitors and length of stay could be in

place.

32 
ALTERNATIVES 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities

No facilities except for primitive trails

would be appropriate in these areas.

Cross-country hiking would be the

predominant activity. Telecommunication

infrastructure would not be permitted in

this zone.

EXTENDED LEARNING ZONE

Resource Condition or Character

Visitors, sites, and trails would be

intensively managed to ensure resource

protection and public safety. Areas would

be predominately natural, but the sights

and sounds of people would be evident.

Resources could be modified for essential

visitor needs (such as trails and interpretive

media) and park operation needs (such as

hardening of archeological sites), but they

would be changed in a way that

harmonizes with the natural and cultural

environment. Except for essential changes,

the Park Service’s tolerance for resource

degradation would be low.

Visitor Experience

The emphasis in this experience would be 

on visiting and learning about significant

park resources. These experiences could be 

either self-guided or ranger-led. Intimate

interaction with resources would be 

offered where possible without undue 

resource impacts. Structure and direction

would be provided, (e.g., trails,

interpretive media, signs), but some

opportunities for discovery would also be 

available. Visitors would need to exert

some physical effort and make at least a 

moderate time commitment. At certain

times of the day or season there could be 

opportunities for solitude, but in general

there would be a moderate probability of

encountering other visitors. The

probability of encountering park staff and

other evidence of NPS management would

be high.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities

Trails (which could be surfaced and up to 5 

feet wide), overlooks, and wayside exhibits

and other interpretive media would be 

appropriate in these areas. Support

facilities, such as rest rooms and small

picnic areas, could also be present.

Predominant activities would include

hiking, viewing resources, and attending

interpretive walks and talks.

Telecommunication infrastructure would

not be permitted in this zone.

GUIDED ADVENTURE ZONE 

Resource Condition or Character

Resources in these areas would appear

pristine. Low levels of management for

resource protection and visitor safety

would be appropriate in these areas, but 

any resource modifications would be 

minimal and would harmonize with the

natural environment. Tolerance for

resource degradation in these areas would

be low.

Visitor Experience

Visitors would explore park resources as

part of a guided group. Areas where this

experience would be offered would

usually be untrailed and free from

developments. Intimacy with resources,

learning, social interaction among the

group, and the security of a guided

experience would be key elements of this

experience. The probability of

encountering other groups would be low,

and there would be some opportunities

for individual solitude. The environment

would offer a moderate level of challenge,

but the need for individual outdoor skills

would be low.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities

No permanent facilities would be

appropriate in these areas except for

primitive trails if deemed necessary for

33 
ALTERNATIVES 

resource protection. Hiking and camping

with a guide would be the predominant

activity in these areas. Telecommunication

infrastructure would not be permitted in

this zone.

HIKING ZONE 

Resource Condition or Character

Resources would appear pristine. On-site

controls and restrictions would be used if

needed for resource protection. The

tolerance for resource modifications and

degradation would be low.

Visitor Experience

Visitors would explore the park using

unpaved trails. Trails would be semiprimitive (unsurfaced and no wider than 4 

feet), and few other facilities would be 

present. Visitors would need to make a 

moderate time commitment. There would

be a low probability of encountering NPS

staff and a moderate probability of

encountering other visitors or evidence of 

visitor impacts. Off-site management of

visitors could include eligibility

requirements before entering such an

area, and limits on numbers of visitors and

length of stay could be in place.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities

Few facilities except for trails, trailheads,

occasional pit toilets, and minimal

interpretation would be appropriate in

these areas. Hiking would be the

predominant activity. Telecommunication

infrastructure would not be permitted in

this zone.

OVERVIEW EXPERIENCE ZONE

Resource Condition or Character

Resources would appear natural, but 

paving or other management actions

would be taken as necessary to protect

resources. Visitors would interact with

resources only to the extent possible

without undue impact to those resources.

Because of the need for visitors to 

understand park significance, some

primary resources must be available for

visitors to view in these areas.

Visitor Experience

Visitors would get an overview of park

resources and significance in a short time

frame and with a minimum of physical

exertion. Park orientation and

interpretation of primary park themes

would be important elements of this

experience. Interaction and encounters

with other visitors and park staff would be

common, but overcrowding would be 

avoided. Although structured intimacy

with some park resources could be 

possible, viewing resources from a distance

or from trail or overlook facilities would

be more common.

Appropriate Kinds of 

Activities or Facilities

Sightseeing, learning about

the park, short walks, and

attending interpretive

programs would be 

common activities in these

areas. Orientation and

interpretation facilities, such

as visitor centers, kiosks,

wayside exhibits, and other

interpretive media would be 

appropriate. Support facilities such as rest

rooms and picnic facilities could also be

present. Telecommunication infrastructure

would not be permitted in this zone.

MOTORIZED SIGHTSEEING ZONE

Resource Condition or Character

Intensive management would be provided

in this area to ensure resource protection

and public safety (e.g., fences, intensive

law enforcement, and restrictions on

visitor activities). Resources might be

modified (e.g., paving or felling hazard

trees) for essential visitor and park

operational needs.

34 
ALTERNATIVES 

Visitor Experience

The paved roadways and associated

developments in this area would be used

for touring the park, enjoying scenic

overlooks and interpretive media, and

gaining access to other park areas. Visitor

attractions would be convenient and easily

accessible. The visitor experience would be

generally dependent on a vehicle or 

bicycle, would involve driving along a wellmaintained, paved road, and would be 

perceived as linear/sequential in nature.

Observing the natural environment would

be important, and there would be a sense

of adventure, but there would be little

need for visitors to exert themselves, apply

outdoor skills, or spend a long time in the

area. The probability of encountering

other visitors would be high, and there

would be a moderate probability of

encountering NPS staff.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities

The motorized sightseeing experience

would occur in a substantially developed

area. The paved roads, pullouts, overlooks,

and associated short trails and picnic areas,

parking areas, and other facilities that

support visitor touring would be included

in these areas. Most facilities and some

trails would be accessible in this area.

Telecommunication infrastructure would

not be permitted in this zone.

ADMINISTRATIVE ZONE

Resource Condition or Character

The natural environment would be 

modified for park operation needs, but 

they would be changed in a way that

harmonizes with the natural environment.

These areas would not be close to sensitive

natural or cultural resources, if such

resources could not be adequately

protected.

Visitor Experience

These areas would not be intended for

visitor use; however, if visitor use did not 

conflict with the primary use of the area,

incidental use could be permitted.

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities

Facilities necessary for park operations or

surrounding land uses are appropriate in

this area, including park maintenance

yards, residential areas, access roads, and

utility areas and corridors.

Telecommunication infrastructure would

be permitted in this zone, in the following

locations. For Wupatki, Sunset Crater, and

Walnut Canyon radio repeater needs, NPS

uses a site at O’Leary Peak on USFS lands.

Installation of telecommunications

equipment at this site would require

permission from the Forest Service. A radio

repeater was once located on Woodhouse

Mesa near the park visitor center at

Wupatki. The Park Service would consider

requests for location of equipment at this

site based on the ability to install the

equipment without visual intrusion and

without loss or disturbance of natural or 

cultural resources. Because of the fragile

nature of the resource, no use of NPS land

at Sunset Crater for telecommunications

would be permitted. If a new visitor center

were constructed near I-40 at Walnut

Canyon, there could be an opportunity to

locate telecommunication equipment

there, or at the water tower that is part of

the current administrative zone.

Boundaries Expansion Criteria

SUNSET CRATER VOLCANO

The monument currently preserves most of 

Sunset Crater Volcano and one of the two

lava flows created during the eruption of 

Sunset Crater. At the time of the

monument’s establishment in 1930, the

Kana-A lava flow and the volcanic

evidences of the fissure system that

eventually produced the Sunset Crater

35 
ALTERNATIVES 

cinder cone were not known to be of park

significance. Geological investigations

beginning in the 1970s dated some

features near Sunset Crater cinder cone

and analyzed the sequence of Sunset

Crater’s eruptions. Geologists are now

confident in the identification of those

features that make up the Sunset Crater

volcanic event. It is commonly held among

geologists who have studied Sunset Crater

that the succession of volcanic features

along the fissure forms a line of 

successively older parts of the magmatic

event. Clearly these features are part of

the Sunset Crater eruption story, and as

such, constitute resources of primary park

purpose and significance.

Several contemporary American Indian

tribes, including Hopi, Navajo, YavapaiApache, and White Mountain Apache,

maintain ties to Sunset Crater and its

associated volcanic features. Hopi shrines

within and outside the current boundaries

of Sunset Crater National Monument are

included in a sacred landscape that links

the Hopi Mesas with the San Francisco

Peaks. Stories about the eruption of Sunset

Crater are a part of Hopi oral tradition.

The Hopi believe that their ancestors’

spirits, the Kachinas, travel from the San

Francisco Peaks to Hopi and back each year

via Sunset Crater and Bonito Park, and

some deities are believed to reside in the

immediate area (Kana-A lava flow is

named after a Hopi deity associated with

Sunset Crater Volcano). Bonito Park, which

lies outside the monument boundaries, has

been identified as a significant traditional

cultural property to the Hopi, and because

of its cultural importance, the Hopi have

requested that Bonito Park be included

within the monument to afford additional

protection to the area. The Navajo and

Apache consider the cinder hills around

Sunset Crater to be traditional cultural

properties based on their associations with

events that occurred in the mythical past.

Since the 1970s, the geological and

ecological features and the ethnological

values of the Sunset Crater area have been

subject to much degradation, as they form

the center of the popular Cinder Hills OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation Area

within the Coconino National Forest. The

current management plan for Coconino

National Forest specifies continued use of 

the red-topped cinder cones by OHVs.

Despite official closure to off-road use, the

Kana-A lava flow and the cinder fall area

to the east and north of the monument

are subject to occasional trespass OHV use.

The ability of visitors to understand the

full story of Sunset Crater could be 

enhanced if they were able and

encouraged toaccess additional resources

related to park significance, particularly

the fissure area and Gyp Crater to the

southeast.. Because erosion is altered by 

OHV tracks, visitors are also not able to 

view an unaffected picture of the

geological processes that have been at

work for about 1,000 years, sculpting the

landscape of the volcano and its associated

features.

Noise from OHV use encroaches within the

existing park boundaries, which may

adversely impact visitor enjoyment. Scars

on the landscape and views of OHV traffic,

and dust, are clearly visible from Cinder

Hills Overlook, from which it would be

possible to interpret the significance of the

row of cinder cones that mark the fissure

that produced Sunset Crater.

Expansion of current monument

boundaries, to include related resources

and for administrative purposes, was

considered as part of the planning process,

as specified in Section 604 of the National

Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.

1a-5et seq.). Authority for modifying

boundaries is contained in the Land and

Water Conservation Fund Act amendments

of June 10, 1977 (Public Law 95-42).

Consideration for modifications to the

boundaries was based on one or more of 

36 
ALTERNATIVES 

the following criteria: (1) expansion would

include significant resources or 

opportunities for public enjoyment, (2)

expansion would address operational and

management issues, or (3) expansion

would protect monument resources critical

to fulfilling the purpose of the park.

Boundary expansions are considered

practical or necessary if: (1) the added

lands could feasibly be administered,

taking into consideration the size of the

proposed expansion, configuration,

ownership, costs, and so on, and (2) that

other alternatives for management and

resource protection are not considered

adequate. The alternatives each include a 

brief description of one of the boundary

expansion options that were considered.

Actions Common to All

Alternatives

Short-range planning is under way

simultaneously with this GMP to meet

immediate operational needs that will

continue to exist regardless of the

alternative selected. These are identified in

National Park Service-wide initiatives, in 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments

planning documents, such as the Strategic

Plan, Annual Performance Plan,

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, Fire

Management Plan, and Resources

Management Plan, and in local action

plans to resolve safety, accessibility, facility

maintenance, and similar issues.

A. PARTNERSHIPS

All alternatives presented recognize the

opportunity for partnerships, for the

protection of cultural and natural

resources, with the USFS, the State of

Arizona, and private landowners. USFS

lands surrounding Sunset Crater Volcano

will be managed in accordance with

decisions reached in the Flagstaff Lake

Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) planning

process, but the two agencies will actively

coordinate a variety of activities. There will

be continued monitoring of the effects of 

recreation, grazing, and other human uses

on these lands; documentation of 

unacceptable impacts will provide a basis

for management changes to control those

effects.

B. INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS

Planning and design of new wayside

exhibits and museum exhibits is in

progress, in accordance with the Flagstaff

Areas Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, to 

improve visitor understanding and

appreciation of Sunset Crater Volcano

resources. New wayside exhibits will

replace and expand the existing system of 

interpretive signs along FR545 and at 

major existing visitor use areas, that is, at

Bonito Park, Lava Flow Trail, Lenox Trail,

and the Painted Desert picnic area. New

museum exhibits will replace the outdated

and inaccurate exhibits at the existing

visitor center. Like the wayside exhibits,

they will convey current knowledge of the

park’s natural and cultural resources and

explain their significance.

C. CAMPGROUND EXPANSION

Bonito Campground will be expanded by

the USFS to provide group camping, a dayuse area for educational group gatherings,

and an upgraded amphitheater for

programs. USFS has agreed that the

campground will remain in its current

location during the life of this general

management plan.

D. CURATORIAL FACILITY

A new 4,000-square-foot curatorial

building will be constructed in the

administrative area to provide for the

long-term care and preservation of 

museum objects and specimens from all

three monuments. The facility will occupy

a site totaling approximately 8,000 square

feet. Water, sewer, and electrical utilities

and a road will be extended to the site.

37 
ALTERNATIVES 

E. MAINTENANCE/RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT FACILITY

A new 20,000-square-foot maintenance,

resources management, and ranger

support facility will be constructed in the

Sunset Crater Volcano administrative area.

It will include vehicle and equipment

storage, supplies and materials storage,

offices, and a meeting room. The facility

will occupy a site totaling approximately

40,000 square feet. Utilities and roads will

be extended to the site, and a parking

area will be constructed.

F. O’LEARY PEAK ROAD CLOSURE

The USFS will gate the road up O’Leary

Peak to prevent nonofficial vehicle access

beyond the campground. A portion of the

route, ending at a scenic viewpoint, will be

available for hikers seeking a view down

into Sunset Crater.

G: ACCESSIBILITY

The National Park Service will remain

committed to increasing accessibility to

facilities, programs, and services for all

visitors, including those with disabilities.

New construction and modifications to 

existing public facilities will comply with

the Americans with Disabilities Act and

other requirements. To the extent feasible,

access will be provided to natural and

cultural resource features through

modification of existing trails, pullouts,

and so on. Occasional vehicular access may

be allowed, by special arrangement with

the USFS, to a portion of the O’Leary Peak

Road to accommodate visitors with

disabilities. Where terrain or other

constraints prevent physical access to 

major features, efforts will be made to

provide alternative experiences through

exhibits, photographs, electronic virtual

tours, or other means.

H. SAFETY

Necessary actions will be taken in the

course of all activities to ensure employee

and visitor safety. All facilities work will be

designed to upgrade and improve safety

features. New and remodeled facilities will

be thoroughly evaluated during the design

process to ensure that safety remains an

upfront consideration. Actions will be

taken as needed to address the threat of

hantavirus, which is present in many older

storage facilities throughout the park.

I. BACKCOUNTRY CLOSURE

The backcountry of Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument (defined as all areas

beyond designated roads, trails, or

developed facilities within the monument)

is closed to unguided entry. Unguided

entry to areas other than the Sunset Crater

cinder cone was allowed until 1998 

General Management Plan discussions

determined that the impacts were highly

visible and potentially damaging to

sensitive resources. The number of visitors

requesting such access is small, and similar

experiences are available on nearby USFS

lands. The closure will be made permanent

through the formulation and publishing of

a special regulation. While various

alternatives may allow guided activities to

continue in the park backcountry, there

will be no unguided access.

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions

With its graceful contours and dramatic

regional context, Sunset Crater Volcano

provides inspiring scenery and provokes

curiosity about the area’s volcanic history.

As the youngest of 600-800 volcanic

features within the San Francisco Peaks 

Volcanic Field, it is a natural attraction for

the scientific and academic communities as 

well as the general public.

Entrance to Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument is via FR545, both

ends of which connect with US89, creating

a loop drive that also serves Wupatki (see

38 
ALTERNATIVES 

Existing Conditions map). An orientation

wayside immediately adjacent to US89

provides introductory information about

the monument. A pullout about one mile

east of the US89 junction provides a scenic

view of Bonito Park and an interpretive

exhibit. A visitor center and

maintenance/housing area are one mile

further east, on Coconino National Forest

land near the monument boundary. These

facilities were constructed and are

operated by NPS under an agreement with

the Forest Service. Associated with the

visitor center are park residences, a 

maintenance facility, and a maintenance

storage area. The existing use and

development is based on planning

initiated in the late 1950s and put into

place in the late 1960s. Additional details

regarding the current use and

development of the monument can be 

found in the Affected Environment,

Operational Efficiency section.

Sunset Crater Volcano is operated as a dayuse area, and the park is closed, but not 

gated, at night. Entrance fees are required

at Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument; access is limited to established

trails, roadways, and developed facilities.

Areas not designated and identified for

public activities are closed to unguided

entry.

In 1967, the 44-unit Bonito Campground

was constructed by the Forest Service

across from the visitor center. It is being

expanded to include group sites.

A 20-car parking area and rest room are

provided near the Lava Flow Trail. The

one-mile Lava Flow Trail is a self-guided

loop exploring a variety of volcanic

formations. The one-mile Lenox Crater

Trail provides an opportunity to climb a 

cinder cone.

The Cinder Hills overlook near the eastern

boundary of the monument provides a 

view of numerous cinder cones in the area.

About 3.5 miles east is the Painted Desert

overlook, a small picnic area constructed

by the Forest Service and jointly operated

under a cooperative agreement.

The NPS and USFS have long worked

cooperatively in the areas of law

enforcement, wildland fire, resource

protection and management,

interpretation, and facility management at

Sunset Crater Volcano, and will continue

to do so. NPS staff frequently assists

visitors in finding suitable USFS lands on

which to engage in recreational and other

activities that may not be suitable on NPS

lands. Conversely, USFS staff direct visitors

who are looking for more structured

interpretive visits to NPS lands.

Cooperation extends to the sharing of 

equipment and staffing, administration of

special use permits, research permits, and a 

variety of other areas. Maintenance and

administration of the Painted Desert picnic

area and USFS portions of FR545 are

primarily the responsibility of the NPS

through an agency Memorandum of

Understanding. The distinct missions of the

two agencies offer a greater range of

opportunity for many visitor activities.

Visitor satisfaction with the current park

experience is high as measured by the

Visitor Survey Card responses. (Machlis

2000) The 2000 survey showed that 98% of

visitors were satisfied with opportunities

for “learning about nature, history or 

culture” and 97% were satisfied with

“sightseeing opportunities.” Eighty-four

percent were satisfied with outdoor

recreation (camping, bicycling, boating,

hiking, etc.) opportunities.

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

GENERAL CONCEPT

The goal of this alternative is to provide

increased educational opportunities and

diverse experiences both within and

outside of park boundaries. The park

would be viewed as a destination for

39 
ALTERNATIVES 

education and learning. Partnerships with

the USFS, affiliated tribes, and educational

institutions would provide interpretation

and more consistent management of sites

and features outside the park that are

primary to the park purpose. Minor

boundary adjustments would be made for

ease of management and to align park

boundaries and associated fencing with

topographic features rather than along

section lines. Geologic features would be 

better protected within a single

jurisdiction, and management of existing

USFS secondary roads would be clarified.

Most existing uses would continue. The

park would remain day-use only, with 24-

hour access on FR545, and visitor use

would be spread throughout more

resources. A new multiagency visitor

center would be built near US89 to serve

as the primary location to orient and serve

visitors. The existing visitor center would

be adapted for use as an education center.

This alternative responds to requests to 

not limit access and to emphasize

education, outreach, and local

involvement. It acknowledges that, from a 

visitor viewpoint, there is little distinction

between national park and national forest

boundaries. Increased partnerships for

visitor orientation and educational

activities would more efficiently provide

contact with the missions and personnel of 

both agencies. With the new visitor center,

both park and forest users would be better

oriented before entering public lands, and

encountering sensitive resources. Through

this alternative, visitors would be provided

with information and opportunities that

would encourage greater stewardardship

of public lands.

KEY ACTIONS

• Vehicle access via FR545 would remain

the same as it is now.

• The Park Service and USFS would

jointly construct and operate a new

visitor center near the intersection of

FR545 and US89. Before the specific

location is determined, additional

environmental analysis and

coordination with the USFS would be 

necessary. The new visitor center would

provide visitor orientation for both

park and forest visitors before they

encounter sensitive resources. A special

use permit with the USFS will be

required. The existing housing and

maintenance area would be retained;

the maintenance area would be 

rehabilitated. The USFS lands on which

these NPS facilities are located will be

transferred to the park service to 

simplify management and operations.

• The existing visitor center would be 

retained for office space and adapted

for use as an education center, with

facilities for group presentations,

workshops, and similar programs.

• A hiking trail would be formalized

between Bonito Campground and the

Lava Flow Trail.

• Additional extended learning activities,

both self-guided and guided, would be 

developed in conjunction with the new

visitor center/Bonito Park vicinity. New

media, programs, and workshop

presentations would be possible using

the existing visitor center and new

group campground facilities.

• A broader range of resources would be 

interpreted in an Extended Learning

Zone in the vicinity of the Lava Flow

and Lenox Crater Trail system.

• Consistent with the concept of this

alternative, efforts would be made to 

provide a broader range of educational

and interpretive programs aimed at indepth learning. Some of these

experiences would be provided

through partnerships with USFS,

affiliated tribes, organizations,

institutions, and/or other agencies.

• Park boundaries would be adjusted for

ease of management.

40 
ALTERNATIVES 

AREAS OF THE PARK NOT ZONED

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OR VISITOR

USE WOULD BE CLOSED TO PROTECT

RESOURCES.BOUNDARY EXPANSION

Current boundaries for the monument are

mostly drawn along section and property

ownership lines. Often they do not 

coincide with the terrain or topography

features, and cut across drainages, ridges,

cinder cones, and other similar features.

The boundaries also cut across a number

of secondary Forest Service roads.

This alternative proposes that

approximately 695 acres of land

administered by the U.S. Forest Service

adjacent to the monument be transferred

to the National Park Service. This limited

expansion and adjustment of monument

boundaries would primarily be for

management purposes and would be 

solely an administrative change of

landownership between the National Park

Service and the U.S. Forest Service.

The minor boundary adjustment would

result in the inclusion within monument

boundaries of entire minor topographic

features that directly contribute to the

significance of the park, and eliminate

some of the existing impacts associated

with the management and maintenance of 

the existing boundary lines and

delineating fencing. The expanded

boundary would include monument

facilities to the east that are located on

forest service land. This simplifies

administrative and operational needs. The

expansion would also eliminate a number

of forest roads that cross in and out of the

monument boundaries and place them

entirely within Forest Service ownership.

None of the OHV area would be closed to

OHV use in this alternative.

The U.S. Forest Service agrees with the

minor administrative boundary

adjustments presented in this alternative.

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

GENERAL CONCEPT

This alternative would extend a high

degree of protection for park resources by 

removing and relocating some facilities

and would provide more diverse

experiences than the No-Action

Alternative (see Alternative 2 map). To 

take advantage of this visitor experience

would require slightly more effort than

under the No-Action Alternative. Primary

points of interest would be reached as

destinations rather than roadside

attractions. Visitors would be better

insulated from modern day intrusions. The

desired outcome is that visitors would

spend more time engaged in in-depth

learning activities than at present. The

increased diversity of experience would be 

provided via new trails and new

interpretive media and activities. The park

road would be gated at night. A new

visitor center and campground would be 

constructed south of Sunset Crater

Volcano, and both park and forest

orientation would be provided at this

location.

As in Alternative 1, visitors would be in

contact with employees from both NPS

and USFS. Short roads to key areas of the

park would eliminate the current drivethrough experience. More of the

monument would be experienced by trail

and self-guided activities. Visitors would

be able to connect the stories of Sunset

Crater Volcano and Wupatki National

Monuments by experiencing the dramatic

landscape changes along FR545, as well as 

through interpretive media within the

monuments and at waysides.

Boundaries would be adjusted for

administrative purposes, as described in

Alternative 1, and would include

41 
ALTERNATIVES 

significant resources located at Bonito Park

and south of existing park boundaries.

Removing all administrative and visitor

facilities (except toilets) from the heart of

the park would allow for restoration of

damaged critical resources and provide a 

more pristine experience. The ability to

close the park at night would further

protect fragile park features. Rerouting

the entrance road would allow for

placement of the visitor center so that the

public could be oriented before exploring

the park, while maintaining a drive

between Sunset Crater Volcano and

Wupatki National Monuments. Should

visitation levels dictate, numbers of people

could be controlled through use of a 

shuttle or reservation system. This

alternative includes concepts described in

the third newsletter as Combined

Alternative 1. 

KEY ACTIONS

• Entry to the park would be via a new

paved road system using FR776. FR414,

which is currently an unimproved road,

would be converted to the

monument’s main entrance road. This

road would be closed at night. Portions

of FR545 between Bonito Park and the

Lava Flow Trail would be retained as

dead-end spurs to these features.

Visitors could reconnect to FR545 just

east of the park and continue toward

Wupatki.

• A new visitor center would be built

south of Sunset Crater Volcano,

affording dramatic views and increased

educational opportunities (exhibits,

media, auditorium, curatorial

storage/research, etc.). The existing

visitor center and associated facilities

would be removed and the area

rehabilitated. Bonito Campground

would be removed from its present

location, and the NPS would construct

a new campground south of the park,

near the new visitor center.

• A portion of FR545 beyond the Lava

Flow Trail at the base of Sunset Crater

Volcano would be rehabilitated and

converted to a foot trail. An additional

hiking trail would be constructed

around Bonito Park.

• Additional extended learning activities,

both self-guided and guided, would be 

developed in the vicinity of, and in

conjunction with, the Lava Flow Trail,

Lenox Crater trail, and the northwest

side of Sunset Crater Volcano.

• Park boundaries would be expanded to

the west to include the Bonito Park

area and to the south to include the

new visitor center location.

• Areas of the park not zoned for

administrative or visitor use would be

closed to protect resources.

BOUNDARY EXPANSION

This alternative proposes that

approximately 3,677 acres of land

administered by the U.S. Forest Service

surrounding the monument be transferred

to the National Park Service. The

alternative would expand the boundaries

to accommodate administrative needs, as

described for Alternative 1, and would

include Bonito Park and land to the south

to accommodate a new visitor center

location. Both of these areas contain

resources that contribute to the

significance of the park and afford

exceptional views of most of the primary

resources of the park, specifically Sunset

Crater Volcano. Most importantly, this

proposal would allow the removal of all

administrative and visitor facilities from

the heart of the park and would allow for

restoration of damaged critical resources

and provide a more pristine experience. It

would remove a major commuter road

through the park and allow the park to be 

closed at night, further protecting fragile

park features. Rerouting the entrance road

would allow the visitor center to be

42 
ALTERNATIVES 

located so that the public could be 

oriented before entering the park.

Approximately 240 acres of the OHV area

would be closed to OHV use in this

alternative.

The U.S. Forest Service has objections to 

the expansion of park boundaries

considered in this alternative. Their

preference is to exercise all options

available to protect the resources that

contribute to the significance of the park,

without having to transfer administrative

jurisdiction to the NPS.

Alternative 3: Expand Park

Boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

for Visitor Use

GENERAL CONCEPT

This alternative would extend NPS

management and protection by expanding

park boundaries to the southeast to

include key features of the eruption and

geologic story of the Sunset Crater

volcanic chain (see Alternative 3 map).

Boundaries of Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument were drawn in 1930,

before scientific study revealed the full

extent of geologic features related to the

eruption. This alternative would provide

consistent protection of these resources,

including the entire Bonito and Kana-A

lava flows, the red-topped cinder cones

along the Cinder Hills fissure, Vent 512,

and Double Crater and would allow

visitors to experience the entire geologic

story. Partnerships with USFS would

continue for visitor orientation and

educational activities near the new visitor

center, resource preservation at Bonito

Park, and cooperative management of 

neighboring lands.

Most existing uses would continue. The

developed areas of the park would be 

managed for day use only. FR545 would be

open 24 hours. Visitor use would be spread

throughout more resources. A new

multiagency visitor center would be 

constructed near US89 to serve as the

primary location to orient and serve

visitors to both park and forest lands. The

existing visitor center would be adapted

for use by educational groups. Diverse

experiences would be provided via new

trails and new interpretive media and

activities in a quieter natural setting.

Guided tours would be provided to key

geologic features, following completion of 

resource inventories and impact

assessments. Untrailed hiking and a 

greater degree of solitude would be 

possible in specified areas.

KEY ACTIONS

• FR545 would remain open 24 hours a 

day, and new pullouts would be 

constructed to provide views of the

Kana-A lava flow.

• A new multiagency visitor center

would be constructed near the junction

of FR545 with US89. Before the specific

location is determined, additional

environmental analysis and

coordination with the USFS would be 

necessary. The existing visitor center

would be modified to serve as an

education center for groups.

• The new visitor center would provide

visitor orientation for both NPS and

USFS facilities, resources, and

regulations, and would provide indepth interpretation of natural and

cultural resources at a regional level.

Construction of new facilities would

provide locations for interpretive

programs and workshops for a variety

of audiences. Both NPS and USFS would

be represented at the new visitor

center, and information/interpretation

would be presented to visitors in a 

cohesive manner.

• Extended learning opportunities would

be available in the visitor center/Bonito

43 
ALTERNATIVES 

Park vicinity, in the area between

Lenox Crater and Lava Flow Trails, and

in the Cinder Hills area.

• A hardened trail would be constructed

between Bonito Campground and the

Lava Flow Trail to provide a convenient

pedestrian route for campers. A new

trail would be established into the

fissure zone, providing access to Gyp

and/or Double Craters. The trailhead

would be located on FR776 near the

junction with FR545. FR776 would be

gated beyond that point and

designated for administrative use only.

• Park boundaries would be expanded in

cooperation with the USFS, to include

key resources northeast and southeast

of existing boundaries. OHV use would

cease on the portions of the USFS OHV

area included within the new

boundaries, and extensive

rehabilitation would be undertaken.

• The area within the expanded park

boundaries would be zoned as Guided

Adventure, with the exception of the

Hiking Zone to Double Crater and the

Discovery Zone at Cinder Hills. A 

Discovery Zone in the Cinder Hills area

would provide opportunities for

exploration in a more wilderness-like

setting.

• Areas of the park not zoned for

administrative or visitor use would be

closed to protect resources.

BOUNDARY EXPANSION

This proposal calls for the expansion of 

park boundaries to accommodate

administrative needs, as described for

Alternative 1 and to ensure that natural

resources that contribute to the

significance and primary purpose of Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument are

contained within park boundaries. In

contrast with the situation in 1930, today

we have accurate dating of volcanic

features that are part of the eruptions and

can definitively identify which features in 

the landscape are part of Sunset Crater’s

eruption. This proposal seeks to expand

the boundaries of the park to include all

the geologic features that are part of the

Sunset Crater eruption. Approximately

8,590 acres of land administered by the

U.S. Forest Service would be transferred to 

the National Park Service.

This expansion would include a significant

portion, approximately 5,000 acres, of the

Cinder Hills OHV Area. National

monument status would afford a higher

level of protection to these geologic and

ethnographic features by excluding OHV

use, mining, and other consumptive uses

on these lands.

Trails and interpretive sites in the

expanded monument would allow visitors

greater opportunities to experience these

features. Along with rehabilitation of the

geological features, protection of natural

processes would make it possible for

visitors to experience the full story of the

Sunset Crater eruption.

The U.S. Forest Service has objections to 

the expansion of park boundaries

considered in this alternative. Their

preference is to exercise all options

available to protect the resources that

contribute to the significance of the park,

without having to transfer administrative

jurisdiction to the National Park Service.

This would be accomplished by increased

management use requirements on the

OHV area.

Alternatives Considered But

Eliminated From Detailed

Evaluation

SUNSET CRATER

VOLCANO/WUPATKI: EMPHASIZE

PRESERVATION AND LIMIT

MOTORIZED SIGHTSEEING

General Concept

This alternative (identified in the third

newsletter as Combined Alternative 2)

44 
ALTERNATIVES 

would extend a high degree of protection

to park resources. Consistent with a 

preservation emphasis, fewer areas of the

parks would be seen by car, and in some

cases, visitors would have to exert more

effort to see sites at Wupatki. No new sites

would be opened to visitation. Rangerguided backcountry tours to Crack-in-Rock

would cease. New wayside exhibits would

be limited, and the parks would be 

physically closed at night. The number of 

facilities would be reduced and relocated

to less-sensitive areas. Although there

would be impacts from construction of

new facilities, buildings would not intrude

on cultural and natural landscapes and

impact sites as they do now.

The parks would not be connected by a 

loop drive. Visitors would enter the parks

at the existing US89 entrances and return

via the same route. The new visitor centers

would be located at the park entrances,

and visitors would be oriented before

encountering park resources. Visitors

would experience a more natural,

undisturbed, and quiet Sunset Crater

Volcano with the removal of a portion of 

the park road. In both parks, emphasis

would be placed on opportunities for

learning about the parks via self-guided or 

ranger-led activities at existing sites and

trails. Boundaries would be adjusted to

incorporate Coconino National Forest land

containing administrative facilities and

some features essential to the monument’s

story; at Wupatki, the emphasis of

boundary expansions would be on 

acquiring lands to enhance the

preservation of cultural and natural

systems rather than on providing for more

diverse visitor experiences. The Combined

Alternative 2 map shows how the parks

would be zoned and how boundaries

would be changed.

This alternative responds to scoping

concerns about the need to educate

visitors before they encounter park

resources (especially at the north entrance

to Wupatki) and recommendations to 

restrict access and control use to ensure

that resources are adequately protected.

This is consistent with scoping suggestions

that placing certain areas off-limits would

be acceptable if they could be seen by 

other means and explanations were

provided. This alternative also would

reduce the impact caused by facilities and

developments in prime resource areas and

would simplify managed visitor use

(shuttle systems, reservations, ticketing),

should a future need arise. An increase in

funding would be needed to build new

facilities; however, NPS would not spend

as much time and money as it does now 

providing 24-hour emergency service and

maintaining multiple residences and 36

miles of FR545.

Key Actions

At Wupatki:

• Visitors would enter the park at the

existing north entrance and return via

the same route. FR545 would end at 

the junction with the Wukoki Road,

and the remainder of the road to the

south entrance would eventually be

removed and rehabilitated. (A portion

of the road would be retained for

access to the Peshlakai residence until

expiration of this special use permit).

The road would be gated at the north

entrance and closed at night. Provisions

would be made for emergency access.

• Access to the current developed sites

(Lomaki, Citadel, Doney Mountain,

Wupatki, and Wukoki) would remain

as it is now. Vehicle access could

become managed if crowding/visitor

experience indicators were exceeded

and control of visitor numbers

warranted.

• The road to Black Falls Crossing would

be maintained for access to the Navajo

Reservation, and consistent with the

concept of the alternative, would be 

used for administrative use. Access to

45 
ALTERNATIVES 

the park via FR150 would be

eliminated.

• To better accomplish visitor

orientation/education, a new visitor

center would be built at the north

junction of FR545 and US89. Park

administrative offices, maintenance

facility, and minimal housing would be 

part of this complex. All existing

maintenance, storage facilities, and

park housing would be removed,

except for one historical structure

(residence #1), and the areas would be

rehabilitated. Offices would be

removed from the existing visitor

center, creating space for curatorial

storage/research.

• Existing picnic areas would be retained,

but rest rooms would be upgraded to

environmentally sound, sanitary

facilities (e.g., use of dehydrating or

composting systems, waterless soap,

etc.).

• To make the most of existing sites

developed for visitation, new

interpretive media (guides, brochures,

etc.) and programs would be 

developed.

• The function of the existing visitor

center would shift from visitor

orientation to being a museum with

additional display of collections, new

exhibits, and interpretive media, some

of which would allow visitors to

experience and “see” sites and

resources that are otherwise

inaccessible or closed.

• Consistent with the concept of this

alternative, overnight backpacking

trips to Crack-in-Rock and backcountry

guided day hikes would be 

discontinued. Off-trail backcountry

hiking would not be permitted. The

existing primitive road to Crack-in-Rock

would be retained for patrol/ resource

protection functions.

At Sunset Crater Volcano:

• Vehicle access on existing FR545 would

be from US89 to the Lava Flow Trail

parking area only. Visitors would exit

the park via the same route. O’Leary

Peak Road would be closed to

motorized access and promoted as a 

hiking opportunity. Off-trail

backcountry hiking would not be 

permitted.

• Consistent with the concept of day use,

Bonito Campground would be 

removed. The Park Service would seek

an agreement with USFS to relocate

camping to the west side of US89, near

the junction of FR545. Park housing,

maintenance facilities, and

administrative offices would be

removed and the areas rehabilitated.

The existing visitor center, which is

inadequate, would also be removed

and a new visitor center built west of 

Bonito Park, affording a view of the

volcano and increased educational

opportunities. Minimal administration,

maintenance, and housing facilities

would be part of this complex.

• To acquire associated features, the

proposed boundary would incorporate

sections 21 and 22, and portions of 

sections 12, 15, 16, 17, and 20 of T23N,

R8E.

• In addition to the current self-guided

and ranger-led activities, FR545 from

the Lava Flow Trail parking to the

eastern park boundary would revert to

a hiking trail with ranger-led activities

and self-guiding interpretive media.

Lenox Crater, Bonito Lava Flow, and

pithouses near Bonito Park would be 

interpreted via a variety of media and

activities. Wayside exhibits would be 

developed for the park road. A contact

station and waysides would provide

improved orientation to the Lava Flow

Trail and new extended learning

opportunities accessed from that

location.

46 
ALTERNATIVES 

Basis for Rejection of This

Alternative

This alternative was rejected because

significant public input discouraged

closing the connecting loop road between

the monuments. There was concern about

access to the private property between the

monuments and to the Navajo

Reservation. There was also concern about

losing the link between the two

monuments’ stories and about losing the

transition from ponderosa pine into the

lower desert environment and the scenic

vistas that are available along FR545.

REGIONAL PLANNING

CONSIDERATION

General Concept

The National Parks and Conservation

Association (NPCA), in an earlier letter,

urged the Park Service to expand

boundaries at Sunset Crater Volcano and

Wupatki National Monuments to include

all the land between the two monuments.

(See Regional Planning Consideration

map.) The NPCA recommendation was

based on acquiring features, sites, and

landscapes primary to park purposes and

on protecting park viewsheds, values, and

the resources of these associated lands.

Such an expansion would enhance

interpretation of park themes, provide

diverse visitor experiences, and transfer

from the Forest Service to the National

Park Service land that is in many ways

perceived as part of the parks by virtue of

proximity. . The goals of the NPCA

recommendation could also be achieved

through partnership with USFS, rather

than through boundary expansions.

Basis for Rejection of This

Alternative

Analysis of this alternative indicated that

joint planning/management with USFS

could achieve the same goals without

actual transfer of lands. Elements of this

alternative were incorporated into

Wupatki Alternative 3 and Sunset Crater

Volcano Alternative 3. 

47 

ALTERNATIVES 

49 
ALTERNATIVES 

50 
ALTERNATIVES 

51 
ALTERNATIVES 

52 
ALTERNATIVES 

53 

ALTERNATIVES•

MITIGATING MEASURES

Under any of the action alternatives

proposed, there would be mitigating

measures used to reduce the effects of

actions. They include the following.

Preservation, rehabilitation, and

restoration, as well as the daily, cyclical,

and seasonal maintenance of cultural

resources, would be undertaken in

accordance with the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of

Historic Properties.

Wherever possible, new facilities would be

located to avoid impacts to important park

resources and values. In many areas soils

and vegetation are already impacted to a 

degree by various human and natural

activities. Construction would take

advantage of these previously disturbed

areas wherever possible.

All new construction would be completed

utilizing sustainable practices, such as the

use of environmentally friendly materials,

sustainable building materials, and

efficient utility systems. Components of 

such projects would also be assessed for

visual quality. Utilities and support

functions, such as water, sewer, electricity,

roads, and parking areas will be evaluated

and designed to mitigate visual impacts.

Temporary impacts associated with

construction would occur, such as soil and

vegetation disturbance and the possibility

of soil erosion. In an effort to avoid

introduction of exotic plant species, no hay

bales would be used. Hay often contains

seed of undesirable or harmful alien plant

species. Therefore, on a case-by-case basis

the following materials may be used for

any erosion control dams that may be 

necessary: rice straw, straws determined by

NPS to be weed-free (e.g., Coors barley

straw or Arizona winter wheat straw),

cereal grain straw that has been

fumigated to kill weed seed, and wood

excelsior bales. Standard erosion control

measures such as silt fences and/or sand

bags would also be used to minimize any

potential soil erosion.

Potential compaction and erosion of bare

soils would be minimized by conserving

topsoil in windrows. The use of conserved

topsoil would help preserve microorganisms and seeds of native plants. The

topsoil would be respread in as near to the

original location as possible, and

supplemented with scarification, mulching,

seeding, and/or planting with species

native to the immediate area. This would

reduce construction scars and erosion.

Although soil side-cast during construction

would be susceptible to some erosion, such

erosion would be minimized by placing silt

fencing around the excavated soil.

Excavated soil may be used in the

construction project; excess soil would be

stored in approved areas. If used, silt

fencing fabric would be inspected weekly

or after every major storm. Accumulated

sediments would be removed when the

fabric is estimated to be approximately

75% full.

Revegetation plantings would use native

species from genetic stocks originating in

the park. Revegetation efforts would be to 

reconstruct the natural spacing,

abundance, and diversity of native plant

species. All disturbed areas would be

restored as nearly as possible to 

preconstruction conditions shortly after

construction activities are completed. The

principal goal is to avoid interfering with

natural processes.

Some petrochemicals from construction

equipment could seep into the soil. To

minimize this possibility, equipment would

be checked frequently to identify and

repair any leaks. Any blasting would

conform with NPS-65, Explosives Use and

Blasting Program (1991), specifications. All

blasting would use the minimum amount

necessary to accomplish the task. All

55•
ALTERNATIVES•

blasting would be used to shatter, not 

distribute, any material.

Construction zones would be identified

and fenced with construction tape, snow

fencing, or some similar material prior to

any construction activity. The fencing

would define the construction zone and

confine activity to the minimum area

required for construction. All protection

measures would be clearly stated in the

construction specifications and workers

would be instructed to avoid conducting

activities beyond the construction zone as

defined by the construction zone fencing.

Prior to any land-modifying activity, a 

qualified professional archeologist would

inspect the present ground surface of the

proposed development site and the

immediate vicinity for the presence of

cultural remains, both prehistoric and

historic. Should newly discovered or 

previously unrecorded cultural remains be

located, additional investigations would

be accomplished prior to earth-disturbing

activities. Similarly, in those areas where

subsurface remains appear likely, an 

archeologist would be on hand to monitor

land-modifying actions.

Construction activities would affect the

uppermost layers of earth as vehicles

compact the soils and alter the horizontal

and vertical distribution of buried

archeological remains. These activities

would also destroy surface sites by

damaging and destroying artifactual

remains and their contextual

environments. Loss of these resources

could be partially mitigated through

excavation and curation prior to

construction. Additional archeological

investigations, including recording and

mapping, and a rigorous program of 

sampling/collecting/testing of 

archeological features and artifacts would

be performed in those areas where

cultural remains would be affected by the

plan.

Should construction unearth previously

undiscovered archeological resources,

work would be stopped in the area of any

discovery and the park would consult with

the State Historic Preservation

Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, as necessary, according to

§36 CFR 800.13, Post Review Discoveries. In

the unlikely event that human remains are

discovered during construction, provisions

outlined in the American Indian Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act (1990)

would be followed.

The Park Service would ensure that all

contractors and subcontractors are

informed of the penalties for illegally

collecting artifacts or intentionally

damaging archeological sites or historic

properties. Contractors and subcontractors

would also be instructed on procedures to 

follow in case previously unknown

archeological resources are uncovered

during construction. Equipment traffic

would be minimized in the area of the

site. Equipment and materials staging

areas would also avoid known

archeological and ethnographic resources.

Efforts to identify ethnographic resources

will continue in consultation with

traditionally associated tribes. A 

traditional use study will be conducted to

understand how associated tribes have

used park resources in the past and will

need to continue to use them in the

future. Based on the results of the study,

agreement documents will be developed

with associated tribes to ensure access to 

traditionally used resources in keeping

with NPS policies Executive Order 13007. 

Tribal consultation will continue to take

place with the implementation of

individual undertakings pursuant to the

NHPA to ensure that previously

unidentified ethnographic resources are

not affected.

The flow of vehicle traffic on roads would

be maintained as much as possible during

56•
ALTERNATIVES•

construction periods. Construction delays

would normally be limited. There may be 

some periods when the nature of the

construction work may require temporary

road closures. All efforts would be made

to reduce these as much as possible and to

alert park staff as soon as possible if delays

longer than normal are expected. Visitors

would be informed of construction

activities and associated delays. Traffic

would be managed to ensure timely access

to private residents and ranches along the

road.

Contractors would coordinate with park

staff to reduce disruption in normal park

activities. Equipment would not be stored

along the roadway overnight without

prior approval of park staff. Construction

workers and supervisors would be 

informed about the special sensitivity of 

park values, regulations, an appropriate

housekeeping.

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED

ALTERNATIVE

In order to develop proposed actions, all

of the alternatives for each park were

evaluated. To minimize the influence of 

individual biases and opinions, the team

used an objective analysis process called

“Choosing by Advantages” (CBA). This

process, which has been used extensively

by government agencies and the private

sector, evaluates different choices (in this

case, the alternatives for each park) by

identifying and comparing the relative

advantages of each according to a set of

criteria.

One of the greatest strengths of the CBA 

system is its fundamental philosophy:

decisions must be anchored in relevant

facts. For example, the question “Is it more

important to protect natural resources or

cultural resources?” is “unanchored,”

because it has no relevant facts on which

to make a decision. Without such facts, it is

impossible to make a defensible decision.

The CBA process instead asks which

alternative gives the greatest advantage.

To answer this question, relevant facts

would be used to determine the

advantages the alternatives provide. To 

ensure a logical and trackable process, the

criteria used to evaluate the alternatives

were derived from the impact topics in the

EIS. Alternatives were evaluated to see

how well they:

• MAXIMIZE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL

RESOURCES (long-term integrity of 

archeological resources and cultural

landscapes, historic character of the

built environment, long-term integrity

of ethnographic resources)

• MAXIMIZE PROTECTION OF NATURAL

RESOURCES (long-term integrity of 

natural systems and processes,

threatened and endangered species

and sensitive species, long-term

integrity of geological features,

floodplains, and riparian habitat)

• EXPAND DIVERSITY OF VISITOR

EXPERIENCE (ability to experience full

range of resources related to 

significance, provide a diversity of 

opportunities to experience park

resources, and perceived wild

character)

• LIMIT EFFECT ON NEIGHBORS (park

neighbors; local, state, and tribal land

management; land/resource managing

agencies)

• IMPROVE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

(health and safety, conservation,

distance to work, management of 

resources, communication)

Alternatives for each of the three

monuments were rated on the attributes

relating to each of the factors just listed.

Then the advantages of the attributes

were compared and the alternative with

the most advantages was selected. Costs

for each alternative versus advantages

provided were compared and analyzed.

57•
ALTERNATIVES•

A GMP provides a framework for proactive

decision making, including decisions on

visitor use, natural and cultural resource

management, and park development. The

plan prescribes resource conditions and

visitor experiences that are to be achieved

and maintained over time. Park

development is considered in general

needs rather than in specifics. For the

purposes of cost estimating, general

assumptions are made regarding amounts

and sizes of development. These

assumptions are then carried across to all

alternatives so that comparable costs can

be considered for each alternative.

Staffing considerations are considered to

be a part of life cycle costing. The existing

staff for the three monuments totals 42,

which includes shared management,

division chiefs, and administration.

Approximating a breakdown between the

parks, the staffing is Wupatki, 16, Walnut

Canyon, 14, and Sunset Crater Volcano, 12.

The current staffing provides minimal

resource protection and visitor service, and

many tasks within the monuments are

being deferred. The parks’ 5-year FTE

projection increases staffing levels in all

three monuments by one-third. By park,

the staffing would be Wupatki, 21.3,

Walnut Canyon, 18.7, and Sunset Crater

Volcano, 16. These figures are base

staffing needed for the no-action

alternative. Staffing increases needed by

different alternatives are included in

Appendix C. Those costs are included in

Table 1: Summary of Comparative Costs.

Costs identified in the GMP are not

intended to replace more detailed

consideration of needs, sizes, and amounts

of future development. They should not

be used as a basis for money requests until

further analysis has been completed. Costs

and items considered are shown in

appendix C. 

Comparative costs for the alternatives

include both initial development costs and

total life cycle costs. Initial development

costs are the estimated construction costs

of the alternatives. Demolition, labor, and

materials for buildings, roads, trails,

exhibits, and parking are included.

Estimated costs are based on costs for

similar types of development in other

parks from the Denver Service Center Class

“C” Estimating Guide. Life cycle costs

consider the costs of each alternative over

a period of time. Life cycle costs include

the costs of operating buildings, the

staffing required, maintenance, and

replacement costs of alternative elements.

The life cycle costs below are for a 25-year

period. It is important to note that all

estimates are general, in keeping with the

general nature of GMP alternatives, and

should be used for comparison purposes

only.

58•
ALTERNATIVES•

Choosing by Advantages

300

ADVANTAGE RATING

250

200

150

100

50

0

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000

Alternative 1-

Preferred

125

Alternative 2 

151.7

Alternative 3 

268

INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Net)

Selection of the preferred alternative

considers the advantages provided by each

alternative (from the CBA) as compared

with the cost of the alternative. The chart

above summarizes the results. Alternative

1 is the least expensive and provides a 

higher quality visitor experience than the

No-Action Alternative. Alternative 3 

provides substantial additional advantages

for natural resources, due to the increased

land base and proposed use changes.

However, there was little support for the

boundary changes proposed in that

alternative. Alternative 2 provided slightly

more advantages than Alternative 1, 

primarily in cultural and natural resource

protection. However, the additional

$2,450,000 in costs was not justified by the

minimal additional resource protection.

ENVIRONMENTALLY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The environmentally preferred alternative

is determined by applying the criteria

suggested in the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which is guided

by the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ). The CEQ provides direction that

“[t]he environmentally preferable

alternative is the alternative that will

promote the national environmental

policy as expressed in NEPA’s Section

101:(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each

generation as trustee of the environment

59•
ALTERNATIVES•

for succeeding generations; (2) assure for

all Americans safe, healthful, productive,

and aesthetically and culturally pleasing

surroundings; (3) attain the widest range

of beneficial uses of the environment

without degradations, risk to health or 

safety, or other undesirable and

unintended consequences; (4) preserve

important historic, cultural, and natural

aspects of our national heritage, and

maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment which supports diversity, and

variety, of individual choice; (5) achieve a 

balance between population and resource

use which will permit high standards of

living and a wide sharing of life’s

amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of 

renewable resources and approach the

maximum attainable recycling of

depletable resources.”

“Generally this means the alternative that

causes the least damage to the biological

and physical environment. It also means

the alternative that best protects,

preserves, and enhances historic, cultural,

and natural resources.” (Council on 

Environmental Quality, “Forty Most Asked

Questions Concerning CEQ’s National

Environmental Policy Act Regulations” (40

CFR 1500-1508), Federal Register Vol. 46, 

No. 55, 18026-18038, March 23, 1981: 

Question 6a) 

The No-Action Alternative represents the

current management direction for Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument. The

existing use and development of the park

is based on planning initiated and

implemented during the Mission 66

program. Personal services interpretation

and resource protection patrols are

sporadic at the four interpreted areas

(Bonito Park Pullout, Lenox Crater Trail,

Lava Flow Trail, and Cinder Hills Overlook)

and the Painted Desert picnic area. For

resource protection purposes, areas of the

park not zoned for administrative or

visitor use are closed to unguided entry.

Since the No-Action Alternative maintains

the Mission 66 designed visitor experience

the diversity for educational opportunities

and the protection of natural and cultural

resources is limited. Protection of natural

and cultural resources would not be as

enhanced as under Alternatives 2 and 3.

The No-Action Alternative does not impact

access to neighboring lands, unlike

Alternatives 2 and 3. The No-Action

Alternative does not fully realize

provisions 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the goals.

Alternative 1 provides increased

educational opportunities and diverse

experiences both within and outside park

boundaries. With the construction of a 

new visitor center, both park and forest

users would be better oriented before

entering public lands and encountering

sensitive resources. Increased partnerships

for visitor orientation and educational

activities would more efficiently provide

contact with the missions and personnel of 

both agencies, meeting goals 3 and 5.

Visitors would be provided with

information and opportunities that would

encourage greater stewardship of public

lands meeting national environmental

policy goal 4. Significant geologic

resources related to the history of Sunset

Crater Volcano would not become part of 

the park, but would be protected and

interpreted through partnerships with the

USFS, partially fulfilling goal 6 of the

National Environmental Policy Act.

Alternative 2 strives to limit motorized

sightseeing in the park and focus on 

longer and more intensive educational

programs to enhance the protection of 

cultural and natural resources meeting

national environmental policy goal 6. This

alternative restricts the visitor experience

by eliminating the drive through

experience in favor of a longer intensive

stay. This alternative also limits access by

park neighbors to the OHV area and by 

Navajo residents and Alpine Rancho

residents who use FR545 to commute to

Flagstaff. National environmental policy

60•
ALTERNATIVES•

goals 3, 4, and 5 are not fully realized

under this alternative to the same extent

as they are under Alternative 3. In

addition, Alternative 2 does not fully

realize provisions 3 and 5 of the goals as

compared with Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Alternative 3 would extend NPS

management and protection by expanding

park boundaries to include USFS land to

the southeast to include key features of

the eruption and geologic story of the

Sunset Crater volcanic chain. The inclusion

of the entire Bonito and Kana-A lava

flows, red-topped cinder cones along the

Cinder Hills fissure, Vent 512 and Double

Crater would allow visitors to experience

the entire geologic story, meeting national

environmental policy goal goals 1 and 2,

and partially fulfilling goal 4. The

developed areas of the park would be 

managed for day use only, and FR545

would remain open 24 hours. Visitor use

would be spread throughout more

resources, and a new multiagency visitor

center would be constructed near the

junction of US89 and FR545 to orient

visitors prior to interacting with sensitive

park and forest resources. The existing

visitor center would be adapted for use by 

educational groups, and diverse

experiences would be provided via new

trails and new interpretive media and

activities in a quieter natural setting

meeting goal 3 and partially meeting goals

4 and 5. The proposed expansion would

substantially reduce the boundaries of the

Cinder Hills OHV Recreation Area. OHV use

would cease on the portions of the USFS

OHV recreation area included within the

new boundaries. Extensive rehabilitation

would be undertaken. National

environmental policy goals 5 and 6 would

not be fully realized under this alternative.

After careful review of potential resource

and visitor impacts, and developing

proposed mitigation for impacts to natural

and cultural resources, the

environmentally preferred alternative is

Alternative 1. Alternative 1 surpasses the

other alternatives in best realizing the full

range of national environmental policy

goals as stated in § 101 of the National

Environmental Policy Act. Although other

alternatives may achieve greater levels of

individual protection for cultural or 

natural resources, or better enhance visitor

experience, Alternative 1 overall (1)

provides a high level of protection of

natural and cultural resources while

concurrently attaining the widest range of 

neutral and beneficial uses of the

environment without degradation; (2)

maintains an environment that supports

diversity and variety of individual choice;

and (3) integrates resource protection with

an appropriate range of visitor uses.

61•

ALTERNATIVES 

Table 2: Summary of Alternatives

No-Action Alternative: Existing

Conditions

Altenative 1 (Preferred): Focus on 

Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet

Natural Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for Visitor

Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

Boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for Visitor

The No-Action Alternative would

involve no new construction, additional

trail developments or realignments

other than planning that is under way

to meet immediate operational needs

that would continue to exist for all

alternatives. These are continuation of 

partnerships with USFS, State of

Arizona and private landowners for the

protection of cultural and natural

resources; new wayside and museum

exhibits; expansion of Bonito

Campground by USFS; a new curatorial

building in the administrative area for

long-term care and preservation of 

museum objects and specimens from all

three Flagstaff Area monuments, with

associated utilities and a road extended

to the site; a new maintenance,

resources management, and ranger

support facility at the Sunset Crater

Volcano administrative area, including

vehicle, equipment, supplies, and

materials storage, offices, a meeting

room, also with associated utilities,

parking area, and a road extended to

the site. All construction/modifications

will comply with Americans with

Disabilities Act and other requirements

and will be designed to upgrade and

improve safety features.

The goal of the preferred alternative is

to provide increased educational

opportunities and diverse experiences

both within and out side of park

boundaries. The park would be viewed

as a destination for education and

learning. Partnerships with the USFS,

affiliated tribes, and educational

institutions would provide

interpretation and more consistent

management of sites and features

outside the park that are primary to the

park purpose. Minor boundary

adjustments would be made for ease of 

management and to align park boundaries and associated fencing with topographic features rather than along

section lines. Geologic features would

be better protected within a single

jurisdiction, and management of 

existing USFS secondary roads would

be clarified. Most existing uses would

continue. The park would remain dayuse only, with 24-hour access on FR545,

and visitor use would be spread

throughout more resources. A new

multiagency visitor center would be 

built near US89 to serve as the primary

location to orient and serve visitors.

The existing visitor center would be 

adapted for use as an education center.

Alternative 2 would extend a high

degree of protection for park resources

by removing and relocating some

facilities and would provide more

diverse experiences than the No-Action

Alternative. Visitor experience would

require slightly more effort than under

the No-Action Alternative. Primary

points of interest would be reached as

destinations rather than roadside

attractions. Visitors would be better

insulated from modern day intrusions.

The desired outcome is that visitors

would spend more time engaged in indepth learning activities than at

present. The increased diversity of

experience would be provided via new

trails and new interpretive media and

activities. The park road would be

gated at night. A new visitor center and

campground would be constructed

south of Sunset Crater Volcano, and

both park and forest orientation would

be provided at this location. Visitors

would be in contact with employees

from both NPS and USFS. Short roads to 

key areas of the park would eliminate

the current drive-through experience.

More of the monument would be 

experienced by trail and self-guided

activities. Visitors would be able to

connect the stories of Sunset Crater

Volcano and Wupatki National

Monuments by experiencing the

dramatic landscape changes along

FR545, as well as through interpretive

media within the monuments and at

Use

Alternative 3 would extend NPS

management and protection by expanding park boundaries to the

southeast to include key features of the

eruption and ge ologic story of the

Sunset Crater volcanic chain. Boundaries

for the monument were drawn before

the full extent of geologic features

related to the eruption was known. This

alternative would provide consistent

protection of these resources, including

the entire Bonito and Kana-A lava

flows, the red-topped cinder cones

along the Cinder Hills fissure, Vent 512,

and Double Crater, and would allow

visitors to experience the entire

geologic story. Partnerships with USFS

would continue for visitor orientation

and educational activities near the new

visitor center, resource preservation at

Bonito Park, and cooperative

management of neighboring lands.

Most existing uses would continue. The

developed areas of the park would be 

managed for day use only. FR545 would

be ope n 24 hours. Visitor use would be 

spread throughout more resources. A 

new multiagency visitor center would

be constructed near US89 to serve as

the primary location to orient and serve

visitors to both park and forest lands.

The existing visitor center would be

adapted for use by educational groups.

Diverse experiences would be provided

via new trails and new interpretive

media and activities in a quieter natural

setting. Guided tours would be

63 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 2: Summary of Alternatives

No-Action Alternative: Existing

Conditions

Altenative 1 (Preferred): Focus on 

Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize Quiet

Natural Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for Visitor

Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

Boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for Visitor

waysides. Boundaries would be 

adjusted for administrative purposes, as

described in Alternative 1, and would

include significant resources located at

Bonito Park and south of existing park

boundaries. Removing all administrative

and visitor facilities (except toilets) from

the heart of the park would allow for

restoration of damaged critical

resources and provide a more pristine

experience. The ability to close the park

at night would further protect fragile

park features. Rerouting the entrance

road would allow for placement of the

visitor center so that the public could be 

oriented before exploring the park,

while maintaining a drive between

Sunset Crater Volcano and Wupatki

National Monuments. Should visitation

levels dictate, numbers of people could

be controlled through use of a shuttle

or reservation system.

Use

provided to key geologic features,

following completion of resource

inventories and impact assessments.

Untrailed hiking and a greater degree

of solitude would be possible in

specified areas. Off highway vehicle use

would be removed withing the

expanded NPS boundaries. FR776 south

of the Double Crater trailhead would

be gated for administrative use only.

64 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

Archeological

Resources

There would be no major impacts

to archeological resources under

the No-Action Alternative. In

addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

In comparison to existing conditions, Alternative 1 would have a 

major, adverse effect on a relatively small but concentrated

number of archeological resources

located near the new visitor center

and Extended Learning Zone. Although the exact number of 

archeological resources that would

be affected bythis alternative is

unknown (because an intensive

archeological inventory has not 

been completed and specific

locations for new facilities have not 

been decided), a larger number of

resources would be impacted in

Alternative 1 than under existing

conditions. The adverse impacts

would be offset to some degree by 

the benefits of an increased USFS

presence and increased opportunities to orient and educate

visitors beforethey encounter

sensitive resources. The net effect,

however, would be major and

adverse for the long-term integrity

of specific archeological resources.

In addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of implementing

this alternative.

Alternative 2 would have a 

moderate adverse effect on the

long-term integrity of archeological resources located in

the vicinity of Bonito Park and

the new visitor center. These

effects would be minimized by 

careful placement of the trail

system and facilities. Most

impacts would be indirect,

resulting from increased visitor

use of these areas. Although

there would be an overall

reduction in archeological

integrity, it would not be to the

extent that the resources would

become ineligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic

Places. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be other

minor and moderate effects, both

beneficial and adverse, to the

integrity of archeological resources as a result of this alternative. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

for Visitor Use

Under Alternative 3, there would

be major, long-term, adverse

effects to the integrity of 12-15

archeological resources located in

proximity to the new visitor

center and expanded

campground. Relative to existing

conditions, , the cumulative

effects of this alternative on the

long-term integrity of a majority

of archeological resources would

be minor and beneficial, because

of the elimination of OHV

impacts within the expanded

park boundaries, the increased

NPS and USFS presence in the

area, and the zoning of a large

area of the expanded monument

for long-term preservation purposes. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Historic Character

of the Built 

Environment

The No-Action Alternative would

have long-term moderate adverse

impact on the prehistoric and

Mission 66 landscapes. There

would be a n overall reduction of 

historic integrity of both

Alternative 1 would have longterm moderate adverse impacts

on the prehistoric and Mission 66

landscapes. There would be an

overall reduction of integrity in

both landscapes, but not to the

Alternative 2 would have longterm major adverse impacts to

the Mission 66 designed landscape, and long-term major

benefit and long-term moderate

adverse impact to the prehistoric

Alternative 3 would have longterm moderate adverse impacts

and long-term major benefits on 

the prehistoric landscape, and

would have long-term moderate

adverse impacts on the Mission 66 

65 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

landscapes, but not to the extent

that they would no longer be 

eligible to be listed in the

National Register of Historic

Places. Any future alteration to 

the prehistoric and Mission 66

landscapes, in conjunction with

the moderate, adverse

cumulative impacts of previous

changes and this alternative

could result in moderate, adverse

cumulative impacts to both designed landscapes. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

extent that they would no longer

be eligible to be listed in the

National Register of Historic

Places. Any future alterations to 

the prehistoric and Mission 66

landscapes, in conjunction with

the moderate adverse,

cumulative impacts of previous

changes and this alternative

could result in moderate, adverse

cumulative impacts to the prehistoric and Mission 66 designed

landscapes. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

landscape. There would be an

overall reduction of historic

integrity in the Mission 66

landscape, but not to the extent

that it would no longer be 

eligible to be listed in the

National Register of Historic

Places. Any future alterations of

the Mission 66 landscape, in

conjunction with the adverse,

cumulative impacts of previous

changes and this alternative,

could result in major, adverse

cumulative impacts to the Mission

66 landscapes. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

for Visitor Use

landscapes. There would be an 

overall reduction of historic integrity in the landscapes, but not 

to the extent that they would no 

longer be eligible to be listed in 

the National Register of Historic

Places. Any future alterations of

the landscapes, in conjunction

with the adverse cumulative

impacts of previous changes and

this alternative, could result in

major, adverse cumulative

impacts to the prehistoric and

Mission 66 landscapes. In addition

to those mentioned, there would

be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Ethnographic

Resources

The No-Action Alternative would

continue to have some moderate

to major adverse impacts to some

ethnographic resources, but the

actions common to all

alternatives would improve many

existing conditions and have a 

moder ate to major beneficial

effect on some ethnographic resources and the cultural values

that give them significance. None 

of the adverse impacts would

constitute an impairment as

defined by NPS management

guidelines. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

Alternative 1 would have

moderate to major long-term

beneficial impacts to ethnographic resources, with the

development of agreements

among the NPS and associated

tribes for continued tribal involvement in park management

and interpretive planning,

Moderate to major adverse

impacts include visual

changes such as tracks and

lack of veg etation caused by

OHVs and visitors presence

on Lenox Crater. None of the

adverse impacts would

constitute an impairment as

defined by NPS management

Alternative 2 includes actions that

will have both beneficial and

adverse effects on ethnographic

resources. The effects of some

proposed actions will need

additional evaluation in

conjunction with associated

tribes. The effects of the actions

common to all alternatives would

be the same as those described

under the No-Action Alternative.

None of the adverse impacts

would constitute an impairment

as defined by NPS management

guidelines. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

Alternative 3 includes actions that

will have mainly beneficial and

some adverse effects on

ethnographic resources and

landscapes. The effects of some

proposed actions will need additional evaluation in conjunction

with associated tribes. The effects

of the actions common to all

alternatives would be the same as

described in the No-Action

Alternative. None of the adverse

impacts would constitute an

impairment as defined by NPS

management guidelines. In

addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of

66 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

alternative. guidelines. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

alternative.

for Visitor Use

implementing this alternative.

Natural Systems

and Processes

There would be no major impacts

under the No-Action Alternative.

Minor and moderate impacts are

caused by the existing road

through the monument and by 

visitor use in concentrated areas

such as the Lava Flow Trail and

the Lenox Crater Trail. In addition

to those mentioned, there would

be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Under Alternative 1, there would

be no major impacts to the longterm integrity of natural systems

of Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument Some minor

and moderate impacts would be 

caused by the road through the

monument, construction of the

new visitor center, and some trail

construction and visitor use

impacts in the Extended Learning

Zones. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Under Alternative 2, there would

be no major impacts to the longterm integrity of natural systems

and processes at Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument.

Some minor to moderate impacts

would occur with construction of

new facilities and new trails, but 

these would be mostly offset by 

removal and rehabilitation of 

buildings and road segments in

other areas. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Alternative 3 would have a major

beneficial effect on preserving

the long-term scientific integrity

of natural systems and processes

within the monument. The minor

adverse impacts that would

accompany development of the

new visitor center and extended

learning zone would be 

substantially offset by the

benefits of more visitor

orientation at the new visitor

center, increased NPS/USFS

presence in the area, inclusion of

additional very significant

resources within monument

boundaries, and zoning of large

areas within the monument for

long-term preservation purposes.

In addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of implementing this alternative.

Threatened,

Endangered, and

Sensitive Species

Under current NPS management

there are no major adverse

impacts to threatened,

endangered, or sensitive species.

There are some negligible to

minor effects to sensitive plant

and animal species and unique

habitats from current visitor use

and NPS facilities. In addition to

Alternative 1 would cause no 

major effects to threatened,

endangered, or sensitive species

or unique ha bitats. There is the

possibility of minor adverse

impacts to sensitive plant species

where new trails and facilities

would be constructed, however,

surveys prior to these activities

Alternative 2 would cause no 

major impacts to threatened,

endangered, or sensitive species.

Some negligible to minor effects

to sensitive plant species would

occur from construction of new

facilities and hiking trails.

Moderate impacts may occur to

pronghorn movement and use of 

Alternative 3 would have a major

beneficial impact by preserving

more habitat for sensitive plant

species in particular. There would

be some negligible to minor

effects to both sensitive plant and

animal species from construction

of new facilities and trails. In

addition to those mentioned,

67 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

would minimize any impacts.

There could be minor to

moderate impacts to pronghorn

antelope use of Bonito Park as a 

fawning area due to disruption

of movement corridors and

human disturbance. In addition

to those mentioned, there would

be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Bonito Park as a fawning area. In

addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of implementing this alternative.

for Visitor Use

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Geological

Resources

Sunset Crater Volcano has been

impacted by past visitor use, resulting in deep scars eroded into

the steep cinder cone slopes that

are still visible today. Existing NPS

operations and visitor use in the

Lenox Crater, southwestern

Bonito Lava Flow perimeter, and

Lava Flow Trail area are resulting

in long-term, negligible to minor

adverse impacts to large-scale

cinder cone and lava flow geologic features, and long-term,

moderate impacts to smaller features, such as spatter cones and

lava flow surfaces. Development

and recreational use of lands surrounding the monument are

causing long-term moderate adverse impacts to the cinder cones

adjacent to Sunset Crater, and

long-term, major adverse impacts

to the geologic features associated with the Sunset Crater

Volcano eruption. The scientific

geological value of Sunset Crater

Alternative 1 would likely have

no major impacts to geologic

features within Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument.

Many of the impacts associated

with this alternative, including

potential cumulative impacts, are

very similar to those described

for the No-Action Alternative. Increased visitor-use impacts

within the proposed Extended

Learning Zone between the Lava

Flow Trail, Lenox Crater, and

southern edge of the Bonito Lava

Flow could result in long-term,

minor adverse impacts to largescale geologic features, such as

cinder cones and lava flows, but

could result in long-term, moderate adverse impacts to

uninventoried, small, and unique

geologic features. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be 

other, less-severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Alternative 2 would cause no 

major impacts to geological features within Sunset Crater

National Monument. The boundary of the monument would be 

expanded to approximately 6,700

acres, effectively doubling the

area within the monument. As 

much as 8% of the expanded

monument area would be used

for road and trail access, visitor

support and NPS administrative

facilities, and visitor activities. The

remaining 92% would be closed

to protect sensitive geologic

resources. The new visitor center,

campground facilities, and

upgraded entrance road along

FR414 would be constructed in a 

heavily impacted recreational use

area and likely have negligible

impacts to geologic resources. A 

new trail around Bonito Park

would also likely have negligible

impacts to geologic resources.

Increased visitor use within the

Alternative 3 would likely have

no major impacts to geologic

features within Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument.

Visitor use impacts to geologic

resources within the original

monument boundary are very

similar to the No-Action Alternative. The boundary would be 

expanded to include significant

geologic resources associated

with the eruption of Sunset

Crater Volcano. Increased visitor

use impacts within the proposed

Extended Learning Zone between

the Lava Flow Trail, Lenox Crater,

and southern edge of the Bonito

Lava Flow could result in longterm, minor adverse impacts to

large-scale geologic features,

such as cinder cones and lava

flows, but could result in longterm, moderate adverse impacts

to uninventoried, small, and

unique geologic features.

Dispersed guided and unguided

68 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

Volcano National Monument

should become even greater as

associated and irreplaceable

geologic features within the

eastern San Francisco Volcanic

Field continue to be permanently

impacted. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Extended Learning Zone and

trails within the central

monument area would have

long-term, minor adverse impacts

to large-scale geologic features,

but could cause long-term,

moderate adverse impacts to

smaller, more unique geologic

features unless they are fully

mapped and inventoried, and use

within the area carefully planned.

In addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of implementing this alternative.

for Visitor Use

hiking activity would be 

permitted within most of the

boundary expansion area. The

impacts of off road vehicles and

sustained visitor use are difficult

to predict, and would de pend

upon the user numbers and the

primary season of use. While

large-scale geologic features

would likely continue to recover

from vehicle impacts, dispersed

hiking activity could cause longterm minor adverse impacts to 

these geologic features. In

addition, dispersed hiking activity

could cause long-term, moderate

adverse impacts to smaller, more

unique geologic features unless

they are fully mapped and

inventoried, and use within the

area is carefully planned. In

addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Ability to Experience

Park Resources

The No-Action Alternative would

continue to provide major benefits to some visitors, particularly

those wanting a brief introduction to the volcanic landscape,

with emphasis on major features

visible from the road or from

short trails. Park facilities and

many features would remain accessible; recent construction of an

accessible paved loop on the Lava

Flow Trail would provide access

Alternative 1 would provide

major benefits to both park and

forest visitors seeking comprehensive information on and interpretation of regional resources

and recreational opportunities.

Construction of a multiagency

visitor center with new exhibits,

conversion of the existing visitor

center to an education center,

and installation of new wayside

exhibits would provide major

Alternative 2 would provide major benefits to both park and forest visitors seeking comprehensive information on and interpretation of regional resources and

recreational opportunities. It 

would be of particular benefit to

park visitors wanting to experience resources in a quieter, more

pristine environment, because facilities would be removed from

the heart of the park, and the

Alternative 3 would result in major

benefits to both park and forest

visitors seeking comprehensive

information on and interpretation

of regional resources and

recreational opportunities. It would

be of particular benefit to park

visitors wanting to explore the full

range of volcanic features significant to the story of Sunset

Crater Volcano.

Construction of a new multiagency

69 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

to representative volcanic features and views for visitors with

physical disabilities and others

whose time or abilities are not 

suited to the cinder surface of the

longer trail loop. The ability to

look at scenery, especially along

FR545 en route to Wupatki, enjoy

an uncrowded park setting, and

listen to natural sounds would

continue as major benefits, at

least in the near future. Continuation of traditional interpretive programs, such as talks,

guided walks, and campground

programs would provide

moderate benefits for visitors.

Distant views of some features

would remain available from the

Cinder Hills overlook. This impact

would be minor depending on

the time of the year. Other visual

intrusions would remain, both inside the park and within the

viewshed. These range from NPS

facilities to distant mines, but all

present moderate adverse impacts to the ability to experience

a minimally altered environment.

The existing visitor center would

continue in use, limiting the

space available for interpretive

exhibits and contributing to incomplete visitor understanding of

park resources-a moderate adverse impact. As park visitation

increases, crowding in this small

benefits to visitor understanding

of resources and the ability to

see the “real thing.” Benefits of 

accessibility would remain similar

to those identified under the NoAction Alternative. Ability to 

experience scenery would be enhanced slightly and would remain a major benefit to visitors.

Traditional interpretive programs

would continue as a moderate

benefit, and new programs

would be offered, using facilities

of the new visitor center,

education center, and expanded

campground. The types and

degrees of impact by the OHV

area would be unchanged from

those de scribed under the NoAction Alternative. . The new

visitor center, despite its major

benefits to visitor understanding,

would present the pos sibility of 

moderate adverse impacts on 

uncrowded visitor experiences,

by funneling greater numbers

into existing parking areas and

trails. This effect would be accentuated at times by the

presence of greater numbers and

organized groups in the

campground. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

drive-through experience would

be eliminated. Construction of a 

new multiagency visitor center

would provide major benefits to

visitor understanding of resources

and the ability to see the “real

thing.” Changes to the road system, rehabilitation of disturbed

areas, and construction of new

trails would provide access to a 

greater variety of natural and

cultural resources, while enhancing ability to experience scenery

and a less altered environment. In

most areas of the park, natural

soundscapes would be enhanced,

because of the lack of passing

traffic, and visitors would feel less

crowded. These benefits would

extend to visitors with disabilities,

since facilities and most trails

would be designed for full accessibility. Traditional interpretive

programs would continue as a 

moderate benefit, with additional opportuni ties at the new

visitor center and campground.

This alternative would result in 

moderate adverse impacts by

continuing to limit access to volcanic resources closely related to

park significance but located outside park boundaries. Types and

degrees of OHV impact would

remain similar to those described

in the No-Action Alternative

OHV users would be impacted by 

for Visitor Use

visitor center, conversion of the

existing visitor center to an 

education center, and installation

of new wayside exhibits would

provide major benefits to visitor

understanding of resources and the

ability to see the “real thing.” New

longer trails would provide access

to a full range of features,

including intact cinder cones, volcanic vents, lava bombs, and the

broad volcanic scene within the

Cinder Hills, which make up the

beginning of the Sunset Crater

Volcano story. Rehabilitation of 

resources damaged by OHV use

would provide major long-term

benefits to visitors’ ability to experience a minimally altered environment, and natural sounds would

prevail, both along trails and at the

Cinder Hills Overlook. Traditional

interpretive programs would

continue as a moderate benefit,

and new programs would be 

offered, using facilities of the new

visitor center, education center, and

campground. Additional guided

hikes might be offered into the

Kana-A lava flow, an area not

available under the No-Action

Alternative. Access for visitors with

disabilities would be similar to that

describedfor the No-Action

Alternative. All facilities and

existing trails wouldremain

accessible, but, because of terrain,

the Cinder Hills experience would

probably be available only fromthe

70 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

structure would further impact

visitor experience. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

closure of the area west of FR776.

The area is relatively small,

therefore, the impact would be 

minor. There could be moderate

adverse impacts on personal

freedoms in the future, if

reservation or shuttle systems

were implemented to control

numbers of visitors. In addition to 

those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

for Visitor Use

overlook. This alternative would

result in major long-term adverse

impacts to OHV recreational users.

Approximately 25% of the designated OHV area would be removed

from use, including some of the

most heavily used routes.. The new

visitor center, despite its major

benefits to visitor understanding,

would present the possibility of

moderate adverse impacts on uncrowded visitor experiences, by 

funneling greater numbers into the

park. This effect would be accentuated at times by the presence

of greater numbers and organized

groups in the campground.

However, the new access to the

Cinder Hills would dispersesome of 

this usefrom existing developed

areas. In addition tothose

mentioned, there would be other,

less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative. In

addition to those mentioned, there

would be other less severe effects

as a result of implementing this alternative.

Park N eighbors Within existing conditions, the

management actions of the NPS

provide many beneficial impacts

to other agencies and neighbors.

Existing conditions result in only

minor, long-term, adverse impacts to the workload of others

in terms of additional administrative tasks, interpretive planning,

agreement reviews, and joint

Under Alternative 1, there would

be minor to moderate, short- and

long-term, adverse impacts to the

Forest Service, resulting from

their participation in the

development and operation of a 

new visitor facility, including

planning, construction, and

staffing commitments. There

could be a num ber of beneficial

Under Alternative 2, there would

be major, short- and long-term

adverse impacts to the Forest

Service, resulting from their

participation in the development

and operation of a new visitor

facility, including planning,

construction, and staffing

commitments. There could be a 

number of beneficial impacts

Under Alternative 3, there would

be major, short- and long-term

adverse impacts to the Forest

Service, resulting from their

participation in the development

and operation of a new visitor

facility, including planning,

construction, and staffing

commitments, and resulting from

the reduction in size and

71 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

planning efforts. There could be 

minor, long-term adverse impact

to park neighbors in terms of increased congestion on FS545. In

addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of implementing this alternative.

impacts such as those discussed

in the No-Action Alternative. Increased congestion and contact

with others would have a 

moderate, long-term impact on 

American Indian tribes seeking

traditional cultural uses. The

management actions of the NPS

may result in minor to moderate,

short and long-term, adverse

impacts to the workload of

others in terms of additional

administrative tasks, interpretive

planning, agreement reviews,

and joint planning efforts. There

could be minor adverse impact to

park neighbors in terms of increased congestion on FR545. In

addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

such as those discussed in the NoAction Alternative. Visitor activities and hiking in new areas

could have moderate, long-term

impacts on American Indian tribes

seeking traditional cultural uses.

The closure of FR545, increased

traffic on FR766 and would have

moderate, long-term impacts on 

some park neighbors. Shared

maintenance of FR766 and FR545

could have major, long-term

impacts on the Forest Service

and/or Coconino County. The

implications of development of

Roden Crater would be thesame as

identifiedin the No-Action Alternative. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other, less

severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

for Visitor Use

potential relocation of the OHV

recreational area. There could be

a number of beneficial impacts as

discussed in the No-Action

Alternative. Increased congestion

and contact with others would

have a moderate, long-term

adverse impact on American

Indian tribes seeking traditional

cultural uses.. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

Operational

Efficiency

The No-Action Alternative would

result in no substantial change in 

the operations of the park from

existing conditions. There would

be long-term minor to major

beneficial effects from the new

waysides, new facility

construction, accessibility, and

health and safety improvements,

and the backcountry closure.

Most of the major roads

providing access to the park

would likely see an increase in

visitor and commuter traffic,

which would result in additional

Changes resulting from implementing Alternative 1 would

have an overall benefit on

operational efficiency. There

would be long-term, minor to

major beneficial effects from the

new waysides, new facility

construction, accessibility and

health and safety improvements,

and the backcountry closure. Improvements and additions would

be made to facilities that would

protect visitors and improve staff

health and safety concerns. There

would be moderate, adverse

Implementation of Alternative 2 

would have long-term, major

benefits to the operational

efficiency of the park. There

would be long-term, minor to

major beneficial effects from the

new waysides, accessibility, and

health and safety improvements,

and the backcountry closure.

Improvements and additions

would be made to facilities that

would protect visitors and

improve staff health and safety

concerns. Most of the issues

regarding visitor access would be 

Changes resulting from implementing Alternative 3 would

have an overall long-term benefit

on operational efficiency. There

would be long-term, minor to

major beneficial effects from the

new waysides, new facility

construction, accessibility and

health and safety improvements,

and the backcountry closure.

There would be moderate

adverse impacts resulting from

construction of the proposed ne w

visitor center and trails. Major

efforts would be needed to effect

72 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts

No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

boundaries to Preserve ParkRelated Resources and

Provide Diverse Opportunities

congestion and a likely increase

in accidents. Maintenance needs

would increase. Increased use of 

all roads leading to the park

would increase the difficulties

that already exist in protecting

park resources, including entry

into areas of the park that are

closed to visitation and intentional and unintentional damage

to resources. The effects to 

facilities, utilities, and staffing

would be long term and adverse,

with small to measurable

changes. Without improvement

to the visitor center or utilities,

conditions would worsen. Many

improvements are needed to

protect visitor and staff health

and safety. Current staff levels

have achieved a certain level of

efficiency; however, limitations

do exist that inhibit the park’s

ability to provide adequate levels

of resource protection and

preservation, maintenance of 

existing facilities, and visitor

services. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

impacts resulting from the

construction of the new visitor

center, curatorial, and maintenance/resources management

facility and the trails proposed to

connect Bonito Campground to

the Bonito Lava Flow. These

actions would create moderate,

short-term adverse impacts;

however, following construction

they would have minor to

moderate impacts on operational

efficiency. Most impacts would

be in the form of increased

maintenance needs for facilities

and trail systems and increased

resource protection and preservation needs. This alternative

would not fully address road

issues, which would continue to

have minor to moderate adverse

impacts on operational efficiency.

This proposal would also include

a limited expansion of park

boundaries to accommodate

administrative needs, which

would have a major beneficial

effect on operational efficiency.

The most significant would be 

that the expansion would align

park boundaries logically along

topographic features. In addition

to those mentioned, there would

be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

reduced or eliminated. Access to 

the park would be managed,

which would increase the protection and preservation of park

resources and reduce the need

for law enforcement patrols and

the need for 24-hour emergency

response. This alternative would

dramatically improve the facilities

that are used in park operations

and provide staff with functional

facilities and a safe working

environment. Major costs would

be associated with the proposed

construction of new facilities,

new paved roadways, and the

rehabilitation of areas that would

no longer be used for park

operations. This would have

moderate, short-term adverse

impact on operational efficiency.

Following construction, there

would be a ne gligible to minor

adverse impact on operational

efficiency. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this

alternative.

for Visitor Use

the rehabilitation of newly

acquired land that has been impacted by OHV use. These actions

would create short-term, major,

adverse impacts; however,

following construction and

rehabilitation activities, there

would be minor to moderate

adverse impacts to operational

efficiency. Most impacts would be 

in the form of increased

maintenance needs for facilities

and trail systems and increased

resource protection and

preservation needs. Major longterm benefits would be realized

with the expansion of park

boundaries, which would include

resources that contribute to the

significance of the park. The

alternative would align

boundaries logically along

topographic features, and would

result in a reduction in impacts to 

the park’s primary resources.. In

addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe

effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

73 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives

Objective No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended

Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

Boundaries to Preserve Parkrelated Resources and

Provide Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

1. Maximize Protection of

Cultural Resources

Access to the park is limited to 

established trails, roadways,

and developed facilities.

Orientation waysides, visitor

center exhibits and NPS

personnel provide visitors with

protection and preservation

messages.

The NPS and USFS would

construct and operate a joint

visitor center near the

intersection of FR545 and US

89. The new visitor center

would provide visitor

orientation for both park and

forest visitors before they

encounter sensitive resources.

Areas of the park not zoned for

administrative or visitor use

would be closed to protect

resources.

The existing visitor center and

campground would be removed

and the areas rehabilitated. The

new visitor center would

provide visitor orientation for

both park and forest visitors

before they encounter sensitive

resources. Park boundaries

would be expanded to the west

to include the Bonito Park area

and to the south to include the

new visitor center location.

Correspondi ng adjustments

would be made to the boundary

of the USFS OHV area. Areas of

the park not zoned for

administrative or visitor use

would be closed to protect

resources.

Park boundaries would be 

expanded in cooperation with

the USFS, to include key

resources northeast and

southeast of the existing

boundaries. OHV use would be 

eliminated, and the area would

be rehabilitated. Areas of the

park not zoned for

administrative or visitor use

would be closed to protect

resources. The new multiagency

visitor center would provide

visitor orientation for both NPS

and USFS resources and

regulations.

2. Maximize Protection of

Natural Resources

Access to the park is limited to 

established trails, roadways,

and developed facilities. Orientation waysides, visitor center

exhibits and NPS personnel provide visitors with protection and

preservation messages.

The NPS and USFS would construct and operate a joint

visitor center near the intersection of FR545 and US 89. The

new visitor center would provide visitor orientation for both

park and forest visitors before

they encounter sensitive

resources. Areas of the park not 

zoned for administrative or

visitor use would be closed to

protect resources.

The existing visitor center and

campground would be removed

and the areas rehabilitated. The

new visitor center would provide visitor orientation for both

park and forest visitors before

they encounter sensitive resources. A portion of FR545 beyond the Lava Flow Trail at the

base of Sunset Crater Volcano

would be rehabilitated and

converted to a hiking trail. Park

boundaries would be expanded

to the west to include the

Bonito Park area and to the

south to include the new visitor

Park boundaries would be 

expanded in cooperation with

the USFS, to include key

resources northeast and

southeast of the existing

boundaries. OHV use would be 

eliminated and the area would

be rehabilitated. Areas of the

park not zoned for

administrative or visitor use

would be closed to protect

resources. The new multiagency

visitor center would provide

visitor orientation for both NPS

and USFS resources and

regulations.

74 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives

Objective No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended

Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

Boundaries to Preserve Parkrelated Resources and

Provide Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

center location. Corresponding

adjustments would be made to

the boundary of the USFS OHV

area. Areas of the park not

zoned for administrative or 

visitor use would be closed to

protect resources.

3. Expand Diversity of

Visitor Experience

The one-mile Lava Flow Trail is

a self-guided loop exploring a 

variety of volcanic formations.

The one-mile Lenox Crater Trail

provides an opportunity to a 

climb a cinder cone. The Cinder

Hills overlook provides a view

of numerous cinder cones in the

area.

The existing visitor center

would be retained and adapted

for use as an education center

with facilities for group presentations, and workshops. A hiking trail would be formalized

between Bonito Campground

and the Lava Flow Trail. Additional extended learning activities, both self-guided and

guided, would be developed in

the vicinity of and in conjunction with the new visitor

center. A broader range of 

resources would be interpreted

in an Extended Learning Zone

in the vicinity of the Lava Flow

Trail and Lenox Crater Trail

system.

Additional extended learning

activities, both self-guided and

guided, would be developed in

the vicinity of, and in

conjunction with, the Lava Flow

Trail, Lenox Crater, and the

northwest side of Sunset Crater

Volcano. A portion of FR545

beyond the Lava Flow Trail at

the base of Sunset Crater

Volcano would be rehabilitated

and converted to a hiking trail.

The new visitor center would

provide visitor orientation for

both NPS and USFS facilities, resources, and regulations, and

would provide in-depth interpretation of natural and cultural resources at the regional

level. Construction of new

facilities would provide locations for interpretive programs

and workshops for a variety of

audiences. Both NPS and USFS

would be represented at the

new visitor center, and information/ interpretation would be 

presented to visitors in a cohesive manner. Extended

learning opportunities would be 

available in the visitor center/

Bonito Park vicinity, in the area

between Lenox Crater and Lava

Flow Trails, and in the Cinder

Hills area. A trail would be

constructed between Bonito

Campground and the Lava Flow

Trail. A new trail would be established in the fissure zone

providing access to Gyp and/or

Double Crater.

75 
ALTERNATIVES 

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives

Objective No-Action Alternative:

Existing Conditions Alternative 1 (Preferred):

Focus on Extended

Learning

Alternative 2: Emphasize

Quiet Natural Setting while

Providing Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

Alternative 3: Expand Park

Boundaries to Preserve Parkrelated Resources and

Provide Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use

4. Limit Effect on 

Neighbors

The Cinder Hills Off-Highway

Vehicle (OHV) Area is about

13,500 acres on USFS lands

immediately southeast of the

monument. The visitor center,

housing, and maintenance area

are located on Coconino

National Forest land and were

constructed and are operated

by the NPS under an agreement

with the USFS.

Vehicle access via FR545 would

remain the same as it is now.

The NPS and USFS would jointly

construct and operate a new

visitor center. Boundaries of the

OHV area are not impacted..

Entry to the park would via a 

new road system using FR776.

FR414, which is currently an 

unimproved road, would be 

converted to the monument’s

main entrance road. Portions of

FR545 between Bonito Park and

the Lava Flow Trail would be 

retained as dead-end spurs to 

these features. A new visitor

center would be jointly

constructed and operated by

the NPS and USFS. Park

boundaries would be expanded

to the west and the south.

Correspondi ng adjustments

would be made to the boundary

of the USFS OHV area.

FR545 would remain open 24 

hours a day. Park boundaries

would be expanded in

cooperation with the USFS, to

include key resources northeast

and southeast of existing

boundaries. OHV use would be 

eliminated on the portions of 

the OHV area included within

the new boundaries, and

rehabilitation would be

undertaken.

5. Improve Operational

Efficiency

The NPS and USFS work

cooperatively in areas of law

enforcement, resource

protection and management,

interpretation and facility

management.

Park boundaries would be 

adjusted for ease of

management. Corresponding

adjustments would be made to

the boundary of the USFS OHV

area. The NPS and USFS would

jointly construct and operate a 

new visitor center at the

junction of FR545 and US 89. 

A new visitor center would be 

jointly constructed and

operated by the NPS and USFS.

Park boundaries would be 

expanded to the west to include

the Bonito Park area and to the

south to include the new visitor

center location. The existing

visitor center and associated

facilities would be removed

from its present location and

relocated south of the park near

the new visitor center.

A new multiagency visitor

center would be constructed

near the junction of FR545 and

US 89, and the existing visitor

center would be modified to

serve as an education center for

groups.

76 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Impact topics were identified through the

scoping process. Concerns covered by this

section include maintaining the long-term

scientific integrity and culturally sensitive

values of archeological sites, including

prehistoric and historic architecture,

shrines, cultural modified landforms,

agricultural field systems, rock art, and

other cultural features.

Region

The high arid Colorado Plateau region of 

the American Southwest is worldrenowned for its abundant, well-preserved

archeological resources. Archeological

remains in the region reflect several

distinct lifeways and adaptive strategies,

including hunting and gathering,

horticulture, livestock grazing and, after

the mid-19th century, participation in the

Euro-American global economy.

Prior to the eruption of Sunset Crater, the

area in and immediately surrounding the

monument was occupied by farmers who

lived in small, scattered hamlets adjacent

to their fields. When Sunset Crater

erupted, the prehistoric inhabitants of the

area, whom archeologists call Sinagua,

apparently moved out of harm’s way. No

evidence has been found indicating that

the people were surprised by the

eruptions, and no human remains have

been found indicating deaths occurred as

a direct result of the volcanic activity.

However, numerous pithouse dwellings

were burned and filled with cinders from

the eruption. Many of these “preeruptive” sites have been found on Forest

Service lands surrounding the monument.

Dr. Harold Colton, founder of the Museum

of Northern Arizona (MNA), first

recognized the connection between

Sunset Crater and the nearby buried

pithouse ruins in the early 1930s, several

years after Sunset Crater National

Monument was established. Research by 

MNA archeologists revealed that the

people who built these pithouses had

witnessed Sunset Crater’s birth in 1064. It

was tree-ring dating of timbers found in

these pithouses and the nearby pueblo

structures of Wupatki that gave geologists

a more definitive date for the beginning

of the Sunset eruption.

According to Colton’s reconstruction of

events, the Sinagua farmers soon

discovered that the deep cinder/ash fall in

the immediate vicinity of Sunset Crater

was not farmable, but as they moved

northward and the depth of ash

diminished, the cinder cover acted as a 

beneficial moisture-retaining mulch. This

mulching effect allowed drier, lower

elevation areas that were previously

unsuitable for farming to produce

successful crops. At the same time,

favorable climatic conditions coincident

with the volcanic activity may have

increased the desirability of these lower

elevation areas for farming. Today, most

archeologists believe that the eruption of

Sunset Crater, with its consequent

displacement of local settlers from what

was once a heavily occupied farming area,

in conjunction with the creation of new

farmland to the north, was a primary

reason for the noticeable geographical

shift of 12th-century settlements and

subsequent development of the

multiethnic complex culture in what is 

today Wupatki National Monument.

77 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Park

Although not specifically set aside to

preserve archeological remains, Sunset

Crater Volcano protects an important

piece of prehistory relating to the impact

of the 11th-century Sunset Crater Volcano

eruption on the prehistoric occupants of 

the southern Colorado Plateau. The

development of the prehistoric Sinagua

culture in the Flagstaff area was

profoundly affected by the geologic forces

that formed Sunset Crater. The importance

of Sunset Crater Volcano as a geologic

feature cannot be separated from its

significance as a key influence in the

evolution of human cultures in the

Flagstaff region. The relationship between

the archeological and geological resources

of Sunset Crater National Monument is

reciprocal: previous studies of 

archeological sites in the vicinity of Sunset

Crater have been instrumental in

improving our understanding of the

geologic processes and timing of events

that shaped Sunset Crater while, at the

same time, current studies of the volcano

and associated lava flows are helping us to

decipher the sequence of events that

shaped human prehistory in the region.

Furthermore, the area retains importance

to numerous American Indian tribes living

in the area today. Therefore, although

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

was originally set aside to protect and

interpret a geologic phenomenon, its

cultural significance is at least equally

important.

Only a handful of archeological sites have

been documented within the boundaries

of Sunset Crater Volcano or on the

adjoining administrative lands. This low

number of documented sites reflects the

fact that only about 1 percent of the 3,040

acres in the monument has been

intensively inventoried for archeological

resources. Some nearby areas lying outside

monument boundaries on USFS lands have

been inventoried at various levels of

intensity, including most of the NPS

administrative area, the USFS campground,

and some of the forested terrain adjoining

Bonito Park. These nearby inventories

provide a general basis for predicting the

types and numbers of sites likely to be

found within monument boundaries.

Three prehistoric archeological sites are

located within the maintenance yard

behind the visitor center and two others

are in close proximity to the visitor center.

A prehistoric pottery cache was found by 

visitors within the Bonito Lava Flow, and

at least one Hopi shrine is known to exist

in the Lava Flow area. Undoubtedly, there

are additional post-eruptive archeological

sites within the monument boundaries

that await future discovery.

Approximately 68 archeological sites have

been recorded within one mile of the

current monument boundaries. The

majority of these sites (41) are buried

Sinagua pit structures dating between A.D.

650-1065. In addition, there are at least

five prehistoric masonry structures, one

cave containing a prehistoric pottery

cache, and 13 artifact scatters without

associated architecture. There are also

several historic sites, including a logging

railroad grade, a collapsed homestead

cabin, and a shade structure.

No archeological resources are currently

interpreted to visitors within the

monument boundaries or adjacent forest

areas; however, there are plans to develop

at least one previously excavated pithouse

site on USFS lands for future interpretive

purposes.

HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Region

The historic built environment of the

region has been shaped like that of many

small Western towns, by timber, cattle

grazing, and the mining industry (Cline

78 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

1994). A few grand homes survive in the

area, constructed by Flagstaff’s first

entrepreneurs in the late 19th century. The

majority of structures built during

Flagstaff’s early days represent the

working class. Areas like Milton (mill town)

housed mill workers and their families

(Cline 1976).

Science and education also shaped the

historic built environment of the region. In

1894 Flagstaff was chosen as the site for

Lowell Observatory, and in 1899 Northern

Arizona Normal School (now Northern

Arizona University) opened as a 

preparatory school for teachers.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)

added much to the region, constructing

roads, trails, fences, phones lines, and a 

golf course clubhouse in Flagstaff (Cline

1994).

The landscapes of the region are many and

span great lengths of time. Landscapes

from the prehistoric Sinagua culture

overlap with other prehistoric groups,

including the Kayenta Anasazi and

Cohonina. Melded in this region are

natural features and cultural elements

shared by historic Navajo and Paiute

groups, early cattle and sheep ranchers,

and lumbermen.

Park

The Sunset Crater Volcano visitor center

complex (maintenance outbuildings, visitor

center, and apartments) was constructed

as part of the NPS Mission 66 construction

program, and few alterations have

occurred at the visitor center complex. A 

metal roof was added to the visitor center

in the early 1990s, and portions of the

enclosed maintenance yard were roofed to

cover heavy equipment, but, on the whole,

the complex remains close to its original

design and layout. A general Service-wide

moratorium has been placed on major

changes to structures built during the NPS

Mission 66 era, but in the Intermountain

Region this has been modified to include

review by a Mission 66 review board.

Proposed changes are reviewed by the

board, and a determination to proceed

with construction can be granted, based

upon criteria (e.g., the significance of the

structure, how any character-defining

features of the structure would be

affected, and whether or not the work

would be done in accordance with the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for

the Treatment of Historic Properties). In

addition, the eligibility of Mission 66 era

structures for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places can be

determined by the review board prior to 

completion of the context study.

Visitors currently experience the Mission

66 visitor center and exhibits remaining

from that period. Two trails developed

during this period are also available: the

Lava Flow Trail and the Lenox Crater Trail.

Cultural landscapes at Sunset Crater

Volcano have never been identified. A 

cultural landscape inventory (CLI) needs to

be conducted to identify issues such as

historic land uses and the location and

character of significant resources. A CLI is

needed to avoid adverse effects and/or loss

of unidentified cultural landscapes.

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES

Region

NPS guidelines describe ethnographic

resources as “objects and places, including

sites, structures, landscapes, and natural

resources, with traditional cultural

meaning and value to associated people”

(NPS 2002). “The decision to call resources

‘ethnographic’ depends on whether

associated peoples perceive them as 

traditionally meaningful to their identity

as a group and the survival of their

lifeways. When natural resources acquire

meaning according to the different

cultural constructs of a particular group,

79 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

they become ethnographic and thus

cultural resources as well” (NPS 1997).

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

in north-central Arizona is part of a region

lying between extensive high-altitude

national forest lands to the southwest and

semi-desert mesas of the Hopi and Navajo

Indian Reservations to the northeast. The

latter forms the largest block of Indian

tribal lands in the United States, including

more than 25,000 square miles. These

contemporary reservations are only a small

portion of the customary lands occupied

aboriginally and historically by the tribes,

and to which the tribes retain deeply

rooted traditional associations. The three

Flagstaff Area monuments are an integral

part of this larger traditional landscape.

Many of the geographic features and

natural and cultural resources identified by

the tribes as culturally significant within

the three monuments are historically or 

ceremonially interconnected with other

landscape elements, geographic features,

and archeological sites throughout the

tribes’ entire customary land bases. In

addition to the Hopi and Navajo Tribes,

who currently occupy the tribal lands

adjacent to or near the monuments, many

of the other tribes originally consulted

early in the GMP planning process retain

customary associations with many of the

same resources and places throughout the

region. A good literature-based overview

of tribal associations with the Flagstaff

Area monuments and surrounding region

can be found in Brandt (1997).

Park

In addition to the literature-based

overview of tribal associations with the

park proposed by Brandt, the Hopi, Zuni,

and Navajo Tribes each conducted

fieldwork and provided synopses of 

sensitive ethnographic resources at the

park specifically for this GMP.

The Hopi Tribe describes the entire

landscape related to the eruption of 

Sunset Crater as sacred and connected to

Wupatki, the Little Colorado River, the San

Francisco Peaks, the Grand Canyon and

entire surrounding region. Within this

landscape, cinder cones are particularly

culturally sensitive, as are all cinder cones

at Sunset Crater, particularly Sunset Crater

itself and the lava rock associated with it.

In addition to Sunset Crater and other

cinder cones, the ice cave is an important

ethnographic resource, as is O’Leary Peak

and eagles that might be associated with it

and Bonito Park and particular plant

species within it.

Similarly to the Hopi Tribe, the Pueblo of

Zuni considers the area encompassed by

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

as part of a much larger, interconnected

sacred landscape. The Pueblo of Zuni also

shares concerns about the places identified

by the Hopi Tribe as culturally significant.

In addition, the Pueblo of Zuni specifically

identified the sensitivity of a particular

stand of aspen trees within the boundaries

of Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument, as well as any springs that

might occur there.

The Navajo Nation also identifies the

Sunset Crater landscape as part of a 

regional ceremonial landscape, and

considers cinder cones throughout the

general region to have particular cultural

significance. Sunset Crater itself has been

mentioned in Navajo ethnographic

literature since 1897 as a place related to

the travels of particular Navajo clans.

Navajo Nation researchers for this GMP

identified Sunset Crater itself, Bonito Park,

and eight specific plant species as the

ethnographic resources within Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument about

which the Navajo Nation has concerns.

80 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND 

PROCESSES

The integrity of the natural systems and

processes within Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument depends upon

conserving native plant and animal

communities and maintaining natural

geomorphic and soil formation processes.

The monument is a very small natural area

within a regional framework of lands that

are primarily managed by the U.S. Forest

Service for ecologically sustainable,

multiple uses. Preserving the integrity of

the monument’s natural systems requires

close coordination with the Coconino

National Forest to ensure that the full

complement of plant and wildlife species

within the monument are conserved.

During the public and agency scoping

process, specific environmental impact

issues were identified, including:

preserving unfragmented natural systems;

conserving wildlife populations;

maintaining the natural

character/condition of ponderosa pine

forest and pinyon woodland vegetation;

controlling the spread of invasive,

nonnative plant species; and, maintaining

the integrity of natural systems for

ecological research. Additional summaries

of affected threatened, endangered, and

sensitive species, unique habitats, and

geologic resources are presented in

separate sections below.

Region

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

is located in the southern part of the

Colorado Plateau. In this general region

north of the Mogollon Rim, elevations vary

from a low of 2,400 feet above sea level at 

the bottom of the Grand Canyon, to a 

high of 12,670 feet above sea level at the

San Francisco Peaks, less than fifty miles

away. The plateau was shaped by erosion

to reveal geologic outcrops of red

sandstone and white limestone. The area

surrounding the monument is also

characterized by an extensive volcanic field

(the San Francisco Volcanic Field) with the

prevalent remains of the San Francisco

Volcano, surrounding smaller cinder cones,

and lava flows. The Painted Desert

stretches east of the volcanic field to 

Petrified Forest National Park. Soil types

also vary within the region, depending

upon whether they are derived from

weathered limestone, sandstone, shale, or 

volcanic bedrock.

The climate of the region varies

tremendously with elevation above sea

level. Fifteen miles to the north, the Little

Colorado River flows at 4,300 feet

elevation along the eastern boundary of 

Wupatki National Monument. Wupatki

receives approximately 6 to 7 inches of

precipitation per year and experiences

temperatures from -4° to 105° F. At Sunset

Crater Volcano, the visitor center is located

at 7,000 feet elevation and receives about

20 inches of precipitation annually and

generally has colder winters and milder

summers. Above 10,000 feet on the

adjacent San Francisco Mountains, annual

precipitation exceeds 40 inches,

temperatures are considerably cooler, and

the growing season is remarkably shorter.

The impressive array of geologic,

elevation, and climatic differences within a 

relatively small geographic area has

contributed to a considerable diversity of 

plant communities. This diversity is

exhibited by the range of vegetation from

alpine tundra on top of the San Francisco

Peaks to Sonoran Desert at the bottom of 

the Grand Canyon. Within Sunset Crater

Volcano, Wupatki, and Walnut Canyon

National Monuments surrounding

Flagstaff, one can observe many of the

dominant vegetation types. Pinyon-juniper

woodland, ponderosa pine forest, and lava

flow and cinder barrens are common at

Sunset Crater Volcano. A short distance

away at Wupatki, one finds juniper

81 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

woodlands, Colorado Plateau grasslands,

and Colorado Plateau desert scrub

communities. Walnut Canyon contains a 

narrow stand of broadleaf deciduous

forest along the bottom of the canyon,

mixed-coniferous forest on north-facing

slopes, and ponderosa pine forest and

parkland above the canyon rim. Higher

elevations harbor aspen groves, and spruce

and fir forests.

Prehistoric, historic, and current land uses

have undoubtedly played a major role in

shaping the landscape of the area as well.

In addition to relying heavily on

agricultural land use, prehistoric peoples

used native plants and animals and used

fire to modify the environment. Regional

Navajo sheepherding dates to the period

of Spanish settlement of the Southwestern

United States. A number of tribes,

including the Navajo and the Hopi,

continue to use plants, animals, and other

natural resources in the region.

Historic and modern influences, including

logging, agriculture, cattle ranching,

hunting, mining, fire suppression,

community development, and road and

utility construction have together greatly

affected and fragmented regional natural

systems and processes. Although some

dense forest stands still remain at the

highest elevations of the San Francisco

Peaks and on steep terrain along the

Mogollon Rim, most accessible, old-growth

forest has been extensively logged. In

order to protect endangered species,

logging on most public lands is now 

restricted. Forests are now being managed

for ecologically sustainable multiple uses,

and large areas of impacted forests are

proposed for eventual restoration to

presettlement conditions.

Fire has played a major role in shaping the

vegetation in the entire region, as it has in

most of the Southwestern United States.

Forest management efforts to suppress

wildfires during the last century are now 

known to have caused significant

differences in forest function and habitat

value. In extensive areas of fire-adapted

ponderosa pine stands, tree densities have

risen dramatically because fire no longer

thins young trees from the stands. In some

areas, tree densities have increased so

drastically that there is severe risk of

catastrophic fire. This type of fire is a

dramatic contrast to the low-level natural

fires that existed when pine stands were

open and fires burned primarily in the

understory.

Ecologists theorize that ranching activity

and grazing pressure caused or 

contributed to a wide range of historic

changes in ecosystems throughout the

Southwestern United States, including loss

of grassland cover and plant species

diversity; reduction or extirpation of 

grassland-dependent wildlife; extirpation

or extinction of predators; accelerated soils

erosion and gullying of intermittent

drainage systems; decreasing wildfire size

and frequency; and loss of cottonwoodwillow riparian vegetation, which has had

significant adverse impacts to both

migratory and breeding birds, and

development of artificial water sources

and alteration or elimination of natural

surface waters for native plant and animal

species. Grazing also favors the

establishment of nonnative species.

Environmental changes may be more

apparent at lower elevations, where there

is a documented increase in desert

vegetation and noxious plants. Ranching

and cattle stocking rates are changing as a 

result of widespread concerns over these

impacts. Even though many of the changes

to regional natural systems are likely

permanent, ranching activity is trending

more toward long-term ecological

sustainability within the region.

Juniper woodland has been rapidly

expanding into grasslands during the last

century, but the underlying causes are the

subject of scientific debate. Many

ecologists believe that cattle grazing, in

82 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

combination with range-fire suppression,

is favoring juniper encroachment into

grasslands. Cattle remove much of the

grass and forbs and enhance the ability of

juniper seedlings to germinate and

establish in what were once continuous

grassland areas. Other scientists believe

that we are witnessing a natural succession

process in which junipers are returning to

formerly occupied habitat. Human

occupation of much of the region certainly

must have included the use of any

available wood sources for fuel and

construction purposes.

Modern landownership patterns and uses

have also resulted in increased habitat

fragmentation within the region. Fences,

especially double-fenced highway rightsof-way, prevent the regional movement of 

numerous wildlife species, including

pronghorn antelope. Roads throughout

the area serve as conduits for the spread

of exotic weedy plants.

Much of the land within the region is

managed by the U.S. Forest Service for

sustained multiple uses, including hunting,

firewood collecting, grazing, off-highway

vehicle use, backpacking, and hiking. The

Coconino National Forest currently

manages the 13,500-acre Cinder Hills OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) Recreational Area

close to the southeastern boundary. The

NPS remains concerned that heavy offroad vehicle use immediately adjacent to

the monument may be adversely affecting

sensitive species populations, such as

Penstemon clutei and Phacelia serrata, and

disturbing most wildlife populations that

transcend the monument boundary. The

NPS hopes to alleviate these concerns

through increased communication,

monitoring ecosystem conditions, and

better participation in the U.S. Forest

Service planning process. If successful,

these efforts could mitigate certain

adjacent land use impacts on resources

within the monument, including

enforcement of regulations with regard to 

off-road driving and possible road closure,

removal of fence segments, and joint fire

management.

A large area of the region belongs to

sovereign American Indian tribes. Their

cultures are traditionally tied to their

lands, but little information is generated

or available to understand the

environmental impacts of tribal land

management.

Large areas of arid lands within

Southwestern United States have been

invaded by nonnative plant species. On the

Colorado Plateau, much of the remaining

grasslands have been extensively invaded

by nonnative annual bromegrasses,

drastically altering natural fire regimes,

displacing native perennial bunchgrasses,

and reducing or eliminating forage or 

cover for grassland-dependent wildlife

species. Riparian vegetation has been

severely altered by tamarisk invasion,

which has outcompeted most native

cottonwood and willow stands and

particularly affected both migratory and

breeding birds.

Park

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

is dominated by a volcanic landscape. The

Sunset Crater cinder cone and the

northern half of Lenox Crater cinder cone

lie at the southeastern and southwestern

corners of the monument, respectively.

Most of the surface area north of the two

cones is covered by either the Bonito Lava

Flow or deep volcanic cinder deposits,

including an area of tall cinder hills within

the northeastern quarter of the

monument. Sunset Crater is very young in

geologic time and one of the few

undisturbed cinder cone volcanoes within

northern Arizona. The volcanic features

within the monument harbor a small but 

unique natural area of relatively

undisturbed vegetation and wildlife

habitats. The volcano also offers unique

insight into fresh lava and cinder

83 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

weathering processes, soil formation, and

pioneering vegetation establishment.

An inventory of natural resources within

Sunset Crater Volcano was completed

during the late 1970s (Bateman 1976, 

1979). This study remains the best

available documentation of the

monument’s flora and fauna. Research has

also examined plant succession in the area

following the volcano’s eruption (Eggler

1966). The vegetation is currently being

mapped (Thomas 2001). Vegetation is

relatively sparse within the monument,

but soil pockets on cinder cone slopes,

lava, and deep cinder deposits are

dominated by ponderosa pine trees. An

area of pinyon pine woodland dominates

the northwestern corner. There are also a 

few small aspen stands on the north slopes

of the cinder cones and around the

perimeter of the lava flow. Given the small

area within the monument, it is relatively

rich in plant species, with 166 documented

species. The sparse vegetation cover

probably provides little forage and cover

for wildlife. The Bonito Lava Flow, which

dominates more than 25% of the surface

area within monument, is extremely

inhospitable to foot travel and probably

does not provide habitat for larger

animals. Habitat for larger animals, such as

deer, is probably restricted to the western,

southern, and northern margins of the

monument. Surface water resources are

almost nonexistent within the monument,

except for local catchments upon lava

flows and seepage areas around the

perimeter of lava flows. There are

relatively deep aquifers beneath the

monument, one of which is used for

drinking water.

Although the area within the monument is

highly fragmented by expanses of barren

lava and cinder deposits, the pockets of 

mature ponderosa pine forest and pinyon

woodland could sustain a small wildfire.

Forest vegetation surrounding the

monument likely burned more frequently

in the past, which promoted native

herbaceous cover and biodiversity, thinned

trees, and prevented deadwood

accumulation and intensely hot fires.

Limited management-ignited fires may be 

proposed, mainly to restore the role of fire

to local forests and meadows. Prior to

conducting test burns, the NPS must

prepare a fire management plan and

accompanying environmental assessment

to review potential impacts.

Of the total 3,000 acres within the

monument, approximately 5% is currently

affected by fences, roads, trails, NPS

operations, and visitor activity. Most NPS

operations and visitor support facilities,

including the visitor center, campground,

employee housing, maintenance shops,

and utilities, occupy approximately 130 

acres of Coconino National Forest land 1⁄2 

mile to the west of the monument

boundary. The current paved access road

(FR545) may somewhat hinder the

movement of pronghorn and other

wildlife through the Coconino National

Forest between Bonito Park and grassland

habitat to the north (Bright and Van Riper

III 2000). Within the monument, the paved

road crosses fractured volcanic rocks or

deep cinder deposits, and there is little

evidence of disruption of surface drainage

patterns because water percolates rapidly

into the soil. There is one closed and

abandoned primitive road along the base

of Lenox Crater in the southwestern corner

of the monument. The road is within the

backcountry closure area and will likely

remain as a scar on the natural landscape

for decades.

Visitor use is currently concentrated

between the campground and the western

margin of the Bonito Lava Flow outside

the monument and around the southern

margin of the Bonito Lava Flow, Lenox

Crater Trail, Lava Flow Trail, and Cinder

Hills Overlook within the monument.

Visitor-use impacts are primarily localized

around these areas and include cinder

84 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

surface disturbance, vegetation trampling,

unplanned trail development, minor

alterations in drainage patterns, noise, and

disturbance to wildlife.

In 1998 most of the area within the

monument was closed to public access to

protect sensitive resources. Until that time,

backcountry use was readily permitted,

but the effect on natural systems is

difficult to assess because the NPS

maintained no statistics on visitation

numbers or commonly visited areas.

Backcountry access continues for

authorized special uses, such as research

and educational activities. There is

occasional unguided hiking within the

backcountry closure area, including the

area to the north of the Bonito Lava flow

and the cinder hills in the northeast corner

of the monument. This will likely continue

because there is insufficient staff to ensure

frequent patrols.

There currently is little information on the

distribution or impacts of nonnative plants

within the monument. Nonnative plant

infestations, predominantly mullen

(Verbascum thapsus), are generally

confined to road corridors, developed

areas, or areas of heavy visitation. These

species benefit from the additional runoff

associated with paved surfaces and often

out-compete native vegetation along road

shoulders. Nonnative plants may also

rapidly colonize areas where the ground

surface is heavily disturbed by equipment

or heavy foot traffic. One patch of 

Camelthorn (Alhagi maurorum), a 

tenacious shrub species, and diffuse

knapweed (Centauea diffusa) are known

to occur along FR545. Some nonnative

species have been planted by employees

around their residences, but none of these

are believed to be naturalizing and

escaping into the surrounding

environment. The monument currently

lacks sufficient staff or funding to actively

monitor or attempt to control nonnative

species, however, attention to this issue is 

anticipated in the near future. Many

species can potentially be controlled with

persistent efforts to remove plants and

control root systems with herbicides.

Success in controlling an invasive species

would be predicated on early detection of 

infestations before they grow out of 

control, or on the availability of

ecologically sound and affordable

technology.

The natural systems and processes

surrounding the monument boundary

have been influenced by historical logging

and timber management practices, and to

a lesser degree, by former ranching

activity, game hunting, and predator

control. The monument is a very small

natural area within a regional framework

of lands that are primarily managed by the

U.S. Forest Service for ecologically

sustainable, multiple uses. Preserving the

integrity of the monument’s natural

systems requires close coordination with

the Coconino National Forest to ensure

that the full complement of plant and

wildlife species within the monument are

conserved. Primitive roads through the

surrounding Coconino National Forest

provide vehicle access within 1⁄4 mile for

approximately 51/2 of the total 7 miles of

boundary around the monument.

Concerns remain that convenient driving

access promotes incidents of off-road

vehicle use, poaching, and unauthorized

hiking within the closed area of the

monument.

THREATENED, ENDANGERED,

AND SENSITIVE SPECIES

This section complements the preceding

section on natural systems and processes

and is intended to specifically address

compliance with the Endangered Species

Act. In addition to legally protected

threatened and endangered species, a few

“species of concern” occur within the

monument and surrounding region, and

their status is regularly assessed by

85 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

regional federal, state, and tribal agencies.

During the public and agency scoping

process, pertinent impact issues were

identified regarding the conservation of 

federally listed threatened and

endangered species, candidate species,

and designated critical habitats that might

be affected by a proposed action. The

potential impacts to other sensitive plant

and animal species and unique habitats

are also considered.

Region

The diversity of landscapes and habitats in

the region naturally provides for

impressive species diversity. Habitats range

from alpine tundra on the San Francisco

Peaks to Sonoran Desert at the bottom of 

the Grand Canyon. Old-growth coniferous

forests and other vegetation communities

in the region, combined with

physiographic features such as canyons

and mountains, provide habitat for a 

number of threatened, endangered, and

sensitive species. Within Coconino County,

Arizona, there are 5 plant, 9 animal

(including fish), and 1 invertebrate species

that are formally listed as threatened or

endangered. There are another 54 plant,

51 animal (including fish), and 5 

invertebrate species that may be

exceedingly rare and are being monitored

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Arizona Game and Fish Dept., U.S. Forest

Service, and Navajo Natural Heritage

Program (Arizona Heritage Data

Management System 2001).

Among all biological groups within the

region, fish are threatened to the greatest

extent. Several other plant, animal, and

invertebrate species also require perennial

streams, wetlands, or riparian habitats,

reflecting the widespread alteration of

entire region’s freshwater ecosystems.

Of the region’s rare plant species, several

are endemic to the Mogollon Highlands

region, including Bebb’s willow (Salix

bebbiana), and the San Francisco

Mountains, including the San Francisco

Peaks groundsel (Senecio franciscianus),

listed as threatened. The Sunset Crater

penstemon (Penstemon clutei) and cinder

lady’s tresses (Phacelia welshii) are locally

endemic to the volcanic cinder deposits

surrounding the San Francisco Volcanic

Field. Riparian areas also harbor numerous

plant species of concern, such as Navajo

sedge (Carex specuicola), Alkali grass

(Puccinella parishii ), which occurs at lower

elevations in wetter sites north of the

Little Colorado River, Mogollon columbine

(Aquilegia desertorum), which occupies

seeps and springs, and alcove bog orchid

(Platanthera zothecina). A number of 

species, such as the Flagstaff pennyroyal

(Hedeoma diffusum), inhabit ponderosa

pine parklands, and likely depend upon

fire to maintain an open forest canopy so

that sunlight penetrates to the ground.

Many species within the cactus family

occupy very limited habitats and are

sensitive to disturbance, including livestock

grazing. Because of their popularity with

horticulturists, all cactus species within

Arizona are protected under state law.

The threatened Mexican spotted owl (Strix

occidentalis lucida) is found within the

region in dense, mixed-conifer forests,

particularly in canyons. The U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service is in the process of

designating critical habitat for the species.

The owl occurs along the Grand Canyon, in

Walnut Canyon, and near Sunset Crater

Volcano. The Southwestern willow

flycatcher, an endangered bird species,

depends on very specific riparian habitat

conditions along perennial streams within

the region. Relatively large numbers of 

bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

winter in the region, especially near Lake

Mary, Mormon Lake, and Marshal Lake.

Although recently removed from the

endangered species list by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, the peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus anatum) inhabits steep

cliff sites in the region. Even though the

species is no longer considered threatened,

86 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

population levels will continue to be

monitored for a period of five years. Other

raptors that are considered species of

concern include the northern goshawk and

ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis).

Although the golden eagle (Aquila

chrysaetos) is not formally listed or

considered a species of concern, wildlife

managers and the general public are

concerned about it, because of its low

population density, ecological importance

as predators and indicators of 

environmental quality, and traditional

importance to American Indians. As with

other wide-ranging raptor species, golden

eagles have declined as a result of habitat

loss, historic predator control programs,

and power line electrocution. Eagles are

legally protected from being killed or

taken under the Eagle Protection Act. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers

this act and annually issues permits to

American Indian tribes to take specified

numbers of golden eagles and feathers for

ceremonial use. Golden eagles are solitary

animals, and little is known about their

distribution, number, and status around

Wupatki. Although the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service recently proposed a study

to assess the status of the species

throughout the Western United States,

there is no regional management

framework for ensuring the species

remains viable.

Bat species are considered to have

specialized habitat requirements and

sensitivity to environmental impacts.

Twelve species are currently monitored as 

species of concern.

Although not formally listed or considered

a species of concern, pronghorn antelope

(Antilocapra americana) are the focus of

considerable wildlife management effort

because they are attractive large

herbivores and an important game species,

and the public is concerned about their

continued survival. The species was

historically overhunted and nearly

extirpated in the Southwestern United

States. The continuing decline is primarily

attributed to habitat fragmentation

caused by conventional range fences,

which antelope do not jump over and

therefore must find weak sections of fence

to cross under. Pronghorn herds are

effectively confined and prevented from

moving to water and forage during

drought years or to lower elevations

during severe winters. Other causes of 

decline include road mortality and

continuing loss of grassland habitat.

Wildlife managers are concerned about

the pronghorn decline in the population in

northern Arizona over the past few

decades, including the herd west of 

Wupatki and north of the San Francisco

Mountains (Bright and Van Riper III 2000).

Local coyote populations have been

controlled to protect pronghorn fawns

from predation (Terry Miller, AZGF, pers.

comm.).

Park

The Arizona Heritage Database (Arizona

Game and Fish Department 2001) was 

consulted via the Internet to generate a 

list of threatened and endangered species

and other species of concern for Coconino

County, Arizona. This list was compared

with the inventory of natural resources

within Sunset Crater Volcano completed

by Bateman (1976, 1979), which remains

the best available documentation of the

monument’s flora and fauna. In addition,

a survey for special status plants at the

Flagstaff Area National Monuments,

including Sunset, was just completed

(Huisinga et al. 2000). Currently, no

federally listed threatened or endangered

plant or animal species are known to occur

in Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument.

One endangered species, the Mexican

spotted owl, is known to occur on nearby

U.S. Forest Service lands. The species lives

and nests in dense, old-growth forest on

steep mountain slopes or in deep canyons.

87 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Suitable habitat conditions are not likely

found within the monument, but the

Mexican spotted owl may rarely cross into

the monument in search of prey. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service recently proposed

to designate critical habitat for the species,

but did not include any forest lands in

proximity to the monument.

At Sunset Crater, there are two plant

species of concern-Penstemon clutei and

Phacelia serrata. Both are short-lived

wildflowers that are only found on cinder

deposits within the San Francisco Volcanic

Field. Populations of both species have

been documented from numerous

locations within the monument, including

the area of heavy visitor use along the

Lava Flow Trail. Recent studies have shown

that Penstemon clutei is adapted to fire

and other types of disturbance within

ponderosa pine forest (2000 Southwest

Rare Plant Conference Proceedings, in

press). However, the NPS is uncertain

about potential impacts resulting from

current visitation and only recently

proposed routine monitoring of these

species.

An additional bird species of concern, the

northern goshawk, is known to occur on 

nearby U.S. Forrest Service lands. The

species is widespread but solitary across

much of the United States and southern

Canada (Association for Biodiversity

Information 2000). It nests and breeds in a 

wide variety of habitats, including

agricultural areas and formerly logged

forests. In Arizona, goshawks prefer forest

interior stands of large ponderosa pine

trees. Suitable habitat conditions are not 

likely found within the monument, but the

northern goshawk may rarely cross into

the monument in search of prey.

Although they are not formally listed as a 

species of concern, the status of golden

eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) within the

region was identified during the public

and agency scoping process. There are no

records of golden eagle nests within

Sunset Crater Volcano, but suitable nesting

habitat is found on nearby U.S. Forest

Service lands, and golden eagles may

forage within the monument. They are

known to be sensitive to human presence.

If disturbed by noise or rapid movements,

adult birds may fail to use a nest site or

temporarily abandon their eggs or chicks,

which exposes them to undue cold

temperatures and/or predators. Some

biologists recommend establishing a 1⁄4- to

2-mile-diameter buffer zone around nests.

Although not formally listed as a species of 

concern, the pronghorn antelope

(Antilocapra americana) herd within the

region was identified as a management

issue during the public and agency scoping

process. The species is being affected by 

large-scale habitat fragmentation and loss,

and the regional pronghorn population

has declined during the last few decades

(Bright and Van Riper III 2000). Although

pronghorn are not known to occur within

the existing boundary of the monument,

they are known to use nearby Bonito Park

as a fawning ground. The proposed

management alternatives include various

boundary, access road, and visitor use

changes that could have a range of effects

upon Bonito Park and local movement

corridors for this sensitive animal species.

In addition to sensitive species, three

unique habitats within the monument

were identified during the scoping

process—pioneering vegetation stands

isolated in the middle of the lava flows,

pioneering vegetation islands on deep

cinder deposits, and the downslope

perimeter of lava flows where water

seepage may be more prevalent. Localized

stands of isolated vegetation are found on 

the relatively young and harsh surface

terrain of the Bonito Lava Flow. These

areas are relatively undisturbed and may

have scientific value for studies of the

unique ecological process of pioneering

plant establishment and vegetation

succession. Other localized vegetation

88 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

“islands” of ponderosa pine, pinyon pine,

and aspen effectively float on the

relatively young, deep cinder deposits. Soil

formation is precarious on the cinder

deposits because weathered soil particles

must accumulate between the cinders in

order for plants to germinate and survive.

In the early stages, this process is easily

disrupted by disturbance that dislodges

the particles and causes them to sift into

the cinders too deep to support plant

germination and establishment. Around

the “toe” of the lava flows, areas of water

seepage may provide a unique

microhabitat for plants. Water likely

collects upon the hardened lava surface

and is channeled through fracture systems

to the perimeter of the flow where it may

locally benefit plant life before quickly

percolating deep into the adjacent cinder

barrens. These isolated vegetation island

habitats likely support Penstemon clutei

and Phacelia serrata. All three unique

habitats likely harbor numerous plants,

provide scarce wildlife habitat that would

not otherwise be found, and greatly

contribute to overall biodiversity within

the monument.

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

was established to protect significant

geologic resources. Impact topics were

identified through the scoping process,

and concerns covered by this section

include: (1) preserving unique geologic

features such as cinder volcanoes, lava

flows, lava tubes, ice cave, cinder barrens,

and spatter cones; (2) managing visitor use

impacts to these features, especially the

sensitive cinder barrens and ice cave; and,

(3) preserving the integrity of geological

resources to further scientific research.

Region

Sunset Crater Volcano is located near the

southern margin of the Colorado Plateau

geologic province, which covers over

130,000 square miles and includes the

“Four Corners” area of Arizona, Colorado,

Utah, and New Mexico. The Colorado

Plateau represents a huge block of the

earth’s crust that has remained relatively

intact through hundreds of millions of

years. The bedrock of the plateau is

predominantly formed of thick

sedimentary rock sequences of limestone,

sandstone, and shale. The deposits

originally accumulated under a series of 

seaways that inundated Western North

America during the Paleozoic and early

Mesozoic ages. During the last 65 million

years, the sedimentary formations were

raised more than a mile above sea level

along with the uplift of the Rocky

Mountains and the Sierra Madre of 

Mexico. As the uplift occurred, numerous

volcanic centers erupted through the

sedimentary formations and built the

higher mountain ranges of the region. The

forces of erosion have since weathered the

land surface into a broken landscape of 

eroded volcanoes, expansive mesas, sharp

ridges, and narrow canyons between 4,000

and 13,000 feet above sea level. The edges

of various individual plateaus are defined

by differential erosion rates of over- and

underlying rock formations, displacement

along major faults, or structural

deformation and folding associated with

monoclines, anticlines, and synclines. The

regional drainage pattern and stream

systems are also significantly controlled by

the same underlying geological principals.

The major geologic subprovinces that

surround Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument are the Mogollon-Coconino

Plateau highlands to the south and west,

and the Little Colorado River Basin-Painted

Desert lowlands to the east and north. The

Coconino Plateau is a lava-capped

highland bounded on the south by the

Mogollon Rim, the major geologic

structural break between the Colorado

Plateau of northern Arizona and the lower

elevation, “Basin-and-Range” province of 

89 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

southern Arizona. The Coconino Plateau is

deeply incised by several canyons,

including Walnut, Oak Creek, and

Sycamore Canyons. Sequences of 

sedimentary rock are exposed in cross

section on the inner canyon walls, typically

beneath lava caps. The San Francisco

Mountains and associated San Francisco

Volcanic Field punctuate the Coconino

Plateau. The San Francisco Mountains, at

12,700 feet, are the eroded remnants of a 

massive composite volcano. Large intrusive

igneous rock domes and pyroclastic flows

formed the mountains less than 5 million

years ago. They have been sculpted by

glaciers during the last 80,000 years.

The Little Colorado River has eroded the

Painted Desert basin over a large area to

the northeast of Sunset Crater Volcano.

The river basin is dominated by sandstone

and shale formations, which are relatively

softer and more easily eroded than the

adjacent volcanic highlands. Local

sandstone spires, buttes, mesas, and

“badlands” are the predominant

landforms resulting from differential

erosion between sandstone and shale

beds.

Park

Sunset Crater Volcano is located in two

physiographic subprovinces: (1) the

Coconino Plateau and: (2) the Little

Colorado River Basin, both of which lie

along the southern margin the Colorado

Plateau. The Coconino Plateau is a 

highland bordered by several deep

canyons and rimrock, and is characterized

by expanses of lava flows and cinder

cones. Extensive volcanic flows, domes, ash

deposits, and cinder cones form the San

Francisco Peaks and associated volcanic

field.

Sunset Crater Volcano lies on the eastern

perimeter of the San Francisco Volcanic

Field (Holm and Moore 1987). The local

terrain is rugged and dominated by 

basaltic cinder cones and lava flows.

Sunset Crater was first named Sunset

Mountain by John Wesley Powell in the

1880s. It is the youngest dated volcano in

Arizona-it erupted from A.D. 1064 or 1065 

until at least 1180, and was the last of

more than 550 known basaltic vents in the

San Francisco Volcanic Field. Around the

monument boundary, portions of older

volcanoes, lava flows, and ash deposits are

weathered and eroded, and are partially

or completely buried beneath the more

recent volcanic events. Sunset Crater is

viewed as unique by geologists, primarily

because it is such a fresh and unweathered

example of volcanic activity both within

the San Francisco Volcanic Field and within

the continental United States.

Sunset Crater Volcano is a classic example

of a cinder cone volcano. During the

eruption cycle, volcanic magma was

ejected from a vent and thrown into the

air while still in a hot, liquid state. The

ejected magma cooled, crystallized, and

fell as ash, cinder, and popcorn-sized

particles (called “scoria”). Larger material

(called “bombs”) as much as 3 feet in

diameter was also ejected. Larger, heavier

material accumulated around the vent to

build a cone-shaped volcano with a crater

depression centered over the vent. The

cone is approximately 1,000 feet high and

more than a mile wide at the base. The

crater is about 400 feet deep and 2,250

feet from rim to rim. Gaseous fumeroles at

the crest of the cinder cone left distinct

white, yellow, and pink mineral deposits.

A blanket of ash and cinders ejected

during the eruption covered more than

800 square miles around the cinder cone.

While Sunset Crater Volcano was erupting,

two basalt lava flows originated at the

base of the cinder cone. The Kana-A Flow

(outside the monument boundary on the

Coconino National Forest), an a’a type lava

flow, extruded near the eastern base of 

Sunset Crater. The Kana-A flowed more

than six miles to the northeast, filling a 

narrow valley. The Bonito Lava Flow, a 

90 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

composite pahoehoe and a’a lava flow,

extruded from the northwest base of

Sunset Crater. The Bonito locally pooled

over a 2-square-mile area between the

west side of the cinder cone and five older

volcanic domes and cones. The Bonito is

believed to have accumulated, during at

least three separate flows, to as much as

100 feet thick. While the Bonito lava was

flowing away from the base of Sunset

Crater, portions of the cinder cone were

carried on top of the flow as far as a mile

to the northwest (Holm 1987). The cinder

cone quickly rebuilt itself through

continued eruption as the lava flowed,

which is evidenced by the cinder blanket

on top of both the Kana-A and Bonito

flows. In all, an estimated billion tons of

material were erupted from the cinder

cone and extruded in the two lava flows.

The basaltic magma that erupted from

Sunset Crater Volcano flowed to the

surface through a deep fracture in the

earth’s crust. The surface geologic

expression of this fracture was a six-milelong volcanic fissure, trending northwest

to southeast. Sunset Crater erupted at the

northwest end. During the peak of

volcanic activity, at least nine other cinder

cones, numerous smaller spatter cones and

fumeroles, and three lava flows were

simultaneously active along the fracture,

forming a “ring-of-fire” style eruption

much like those observed today in Hawaii.

Most of the fracture, cinder cone, and lava

flow system associated with Sunset Crater

lies outside of the monument on the

Coconino National Forest, and currently

comprises about 25% of the Cinder Hills

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation

Area.

Geologic resources in the monument are

adversely affected by disturbance to the

unique cinder cone, lava flow, spatter

cone, and other volcanic features caused

by human activities inside and outside

park boundaries. In addition, the deep

cinder deposits are easily disturbed by 

human trampling, which hinders the

development of soils and survival of 

vegetation (Eggler 1966). Inside the park,

some areas receiving heavy visitor use

suffer from severe erosion on steep cinder

cone slopes, and the breakage, collapse,

and loss of lava and spatter cone surfaces.

This is particularly evident on the

abandoned Crater Overlook Trail and

along the Lava Flow Trail. Certain reaches

of the Lava Flow Trail have recently been

rerouted to protect unique features, and

the NPS is currently considering the

strategic placement of handrail barriers

and improved information on unique or 

sensitive geologic features. The NPS is in

need of a detailed geologic map and

inventory of specific volcanic features

within the monument in order to

determine their relative uniqueness and

assess current damage levels. Studies of 

the deep cinder deposits are also needed

to determine if existing levels of off-trail

trampling and trespass off-road vehicle use

are seriously retarding natural soil

formation and vegetation establishment

processes. With this information, the NPS

may take appropriate management action

to deter further damage to unique

volcanic features.

Most of the geologic features associated

with the entire Sunset “Ring-of-Fire”

eruption are on neighboring Coconino

National Forest lands and are being

eroded within the Cinder Hills OHV Area.

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK

RESOURCES

The scoping process identified the visitors’

ability to experience park resources related

to park significance as an issue. Concerns

include access to park resources by the

general public, access to information

provided by museum collections and

ability to see the “real thing” (actual

artifacts, dwellings, etc., as opposed to

replicas or simulations); minimally altered

environment; access to a full spectrum of

91 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

park resources for visitors with disabilities;

ability of the public to understand park

resources; ability to experience scenic,

recreational, and educational pursuits;

visitor understanding of regional context;

uncrowded visitor experiences; visibility of

night skies and natural soundscapes; and

ability to hear natural sounds. Concerns

also include personal freedom (inside and

outside park boundaries); traditional

employee/visitor experiences

(interpretation through personal services,

access to favorite sites); and traditional

recreational activities (biking, climbing,

etc.).

Region

The Flagstaff Area monuments are

relatively small enclaves of National Park

Service management located within a 

geographic area dominated by the much

larger Coconino National Forest. Although

natural and cultural resources within the

monuments are recognized and protected

for their special significance, they cannot

be separated from their regional context.

The geologic, natural, historic, and

prehistoric stories of these places continue

across monument and forest boundaries

and throughout much of northern

Arizona; they can be fully appreciated and

understood only as part of this larger

picture.

Similarly, outdoor recreational

opportunities abound in northern Arizona,

on lands managed by a variety of agencies.

The Flagstaff Area monuments are

managed in accordance with the NPS

mandate “to conserve the scenery and the

natural and historic objects and the

wildlife therein and to provide for the

enjoyment of the same in such manner

and by such means as will leave them

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future

generations.” Concerns about traditional

and proposed visitor experiences and

recreational activities in the parks are

evaluated in this context; it is recognized

that certain activities, such as OHV use,

while inappropriate on NPS lands, are both

appropriate and encouraged elsewhere.

Within a 175 mile radius of Flagstaff are 13 

areas providing for OHV use. These

include over 48,000 acres and 5,000 miles

of OHV accessible area.

As population and development increase

both locally and regionally, demand for

recreational opportunities on public lands

will increase accordingly. NPS

information/education efforts are

designed as part of a cooperative

interagency effort to direct visitors to the

best locations for their desired activities,

whether on NPS, USFS, or other lands.

The public’s ability to experience park

resources is thus closely related to 

availability of resources on nearby nonNPS lands. Interpretation of park resources

as part of a regional system is crucial, but 

not currently being accomplished. In all

three Flagstaff Area monuments, wayside

and museum exhibits are outdated and

inaccurate and fail to emphasize the

desired big picture. A major interpretive

planning effort to replace wayside

interpretive signs along trails and

roadsides and to redo museum exhibits in

the visitor centers is under way, concurrent

with this GMP. The new exhibits will

present a cohesive story, linking the

natural and cultural resources of these

three monuments with NPS, USFS, and

other sites throughout the region. They

will be designed for full accessibility, to

serve visitors with disabilities and/or

different learning styles. And they will

enhance visitors’ ability to see the “real

thing,” using the actual structure, feature,

or artifact whenever possible, or models,

electronic images, virtual tours, or other

means when necessary. Programmatic

accessibility for visitors with vision,

hearing, and mental impairments is being

addressed in the Comprehensive

Interpretive Plan.

92 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The opportunity to present this type of 

interpretive message in a comprehensive

manner is great, since travel patterns of

visitors to the Flagstaff Area monuments

are fairly well defined. Visitor surveys

(1998) indicate that the majority of Sunset

Crater Volcano/Wupatki visitors travel

from south to north along FR545, the 36-

mile scenic road connecting the two parks.

Most (68-70%) are engaged in a longer

trip and are en route to Grand Canyon

National Park and/or points north. Of

Wupatki visitors, 92% also go to Sunset

Crater Volcano and 35% to Walnut

Canyon; for 68% this is part of a longer

trip.

Park

As described in the Purpose and Need

section, Sunset Crater’s purpose is to

“preserve and protect Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument’s geological

formations, features, and resources for

scientific interests and research, and for

public interest including scenic,

educational, and recreational pursuits.”

For many visitors, Sunset Crater Volcano is

largely a drive-through experience, often

in conjunction with a visit to Wupatki

National Monument. A typical visit

includes stops at the visitor center, one or 

two roadside pullouts, and the Lava Flow

Trail. Much of this experience is available

to visitors with mobility impairments.

Spectacular views of the volcano, lava

flow, nearby mountains, and the San

Francisco Peaks are available to all visitors,

and make up a highly significant element

of the visitor experience.

Sunset Crater Volcano, the primary

geological feature, is a prominent

landmark for miles around. The trail to the

top was closed in 1973, owing to highly

visible impacts from heavy use. However,

many visitors still expect to see the

“crater,” and continuing demand for a 

view of this aspect of the primary resource

is unmet within the park. Such a view can

be achieved only from the gravel road up

O’Leary Peak, on USFS lands.

The NPS visitor center is located by

cooperative agreement on USFS land.

Several hands-on interactive exhibits

demonstrate basic geological processes,

and samples of volcanic rock are on

display. A fully functioning seismograph

records worldwide seismic activity and

provides tangible evidence of the dynamic

forces that helped create Sunset Crater

Volcano. A seven-minute video explains

the basics of the eruption and depicts

people living in the area at the time.

Interpretive programs, both talks and

guided walks, are offered as staffing

permits.

The self-guided Lava Flow Trail provides

the primary opportunity to experience the

volcanic environment. This one-mile loop

interprets a variety of geologic features

(a’a and pahoehoe lava flows, spatter

cones, squeeze-ups, lava bubbles, the

mouth of a lava cave, a lava tube, an earth

crack, xenoliths, etc.) and relates the

significance of the volcano to the rest of

the San Francisco Volcanic Field. The slow

progression of plant succession is also

evident on the volcano and lava flow. One

segment of the Lava Flow Trail is paved

and meets accessibility standards. An ice

cave located along the Lava Flow Trail was

open for visitor exploration until the mid1980s, when it was closed because of

resource protection and safety concerns.

Nearby, a steep half-mile hike up Lenox

Crater, an older cinder cone, provides

interpretation of the volcanic terrain

visible below. Other noteworthy

geological features (lava bombs, several

hills that rafted away from Sunset Crater

on the lava flows, caves, and a 1⁄4-mile-long

crack filled with squeeze-ups) are located

in difficult terrain; because of sharp

jumbled lava rock and steep cinder hills,

most visitors do not venture far.

93 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The Sunset Crater experience is

complicated by the fact that not all

resources related to park significance occur

within the boundary. Other features of 

significance to the geology of Sunset

Crater Volcano lie partially or completely

outside park boundaries: 1) Lenox Crater is

a cinder cone much older than Sunset

Crater. 2) The Kana-A lava flow, the first of

the two major lava flows that emanated

from the base of Sunset Crater, is visible

along FR545. 3) The Cinder Hills, near the

monument’s eastern and southern

boundaries, provide geological evidence

for the curtain of fire activity that

culminated in the Sunset Crater Volcano.

They are visible from an overlook along

FR545.

The Cinder Hills are also heavily used by

off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts in

the USFS-managed Cinder Hills OHV Area.

The Forest Service estimates usage by

approximately 30,000 individuals annually.

Affects on geological features and

vegetation are visually evident. The OHV

community is passionate about keeping

this opportunity available and has

expressed willingness to work toward

protection of fragile environments, in

order to keep this special use area open.

Other recreational opportunities, including

hiking, horseback riding, off-road vehicle

use, and camping, are available on nearby

USFS lands. Bonito Campground (USFS

operated) allows for an overnight stay

near the park, and provides the chance to

view night skies and encounter crepuscular

and nocturnal wildlife. Cyclists use FR545

as a training route and for recreational

biking; occasional use of FR545 by

organized auto or motorcycle groups is

permitted.

The general lack of structures and roads

lends an impression of a fairly pristine

environment. However, there are visual

intrusions on the landscape. The road itself

slices through the middle of the lava flow

and onto the flank of the volcano. A 

parking lot, rest room, and ranger kiosk at

the Lava Flow Trail trailhead intrude upon 

the volcanic landscape at the base of the

volcano. Scars from the long-closed trail up 

Sunset Crater remain as a reminder of the

delicacy of this environment. Evidence of

logging, fire suppression, and farming are

also evident within the park viewshed, as 

are mines at the base of the San Francisco

Peaks.

According to recent visitor surveys, visitors

are generally satisfied with their

experience in the park. Most are

incorporating their trip to Sunset Crater

Volcano into a larger travel plan, and the

vast majority are on their way to or from

Wupatki and Grand Canyon National Park.

Many visitors want to explore lava flow

features and to satisfy their curiosity.

Visitors also expressed a desire to view

scenery and to share the park with others

(many visitors are locals who are giving a 

tour to family and/or friends). Frequent

comments by return visitors attest to fond

memories of climbing the volcano.

PARK NEIGHBORS; LOCAL,

STATE, AND TRIBAL LAND

MANAGEMENT PLANS; AND 

LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING

AGENCIES

Impact topics were identified through the

scoping process, and concerns covered by

this section include effects on neighbors’

access and emergency response, economic

contribution of the park to local

economies, access to culturally sensitive

areas by traditional users, traditional land

uses external to park boundaries, and

possible conflicts between the proposed

action and local, state, or Indian tribal land

use plans, policies, or controls.

Region

Sunset Crater Volcano NM is north of the

City of Flagstaff, Arizona. Phoenix, a 

rapidly growing metropolitan complex of

94 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

more than two million people, is 150 miles

south of Flagstaff. Flagstaff, a major

community of northern Arizona, has a 

population of approximately 55,000 and

offers numerous services for the extensive

ranching, lumber, and tourist activities of 

northern Arizona. The area between

Flagstaff and Sunset Crater Volcano and

Walnut Canyon is being subjected to

increasing residential and business

development. The remainder of the region

surrounding the monuments is sparsely

populated, although a private

development (called “Alpine Ranchos”) is

increasing in population northeast of 

Sunset Crater Volcano, leading to

substantial increases in nonpark travel on 

park roads.

Land use in the region varies from the

expanding urban influences of Flagstaff

near Sunset Crater Volcano and Walnut

Canyon to low-intensity grazing at

Wupatki. The Coconino National Forest,

which borders Wupatki on the south and

west, is under multiple-use management.

The primary uses near the monuments are

recreation and grazing.

Information from the U.S. Geological

Survey indicates that some lands in the

vicinity of the monuments are

prospectively valuable for oil and gas,

geothermal steam, and associated

geothermal resources. Because of the lack

of surface indications and drilling data, the

potential for geothermal energy

development and for discovery of oil and

gas in the area is unknown at the present

time. The Coconino National Forest and

adjacent region are currently being

studied by the U.S. Geological Survey and

private corporations for potential

geothermal development. Permits have

been granted by the U.S. Forest Service to 

energy-related firms for research on Forest

Service lands adjacent to the Wupatki

boundary. Based on present information,

there are no additional valuable leasable

minerals. Minerals, including cinder,

pumice, gypsum, miscellaneous clays,

sulfur, and uranium, are reported in the

area surrounding the park, and meteorites

and meteorite diamonds have been

reported in the vicinity. It is unknown to

what extent, if any, these minerals exist at 

commercially valuable levels in the

monument. A cinder quarry operation is

located outside Sunset Crater Volcano,

northwest of the visitor center. The haul

road for this operation crosses the main

park road (FR545) near US89.

Woodcutting, shooting/hunting, and offroad vehicle activities are evident

throughout Forest Service areas adjacent

to the monument. Occasionally, these

activities spill over onto monument

property and present illegal and

incompatible use.

The location of the monument within this

regional complex of public lands is one of 

the most important aspects determining its

visitation pattern, as well as its resource

management problems and programs.

Land management plans exist for some of 

the areas surrounding the monument. This

general management plan will be

compatible with the City Open

Space/Greenway Plan, the County Regional

Plan, the Forest Service Flagstaff Lake

Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA), the Forest

Management Plan, and with the land and

resource management plans of Babbitt

Ranches, now called the Coconino Plateau

Natural Reserve Lands. The Ranch has

entered into an agreement with the

Navajo and Hopi Tribes to manage their

lands professionally with respect to the

environment and resources conservation.

The 1995 “Hopit Potskwaniat,” Hopi Tribe

Consolidated Strategic Plan, presents the

goals of the Hopi Tribe to initiate sound

planning for the development of tribal

land and resources for the benefit of the

Hopi People. The plan specifically

addresses preservation of the Hopi way of 

life and the protection of sacred places

and subsistence gathering areas.

95 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

There is no public transportation to any of 

the three Flagstaff Area monuments.

Sightseeing bus tours are operated by 

Nava-Hopi Tours, Grayline Tours, and

smaller commercial companies throughout

the year.

US89, a major north-south route through

Arizona and Utah, and I-40 provide access

to the parks from Flagstaff, which is served

by Amtrak rail service, bus service,

commercial airlines, and private vehicles

via I-40 and I-17.

Park

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

is entirely surrounded by Coconino

National Forest. The NPS visitor center and

administrative, housing, and maintenance

facilities are situated on Forest Service

lands through a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU). Also through the

MOU, NPS has responsibility for

maintenance of FR545, the all-weather

road serving Sunset Crater and Wupatki

National Monuments, and for providing

visitor protection and response to traffic

incidents. Although both monuments are

closed at night, FR545 is open at all times,

except immediately following heavy snows

or other emergency conditions.

Various park neighbors, including

residents of Alpine Ranchos (a small

community primarily northeast of the

monument), the Navajo Reservation, and

Chambers, as well as ranch employees of 

the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve

Lands, use FR545 for commuting to and

from Flagstaff to the south and other

points to the north. This route is also used

by many off-highway vehicle users to

reach the USFS Cinder Hills OHV Area.

Although several miles distant, the

residents of Alpine Ranchos identify with

the monument and its services, often

stopping at the visitor center to request

assistance from law enforcement rangers,

to report crimes, and so on. Residents of 

reservation communities and Alpine

Ranchos have expressed some concerns

over any plans to terminate roads in the

park, particularly as to effects on their

quality of life, increased commuting time,

and access to conveniences such as gas,

phone, mail, and groceries. In addition,

residents of communities in Doney Park

(including Black Bill, Timberline, Doney

Park, and Pioneer Valley) and adjacent

areas have expressed some concerns over

any plans to route additional traffic via

FR776 or FR414, particularly as to effects

on their quality of life, increased traffic,

congestion, and noise.

Ten affiliated tribes have identified

traditional relationships and/or cultural

properties within park boundaries and

have concerns about public access to sites;

some groups need access to restricted use

areas for plant gathering and traditional

activities. Consultation with these tribes is

routine and ongoing.

The NPS and USFS enjoy a cooperative

relationship in regard to visitor

information services. The two agencies

have jointly planned exhibits for the visitor

center and wayside exhibits along the park

road, and share in a joint agency effort

that offers interpretive programs at both

NPS and USFS facilities. These include

Bonito Campground, located across the

road from the NPS visitor center.

The park has trained and commissioned

law enforcement rangers and employees

certified in emergency medical response

and is usually the initial contact in an

emergency. Calls for assistance to Bonito

Campground and the Cinder Hills OHV

Area are common. Off-hours response is,

however, minimal. Cooperative law

enforcement is performed through

existing written agreements with the

Coconino National Forest and the

Coconino County Sheriff’s Office. All

commissioned park rangers are special

deputies of the County Sheriff’s Office.

Cooperative agreements in fire, facility

maintenance, and resources management

96 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

also result in NPS personnel taking action

on USFS lands.

The National Park Service money

generation model is a formula used to

estimate the benefits attributed to the

local economy resulting from the number

of visitors to national park areas. The

estimates of those contributions to the

greater Flagstaff economy from Sunset

Crater Volcano NM include tax revenue of 

$180,963 and a total spending revenue of

$2,585,188 (based on the latest

calculations from 1996).

The area is of great interest to various

agencies involved in research, including

the U.S. Geological Survey, Northern

Arizona University, and others who,

although they do not own or administer

any lands, will have an interest in 

management decisions affecting the

resources of the areas.

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Operational efficiency refers to adequacy

of the staffing levels and the quality and

effectiveness of the infrastructure used in

the operation of the park in order to

adequately protect and preserve vital park

resources and provide for an effective

visitor experience. Also identified through

the scoping process were concerns about

employee and visitor health and safety

and management of collections and other

resources.

Roads and Trails

Access to Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument is primarily via US89 and

FR545. US89, the primary route serving

northern Arizona, the Four Corners area,

Grand Canyon National Park, Glen Canyon

National Recreation Area, and many of the

major national parks in southern Utah and

southwestern Colorado, is being modified

into a high-speed, four-lane divided

highway. US89 is also a major commuter

route for residents living on the Navajo

and Hopi Reservations and local Flagstaff

residents who are employed in many of 

the smaller towns on the reservation.

Because of the high speeds allowed on 

US89, visitors and employees are exposed

to dangerous situations when entering

and exiting the park on FR545. Traffic is

controlled by a single stop sign on the

FR545 side of the intersection.

The park entrance road, FR545, is a simple

loop 2-way asphalt paved roadway. The

overall condition of FR545 is fair to poor,

with large sections of thermal,

longitudinal, transverse, and block

cracking. In many locations, the shoulders

are too narrow and raveling. The road

currently does not meet NPS standards.

Accidents, although infrequent, are

sometimes serious. Shoulder drop-offs

could contribute to the severity of vehicle

accidents. One hazardous section is just

beyond the east boundary of Sunset

Crater, extending for approximately seven

miles east. The section is moderately steep

and narrow with S-shaped curves. A 

number of recorded accidents have

occurred at this location. Most are the

result of excessive speed and failure to 

negotiate the road’s sharp curves. The

distance from medical response other than

NPS exacerbates this issue, although local

care providers are generally responsive to

NPS needs.

The NPS currently has the primary

responsibility for the maintenance of

FR545; however, funding deficits

significantly limit the nature and

frequency of maintenance activities.

Additional responsibilities include plowing

the roadway during the winter months.

Significant snowfall occurs at Sunset

Crater, and the resultant icy conditions can

cause serious road hazards.

A number of forest roads provide access

around the park. Most are used by 

hunters, woodcutters, off-highway vehicle

users, other recreationalists, and other

97 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

users wanting to gain access to the Forest.

FR545e is the only exception. This road is

used predominately by “haul trucks”

removing cinders and other material from

mines in the area east of O’Leary Peak. 

These large trucks mix with visitor traffic.

Although no accidents involving visitors

and haul trucks are known to have

occurred, the potential exists.

FR776, the primary entrance to the Forest

Service Cinder Hills Off-Highway Vehicle

Recreation Area, begins at US89 three

miles south of the park and terminates at

FR545 east of the monument.

FR414 provides access to the southwest

corner of the park, where it is closed at the

park boundary. A branch of FR414

connects with FR545 east of the

monument entrance station. FR546

provides access to forest lands to the north

and east of O’Leary Peak. FR545a ends at 

the top of O’Leary Peak. It begins west of

the monument entrance station, skirts the

west boundary of the park and actually

crosses a segment of the northwest corner.

Because of staffing limitations, use of 

FR545 is not regulated except when the

entrance station is in operation during the

peak visitor season (May-September).

Entrance fees for both Sunset Crater

Volcano and Wupatki are collected at this

location. The fee collection operation is

moved into the visitor center during other

months, resulting in the loss of visitororientation opportunities and significant

losses of fee revenues because of drive-bys.

Fees are not collected from commuters

and forest users en route to forest lands

beyond the park.

There is no ability to close the road

through the park. Parking lots at points of 

interest are not gated, although park

policy encourages daylight use only. This

makes protection of park resources

difficult. This situation has resulted in 

increased demands on funding and

staffing (for road maintenance, housing to

accommodate residential law enforcement

and maintenance staff, 24-hour response,

etc.). Encroachment into closed areas

along the east and south boundaries of 

the park by OHV enthusiasts occurs several

times a year.

Bonito Park wayside, located 3⁄4 of a mile

west of the visitor center, provides an

excellent view of the San Francisco Peaks,

Bonito Park, and Sunset Crater Volcano.

The parking area for Lenox Crater is one

mile east of the visitor center, on the north

side of FR544. The 1⁄2-mile Lenox Trail starts

on the south side of the highway and

climbs to the top of Lenox Crater. The trail

offers an opportunity to climb up a cinder

cone and view the inside of a crater; the

top of the crater provides a spectacular

view of the San Francisco Peaks.

The Lava Flow Trail is 1.5 miles from the

visitor center. The trailhead includes a 

large parking lot with picnic tables and

rest room facilities. It is the most heavily

used trail in the park. The one-mile loop

trail skirts the base of the volcano and

loops through the associated lava field,

providing spectacular views of the

associated geologic features and the

Bonito Lava Flow. The trail also offers a 

number of overlooks that provide views of 

many of the geologic features in the area

The Cinder Hills Overlook is at the

northeast boundary of the park, at the

end of a short spur road. It provides an

excellent view of the geological features

specifically associated with the eruption of

Sunset Crater Volcano.

Painted Desert Vista, eight miles east of

the visitor center, contains a picnic area

and provides excellent views of the

Painted Desert.

Limited visitor interpretation is presented

through evening programs at Bonito

Campground, which is located on USFS

land and operated by a concessionaire

contracted by the Forest Service. The NPS

98 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

has cooperative agreements to provide

interpretive information.

There are no gas, food services, camping,

or concession operations in the park, but 

most of these services can be found in

Flagstaff, approximately 20 minutes away.

The visitor center does contain a bookstore

operated by the Southwest Parks and

Monuments Association.

Generally, high summer temperatures pose

the most significant threat to visitors. In

addition, summer afternoon

thunderstorms expose visitors to a high

rate of lightning strikes and the potential

for flooding. Winter storm conditions,

including blowing and drifting snow, icy

and snow packed roads, freezing

temperatures, and extreme wind chill, can

pose significant problems to visitors.

Visitors are exposed to uneven terrain on

the Lenox Crater and Lava Flow Trails.

Footing on and around the volcanic

formations can be treacherous, and falls

on volcanic material can result in serious

cuts. Poisonous insects and reptiles are

common, although interactions with

humans are infrequent.

Facilities

The visitor center, entrance station, and

associated maintenance and housing areas

are all located on USFS lands and are

operated under a memorandum of

understanding with USFS. The visitor

center/maintenance complex, vintage

Mission 66 construction, is directly south of

FR545, approximately 1⁄2 mile west of the

monument. The facility contains a small

museum and book-selling area, attached

offices, and rest rooms. The small area

available for employee workspace and

interpretation in the visitor center

contributes to a feeling of disorder and

crowding.

The Sunset Crater maintenance facility

serves as the central office for the

maintenance functions for the three

Flagstaff Area parks. Maintenance facilities

are attached to the south side of the

visitor center and include a small

maintenance office, a one-bay garage, and

an open area for the storage of vehicles

and small equipment. Routine tasks such

as vehicle service and repairs, working on 

snowplows, and so on, must be conducted

outside in adverse weather conditions. The

entire facility is considered inadequate. A 

new facility is needed to address the

overall needs for equipment parking,

supplies and materials storage, and office

and workspace.

The residential area consists of one singlefamily residence, three mobile homes, and

two apartments. Housing is inadequate to 

park needs and is of substandard quality.

Trailer pads are located nearby. Three

employees are required to live in the park

and provide minimal coverage for afterhours protection and emergencies.

The maintenance storage area is south of 

the visitor center complex and impacts a 

cultural resource on Forest Service land.

Bonito Campground, a large developed

campground managed by the Forest

Service, is directly across from the visitor

center on FR545.

Utilities

The monument uses a combination of 

park-owned/operated and municipal

utilities. Electrical service is provided by

the Arizona Public Service Company.

Water is provided by the Doney Park

Water Company but is stored in an

elevated tank owned and maintained by

NPS. The wastewater (sewer) system is

NPS-owned and -maintained. Telephone

service is provided by U.S. West and AT&T,

although the monument owns its own

phone system. The park frequently

experiences utility (electrical and phone

service) outages, particularly during the

summer monsoon season. This situation

significantly impacts the park’s ability to

conduct business on a day-to-day basis, to

99 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

use the Internet, and to connect with the

outside world via computer, and it

seriously impacts the staff’s quality of life.

Cell phone coverage in the park is

extremely poor.

The park is connected to the other

Flagstaff Area monuments and the

headquarters office via radio. The repeater

for the radio is located on O’Leary Peak 

adjacent to Sunset Crater Volcano and is

subject to lightning damage.

The monument provides removal of solid

waste to the county landfill.

Staffing

A central headquarters, located in

Flagstaff, provides administrative services

for the three monuments and is the office

location for the superintendent and the

division heads for administration, resource

management, ranger activities and fee

collection, maintenance, and the

cooperating association (Southwest Parks

and Monuments Association). The facility

also serves as a visitor information center

for the three Flagstaff Area monuments as

well as for other parks and points of 

interest in northern Arizona.

Resources management activities are

accomplished by headquarters-based staff.

The resource management staff and park

law enforcement staff have implemented

a resource monitoring and patrol program.

Resource management staff conducts

limited research; however, the majority of

the research is done by various agencies

and institutions and selected and qualified

interested individuals.

Interpretive and law enforcement staffing

is concentrated at the visitor center, and

visitors services are provided primarily

from that location. Because of the need to 

operate both an information desk and fee

collection station, it is often difficult to

provide staff at desired levels for patrols

and interpretive programs.

Maintenance for the three monuments

tends to be concentrated in this area as

well, with Sunset Crater employees

traveling to Walnut Canyon and Wupatki

as needed for projects beyond those parks’

capabilities. One maintenance employee is 

a required occupant at Sunset Crater

Volcano. There is minimal staff to provide

the necessary janitorial services.

The majority of museum collections

(approximately 50,000 objects, including

historic photographs, site files, archives,

natural history specimens, and

archeological, ethnographic, and historical

items) for the Flagstaff Area National

Monuments have been relocated to

Wupatki, due to limited storage space and

protection at Walnut Canyon and Sunset

Crater Volcano. The storage environment

at Wupatki is also poor, although it does

provide a more secure location for the

bulk of the collection.

All unprocessed collections, the rare book 

collection, the research library, and

computer support are housed at the

Flagstaff Area National Monuments

headquarters office

Employee health and safety issues include

potential exposure to hantavirus and other

diseases caused by rodent infestations in

government quarters and workspaces.

Efforts to mitigate the presence of the

rodents are ongoing, but mice and other

rodents often get into buildings. During

the winter months staff members are

exposed to potentially dangerous driving

conditions if they need to conduct business

at the other Flagstaff area parks or

headquarters during inclement weather.

100 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

METHODOLOGY

All alternatives were evaluated for their

effects on the resources and values

determined during the scoping process,

and impact topics were developed. For

each impact topic, impacts are defined in

terms of context, intensity, duration, and

timing. Direct, indirect, and cumulative

effects are discussed in each impact topic.

Definitions of intensity levels varied by

impact topic, but, for all impact topics, the

following definitions were applied.

Beneficial: A positive change in the

condition or appearance of the resource or 

a change that moves the resource toward

a desired condition.

Adverse: A change that moves the

resource away from a desired condition or 

detracts from its appearance or condition.

Direct: An effect that is caused by an 

action and occurs in the same time and

place.

Indirect: An effect that is caused by an

action but is later in time or farther

removed in distance, but is still reasonably

foreseeable.

Short-term: An effect that within a short

period of time (generally one or two years

but no more than five years) would no

longer be detectable as the resource

returns to its predisturbance condition or 

appearance; generally less than 5 years.

Long-term: A change in a resource or its

condition that does not return to

predisturbance condition or appearance

and for all practical purposes is considered

permanent.

All alternatives were also evaluated based

on external factors, which, together with

the actions of each NPS alternative, could

have cumulative impacts. In order to

determine cumulative impacts, a 

cumulative scenario was developed. That

scenario included the following actions:

On Forest Service lands, there will besome

reduction in roads. Monitoring of impacts

will continue, and existing activities will

continue unless monitoring shows resource

damage or other problems. “’”Increased

growth of Flagstaff could mean more

visits/demands for use of parks. Flagstaff is

marketing the parks as part of their plan

to attract more visitors. There are also

increased tribal requests for use of

renewable/nonrenewable resources.

The development of Roden Crater (near

Alpine Ranchos) may increase traffic.

Subdivision of lots in Alpine Ranchos may

increase the population of the area.

US89 from Flagstaff to Wupatki’s south

boundary (and eventually north to Page)

will be 4-lane.

Expansion of utility lines is proposed from

Glen Canyon to the southwestern part of

the Navajo Reservation.

There is a possibility that old pumice mines

may be reactivated north of the

monument.

Changes at Grand Canyon National Park

could have implications for all three parks.

The transportation plan restricts visitor use

at the east entrance (visitors are no longer

allowed to stop, just drive through). This

could mean that visitors arriving in

Flagstaff after visiting Grand Canyon may

have more time to spend at

Wupatki/Sunset Crater. There may also be

increased use by Grand Canyon visitors

who want the drive-through experience

they can no longer get at Grand Canyon.

However, there may be a decrease in the

101 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

number of visitors, but more demand for

things to do by those who do come.

The monument anticipates more requests

for individual business permits for various

services (guides, horseback rides, etc.).

Our ability to manage wildlife may be

influenced by Arizona Game and Fish

Department objectives. There will be

increased ecosystem research (long-term

monitoring).

Past activities like trail access to Sunset

Crater and pothunting continue to have

effects.

The use of off-road highway vehicles will

continue to have effects on USFS land

adjacent to the monument and occasional

incidents of vehicle trespass within

monument boundaries are likely to

continue’Use of the USFS campground will

continue to affect the park.

LONG-TERM AND SCIENTIFIC

INTEGRITY OF

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Methodology

The National Historic Preservation Act

requires agencies to take into account the

effects of their actions on properties listed

or eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places. The process

begins with an identification and

evaluation of cultural resources for

National Register eligibility, followed by

an assessment of effect on those eligible

resources, and concluding after a 

consultation process. If an action

(undertaking) could change in any way the

characteristics that qualify the resource for

inclusion on the National Register, it is

considered to have an effect. No adverse

effect means there could be an effect, but

the effect would not be harmful to those

characteristics that qualify the resource for

inclusion on the National Register. Adverse

effect means the effect could diminish the

integrity of the characteristics that qualify

the resource for the National Register.

In order to analyze the effects of the GMP

alternatives on archeological resources, all

available information on known

archeological sites in the vicinity of Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument was

compiled (Downum and Gumerman 1998).

Map locations of archeological sites were

compared with locations of proposed

developments, proposed modifications to

existing facilities, and proposed land uses.

Predictions about short- and long-term

impacts to archeological sites from

visitation were based on previous studies

of visitor impacts to archeological sites

(Cinnamon n.d.; Coder et al. 1995a, 1995b;

Downum et al. 1996; Fawcett 1993; Gale

1985; Green and LaBlanc 1979; Lightfoot

and Francis 1978; Moore 1994; Nickens

1991; Nielsen 1991; U.S. General

Accounting Office 1987; Wildesen 1982; 

Wood and Johnson 1978) and on recent

monitoring data from the Flagstaff Area

National Monuments (Fairley 1998;

Johnson 1999; O’Hara and Johnson 1997).

Sociological studies comparing the

deterrent effects of signs vs. ranger

presence on sites were also considered in

this analysis (Clark 1976; Johnson and

Vande Kamp 1996; Johnson et al. 1994;

Swearingen and Johnson 1994; Vande

Kamp et al. 1994;).

Archeological sites are continually

deteriorating, due primarily to the effects

of weather and gravity. Left alone, sites

will inevitably degrade over time. Impacts

from human visitation and use contribute

to the effects of natural agents of

deterioration, and they can substantially

increase the rate of site deterioration. In

general, it is not possible to control the

deterioration caused by natural elements.

In contrast, it is possible to control the

effects of human impacts through careful

planning of activities and new

developments, by educating visitors and

park staff, and by limiting or directing

102 
LONG-TERM AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

locations of human activity in and around

archeological sites.

If we exclude impacts caused by deliberate

vandalism or artifact collection, most

impacts resulting from visitor use are

relatively minor when considered on an

individual basis. However, for the purposes

of this plan, it is necessary to consider the

cumulative effects caused by hundreds or 

thousands of visitors at a given location

over the life of this plan. Thus, for

example, while a single guided tour to an

archeological site may have a negligible

effect on site integrity, the cumulative

impact of hundreds of visitors over 10-15

years at dozens of sites can be substantial.

In the following section, impacts are

analyzed for each alternative based on the

numbers of sites that would be affected in

conjunction with the cumulative effects of

various types of activities over the life of

the plan.

For the purposes of this analysis, levels of

impact to archeological resources were

defined as follows:

Negligible: The impact on archeological

sites is at the lowest levels of detection,

barely perceptible and not measurable.

Minor: The impact on archeological sites is 

measurable or perceptible, but it is slight

and localized within a relatively small area

of a site or group of sites. The impact does

not affect the character defining features

of a National Register of Historic Places

eligible or listed archeological site and

would not have a permanent effect on the

integrity of any archeological sites.

Moderate: The impact is measurable and

perceptible. The impact changes one or 

more character defining feature (s) of an

archeological resource but does not 

diminish the integrity of the resource to 

the extent that its National Register

eligibility is jeopardized.

Major: The impact on archeological sites is 

substantial, noticeable, and permanent.

The impact is severe or of exceptional

benefit. For a National Register eligible or

listed archeological sites, the impact

changes a character defining features (s)

of an archeological resource, diminishing

the integrity of the resource to the extent

that it is no longer eligible for listing in

the National Register.

Effects of the No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The No-Action Alternative would involve

no new construction, no additional trail

developments, and no road realignments.

FR545 would remain open to two-way

traffic 24 hours a day.

The continuing use of the existing visitor

center, roads and trails would directly and

indirectly affect a few archeological

resources located in the immediate vicinity

of these existing facilities. Archeological

resources adjacent to or easily accessible

from public access areas would continue to

be vulnerable to surface disturbance,

inadvertent damage, and vandalism. Loss

of surface archeological materials,

alteration of artifact distribution, and a 

reduction of contextual evidence would

result. Impacts to archeological sites from

inappropriate visitor activities (artifact

collection, graffiti, etc.) would continue to

be a moderate long-term adverse effect.

The impacts are considered to be

moderate because few archeological sites

are known to be located in or near the

currently designated visitor-use areas.

These adverse impacts would be offset

somewhat by the fact that no sites would

be adversely impacted by new trail

developments or other new infrastructure

improvements.

An upgrade/updating of interpretive

media could improve long-term integrity

of archeological resources through

improving education of visitors about the

103 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

significance and fragility of archeological

resources and providing information on

the various means of reducing visitor

impacts to park resources. The effect of

improved visitor education would be 

moderately beneficial.

Construction of a new maintenance facility

and a curatorial facility in the

administrative area would have a longterm moderate adverse effect on

archeological resources. The impact is 

considered moderate because only one

archeological site would be indirectly

impacted by these developments;

however, this site would be severely

impacted over the long-term due to the

proximity and inevitable enlargement of

activity areas surrounding the new facility.

These impacts would be partially mitigated

through conducting a program of 

archeological data recovery.

Bonito Campground would remain in its

present location and be expanded under

the No-Action Alternative. Visitors using

the campground and picnic areas would

continue to compact soils in the vicinity

and would remove surface artifacts from

nearby sites. A loss of the surface

archeological materials, alteration of

artifact distribution, and a reduction of 

contextual evidence would result. Some of

these impacts could be mitigated through

rehabilitating social trails, and/or

systematically collecting surface artifacts

for long-term curation; however, over the

long-term, these management actions

would have a moderate adverse effect on 

archeological site integrity.

Closure and gating of the O’Leary Peak 

Road may have a minor adverse effect on 

archeological sites located in proximity to

the road, as visitors moving at a more

leisurely pace while hiking on the road

would have a greater opportunity to

observe and collect artifacts associated

with these sites.

The current backcountry closure policy

restricting visitor access to currently

designated front country areas and

requiring the issuance of permits for

researchers and educational groups who

have a special need to enter backcountry

areas would remain in effect under the

No-Action Alternative. In theory the

closure should have a major beneficial

effect on archeological resources by 

substantially reducing impacts from

unguided visitation, such as collection of 

artifacts, destabilization of walls, soil

compaction, social trailing, vandalism, and

so on, thereby reducing the need for

future impact mitigation. However,

current operational requirements and

staffing limits do not provide sufficient

support staff to actively patrol and enforce

the closure, and the inability to close the

park at night further hinders enforcement

of the closure. Hence, some impacts to

backcountry resources are likely to 

continue under the No-Action Alternative.

Resources in these areas would continue to

be vulnerable to both inadvertent

disturbance and deliberate and illicit

disturbance in the form of digging and

collecting of archeological materials.

The boundaries of the monument would

remain unchanged under the No-Action

Alternative. Many archeological resources

that are indirectly related to the purpose

and significance of Sunset Crater Volcano

would remain outside monument

boundaries, where they may be subject to

impacts from multiple uses (mining,

grazing, fuel wood harvesting, OHV

impacts, etc.) that cause soil disturbance

and/or compaction.

The exclusion of these resources from the

park could have a moderate adverse effect

on their long-term and scientific integrity,

due to continued soil disturbance resulting

from multiple uses over the long term. The

effect is considered minor, however,

because archeological site densities in the

designated OHV area are relatively low

104 
LONG-TERM AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

compared with some other nearby areas,

and not all sites located in the OHV area

are subject to impacts from OHV activities.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Past management strategies have allowed

unlimited visitor access to virtually all areas

of the monument. Recently, the

backcountry areas of Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument were

formally closed to unguided entry because

of concerns over impacts to geological

features, sensitive habitats, and traditional

cultural sites.

The continuing growth of Flagstaff and

ongoing efforts by the Flagstaff Chamber

of Commerce to advertise the Flagstaff

Area National Monuments as local tourist

attractions could result in increased

impacts to the monument’s archeological

resources as well as to archeological sites

in the immediate vicinity. These impacts

would primarily result from increased

recreational impacts (e.g., incidental

artifact collection, inadvertent

destabilization of walls, social trailing,

etc.), although impacts from vandalism

and illegal excavations would likely

increase as well. Continued growth in

Flagstaff is also likely to result in

significant development of private lands

near the monument, which in turn is likely

to result in increased unauthorized

visitation to backcountry areas of the

monument. Rural residential growth

would also increase impacts to

archeological resources on neighboring

Forest Service lands.

Within the Flagstaff region generally,

construction of new roads, housing

subdivisions, mines, and other

developments would continue to cause

destruction of individual archeological

sites. As the population of Flagstaff grows,

recreational demands on USFS lands and

resources would continue to increase,

resulting in the potential for additional

degradation of archeological sites. As

archeological sites are degraded and

destroyed outside the monument, the

relative rarity and importance of the

archeological resources within the

monument would increase.

Some Forest Service policies could have an

adverse impact on the long-term integrity

of archeological resources within and

south of the monument. Continuation of 

the OHV area would continue to adversely

affect any archeological remains located in 

that area because of compaction and

erosion of soils, removal of stabilizing

vegetation, and camping-related impacts.

The Forest Service has indicated that it

might institute a recreational impactmonitoring program on lands south of 

Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument; however, monitoring by itself

will not mitigate the effects of

recreational impacts on archeological

resources. Currently, there are no plans to 

explicitly link monitoring results to specific

management actions, so incremental

degradation of archeological resources

because of recreational impacts is likely to

continue. On the other hand, proposed

road closures on Forest Service lands

adjacent to the park would have a longterm, moderate beneficial effect on

archeological resources outside the park

boundaries by reducing ease of access to

sites and the concomitant impacts from

vehicular soil compaction and erosion,

artifact collecting, and camping on sites

located close to the roads.

CONCLUSION

There would be no major impacts to

archeological resources under the NoAction Alternative. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be other, less

severe effects as a result of implementing

this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

105 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impacts from installation of new waysides,

upgrading of interpretive exhibits,

expansion of Bonito Campground,

construction of the maintenance and

curatorial facilities in the administrative

area, closure of the O’Leary Peak Road to

vehicles, upgrading of facilities to improve

accessibility and safety, and closure of the

backcountry areas of Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument to unguided

entry would be the same as those

identified for the No-Action Alternative.

The Bonito Park area is known to contain

high densities of archeological sites, based

on partial inventories of the surrounding

area. Although the exact number of sites

that would be affected by proposed

construction of a new visitor center and

development of a new Extended Learning

Zone and associated facilities is unknown,

a conservative estimate is that at least a 

dozen archeological sites would be 

impacted or completely destroyed by the

construction of a new visitor center, trail

system, and parking area adjacent to

Bonito Park. Although the loss of resources

could be partially mitigated through

excavation and curation, the long-term

effect would be permanent destruction,

and, hence, it would be considered a 

major adverse effect.

The adverse impacts of constructing a new

visitor center would be offset somewhat

by the fact that the relocation of the

visitor center to US89 would help to 

ensure that most visitors would be

adequately informed about the

significance and fragility of resources both

within and outside the monument and

would be educated about means of 

minimizing impacts from visitation before

they encounter resources. Thus, the

relocation could have a minor to

moderately beneficial effect on the longterm and scientific integrity of

archeological resources. Conversion of the

existing visitor center to an education

center would not affect long-term and

scientific integrity of archeological

resources directly, although there could be 

minor beneficial indirect impacts by 

improving opportunities for in-depth

education of the public on resource issues

and protection measures.

Development of a new trail between

Bonito Campground and the Lava Flow

Trail would impact one archeological site.

The impact would be moderately adverse.

The impact to this site would be partially

mitigated through a program of 

photographic documentation.

The addition of a new Extended Learning

Zone near US89 and the expansion of the

existing Extended Learning Zone near the

Lava Flow Trail would lead to increased

impacts to archeological resources in

proximity to those areas. With

development of an interpretive trail and

visitor center near Bonito Park, sites in this

area would be subjected to increased

impacts from visitation in the form of

artifact collection, soil compaction, social

trailing, and increased erosion. These

impacts would be generally minor and

incremental, but cumulatively they would

be moderately adverse.

Under Alternative 1, the new visitor center

and associated Extended Learning Zone

and the hiking trail up O’Leary Peak would

be jointly managed with USFS. Joint

management would have a moderately

beneficial effect on cultural resources

106 
LONG-TERM AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

outside the monument by increasing USFS

presence and involvement in the

management and interpretation of these

areas. Increased USFS involvement in the

management of archeological resources

would result in more direct protection of 

these resources.

Minor boundary adjustments would have a 

beneficial effect on any cultural resources

within proposed park additions by 

protecting them from recreational

damage. Because of the relatively small

area involved and the very limited

likelihood of encountering archeological

resources in these areas, however, the

beneficial effect would be minor.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects would be the same as

under the No-Action Alternative, with the

following exceptions:

Past management strategies have allowed

visitor access to virtually all areas of the

monument. Recently, the backcountry

areas of Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument were closed to unguided entry

because of concerns over impacts to

geological features, sensitive habitats, and

traditional cultural sites. Implementation

of Alternative 1 would continue this policy

within most of the monument boundary,

although there would be an expansion of 

the lava flow Extended Learning Zone and

the addition of a new hiking trail.

Outside of current monument boundaries,

the development of a new visitor center,

trails, and parking area in the vicinity of 

Bonito Park would have a major adverse

effect on archeological resources in that

area, both as a result of the construction

activities themselves and from the

associated visitor uses that would follow.

Although individual impacts from

visitation would be mostly minor and

incremental, the cumulative effects of

changing visitor use patterns proposed

under this alternative would be 

moderately adverse to the long-term

integrity of the archeological resources

located around Bonito Park. This is

because a significant number of sites

would gradually be degraded by incidental

artifact collection, destabilization of walls,

trampling of cultural deposits, and social

trailing. Stabilization of these sites in order

to withstand continuing visitor impacts

would eventually be necessary.

Cumulatively, the effects of Alternative 1 

on long-term integrity of archeological

resources would be major and adverse.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to existing conditions,

Alternative 1 would have a major, adverse

effect on a relatively small but

concentrated number of archeological

resources located near the new visitor

center and Extended Learning Zone.

Although the exact number of 

archeological resources that would be 

affected by this alternative is unknown

(because an intensive archeological

inventory has not been completed and

specific locations for new facilities have

not been decided), a larger number of 

resources would be impacted in

Alternative 1 than under existing

conditions. The adverse impacts would be 

offset to some degree by the benefits of

an increased USFS presence and increased

opportunities to orient and educate

visitors before they encounter sensitive

resources. The net effect, however, would

be major and adverse for the long-term

integrity of specific archeological

resources. In addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe effects as

a result of implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

107 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of park

resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 2:

Emphasize Quiet Natural

Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impacts from installation of new waysides,

upgrading of interpretive exhibits,

expansion of Bonito Campground,

construction of the maintenance and

curatorial facilities in the administrative

area, closure of the O’Leary Road to

vehicles, upgrading of facilities to improve

accessibility and safety, and closure of the

backcountry areas of SUCR to unguided

entry are the same as those identified for

the No-Action Alternative. However, under

this alternative, Bonito Campground and

the new maintenance and curatorial

facility would be removed, resulting in 

additional effects.

The park would be closed at night and

gated at the new visitor center. Access

from US89 via FR545 would be eliminated,

as would access from the Cinder Hills

Overlook westward. Closure of the park at

night would probably have a minor

benefit on the long-term and scientific

integrity of cultural resources by limiting

after-hours access to sites in the park.

The visitor center and

administrative/maintenance facilities

would be relocated to an undeveloped

area south of the monument along FR776.

The relocation of the visitor center to a 

new park entrance would theoretically

have a beneficial effect on preserving the

long-term/scientific integrity of 

archeological resources, by ensuring that

most visitors are adequately informed

about the significance and fragility of

resources within the monument and are

educated about means of minimizing

impacts from visitation before they

interact with the resources.

An unknown number of archeological sites

would be impacted and/or destroyed as

the result of constructing new facilities

under Alternative 2, based on an

incomplete inventory of archeological sites

within and outside the current monument

boundaries. Although precise numbers are

unknown at this time, probably

considerably fewer sites would be

impacted from construction under

Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1, but 

more would be impacted relative to

existing conditions. However, this is

dependent on final siting of the new

visitor center, roads, campground, trails,

and associated facilities. We know that at

least one site would be impacted by 

proposed development of a new parking

area at the base of the O’Leary Peak Trail.

The loss of resources could be partially

mitigated through excavation and

curation.

Under Alternative 2, the new visitor center

and associated campground and the

hiking trail up O’Leary Peak would be

jointly managed. Joint management

would probably have a beneficial affect on 

cultural resources outside monument

boundaries by increasing USFS presence

and involvement in the management and

interpretation of these areas.

Alternative 2 would involve removal of the

existing visitor center, existing

campground, park housing and

maintenance areas, plus removal of a 

section of FR545 north and west of Bonito

Park and another section north of Sunset

Crater to the Cinder Hills Overlook. These

areas would be rehabilitated. Removal and

rehabilitation of facilities around and

including the current visitor center would

serve as a major benefit to preserving the

long-term and scientific integrity of nearby

archeological sites (especially sites located

in the current maintenance storage area).

108 
LONG-TERM AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Also the lands north of FR776 would

require some rehabilitation to mitigate

effects of past OHV use. At least two

known archeological sites adjacent to the

western section of FR545 and three sites

near the visitor center could potentially be 

impacted by proposed rehabilitation

activities and would require monitoring

and /or mitigation. Rehabilitation of these

areas would have a moderate beneficial

effect on the long-term integrity of a few

archeological resources.

Closure of the road east of the Lava Flow

Trail and conversion to a trail would not 

benefit archeological resources, because

this conversion would result in increased

pedestrian access to areas that currently

receive very little visitation owing to a lack

of pullouts along that section of the road.

However, no archeological sites have been

located within a previously inventoried

100-meter-wide corridor along this section

of the road and hence, the effect would

be negligible.

Alternative 2 would add a hiking trail

around Bonito Park, and it would greatly

expand extended learning opportunities

between Lenox Crater and Sunset Crater.

These areas currently receive relatively

little visitation. The areas around Bonito

Park and along the western edge of the

Bonito Lava Flow are known to contain

high concentrations of archeological sites,

based on incomplete inventories of these

areas. These sites would be subjected to

increased impacts from visitation in the

form of illegal artifact collection, soil

compaction, social trailing and erosion,

and inappropriate activities (digging,

leaving New Age offerings, etc.) and

ultimately might result in the need for

mitigative actions. Most impacts from

visitation would be individually minor and

incremental, but the cumulative result

would be moderately adverse.

Alternative 2 would involve significant

expansion of current monument

boundaries to include areas around Bonito

Park, west of FR776, and minor additions

on the east and north boundaries. In

theory, boundary adjustments would have

a beneficial effect on any archeological

resources within the proposed park

additions by proactively protecting them

from recreational damage other impacts

such as timber cutting. These benefits

would be offset somewhat by increased

visitation impacts to some sites in the

expanded monument; however, the

majority of sites would receive increased

protection and reduced impacts as a result

of boundary expansion. Overall, the

boundary expansion would be a moderate

benefit to archeological resources.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects would be the same as

under the No-Action Alternative, with the

following exceptions:

Past management strategies have allowed

visitor access to virtually all areas of the

monument. Recently, the backcountry

areas of Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument were closed to unguided entry

because of concerns over impacts to

geological features, sensitive habitats, and

traditional cultural sites. Implementation

of Alternative 2 would continue this policy

within most of the monument boundary,

although there would be an expansion of 

the Lava Flow Extended Learning Zone.

The expansion of the Lava Flow Extended

Learning Zone is not likely to have any

effect on archeological resources, as only

one is currently known to exist in that

area.

Outside of current monument boundaries,

the development of a new trail and

parking area in the vicinity of Bonito Park

would have a major adverse effect to a 

few archeological resources in that area,

both as a result of the construction

activities themselves and from the

associated visitor uses that would follow.

Although individual impacts from

visitation would be mostly minor and

109 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

incremental, the cumulative effects of

changing visitor use patterns proposed

under this alternative would be 

moderately adverse to the long-term

integrity of the archeological resources

located around Bonito Park. This is

because a significant number of sites

would gradually be degraded by incidental

artifact collection, destabilization of walls,

trampling of cultural deposits, and social

trailing. Stabilization of these sites in order

to withstand continuing visitor impacts

would eventually be necessary.

Cumulatively, the effects of Alternative 2 

on long-term integrity of archeological

resources would be moderately adverse.

The development of a new visitor center

and administrative area south of the

monument could adversely affect any

archeological resources that might be 

located in that area, both as a result of the

construction activities themselves as well

as from the associated visitor uses that

would follow. However, few sites are likely

to be present in this area, and most if not

all of them could be avoided by proposed

construction activities, so adverse impacts

from construction of new facilities would

be minor.

Alternative 2 would place a visitor center

at the park entrance to ensure that visitors

receive a thorough orientation to park

values prior to encountering the resource.

The location of the visitor center, coupled

with the increased USFS presence in the

area, would serve as a benefit to

preserving long-term integrity of 

archeological resources.

Alternative 2 also involves a significant

boundary expansion. The overall effects of 

boundary expansion would be a major

benefit for archeological resources located

in the expansion areas. When the various

beneficial and adverse impacts are

weighed against each other, the

cumulative effects of Alternative 2 on

long-term integrity of archeological

resources would be minimally beneficial.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 2 would have a moderate

adverse effect on the long-term integrity

of archeological resources located in the

vicinity of Bonito Park and the new visitor

center. These effects would be minimized

by careful placement of the trail system

and facilities. Most impacts would be

indirect, resulting from increased visitor

use of these areas. Although there would

be an overall reduction in archeological

integrity, it would not be to the extent

that the resources would become

ineligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places. In addition to 

those mentioned, there would be other

minor and moderate effects, both

beneficial and adverse, to the integrity of

archeological resources as a result of this

alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impacts from installation of new waysides,

upgrading of interpretive exhibits,

expansion of Bonito Campground,

construction of the maintenance and

curatorial facilities in the administrative

area, closure of the O’Leary Peak Road to

110 
LONG-TERM AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

vehicles, upgrading of facilities to improve

accessibility and safety, and closure of the

backcountry areas of SUCR to unguided

entry are the same as in the No-Action

Alternative.

The Bonito Park area is known to contain

high densities of archeological sites, based

on partial inventories of the surrounding

area. Although the exact number of sites

that would be affected by proposed

construction of a new visitor center and

development of a new Extended Learning

Zone and associated facilities is unknown,

a conservative estimate is that at least a 

dozen archeological sites would be 

impacted or completely destroyed by the

construction of a new visitor center, trail

system, and parking area adjacent to

Bonito Park. Although the loss of resources

could be partially mitigated through

excavation and curation, the long-term

effect would be permanent destruction,

and, hence, it would be considered a 

major adverse effect.

The adverse impacts of constructing a new

visitor center would be offset somewhat

by the fact that the relocation of the

visitor center to US89 would help to 

ensure that most visitors would be

adequately informed about the

significance and fragility of resources both

within and outside the monument and

would be educated about means of 

minimizing impacts from visitation before

they encounter resources. Thus, the

relocation could have a minor to

moderately beneficial effect on the longterm and scientific integrity of

archeological resources.

Conversion of the existing visitor center to

an education center would not affect

long-term and scientific integrity of 

archeological resources directly, although

there could be minor beneficial indirect

impacts by improving opportunities for

providing in-depth education to the public

on resource issues and protection

measures.

Under Alternative 3, as in Alternative 1, 

the new visitor center and associated

Extended Learning Zone and the hiking

trail up O’Leary Peak would be jointly

managed with USFS. Joint management

would have a moderately beneficial effect

on cultural resources outside the

monument by increasing USFS presence

and involvement in the management and

interpretation of these areas. Increased

USFS involvement in the management of

archeological resources would result in

more direct protection of these resources.

The addition of a new Extended Learning

Zone near US89, the expansion of the

existing Extended Learning Zone at Lava

Flow, and the formalization of two new

trails would lead to increased impacts to

archeological resources in proximity to

those areas. With development of an 

interpretive trail and visitor center near

Bonito Park, sites in this area would be 

subjected to increased impacts from

visitation in the form of artifact collection,

soil compaction, social trailing, and

increased erosion. These impacts would be 

generally minor and incremental, but 

cumulatively they would be moderately

adverse. The addition of a hiking trail to

Double Crater would presumably have a 

beneficial effect on any archeological

resources in that vicinity, because removal

of OHV activity would be prerequisite to

any pedestrian use of the Double Crater

area. However, because few archeological

sites are known to be present in this area,

the effect of this change on archeological

resources would be minor.

Development of a new trail between

Bonito Campground and the Lava Flow

Trail would impact one archeological site.

The impact would be moderately adverse.

The impact to this site would be partially

mitigated through a program of 

photographic documentation.

The major boundary adjustments proposed

in Alternative 3 would have a long-term,

major, beneficial effect on any cultural

111 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

resources located within proposed park

additions by protecting them from“”

impacts resulting from mining, camping,

and timber cutting activities. These

benefits would be offset somewhat by

increased visitation impacts to some sites

in the expanded monument. However, the

sites would receive increased protection,

resulting in overall major beneficial effects

to the long-term integrity of archeological

resources.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Past management strategies have allowed

visitor access to virtually all areas of the

monument. Recently, the backcountry

areas of Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument have been closed because of 

concerns over impacts to geologic

features, sensitive habitats, and traditional

cultural sites. Implementation of

Alternative 3 would continue this policy

within most of the existing monument

area, although there would be an

expansion of the lava flow Extended

Learning Zone and the addition of a new

hiking trail between Bonito Campground

and Lava Flow Trail.

Outside of the current monument

boundaries, however, the development of 

a new visitor center, trails, and parking

area in the vicinity of Bonito Park would

have a major adverse effect on

archeological resources in that area, both

as a result of the construction activities

themselves and from the associated visitor

uses that would follow. Although

individual impacts from visitation would

be mostly minor and incremental, the

cumulative effects of this alternative on

the long-term integrity of these

archeological resources would be 

moderately adverse, because a significant

number of sites would gradually be 

degraded by incidental artifact collection,

destabilization of walls, trampling of

cultural deposits, and social trailing.

Stabilization of these sites in order to

withstand continuing visitor impacts

would eventually be necessary.

On the other hand, elimination of a 

portion of the OHV area by including it

within the monument will have a minor,

beneficial effect on archeological remains

in that area, because of the elimination of

OHV impacts such as compaction and

erosion of soils, destruction of vegetation,

and camping-related impacts.

Cumulatively, the effects of Alternative 3 

on long-term integrity of archeological

resources would be moderately beneficial.

CONCLUSION

Under Alternative 3, there would be

major, long-term, adverse effects to the

integrity of 12-15 archeological resources

located in proximity to the new visitor

center and expanded campground.

Relative to existing conditions, however,

the cumulative effects of this alternative

on the long-term integrity of a majority of 

archeological resources would be minor

and beneficial, because of the elimination

of OHV impacts within the significantly

expanded park boundaries, the increased

NPS and USFS presence in the area, and

the zoning of a large area of the

expanded monument for long-term

preservation purposes. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be other, less

severe effects as a result of implementing

this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of park

resources or values.

112 
LONG-TERM AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

As described under Unavoidable Adverse

Effects, the continuing use of existing

visitor centers and trails would directly and

indirectly affect archeological resources in

the immediate vicinity. Archeological

resources adjacent to or easily accessible

from public areas would continue to be 

vulnerable to surface disturbance,

inadvertent damage, and vandalism.

Visitor use of campgrounds and picnic

areas would moderately compact soils and

would disturb surface artifacts. A loss of

the surface archeological materials,

alteration of artifact distribution, and a 

reduction of contextual evidence would

result. Under the No-Action Alternative,

impacts to archeological sites from

inappropriate visitor activities (artifact

collection, graffiti, etc.) would continue to

be a problem, because many visitors would

encounter park resources before receiving

an orientation at the visitor center.

Overall, the effects of the No-Action

Alternative would be moderately adverse

to the long-term integrity of the

archeological resources. Because these are

nonrenewable resources, this is an

irreversible/irretrievable loss of these

resources. However, the most heavily used

front-country areas contain few known

archeological sites, so adverse impacts

would have minimal effects.

In comparison with existing conditions,

Alternative 1 would have a major adverse

effect on a relatively small but

concentrated number of archeological

resources located near the new visitor

center and Extended Learning Zone.

Although the exact number of 

archeological resources that would be 

affected by this alternative is unknown

(because an intensive archeological

inventory has not been completed and

specific locations for new facilities have

not been decided), a larger number of 

resources would be impacted under

Alternative 1 than under existing

conditions. The adverse impacts would be 

offset to some degree by the benefits of

an increased USFS presence and increased

opportunities to orient and educate

visitors before they encounter sensitive

resources. The net effect, however, would

be moderately adverse for the long-term

integrity of archeological resources.

Under Alternative 2, most impacts from

visitation would be individually minor and

incremental, but the cumulative result

would be moderately adverse and could

result in an irretrievable loss of these

resources.

Under Alternative 3, there would be major

long-term adverse effects to the integrity

of 12-15 archeological resources close to

the new visitor center and expanded

campground. This could be mitigated

through data recovery, but the loss of 

some information could be irreversible.

Loss in Long-Term Availability

or Productivity of the

Resource to Achieve ShortTerm Gain

Although there would be short-term

effects from construction activities on

archeological resources, under all action

alternatives, data recovery efforts would

mean that there would be no long-term

loss of site information. Under the NoAction Alternative, the continuation of 

inadequate monitoring of cultural

resources, combined with long-term visitor

use, would likely reduce the availability of

cultural resources sites for future

education, interpretation, and

development.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Under the No-Action Alternative, the

continuing use of existing visitor centers

and trails would directly and indirectly

affect archeological resources in the

immediate vicinity. Archeological resources

113 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

adjacent to or easily accessible from public

use areas would continue to be vulnerable

to surface disturbance, inadvertent

damage, and vandalism. Visitor use of 

campgrounds and picnic areas would

moderately compact soils and would

disturb surface artifacts. A loss of the

surface archeological materials, alteration

of artifact distribution, and a reduction of 

contextual evidence would result. Impacts

to archeological sites from inappropriate

visitor activities (artifact collection, graffiti,

etc.) would continue to be a major longterm problem. Overall, the effects of the

No-Action Alternative would be 

moderately adverse to the long-term

integrity of the archeological resources.

In comparison with existing conditions,

Alternative 1 would have a major adverse

effect on a relatively small but

concentrated number of archeological

resources located near the new visitor

center and Extended Learning Zone.

Although the exact number of 

archeological resources that would be 

affected by this alternative is unknown

(because a complete archeological

inventory has not been completed and

specific locations for new facilities have

not been decided), a larger number of 

resources would be impacted under

Alternative 1 than under existing

conditions. The adverse impacts would be 

offset to some degree by the benefits of

an increased USFS presence and increased

opportunities to orient and educate

visitors before they encounter sensitive

resources. The net effect, however, would

be moderately adverse for the long-term

integrity of archeological resources.

An unknown number of archeological sites

would be impacted and/or destroyed as

the result of constructing new facilities

under Alternative 2, based on an

incomplete inventory of archeological sites

within and outside the current monument

boundaries. Although precise numbers are

unknown at this time, probably fewer sites

would be impacted from construction

under Alternative 2 than under Alternative

1, but more would be impacted relative to

existing conditions. However, this is

dependent on final siting of the new

visitor center, roads, campground, and

associated facilities. Closure of the road

east of the Lava Flow Trail would not 

benefit archeological resources, because

this road would be converted into a new

walking trail, thereby resulting in 

increased pedestrian access to areas that

currently receive very little visitation,

owing to lack of pullouts along that

section of the road. Likewise, any benefits

from closure of the current entrance road

would be offset by the addition of trails

around Bonito Park, which would

encourage pedestrian uses of areas that

currently receive relatively little visitation.

Increased pedestrian use would likely

result in more visitation impacts to 

resources in these areas (e.g., social

trailing, illegal collection, inappropriate

uses, etc.) and ultimately could result in

increased compliance actions, stabilization,

and need for mitigation. The areas around

Bonito Park and along the western edge

of the Bonito Lava Flow (on the lower

portion of O’Leary Peak Road) are known

to contain archeological sites, based on 

incomplete inventories of these areas.

These sites would be subjected to

increased impacts from visitation in the

form of illegal artifact collection, soil

compaction, social trailing and erosion,

and inappropriate activities (digging,

leaving New Age offerings, etc.). Most

impacts from visitation would be

individually minor and incremental, but 

the cumulative result would be moderately

adverse.

Under Alternative 3, there would be major

long-term adverse effects to the integrity

of 12-15 archeological resources located in

proximity to the new visitor center and

expanded campground. These effects

would be similar to those described for

Alternative 1. Unlike Alternative 1, 

114 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

however, the adverse impacts to a 

relatively small number of sites would be

offset by the added protection afforded

the majority of sites located within the

expanded monument boundaries.

HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Methodology

The National Historic Preservation Act

requires agencies to take into account the

effects of their actions on properties listed

or eligible for listing in the National

Register of Historic Places. The assessment

of impacts to the cultural resources

followed a three-step process: (1)

determining the area of potential effect of

the proposed actions; (2) identifying the

cultural resources within the area of

potential effect that are either listed in or

eligible for listing in the National Register

of Historic Places (see Affected

Environment); and (3) assessing the extent

and type of impacts the proposed action

may have upon cultural resources. An

impact on a cultural resource occurs if an

action has the potential of altering in any

way the characteristics that qualify the

resource for inclusion in the National

Register. If a proposed action diminishes

the integrity of such characteristics, it is

considered to have an adverse effect.

Impacts that may occur later than, or at a 

distance from the location of a proposed

action are also potential impacts of the

action, and are considered to be indirect

impacts.

For the purposes of this analysis the

following will be used to describe impacts

to the built environment and cultural

landscapes at Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument:

Negligible: The impact is at the lowest

levels of detection, barely perceptible and

not measurable.

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable.

The impact does not affect the character

defining features of a National Register of 

Historic Places eligible or listed historic

structure, cultural landscape, or historic

district.

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent.

For a National Register eligible or listed

historic structure, cultural landscape, or

historic district, the impact changes a 

character-defining feature(s) of the

resource but does not diminish the

integrity of the resource to the extent that

its National Register eligibility is 

jeopardized.

Major: The impact is severe or of

exceptional benefit. For a National

Register eligible or listed historic structure,

cultural landscape, or historic district, the

impact changes a character defining

features(s) of the resource, diminishing the

integrity of the resource to the extent that

it is no longer eligible or listed in the

National Register.

Effects Of The No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Installation of new waysides exhibits

would have a minor visual impact on the

cultural landscape. To mitigate the impact,

signs would be constructed of material

that is compatible with the historic setting

and the natural surroundings. New

museum exhibits would be constructed,

but would not alter the distinguishing

characteristics of the Mission 66 visitor

center.

The expansion of Bonito Campground

would have long-term moderate adverse

impact on the prehistoric landscape. To

partially mitigate the impacts (both visual

and physical), the campground would be 

designed and sited to avoid landscape

features and constructed with materials

115 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

compatible with the natural and cultural

setting.

Both a curatorial facility and a 

maintenance/resource management

facility would be constructed at the Sunset

Crater Volcano administrative area. The

curatorial facility would be constructed in

view of the existing visitor center and in

an area that has been tested for

archeological resources; no archeological

resources were found. There would be 

long-term moderate adverse visual impacts

to the prehistoric landscape.

Construction of the curatorial facility

would not change, obscure, or destroy the

Mission 66 landscape’s significant spatial

organization, materials, and features. To

partially mitigate visual impacts, the

curatorial facility would be designed and

sited to reduce visual impacts and would

be constructed of materials that are

compatible with the natural surrounding

and historic setting. To prevent the

appearance of a reconstruction, the

curatorial facility would be compatible, yet

differentiated from, the landscape’s

historic character. Construction of the

curatorial facility would have a long-term

moderate adverse impact on the Mission

66 designed landscape.

The maintenance/resource management

facility would be constructed in an area

that has not been previously disturbed.

Archeological resources are known to be 

located in the area, but may be avoided

through design and siting of the facility.

Because the prehistoric and historic

landscapes have not formally evaluated it

is difficult to assess the impact of the

proposed maintenance/resource

management facility. The facility would be

constructed away from the Mission 66

designed landscape, but would have a 

long-term moderate adverse impact on the

prehistoric landscape. To partially mitigate

visual impacts, the maintenance/resource

management facility would be designed

and sited to reduce visual impacts and

would be constructed of materials that are

compatible with the natural surroundings

and historic setting.

Facilities would be upgraded to

accommodate and meet current

accessibility standards. Making historic

buildings and structures accessible to the

mobility impaired could result in the loss

of historic fabric or the introduction of 

new visual and nonhistoric elements,

resulting in long-term minor adverse

impacts. For example, the doorways of 

buildings could require widening and

ramps, or wheelchair lifts could be added

to the exterior of buildings. The park

would strive, however, to develop design

solutions to accessibility requirements that

minimize impacts to cultural resources.

The Mission 66 visitor center would

remain, as would the Mission 66

apartment complex and maintenance

facility. Because few modifications have

been made to the Mission 66 designed

landscape and facilities, the integrity of

the designed landscape remains intact

(however, this landscape has yet to be 

formally evaluated).

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The park boundaries represent the

geographic area in which cumulative

impacts that affect the built environment

and cultural landscapes at Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument were

identified.

During the Mission 66 program a visitor

center, apartment complex, maintenance

facility, trails and parking lots were

constructed. The entrance road to the

monument was formalized, along with

parking lots at the Lenox Crater Trail and

the base of Sunset Crater Volcano. A few

modifications have occurred to the Mission

66 designed landscape, including

relocation of the parking lot from the base

of the volcano to the west approximately

1⁄4 mile to the present Lava Flow Trail, and

the addition of three trailer houses and

116 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

one house (adjacent to the apartment

complex) in the 1980s. The curatorial and

maintenance facilities would be

constructed in the administrative area near

the visitor center and apartment complex.

Because the primary, original design

elements of the Mission 66 designed

landscape are still intact, the landscape is 

considered to be potentially National

Register eligible (however, this landscape

has yet to be formally evaluated). Any

future alterations of the designed

landscape could bring the integrity of the

landscape as a whole (especially design)

down to the level where National Register

eligibility would be questioned.

Few alterations have been made to the

overall monument landscape since the

design and construction associated with

the Mission 66 era landscape. Because few

changes have occurred to the prehistoric

landscape throughout the monument, the

landscape is considered potentially

National Register eligible (however, this

landscape has yet to be formally

evaluated). Any future alterations of the

prehistoric landscape, however, could

bring the integrity of the landscape as a 

whole down to the level where National

Register eligibility would be questioned.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would have long-term

moderate adverse impact on the

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes.

There would be an overall reduction of 

historic integrity of both landscapes, but 

not to the extent that they would no 

longer be eligible to be listed in the

National Register of Historic Places. Any

future alteration to the prehistoric and

Mission 66 landscapes, in conjunction with

the moderate, adverse cumulative impacts

of previous changes and this alternative

could result in moderate, adverse

cumulative impacts to both designed

landscapes.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to a resource or value whose

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill

specific purposes in the establishing

legislation or proclamation for Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument; (2)

key to the natural or cultural integrity of

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning

documents, there would be no impairment

of the park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The boundaries of the monument would

be expanded to accommodate

administrative adjustments. The proposed

boundary expansion would include

prehistoric landscapes that have been

dissected by artificial boundaries. The

inclusion of these resources in the park

would be a major benefit to their longterm and scientific integrity by including

them in lands being proactively managed

for preservation purposes.

The effects of installing new wayside

exhibits would be the same as those

identified in the No-Action Alternative.

Effects of expanding the Bonito

Campground would be the same as those

identified for the No-Action Alternative.

Effects of constructing the curatorial

facility and the maintenance/resource

management facility would be the same as

those identified for the No-Action

Alternative.

Effects of upgrading facilities to

accommodate accessibility would be the

same as those identified for the No-Action

Alternative.

Construction of a new visitor center would

have long-term moderate adverse visual

impact on the surrounding prehistoric

117 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

cultural landscape. To partially mitigate

visual impacts, the visitor center would be

situated to reduce visual impacts and

would be constructed of materials that are

compatible with the natural surrounding

and historic setting.

Adaptively rehabilitating the existing

visitor center building would neither

significantly alter the present form or

character of the structure’s exterior nor

adversely affect any significant characterdefining feature(s) of the structure’s

interior. If any materials were removed

during rehabilitation, they would be

evaluated to determine their value to the

parks’ museum collections and/or for their

comparative use in future preservation

work at the site. All rehabilitation work

would be undertaken in accordance with

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

for Treatment of Historic Properties (1995).

Converting the visitor center to

accommodate educational activities and

offices would have a long-term minor to

moderate impact on the building.

Construction of a new trail between

Bonito Campground and the Lava Flow

Trail would have long-term moderate

visual impact on the prehistoric cultural

landscape. The impacts could be mitigated

by constructing the trail to avoid

character-defining landscape features and

building it with materials compatible with

the historic setting and natural

surrounding.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Various alterations to the prehistoric

landscape, primarily by the Mission 66

designed landscape, have occurred over

the years. Few changes have altered the

Mission 66 landscape. The Mission 66

landscape included a road, trails, parking

lots, visitor center, maintenance building,

and apartment complex. In the 1980s the

Lava Flow Trail parking lot was removed

from the base of Sunset Crater Volcano

and constructed approximately 1⁄4 mile

west. Because the primary design elements

of the prehistoric landscape remain intact,

the landscape is considered to be

potentially National Register eligible

(however, this landscape has not been

formally evaluated). Any future alterations

of the designed landscape could bring the

integrity of the landscape as a whole

down to the level where National Register

eligibility would be questioned.

Minor alterations have occurred to the

Mission 66 designed landscape;

modifications include trail upgrades to

meet standards of accessibility, relocation

of the Lava Flow Trail parking lot, and the

addition of trailer houses adjacent to the

apartment complex. Because the primary

original design elements of the Mission 66 

designed landscape are still intact, the

landscape is considered to be potentially

National Register eligible (however, this

landscape has yet to be evaluated). Any

future alterations of the designed

landscape, in conjunction with the

moderate, adverse, cumulative impacts of

both past changes and this alternative,

would bring the integrity of the landscape

as a whole (especially design) down to the

level where it is no longer National

Register eligible.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would have long-term

moderate adverse impacts on the

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes.

There would be an overall reduction of 

integrity in both landscapes, but not to the

extent that they would no longer be 

eligible to be listed in the National

Register of Historic Places.

Any future alterations to the prehistoric

and Mission 66 landscapes, in conjunction

with the moderate adverse, cumulative

impacts of previous changes and this

alternative could result in moderate,

adverse cumulative impacts to the

prehistoric and Mission 66 designed

landscapes.

118 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to a resource or value whose

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill

specific purposes in the establishing

legislation or proclamation for Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument; (2)

key to the natural or cultural integrity of

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning

documents, there would be no impairment

of the park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 2:

Emphasize Quiet Natural

Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The proposed boundary expansion would

include prehistoric landscapes that have

been dissected by artificial boundaries. The

inclusion of these resources in the park

would be a major benefit to their longterm and scientific integrity by including

them in lands being proactively managed

for preservation purposes.

Effects of installing new wayside exhibits

would be the same as in No-Action

Alternative.

Removing Bonito Campground would

have long-term moderate benefit to the

prehistoric landscape. The campground

area would be rehabilitated and

revegetated to restore the natural spacing,

abundance, and diversity of native plant

species. Following rehabilitation and

revegetation, the area would more closely

resemble its historic appearance.

Closing FR545 at the junction with US89

and at the base of Sunset Crater Volcano

would alter the historic Mission 66

circulation pattern, resulting in a longterm moderate adverse impact to the

Mission 66 drive-through experience.

The Mission 66 designed visitor center,

apartment complex and maintenance

facility would be removed. Removing the

Mission 66 development would result in

long-term major adverse impacts to the

historic Mission 66 experience and

designed landscape. Removing the

facilities would eliminate contributing

elements to the landscape, and would

alter spatial organization and historic

circulation patterns of the Mission 66

designed landscape.

The new curatorial facility and

maintenance/resource management

facility would be removed. Removal of

these facilities in conjunction with the

Mission 66 development and rehabilitation

of the administrative site to a natural

setting would be a long-term major

benefit to the prehistoric landscape.

Following rehabilitation and revegetation,

the area would more closely resemble its

prehistoric appearance.

Construction of a new visitor center would

have long-term moderate visual impact on 

the surrounding prehistoric cultural

landscape. To partially mitigate visual

impacts, the visitor center would be

designed and sited to reduce visual

impacts and would be constructed of

materials that are compatible with the

natural surrounding and historic setting.

Construction of a new trail around Bonito

Park would have long-term moderate

visual impact on the prehistoric cultural

landscape. The impacts could be mitigated

by constructing the trail to avoid character

defining landscape features and built with

materials compatible with the historic

setting and natural surrounding.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Minor alterations have occurred to the

Mission 66 designed landscape;

modifications include trail upgrades to

meet standards of accessibility, relocation

of the Lava Flow Trail parking lot, and the

addition of trailer houses adjacent to the

119 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

apartment complex. Because the primary

original design elements of the Mission 66 

designed landscape are still intact, the

landscape is considered to be potentially

National Register eligible (however, this

landscape has yet to be evaluated). Any

future alterations of the designed

landscape, in conjunction with the

adverse, cumulative impacts of both past

changes and this alternative, would bring

the integrity of the landscape as a whole

(especially design) down to the level

where it is no longer National Register

eligible. The long-term major adverse

impacts, as well as, any potential impacts

of future actions would result in major,

adverse cumulative impacts to the Mission

66 designed landscape.

Because few alterations have occurred to

the prehistoric landscape of the

monument, the landscape is considered

potentially National Register eligible

(however, this landscape has yet to be 

formally evaluated). Removing the Mission

66 designed landscape and the more

recent development (trailer houses,

curatorial facility, maintenance/resource

management facility and campground)

would be a long-term major benefit to the

prehistoric landscape. Rehabilitating and

revegetating the former Mission 66

landscape would return the area to more

of a semblance of its historic appearance.

Any future alterations of the prehistoric

landscape, in conjunction with the

adverse, cumulative impacts of both past

changes and this alternative (such as the

construction of a trail around Bonito Park),

would bring the integrity of the landscape

as a whole down to the level where it is no

longer National Register eligible. The longterm moderate adverse impacts, as well as

any potential impacts of future actions

would result in moderate, adverse

cumulative impacts to the prehistoric

landscape.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would have long-term

major adverse impacts to the Mission 66

designed landscape, and long-term major

benefit and long-term moderate adverse

impact to the prehistoric landscape. There

would be an overall reduction of historic

integrity in the Mission 66 landscape, but 

not to the extent that it would no longer

be eligible to be listed in the National

Register of Historic Places. Any future

alterations of the Mission 66 landscape, in

conjunction with the adverse, cumulative

impacts of previous changes and this

alternative, could result in major, adverse

cumulative impacts to the Mission 66

landscapes.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to a resource or value whose

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill

specific purposes in the establishing

legislation or proclamation for Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument; (2)

key to the natural or cultural integrity of

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning

documents, there would be no impairment

of the park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The proposed boundary expansion would

include prehistoric landscapes that have

been dissected by artificial boundaries. The

inclusion of these resources in the park

would be a major benefit to their longterm and scientific integrity by including

them in lands being proactively managed

for preservation purposes.

120 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

Effects of installing new wayside exhibits

would be the same as described under the

No-Action Alternative.

Effects of expanding the Bonito

Campground would be the same as those

described for in No-Action Alternative.

Effects of constructing the museum

storage facility and the

maintenance/resource facility would be

the same as those described for the NoAction Alternative.

Effects of upgrading facilities to

accommodate accessibility would be the

same as under the No-Action Alternative.

Developing new pullouts along FR545 at 

Kana-A lava flow would have long-term

moderate visual impacts on the historic

Mission 66 road, and would have longterm moderate adverse impacts on the

prehistoric cultural landscape by damaging

or destroying landscape features (such as

field alignments). However, the road

would be designed to avoid as many

landscape features as possible and would

be constructed of materials that are

compatible with the natural surrounding

and historic setting.

Construction of a new visitor center near

the junction of US89 and FR545 would

have a long-term moderate adverse visual

impact on the surrounding prehistoric

cultural landscape. To partially mitigate

visual impacts, the visitor center would be

designed and sited to reduce visual

impacts and would be constructed of

materials that are compatible with the

natural surrounding and historic setting.

Construction of the trail between the

Bonito Campground and the Lava Flow

Trail would have long-term moderate

visual impacts on the prehistoric cultural

landscape. The impacts could be mitigated

by constructing the trail to avoid

landscape features and built with

materials compatible with the historic

setting and natural surroundings.

Rehabilitating the OHV area would have a 

long-term major visual benefit to the

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes. The

OHV area would be rehabilitated and

revegetated to restore the natural spacing,

abundance, and diversity of native plant

species. Following rehabilitation and

revegetation, the area would more closely

resemble its historic appearance.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Few changes have occurred to the Mission

66 designed landscape; modifications

include trail upgrades to meet standards

of accessibility, relocation of the Lava Flow

Trail parking lot, and the addition of 

trailer houses adjacent to the apartment

complex. Because the primary original

design elements of the Mission 66 

designed landscape are still intact, the

landscape is considered to be potentially

National Register eligible (however, this

landscape has yet to be evaluated). Any

future alterations of the designed

landscape, in conjunction with the

adverse, cumulative impacts of both past

changes and this alternative, would bring

the integrity of the landscape as a whole

(especially design) down to the level

where it is no longer National Register

eligible. The long-term major adverse

impacts and potential impacts of future

actions could result in major, adverse

cumulative impacts to the Mission 66

designed landscape.

Because few alterations have occurred to

the prehistoric landscape of the

monument (primarily from Mission 66

development), the landscape is considered

potentially National Register eligible

(however, this landscape has yet to be 

formally evaluated). Any future alterations

of the prehistoric landscape beyond the

scope of what is proposed in this

alternative could bring the integrity of the

landscape as a whole down to a level

where National Register eligibility would

be questioned. Rehabilitating the OHV

121 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

area would be a long-term major benefit

to the prehistoric landscape.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would have long-term

moderate adverse impacts and long-term

major benefits on the prehistoric

landscape, and would have long-term

moderate adverse impacts on the Mission

66 landscapes. There would be an overall

reduction of historic integrity in the

landscapes, but not to the extent that they

would no longer be eligible to be listed in

the National Register of Historic Places.

Any future alterations of the landscapes,

in conjunction with the adverse cumulative

impacts of previous changes and this

alternative, could result in major, adverse

cumulative impacts to the prehistoric and

Mission 66 landscapes.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to a resource or value whose

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill

specific purposes in the establishing

legislation or proclamation for Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument; (2)

key to the natural or cultural integrity of

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning

documents, there would be no impairment

of the park’s resources or values.

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments Of Resources

There would be an 

irreversible/irretrievable commitment of

resources under Alternative 2. All Mission

66 facilities would be removed from the

park.

Loss In Long-Term Availability

Or Productivity Of The

Resource To Achieve ShortTerm Gain

The continuing lack of a cultural landscape

inventory would lead to long-term loss of 

the integrity of these resources.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

The No-Action Alternative would have

long-term moderate adverse impact on the

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes from

the construction of the curatorial facility

and the maintenance/resource

management facility. There would be

long-term moderate adverse visual impact

from the installation of new wayside

exhibits. Upgrading facilities to meet

accessibility standards would have a longterm minor impact on Mission 66 facilities.

Alternative 1 would have long-term

moderate adverse impacts on the

prehistoric landscape from and Mission 66

landscapes from the construction of the

curatorial facility and the

maintenance/resource management

facility. Construction of the new visitor

center at the junction of US89 and FR545

would have a long-term moderate adverse

impact on the prehistoric cultural

landscape.

Alternative 2 would have long-term major

adverse impacts to the Mission 66

designed landscape. The Mission 66

development (visitor center, maintenance

building, and apartment complex) would

be removed from the park. Construction of

a new visitor center on FR776 would have

a long-term moderate visual impact on the

prehistoric cultural landscape.

Alternative 3 would have long-term

moderate adverse impacts on the

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes from

the construction of a curatorial facility and

maintenance/resource management

facility. There would be a long-term

122 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

moderate visual impact to the prehistoric

cultural landscape from the construction

of a new visitor center at the junction of 

FR545 and US 89. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES

Methodology

Ethnographic resources are those cultural

and natural resources to which parkassociated communities ascribe cultural

significance and that continue to play a 

role in a community’s identity and way of

life. Only members of the communities to

whom the resources hold cultural value

can determine ethnographic resources and

potential impacts to them. After initial

consultation meetings with representatives

of several American Indian tribes having

possible traditional associations with park

lands and resources, the tribes determined

that the Hopi, Zuni, and Navajo Tribes

have the closest association with resources

that could be affected by various

management alternatives. The National

Park Service entered into small contracts

with each of these tribes to visit the parks

and identify culturally significant resources

that might be affected by various

management alternatives. The Hopi and

Navajo Tribes and the Pueblo of Zuni

submitted information on ethnographic

resources concerns to the National Park

Service and participated in the GMP

planning process during all stages of 

development. Because the ethnographic

resources identified by the tribes are

important in each tribe’s history, and

because the resources are interconnected

with places and resources located

throughout customary tribal lands, any

impacts to ethnographic resources would

be regional in scope. In addition, because

ethnographic resources are tied to

communities’ cultural identities, effects to 

the resources also have an effect on the

communities to which they are tied in

perpetuity. Therefore, the duration of

impacts to ethnographic resources is

forever. Although the tribes themselves

did not identify the intensity of potential

impacts to ethnographic resources, the

National Park Service defines intensity as

follows:

Negligible: The impact is at the lower

levels of detection.

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable.

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent.

Major: The impact is severely adverse or

exceptionally beneficial.

Any adverse impacts to ethnographic

resources would be readily apparent to the

tribes to whom the resources hold cultural

significance, and in most cases, because

impacts to these resources affect cultural

identity and ways of life, most adverse

impacts would be considered severely

adverse. Therefore, most impacts to

ethnographic resources, whether

beneficial or adverse, would be moderate

to major.

Effects of the No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Under the No-Action Alternative,

conditions would remain as they are at the

present time, with the exception of the

actions common to all alternatives.

Associated tribes regard the entire

landscape around Sunset Crater as sacred,

so any existing impacts that are not

addressed by actions common to all

alternatives will continue to constitute

moderate to major adverse impacts.

Among these impacts may be the effects

of OHV such as tracks and lack of

vegetation on portions of the landscape

beyond park boundaries and related

impacts to park lands and resources. An

additional adverse impact might be the

one-mile Lenox Crater Trail, which

123 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

provides climbing opportunities on a 

cinder cone, all of which have been

identified as sacred places to associated

tribes. Actions common to all alternatives

that will alleviate adverse impacts of some

existing conditions include:

• Enhanced partnerships and boundary

expansion, which will include increased

coordination between NPS and USFS,

monitoring the effects of various land

uses, the potential for management

changes to control adverse effects, and

the potential for tribal input into

future management planning;

• New interpretive exhibits, which will

also provide the opportunity for tribal

involvement in the development of

interpretive messages, which may

include increased educational emphasis

on the cultural significance of the

Sunset Crater landscape to associated

tribes;

• Closure of the road to O’Leary Peak, 

which will help protect the cultural

values of this sensitive ethnographic

resource; and

• Closure of the backcountry, which will

also help protect ethnographic

resources from the effects of unguided

visitation

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Prior to the establishment of monument

boundaries, the lands encompassed by

what is now Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument were part of the

customary use areas or traditional lands of 

several American Indian tribes. These lands

include medicinal plants, prayer offering

places, homes of deities, pilgrimage

routes, and other places integral to tribal

cultural identity and continuity.

With the establishment of federal land

management boundaries, including Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument, the

construction of fences, and the

implementation of land use regulations,

traditional tribal uses and treatment of 

resources were precluded over the years.

Increased visitation interfered with

ceremonial activities at certain places

within monument lands, and closure of 

some areas many have inhibited tribal

access to certain culturally significant

areas. Interpretive messages were

developed that did not include tribal

knowledge of the natural and cultural

history of the park and its resources.

The cumulative effects of monument

operations on ethnographic resources and

the tribes associated with them in the past

have been major and long term. Under the

No-Action Alternative, some adverse

impacts to ethnographic resources would

continue into the future, such as the

effects of OHV uses on the overall

ethnographic landscape and visitor access

to Lenox Crater. In general, existing

conditions would be improved by the

actions common to all alternatives,

specifically those beneficial cumulative

impacts resulting from improved

partnerships with neighboring land

managers, improved interpretive exhibits,

and the closure of the O’Leary Peak Road

and the backcountry (with provision of 

tribal access to sensitive ethnographic

resources).

CONCLUSION

The No-Action Alternative would continue

to have some moderate to major adverse

impacts to some ethnographic resources,

but the actions common to all alternatives

would improve many existing conditions

and have a moderate to major beneficial

effect on some ethnographic resources

and the cultural values that give them

significance.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

124 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Overall, this alternative would benefit

ethnographic resources by increasing

partnerships with the USFS, associated

tribes and educational institutions to

improve interpretation and consistent

management of sites and features outside

the park that are primary to the park’s

purpose. Since the park has been

identified by associated tribes as part of a 

larger ethnographic landscape, any

management alternative that improves the

larger geographic context of which the

park is a part would have a beneficial

impact on culturally sensitive resources.

Boundary adjustments may be beneficial

to ethnographic resources if the

adjustments include increased protection

of the ethnographic landscape or specific

ethnographic resources identified for this

GMP. Adverse effects to the overall

ethnographic landscape would continue to

the extent that current OHV uses continue,

as would adverse effects to an

ethnographic resource with continued

visitor access to Lenox Crater. Effects of

the actions common to all alternatives

would be the same as described under the

No-Action Alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Overall, the cumulative effects of this

alternative would be beneficial to

ethnographic resources due to increased

partnerships with adjacent land

management agencies and associated

tribes. These partnerships would help

protect ethnographic resources by 

improved interpretation and education for

park visitors about the cultural values

associated with park lands and resources,

and by tribal participation in developing

consistent management regimes for the

ethnographic landscape of which the

monument is a part. Adverse impacts to

ethnographic resources would continue as

long as OHV uses impact the larger

landscape in general, and continued access

to Lenox Crater may have adverse

cumulative impacts on that ethnographic

resource. Park boundary adjustments and

closure of areas that are not zoned for

administrative and visitor use would have

cumulative beneficial effects by protecting

ethnographic resources from the effects of 

visitation

CONCLUSION

With the development of agreements

among the NPS and associated tribes for

continued tribal involvement in park

management and interpretive planning,

this alternative would have moderate to 

major long-term beneficial impacts to

ethnographic resources. The exceptions to

these beneficial effects are the continued

moderate to major adverse effects of OHV

uses on the ethnographic landscape and

possibly visitor access to Lenox Crater.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

125 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Effects of Alternative 2:

Emphasize Quiet Natural

Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

This alternative would provide increased

protection of ethnographic resources

within the present monument boundaries

by removing much of the current

development, thereby restoring some of

the larger ethnographic landscape that

gives individual ethnographic resources

cultural significance. However, the

development of new facilities south of

Sunset Crater may have an adverse effect

on aspects of the ethnographic landscape

or on individual ethnographic resources

that have not yet been identified or

evaluated. The increased emphasis on

connecting the stories of Sunset Crater and

Wupatki, as well as development of 

updated interpretive media would more

accurately reflect tribal knowledge of the

natural and cultural histories of the

broader ethnographic landscape, thus

having a beneficial effect on ethnographic

resources through public education.

The effects on ethnographic resources of 

developing a new entrance road and

visitor facilities south of Sunset Crater

would need to be more thoroughly

evaluated. Having the current entrance

road, FR545, dead-end at Bonito Park,

which would be included in park

boundaries, could encourage more visitor

use of Bonito Park. Increased visitor use of 

Bonito Park could conflict with ongoing

tribal cultural uses, thus having an adverse

effect on this ethnographic resource.

Similarly, the effects of development of a 

hiking trail at the base of Sunset Crater

Volcano and additional learning activities

associated with the Lenox Crater Trail

would need to be evaluated in conjunction

with associated tribes. Associated tribes

regard Sunset Crater Volcano as a 

particularly significant ethnographic

resource along with all volcanic cones

comprising the larger ethnographic

landscape. The effects of the actions

common to all alternatives would be the

same as those described for the No-Action

Alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Some aspects of this alternative will have

long-term beneficial cumulative effects on 

ethnographic resources, including the

restoration of the ethnographic landscape

within current monument boundaries and

the development of updated interpretive

media incorporating tribal perspectives of 

the ethnographic context of park

resources. The cumulative effects on

ethnographic resources and landscapes

due to development of new access routes

into the monument and new visitor

facilities south of current monument

boundaries would require further analysis

in conjunction with associated tribes.

Long-term adverse effects to Bonito Park,

Sunset Crater Volcano, and Lenox Crater

could result from development of 

extended learning activities and increased

visitor use of these ethnographic

resources. These effects could be

minimized by the inclusion of tribal

participation in long-range management

and interpretive planning.

CONCLUSION

This alternative includes actions that will

have both beneficial and adverse effects

on ethnographic resources. The effects of 

some proposed actions will need

additional evaluation in conjunction with

associated tribes. The effects of the actions

common to all alternatives would be the

same as those described under the NoAction Alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

126 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Overall, this alternative would have

beneficial impacts to ethnographic

resources due to the expansion of park

boundaries to include more of the features

of the regional ethnographic landscape of 

cultural significance to associated tribes.

The removal of OHV activities from the

expanded park boundaries would have a 

beneficial effect on the ethnographic

landscape. Enhanced management

partnerships with the USFS would also

benefit culturally sensitive resources, as

would the development of new

educational programs, provided that

interpretive planning incorporates tribal

input. Extended learning opportunities in

the Lenox Crater and particularly Bonito

Park vicinities could have moderate to

major adverse effects on these

ethnographic resources and any such

planning would require extensive tribal

involvement. Effects of the actions

common to all alternatives would be the

same as those described in the No-Action

Alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In general, this alternative would have

moderate to major long-term beneficial

effects to ethnographic resources by 

protecting and restoring more of the

ethnographic landscape context of 

culturally significant resources within park

boundaries. Beneficial effects would also

result from the inclusion of associated

tribes in the long-term planning of 

educational programs and activities that

could include increased emphasis on the

cultural significance of ethnographic

resources and their broader landscape

context. Moderate to major adverse

effects to Lenox Crater and especially

Bonito Park could result from the

development of increased visitor access to 

these ethnographic resources, but these

effects could be minimized with

appropriate tribal input into long-range

management planning.

CONCLUSION

This alternative includes actions that will

have mainly beneficial and some adverse

effects on ethnographic resources and

landscapes. The effects of some proposed

actions will need additional evaluation in 

conjunction with associated tribes. The

effects of the actions common to all

alternatives would be the same as 

described in the No-Action Alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

There would be no 

irreversible/irretrievable commitments of

resources.

127 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Loss in Long-Term Availability

or Productivity of the

Resource to Achieve ShortTerm Gain

There would be no short-term gains

resulting in long-term losses.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing

adverse effects to ethnographic resources

would continue. Associated tribes regard

the entire landscape around Sunset Crater

Volcano as sacred. Existing impacts include

the present development and visitor

facilities, OHV uses, visitor access to the

tops of craters, and intrusion on 

traditional uses of culturally significant

places, such as Bonito Park. Under all

action alternatives, these adverse impacts

would be reduced through improved

interpretation and consistent management

of features.

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND 

PROCESSES

Methodology

All available information on known

natural resources was compiled. Where

possible, map locations of sensitive

resources were compared with locations of

proposed developments and modifications

of existing facilities. Predictions about

short- and long-term site impacts were

based on previous studies of visitor

impacts to natural resources and recent

monitoring data from the Flagstaff Area

National Monuments. Sociological studies

comparing the deterrent effects of signs

versus ranger presence on sites were also

considered in this analysis. Intensity of

effects are articulated in the effects

analysis as follows:

Negligible: An action that would affect

very few individuals of species

populations, or affect the existing physical

environment within Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument. The change would be 

so small or localized that it would have no

measurable or perceptible consequence to

the populations or natural system

function.

Minor: An action that would affect a 

relatively small number of individuals of 

species populations, or affect the existing

physical environment within Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument. The change

would require considerable scientific effort

to measure, be limited to relatively few

individuals of the populations, be very

localized in area, and have barely

perceptible consequences to the

populations or natural system function.

Moderate: An action that would cause

measurable affects on: (1) a relatively

moderate number of individuals within a 

species population, (2) the existing

dynamics between multiple species (e.g.,

predator-prey, herbivore-forage,

vegetation structure-wildlife breeding

habitat), (3) a relatively large habitat area

or important habitat attributes, or (4) a 

large area of the natural physical

environment within Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument. A species population,

plant and animal communities, habitats, or 

natural system function might deviate

from normal levels under existing

conditions, but all species would remain

indefinitely viable within the monument.

Major: An action that would have drastic

consequences for species population

numbers, dynamics between multiple

128 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

species, habitat area or important habitat

attributes, or the existing physical

environment within Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument. The change would be 

readily apparent throughout the

monument area. A species population,

plant and animal communities, habitats, or 

natural system function would be 

permanently altered from normal levels

under existing conditions, and species

would likely be extirpated within the

monument.

Effects of the No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Much of the current development

associated with the monument’s

administration and maintenance is outside

the monument’s formal boundary. This

includes the visitor center, housing, and

the maintenance complex, which are on 

U.S. Forest Service lands. A USFS

campground is also located just adjacent

to the monument’s boundary.

Approximately 130 acres of USFS lands is

currently impacted by visitor use and

support infrastructure. These developed

areas cause a minor adverse long-term

impact by alteration of wildlife habitat

and movement and changes to vegetation.

Bonito Campground is currently being

expanded to provide group camping, a 

day-use area for educational group

gatherings and an upgraded amphitheater

for interpretive programs. Short-term

minor impacts to natural systems and

processes will result from clearing trees

and vegetation for the expanded camping

and day-use areas. Long-term minor

impacts will occur from increased visitor

use in the area. Trampling of plants, soil

compaction and disturbance of wildlife

could increase with this expansion.

The Cinder Hills OHV Area, approximately

13,500 acres, lies to the southeast of the

monument. Occasional trespass of offhighway vehicles into the monument

crushes plants and causes soil disturbance,

which inhibits establishment of new

plants. Vegetation succession and the

associated wildlife experience a minor

adverse impact because of this activity.

A range of impacts is associated with the

existing road system and motor vehicle

access. FR545 is used by everyone who

tours the park. Local residents use the road

year-round at any time of the day or night.

Motor noise from passing vehicles would

frequently disturb wildlife. The road

bisects the park and creates a barrier to 

the movement of many small mammals

and reptiles and also creates a hazard for

larger mammals, including antelope and

deer. Visitor and local traffic contribute to 

the overall numbers of vehicles traveling

through the monument, which have a 

moderate adverse impact on the natural

quiet of the monument. The road also

serves as a center of spread for a variety of

invasive, nonnative plant species, including

mullein, melilotus, and toadflax, which are

introduced via fill material used in 

maintaining road shoulders. These species

thrive in disturbed areas and in time could

spread away from the road and displace

native vegetation, changing vegetation

composition. This would constitute a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact.

The construction of new curatorial and

maintenance/resource management

facilities in the administrative area of

Sunset Crater Volcano NM will disturb

approximately 48,000 square feet (8,000

sq. ft. by the curatorial facility, 40,000 sq.

ft. by the maintenance/resource

management facility) of ponderosa pine

forest. Planning and construction of these

facilities will be accomplished so as to

minimize the impact, but an unknown

number of ponderosa pines will have to be

removed, as well as all understory

vegetation within the footprint of the

buildings and parking lots. This will cause

129 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

a long-term minor adverse impact to

natural systems and processes by removal

of vegetation, alteration of wildlife

habitat, and the long-term vegetation

management required in a developed

area.

The closure of the O’Leary Peak Road to all

vehicles except for administrative use will

have a negligible to minor beneficial

impact to natural systems and processes by

substantially reducing the amount of 

vehicle traffic on the road. Reduced

vehicle traffic will slow down unnatural

erosion due to road deterioration. This will

also reduce the impacts related to road

maintenance activities, such as the

introduction and spread of nonnative

plants and disturbance and compaction of 

areas adjacent to the road.

The heaviest visitor impacts to the current

monument resources are concentrated in

the Lava Flow Trail area (both sides of the

park road) and the Lenox Crater Trail.

Social trails develop frequently in the Lava

Flow Trail area and further extend the

impact of the main trail into other nearby

areas. The trail leading up Lenox Crater is

on a steep slope and causes unnecessary

erosion of the cinder substrate. For the

most part, these impacts occur in cinder

substrate, but there have also been minor

to moderate impacts to lava features in

these areas as well. Impacts to geologic

features will be discussed in a following

section. Primarily the impacts are the result

of concentrated use on a substrate that is

prone to movement when compressed by 

foot traffic. In areas where cinders are very

deep, moisture is not readily available to

plants. Because very little organic material

is present, cinder is a very difficult

substrate for plants to become established

on. Given the added disruption of foot

traffic and the fact that foot traffic is not

confined to just the established trails,

relatively large expanses of cinder areas

have been impacted, and plant succession

has been halted. The NPS has attempted to 

obliterate trails as they are formed, by

raking them out. This activity, when

performed on a regular basis, constantly

moves the soil surface around, adding to

the difficulty of plant establishment.

Adverse impacts are moderate and long

term in these areas where use has been

concentrated, although some of the

impacts are being mitigated through the

use of physical barriers and interpretive

signing to keep visitors on the trails.

Sunset Crater Volcano itself has been

closed to foot traffic since 1973, because

the trails on the volcano had become

deeply eroded, up to the depth of six feet,

exposing pine tree roots and eliminating

vegetation. Although the trails were

rehabilitated, scars are still visible, and for

the most part, vegetation has not been

reestablished. The impact after nearly 30 

years of closure is moderate. Within recent

years, the rest of the backcountry (defined

as all areas beyond designated roads,

trails, or developed facilities) has been

closed to unguided entry. Currently

approximately 130 acres within the

monument are disturbed by roads, trails,

or developed facilities. This is less than 5%

of the monument’s area and constitutes a 

minor, long-term adverse impact.

Some of the softer lava surfaces are also

subject to increased erosion by foot traffic,

but this topic will be the focus of the

section called Long-Term Integrity of 

Geologic Resources.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area used in the

consideration of cumulative impacts

includes the western portion of the Little

Colorado River watershed and is bounded

in the south by the Mogollon Plateau and

Clear Creek, the Little Colorado River and

Painted Desert on the east, and the San

Francisco Peaks and Coconino Plateau on

the west.

Forest management activities of the lands

surrounding Sunset Crater also pose

130 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

threats to natural processes in the area.

Hunting affects animal populations and

sometimes leads to illegal poaching of

park wildlife. These impacts would be 

minor to moderate and long term.

Growing development in the area south of 

the monument could greatly increase

recreational pressures on the monument

and surrounding lands and would also

further disrupt wildlife corridors and

displace raptors and other birds. This could

also lead to an increase in local traffic on

the road through the monument, which

could have a minor to moderate impact on 

wildlife crossing the road as well as on the

natural quiet.

CONCLUSION

There would be no major impacts under

the No-Action Alternative. Minor and

moderate impacts are caused by the

existing road through the monument and

by visitor use in concentrated areas such as

the Lava Flow Trail and the Lenox Crater

Trail. In addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe effects as

a result of implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impacts under Alternative 1 resulting from

expansion of Bonito Campground,

continued use of FR545, construction of

new curatorial, maintenance, and resource

management facilities, the closure of the

O’Leary Peak Road, and the continued use

of the Lava Flow and Lenox Crater Trails

would be the same as those described for

the No-Action Alternative.

The construction of a new visitor center

near the junction of FR545 and US89

would result in vegetation removal, the

introduction and spread of nonnative

plants, and long-term management of 

vegetation in a developed zone, which

would constitute a minor impact to

vegetation succession processes.

Conversion of the existing visitor center to

an education center would not affect the

long-term integrity of natural systems and

processes directly, although there could be 

beneficial indirect impacts by improving

NPS ability to provide in-depth education

to the public on resource issues and

resource protection.

Constructing a new trail from Bonito

Campground to the Lenox Crater/Lava

Flow Trail area would cause a minor

impact to the area and associated natural

resources, because it would be constructed

adjacent to the existing road and in the

area of an informal trail. Theses impacts

would include increased soil compaction,

introduction of nonnative plants, and

destruction of native vegetation, although

the trail would be planned and

constructed to avoid destroying as much

vegetation as possible.

The addition of new Extended Learning

Zones near the new visitor center and in

the Lenox Crater/Lava Flow Trail area

would increase impacts to natural

processes and systems in these areas. Trail

development for self-guided activities

could cause an increase in introduction

and spread of nonnative plant species and

soil compaction, as well as destruction of

native vegetation. Cinder soil and

vegetation succession processes would be 

further disturbed in a wider area. There

131 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

would be a long-term minor adverse

impact to natural systems and processes in

these areas due to trail construction and

visitor use impacts.

Under this alternative, approximately

1,500 acres would be added to the

monument through minor boundary

adjustments. These additional acres would

increase Sunset Crater Volcano’s area by

nearly 50%, and nearly all of this area

would be closed to visitor use. This would

be a moderate beneficial impact to natural

systems and processes, as it would protect

the fragile cinder substrate from further

disturbance, allowing soil formation and

vegetation succession processes to 

continue in an unimpeded manner.

The formalization of a backcountry closure

policy at Sunset Crater Volcano would

have a moderate beneficial effect on 

preserving the long-term integrity of 

natural resources by eliminating impacts

from visitation, including social trails, and

disruption of vegetative processes as

mentioned earlier. Less than 5% of the

monument’s land would be open and

available for visitor use. The beneficial

effects of closure would be dependent on 

adequate enforcement and proactive NPS

management within the designated

preservation zone.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects for Alternative 1 

would be the same as those described for

the No-Action Alternative.

CONCLUSION

There would be no major impacts to the

long-term integrity of natural systems of 

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

under Alternative 1. Some minor and

moderate impacts would be caused by the

road through the monument, construction

of the new visitor center, and some trail

construction and visitor use impacts in the

Extended Learning Zones. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be other,

less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 2:

Emphasize Quiet Natural

Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impacts under Alternative 2 resulting from

construction of new curatorial,

maintenance, and resource management

facilities, the closure of the O’Leary Peak 

Road, and the continued use of the Lava

Flow and Lenox Crater Trails would be the

same as described for the No-Action

Alternative.

Entry to the monument would be 

completely altered under this alternative.

FR545 from US89 to Bonito Park would be 

closed and rehabilitated, as would the

section east of the Lava Flow Trail to the

new eastern boundary. FR414 would be

upgraded and paved and become the

monument’s entrance road. The park

would be closed at night and gated at the

new visitor center, which would be located

south of the monument on FR776. Closure

of the park at night and elimination of 

FR545 as a through road would probably

have a minor beneficial impact to the

long-term integrity of natural processes

and systems. Traffic on portions of the

road still remaining would be greatly

132 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

reduced and occur only during daylight

hours. This would substantially reduce

disturbance of wildlife movement patterns

and disturbance due to noise. After-hours

access to the park would be limited, which

would greatly deter trespass.

Both FR776 and FR414 would need to be

upgraded and paved under this

alternative. FR776 is currently a wellmaintained gravel road, and activities

involved in paving it would cause

negligible to minor impacts to natural

processes during actual construction and

for the long term. FR414 is an 

unmaintained road in cinder substrate and

would need considerable work. Widening

and leveling of the road would necessitate

removal of some ponderosa pines and

understory vegetation along its length.

This could also alter drainage patterns.

Adverse impacts from this activity would

be moderate and long term.

The construction of a new visitor center

and associated facilities would disturb an

unknown area of ponderosa pine forest.

An unknown number of trees would need

to be removed for the construction of

these buildings, parking areas, and

campground, altering wildlife habitat. This

would have a long-term, minor impact on 

natural systems and processes in the

immediate area. The relocation of the

visitor center to a new park entrance

would have a beneficial effect on 

preserving the long-term integrity of 

natural systems and processes by ensuring

that most visitors are adequately informed

about the significance and fragility of

resources within the monument and are

educated about means of minimizing

impacts from visitation before they enter

the park. On the other hand, greater

distance between the new visitor center

and prime park resources might have an

adverse effect on the prevention of illegal

activities that result in impacts to sensitive

resources.

The existing visitor center, housing area,

and maintenance facilities, and the USFSmanaged Bonito Campground would be 

removed and the areas rehabilitated. This

would return natural processes,

vegetation, and wildlife habitat to an area

that has been impacted for many years.

Though the removal of buildings and

facilities would cause short-term adverse

impacts to the area from movement and

activities of construction vehicles, the longterm impacts would be moderate and

beneficial.

Under Alternative 2, FR545 west of Lava

Flow Trail and north of Sunset Crater

would be converted to a walking trail.

Conversion of the road east of the Lava

Flow Trail to a walking trail would be 

beneficial to the primary monument

resource by removing the road from the

shoulder of the volcano. Currently, the

road alters the natural slope of the cinder

cone, which affects the rate and manner

of cinder movement down the slope.

Converting the road to a trail would lessen

the alteration of slope and allow a more

natural cinder movement process. Also,

impacts due to road maintenance would

be reduced. However, there is some

chance that visitors would wish to leave

the trail to explore new areas of the

monument and in the process create new

trails, compact soils, and disturb native

vegetation, a minor, long-term, adverse

impact.

Placing a trail around Bonito Park would

cause minor adverse impacts to the

vegetation in the area by construction of

the trail itself as well as by increasing

visitor use. Initial construction of the trail

would require removal of vegetation and

compaction of soil. Trails can often serve

as introduction routes for nonnative and

invasive plant species, displacing native

vegetation and disrupting the plant

composition. Trails can also cause

increased erosion and change drainage

patterns. Planning and construction of the

133 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

trail would proceed with both of these

considerations in mind, and all possible

actions would be taken to minimize these

impacts. This trail would also cause

moderate impacts to pronghorn antelope,

which use Bonito Park as a fawning area,

and are sensitive to human presence.

The Extended Learning Zone in this

alternative would occupy a larger area,

encompassing all of Lenox Crater and

continuing past the Lava Flow Trail to the

northwest of Sunset Crater. The same sort

of impacts in this zone would occur as

under Alternative 1, but they would be 

spread throughout a greater area.

Alternative 2 would involve significant

expansion of current monument

boundaries to include areas around Bonito

Park, north of FR776, and minor additions

on the east and north boundaries. This

would add approximately 3,600 acres to

the monument. Boundary adjustments

would have a minor to moderate

beneficial effect on any natural resources

within the proposed park additions by 

proactively protecting them from

recreation and other use impacts.

Rehabilitation of these areas would begin

to restore more acreage to a near-natural

state, which would have a moderate

beneficial impact on natural resource

systems within the monument.

Elimination of off-trail backcountry access

throughout much of the monument would

have a moderate beneficial impact on the

long-term integrity of natural systems by 

restoring natural processes in areas that

have been greatly impacted and retaining

near-pristine conditions in areas that have

been closed. The beneficial effects of

closure are dependent on adequate

enforcement and proactive NPS

management within the designated

Resource Preservation Zone.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects for Alternative 2 

would be the same as those described for

the No-Action Alternative.

CONCLUSION

There would be no major impacts to the

long-term integrity of natural systems and

processes at Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument under Alternative 2.

Some minor to moderate impacts would

occur with construction of new facilities

and new trails, but these would be mostly

offset by removal and rehabilitation of

buildings and road segments in other

areas. In addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe effects as

a result of implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impacts from FR545 would be the same as 

those described under the No-Action

Alternative, with the exception of impacts

caused by the construction of added

pullouts near the Kana-A lava flow.

Construction of these pullouts would

constitute a negligible to minor adverse

impact by removing vegetation.

134 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

Impacts from expansion of Bonito

Campground would be the same as

described under the No-Action Alternative.

The impacts associated with construction

of a new interagency visitor center near

the junction of FR545 and US89 would be

the same as those described under

Alternative 1, as would impacts resulting

from conversion of the existing visitor

center to an education center.

The impacts associated with Extended

Learning Zones near the visitor center and

in the Lenox Crater/Lava Flow Trail would

be the same as those described under

Alternative 1. 

Impacts associated with the trail from the

campground to Lava Flow Trail area would

be the same as described in Alternative 1.

Development of a new loop trail that

travels from the junction of FR545 and

FR776 to Double Crater would cause minor

to moderate long-term adverse impacts

from disruption of soil formation and

vegetation succession processes in areas

where there has been no

disturbance.Expanding the boundary to

include approximately 4,500 acres of the

current OHV area would have a major,

long-term, beneficial affect on the

integrity of natural systems. This would

remove significant acreage from

disturbances caused by off-highway

vehicles, including crushing and pulling of 

plants by running over them with vehicles

and repeated disturbances of the cinder

structure. Expanding the boundary an

additional 4,000 acres would also bring the

Kana-A lava flow into the monument,

along with other smaller areas south and

north of the current boundary.

The addition of a Discovery Zone in the

southwest corner of the expanded

monument would cause some impacts due 

to visitor use, though at most this would

involve development of primitive trails.

Dispersed hiking and primitive trail

development could have a minor to

moderate adverse impact on cinder soil

formation and vegetation succession

processes.

The elimination of backcountry access

through implementation of a formal

closure policy for the portion of Sunset

Crater Volcano north of FR545 would have

a minor beneficial effect on preserving the

long-term scientific integrity of natural

systems and processes by eliminating

impacts from visitation. The beneficial

effects of closure are dependent on 

adequate enforcement and proactive NPS

management within the designated

preservation zone.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects for Alternative 3 

would be the same as those described for

the No-Action Alternative, with the

following exception:

The cumulative impacts of Alternative 3 to 

natural systems are largely beneficial,

because it would increase habitat for

vegetation and wildlife protecting large

areas northeast and southeast of the

monument. The development of 

additional trails and a new visitor center

would have minor effects on vegetation

and wildlife in the area.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 3 would have a major

beneficial effect on preserving the longterm scientific integrity of natural systems

and processes within the monument. The

minor adverse impacts that would

accompany development of the new

visitor center and adjoining extended

learning zone would be substantially

offset by the benefits of additional visitor

orientation provided at the new visitor

center, the increased NPS and USFS

presence in the area, the inclusion of

additional very significant resources within

monument boundaries, and the zoning of

large areas within the monument for longterm preservation purposes. In addition to

135 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

those mentioned, there would be other,

less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

Some soils, vegetation, and wildlife

habitat would be permanently removed to

build trails or expanded visitor facilities

and to upgrade roads. These would be 

irreversible commitments of resources.

Loss in Long-Term Availability

or Productivity of the

Resource to Achieve ShortTerm Gain

Some soils, vegetation, and wildlife

habitat would be permanently removed

and unavailable for other purposes to

build trails, campsites, or expanded visitor

facilities and upgrade roads. Wildlife

habitat or vegetation could also be 

degraded by providing increased access to

undisturbed areas. Wildlife could also be 

disturbed through the creation of trails

and the access they provide.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Under the No-Action Alternative, the

existing park road bisects the park and

creates a barrier to the movement of many

small mammals and reptiles. The vehicles

traveling through the monument have a 

moderate adverse impact on the natural

quiet of the monument. The road also

serves as a center of spread for a variety of

invasive, exotic plant species. These species

thrive in disturbed areas and in time could

spread away from the road and displace

native vegetation and change vegetation

composition, which would be a minor,

long-term, adverse impact. The heaviest

visitor impacts to the current monument

resources are concentrated in the Lava

Flow Trail area (both sides of the park

road) and at Lenox Crater. Social trails

develop frequently in the Lava Flow Trail

area and extend the impact of the main

trail into other areas nearby. For the most

part, these impacts occur in cinder

substrate with more minor impacts

occurring to lava, primarily because of its

more durable nature. Impacts are severe in

these areas where use has been

concentrated. Primarily the impacts are the

result of concentrated use on a substrate

that is prone to movement when

compressed by foot traffic. In areas where

cinder is very deep, moisture is not readily

available to plants. Because very little

organic matter is present, cinder is a very

difficult substrate for plants to become

established on. Given the added disruption

of foot traffic and the fact that foot traffic

is not confined to just the established

trails, relatively large expanses of cinder

areas have been impacted and plant

succession has been halted. Impacts are

moderate and long term in these areas

where use has been concentrated.

Construction activities under all of the

action alternatives would disturb soils and

vegetation and lead to the introduction

and spread of exotic plant species.

Increased social trailing could adversely

affect vegetation. Wildlife would be 

disturbed by human activities in the

monuments.

136 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED,

AND SENSITIVE SPECIES

Methodology

Information on possible threatened,

endangered, and sensitive species was

gathered, including searching information

on USFS lands, the natural resource

inventory completed in the late 1970s 

(Bateman 1979), and the Arizona Game

and Fish Department Heritage database.

Information from prior research at Sunset

Crater Volcano was also incorporated. No

management actions that would

knowingly potentially impact any

threatened or endangered species were

included in the alternatives. Map locations

of sensitive resources were compared with

locations of proposed developments and

modifications of existing facilities. Known

impacts caused by road and trail

construction were also considered.

Sociological studies comparing the

deterrent effects of signs versus ranger

presence on sites were also considered in

this analysis. Intensity of effects are

defined as follows.

Negligible: An action that would not 

affect any individuals of a sensitive species

or their habitat within Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument.

Minor: An action that would affect a few

individuals of sensitive species or have very

localized impacts upon their habitat within

Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument. The change would require

considerable scientific effort to measure

and have barely perceptible consequences

to the species or habitat function

Moderate: An action that would cause

measurable affects on: (1) a relatively

moderate number of individuals within a 

sensitive species population, (2) the

existing dynamics between multiple

species (e.g. predator-prey, herbivoreforage, vegetation structure-wildlife

breeding habitat), or (3) a relatively large

habitat area or important habitat

attributes within Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument. A sensitive species

population or habitat might deviate from

normal levels under existing conditions,

but would remain indefinitely viable

within the monument.

Major: An action that would have drastic

and permanent consequences for a 

sensitive species population, dynamics

between multiple species, or almost all

available critical or unique habitat area

within Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument. A sensitive species population

or its habitat would be permanently

altered from normal levels under existing

conditions, and the species would be at

risk of extirpation from the monument.

Effects of the No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Currently, no federally listed threatened or

endangered plant or animal species are

known to occur in Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument.

There are two plant “species of concern”

for which there are recent records within

Sunset Crater-Penstemon clutei and

Phacelia serrata (Huisinga et al. 2000).

Penstemon clutei is a perennial, endemic

to northern Arizona and found mostly at

Sunset Crater and nearby cinder cones. Its

distribution is limited to the range of its

specialized habitat requirements-cinder

soils on gentle slopes in relatively open

areas of ponderosa pine forest. Phacelia

serrata is an annual species also endemic

to northern Arizona with mostly similar

habitat requirements and a slightly larger

distribution. Both species have shown

some affinity to recently disturbed sites,

such as burned areas.

Under the No-Action Alternative, the

construction of the curatorial and

137 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

maintenance/resource management

facilities have the most potential to impact

populations of the two plant species of 

concern. Rare plant surveys that were

conducted in the monument did not 

include the administrative area that is on

USFS land, but this area is possible habitat.

Surveys for these two species would be

conducted prior to construction of the

facilities and areas containing populations

of these plants would be avoided.

Expansion of Bonito Campground to

include group camping, a day-use area for

educational group gatherings, and an

amphitheater could have minor adverse

impacts to sensitive plant species in the

immediate area. Individual plants could be 

destroyed during construction, and longterm impacts could continue due to

trampling and other visitor use activities.

Existing roads, trails, and NPS support

facilities are located in proximity to known

locations and/or known habitats for many

of the sensitive plants. Routine

maintenance activities have the potential

to introduce and spread nonnative plant

species, which can compete for habitat

and may impact sensitive plant species.

Current visitor activity near developed

areas likely results in localized off-trail

vegetation trampling. Most of the

monument remains closed to general

visitor access in order to protect sensitive

natural resources. The backcountry closure

also effectively protects most sensitive

plant habitats from disturbance.

Occasional dispersed hiking within the

closed area occurs during guided hikes,

resource monitoring studies, scientific

research, educational activities, other

special uses, and unauthorized hiking.

Closure of the O’Leary Peak Road to

vehicles except for administrative use

could have a minor beneficial impact to

sensitive plant species.

Continued field studies are needed to

routinely assess the distribution and status

of sensitive species, and to ensure they are

not impacted by current visitor use, NPS

operations, and new construction. Under

the No-Action Alternative, occasional

incidental trampling of vegetation during

off-trail activities would continue to occur.

For these reasons, the No-Action

Alternative would likely have long-term,

negligible to minor adverse impacts on

plant “species of concern.”

One endangered species, the Mexican

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) is

known to occur on nearby USFS land.

Another bird “species of concern,” the

northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis), is 

also known to occur on nearby USFS land.

Although not formally listed as “species of 

concern,” pronghorn antelope

(Antilocapra americana) and golden eagle

(Aquila chrysaetos) were identified as

environmental issues during the public and

agency scoping process.

Strix occidentalis lucida, Accipter gentilis,

and Aquila chrysaetos are all found in the

general vicinity of O’Leary Peak, and good

nesting habitat for all three birds is found

on O’Leary Peak. There are likely some

negligible to minor adverse impacts to the

possible nesting of these species because

of disturbance by humans traveling

through the area, which would cause birds

to alter their roosting and hunting

patterns and, in extreme cases, abandon a 

nest site.

As use of the park by endangered and

sensitive bird species is most likely sporadic

foraging behavior, current NPS park

operations and visitor use patterns are

likely to have only a negligible impact.

Prior to planning and construction of any

new facilities, the USFS will be consulted

regarding nest locations and surveys may

be undertaken to ensure no disturbance of

nesting areas.

Bonito Park, which is located just west of 

the monument, is also on USFS lands.

Current use is very sporadic; few people

138 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

walk out into the park, and individuals

from affiliated tribes collect some plants

from the area, but in terms of sensitive

plant species only Penstemon clutei is

known to occur there. Bonito Park is also a 

known fawning area for pronghorn

antelope. Owing to the low visitor use of

this area, there is a negligible effect to the

sensitive species that are found there.

Roads through the monument and USFS

lands may present a noise disturbance and

barrier to movement of pronghorn

antelope. There also may be incidental

mortality due to vehicle traffic. The impact

from current roadways and vehicle traffic

is likely minor, adverse, and long term.

In addition to the “species of concern,”

three unique habitats were also identified

as occurring in Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument: pioneering

vegetation stands isolated in the middle of 

the lava flows, pioneering vegetation

islands on deep cinder deposits, and the

downslope perimeter of lava flows where

water seepage may be more prevalent.

The generally difficulty in traversing the

lava flow, coupled with the backcountry

closure, effectively protects the pioneering

vegetation island in the middle of the lava

flow. There are no adverse impacts from

current NPS operations on this unique

habitat. Pioneering vegetation islands on 

deep cinder deposits and unique

vegetation found on the perimeter of the

lava flow are subject to some impacts from

visitor use near the expanded Bonito

Campground and from the O’Leary Peak 

Road. These impacts are likely minor and

long term.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area used in the

consideration of cumulative impacts

includes the western portion of the Little

Colorado River watershed and is bounded

in the south by the Mogollon Plateau and

Clear Creek, the Little Colorado River and

Painted Desert on the east, and the San

Francisco Peaks and Coconino Plateau on

the west.

An approved recovery plan for the

Mexican spotted owl is being

implemented, and the northern goshawk

is being managed as a species of concern

by the Forest Service. These management

actions are most likely having a moderate

to major beneficial effect on these

populations. The use of the road up 

O’Leary Peak could have minor adverse

impacts to the raptors found in that area.

Cumulative impacts to the Mexican

spotted owl and northern goshawk are

negligible.

The widening of US89 to four lanes from

Flagstaff to the south boundary of 

Wupatki could have a moderate impact on 

pronghorn antelope movement in the

geographic area because they do not cross

fenced highways. Pronghorn are declining

regionally in northern Arizona. Current

visitor use of Bonito Park is sporadic and

dispersed. Current roads in the

surrounding area create a barrier to

movement of pronghorn into Bonito Park.

These impacts are minor and long term

and likely have a minor cumulative impact

to pronghorn regionally.

CONCLUSION

Under current NPS management there are

no major adverse impacts to threatened,

endangered, or sensitive species. There are

some negligible to minor effects to 

sensitive plant and animal species and

unique habitats from current visitor use

and NPS facilities. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be other, less

severe effects as a result of implementing

this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

139 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts on endangered and sensitive

species and unique habitats from use and

maintenance of FR545 and the O’Leary

Peak Road and expansion of Bonito

Campground would be the same as those

identified for the No-Action Alternative

The impacts on endangered and sensitive

species and unique habitats from visitor

activities at the Lava Flow and Lenox

Crater Trails would be the same as under

the No-Action Alternative.

Impacts on endangered and sensitive

species and unique habitats from NPS

operation and maintenance of the existing

visitor center, employee housing, offices,

shops, parking lots, and utilities would

remain highly concentrated at the same

locations and would be the same as those

identified for the No-Action Alternative.

The existing backcountry closure area

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Preservation Zone, and

unauthorized access would be prohibited.

Visitor use and NPS operations impacts to 

sensitive species and unique habitats

within the Resource Preservation Zone

would be the same as identified for the

No-Action Alternative.

The construction of a new visitor center

near US89 could cause minor impacts to

sensitive plant species because of 

vegetation removal and the introduction

of nonnative plants. Surveys to determine

locations of sensitive plant species would

be conducted and appropriate mitigation

would be employed if areas containing

these plant species could not be avoided.

The new visitor center and associated

Extended Learning Zone could have a 

minor to moderate impact on pronghorn

antelope that use Bonito Park as a 

fawning area. Movement corridors from

lower elevation grassland into Bonito Park

have not been identified, but may be 

through or near the area where the new

visitor center is proposed to be located.

Increased human and vehicle presence

could disrupt the pronghorns’ traditional

movement patterns.

The new trail from the campground to the

Lenox Crater/Lava Flow Trail area would

have only negligible to minor impact on

sensitive plant species, because it would be 

located along a currently used social trail,

where the soil is already compacted. This

trail could have a long-term, minor

adverse impact on the unique habitat

associated with the base of the lava flow.

Visitor use could lead to trampling of 

unique vegetation associations and young

aspens.

New trail construction in the Extended

Learning Zones could have an adverse

minor impact to sensitive plant species by

removing individual plants and

compacting soils, but trails can be placed

so as to avoid concentrated areas of the

plant. Trail construction and visitor

trampling in the Extended Learning Zone

between Lenox and Sunset Craters could

destroy individuals of the species,

although areas containing the plants

would be avoided to the extent possible.

Isolated successional vegetation islands

could be impacted by visitor use, as well,

although trails will be planned to

minimize any possible impacts.

Boundary adjustments would have a minor

to moderate beneficial impact on any

sensitive species located within proposed

park additions, as the new land will be

placed within the Resource Preservation

Zone. This would reduce or eliminate any

visitor use impacts.

140 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects of Alternative 1 

would be similar to those expected under

the No-Action Alternative.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 1 would cause no major effects

to threatened, endangered, or sensitive

species or unique habitats. There is the

possibility of minor adverse impacts to

sensitive plant species where new trails

and facilities would be constructed,

however, surveys prior to these activities

would minimize any impacts. There could

be minor to moderate impacts to 

pronghorn antelope use of Bonito Park as

a fawning area due to disruption of 

movement corridors and human

disturbance. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be other, less

severe effects as a result of implementing

this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 2:

Emphasize Quiet Natural

Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts on sensitive species and

unique habitats from use and maintenance

of the O’Leary Peak Road would be the

same as those identified for the No-Action

Alternative.

The impacts on sensitive species and

unique habitats from visitor activities at

the Lava Flow and Lenox Crater Trails

would be the same as described for the

No-Action Alternative.

The existing backcountry closure area

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Preservation Zone, and

unauthorized access would be prohibited.

Visitor use and NPS operations impacts to 

sensitive species and unique habitats

within the Resource Preservation Zone

would be the same as identified for the

No-Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 2 the road system and

the way vehicles enter the park would be 

significantly changed. Closing portions of 

FR545 and rehabilitating them would have

beneficial impacts on pronghorn

movement and sensitive plant species.

However, this benefit could be offset by

the upgrading and paving of both FR414

and FR776. The ability to close the

monument during the night would

minimize impacts from vehicle traffic and

illegal activities, giving added protection

to all sensitive species within the

boundaries.

Construction of a new visitor center,

associated facilities, and campground

would cause some short-term minor

adverse impacts to sensitive plant species

during the construction and associated

ground disturbance and minor long-term

impacts due to loss of habitat and visitor

use. However, these impacts may be offset

by the removal and rehabilitation of the

existing visitor center, associated facilities,

and campground. FR545 west of Lava Flow

Trail and north of Sunset Crater would be 

converted to a walking trail, which could

have a negligible adverse impact to

sensitive plant habitat if visitors were

allowed to wander off the existing road

area and impact new areas.

The trail construction and use around

Bonito Park would have a minor adverse

141 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

impact to sensitive plants, owing to

removal of vegetation and soil compaction

of the trail, though the trail could be 

routed to avoid areas where these plants

grow. However, off-trail trampling and

illegal collection would have a long-term

minor impact on these species. This trail

would also have a moderate adverse effect

on pronghorn antelope that use Bonito

Park as a fawning area. Pronghorn are

sensitive to human presence and avoid

contact with people. Allowing people to

hike a trail that completely encircles

Bonito Park could cause the pronghorn to

change their movement and use patterns.

The Extended Learning Zone between

Lenox Crater and Sunset Crater would

likely include the development of trails

and allow more visitors to travel off the

trail, which could have a minor adverse

impact to the sensitive plant species

because of trampling and soil compaction.

The area included in the boundary

expansions to the east and south would

also give added protection to sensitive

species by eliminating off-trail travel in 

these areas. Elimination of off-trail

backcountry access throughout much of

the monument would have a minor

beneficial impact on sensitive plant species

in the area by eliminating trampling,

illegal collection, and soil compaction.

As use of the park by endangered and

sensitive bird species is most likely sporadic

foraging behavior, all changes to park

operations and visitor use patterns under

this alternative are likely to have only a 

negligible impact. Prior to planning and

construction of any new facilities, the USFS

would be consulted regarding nest

locations, and surveys may be undertaken

to ensure no disturbance of any protected

nesting areas.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects of Alternative 2 

would be similar to those expected under

the No-Action Alternative.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 2 would cause no major

impacts to threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species. Some negligible to minor

effects to sensitive plant species would

occur from construction of new facilities

and hiking trails. Moderate impacts may

occur to pronghorn movement and use of 

Bonito Park as a fawning area. In addition

to those mentioned, there would be other,

less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Impacts to endangered and sensitive

species and unique habitats from FR545

would be the same as expected under the

No-Action Alternative, with the exception

of impacts associated with the added

pullouts near the Kana-A lava flow.

Construction of these pullouts could

constitute a negligible to minor adverse

impact by removing sensitive plant species.

Impacts to endangered and sensitive

species and unique habitats from the

expansion of Bonito Campground would

142 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

be the same as described under the NoAction Alternative.

Impacts to endangered and sensitive

species and unique habitats from the

construction of a new visitor center near

the junction of FR545 and US 89, the

creation of Extended Learning Zones, and

the development of a trail between Bonito

Campground and the Lava Flow Trail

would be the same as those described

under Alternative 1.

Building a new trail from the junction of 

FR545 and FR776 to the Double Crater

area would have negligible to minor

adverse impacts to sensitive plants due to 

trampling and other visitor use impacts.

There could also be a minor impact to

pronghorn movement through the area.

Expanding the boundary to include a 

portion of the current OHV area could

have a major, long-term, beneficial impact

to sensitive plant species. This would

remove substantial acreage from potential

disturbances caused by off-highway travel,

including vehicles crushing and pulling out 

plants by running over them, and repeated

disturbances of the cinder structure.The

area in the new lands would be zoned as

Guided Adventure, except for the hiking

trail to Double Crater and the Discovery

Zone. Impacts to sensitive plants and

unique habitats in the Guided Adventure

Zone would be expected to be minor and

long term. Any guided hiking routes

would be planned accordingly to minimize

impacts to populations of sensitive plants

and vegetation islands. Human presence

may impact pronghorn movement slightly.

In the Discovery Zone, visitors would also

have self-guided opportunities in areas

without trails, or on primitive trails.

Trampling and other visitor use effect

could have minor adverse impacts on 

sensitive plants. Visitor use impacts would

be monitored in these two areas, and the

level of use adjusted accordingly.

The existing backcountry closure area

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Preservation Zone, and

unauthorized access would be prohibited.

Visitor use and NPS operations impacts to 

sensitive species and unique habitats

within the Resource Preservation Zone

would be the same as described for the

No-Action Alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative impacts of Alternative 3 to 

endangered and sensitive species and

unique habitats would be similar to those

identified for the No-Action Alternative.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 3 would have a major

beneficial impact by preserving more

habitat for sensitive plant species in

particular. There would be some negligible

to minor effects to both sensitive plant

and animal species from construction of

new facilities and trails. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be other,

less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of threatened

or endangered species.

143 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Loss in Long-Term Availability

or Productivity of the

Resource to Achieve ShortTerm Gain

Some wildlife habitat or vegetation could

also be degraded by providing increased

access to undisturbed areas. Wildlife could

also be disturbed through the creation of 

trails and the access they provide.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Under all the alternatives, the road system

would interfere to varying degrees with

the local movement or migration of 

sensitive animal species, and would rarely

result in incidental injury or mortality.

Construction activities under all of the

action alternatives would locally disturb

sensitive plant and animal species habitats

and potentially increase the area

dominated by nonnative, invasive plant

species. Visitor use would likely result in

local vegetation trampling and impacts to

rare plants and increased disturbance to 

sensitive wildlife species, particularly

pronghorn.

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Methodology

This section analyzes the impacts of the

various management alternatives upon the

geologic resources within Sunset Crater

National Monument. Discussion of impacts

to vegetation, wildlife, sensitive species,

and unique habitats is presented

elsewhere. Available information on

geologic history and features in the

monument was reviewed, including the

Flagstaff Area National Monuments

Resources Management Plan (1996),

Smiley’s geology and dating of Sunset

Crater Volcano (1958), Museum of

Northern Arizona Notes (1929) on Sunset

Crater and lava flow research, Holm and

Moore’s description of the geology of 

Sunset Crater (1987), and Holm’s study of

the Bonito Lava flow association with the

Sunset Crater cinder cone (1987). Impact

topics identified through the public and

agency scoping process include preserving

the unique recent geologic volcanic

features within the monument and

preserving the scientific integrity of the

associated geologic landscape that is part

of the Sunset Crater Volcano eruption.

Large-scale features include cinder cones,

fresh lava surfaces, and deep cinder

deposits. Smaller features include lava

tubes, ice caves, fumerole vents, and

spatter cones. Geologic resources

associated with Sunset Crater Volcano

were compared with locations of proposed

developments and modifications of 

existing facilities and current uses.

Intensity of impacts are defined as follows:

Negligible: An action that would cause no 

change in existing geologic features.

Minor: An action that would locally affect

only widespread or common geologic

features within the monument. The

change would have barely perceptible

consequences to the integrity of geologic

resources.

Moderate: An action that would affect a 

unique and irreplaceable geologic feature

or a large area of widespread geologic

features within the monument. The

change would result in permanent partial

loss of the integrity of geologic resources.

Major: An action that would destroy or

permanently damage unique and

irreplaceable geologic features or most of 

a large-scale geologic resource within the

monument. The change would result in

permanent loss and/or largely compromise

the integrity of geologic resources.

144 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Effects of the No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Under the No-Action Alternative, roads,

trails, and visitor support facilities within

the monument boundary occupy

approximately 130 acres, or less than 5% 

of the total geologic landscape within the

monument. The remaining 95% of the

monument is closed to general public

access in order to protect sensitive natural

and cultural resources.

The new NPS curatorial storage, resource

management, and maintenance facilities

would likely be constructed near existing

facilities on Coconino National Forest lands

in mature geologic terrain, where soils and

vegetation are well developed. The new

facilities would not impact exposed

geologic features associated with the

eruption of Sunset Crater Volcano and

Bonito Lava Flow.

Historic visitor use of the Crater Overlook

Trail (now closed) on the steep, westfacing cinder slope of Sunset Crater

Volcano resulted in deep erosion of the

trail route. The trail has been closed for

more than 30 years, but the impacts from

prior erosion and NPS restoration actions

are still evident. Under the No-Action

Alternative, Sunset Crater and most of the

monument would remain closed to visitor

use, and should continue to recover from

historic use impacts.

The existing entrance road follows along

the northwestern base of Sunset Crater

Volcano. A level area was cut into the

lower slope for the road base. This causes

minor slumping of the cinder slope, and

small volumes of cinder material must be

periodically removed from the road

shoulder. The road also provides

convenient visitor access to the cinder

cone, resulting in casual unauthorized

scrambling on its slopes. The continued use

of the existing road under the No-Action

Alternative would likely result in 

continued long-term, minor adverse

impacts to the steep cinder cone slopes.

The planned closure of the O’Leary Peak 

Road to general public use would likely

eliminate some vehicle impacts to deep

cinder deposits and steep slopes near the

peak, and reduce unauthorized access

around the western and northern

perimeter of the monument in areas that

are not routinely patrolled. This would

likely result in long-term, negligible to

minor beneficial impacts to geologic

resources on both the Coconino National

Forest and Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument.

The existing trail on Lenox Crater also

traverses steep cinder slopes, and is readily

subject to the severe erosion problems

that historically impacted Sunset Crater.

Heavy, unmanaged visitor use upon Lenox

Crater, one of the only two cinder cones

within the monument, would likely result

in long-term, minor to moderate adverse

impacts to cinder cone features within the

monument. More than 300,000 visitors per

year walk the Lava Flow Trail, and the

local area surrounding the trail has long

been impacted by visitor activity. Many

people wander off the established trail

into nearby areas of deep cinder deposits,

establishing unplanned trail segments, and

trampling footprint patterns into the

original cinder surface. The NPS has no 

information on how long footprint

patterns persist before they naturally

weather out. The Lava Flow Trail also

passes close to two spatter cones. Visitors

often climb on them, breaking or

“polishing” their surfaces and accelerating

erosion of the remaining features. This

results in long-term moderate, adverse

impacts to these local and unique geologic

features.

Overnight visitors often hike from the

campground into the western side of the

monument, resulting in numerous

145 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

unplanned trails. Visitors frequently climb

and hike the western margin of the Bonito

Lava Flow, which may result in specimen

collection, local breakage, or collapse of

surface features of the lava flow. In

addition, visitors choose to hike along the

road shoulder from the campground to

the Lenox Crater area. The current

expansion of the existing campground

would likely result in a relatively small

increase in overnight visitation and

associated impacts to the western

boundary of the monument and the

Bonito Lava Flow. Under the No-Action

Alternative, continuing visitor activity from

the campground area would likely result in

long-term, minor adverse impacts to largescale geologic features, similar to those

described above.

Off-road vehicles infrequently trespass

along the southern and eastern boundary

of the monument. Vehicle tracks are now 

evident around the southern base of both

Sunset Crater and Lenox Crater. One

incident left permanent tracks across the

entire south side of Sunset Crater. Within

the monument boundary, trespass offroad driving is resulting in long-term,

minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

large-scale cinder cone geologic features.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area of consideration for 

cumulative impacts is the San Francisco 

Volcanic Field on the east side of the San 

Francisco Mountains and the associated 

area of recent geologic events such as 

basaltic volcanoes, vents, lava flows, and 

cinder deposits. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

cumulative impacts of public visitation and 

NPS operations at Sunset Crater Volcano 

National Monument on the integrity of 

geologic resources are difficult to 

estimate. Many of the geologic features 

are unique and irreplaceable if lost. The 

monument is very small relative to the 

surrounding geologic landscape, and could 

be rapidly impacted by any combination of

management decisions and activities. The

primary adverse cumulative impacts from

NPS management would likely result from

a failure to manage increased visitation,

road traffic, and poorly planned support

facilities. Over time, these circumstances

would exacerbate adverse impacts to both

large- and small-scale geologic features,

including: erosion and gullying on steep

slopes on the two accessible cinder cones;

increased wearing of unplanned trail

segments in cinder deposits; increased

disruption of cinder weathering and soil

formation processes; and increased

collection, breakage, polishing, and

collapse of lava flow surface and spatter

cone features. Although visitor carrying

capacity has not been established, a 

threshold could be reached where the

adverse impacts to geologic resources,

especially unique small-scale features,

exceed those stated above in the analysis.

The greatest cumulative impacts to the

geological resources of the eastern San

Francisco Volcanic Field are mostly a result

of activities beyond the control of the NPS.

Much of the San Francisco Mountains are

protected under the Wilderness Act. The

U.S. Forest Service is currently proposing

regional minerals leasing withdrawals

within the San Francisco Volcanic Field. A 

pumice mining lease on the eastern slopes

of the San Francisco Mountains was

recently bought out and cancelled by the

U.S. Forest Service. Strawberry Crater, an

older cinder cone volcano, is protected

within designated wilderness and

managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Except

for the wilderness and mineral withdrawal

areas, very few geologic features are

protected within the area of basaltic

cinder cones and lava flows on the eastern

side of the volcanic field.

Numerous activities are affecting geologic

resources surrounding the monument. Offroad driving is causing long-term scarring

in many areas, including distinct geologic

146 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

features associated with the Sunset Crater

Volcano eruption. Commercial surface

mining for cinder material on private and

state lands has resulted in the partial

removal of numerous cinder cones and is

expected to result in the eventual loss of

entire cinder cone features. Some cinder

borrow pits are still active on the Coconino

National Forest. Neighborhoods are

rapidly growing in the area immediately

south of the Coconino National Forest, and

local recreational use, such as hiking,

horseback riding, motorcycle and OHV use,

and off-road driving are impacting the

cinder cones and cinder barrens. Nearby

Roden Crater is being heavily modified as

part of a private artistic venture. Many

smaller local features within the eastern

volcanic field, such as fumerole vents and

spatter cones, may be completely

obliterated. Lava flows are likely being

impacted the least, because of their

naturally inaccessible terrain. The scientific

geological value of Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument should become even

greater as associated and irreplaceable

geologic features within the eastern San

Francisco Volcanic Field continue to be 

permanently impacted.

CONCLUSION

Sunset Crater Volcano has been impacted

by past visitor use, resulting in deep scars

eroded into the steep cinder cone slopes

that are still visible today. Existing NPS

operations and visitor use in the Lenox

Crater, southwestern Bonito Lava Flow

perimeter, and Lava Flow Trail area are

resulting in long-term, negligible to minor

adverse impacts to large-scale cinder cone

and lava flow geologic features, and longterm, moderate impacts to smaller

features, such as spatter cones and lava

flow surfaces. Development and

recreational use of lands surrounding the

monument are causing long-term

moderate to major adverse impacts to the

cinder cones adjacent to Sunset Crater,

and geologic features associated with the

Sunset Crater Volcano eruption. The

scientific geological value of Sunset Crater

Volcano National Monument should

become even greater as associated and

irreplaceable geologic features within the

eastern San Francisco Volcanic Field

continue to be permanently impacted. In

addition to those mentioned, there would

be other, less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts from continued use of FR545

and Cinder Hills Overlook would remain

the same as described for the No-Action

Alternative. The impacts from closure of

the O’Leary Peak Road would remain the

same as described for the No-Action

Alternative. The existing campground,

housing, and maintenance facilities would

be retained, and impacts would remain

the same as under the No-Action

Alternative. Although the existing visitor

center would be converted to office space

and adapted for educational activities,

resulting impacts to geological resources

would likely remain the same as expected

for the No-Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 1, slight boundary

expansion on all four sides would add

approximately 1,500 acres to Sunset Crater

National Monument. The boundary

147 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

adjustment would include the remainder

of Lenox Crater at the southwest corner of 

the monument and the remainder of the

cinder hills on the northern boundary. The

expansion also adds a buffer around the

south and east sides of the monument

between the base of Sunset Crater and the

existing Cinder Hills OHV Area boundary.

Lastly, the boundary adjustment would

allow better control of unauthorized

driving access on the O’Leary Peak Road.

These adjustments would increase

protection of more geologic features

associated with the Sunset Volcano

eruption. This would have long-term,

minor beneficial impacts to the integrity of 

geologic resources.

Under this alternative, as much as 5% of

the expanded monument area would be 

used for road and trail access and visitor

activities. The remaining 95% would be

closed to protect the geologic resources.

Establishing a Resource Preservation Zone

would have long-term, moderate

beneficial impacts to the integrity of

geologic resources.

New visitor center facilities are proposed

in an area of mature geologic terrain

having deep soils and well-established

vegetation. Constructing the new facilities

would have a negligible impact to

geologic resources within the area. For the

same reason, visitor activities in the vicinity

of the new visitor center would also have

negligible impacts to geologic resources.

Under Alternative 1, an existing,

unplanned hiking trail linking the Bonito

Campground, Lenox Crater, and Lava Flow

Trail would be formalized. Increased visitor

use of the new trail would possibly be 

offset because the trail would concentrate

visitor disturbance within a smaller area of

deep cinder deposits along the route. This

would result in negligible impacts to

geologic resources along the trail route.

An Extended Learning Zone would be 

established in the vicinity of the Lava Flow

Trail and Lenox Crater Trail system. The

zone would more than triple the area of 

visitor use around Lenox Crater and Bonito

Lava Flow. Increased visitation would likely

disturb and accelerate erosion of the

cinder cone slopes on Lenox Crater and

other areas of relatively pristine cinder

deposits. Other unmapped, local geologic

features, such as fumerole vents and

spatter cones might also be impacted by 

specimen collection, breakage, and

polishing of their surfaces. For these

reasons, increased visitor use within the

Extended Learning Zone would have longterm, minor impacts to large-scale

geologic features, but could have

moderate adverse impacts to smaller, more

unique geologic features unless they are

fully mapped and inventoried, and use

within the area is carefully planned.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative impacts upon geologic

resources under Alternative 1 would likely

be similar to those described for the NoAction Alternative, except for a minor

reduction in off-road driving impacts

within the proposed boundary expansion

area.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 1 would likely have no major

impacts to geologic features within Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument. Many

of the impacts associated with this

alternative, including potential cumulative

impacts, are very similar to those described

for the No-Action Alternative. Increased

visitor-use impacts within the proposed

Extended Learning Zone between the Lava

Flow Trail, Lenox Crater, and southern

edge of the Bonito Lava Flow could result

in long-term, minor adverse impacts to

large-scale geologic features, such as 

cinder cones and lava flows, but could

result in long-term, moderate adverse

impacts to uninventoried, small, and

unique geologic features. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be other,

148 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

less-severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 2:

Emphasize Quiet Natural

Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Under Alternative 2, the boundary of 

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

would be expanded to approximately

6,700 acres. This would effectively double

the area within the monument and

encompass a new visitor centercampground area to the south; the

remainder of Lenox Crater at the

southwest corner; the remainder of the

cinder hills to the north; and all of Bonito

Park to the west. The boundary expansion

would also add a buffer around the south

and east sides of the monument between

the base of Sunset Crater and the existing

Cinder Hills OHV Area boundary. Lastly,

the boundary adjustment would allow the

NPS to better control unauthorized driving

on the O’Leary Peak Road. With the

exception of the Bonito Park area, these

adjustments would increase the level of

protection for geologic features associated

with the Sunset Volcano eruption, and

reduce illegal OHV use outside of the

existing Cinder Hills OHV Area boundary.

This would have long-term, minor

beneficial impacts to the integrity of

geologic resources.

Under this alternative, as much as 8% of

the expanded monument area would be 

used for road and trail corridors, NPS

administrative and visitor support facilities,

and visitor activities. The remaining 92%

would be closed to protect sensitive

geologic resources. Establishing a Resource

Preservation Zone would have long-term,

moderate beneficial impacts to the

integrity of geologic resources.

Approximately 11/2 miles of FR545 on the

east side and 2 miles of FR545 on the west

side of the monument would be 

abandoned. Segments of abandoned

roadbed would be narrowed and

converted to foot trails for visitor use,

including the reach around the

northwestern base of Sunset Crater cinder

cone. Slumping and settling of the cinder

slopes adjacent to the abandoned roadbed

would likely continue as in the No-Action

Alternative. The remaining reaches would

be restored to original contours; however,

many geologic features along the route

were likely obliterated when the road was

constructed and probably cannot be 

replaced. The abandonment of portions of 

the existing road would therefore have

negligible impacts to geological resources.

FR414, currently a primitive road through

deep cinder deposits around the western

flank of Lenox Crater, would be upgraded

and paved, resulting in long-term, minor

adverse impacts to large-scale geological

features. The central portion of FR545

would be retained to connect FR414 to the

Bonito Park and the Lava Flow Trail

parking lots, and the impacts related to 

this reach would be the same as the NoAction Alternative.

A new visitor center and campground

would be built south of Sunset Crater

Volcano, in an area of deep cinder

deposits. However, this area is close to the

Cinder Hills OHV Area and a small cinder

borrow pit on the Coconino National

149 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Forest, and is already heavily impacted by

off-road driving impacts. Therefore,

constructing new facilities at this location

would result in negligible impacts to

geologic resources. Some beneficial impact

might result because proposed changes in

visitor access would ensure visitors are

informed of the fragility of the cinder

cones and other unique volcanic features

before encountering them.

The existing visitor center, NPS employee

housing, maintenance facilities, and

Bonito Campground would be removed.

These facilities are located in an area of

mature geologic terrain having deep soils

and well-established forest vegetation,

and this action would likely have

negligible impacts to geologic resources.

Relocating the campground from its

current location would have a long-term,

minor beneficial impact by eliminating

casual unauthorized hiking and unplanned

trail establishment between the

campground and the western margin of 

the Bonito Lava Flow. These beneficial

impacts could be entirely offset by visitor

use around the newly proposed facilities

south of Sunset Crater.

Under Alternative 2, visitor access and

activity would be expanded considerably

beyond existing conditions. Approximately

2 miles of the abandoned entrance road

would be converted to trail corridors. A 

relatively large Extended Learning Zone

would be established to encompass all of 

Lenox Crater, the southern margin of the

Bonito Lava Flow, and the northwest base

of Sunset Crater Volcano. Increased offtrail access along the trail corridors and

within the Extended Learning Zone would

likely result in increased disturbance to the

cinder cone slopes on Lenox Crater and

other areas of relatively pristine cinder

deposits. Other unmapped, local geologic

features, such as fumerole vents and

spatter cones, might also be impacted by 

specimen collection, breakage, and

polishing of their surfaces. For these

reasons, increased visitor use within the

Extended Learning Zone would have longterm, minor impacts to large-scale

geologic features, but could have

moderate impacts to smaller, more unique

geologic features unless they are fully

mapped and inventoried and use within

the area carefully planned.

Under this alternative, a new trail would

also be established around Bonito Park,

which is in an area of geologically mature

terrain having deep soils and wellestablished vegetation. The trail and

associated visitor use in Bonito Park would

have negligible impacts to geologic

resources within the area.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative impacts upon geologic

resources under Alternative 2 would likely

be similar to those identified for the NoAction Alternative, with the following

exceptions: There would be minor

beneficial impacts from reduced off-road

driving impacts within the proposed

boundary expansion area. Establishing an

extensive trail system and relatively large

Extended Learning Zone within the

monument would likely result in increased

adverse cumulative impacts to cinder cone

volcano slopes, deep cinder deposits, and

small-scale unique geologic features

within the monument.

CONCLUSION

Alternative 2 would cause no major

impacts to geological features within

Sunset Crater National Monument. The

boundary of the monument would be 

expanded to approximately 6,700 acres,

effectively doubling the area within the

monument. As much as 8% of the

expanded monument area would be used

for road and trail access, visitor support

and NPS administrative facilities, and

visitor activities. The remaining 92% would

be closed to protect sensitive geologic

resources.

150 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The new visitor center, campground

facilities, and upgraded entrance road

along FR414 would be constructed in a 

heavily impacted recreational use area and

likely have negligible impacts to geologic

resources. A new trail around Bonito Park

would also likely have negligible impacts

to geologic resources. Increased visitor use

within the Extended Learning Zone and

trails within the central monument area

would have long-term, minor adverse

impacts to large-scale geologic features,

but could cause long-term, moderate

adverse impacts to smaller, more unique

geologic features unless they are fully

mapped and inventoried, and use within

the area carefully planned. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be other,

less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts from continued use of FR545

and Cinder Hills Overlook would remain

the same as under the No-Action

Alternative. The impacts from closure of

the O’Leary Peak Road would remain the

same as under the No-Action Alternative.

The existing campground, housing, and

maintenance facilities would be retained,

and impacts would remain the same as

identified for the No-Action Alternative.

Although the existing visitor center would

be adapted for educational activities,

resulting impacts to geologic features

would likely remain the same as described

for the No-Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 3, the boundary of 

Sunset Crater National Monument would

be expanded to approximately 11,600

acres. This would nearly quadruple the

area within the monument. The proposed

expansion area east of the existing

boundary would include significant

features associated with the eruption and

geologic story of the Sunset Crater

Volcano, including the chain of related

cinder cones, the Kana-A lava flow, and

the volcanic vent at the opposite end of 

the fissure that fed magma to Sunset

Crater Volcano and the Bonito Lava Flow.

These features are currently being

impacted by OHV use within the Coconino

National Forest. The impacted OHV area

within the expanded boundary would be 

restored and then allowed to continue

recovering from vehicle impacts. The

proposed expansion would also establish a 

large buffer area between the base of

Sunset Crater and the Cinder Hills OHV

Area. The inclusion of these geologic

features within the monument would

ensure the long-term preservation of the

integrity of geological resources associated

with the Sunset Crater Volcano, resulting

in long-term, major beneficial impacts.

Under Alternative 3, much of FR776 would

be closed to general public use within the

expanded boundary area between FR545

and the southern monument boundary.

The road would be retained in primitive

condition for NPS administrative use. This

would result in negligible impacts to

geologic resources.

Under this alternative, as much as 12% of

the expanded monument area would be 

used for roads and trails, visitor support

151 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

facilities, and visitor use areas. Another

70% would be open to dispersed visitor

hiking opportunities. The remaining 18%

would be closed to protect sensitive

geologic resources. Establishing a Resource

Preservation Zone would have long-term,

moderate beneficial impacts to the

integrity of geologic resources.

The new visitor center facilities are

proposed in a geologically mature area

having deep soils and well-established

vegetation, and construction would have a 

negligible impact to geologic resources

within the area. For the same reason,

additional visitor activities proposed in the

vicinity of the new visitor center would

also have negligible impacts to geologic

resources.

Under Alternative 3, an existing,

unplanned hiking trail linking the Bonito

Campground, Lenox Crater, and Lava Flow

Trail would be formalized. Increased

visitor-use of the new trail would possibly

be offset because the trail would

concentrate visitor disturbance within a 

smaller area of deep cinder deposits along

the route. This would result in negligible

impacts to geologic resources along the

trail route.

An Extended Learning Zone would be 

established in the vicinity of the Lava Flow

Trail and Lenox Crater Trail. The zone

would more than triple the area of visitor

use around the Lava Flow Trail, Lenox

Crater, and Bonito Lava Flow. Increased

visitation would likely disturb and

accelerate erosion of the cinder cone

slopes on Lenox Crater, and disturb areas

of relatively pristine cinder deposits. Other

unmapped, local geologic features, such as

fumerole vents and spatter cones might

also be impacted by specimen collection,

breakage, and polishing of their surfaces.

For these reasons, increased visitor use

within the Extended Learning Zone would

have long-term, minor impacts to largescale geologic features, but could have

moderate impacts to smaller, more unique

geologic features unless they are fully

mapped and inventoried and use within

the area is carefully planned.

Most of the area within the expanded

park boundaries would be zoned for

dispersed, guided hiking. A smaller area of 

cinder hills immediately south of Sunset

Crater Volcano would be zoned for

dispersed, unguided hiking. In addition, a 

new trail would be constructed to the base

of Double Crater. Although these areas are

already heavily impacted by off-road

vehicle use, the impacts of proposed visitor

activities are difficult to predict and would

depend upon the visitor numbers and the

primary season of use. While large-scale

geologic features, such as steep cinder

cones and deep cinder deposits, would

likely continue to recover from vehicle

impacts, sustained dispersed visitor use

would likely cause some long-term minor

adverse impacts. Other unmapped, local

geologic features, such as fumerole vents

and spatter cones might also be impacted

by specimen collection, breakage, and

polishing of their surfaces. Sustained,

dispersed visitor activity within the Guided

Adventure Zone and Discovery Zone could

have moderate impacts to smaller, more

unique geologic features unless they are

fully mapped and inventoried and use

within the area is carefully planned.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Under Alternative 3, the cumulative

impacts on geologic resources within the

existing monument boundary would likely

be similar to those described for the NoAction Alternative. The proposed

boundary expansion would include

significant geologic resources associated

with the eruption of Sunset Crater

Volcano. This action would reduce major,

long-term adverse cumulative impacts to

these resources by eliminating the

potential impacts of increased OHV use in

the future.

152 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

CONCLUSION

Alternative 3 would likely have no major

impacts to geologic features within Sunset

Crater Volcano National Monument.

Visitor use impacts to geologic resources

within the original monument boundary

are very similar to the No-Action

Alternative. The boundary would be

expanded to include significant geologic

resources associated with the eruption of

Sunset Crater Volcano. This action would

ensure the long-term integrity of geologic

resources by protecting them from

increased off-road-driving impacts.

Increased visitor use impacts within the

proposed Extended Learning Zone

between the Lava Flow Trail, Lenox Crater,

and southern edge of the Bonito Lava

Flow could result in long-term, minor

adverse impacts to large-scale geologic

features, such as cinder cones and lava

flows, but could result in long-term,

moderate adverse impacts to 

uninventoried, small, and unique geologic

features. Dispersed guided and unguided

hiking activity would be permitted within

most of the boundary expansion area.

Although this area is heavily impacted by

off-road vehicle use, the impacts of

sustained visitor use are difficult to 

predict, and would depend upon the

visitor numbers and the primary season of 

use. While large-scale geologic features

would likely continue to recover from

vehicle impacts, dispersed hiking activity

could cause long-term minor adverse

impacts to these geologic features. In

addition, dispersed hiking activity could

cause long-term, moderate adverse

impacts to smaller, more unique geologic

features unless they are fully mapped and

inventoried, and use within the area is

carefully planned. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be other, less

severe effects as a result of implementing

this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

The management alternatives all propose

varying degrees of visitor access to largescale geologic resources, such as cinder

cone volcanoes, lava flows, and expanses

of deep cinder deposits. There are smallscale, unique volcanic features associated

with this landscape that are irreplaceable,

including spatter cones, fumerole vents,

collapsed fissures, ice caves, lava tubes,

and distinct lava surface features. These

small-scale features would be permanently

impacted to varying degrees by visitor

activity, including trampling, breakage,

polishing, collapse, specimen collection,

and accelerated weathering.

Loss in Long-Term Availability

or Productivity of the

Resource to Achieve ShortTerm Gain

Under the various management

alternatives, new facilities (other than

trails) are generally proposed only in areas

of geologically mature terrain, which have

weathered to deep soils and are

completely covered by vegetation, or areas

that have been heavily impacted by offroad vehicle driving. None of the

alternatives would result in the loss of

long-term availability or productivity of

geologic resources within Sunset Crater

National Monument.

153 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Sunset Crater Volcano has been impacted

by past visitor use, resulting in deep scars

eroded into the steep cinder cone slopes

that are still visible today. Under the

various management alternatives, road

and trail corridors, parking lots, and visitor

facilities would occupy as little as 5% or as

much as 12% of the total landscape within

the monument boundary. Roads would

remain within previously disturbed areas,

negating adverse impacts to existing

geologic features. New visitor and NPS

support facilities (other than trails) are

only proposed in areas of geologically

mature terrain or areas impacted by offroad vehicle driving, negating adverse

impacts to existing geologic features.

Visitor-use of new trails and within the

proposed Extended Learning, Guided

Adventure, and Discovery Zones would

provide access to large-scale geologic

resources, such as cinder cone volcanoes,

lava flows, and expanses of deep cinder

deposits. There are small-scale, unique

volcanic features associated with this

landscape that are irreplaceable, including

spatter cones, fumerole vents, collapsed

fissures, ice caves, lava tubes, and distinct

lava surface features. These small-scale

features would be permanently impacted

to varying degrees by visitor activity,

including trampling, breakage, polishing,

collapse, specimen collection, and

accelerated weathering.

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK

RESOURCES

Methodology

This topic includes analysis of the

following broad areas: access to park

resources by the general public and by

visitors with disabilities; access to

information provided by collections (ability

to see the “real thing”) and to a minimally

altered environment; and the ability of the

public to understand park resources and

the regional context of the park. Also

considered were the ability to exercise

personal freedom during a park visit, the

provision of traditional employee/visitor

experiences (interpretation through

personal services, and access to favorite

sites), and the ability to participate in 

traditional recreational activities (biking,

climbing, hiking, etc.).

Visitor surveys and personal observation of

visitation patterns combined with

assessment of what is available to visitors

under current management were used to

estimate the effects of the actions in the

various alternatives. The impact on the

ability of the visitor to experience a full

range of park resources was analyzed by 

examining resources identified in the park

significance statement.

Negligible: The impact is barely

detectable, and/or will affect few visitors.

Minor: The impact is slight, but

detectable, and/or will affect some visitors.

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent

and/or will affect many visitors.

Major: The impact is severely adverse or

exceptionally beneficial and/or will affect

the majority of visitors.

Effects of the No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Effects on Access to Park Resources

by the General Public and by 

Visitors with Disabilities

Under this alternative, most visitors would

continue to visit Sunset Crater Volcano as a 

drive-through experience in conjunction

with Wupatki, via the 36-mile loop road

(FR545) that connects the two parks. The

typical visitor opportunity to experience

park resources would remain a fairly linear

encounter with the volcanic features

visible along the road, on the Lava Flow

154 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

Trail, and from an overlook or two.

Geologic features crucial to an

understanding of this larger story,

including Lenox Crater, the Kana-A lava

flow, and the Cinder Hills, lie partially or

completely outside park boundaries; this

creates challenges to understanding of the

full Sunset Crater eruption story as a 

sequence of events along a 15-km fissure,

involving successive lava flows, formation

of other volcanic cones, cinder and

ashfalls, and the “curtain of fire” activity.

Visitor satisfaction with the current park

experience is high as measured by the

Visitor Survey Card responses. (Machlis

2000) The 2000 survey showed that 98% of

visitors were satisfied with opportunities

for “learning about nature, history or 

culture” and 97% were satisfied with

sightseeing opportunities. Eighty-four

percent were satisfied with outdoor

recreation (camping, bicycling, boating,

hiking, etc.) opportunities. This indicates a 

major long-term beneficial impact.

Much of the existing Sunset Crater

Volcano experience, including the visitor

center, one loop of the Lava Flow Trail,

and the trailhead rest rooms, would be

available for visitors with physical and

other challenges. Some of the volcanic

landscape and major features are visible

from the road and roadside pullouts and

overlooks. Planned interpretive

improvements would serve visitors with

various impairments, but current exhibits

have no special modifications. Written and

Braille scripts would be available for the

orientation audiovisual program in the

visitor center. The beneficial impact is

moderate to major and long term.

According to a recent visitor survey (Lee

and Treadwell 1999), Sunset Crater

Volcano visitors do not generally feel

crowded. On a scale of 1.0 = not at all

crowded to 9.0 = extremely crowded, the

average response was 2.0.

Annual visitation at Sunset Crater Volcano

has fluctuated widely in recent years,

owing in part to changes in counting and

reporting methods. The average is 194,245

visitors per year since 1997. If numbers

increase in accordance with local and

regional population growth, crowding will

be inevitable within the lifetime of this

plan. The perceived uncrowded

atmosphere is a major benefit to today’s

visitors; deterioration of this quality would

constitute a major adverse impact.

Visitor activities within the park are

limited to established roads and trails. A 

variety of less-structured opportunities

exist outside park boundaries, on USFS

lands.

Traditional interpretive services would

continue, including guided walks on the

Lava Flow Trail and evening programs, in

cooperation with the USFS, at Bonito

Campground. Continuation of these

activities would be a moderate benefit to

visitors.

In this alternative, the Cinder Hills OHV

Area is expected to continue operation,

under USFS management, in accordance

with guidelines and policies set forth in

the FLEA Plan. OHV users are estimated by

the USFS at approximately 30,000 per year,

the equivalent of 15% of park visitation.

Continuation of this use is a moderate

benefit to this group, based on their

numbers. Bicycling along FR545 would

likely increase in popularity as the

population of Flagstaff continues to grow.

Effects on Access to Information

Provided by Collections (Ability to

See the “Real Thing”) and to a 

Minimally Altered Environment

Volcanic rock specimens and other items

would be displayed in the visitor center,

and visitors would be allowed to handle

representative specimens. Opportunities to 

see the “real thing” close up would

continue via the Lava Flow self-guided trail

155 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

at the base of the volcano. Approximately

83% of visitors walk this trail, where a 

variety of volcanic features can be seen

adjacent to the trail, including two types

of lava flows, lava tubes, and spatter

cones. The Lenox Crater Trail would

provide firsthand experience of hiking on

a cinder cone as well as views of the

volcanic terrain below.

The existing level of access is a major

benefit to visitors interested in short walks

and a general introduction to volcanic

landforms. Visitors interested in longer

explorations and more remote volcanic

vistas suffer moderate adverse impacts.

Few archeological artifacts would be 

displayed, reflecting the lack of

archeological data, sites, and specimens

available within the park, rather than lack

of concern for the human history of the

area. This is a minor adverse impact, which

would be mitigated through improved

museum exhibits, cooperative efforts to 

interpret sites on USFS lands, and

increased integration of the Sunset Crater

Volcano and Wupatki interpretive

programs.

To many visitors, the natural alterations to

the landscape-lava flows, jagged rocks,

sparse vegetation, and cinder fields-caused

by the geologically recent eruption of 

Sunset Crater Volcano overwhelm the

signs of human alterations. Upon closer

inspection, there are many visual

intrusions inside the park and within the

viewshed, including roads and structures in

the volcanic landscape, evidence of

logging, fire suppression, farming, and an

active pumice mine. Erosion, social trails,

and trampled vegetation are evidence of 

heavy use in areas like the Lava Flow Trail.

Prominent scars remain from the old trail

to the summit of Sunset Crater Volcano,

which has been closed since 1973. Such

intrusions would be interpreted as

illustrations of the fragility of this rocky

landscape, but present a moderate adverse

impact to those seeking a pristine

environment. The Cinder Hills Off-Highway

Vehicle (OHV) Area would continue to

operate in a highly visible area near the

park with some mitigating measures

through the FLEA plan. Visitors may

continue to encounter impacts from the

Cinder Hills Overlook and may continue to

be confused over this apparently

conflicting use. Impact on visitor

experience may be minor to moderate,

long-term and adverse.

Spectacular scenery is the most important

reason for visiting the park (91% of visitors

surveyed) (Lee and Treadwell 1999). Under

this alternative, visitors would be afforded

long vistas, with several significant

volcanic structures and a broad variety of

scenery in clear view. The obvious changes

in vegetation and overall terrain along the

drive from Sunset Crater to Wupatki

would be available for visitors to see. A 

particularly attractive section of the lava

flow, adjacent to the road, would continue

to be almost impossible to view, because

of sight distance and lack of pullouts.

Hiking would be limited to two short trails

within the monument; the O’Leary Peak

Road could become a third option for

hiking, following USFS plans to close it to

vehicular traffic. Ability to enjoy scenery is 

highly important to visitors and constitutes

a major long-term benefit. Lack of 

additional opportunities along hiking trails

is a minor to moderate adverse impact.

The park would continue operation as a 

day-use area only with FR545 open 24 

hours per day. Impacts of NPS activities on 

night skies would be limited to minor

lighting at the visitor center and residence

area across the road from the campground

and would be of negligible impact.

Much of the existing park experience

occurs within earshot of the road, and

ability to hear natural sounds depends on 

the amount of vehicle traffic. Some parts

of the Lava Flow Trail and the summit of 

Lenox Crater offer a greater opportunity

to escape sounds of the road and parking

156 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

lot. Closely related features located

outside park boundaries offer a peaceful

atmosphere with natural soundscapes;

these include Bonito Park (between

passing cars) and O’Leary Peak. 

Preservation of this aspect would be a 

major long-term benefit to visitors.

Effects on Ability of Public to

Understand Park Resources and the

Regional Context of the Park

The existing visitor center would continue

to be used. Museum exhibits are limited in 

scope and outdated. Neither these nor 

existing wayside exhibits convey an 

adequate understanding of the geological

story, ecological processes, or changing

plant communities visible along the road

between Sunset Crater Volcano and

Wupatki, and the interrelated

archeological story is not apparent. A 

major planning effort is under way,

concurrent with this general management

plan, that will update museum and

wayside exhibits and will result in a longterm major benefit for visitors.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area considered for

cumulative effects for this alternative

includes the Flagstaff Area National

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff area,

and the most adjacent portions of the

Coconino National Forest.

In addition to the impacts described

above, external forces and actions of other

entities could affect visitor ability to 

experience park resources in this

alternative. Primary sources of these

additional impacts are the USFS, Grand

Canyon National Park, Arizona

Department of Transportation (ADOT),

local developers, local residents, and

resource-related industries.

Changes in visitor use patterns and

transportation at Grand Canyon National

Park could result in visitation increases at 

Sunset Crater Volcano, especially by those

seeking the independent drive-through

experience no longer available at Grand

Canyon.

Increased visitation and/or increased

length of stay would impact uncrowded

visitor experiences within the park,

probably to a minor degree. Increased

length of stay by visitors would also impact

ability to understand park resources, since

these visitors would probably devote more

time to visitor center exhibits, wayside

exhibits, interpretive programs, or

otherwise learning about the park. In this

alternative, a major benefit is expected

from NPS actions. Increased visitation to 

the park could be mitigated by increased

use of the forest by traditional park

visitors.

Widening of US89 by ADOT will result in a 

four-lane highway north from Flagstaff to 

both Sunset Crater Volcano and Wupatki

entrances, and this level of improvement

will eventually extend to Page, Arizona.

This could increase park visitation. Visitors

might also be willing to spend more time

exploring the park. Impact on uncrowded

visitor experiences would be minor.

Development of Roden Crater and the

subdivision of lots in Alpine Ranchos may

increase traffic on FR545 and, incidentally,

through the park. This increased traffic

would only occasionally result in increased

visitation to park resources and facilities,

and impact on uncrowded visitor

experiences would be negligible.

Increased growth of Flagstaff could

increase park visitation by local residents,

with the possibility of increased numbers

of repeat visits and the use of the park for

traditional recreational activities (biking,

hiking, etc.) could increase.

Increased visitation would impact

uncrowded visitor experiences to a 

moderate degree. Repeat visits could

impact demand for traditional

employee/visitor experiences and

encourage more variety in interpretive

157 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

programs offered. Addition of such

activities would be of negligible impact.

CONCLUSION

The No-Action Alternative would continue

to provide major benefits to some visitors,

particularly those wanting a brief

introduction to the volcanic landscape,

with emphasis on major features visible

from the road or from short trails. Park

facilities and many features would remain

accessible; recent construction of an

accessible paved loop on the Lava Flow

Trail would provide access to

representative volcanic features and views

for visitors with physical disabilities and

others whose time or abilities are not

suited to the cinder surface of the longer

trail loop. The ability to look at scenery,

especially along FR545 en route to

Wupatki, enjoy an uncrowded park

setting, and listen to natural sounds would

continue as major benefits, at least in the

near future. Continuation of traditional

interpretive programs, such as talks,

guided walks, and campground programs

would provide moderate benefits for

visitors.

Some visual intrusions would remain, both

inside the park and within the viewshed.

These range from NPS facilities to distant

mines, but all present moderate adverse

impacts to the ability to experience a 

minimally altered environment. The

existing visitor center would continue in

use, limiting the space available for

interpretive exhibits and contributing to 

incomplete visitor understanding of park

resources-a moderate adverse impact. As

park visitation increases, crowding in this

small structure would further impact

visitor experience. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be other, less

severe effects as a result of implementing

this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Effects on Access to Park Resources

by the General Public and for

Visitors with Disabilities

Under this alternative, a new visitor

center, operated jointly by the National

Park Service and USFS, would be 

constructed near the junction of US89 and

FR545 (the loop road connecting Sunset

Crater Volcano with Wupatki). This facility

would provide orientation for both park

and forest visitors before encountering

sensitive resources, and they would be 

directed to areas best suited for their

desired activities. By providing orientation

to both NPS and USFS resources, this

alternative would provide a major benefit

to all visitors to the region. The existing

visitor center would be retained for office

space and use as an education center.

Existing trails would remain as described in

the No-Action Alternative, and new trails

would be provided to an overlook on the

O’Leary Peak Road, and connecting Bonito

Campground to the Lava Flow Trail. Public

road access to O’Leary Peak would be

eliminated, but access to other features

along FR545 would be unchanged. Actual

physical access to park resources,

compared with the No-Action Alternative,

would not be significantly changed.

The new visitor center would be fully

accessible, as would the remodeled

158 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

existing visitor center. All exhibits and

interpretive programs, audiovisual

programs, and other facilities in both

locations would be designed to serve all

visitors.

A portion of the USFS road to O’Leary

Peak would be converted to a hiking trail.

General public vehicular access to O’Leary

Peak would no longer exist. Visitors with

mobility impairments would be required

to get permission from the USFS to drive

to the view into Sunset Crater. This would

be a minor adverse impact, based on the

number of vehicles that have actually

traveled this route in the past and could

be mitigated for all visitors through

photography and exhibits.

The views from O’Leary Peak would

continue to provide hikers with a regional

setting for the Sunset Crater story. It

would be possible to walk from the

campground to the existing Lava Flow

Trail through a volcanically scenic area.

Otherwise, this aspect would remain as

described under the No-Action Alternative,

and would be a moderate, long-term

benefit to visitors.

Effects on Access to Information

Provided by Collections (Ability to

See the “Real Thing”) and to a 

Minimally Altered Environment

The new visitor center would provide

space for displays of park resources,

including various rocks, plants, and

animals, and would increase visitors’ ability

to appreciate these tangible resources.

Archeological artifacts and sites from

throughout the region would be 

interpreted, to provide context for the

Sunset Crater Volcano story and offset the

lack of specific archeological data from

within the park. This would be a major

long-term benefit to visitors.

Because this alternative would preserve

the drive-through experience described in

the No-Action Alternative, it is expected

that most visitors would avail themselves

of new interpretive waysides along the

main park road. This would constitute a 

major beneficial impact to visitors’

understanding of the park and region.

The Lava Flow and Lenox Crater Trails

would continue to provide visitors

firsthand experience with volcanic

features. Sunset Crater could be viewed

from above from a trail viewpoint along

the former O’Leary Peak Road. The new

trail connecting the campground to the

Lava Flow Trail trailhead would add the

opportunity to walk along the edge of a 

particularly fresh-appearing section of the

lava. This would be a moderate, long-term

benefit.

The new visitor center building and

associated traffic and human activity

would intrude on an area impacted before

only by the passing road. This would be a 

moderate adverse impact, which could be 

partially mitigated by design and

landscaping.

The absence of vehicles on the former

O’Leary Road would add to hikers’ ability

to experience a minimally altered

environment, although the USFS fire tower

would remain at the summit. The overall

effect would be a minor long-term

benefit.

Location of the visitor center near US89

and preservation of the drive-through

experience would decrease visitors’ ability

to experience natural soundscapes and

could decrease chances of seeing wildlife.

The addition of an overlook on the

O’Leary Peak Road would result in minor

benefit to the ability to experience a 

natural soundscape.

The new visitor center, serving a larger

segment of the public and located more

prominently near US89, would be 

designed to serve large numbers without

crowding, but would potentially draw a 

greater number of visitors into Sunset

Crater Volcano. Once inside the park,

159 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

these larger numbers would encounter

much the same array of parking areas,

trails, roadside pullouts, and so on, as

described in the No-Action Alternative.

The Lava Flow Trail, already identified as

one of the areas where visitors feel most

crowded, would become more so.

The presence of Bonito Campground

would continue to allow for an overnight

stay on the boundary of the park,

providing the chance to view night skies

and encounter crepuscular and nocturnal

wildlife. Expansion of the campground

would result in an increase in the numbers

of people using the campground and

possibly the amount of night lighting.

Impacts compared with the No-Action

Alternative would be negligible.

Effects on Ability of Public to

Understand Park Resources and the

Regional Context of the Park

Up-to-date, expanded exhibits in the new

visitor center would provide thematic

interpretation of all the park’s major

resources and their relationship to 

regional resources and issues. Visitors

would also gain an understanding of the

regional context of the park and have an

opportunity to learn about surrounding

USFS lands. After their visitor center

experience, visitors would have a better

understanding of what they are seeing as

they visit various features in the park. This

would be a major long-term beneficial

impact to park visitors, and probably to

more visitors than present because more

people would be expected to stop at this

facility in its prominent location.

The conversion of the existing visitor

center to an educational center would

provide new in-depth learning

opportunities for visitors, especially school

groups. Under this action, school groups

would have an opportunity to gather their

classes indoors, receive programs in an

appropriate setting, and be introduced to

the park’s resources and regional context

before venturing into the park. Other

visitors would have opportunities to

participate in new educational programs

and workshops presented by park staff

and/or USFS and other cooperating

entities. The building would also house

special exhibits containing artifacts from

the park, and specifically directed at school

groups. This would have a moderate to

major long-term beneficial impact on park

visitors and on resources.

Traditional interpretive services would

continue as described under the No-Action

Alternative. Additional guided and/or selfguided opportunities would probably be 

added in the vicinity of the new visitor

center. Campground plans would include

an upgraded amphitheater and assembly

space for group educational activities;

these facilities might generate increased

demand for interpretive programs to serve

these groups. The overall effect would be 

moderately beneficial.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area considered for

cumulative effects for this alternative

includes the Flagstaff Area National

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff area,

and the most adjacent portions of the

Coconino National Forest.

In addition to the impacts described

above, external forces and actions of other

entities could affect visitor ability to 

experience park resources in this

alternative. Primary sources of these

additional impacts are the USFS, Grand

Canyon National Park, Arizona

Department of Transportation (ADOT),

local developers, local residents, and

resource-related industries. Additional

detail follows for each.

USFS management within the area of 

consideration could work in combination

to increase total visitation to Sunset Crater

Volcano. These include:

160 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

• forest closures and/or increasing

restrictions, fire hazard closures, and

similar changes could direct some

visitors to the park.

• USFS “Company’s Coming” program

and campground expansion could

increase interest in visiting nearby park

facilities.

• Cooperative management of the

multiagency visitor center could spread

visitor use more evenly over facilities

and features of both agencies.

Increased visitation for any of these

reasons would impact uncrowded visitor

experiences within the park, probably to a 

minor degree at any given time. Increased

visitation to the park could be offset by

increased use of the forest by traditional

park visitors. In this alternative, a 

moderate adverse impact would be 

expected from NPS actions. The cumulative

impact would remain moderate and

adverse.

Changes in visitor use patterns and

transportation at Grand Canyon National

Park could result in visitation changes at

Sunset Crater Volcano:

• visitation could increase, especially by 

those seeking the independent drivethrough experience no longer available

at Grand Canyon.

• visitors arriving from Grand Canyon

could have more time to spend,

because of traffic management there.

Increased visitation and/or increased

length of stay would impact uncrowded

visitor experiences within the park,

probably to a minor degree. In this

alternative, a moderate adverse impact

would be expected from NPS actions. The

cumulative impact would remain major

and adverse. Increased length of stay by 

visitors would also impact ability to

understand park resources, since these

visitors would probably devote more time

to visitor center exhibits, wayside exhibits,

interpretive programs, or otherwise

learning about the park. In this

alternative, a moderate to major benefit

would be expected from NPS actions. The

cumulative effect would be the same.

Widening of US89 by the Arizona

Department of Transportation will result

in a four-lane highway north from

Flagstaff to both Sunset Crater Volcano

and Wupatki entrances, and this level of 

improvement will eventually extend all the

way to Page, Arizona. This could increase

park visitation because of time saved en

route on the improved highway, and/or

because of visitors seeking a more scenic

and leisurely route (FR545 through the

two parks). Visitors might also be willing

to spend more time exploring the park.

Impact on uncrowded visitor experiences

would be minor, and the cumulative effect

would be major and adverse, as described

above.

Development of Roden Crater and the

subdivision of lots in Alpine Ranchos may

increase traffic through the park. This

increased traffic would only occasionally

result in increased visitation to park

resources and facilities, and impact on

uncrowded visitor experiences would be

negligible.

Increased growth of Flagstaff could

increase park visitation by local residents,

and the number of repeat visits could

increase as residents return for more

information and/or additional experiences.

The use of park resources for traditional

recreational activities (biking, hiking, etc.)

could increase.

Increased visitation would impact

uncrowded visitor experiences as described

above, probably to a minor degree.

Cumulative impact would be major and

adverse. Repeat visits could impact

demand for traditional employee/visitor

experiences and encourage more variety in

interpretive programs offered. In this

alternative, this would be a moderate

161 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

benefit to visitors. Cumulative impact

would remain the same. In this alternative,

for traditional recreational uses, impacts

ranging from major adverse to minor

beneficial are expected. Additional such

activities would be of negligible impact.

Cumulative impacts would remain the

same.

Under this alternative, cumulative impacts

of NPS and external actions would cause

no measurable change to visitor ability to

experience park resources.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would provide major

benefits to both park and forest visitors

seeking comprehensive information on

and interpretation of regional resources

and recreational opportunities.

Construction of a multiagency visitor

center with new exhibits, conversion of 

the existing visitor center to an education

center, and installation of new wayside

exhibits would provide major benefits to

visitor understanding of resources and the

ability to see the “real thing.” Benefits of

accessibility would remain similar to those

identified under the No-Action

Alternative. Ability to experience scenery

would be enhanced slightly and would

remain a major benefit to visitors.

Traditional interpretive programs would

continue as a moderate benefit, and new

programs would be offered, using facilities

of the new visitor center, education

center, and expanded campground.

The new visitor center, despite its major

benefits to visitor understanding, would

present the possibility of moderate

adverse impacts on uncrowded visitor

experiences, by funneling greater numbers

into existing parking areas and trails. This

effect would be accentuated at times by 

the presence of greater numbers and

organized groups in the campground. In

addition to those mentioned, there would

be other, less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 2:

Emphasize Quiet Natural

Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Effects on Access to Park Resources

by the General Public and Visitors

with Disabilities

Under this alternative, visitors would

experience many of the same resources of

Sunset Crater Volcano as they do presently

but in a markedly different way than they

do under the No-Action Alternative. Entry

to the park would be via a new road

system using FR776; portions of the

existing entrance road (FR545) would

become dead-end spurs to Bonito Park and

the Lava Flow Trail. Although visitors could

rejoin FR545 east of the park and continue

on to Wupatki, the visit would no longer

be a drive-through experience; Sunset

Crater Volcano would be a separate

destination that would be closed at night.

162 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

These changes would have a moderate

beneficial impact on park visitors for those

who were interested in Sunset Crater as a 

destination, and a moderate adverse

impact for those who would include it as

part of a trip itinerary.

A new visitor center, operated jointly by

NPS and USFS, would be constructed south

of the volcano, to provide an introduction

to the resources of Coconino National

Forest and of both Wupatki and Sunset

Crater Volcano national monuments

before visitors encounter them. Bonito

Campground would be relocated nearby,

and its existing location would be 

rehabilitated. The existing visitor center

and related support facilities would be

removed and their sites rehabilitated.

Impacts would be moderate, long term,

and beneficial to visitors and resources.

The Lava Flow and Lenox Crater Trails

would remain as described under the NoAction Alternative, and a portion of the

former O’Leary Peak Road would be open

as a hiking trail. A portion of existing

FR545 beyond the Lava Flow Trail would

be converted to a hiking trail, providing

lava flow vistas that cannot now be safely

enjoyed because of road traffic. A new

trail would be constructed in Bonito Park,

providing access to Bonito Park itself, the

ponderosa forest along its edge, and at

least one unexcavated pithouse. Effects

would be moderate, long term, and

beneficial.

Much of the Sunset Crater Volcano

experience would be available for visitors

with physical and other impairments. The

new visitor center would be fully accessible

to visitors with all types of disabilities. All

exhibits, interpretive programs, and

audiovisual programs would be designed

to serve all visitors, which would be a 

moderate long-term benefit.

Road access for the general public to 

O’Leary Peak would no longer exist.

Visitors with mobility impairments would

need permission from the USFS to drive to

a view into Sunset Crater Volcano. This

would be a negligible, long-term adverse

impact, based on the number of vehicles

that have actually traveled this route in 

the past, and might be mitigated for all

visitors through photography and exhibits.

The conversion of road to trail beyond the

Lava Flow Trail would be designed for full

accessibility, as would the new Bonito Park

trail.

Converting part of FR545 from road to

trail would allow visitors to stop and see

the beauty of a large segment of the lava

flow and up-close views of the sides of the

volcano in a way that is not possible under

existing conditions. Excellent views would

be available from the new Bonito Park

Trail as well. Views from O’Leary Peak 

would provide hikers with a regional

setting for the Sunset Crater Volcano story.

Visitors continuing on FR545 to Wupatki

would experience the same vistas,

vegetation changes, and geologic features

they do now. The impact of these changes

would be a major, long-term benefit.

OHV users would be impacted by closure

of approximately 240 acres to the west of

FR776 to vehicle recreation and camping.

Impact would be minor and long term.

OHV users would relocate to the larger

area south and east of FR776..Depending

on future visitation increases, this

alternative would allow management of 

numbers entering the park, through a 

shuttle and/or reservation system. Should

this occur, personal freedoms might be 

restricted at times, resulting in moderate

to major impacts. (These impacts would be 

offset by continued benefits of uncrowded

experiences described previously.)

This alternative would provide greater

opportunities for hiking and biking than

would the No-Action Alternative, which

would be a moderate, long-term benefit

to park visitors.

163 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The campground would be moved to a 

new location. This would be a moderate

adverse impact to some campers who use

the existing site.

Effects on Access to Information

Provided by Collections (Ability to

See the “Real Thing”) and to a 

Minimally Altered Environment

The new visitor center would allow views

of Sunset Crater Volcano and space for

exhibits of park resources, including rocks,

plants, and animals, and would increase

visitors’ ability to appreciate these tangible

resources. Archeological artifacts and sites

from throughout the region would be 

interpreted, to provide context for the

Sunset Crater Volcano and Wupatki stories

and offset the lack of specific

archeological data from within the park.

This would be a major long-term benefit

to visitors.

Elimination of vehicle traffic on FR545

beyond the Lava Flow Trail and conversion

to a hiking trail would allow spectacular

views of the flanks of the volcano and the

Bonito Lava Flow that are unattainable

under existing conditions. These views

would illustrate the extent of the lava flow

and demonstrate the return of life to the

volcano and its environs. The Lava Flow

and Lenox Crater Trails would continue to

provide firsthand experience with volcanic

features, and Sunset Crater Volcano could

be viewed from above from the former

O’Leary Peak Road. Additional experiences

to explore resources would be provided at

Bonito Park and in the vicinity of the new

visitor center. Overall, these would be

moderate benefits.

This alternative would remove

administrative and visitor facilities from

the heart of the park and provide for

rehabilitation of impacted resources.

Because the road would no longer cut

through prime park resources, visitors

would have enhanced opportunities to

experience a more natural appearing

condition, especially in Bonito Park, along

portions of FR545 that would be converted

to trail, and in all areas that would be

rehabilitated to remove evidence of past

use. Chances of viewing park wildlife

would probably increase. This would be a 

moderate benefit to park visitors.

Rehabilitation of heavily used areas would

remove some of the intrusions described in

the No-Action Alternative, such as erosion

damage, social trails, and trampled

vegetation. Major scars would remain on

the volcano and within the viewshed,

including the old summit trail and

evidence of logging, fire suppression, and

mining. However, the overall effect of 

these remaining intrusions under this

alternative would become a minor adverse

impact to visitors.

The new visitor center building and

associated traffic and human activity

would intrude on an area that was

formerly less impacted. This would be a 

moderate adverse impact, which could be 

partially mitigated by design and

landscaping.

The absence of vehicles on the former

O’Leary Peak Road would add to hikers’

ability to experience a minimally altered

environment, although the USFS fire tower

would remain at the summit. The overall

effect would be a minor benefit.

OHV use would be removed from the area

west of FR776, in the vicinity of the new

visitor center, and this area would be 

rehabilitated to lessen evidence of prior

use. OHV use would remain south of FR776

and, because of the proximity to a primary

visitor use area, would be a more apparent

part of the landscape than under the NoAction Alternative. The impact would be 

moderate, long term, and adverse.

In this alternative, the park would

probably feel less crowded, because of the

elimination of the drive-through

experience. Most visitor experiences would

occur along dead-end spur roads and

164 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

along trails, rather than along FR545. This

would result in a moderate to major

benefit to park visitors.

This alternative would have no effect on 

visibility of night skies within the park,

because it would be closed and gated at

night. The experience would be essentially

unchanged for campers, although camping

would be relocated from the existing

Bonito Campground to the new

campground near the new visitor center.

Impact would be negligible to none.

Elimination of through-traffic in the park

would increase visitors’ ability to

experience natural soundscapes at almost

all major features, which would be a major

beneficial impact to park visitors.

Effects on Ability of Public to

Understand Park Resources and

Regional Context

Up-to-date and expanded exhibits in the

new visitor center would provide thematic

interpretation of all of the park’s major

resources and their relationship to 

regional resources and issues. Visitors

would also gain an understanding of the

regional context of the park and have an

opportunity to learn about surrounding

USFS lands. After their visitor center

experience, visitors would have a better

understanding of what they are seeing

and the extent to which eruptive events

have changed the landscape of the area.

They would be assisted by new wayside

exhibits, which would provide new

opportunities for learning about the park

along the way. Since most visitors would

probably rejoin FR545 and continue to

Wupatki as they do now, new wayside

exhibits would interpret the natural and

culture resources that link the two parks.

This would be a major beneficial impact to

park visitors.

Traditional interpretive services would

continue, including guided walks at major

features and evening programs at the

campground. Additional opportunities

would exist for formal interpretive talks

and other programs at the new visitor

center, which would include indoor space

to assemble groups. This would be a 

moderate benefit.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area considered for

cumulative effects for this alternative

includes the Flagstaff Area National

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff area,

and the most adjacent portions of the

Coconino National Forest. A geographic

area, a radius of 175 miles from Flagstaff

was considered for OHV recreation.

In addition to the impacts described

above, external forces and actions of other

entities could affect visitor ability to 

experience park resources in this

alternative. Primary sources of these

additional impacts are the USFS, Grand

Canyon National Park, Arizona

Department of Transportation (ADOT),

local developers, local residents, and

resource-related industries. Additional

detail follows for each.

USFS management within the area of 

consideration could work in combination

to increase total visitation to Sunset Crater

Volcano. These include:

• forest closures and/or increasing

restrictions, fire hazard closures, and

similar changes could transfer some

visitors to the park.

• USFS “Company’s Coming” program

and campground expansion could

increase interest in visiting nearby park

facilities.

• Cooperative management of the

multiagency visitor center could spread

visitor use more evenly over facilities

and features of both agencies.

Increased visitation for any of these

reasons would impact uncrowded visitor

experiences within the park, probably to a 

minor degree at any given time. Increased

visitation to the park could be offset by

165 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

increased use of the forest by traditional

park visitors. In this alternative, a 

moderate to major benefit is expected

from NPS actions. The cumulative impacts

would remain the same.

Changes in visitor use patterns and

transportation at Grand Canyon National

Park could result in visitation changes at

Sunset Crater Volcano:

• visitation could increase, especially by 

those seeking the independent drivethrough experience no longer available

at Grand Canyon.

• visitors arriving from Grand Canyon

could have more time to spend,

because of traffic management there

(no stops at viewpoints).

Increased visitation and/or increased

length of stay would impact uncrowded

visitor experiences within the park,

probably to a minor degree. In this

alternative, a moderate to major benefit is

expected from NPS actions. The cumulative

impact would remain the same. Increased

length of stay by visitors would also impact

ability to understand park resources, since

these visitors would probably devote more

time to visitor center exhibits, wayside

exhibits, interpretive programs, or

otherwise learning about the park. In this

alternative, a major benefit is expected

from NPS actions. The cumulative effect

would be the same.

Widening of US89 by ADOT will result in a 

four-lane highway north from Flagstaff to 

both Sunset Crater Volcano and Wupatki

entrances, and this level of improvement

will eventually extend all the way to Page,

Arizona. This could increase park visitation

because of time saved en route on the

improved highway, and/or to visitors

seeking a more scenic and leisurely route

(FR545 through the two parks). Visitors

might also be willing to spend more time

exploring the park. Impact on uncrowded

visitor experiences would be minor. The

cumulative effect would be the same as

described above.

Local development of Roden Crater and

the subdivision of lots in Alpine Ranchos

may increase traffic through the park. This

increased traffic would only occasionally

result in increased visitation to park

resources and facilities, and impact on

uncrowded visitor experiences would be

negligible. The cumulative impact would

be major and adverse, as described above.

Increased growth of Flagstaff could

increase park visitation by local residents,

and the number of repeat visits could

increase as residents return for more

information and/or additional experiences.

The use of park resources for traditional

recreational activities (biking, hiking, etc.)

could increase.

Increased visitation would impact

uncrowded visitor experiences as described

above, probably to a minor degree.

Cumulative impact would be major and

adverse. Repeat visits could impact

demand for traditional employee/visitor

experiences and encourage more variety in

interpretive programs offered. In this

alternative, this would be a moderate

benefit to visitors. Cumulative impact

would remain the same. In this alternative,

for traditional recreational uses, impacts

ranging from minor adverse to moderate

beneficial are expected. Additional such

activities would be of negligible impact.

Cumulative impacts would remain the

same.

Under this alternative, cumulative impacts

of NPS and external actions would cause

no measurable change to visitor ability to

experience park resources.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would provide major

benefits to both park and forest visitors

seeking comprehensive information on

and interpretation of regional resources

and recreational opportunities. It would

166 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

be of particular benefit to park visitors

wanting to experience resources in a 

quieter, more pristine environment,

because facilities would be removed from

the heart of the park, and the drivethrough experience would be eliminated.

Construction of a new multiagency visitor

center would provide major benefits to

visitor understanding of resources and the

ability to see the “real thing.” Changes to

the road system, rehabilitation of

disturbed areas, and construction of new

trails would provide access to a greater

variety of natural and cultural resources,

while enhancing ability to experience

scenery and a less altered environment. In

most areas of the park, natural

soundscapes would be enhanced, because

of the lack of passing traffic, and visitors

would feel less crowded. These benefits

would extend to visitors with disabilities,

since facilities and most trails would be

designed for full accessibility. Traditional

interpretive programs would continue as a 

moderate benefit, with additional

opportunities at the new visitor center and

campground.

There could be moderate adverse impacts

on personal freedoms in the future, if

reservation or shuttle systems were

implemented to control numbers of 

visitors. In addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe effects as

a result of implementing this alternative.

No changes in OHV use are proposed for

the 13 areas within the the 175 mile radius

of Flagstaff. Cumulative impacts would,

therefore, be negligible.Because there

would be no major adverse impacts to

resources whose conservation is (1)

necessary to fulfill specific purposes in the

establishing legislation or proclamation for

Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Effects on Access to Park Resources

by the General Public and Visitors

with Disabilities

Under this alternative, a new visitor

center, operated jointly by the National

Park Service and USFS, would be 

constructed near the junction of US89 and

FR545. This facility would provide

orientation for both park and forest

visitors, thus improving both awareness of 

and access to resources. Visitors would

receive this information before

encountering sensitive resources and

would be directed to areas best suited for

their desired activities. The existing visitor

center would be converted to an

education center. By providing improved

orientation to both NPS and USFS

resources, this alternative has a major

benefit to visitors.

Existing trails would remain as described

under the No-Action Alternative, and two

new trails would be provided: the former

road to O’Leary Peak would provide access

to a viewpoint, and a trail would be built

connecting Bonito Campground to the

Lava Flow Trail. Access to features along

FR545 would be unchanged, and the drivethrough experience would be retained. A 

Discovery Zone would be designated in

which visitors could hike without a guide,

with greater opportunities for natural

quiet, solitude, and undisturbed scenery.

The overall impact would be a moderate

benefit to visitors.

167 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

OHV use would be eliminated from

approximately 5,000 acres of the Cinder

Hills area within the expanded park

boundary. The Cinder Hills contain highly

significant resources related to the stories

of geology and ecology at Sunset Crater

Volcano, which would become easier to

access new hiking trails. This would be a 

moderate long-term benefit to park

visitors. Decreasing the OHV area by

almost 40% would increase use and

crowding in the remaining area. The

impact to OHV users would be adverse,

moderate to major and long-term.

The new visitor center would be fully

accessible to visitors with disabilities, as

would the remodeled existing visitor

center/education center. All exhibits,

interpretive programs, audiovisual

programs, and other facilities in both

locations would be designed to serve all

visitors.

Public road access to O’Leary Peak would

no longer exist, and visitors with mobility

impairments would require permission

from the USFS to drive to a viewpoint

overlooking Sunset Crater Volcano. This

would be a negligible adverse impact,

based on the number of vehicles that have

actually traveled this route in the past, and

could be mitigated for all visitors through

photography and exhibits.

New trails would be constructed for

accessibility to the extent possible. Because

of terrain, trails into the Cinder Hills

probably could not be made accessible;

however, new wayside exhibits at the

Cinder Hills Overlook would provide

interpretation of the entire Sunset Crater

volcanic chain, emphasizing features

within the viewshed. This would be a 

minor, long-term benefit.

The presence of the new visitor center

near the edge of Bonito Park would open

new vistas to more of the visiting public.

The views from the overlook on the

former O’Leary Peak Road would provide

hikers with a regional setting for the

Sunset Crater Volcano story. It would be 

possible to walk from the campground to

the existing Lava Flow Trail through a 

volcanically scenic area, which would

constitute a minor benefit.

The scenic quality of Cinder Hills Overlook

would be improved because of the

removal of OHV use and associated dust.

This would be a moderate long-term

benefit.

The new visitor center, serving a larger

segment of the public and located more

prominently near US89, would be 

designed to serve large numbers without

crowding, but would potentially draw a 

greater number of visitors into Sunset

Crater Volcano. Once inside the park,

these larger numbers would encounter

much the same array of parking areas,

trails, roadside pullouts, and so on, as

described in the No-Action Alternative.

The Lava Flow Trail, already identified as

one of the areas where visitors feel most

crowded, would become more so. New

hiking trails into the Cinder Hills would

disperse some of this use, especially for

those seeking a longer, more challenging

experience.

OHV users would be adversely impacted by 

closure of a large portion of the Cinder

Hills OHV Area. Approximately 5,000 acres

would be removed from the 15,000-acre

OHV area and would become part of the

park. This acreage contains some of the

highest use areas of the Cinder Hills and

includes the most challenging recreational

experiences in the OHV area .Impact

would be moderate, based on number of 

OHV users as a percentage of total park

visitors. However, it would impact the

majority of OHV users who have used this

formally designated area. Many OHV users

would probably seek other areas of the

forest to relocate their recreational

opportunities, which would remain subject

to regulation by the USFS.

168 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

Hiking opportunities would be greatly

expanded in this alternative, providing

moderate long-term benefits. Expansion of 

the campground would provide more

people, and larger groups, the opportunity

to camp near the park. Formalizing a trail

from the campground to the Lava Flow

Trail would expand recreational

opportunities for hikers; especially those

based in the campground. This would be a 

minor beneficial impact.

Effects on Access to Information

Provided by Collections (Ability to

See the “Real Thing”) and a 

Minimally Altered Environment

The new visitor center

would provide space

for displays of park

resources, including

various rocks, plants,

and animals, and

would increase visitors’

ability to appreciate

these tangible resources.

Archeological artifacts and

sites from throughout the region would be 

interpreted, to provide context for the

Sunset Crater Volcano story and offset the

lack of specific archeological data from

within the park. This would be a major

benefit to visitors.

Because this alternative would preserve

the drive-through experience described in

the No-Action Alternative, it is expected

that most visitors would avail themselves

of new interpretive waysides along the

main park road. This would constitute a 

major beneficial impact to visitors’

understanding of the park and region.

Lava Flow and Lenox Crater Trails would

continue to provide firsthand experience

with volcanic features, and Sunset Crater

could be viewed from above from the new

O’Leary Peak Trail. Depending on the

selected route, the new trail connecting

the campground to the Lava Flow Trail

trailhead, could add the opportunity to

walk along the edge of a particularly

fresh-appearing section of the lava.

Guided hikes would be considered for the

Kana-A lava flow, where many significant

lava flow structures are in evidence

(delicate squeeze-ups, hornitos, lava

bubbles, and pahoehoe lava). Here, visitors

could experience the “real thing” and a 

minimally affected environment within a 

short distance of the main park road.

Benefits would be moderate and long

term.

Elimination of OHV use from the Cinder

Hills within expanded park boundaries

would allow park visitors a new

opportunity to experience firsthand this

significant part of the geological story of 

Sunset Crater. This would be a moderate

benefit to park visitors.

Rehabilitation of the impacts on the

Cinder Hills would eventually provide

visitors with an opportunity to view areas

in which succession is actively progressing.

The large landscape features that

constitute a major portion of the Sunset

Crater volcanic chain would be restored to

a more natural appearance. Visitors could

also view a minimally altered environment

from the Cinder Hills Overlook. The overall

impact would be a long-term moderate

benefit to visitors.

The new visitor center building and

associated traffic and human activity

would intrude on an area previously

impacted only by the passing road. This

would be a moderate adverse impact,

which could be partially mitigated by 

design and landscaping.

The absence of vehicles on the former

O’Leary Peak Road would add to hikers’

ability to experience a minimally altered

environment, although the USFS fire tower

would remain at the summit. The overall

effect would be a negligible to minor

benefit.

The presence of Bonito Campground

would continue to allow for an overnight

169
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

stay on the boundary of the park,

providing the chance to view night skies

and encounter crepuscular and nocturnal

wildlife. Expansion of the campground

would result in an increase in the numbers

of people using the campground, and

possibly the amount of night lighting.

Impact compared with the No-Action

Alternative would be negligible.

Location of the visitor center near US89

and preservation of the drive-through

experience would decrease visitors’ ability

to experience natural soundscapes and

could decrease chances of seeing wildlife.

Conversion of the O’Leary Peak Road to a 

hiking trail would result in negligible to

minor benefits in appreciation of the

natural soundscape. Even as part of a 

guided group, visitors would find the

Kana-A lava flow a very quiet section of 

the volcanic landscape; although only a 

short distance from FR545, road noise

would be negligible. In areas designated

as Discovery Zone, solitary hiking in

natural soundscapes would predominate.’

Effects on Ability of Public to

Understand Park Resources and

Regional Context

Up-to-date exhibits in the new visitor

center would provide thematic

interpretation of all of the park’s major

resources and their relationship to 

regional resources and issues. Visitors

would also gain an understanding of the

regional context of the park and have an

opportunity to learn about surrounding

USFS lands. After their visitor center

experience, visitors would have a better

understanding of what they are seeing as

they visit various features in the park. They

would be assisted by new wayside exhibits,

which would provide new opportunities

for learning about the park along the way.

This would be a major beneficial impact to

park visitors and probably to more visitors,

because more people would be expected

to stop at this facility in its prominent

location.

The conversion of the existing visitor

center to an educational center would

provide new in-depth learning

opportunities for park visitors, especially

school groups. Under this action, school

groups would have an opportunity to

gather their classes indoors, receive

programs in an appropriate setting, and

be introduced to the park’s resources and

regional context before venturing into the

park. The building would also house

special exhibits containing artifacts from

the park and specifically directed at school

groups. Other user groups could also

benefit, because the building could be

opened to general visitation and for

interpretive programs as well. This would

have a moderate beneficial impact on park

visitors and on resources.

Visitors to the Cinder Hills Overlook, and

those hiking in that area, would gain a 

more complete understanding of the

events that constitute the Sunset Crater

Volcano story, through opportunities to

view intact cinder cones and a broad

volcanic scene. These elements of the

landscape surrounding Sunset Crater

constitute the beginning of Sunset Crater

Volcano’s story. This would be a moderate

benefit.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area considered for

cumulative effects for this alternative

includes the Flagstaff Area National

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff area,

and the most adjacent portions of the

Coconino National Forest.

In addition to the impacts described

above, external forces and actions of other

entities could affect visitor ability to 

experience park resources in this

alternative. Primary sources of these

additional impacts are the USFS, Grand

Canyon National Park, Arizona

Department of Transportation (ADOT),

local developers, local residents, and

170 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

resource-related industries. Additional

detail follows for each.

USFS management within the area of 

consideration could work in combination

to increase total visitation to Sunset Crater

Volcano. These include:

• forest closures and/or increasing

restrictions, fire hazard closures, and

similar changes could transfer some

visitors to the park.

• USFS “Company’s Coming” program

and campground expansion could

increase interest in visiting nearby park

facilities.

• Cooperative management of the

multiagency visitor center could spread

visitor use more evenly over facilities

and features of both agencies.

Increased visitation for any of these

reasons would impact uncrowded visitor

experiences within the park, probably to a 

minor degree at any given time. Increased

visitation to the park could be offset by

increased use of the forest by traditional

park visitors. In this alternative, a minor to 

moderate adverse impact is expected from

NPS actions. The cumulative impact would

remain the same.

Changes in visitor use patterns and

transportation at Grand Canyon National

Park could result in visitation changes at

Sunset Crater Volcano:

• visitation could increase, especially by 

those seeking the independent drivethrough experience no longer available

at Grand Canyon.

• visitors arriving from Grand Canyon

could have more time to spend,

because of traffic management there

(no stops at viewpoints).

Increased visitation and/or increased

length of stay would impact uncrowded

visitor experiences within the park,

probably to a minor degree. In this

alternative, a minor to moderate adverse

impact is expected from NPS actions. The

cumulative impact would remain the same.

Increased length of stay by visitors would

also impact ability to understand park

resources, since these visitors would

probably devote more time to visitor

center exhibits, wayside exhibits,

interpretive programs, or otherwise

learning about the park. In this

alternative, moderate and major benefits

are expected from NPS actions. The

cumulative effect would be the same.

Widening of US89 by ADOT will result in a 

four-lane highway north from Flagstaff to 

both Sunset Crater Volcano and Wupatki

entrances, and this level of improvement

will eventually extend all the way to Page,

Arizona. This could increase park visitation

because of time saved en route on the

improved highway, and/or to visitors

seeking a more scenic and leisurely route

(FR545 through the two parks). Visitors

might also be willing to spend more time

exploring the park. Impact on uncrowded

visitor experiences would be minor, and

the cumulative effect would be the same

as described above.

Local development of Roden Crater and

the subdivision of lots in Alpine Ranchos

may increase traffic through the park. This

increased traffic would only occasionally

result in increased visitation to park

resources and facilities, and impact on

uncrowded visitor experiences would be

negligible. The cumulative impact would

remain minor to moderate adverse.

Increased growth of Flagstaff could

increase park visitation by local residents

and the number of repeat visits could

increase as residents return for more

information and/or additional experiences.

The use of park resources for traditional

recreational activities (biking, hiking, etc.)

could increase.

Increased visitation would impact

uncrowded visitor experiences as described

above, probably to a minor degree.

171 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cumulative impact would be major and

adverse. Repeat visits could impact

demand for traditional employee/visitor

experiences and encourage more variety in

interpretive programs offered. In this

alternative, this would be a moderate

benefit to visitors. Cumulative impact

would remain the same. In this alternative,

for traditional recreational uses, impacts

ranging from minor adverse to major

beneficial are expected from NPS actions.

Additional such activities would be of 

negligible impact. Cumulative impacts

would remain the same.

No changes in OHV use are proposed for

the 13 areas within the the 175 mile radius

of Flagstaff. Cumulative impacts would,

therefore, remain the same.

Under this alternative, cumulative impacts

of NPS and external actions would cause

no measurable change to visitor ability to

experience park resources.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would result in major

benefits to both park and forest visitors

seeking comprehensive information on

and interpretation of regional resources

and recreational opportunities. It would

be of particular benefit to park visitors

wanting to explore the full range of 

volcanic features significant to the story of

Sunset Crater Volcano.

Construction of a new multiagency visitor

center, conversion of the existing visitor

center to an education center, and

installation of new wayside exhibits would

provide major benefits to visitor

understanding of resources and the ability

to see the “real thing.” New longer trails

would provide access to a full range of 

features, including intact cinder cones,

volcanic vents, lava bombs, and the broad

volcanic scene within the Cinder Hills,

which make up the beginning of the

Sunset Crater Volcano story.’ Traditional

interpretive programs would continue as a 

moderate benefit, and new programs

would be offered, using facilities of the

new visitor center, education center, and

campground. Additional guided hikes

might be offered into the Kana-A lava

flow, an area not available under the NoAction Alternative. Access for visitors with

disabilities would be similar to that

described for the No-Action Alternative.

All facilities and existing trails would

remain accessible, but, because of terrain,

the Cinder Hills experience for visitors with

disabilities would probably be available

only from the overlook.

This alternative would result in long-term

adverse impacts to OHV recreational users.

Approximately 40% of the designated

OHV area would be removed from use,

including some of the most heavily used

routes. Remaining OHV acreage would be 

increasingly crowded, resulting in

moderate to major and long-term adverse

impacts to those users.

The new visitor center, despite its major

benefits to visitor understanding, would

present the possibility of moderate

adverse impacts on uncrowded visitor

experiences, by funneling greater numbers

into the park. This effect would be

accentuated at times by the presence of 

greater numbers and organized groups in

the campground. However, the new access

to the Cinder Hills would disperse some of

this use from existing developed areas. In

addition to those mentioned, there would

be other, less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Because there would be no major adverse

impacts to resources whose conservation is

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation for Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument; (2) key to the natural

or cultural integrity of the park or to

opportunities for enjoyment of the park;

or (3) identified as a goal in relevant

National Park Service planning documents,

there would be no impairment of the

park’s resources or values.

172 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources.

Loss in Long-Term Availability

or Productivity of the

Resource to Achieve ShortTerm Gain

There would be no short-term gains

affecting long-term productivity.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Some visual intrusions would remain, both

inside the park and within the viewshed.

These range from NPS facilities to distant

mines, but all present moderate adverse

impacts to the ability to experience a 

minimally altered environment. The

existing visitor center would continue in

use, limiting the space available for

interpretive exhibits and contributing to 

incomplete visitor understanding of park

resources-a major adverse impact. As park

visitation increases, crowding in this small

structure would further impact visitor

experience.

The new visitor center, despite its major

benefits to visitor understanding, would

present the possibility of moderate

adverse impacts on uncrowded visitor

experiences, by funneling greater numbers

into existing parking areas and trails. This

effect would be accentuated at times by 

the presence of greater numbers and

organized groups in the campground.

Alternative 3 would result in moderate

long-term adverse impacts to OHV

recreational users. Approximately 25% of

the designated OHV area would be 

removed from use, including some of the

most heavily used routes. The new visitor

center, despite its major benefits to visitor

understanding, would present the

possibility of moderate adverse impacts on

uncrowded visitor experiences, by

funneling greater numbers into the park.

This effect would be accentuated at times

by the presence of greater numbers of 

people and organized groups in the

campground. However, the new access to

the Cinder Hills would disperse some of

this use from existing developed areas.

PARK NEIGHBORS; LOCAL,

STATE, AND TRIBAL LAND

MANAGEMENT PLANS; AND 

LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING

AGENCIES

Methodology

Concerns covered by this section include

effects on neighbors’ access and

emergency response, economic

contribution of the park to local

economies, access to culturally sensitive

areas by traditional users, traditional land

uses external to the boundary, and

possible conflicts between the proposed

action and local, state, or Indian tribal land

use plans, policies, or controls. Levels of

intensity of impacts on park neighbors are

as follows.

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable

and/or will affect few neighbors.

Minor: The impact is slight, but

detectable, and/or will affect a minority of

neighbors.

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent

and/or will affect many neighbors.

Major: The impact is severely adverse or

exceptionally beneficial and/or will affect

the majority of neighbors.

Effects of the No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Many impacts resulting from this

alternative would be of a beneficial nature

173 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

to NPS neighbors and other land and

resource managers. Maintaining FR545 as 

an always open road would have major,

long-term benefits to forest users, to the

residents living between the two

monuments, and to those traveling to the

Navajo Reservation via Wupatki National

Monument.

Cooperative efforts with the Arizona

Game and Fish Department are focused on

preserving wildlife and habitat, which

results in minor, long-term adverse impacts

to that agency in terms of wildlife

management workloads relative to 

cooperative field and administrative work

with the NPS.

Cooperative efforts with the USFS have

major, long-term, beneficial impacts on 

their campground operations by providing

water and interpretive services.

Cooperative law enforcement activities

provide moderate, long-term beneficial

impacts to the USFS. The NPS is available

to respond to wildfire situations in the

immediate area pending the availability of

USFS personnel, resulting in moderate,

long-term, beneficial, impacts to that

agency.

Visitor use of a portion of the O’Leary

Peak Road to reach a viewpoint to see into

the bowl of Sunset Crater would have

minimal, long-term, adverse impacts on 

American Indian groups using the area for

traditional, cultural purposes.

Although this alternative accommodates

American Indian access to park resources,

any increases in visitor numbers and

activities in the monument and on 

adjacent forest lands could have minor,

long-term, adverse impacts on tribal

members because of increased contacts

with others when accessing traditional use

areas.

Occasionally, visitors are directed to areas

of the Forest to pursue recreational

activities not allowed in the monument,

but provided for in nearby locations. This

could result in minor, short-term adverse

impacts to Forest Service workloads in

terms of visitor use management activities.

The Forest Service is involved in a major

planning effort for a large area adjacent

to or surrounding the Flagstaff National

Monuments. This plan, the Flagstaff Lake

Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) is 

addressing several topics, including

recreational opportunities, access, roads,

off-highway vehicles, trails, forest health,

camping, groups uses, special events,

outfitter/guides, and commercial uses. The

National Park Service is a participant in this

planning activity and will represent

concerns that arise from proposals that

affect areas near the monuments. The

National Park Service review and

recommendations of the FLEA could result

in minor, short-term impacts to Forest

Service administrative and writing

workloads. National Park Service input

would be directed at resource

preservation, land and resource uses, and

appropriate visitor uses and recreational

activities that do not result in adverse

impacts to the monuments. Such input

could result in moderate, long-term

impacts to the Forest Service relative to 

FLEA elements that could address

protection of park resources, vistas and

natural sounds.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area considered in this

alternative includes the city of Flagstaff on

the south, the Coconino Plateau Natural

Reserve Lands (CPNRL) on the north, US89

on the west, the Little Colorado River at

Wupatki, the eastern limits of the Cinder

Hills Off Highway Vehicle Recreation Area

at Sunset Crater Volcano, and the lands

generally enclosed by these landmarks.

Planning efforts by the Forest Service

could result in both beneficial and adverse

impacts to forest users in areas near the

monument by restricting some uses and

expanding others. Activities taken by the

174 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

state in widening US89 also affect USFS

activities in the area. Increasing population

in Alpine Ranchos would increase pressure

on USFS for demand for recreational

opportunities for these nearby residents.

Expansion of the city of Flagstaff would

also increase recreational demand

pressures. These actions would result in

moderate, short- and long-term, adverse

impacts to the USFS, as they have to

accommodate increasing numbers of 

resource users.

The existing cooperative relationship

between the NPS and the other land and

resource managing agencies should result

in short- and long-term beneficial impacts

though shared visitor/user services and

resource management.

Cooperative efforts with the Forest Service

would continue to produce moderate,

long-term, beneficial impacts in law

enforcement, resource management,

wildfire management, protection, and

visitor services. Parallel planning by the

NPS and the Forest Service, and the

involvement of each agency in the other’s

planning efforts will have minor, shortterm, adverse impacts to the Forest Service

workloads resulting from their

participation in NPS planning, and their

accommodation of NPS participation in

their planning.

Arizona Game and Fish Department

activities in the geographic area would

consist of management actions to enhance

forage available to game animals and to

enhance the populations of those animals.

Their actions would have minor, beneficial

long-term impacts to other neighbors and

land managers in the form of a healthier

animal population; more productive game

hunts, and increases in wildlife viewing

opportunities.

Development of Roden Crater as a major

tourist attraction would increase traffic

and could create more congestion,

increasing the commute time for Alpine

Rancho residents. This would result in a 

minor, long-term adverse effect on those

residents.

Expansion of Bonito Campground could

introduce increased numbers of users in

the Bonito Park and O’Leary Peak areas.

That action, along with visitors hiking on a 

portion of the O’Leary Peak Road, could

cause minor interruptions of American

Indian uses of cultural properties resulting

from increasing numbers of visitors and

related traffic. The total action would

result in moderate, long-term adverse

impacts to American Indian tribes in the

form of increased contacts with others

during traditional uses.

Activities taken by the state in widening

US89 also affect Forest Service activities in

the area. Increasing population in Alpine

Ranchos would increase pressure on the

Forest Service for demand for recreational

and woodcutting opportunities for these

nearby residents. Expansion of the city of 

Flagstaff would also increase the demand

for recreational opportunities.

The combined effects of the proposed

actions by all land and resource

management agencies would result in

moderate impacts to one another and to

park neighbors. The contribution to these

impacts resulting from proposed NPS

actions would be minor.

CONCLUSION

Within existing conditions, the

management actions of the NPS provide

many beneficial impacts to other agencies

and neighbors. Existing conditions result in

only minor, long-term, adverse impacts to

the workload of others in terms of

additional administrative tasks,

interpretive planning, agreement reviews,

and joint planning efforts. There could be

minor, long-term adverse impact to park

neighbors in terms of increased congestion

on FS545. In addition to those mentioned,

there would be other, less severe effects as

a result of implementing this alternative.

175 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

This alternative would provide diverse

opportunities both within and outside the

monument boundaries. Partnerships with

the USFS, affiliated tribes, and educational

institutions would provide interpretation

and consistent management of sites and

features outside the park that are primary

to park purpose.

A new visitor center and administrative

complex would be constructed near the

intersection of FR545 and US89 and would

serve both the USFS and NPS visitor

orientation needs. Potential impacts to

monument neighbors would be negligible,

as there would be no disruption of their

access to, or through, the monument to

access forest lands, their residences, or the

Navajo Reservation. The location of a 

shared facility in this area would enhance

both the USFS and NPS ability to orient

visitors prior to their entry to public lands.

However, there would be moderate, shortterm adverse impacts to the USFS in terms

of facilities planning and construction, and

moderate, long-term adverse impacts in

staffing commitments.

Under this alternative, the existing Mission

66 visitor center would be retained and

adaptively used, which would pose no 

impact to neighbors, tribes, or other land

and resource managers.

A portion of the O’Leary Peak Road would

take hikers to a viewpoint that allows

them to see into the bowl of Sunset Crater

resulting in minor, long-term, adverse

impacts to the Forest Service in terms of

added administrative and management

workloads. This trail would remain part of

the Forest Service administrative access to 

their facilities atop the peak.

This trail and viewpoint would result in

minimal, long-term, adverse impacts to

American Indians, as it would be a 

negligible intrusion in the sacred area of

O’Leary Peak, and would not disrupt their

cultural uses of the mountain.

Cooperative efforts with the Arizona

Game and Fish Department would be the

same as in the No-Action Alternative.

Cooperative efforts with the Forest Service

would be the same as in the No-Action

Alternative.

The implications of the FLEA planning

process would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative.

Visitors would be occasionally directed to

Forest Service areas as occurs under

current conditions.

The implications of widening US89 and the

growth of Flagstaff would be the same as

in the No-Action Alternative.

Impacts to American Indian tribes would

be the same as in the No-Action

Alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area considered in this

alternative is the same as that in the NoAction Alternative.

Constructing a new shared facility and

managing changes to the OHV area would

have moderate short-term and long-term

impacts to the USFS.

The implications of the Forest Service

FLEA, NPS and Forest Service cooperative

efforts, and relationships with other

resource managers would be the same as

in the No-Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 1, a portion of the

O’Leary Peak Road would be used by

hikers to gain a view into the bowl of

Sunset Crater. Increased traffic congestion

and construction activities would have

minor, short-term impacts on park

neighbors in Alpine Ranchos. In addition

176 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

to these effects, subdivision of the Alpine There could be a number of beneficial

Ranchos development would increase impacts such as those discussed in the Nopopulation in the area. Development of Action Alternative.

Roden Crater would increase traffic. All of Increased congestion and contact with these actions would result in a minor others would have a moderate, long-term i

increase in traffic on the loop road could

create more congestion, increasing

the commute time for Alpine

Expansion of the campground could

traditional cultural uses.

The management actions of 

the NPS may result in minor

to moderate, short and

long-term, adverse impacts

to the workload of others in

terms of additional administrative ta sks,

interpretive planning, agreement reviews,

ncrease in traffic on the loop road. The impact on American Indian tribes seeking

Rancho residents. This

would be an intermittent,

long-term, minor effect

on those residents.

introduce increased numbers of users in and joint planning efforts. There could be the Bonito Park and O’Leary Peak areas. minor adverse impact to park neighbors in

Impacts to American Indians would be as terms of increased congestion on FR545.

in the No-Action Alternative. In addition to those mentioned, there

The implications of the development of would be other, less severe effects as a 

Roden Crater would be the same as in the result of implementing this alternative.

No-Action Alternative. Effects of Alternative 2:

Arizona Game and Fish activities in the 

geographic area would be the same as in Emphasize Quiet Natural 

the No-Action Alternative. Setting while Providing 

The combined effects of the proposed Diverse Opportunities for 

actions by all land and resource Visitor Use 

management agencies would result in IMPACT ANALYSIS major impacts to one another, and to park 

neighbors. The contribution to these In this alternative, a new visitor center 

impacts resulting from proposed NPS would be built on or near FR776, where no 

actions would be a moderate component, facilities currently exist. The new facility 

primarily resulting from the construction would be used primarily to orient visitors 

and operation of a new visitor orientation to the park/forest lands prior to their 

center, and expanded visitor use areas and arrival and could be jointly operated by 

activities. both the USFS and NPS. The existing 

CONCLUSION Bonito Campground would be relocated to 

an area near the proposed new visitor

There would be minor to moderate, short- center. Operation of the new visitor center

and long-term, adverse impacts to the would have moderate, long-term, adverse

Forest Service, resulting from their impacts to the Forest Service, as they

participation in the development and would become partners with the NPS in

operation of a new visitor facility, construction, staffing, and maintaining the

including planning, construction, and facility. However, USFS presence in the

staffing commitments, and resulting from facility could have a moderate, long-term,

changes to the OHV recreational area. beneficial impact on their ability to orient

forest recreational users and minimize

inappropriate activities. NPS administrative

177
PARK NEIGHBORS 

and maintenance facilities would also be

relocated to this new developed area.

The closure of FR545 through the

monument would result in moderate,

long-term impacts to neighbors using the

park road for commuting purposes or

accessing USFS lands north of the

monument. Such access and the

commuting route would be redirected via

FR776. Those users would experience

moderate, intermittent impacts relative to 

seasonal traffic congestion along this road,

which would also be the primary entrance

to the Cinder Hills OHV Area, Alpine

Ranchos, Wupatki National Monument,

and the Navajo Reservation. Potential

adverse impacts to resource/land

management agencies would be moderate

and long term; increased maintenance of 

FR776 would be required and possibly

shared among NPS, USFS, and/or Coconino

County.

American Indians, who use resources for

cultural and traditional purposes, could

experience moderate, long-term adverse

impacts to their ability to reach certain

places in the monument previously

accessed by FR545. They also could

encounter congestion and crowded

conditions during busy seasons of use,

particularly around Bonito Park, and the

O’Leary Peak Road.

Hiking around Bonito Park could result in

minor, long-term impacts to American

Indian tribes and resource managers. The

Hopi consider Bonito Park a sacred site and

prefer that visitor activities not occur in

the open meadow area (however, a trail

around the perimeter of Bonito Park

might be acceptable). The Arizona Game

and Fish Department (AGFD) monitors

Bonito Park as a pronghorn fawning area

and would prefer not to impact that

wildlife process, although very few

pronghorn use the area. Impacts to the

wildlife could result in minor, long-term

impacts to AGFD administrative workloads

in managing wildlife.

Motorized sightseeing opportunities

would be changed to include entry via

FR776 and a realignment of FR414. Both

routes would have to be improved and/or

paved. The existing paved road (FR545)

would terminate at Bonito Park and at the

Lava Flow Trail; it would be obliterated

beyond those two points. There would be 

moderate, long-term impacts to the Forest

Service and/or Coconino County resulting

from the relocation of the campground

and supporting infrastructure and any

increased responsibilities for maintenance

and management of FR776. Some

neighbors living near FR776 at the junction

with US89 are concerned about any

increase in congestion that would be 

caused by the rerouting of traffic. There

would also likely be moderate, short-term

impacts during the road-building phase,

which could interrupt traffic, detour

commuters and OHV area users, and

temporarily restrict access to the OHV

area.. The feasibility (engineering) of

paving FR776/FR414 has not been fully

studied.

Also under Alternative 2, the park road

would be gated at night, and, at some

point in the future, visitation numbers

could be controlled via shuttle or 

reservation. Any reduction in the numbers

of visitors could result in a minor, longterm impact to the local community

businesses.

Extended learning would be accomplished

from the Lava Flow Trail to the north side

of Sunset Crater as well as on portions of 

the existing entrance road, which would

be reclaimed and become a trail. Potential

adverse impacts to neighbors and other

land/resource managers from the loss of

this road would be moderate and long

term.

Bonito Park would have a trail around it,

incorporating part of an old roadbed.

Introduction of visitors on foot into this

area causes some concerns from managers

from the NPS and other agencies relative

178 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

to effects on wildlife populations, plant

communities, and cultural resources. The

USFS could experience minor, long-term

adverse impacts in their administrative

workload resulting from resource

management activities and conducting

interpretive programs as a partner in

visitor services. AGFD could experience

minor, long-term adverse impacts in their

wildlife management in Bonito Park. There

could be moderate, long-term adverse

impacts to American Indian tribes who see

Bonito Park as a sacred place, because

their cultural uses could be impeded by 

crowded conditions or heavy seasonal

visitor use.

Hiking opportunities on a portion of the

O’Leary Peak Road would be the same as 

in the No-Action Alternative.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area considered in this

alternative is the same as that in the NoAction Alternative.

Construction and operation of a new

shared visitor facility, relocation of the

campground, and maintenance of FR776,

would result in major, long-term impacts

to the Forest Service. Forest Service

presence in the visitor center would result

in a major, long-term, beneficial impact on 

USFS interaction with recreational users.

The introduction of a hiker trail around

Bonito Park could result in moderate,

long-term, adverse impacts to American

Indian tribes.

The implications of the Forest Service FLEA

planning process would be the same as

those identified in the No-Action

Alternative.

The implications of the activities of AGFD,

ADOT widening US89, and the growth of 

the City of Flagstaff would be the same as

in the No-Action Alternative.

Maintenance of FR776 could be a major,

long-term impact to the Forest Service or 

Coconino County if either organization

assumed shared responsibility for the road,

requiring increased staff, equipment, and

funding for maintenance operations.

The closure of FR545 through the

monument, road reconstruction, increased

congestion on FR776, expanded visitor

activities, and related dust and visible

traffic would result in moderate to minor,

short- and long-term adverse impacts to 

park neighbors.

Any reduction in numbers of visitors could

result in a minor, long-term, adverse

impact to the local hospitality industry by

affecting extended or overnight stays in

the community.

Visitor activities around Bonito Park could

result in minor, long-term impacts in the

Arizona Game and Fish Department’s

wildlife management program in Bonito

Park.

Crowded conditions or heavy seasonal

visitor use near Bonito Park could result in

moderate, long-term impact to American

Indian tribes who could experience

congestion during time of traditional,

cultural uses. The loss of access once

provided by FR545 crossing through the

monument could result in minor, longterm impacts to American Indian tribes by

making access to some areas more

difficult.

The combined effects of the proposed

actions by all land and resource

management agencies would result in

major to minor adverse impacts to one

another, and to park neighbors. The

contribution to these impacts resulting

from proposed NPS actions would be a 

major component, resulting from

construction and operation of a new

visitor orientation center, elimination of 

FR545 as a through road, and expanded

visitor use areas and activities.

179 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

CONCLUSION

There would be major, short- and longterm adverse impacts to the Forest Service,

resulting from their participation in the

development and operation of a new

visitor facility, including planning,

construction, and staffing commitments.

There could be a number of beneficial

impacts such as those discussed in the NoAction Alternative.

Visitor activities and hiking in new areas

could have moderate, long-term impacts

on American Indian tribes seeking

traditional cultural uses.

The closure of FR545 and increased traffic

on FR766 would have moderate, long-term

impacts on some park neighbors.

Shared maintenance of FR766 and FR545

could have major, long-term

impacts on the Forest Service

and/or Coconino County.

The implications of

development of Roden Crater

would be the same as

identified in the No-Action

Alternative.

In addition to those mentioned, there

would be other, less severe effects a s a 

result of implementing this alternative.

routes. That would result in a 

minor, long-term adverse

impact to those neighbors.

A new visitor center and

administrative complex would be

constructed near US89 and would

serve both USFS and NPS visitor

orientation needs. Impacts

resulting from this action

would be the same as in

Alternative 1. 

The beneficial implications of 

this alternative would be the

eliminated. OHV users would probably

seek other such opportunities on forest

lands, which would create major, longterm adverse impacts to the USFS in terms

of designating new recreation areas,

fulfilling compliance procedures, public

meetings, planning, and future

management. There could be moderate,

long-term adverse impacts to park

neighbors, resulting from displaced OHV

uses relocating near their residences, along

with related noises, dust, and intrusions on

their viewsheds.

Some park neighbors who use FR776 for

commuting to Flagstaff from the Navajo

Reservation or from communities between

Sunset and Wupatki, would have to use

FR545 through the monument, or other

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

This alternative proposes a significant

expansion of the monument to include

resources and features that were direct

components of the eruption of Sunset

Crater. A large portion of the Cinder Hills

OHV Area would be transferred to the

monument and existing OHV uses

same as those described for the No-Action

Alternative.

There could be some minor, long-term

adverse impacts to the AGFD in terms of

wildlife management and monitoring

workloads in areas adjacent to new lands

added to the monument. However, there

would be moderate, long-term beneficial

impacts in terms of wildlife health,

numbers, hunting opportunities, and

wildlife viewing opportunities.

The implications to the Arizona Game and

Fish Department from the ADOT widening

of US89, and from the growth of Flagstaff

would be the same as in the No-Action

Alternative.

180 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

Impacts to American Indian groups would

be the same as in Alternative 1. 

Public use of a trail on a portion of the

O’Leary Peak Road would be the same as 

in Alternative 1. 

Adverse impacts to neighbors commuting

through the monument would be minimal,

but long-term. Their access route would

remain, but encounters with traffic and

numbers of visitors could increase as

monument visitation increases.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area considered in this

alternative is the same as that in the NoAction Alternative.

Constructing a new, shared facility,

providing access to hikers on the former

O’Leary Peak Road, and management of a 

reduced OHV area would have major,

short- and long-term impacts to the USFS.

The implications of the Forest Service

planning (FLEA) would be the same as in

the No-Action Alternative.

The implication of this alternative to

American Indian groups would be the

same as in Alternative 1. 

The implications of development of Roden

Crater would be the same as those

described for the No-Action Alternative.

The combined effects of the proposed

actions by all land and resource

management agencies would result in

major impacts to one another, and to park

neighbors. The contribution to these

impacts from proposed NPS actions would

be a major component, primarily resulting

from the expansion of the monument and

resulting reduction of the OHV area,

construction, and operation of a new

visitor orientation center, and expanded

visitor use areas and activities.

CONCLUSION

There would be major, short- and longterm adverse impacts to the Forest Service,

resulting from their participation in the

development and operation of a new

visitor facility, including planning,

construction, and staffing commitments,

and resulting from the reduction in size

and potential relocation of the OHV

recreational area. There could be a 

number of beneficial impacts as discussed

in the No-Action Alternative.

Increased congestion and contact with

others would have a moderate, long-term

adverse impact on American Indian tribes

seeking traditional cultural uses.

In addition to those mentioned, there

would be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this alternative.

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources.

Loss in Long-Term Availability

or Productivity of the

Resource to Achieve ShortTerm Gain

There would be no short-term gains

affecting long-term productivity.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Under the No-Action Alternative, there

would be minor adverse impacts to the

workload of park neighbors in terms of 

additional administrative tasks,

interpretive planning, agreement reviews,

and joint planning efforts.

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, there would

be major, short- and long-term impacts to

the Forest Service, resulting from their

participation in the development and

operation of a new visitor facility,

including planning, construction, and

181 
PARK NEIGHBORS 

staffing commitments. Similar impacts

would result from Alternative 3, from the

relocation of the OHV recreational area.

Increased congestion and contact with

others would have a major, long-term

impact on American Indian tribes seeking

traditional cultural uses.

In addition to those adverse effects

identified for Alternative 1, under

Alternative 2 the closure of FR545,

increased traffic on FR766 would have

major, long-term impacts on some park

neighbors. Maintenance of FR766 and

FR545 could have major, long-term

impacts on the Forest Service and/or

Coconino County.

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Methodology

Operational efficiency, for the purpose of

this analysis, refers to adequacy of the

staffing levels and quality and

effectiveness of the infrastructure used in

the operation of the park in order to

adequately protect and preserve vital park

resources and provide for an effective

visitor experience. This includes an analysis

of existing and needed staffing levels and

of the condition and usefulness of the

facilities and developed features used to

support the operations of the park.

Facilities include the roads that are used to

provide access to and within the park

(both administrative and visitor use),

housing used for staff required to work

and live in the park, visitor orientation

facilities (visitor centers, developed and

interpreted sites, and other interpretive

features), and the necessary administrative

buildings (office and workspace for park

staff), garages, shops, storage buildings,

and yards used to house and store the

equipment, tools, and materials used to

maintain the constructed facilities, and

features that support the operations of 

the park. This also includes the presence of

utilities such as phones, sewer, water, and

electric and other constructed features

used to facilitate the operations of the

park.

In addition to the above, discussion of 

impacts to park operations focuses on (1)

employee and visitor health and safety, (2)

ability to protect and preserve resources,

(3) staff size, whether staffing needs to be

increased or decreased, (4) existing and

needed facilities, (5) communication (i.e.,

telephones, radio, computers, etc.), and (6)

appropriate utilities (sewer, electric,

water). Park staff knowledge was used to 

evaluate the impacts of each alternative

and is based on the current description of 

park operations presented in the Affected

Environment section of this document.

Definitions for levels of impacts to 

operational efficiency are as follows:

Negligible: changes would be so small

that it would not be of any measurable or 

perceptible consequence.

Minor: changes would be small and, if

measurable, the consequences would be 

small and localized.

Moderate: changes would be measurable

and would have a consequence.

Major: changes would be measurable and

would have substantial consequences.

Effects of the No-Action

Alternative: Existing

Conditions

IMPACT ANALYSIS

Under the No-Action Alternative

operational efficiency would continue in

approximately the same manner as it

currently exists.

Partnerships with the USFS would have a 

minor to moderate effect on operational

efficiency. This effect would be long-term

and beneficial. The USFS would be 

regulating use and access, including the

regulation of off-road driving, and the

closure of a number of nonessential roads.

182 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

Implementation of these actions would

reduce the need for NPS patrols along the

south boundary for resources protection

purposes. If the use of this area were to

increase, there would also likely be a need

to provide 24-hour emergency response.

The installation of new wayside and

museum exhibits would have long-term

impacts that would moderately change

operational efficiency in a beneficial

manner. Increased information presented

to the visiting public would afford a 

higher level of awareness of the

significance of the resources in the park,

and provide information regarding use

and access restrictions. This in turn would

increase the level of protection afforded

park resources and reduce the need for

law enforcement patrols.

The expansion of the USFS campground

would have a minor adverse impact on 

operational efficiency. The NPS currently

responds to law enforcement needs with

the existing campground. The presence of 

the new unit, although catering to a 

different type of camper, would increase

the law enforcement needs, including

increased patrols and the need to respond

to emergencies. Increased numbers of 

campers and increased size of groups

would likely require an associated increase

in after-hour call-outs of staff to the

campground. This impact would be long

term. There would, however, be a longterm beneficial effect resulting from

increased information being presented to

the visiting public, affording a higher level

of awareness of the significance of the

resources in the park, and of use and

access restrictions. Construction of the

group sites would increase the numbers of 

campers in proximity with primary park

resources and would require additional

staff time to mitigate visitor impacts

through monitoring, education, and

patrol. Having a facility capable of

handling these groups would increase

operational efficiency. Currently there is

no safe, suitable place for school group

orientation and activities.

Construction of a new curatorial facility

and maintenance/resources management

facility would have a long-term, major,

beneficial impact on operational

efficiency. The action would result in the

removal and replacement of dilapidated,

inappropriate, and nonfunctioning

facilities that pose a number of health and

safety and resource protection issues, and

that are totally inadequate for employee

safety and protection of investment in

equipment and tools. It would result in the

rehabilitation of extensively disturbed

areas that contain significant cultural and

natural resources, and would allow the

area to be protected and returned to more

natural conditions and appearance.

The closure of the O’Leary Peak Road

would have no impact on operational

efficiency.

Increasing accessibility to facilities and

natural and cultural features would have a 

negligible to minor impact on operational

efficiency. The impact would be beneficial

and long term. It would result in the

development of the appropriate

infrastructure that would make available

certain areas of the park that are currently

inaccessible to visitors with disabilities.

Addressing the existing health and safety

issues is likely to have a moderate to

major, beneficial impact on operational

efficiency. Many of the existing

deficiencies and health and safety needs in

park facilities would be addressed and

mitigated.

Formalization of the backcountry closure is

expected to have a minor, long-term

beneficial effect on operational efficiency.

There would be an initial short-term

minor, adverse impact due to the need to

increase staff presence in order to 

effectively implement the change in use of

the backcountry. Mostly this would consist

of making contact with visitors who are

183 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

unaware that they have entered an area

that is closed to unguided access. This

change in management would not be 

likely to affect a large number of visitors.

This impact would be mitigated as the

public becomes familiar with the change in 

management of the backcountry.

Roadways and Access to the Park

Under the No-Action Alternative, Sunset

Crater Volcano would continue to be 

visited via US89 and FR545. This would

have a negligible to minor, adverse impact

on park operations. Visitors and staff

would continue to be exposed to

dangerous situations while entering or 

exiting FR545 from US89. There is

potential for this situation to increase,

given the potential growth of the city of 

Flagstaff and the surrounding areas and

the number of visitors likely to visit the

Flagstaff area and the scenic destination

points in the northern Arizona and Four

Corners regions.

There would be minor to moderate

adverse impact to park operations with

the continued use of FR545. It is likely that

there would be an increase in both visitor

and commuter traffic, resulting in a likely

increase in the number of accidents.

Maintenance needs would increase. Given

current staffing and funding levels, any

increase in the use of FR545 would likely

result in a worsening of the condition of 

the roadway.

The growth and development of the city

of Flagstaff and the surrounding areas is

likely to increase the use of USFS land

immediately adjacent to the parks. This

would have a minor to moderate adverse

impact on park operations. Given the

current inability to physically close any of

the roads in the park, an increase in use of

the associated roads would increase the

difficulties that already exist in protecting

park resources. This includes entry into

areas of the park that are closed to

visitation and intentional and

unintentional damage to park resources.

There would be an increase in staff

demands to accomplish patrols and to

provide 24-hour emergency response.

Use of most of the roads would continue

to be unregulated, which would continue

to make protection of park resources

difficult. Issues of unauthorized entry into

closed portions of the park and the

impacts resulting from intentional and

unintentional visitor damage to the park’s

park resources would be likely to increase.

This would have a minor to moderate,

adverse impact on operational efficiency.

Visitor Use

Under the No-Action Alternative, visitor

use of the park would continue as it exists

currently, which should have a negligible,

adverse impact on park operations. Most

visitor uses are concentrated at the Sunset

Crater visitor center and the Lava Flow

Trail. There would continue to be an

inability to provide immediate contact

after visitors enter the park, and there

would still be no staff present to provide

orientation at any of the developed sites.

Visitors to these developed areas would

continue to be exposed to climatic

extremes, poisonous wildlife, and uneven

surfaces in and around the interpreted

features.

Facilities

Implementation of the No-Action

Alternative would have a minor adverse

impact on the park’s facilities. The existing

visitor center would remain inadequate

and obsolete. Although some

improvements would be made, it would

still be in need of major upgrading and

remodeling, including a number of 

changes that are required to ensure visitor

and staff health and safety.

Utilities

The No-Action Alternative would have a 

minor to moderate adverse impact on the

utilities in the park. Without

184 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

improvements, the park would continue to

be subjected to repeated brown- and

blackouts. Overall, this would have a 

constant and long-term adverse impact on 

the ability to conduct business and the

quality of life of the employees that reside

in the park.

Staffing

Implementation of the No-Action

Alternative would have a minor to

moderate, adverse impact on staffing

within the park. Given current staffing

levels, a reasonable amount of staffing

efficiency has been maintained. Existing

staff levels are deficient, and there are

serious limitations on the park’s ability to

provide adequate and acceptable levels of 

visitor services, resource protection and

preservation, and maintenance of 

facilities.

Many of the existing deficiencies and

health and safety needs in the park’s

facilities would remain and in fact would

worsen if not addressed.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The geographic area of consideration in

this alternative includes the city of

Flagstaff on the south side, Wupatki

National Monument on the north, the

base of the San Francisco Peaks just

beyond US89 on the west, US89 to the

northwest, private, state, and federal land

just beyond FR545 on the east, and the

Navajo Reservation just across the Little

Colorado River to the northwest.

Growth and development of the city of 

Flagstaff and the outlying communities

would have a minor to moderate longterm, adverse effect on operational

efficiency. The most significant effect

would be an increase in the number of 

visitors coming to the park. Increased

growth would also mean that commuter

traffic from the outlying communities,

such Alpine Ranchos and the Navajo

Reservation, would increase, resulting in

an increased need for law enforcement

patrols and emergency response. Increased

commuter traffic on FR545 would result in

increased maintenance needs and an 

increased potential for accidents.

Increased growth of the surrounding

communities would increase the interest

and demand on Forest Service land

surrounding the park. Because the two

agencies have differing missions, the

potential exists for inconsistent and

incompatible uses to could occur adjacent

to park boundaries. Such use could result

in unregulated and unauthorized entry

into closed areas of the park, resulting in 

intentional and unintentional impacts to

park resources, which could have

moderate long-term adverse impacts to

operational efficiency, through an

increased need for law enforcement

patrols to protect park resources.

The Forest Service will be considering use

and access regulations, including the

closure of a number of nonessential roads,

regulation of off-road driving, and the

development of definable trail systems. If

successful, implementation of the actions

would reduce the need for NPS patrols

along the south boundary for resource

protection purposes. This would have a 

long-term, minor beneficial impact on 

operational efficiency. As use of this area

increases, there could also be a need to

provide 24-hour emergency response. The

effect of these actions would have longterm, minor adverse impacts on

operational efficiency.

Increased mining activities could have

long-term minor to moderate adverse

impacts on operational efficiency. Haul

trucks currently use a portion of the

entrance road at the intersection of FR545

and US89. In addition to being

incongruous and inconsistent with the

purpose of the park, the mix of large

vehicles with visitor traffic creates

hazardous driving conditions. The

potential exists for additional areas

185 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

adjacent to the park to be exploited for

mining purposes, which would result in an

increase in the number of haul trucks

using park roads, thereby increasing the

potential for conflicts between haul trucks

and visitors. The potential for increased

accidents is great, and consequently there

would be a need for increased law

enforcement patrols. There would also be

an increased need for roadway

maintenance.

CONCLUSION

The No-Action Alternative would result in

no substantial change in the operations of 

the park from existing conditions. There

would be long-term minor to major

beneficial effects from the new waysides,

new facility construction, accessibility, and

health and safety improvements, and the

backcountry closure. Most of the major

roads providing access to the park would

likely see an increase in visitor and

commuter traffic, which would result in

additional congestion and a likely increase

in accidents. Maintenance needs would

increase. Increased use of all roads leading

to the park would increase the difficulties

that already exist in protecting park

resources, including entry into areas of the

park that are closed to visitation and

intentional and unintentional damage to

resources.

The effects to facilities, utilities, and

staffing would be long term and adverse,

with small to measurable changes.

Without improvement to the visitor center

or utilities, conditions would worsen.

Many improvements are needed to protect

visitor and staff health and safety. Current

staff levels have achieved a certain level of

efficiency; however, limitations do exist

that inhibit the park’s ability to provide

adequate levels of resource protection and

preservation, maintenance of existing

facilities, and visitor services. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be other,

less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Effects of Alternative 1 

(Preferred): Focus on

Extended Learning

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts resulting from 1) establishing

partnerships with the USFS, 2) installation

of new wayside and museum exhibits, 3)

expansion of the USFS campground, 4)

construction of a new curatorial facility

and maintenance/resources management

facility, 5) closure of O’Leary Peak Road, 6) 

increasing the park’s ability to

accommodate visitors with disabilities, 7)

addressing health and safety issues, and 8)

closure of the backcountry would be the

same as those described in the No-Action

Alternative.

Additional impacts to operational

efficiency that would occur with the

implementation of this alternative include

the following:

Roadways and Access to the Park

Vehicle access via FR545 would remain the

same as it is now, and many of the impacts

identified under the No-Action Alternative

would continue to exist. There would be 

no changes to the forest roads

surrounding the park, and there would

still be a need for law enforcement patrols

for resource protection purposes, resulting

in negligible to minor long-term, adverse

impacts to the park’s operational

efficiency.

FR546 leading to O’Leary Peak would be

designated as Hiking Zone. Only the lower

portion of the former road would be used.

There would be no hiker access to the top

of O’Leary Peak. Potential impacts to

operational efficiency would be long term

and adverse, but negligible. The most

significant effect would be the need to

respond to hiker emergencies along the

trail.

186 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

Visitor Use

A new hiking trail would be established

between Bonito Campground and the

Lava Flow Trail. Ground disturbances

associated with the trail construction

would require consultation, clearance,

and/or mitigation of impacts to cultural

and natural resources. Implementation of 

these actions would have moderate, shortterm adverse impacts on operational

efficiency. After completion of trail

construction, this action would have a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact on 

operational efficiency, including the need

for trail maintenance, resource

monitoring, and law enforcement patrols

A broader range of resources would be 

interpreted and made accessible to the

general public in the vicinity of the Lava

Flow and Lenox Crater Trails. This action

would have a minor, long-term, adverse

impact on operational efficiency, including

the need for trail maintenance, resource

monitoring, and law enforcement patrols.

Facilities

Under this alternative, a new visitor center

and administrative complex would be

constructed near US89 to serve both Forest

Service and NPS visitor orientation needs.

Potential impact to operational efficiency

would be moderate, long term, and

beneficial. Location of a complex in this

area would enhance both the Forest

Service’s and NPS’s ability to orient visitors

prior to their entry to public lands. Joint

staffing could allow greater freedom of 

NPS staff to patrol the park resources and

could allow for greater control of fee

collection compliance, particularly if the

facility and its staffing allow for yearround presence on the entrance road.

Ground disturbances associated with

facility construction would require

consultation, clearance, and/or mitigation

of impacts to cultural and natural

resources. Implementation of these actions

would have a moderate, short-term,

adverse impact on operational efficiency.

After the facility construction has been

completed, this action would have a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact on 

operational efficiency, which would

include facility maintenance and upkeep

and law enforcement patrols.

The existing Mission 66 visitor center

would be retained and adaptively used.

Potential impacts to operational efficiency

would be moderate and long term. This

structure would become an administrative

office facility as well as an educational

center providing an orientation/activity

area for educational groups. Operational

efficiency would benefit by staff having

adequate office and working space, but it

would realize a slight adverse effect as a 

result of removing key staff from the

visitor center.

Staff

The actions of this alternative would have

minor to moderate, adverse impacts on

the overall staffing component of 

operational efficiency.

Administrative requirements, including

purchasing and contracting for supplies,

materials, and services, would increase,

especially when construction is taking

place. This would result in a major, shortterm impact on operational efficiency.

Maintenance staff would have increased

workloads on roads, trails, and facility

issues, including the maintenance of new

trails and an additional visitor center. This

would have a long-term, moderate impact

on operational efficiency.

As a result of the proposed new

construction, resources staff would have

increased workloads associated with

consultation, compliance, and clearance of 

the proposed construction sites. This

would have a moderate , short-term

impact on operational efficiency. Minor

long-term, adverse impacts would occur as

a result of resource monitoring and

187 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

preservation requirements associated with

increased visitor use of the new trails.

As a result of the emphasis on providing a 

broader range of educational and

interpretive programs using partnerships,

affiliated tribes, organizations,

institutions, and so on, and the need to

review and administer programs to ensure

compliance with NPS regulations and

policy, there would be increased staff

workloads. This would have a minor to

moderate, adverse impact on operational

efficiency. This impact, however, would be 

offset and the impact to operational

efficiency would possibly be reduced

somewhat, since NPS staff would not be 

needed to implement the expanded

educational and interpretive programs.

Boundary

This alternative would include a limited

expansion of park boundaries to

accommodate administrative needs, which

would have a major beneficial effect on 

park operations. The most significant

beneficial effect would be alignment of 

park boundaries logically along

topographic features and elimination of 

some existing impacts associated with the

management and maintenance of the

existing boundary lines and delineating

fencing. Boundaries would be more

logically placed in areas that enhance the

preservation of significant geologic

features and would allow the placement

of the required boundary delineations and

fencing in less invasive and more

manageable and maintainable locations. It 

would eliminate a number of forest roads

that cross in and out of the park

boundaries, and place them entirely within

Forest Service ownership.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects to operational

efficiency under this alternative would be 

similar to those identified for the NoAction Alternative.

CONCLUSION

Changes resulting from this alternative

would have an overall benefit on 

operational efficiency. There would be 

long-term, minor to major beneficial

effects from the new waysides, new facility

construction, accessibility and health and

safety improvements, and the backcountry

closure. Improvements and additions

would be made to facilities that would

protect visitors and improve staff health

and safety concerns. There would be 

moderate, adverse impacts resulting from

the construction of the new visitor center,

curatorial, and maintenance/resources

management facility and the trails

proposed to connect Bonito Campground

to the Bonito Lava Flow. These actions

would create moderate, short-term

adverse impacts; however, following

construction they would have minor to 

moderate impacts on operational

efficiency. Most impacts would be in the

form of increased maintenance needs for

facilities and trail systems and increased

resource protection and preservation

needs. This alternative would not fully

address road issues, which would continue

to have minor to moderate adverse

impacts on operational efficiency. This

proposal would also include a limited

expansion of park boundaries to

accommodate administrative needs, which

would have a major beneficial effect on 

operational efficiency. The most significant

would be that the expansion would align

park boundaries logically along

topographic features. In addition to those

mentioned, there would be other, less

severe effects as a result of implementing

this alternative.

188 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

Effects of Alternative 2:

Emphasize Quiet Natural

Setting while Providing

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts resulting from 1) establishing

partnerships with the USFS, 2) installation

of new wayside and museum exhibits, 3)

closure of O’Leary Peak Road, 4) increasing

the park’s ability to accommodate visitors

with disabilities, 5) addressing health and

safety issues, and 6) closure of the

backcountry would be the same as

described in the no-action alternative.

The impacts that would occur as a result of

removing the expanded USFS campground

and the newly constructed curatorial

facility and maintenance/resources

management facility, would be short term.

There would be initial, moderate adverse

impacts as a result of the demolition and

removal of these facilities. This action

would require consultation, clearance,

and/or mitigation of impacts to cultural

(both prehistoric and historic structures)

and natural resources. It would, however,

result in the rehabilitation of extensively

disturbed areas that contains significant

cultural and natural resources and would

allow these areas to be protected and

returned to more natural conditions and

appearance. After the facilities were

removed, this action would have no 

impact on operational efficiency.

Additional impacts to operational

efficiency that would occur with the

implementation of this alternative include

the following:

Roadways and Access to the Park

Access to the park via FR545 would be

extensively modified. A new entrance to

the park would be created at the

intersection of FR776, and FR414 would be

realigned. The road would be paved and

would have a gate that would be locked at

night. Visitors would arrive at the park

entrance via FR776 (currently an improved

dirt road, from either US89 or FR545.

FR776 would be paved to accommodate

this new use. FR545 would exist within the

park only from the intersection of the

O’Leary Peak Road to the Lava Flow Trail

parking lot. This segment would remain

paved, and vehicle access would be 

allowed. The truncated west end of FR545

from the O’Leary Peak Road to US89

would be removed and rehabilitated. The

east segment of FR545 would be modified

for use as a visitor foot trail from the Lava

Flow Trail parking lot to the base of Sunset

Crater. Beyond that point to the east

boundary of the park, the road would be 

rehabilitated. A modified version of FR414

would be used as the new entrance to the

park. Potential impact to operational

efficiency would be major, long term, and

beneficial.

Moderate adverse short-term impacts

would be associated with the road

construction, compliance, and mitigation

of impacts to natural and cultural

resources. There would be substantial

initial costs for construction and long-term

costs associated with maintenance.

Following construction and rehabilitation

of the abandoned road segments, these

actions would have a negligible to minor,

adverse impact on operational efficiency.

The amount of time required to patrol

these areas would be no different, or 

possibly less, than that required under

existing conditions, possibly eliminating

the need for 24-hour emergency response.

The park road would be gated at night,

and visitation numbers could be controlled

via shuttle or reservation systems. The

ability to close the park road at night

would alleviate some after-hours calls, but 

this benefit would likely be cancelled out 

by increased calls on the new route.

Additional time would be required to

open and close gates each day and to deal

with visitors who do not exit the park by

189 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

closing time. Administration of a 

reservation or shuttle system would

increase administrative duties. Road

maintenance needs would still exist, but

they would be reduced because of the

elimination of 24-hour use. The use of the

road by mining haul trucks would be 

eliminated. There would be increased

maintenance requirements for the new

paved FR776, although these

responsibilities could be shared among

NPS, USFS, and/or Coconino County. In

addition, there would be a need for law

enforcement patrols along this stretch of

road for resource protection purposes.

Facilities

The longer travel distance from the visitor

center and offices to primary visitor use

areas could adversely affect operational

efficiency, however, this could be partially

mitigated if the USFS were to provide staff

support for the visitor center complex.

There would be short-term, moderate,

adverse impacts associated with the visitor

center construction and the resulting

compliance, and mitigation of impacts to

natural and cultural resources. There

would be substantial initial costs for

construction and long-term costs

associated with maintenance. Following

construction these actions would have a 

negligible to minor, adverse impact on

operational efficiency.

Visitor Use

Hiking opportunities would be increased

via opportunities on the former O’Leary

Peak Road, which would no longer have

public motorized access, and a new trail

that would use the remaining FR545

roadbed at the base of Sunset Crater

Volcano. Potential impact to operational

efficiency would be adverse but minor. An

increase in hiking in this environment

would undoubtedly result in increased

EMS and other emergency service

responses, which could include responding

to visitors suffering from dehydration, or

broken bones or sprains, resulting from

traversing long, steep and rocky roads or 

trails. Limited maintenance would be 

needed for upkeep of both trails.

Staff

The overall actions of this alternative

would have minor to moderate, adverse

impacts on the staffing component of 

operational efficiency. The construction of

new facilities would have major, long-term

beneficial impacts on the staff component

of operational efficiency. Staff would have

adequate, functional, facilities and would

be working in a safe environment.

Administrative needs, including purchasing

and contracting for supplies, materials,

and services, would increase, especially

while construction is ongoing. This would

have a moderate, short-term, adverse

impact on operational efficiency.

Maintenance staff would have increased

workloads on roads, trails, and facilities,

including the maintenance of new trails

and the visitor center, which would have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on 

operational efficiency.

As a result of the proposed new

construction, resources staff would have

increased workloads associated with

consultation, compliance, and clearance of 

the proposed construction and

rehabilitation sites. This would have a 

moderate, adverse, short-term impact on

operational efficiency. Minor long-term,

adverse impacts would occur as a result of

resource monitoring and preservation

requirements associated with the

increased visitor use of the new trail.

Boundary Expansion

The alternative would expand the

boundaries to include Bonito Park and

land to the south to accommodate the

new visitor center location. Both of these

areas contain resources that contribute to

the significance of the park and afford

exceptional views of most of the primary

190 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

resources of the park. This action would

have a minor, long-term impact on 

operational efficiency.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects to operational

efficiency under this alternative would be 

similar to those described for the NoAction Alternative.

CONCLUSION

This alternative would have long-term,

major benefits to the operational

efficiency of the park. There would be

long-term, minor to major beneficial

effects from the new waysides,

accessibility, and health and safety

improvements, and the backcountry

closure. Improvements and additions

would be made to facilities that would

protect visitors and improve staff health

and safety concerns. Most of the issues

regarding visitor access would be reduced

or eliminated. Access to the park would be 

managed, which would increase the

protection and preservation of park

resources and reduce the need for law

enforcement patrols and the need for 24-

hour emergency response. This alternative

would dramatically improve the facilities

that are used in park operations and

provide staff with functional facilities and

a safe working environment. Major costs

would be associated with the proposed

construction of new facilities, new paved

roadways, and the rehabilitation of areas

that would no longer be used for park

operations. This would have moderate,

short-term adverse impact on operational

efficiency. Following construction, there

would be a negligible to minor adverse

impact on operational efficiency. In

addition to those mentioned, there would

be other, less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Effects of Alternative 3:

Expand Park Boundaries to

Preserve Park-Related

Resources and Provide

Diverse Opportunities for

Visitor Use

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The impacts resulting from 1) establishing

partnerships with the USFS, 2) installation

of new wayside and museum exhibits, 3)

expansion of the USFS campground, 4)

construction of a new curatorial facility

and maintenance/resources management

facility, 5) closure of O’Leary Peak Road, 6) 

increasing the park’s ability to

accommodate visitors with disabilities, 7)

addressing health and safety issues, and 8)

closure of the backcountry would be the

same as described in the No-Action

Alternative.

Additional impacts to operational

efficiency that would occur with the

implementation of this alternative include

the following:

Roadways and Access to the Park

and Visitor Use

Vehicle access via FR545 would remain the

same as it is now, and many of the impacts

identified under the No-Action Alternative

would continue. With the exception of 

FR776, there would be no changes to the

forest roads surrounding the park. There

would still be a need for law enforcement

patrols for resources protection purposes.

The actions would result in long-term,

negligible to minor, adverse impacts to

park operational efficiency.

Much of FR776 would be designated for

administrative use and gated near the

junction of FR545, and a trailhead would

be constructed near this location. The

western segment of FR776, extending

from the intersection of US89 to the

southwestern boundary of the park, would

191 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

remain unchanged, but would terminate

at the park boundary. This action would

have long-term, minor, adverse impact to

operation efficiency since the area that

would require patrol and resource

protection would increase substantially.

There would be an initial short-term,

moderate adverse impact due to the need

to increase patrols in order to effectively

implement this change. Mostly this would

consist of making contact with visitors

unaware of the change in land use and

access. This impact would be mitigated as

the public became familiar with the

change in management.

The impact from designation of the former

O’Leary Peak Road as a hiking trail would

be the same that described for the NoAction Alternative and Alternative 1. 

A trail would be established from the

Bonito Campground to the Bonito Lava

Flow. A new trail would be constructed in

the fissure zone, providing access to Gyp

and/or Double Crater. The trailhead would

be located near the junction of FR776 and

FR545.

Ground disturbances associated with trail

construction would require consultation,

clearance, and/or mitigation of impacts to

cultural and natural resources.

Implementation of these actions would

have a short-term, major, adverse impact

on operational efficiency. Following

construction, this action would have a 

minor long-term adverse impact on 

operational efficiency, which would

include trail maintenance, resource

monitoring, and law enforcement patrols.

A broader range of resources would be 

interpreted and made available to the

public in the vicinity of the Lava Flow and

the Lenox Crater Trails and the Cinder Hills

Overlook. This action would have a minor,

long-term, adverse impact on operational

efficiency, including the need for trail

maintenance, resource monitoring, and

law enforcement patrols.

Facilities

Under this alternative, a new visitor center

and administrative complex would be

constructed near US89 to serve both Forest

Service and NPS visitor orientation needs.

Potential impacts to operational efficiency

would be moderate, long term, and

beneficial. Location of a complex in this

area would enhance both the Forest

Service and NPS ability to orient visitors

prior to their entry into public lands. Joint

staffing could allow greater freedom of 

NPS staff to patrol the park resources and

could allow for greater control of fee

collection compliance, particularly if the

facility and its staffing allow for yearround presence on the entrance road.

Ground disturbances associated with the

facility construction would require

consultation, clearance, and/or mitigation

of impacts to cultural and natural

resources. Implementation of these actions

would have a moderate, short-term,

adverse impact on operational efficiency.

Following facility construction, this action

would have a minor, long-term impact on 

operational efficiency, which would

include facility maintenance and upkeep

and law enforcement patrols.

The existing Mission 66 visitor center

would be retained and adaptively used.

Potential impact to operational efficiency

would be moderate. This structure would

become an administrative office facility as

well as an educational center, which

would provide an orientation/activity area

for educational groups. Operational

efficiency would benefit by staff having

adequate office and working space, but it

would realize a slight adverse effect as a 

result of removing key staff from the

visitor center.

Staff

The impacts to the staffing component of 

operational efficiency would be the same

as those described for Alternative 2.

192 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

Boundary

This proposal would call for the expansion

of park boundaries to accommodate

administrative needs and to ensure that

natural resources contributing to the

purpose and significance of the park are

contained within park boundaries. This

action would have a major beneficial

effect on park operations, the most

significant being that it would align park

boundaries logically along topographic

features and include features that

contribute to the significance of the park.

Resources staff would need to direct their

attention to a number of major natural

resource management concerns and issues,

including the rehabilitation of an area that

has been subjected to extensive OHV use

for a number of years. Rehabilitation

would include unimproved roads, OHV offloading areas, undesignated camp areas,

and other OHV use areas. Substantial

commitment of staff time and funding

would be needed to inventory and

evaluate the new lands. This would have a 

short-term, major adverse impact on

operational efficiency. As these areas are

restored there would be a long-term,

moderate adverse impact to operational

efficiency as staff would continue to

monitor and implement recovery and

restoration efforts.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects to operational

efficiency under this alternative would be 

similar to those identified for the NoAction Alternative.

CONCLUSION

Changes resulting from this alternative

would have an overall long-term benefit

on operational efficiency. There would be 

long-term, minor to major beneficial

effects from the new waysides, new facility

construction, accessibility and health and

safety improvements, and the backcountry

closure. There would be moderate adverse

impacts resulting from construction of the

proposed new visitor center and trails.

Major long-term efforts would be needed

to effect the rehabilitation of newly

acquired land that has been substantially

impacted by OHV use. These actions would

create short-term, major, adverse impacts;

however, following construction and

rehabilitation activities, there would be

minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

operational efficiency. Most impacts would

be in the form of increased maintenance

needs for facilities and trail systems and

increased resource protection and

preservation needs. Major long-term

benefits would be realized with the

expansion of park boundaries, which

would include resources that contribute to

the significance of the park. The

alternative would align boundaries

logically along topographic features, and

would result in a reduction in impacts to

the park’s primary resources. In addition to

those mentioned, there would be other,

less severe effects as a result of

implementing this alternative.

Irreversible/Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources.

Loss in Long-Term Availability

or Productivity of the

Resource to Achieve ShortTerm Gain

There would be no short-term gains

affecting long-term productivity.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

The No-Action Alternative would result in

no substantial change in the operations of 

the park. The effects of implementing the

No-Action Alternative would be minor to

moderate. Most of the major roads

providing access to the park would see a 

likely increase in visitor and commuter

193 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

traffic, which would result in additional

congestion and a likely increase in

accidents. Maintenance needs would

increase. Increased use of all roads leading

to the park would compound the

difficulties that already exist in protecting

park resources. This includes entry into

areas of the park that are closed to

visitation and intentional and

unintentional damage to resources. The

effects to facilities, utilities, and staffing

would be minor to moderately adverse.

Without improvement to visitor facilities

or utilities, existing conditions would

worsen. Many improvements are needed

to protect visitor and staff health and

safety. Current staff levels have achieved a 

certain level of efficiency; however,

limitations do exist that inhibit the park’s

ability to provide adequate levels of

resource protection and preservation,

maintenance of existing facilities, and

visitor services.

Under Alternative 1, new facilities would

be constructed. However, once constructed

they would have minor to moderate

adverse impacts on operational efficiency.

This would have short-term, major adverse

impacts on operational efficiency. Once

this construction has been completed it

would have a negligible to minor adverse

impact on operational efficiency.

Changes resulting from Alternative 3 

would be related to the construction of a 

new visitor center and new trails. Major

long-term efforts would be needed to 

rehabilitate the new land, which has been

substantially impacted by OHV use. These

actions would create short-term, major

adverse impacts. However, once the

construction and rehabilitation have been

completed, there would be minor to

moderate impacts to operational

efficiency. Most impacts would be in the

form of increased maintenance needs for

facilities and trail systems and increased

resource protection and preservation

needs. This alternative would not fully

address the needs of road access and

resource protection issues, which would

continue to have minor to moderate

adverse impacts on operational efficiency.

Most impacts would be in the form of

increased maintenance needs for

facilities and trail systems and

increased resource protection and

preservation needs. This

alternative would not fully

address the needs of road access

and resource protection issues,

which would continue to have

minor to moderate adverse

impacts on operational

efficiency.

New facilities would be

constructed under Alternative 2.

Major costs would occur with the

proposed construction of new

facilities, new paved roads, and

the rehabilitation of areas that

would no longer be used for park

operations.

194 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

HISTORY OF PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT

The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare this

EIS was published in the Federal Register

May 19, 1997. The NOI indicated

availability of newsletter #1, from which

comments were accepted until June 30,

1997. The first newsletter described

purpose and significance statements for

all three parks, as well as identifying

preliminary issues. A second newsletter,

released February 1998, detailed public

response to the first newsletter,

described final purpose and significance

statements, and explained the

preliminary range of management zones.

A third newsletter, issued November

1998, described the range of preliminary

alternatives developed for all three

monuments. The fourth newsletter in

May 1999 described the decision to

prepare a plan concurrently with the

Forest Service Flagstaff Lake Mary

Ecosystem Area planning process. All

comments received through June 1999

were considered in this EIS. The Purpose

of and Need for the Plan, Need for the

GMP, and Description of Scoping Process

sections describe the issues and concerns

raised and sort the responses into several

categories.

AGENCY CONSULTATION

A number of meetings were held with

staff from the U.S. Forest Service and

Arizona Game and Fish Department.

These meetings were held to discuss

impacts that the alternatives might have

on adjacent recreational activities and

impacts to wildlife and their movement

corridors and to try to ensure that NPS

planning would be in support/harmony

with their agency planning efforts.

Several of these conversations explored

the possibility of joint or comanagement

of resources and visitor uses.

TRIBAL CONSULTATION

In keeping with its mandates for tribal

consultation, NPS consulted with many

American Indian tribes throughout the

planning process. Based on ethnographic

research efforts and previous

consultations conducted for the Flagstaff

Area national monuments during the last

several years, ten tribes were identified

as having potential traditional

associations with park lands and

resources. They are the Havasupai Tribe,

Hopi Tribe, Hualupai Tribe, Navajo

Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe,

Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain

Apache Tribe, Yavapai Apache Nation,

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and Zuni Tribe.

All ten tribes were contacted by letter

and telephone, inviting them to attend

an introductory meeting in October 1997.

Six of the ten tribes participated in the

October meeting, and four participated

in a December 1997 consultation

meeting. As of February 1998 

participating tribes included Hopi,

Hualupai, Navajo, White Mountain

Apache, Yavapai Apache, YavapaiPrescott, and Zuni.

At the first two consultation meetings

the tribes discussed the purpose and

significance statements and agreed on

language for the final statements. They

also discussed tribal involvement in

identifying culturally significant and

sensitive resources as well as plans for

participation throughout the planning

process. Early in 1998 the Hopi, Navajo,

and Zuni Tribes agreed to conduct

195 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

further NPS-sponsored research into

tribal associations with park lands and

identify particular sensitive resources and

management concerns for the EIS.

Representatives from three tribes

attended the final tribal consultation

meeting in August 1998 and assisted with

the development of alternatives. Early in

1999 the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation

submitted to NPS reports identifying

culturally sensitive resources and specific

recommendations for the GMP.

All ten tribes originally identified

continued to receive newsletters and

invitations to consultation meetings

throughout the planning process. Tribal

interests and concerns were fully

considered in the planning process and in

the development of alternatives in the

GMP.

LIST OF RECIPIENTS

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Department of Agriculture

Animal Damage Control

Natural Resource and Conservation

Service

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

Forest Service

Tonto NF

Prescott NF

USFS Regional Office

Kaibab NF

Coconino NF, Mormon Lake District

Coconino NF, Peaks District

Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Arizona Ecological Services

Geological Survey

National Biological Survey

National Park Service

Canyon de Chelly NM

Glen Canyon NRA

Grand Canyon NP

Guadalupe Mountains NP

Hubbell Trading Post NHS

Montezuma Castle NM

Navajo NM 

Organ Pipe Cactus NM

Petrified Forest NP

Pipe Springs NM

Rivers and Trails Conservation

Assistance, Intermountain Support

Office, Santa Fe 

Southern Arizona Group

Tonto NM

Western Region

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers

Department of Transportation, Federal

Highway Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Postal Service

Indian Tribes

Havasupai Tribe

Hopi Tribe

Cultural Preservation Office

Water Rights Hydrologist

Hualapai Tribe

Navajo Nation

Bodaway/Gap Chapter

Cameron Chapter

Leupp Chapter

Tuba City Chapter

Department of Agriculture

Historic Preservation Department

Forest Section

Division of Economic Development

Division of Natural Resources

Lands Department

Navajo Tribal Ranches

Pueblo of Zuni

Heritage Historic Preservation

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

Tonto Apache Tribe

White Mountain Apache Tribe

Yavapai Apache Tribe

Cultural Preservation

Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe

196 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

State Government

Department of Environmental Quality

Forest Service

Department of Mines and Minerals

Department of Public Safety

Department of Transportation

Design Section

Parkways and Historic Scenic Roads

Department of Water Resources

Game and Fish Department

Office of the Governor

State Historic Preservation Office

Arizona State Parks

State Land Department

Forestry Division

Urban Planning Division

Local Government

City of Flagstaff

Chamber of Commerce

City Council

Convention and Visitor Bureau

Fire Department

Police Department

Public Library

Unified Public Schools 

Unified School District 

Utilities 

Visitor Center 

Citizens Utilities

City of Sedona

Public Library

Coconino County

Attorney

Board of Supervisors

Department of Community Development

Highway Department

Parks and Recreation

Sheriff’s Department

Supervisors

Doney Park

Fire Department

Water

Kachina Village Fire Department

Mountainaire Fire Department

Northern Arizona Council of 

Governments

Timberline-Fernwood Fire Department

Organizations/Businesses

AandS Distributing 

A.B.A.T.E. 

A5 Adventures 

Absolute Bikes 

Access Fund 

Affordable Housing Coalition 

American Motorcyclist Association 

Andy’s Body Shop 

Arizona 4WD Clubs 

Arizona Archeological and Historical 

Society 

Arizona Bowhunters 

Arizona Cattlemen’s Association 

Arizona Riparian Council 

Arizona Rough Riders Four-Wheel Drive 

Club 

Arizona Snowbowl 

Arizona Snowmobile Association 

Arizona State Association of 4WD Clubs 

Arizona Wildlife Federation 

Arizona-Southern California Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation 

Ascend Arizona 

Aspen Sports 

B A S S 

Babbitt Ranches (Coconino Plateau 

Natural Reserve Lands) 

Babbitt’s Backcountry Outfitters 

Bellemont Baha’i School 

Big Joes Cycles 

Book Nest 

Canyon Country Outfitters 

CCOEH 

Central Arizona Grotto 

CO Bar Livestock, LTD 

Coconino Sportsmen 

Cocopai RC and D 

Colorado Plateau Forum 

Dames and Moore 

Darmstadt Elementary School 

DBA Hart Ranch 

Diablo Trust 

197 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

DNA Legal Services 

Doney Area Plan Committee 

Doney Park Interest Groups 

Ducks Unlimited Inc. 

Earthlight 

ENSR Consulting and Engineering 

Environmental Action Coalition 

Federal Land Exchange Inc. 

First United 

Flagstaff Film Commission 

Flagstaff Hiking Club 

Flagstaff Jeep Tours 

Flagstaff KOA 

Flagstaff Medical Center 

Flagstaff Mountain Guides 

Flagstaff Riding Club 

Flagstaff RV Sales 

Flying Heart Barn 

Forest Conservation Council 

Forest Guardians 

Friends of Walnut Canyon 

Grand Canyon Trust 

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council 

Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 

Hanks Trading Post 

Hart Prairie 

Hart Ranch 

High Desert Investments 

Hitchin’ Post Stables 

Horse Trails Coalition 

IMFAM Associates 

Kampground Owners’ Association 

Karan English 

Keep Sedona Beautiful Environmental 

Quality Committee 

Lake Mary Fishing Boat Rentals 

Lockett Ranch Inc. 

Loose Spoke 

Lowell Observatory 

Manterola Sheep Company 

Maricopa Audubon 

McCoy Motors 

Michelback Ranch 

Monte Vista Marine 

Mormon Lake Lodge 

Morrison Brother’s Ranch 

Mountain Man Events 

Mountain Mushers 

Mountain Sports 

Mountain View Pediatrics

Mountaintop Honey

Museum of Northern Arizona

NAHB

National Parks and Conservation

Association

Native Plant and Seed

Northern Arizona University

Arizona Historic Commission

College of Engineering

Department of Anthropology

Department of Geography

Department of Geology

High Altitude Sports Training Complex

Outdoors

School of Forestry

Northern Arizona Association of Realtors 

Northern Arizona Audubon Society 

Northern Arizona Cattle Growers 

Northern Arizona Flycasters 

Northern Arizona Grotto 

Northern Arizona Riding Club 

Northern Arizona Trust Lands Inc. 

Northland Yamaha-Kawasaki 

Peace Surplus Outdoor Store 

People for the West 

Peterson Lumber Company 

Ponderosa Outdoor/Sled Dog Inn 

Popular Outdoor Outfitters 

Precision Pine and Timber 

Prescott Climbers Coalition 

Prescott College Environmental Center 

RMRS-Flagstaff 

Rough Country Bowhunters 

Ruff’s Sporting Goods 

S.E.C. 

Salt River Project 

Sanderson Ford 

Sedona Westerners 

Shapins Associates 

Shriner’s Club 

Sierra Club 

Grand Canyon Chapter

Legal Defense Fund

Plateau Group

Sinagua Trading Post

Single Track Mountain Bikes

Sky Ranch Development, Inc.

Smith Contracting, Inc.

Southwest Center for Bio Diversity

198 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Southwest Forest Alliance 

Southwest Information 

Southwest Parks and Monuments 

Association 

SWCA, Inc. 

Tametic Committee 

Teton Mountain Bike Tours 

The Arboretum at Flagstaff 

The Edge 

The Game Plan 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wilderness Society 

The Wilson Foundation 

Total Timber 

Trust for Public Land 

University of Arizona College of 

Agriculture 

Vertical Relief Rock Gym 

Voters of Flagstaff 

Wildlife Society 

Arizona Chapter

Arizona State University Chapter

Windmill Ranch

Individuals

There are more than 900 individuals to

whom copies of the EIS were sent. A 

complete listing of these names is

available from the Superintendent,

Flagstaff Areas office, 6400 N. Hwy 89, 

Flagstaff, AZ 86004. 

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

ON THE DRAFT PLAN

The National Park Service received 81 

comments on the Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument Draft Environmental

Impact Statement / Draft General

Management Plan. One was from the

Hopi Tribe, five were from federal and

state agencies, three were from nongovernmental organizations, one 

represented a special interest group, and

71 comments were received from

individuals

The Council on Environmental Quality

(1978) guidelines for implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act

require the National Park Service to 

respond to “substantive comments.” A 

comment is substantive if it meets any of

the following criteria from Director’s

Order 12, Conservation Planning,

Environmental Impact Analysis, and

Decision-Making (NPS 2001).

• It questions, with reasonable basis,

the accuracy of information.

• It questions, with reasonable basis,

the adequacy of environmental

analysis.

• It presented reasonable alternatives

other than those proposed in the

plan.

• It would cause changes or revisions in

the preferred alternative.

Comments from the Hopi Tribe expressed

support for alternative #3, Expand Park

Boundaries to Preserve Park Related

Resources and Provide Diverse

Opportunities for Visitor Use.

Six comments from individuals expressed

opinions about the preferred alternative.

All of the six commentors generally

agreed with the preferred alternative.

Two disliked the construction of a new

visitor center near Highway 89. One

individual requested clarification on uses

with in the monument.

Responses to Comments

Concerning Closure of Cinder Hills

Off Highway Vehicle Area

The majority of comments from

individuals and the special interest letter

were opposed to the closure of the

Cinder Hills to off highway vehicles.

Letters received indicated that

clarification is needed on the alternatives

and the impact on the Cinder Hills Off

Highway Vehicle (OHV) area. Areas of

the document requiring clarification

included the current acreage in the

monument and the amount of OHV land

199 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Alternative

Acres to be closed

to OHV use

Alternative 1 

(Preferred) 0

Alternative 2 240

Alternative 3 Approx. 5,000

that would be closed to OHV use. The

monument is currently 3,040 acres in size.

Information is added to the document to

clarify the number of acres impacted for

each alternative. A summary of the

acreages impacted by each alternative as 

they appeared in the draft EIS is included

here:

Based on comments, along with

discussions with the U.S. Forest Service,

the preferred alternative is modified. No

boundary expansion is proposed between

Sunset Crater and FR 776. The number of

acres proposed to be closed to OHV use

in the preferred alternative is 0. 

Of the many letters received, some have

ideas that were outside the scope of the

general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. The

National Park Service values this input

and where applicable it will be taken

into account in future plans. However,

no response is provided to such

comments in the document.

Photocopies of the letters from the

agencies, organizations, the special

interest letter follow. These letters and

the responses to them are provided.

200 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

201 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

202 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

203 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

204 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

205 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

206 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

207 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

208 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

1) The language has been corrected.

209 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

210 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

211 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

212 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

213 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

214 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

215 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

2) Language has been changed.

3) No action taken. General Management Plans locate facilities in areas and base effects on

known information for those areas. More detailed studies and alternatives within areas are

considered in future studies.

4) Language has been changed.

5) Language has been changed.

6) Language has been changed.

7) Language has been changed.

8) Map has been changed.

9) Map has been changed.

10) Language has been changed.

11) Language has been changed.

12) Language has been changed.

13) Language has been changed.

216 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

217 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

14) This level of detail is beyond the scope of general management plans. The rabies issue is

more appropriate to the park’s Integrated Pest Management Plan, last updated in 1996.

This input will be taken into account in future plans.

218 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

219 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

220 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

221 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

222 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

15) Language has been changed

16) Paragraph has been changed.

17) Index has been changed

18) Tribal Consultation in preparation of the general management plan was extensive and is

addressed in the Consultation and Coordination section. An additional heading is added for

clarification.

223 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

224 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

225 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

226 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

227 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

19) Language has been added.

20) No action required. Alternative #1, the preferred alternative does not propose

expansion into or elimination of OHV use within the Cinder Hills area.

21) No action required. Fencing recommendations will be considered in future

implementation planning.

22) Map is changed. The preferred alternative no longer includes the area between the

south boundary of the park and FR 776. Fencing recommendations will be considered in 

future implementation planning.

23) No action required. The extended learning zone is intended to provide visitors

opportunities to learn about resources. As stated in the management prescriptions, these

areas would be managed “to ensure resource protection” and “intimate interaction with

resource would be offered where possible without undue resource impacts.” During

implementation planning, avoidance of the possible impacts you mentioned will be

evaluated. If unavoidable, the recommended mitigation measures will be considered at that

time.

24) No action required. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative.

25) Language is corrected.

228 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

229 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

230 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

231 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

26) No action taken. As stated, the boundary expansion between Sunset Crater Volcano

and Wupatki National Monuments was rejected in light of current planning efforts of the

Coconino National Forest and their desire to work cooperatively with NPS in managing

resources on those lands. Although the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service have

different missions, both are tasked with protection of resources by legal mandates. Both

agencies are guided by the National Historic Preservation Act, Archeological and Historic

Preservation Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the American Indian

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. We have no evidence that recreation, grazing,

and other uses occurring on the USFS land are causing impacts outside of these legal

mandates.

232 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

233 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

234 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

27) A wilderness study is beyond the scope of this general management plan.

235 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

236 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

237 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

28) No action required. No change regarding this policy is proposed.

29) Specific staffing recommendations are beyond the scope of this general management

plan.

238 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

239 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

240 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

241 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

242 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

243 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

244 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

245 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

246 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

247 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

248 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

249 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

30) The need for the plan is documented in the Environmental Consequences

section of the document under the No-Action alternative.

31) Language is changed regarding OHV impacts on the Monument.

32) Language is changed.

33) Preferred alternative is changed. None of the OHV area would be closed to

OHV use in this alternative. Information regarding the other alternatives is added.

34) Preferred alternative does not impact OHV recreation.

35) Language is changed.

36) Language is changed.

37) Language is changed.

38) Language is changed.

40) Language is changed.

41) Language is changed.

42) Language is changed.

42) Language is changed.

43) No action taken. It is common knowledge that driving over vegetation can

damage plants and move the soil substrate. Could not locate statement regarding

“serious threat” to plants.

44) Language is changed.

45) Language is changed.

46) Preferred alternative is modified. There is no boundary expansion into the

Cinder Hills OHV area, and therefore, no conflict with the FLEA plan.

47) Impacts on OHV users are covered in Ability to Experience Park Resources.

Number of users affected is in Affected Environment under Ability to Experience

Park Resources. Impacts to OHV users is covered in Environmental Consequences

under Ability to Experience Park Resources. Cumulative effects are added.

250 
APPENDIXES/REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 

251 
APPEMDIXES/REFERENCES 

252 
GLOSSARY

Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP). An independent

federal agency with statutory authority to 

review and comment on federal actions

affecting properties listed in or eligible for

listing in the National Register of Historic

Places.

air quality. A measure of the healthrelated and visual characteristics of the air

often derived from quantitative

measurements of the concentrations of 

specific injurious or contaminating

substances.

air quality class II areas. Regions in

attainment areas where maintenance of

existing good air quality is of high priority.

Class II areas permit moderate

deterioration of existing air quality.

alternative. One of at least two proposed

means of accomplishing planning

objectives.

archeological resource. Any material

remains or physical evidence of past

human life or activities that are of

archeological interest, including the record

of the effects of human activities on the

environment. They are capable of

revealing scientific or humanistic

information through archeological

research.

backcountry. All nondeveloped areas

within the park. Generally considered to

be all areas beyond developed facilities

and visitor use areas, (operational areas,

campgrounds, picnic areas, visitor centers,

visitor contact stations), developed

interpretive areas (view points, wayside

orientation exhibits, developed

archeological resources with designated

trails), and designated trails, trailheads,

and roads.

cultural landscape. A geographic area,

including both cultural and natural

resources and the wildlife or domestic

animals therein, associated with a historic

event, activity, or person or exhibiting

other cultural or aesthetic values.

cultural landscape inventory (CLI). The

CLI is a computerized, evaluated inventory

of all cultural landscapes in which NPS has

or plans to acquire any legal interest. Its

purpose is to identify cultural landscapes

in the system and provide information on

their location, historical development,

character-defining features, and

management. The CLI assists park

managers in planning, programming, and

recording treatment and management

decisions. CLI forms, including maps,

drawings, and photographs, are

completed and maintained at the regional

offices, with copies provided to the parks.

cultural resources. An aspect of a 

cultural system that is valued by or

significantly representative of a culture or 

that contains significant information

about a culture. A cultural resource can be 

a tangible entity or a cultural practice.

cumulative effects. The culmination of a 

proposed action when added to past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future

actions; action can be taken by anyone

and can occur inside or outside the park.

ecosystem. A system made up of a 

community of animals, plants, and bacteria

and its interrelated physical and chemical

environment.

endangered species. Any species that is

in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range [16 USC

§1532(6)].

environmental impact statement (EIS).

Required by the National Environmental

253 
GLOSSARY 

Policy Act to examine a range of federal

actions and their potential effects on the

human environment.

ethnographic landscape. Areas

containing a variety of natural and cultural

resources that associated people define as

heritage resources.

ethnographic resource. A site, structure,

object, landscape, or natural resource

feature assigned traditional legendary,

religious, subsistence, or other significance

in the cultural system of a group

traditionally associated with it.

floodplain. A plain along a river, formed

from sediment deposited by floods.

four-wheel-drive. Four-wheel-drive,

differential transfer case disperses 50/50

front and rear displacement. Trucks, cars,

buses, or sports utility vehicles with high

clearance and the ability to operate offpavement as well as on highways.

front country. Areas within the park that

contain development for visitor use and

park operations. Generally considered to

be all areas with developed facilities and

visitor use areas, (operational areas,

campgrounds, picnic areas, visitor centers,

visitor contact stations), developed

interpretive areas (view points, wayside

orientation exhibits, developed/stabilized

archeological resources with designated

trails), and designated trailheads, trails,

and roads.

full-time equivalents (FTEs). Staff

positions that include 40 hours of work per

week all year.

habitat. A specific set of physical

conditions in a geographic area that

surrounds a single species, a group of 

species, or a large community. In wildlife

management, the major components of

habitat are food, water, cover, and living

space.

integrity. The authenticity of a property’s

historic identity, evidenced by the survival

of physical characteristics that existed

during its historic or prehistoric period; the

extent to which a property retains its

historic appearance.

interpretation. A communication process

designed to reveal meanings and

relationships of our cultural and natural

heritage to the public through firsthand

experiences with objects, artifacts,

landscapes, or sites; facilitating a 

connection between the interests of the

visitor and the meaning of the park by

explaining the park’s purpose and

significance; usually a single contact with a 

group or individual.

mitigating measures. Constraints,

requirements, or conditions imposed to

reduce the significance of or eliminate an 

anticipated impact to environmental,

socioeconomic, or other resource value

from a proposed land use.

National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP). The comprehensive list of districts,

sites, buildings, structures, and objects of

national, regional, state, and local

significance in American history,

architecture, archeology, engineering, and

culture kept by NPS under authority of the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

natural soundscapes. The total ambient

acoustic environment associated with a 

given environment (sonic environment) in

an area such as a national park or the total

ambient sound level for the park. In a 

national park setting, this soundscape is

usually composed of both ambient sounds

and a variety of human-made sounds. This

sonic environment is an important

resource of many parks; there can also be 

important relationships between how this

environment is perceived and understood

by individuals and society.

riparian areas. Zones of transition from

aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems,

dependent on surface and/or subsurface

water for existence and which manifest

the influence of that water.

254 
GLOSSARY 

scoping. Planning process that solicits

people’s opinions on the value of a park,

issues facing a park, and the future of a

park.

sensitive species. Those plant and

animal species for which population

viability is a concern.

State Historic Preservation Officer

(SHPO). An official within each state

appointed by the governor to administer

the state historic preservation program

and carry out certain responsibilities

relating to federal undertakings within the

state.

threatened and endangered species.

Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that is

listed as threatened or endangered by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

traditional cultural property (TCP). A 

property associated with cultural practices

or beliefs of a living community that are

rooted in that community’s history or are

important in maintaining its cultural

identity. Traditional cultural properties are

.

ethnographic resources eligible for listing

in the National Register of Historic Places.

U.S.C. United States Code. Contains the

general and permanent laws of the United

States.

visitor use. Visitor use of a resource for

inspiration, stimulation, solitude,

relaxation, education, pleasure, or 

satisfaction.

wetlands. Lands including swamps,

marshes, bogs, and similar areas, such as

wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats,

and natural ponds.

wilderness area. An area officially

designated as wilderness by Congress.

Wilderness areas will be managed to

preserve wilderness characteristics and

shall be devoted to “the public purposes

of recreation, scenic, scientific,

educational, conservation, and historical

use

255 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDERSON

1990 The Wupatki Archeological 

Inventory Survey Project: Final Report. 

National Park Service, Southwest Cultural

Resources Center Professional Paper No.

35, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT

2001 Arizona Heritage Data

Management System.

ARNBERGER, L.

1947 “Flowering Plants and Ferns of

Walnut Canyon.” Plateau Vol. 20, pp. 29-

36.

ASSOCIATION FOR BIODIVERSITY

INFORMATION.

2000 Natureserve: an online

encyclopedia of live, Version 1.2. (website

address: http://www.natureserve.org/).

Arlington, Virginia.

BALDWIN, ANNE R., AND J. MICHAEL

BREMER

1986 Walnut Canyon National 

Monument: An Archeological Survey.

Western Archeological Center, National

Park Service. Publications in Anthropology

No. 39, Tucson, AZ.

BATEMAN, GARY C.

1979 “Natural Resource Survey and

Analysis of Sunset Crater Volcano and

Wupatki National Monuments, Preliminary

Report (Phase III).” Prepared for the Office

of Natural Resource Management

Southwest Region, National Park Service.

Ms on file Wupatki National Monument.

1976 “Natural Resource Survey and

Analysis of Sunset Crater Volcano and

Wupatki National Monuments.” Ms. on 

File Wupatki National Monument. Report

prepared by Northern Arizona University,

Contract No. 950134.

BENFER, J. A.

1971 “The Petrology of the Eastern Phase

of the Toroweap Formation, Walnut

Canyon, Arizona.” Unpublished Masters

Thesis. Northern Arizona University,

Flagstaff.

BILLS, DONALD J., MARGOT TRUINI,

MARILYN E. FLYNN, HERBERT A. PIERCE,

RUFUS D. CATCHINGS, AND MICHAEL J.

RYMER

2000 “Hydrogeology of the Regional

Aquifer Near Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994-97.”

Water Investigations Report 00-4122, U.S.

Geological Survey.

BOSTON, RICHARD L.

1991 Black Falls Trading Post: Its 

Historical Significance. Northern Arizona

University, Department of Anthropology,

Flagstaff, AZ.

BRANDT, ELIZABETH A.

1997 Anthropological Literature Review

and Annotated Bibliography for Sunset

Crater Volcano and Wupatki National

Monuments: Santa Fe, NM, National Park

Service.

BREMER, J. M.

1988 “Settlement and Land Use in the

Walnut Creek Drainage of North Central

Arizona During the 12th and 13th

Centuries.” Unpublished Masters Thesis.

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

BRIAN, NANCY J.

1992 Historical Review of Water Flow

and Riparian Vegetation at Walnut

Canyon National Monument, Arizona.

Technical Report/Cooperative National

Park Resources Studies Unit. Number 44. 

National Park Service, Flagstaff, Arizona.

1985 “Historical Review of Water Flow

and Riparian Vegetation at Walnut

Canyon National Monument, Arizona.”

257
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ms. on file Walnut Canyon National

Monument. Report to the National Park

Service, Southern Arizona Group, Phoenix,

Arizona.

BRIGHT, JILL L., AND CHARLES VAN RIPER

III.

2000 Pronghorn Home Ranges, Habitat

Selection and Distribution around Water

Sources in Northern Arizona. Technical

Report USGSFRESC/COPL/2000/18; U.S.

Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland

Ecosystem Science Center, Biological

Resources Division, Colorado Plateau Field

Station. Flagstaff, Arizona.

BRITTEN, MIKE

1999 Trip Report for travel to Wupatki

National Monument, 16-18 June 1999.

Natural Resource Files, Headquarters

Office, Flagstaff, Arizona.

BROWN, GREGORY, AND CHRISTIAN E.

DOWNUM

1997 Archaeological Inventory Survey of

the CO-Bar Ranch. Northern Arizona

University Archaeological Report No. 1145.

Report on file, NAU Department of

Anthropology, Flagstaff.

CHRISTENSEN, PAUL K.

1982 Hydrogeology of Sunset Crater and 

Wupatki National Monuments.

Unpublished master’s thesis. Northern

Arizona University, Flagstaff.

CINNAMON, STEVEN K.

1984 “Spring and Seep Investigation of

Wupatki National Monument.”

Unpublished. Ms. on file, Flagstaff Area

National Monuments’ Research Library,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

N.d. Potsherd Survey to Determine

Impacts of Visitor Use and Grazing.

Unpublished. Ms. on file, Flagstaff Area

National Monuments’ Research Library,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF

2001 Report on the Flagstaff Area

Regional Land Use and Transportation

Plan. City of Flagstaff Planning Division,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

1999 Flagstaff Area Regional Land Use 

and Transportation Plan. City of Flagstaff

Planning Division, Flagstaff, Arizona.

1998 Flagstaff Area Open Spaces and 

Greenways Plan. City of Flagstaff Planning

Division, Flagstaff, Arizona.

CLARK, R. N.

1976 “Control of Vandalism in

Recreation Areas-Fact, Fiction, or

Folklore?” In Vandalism and Outdoor 

Recreation, USDA, U.S. Forest Service,

General Technical Report PSW-17: 62-72.

CLINE, PLATT

1994 Mountain Town: Flagstaff’s First 

Century. Northland Publishing, Flagstaff.

1976 They Came to the Mountain: The

Story of Flagstaff’s Beginnings. Northern

Arizona University with Northland Press,

Flagstaff.

CODER, CHRISTOPHER, ET AL.

1995a 1994 Summary Report: Monitoring

of Archaeological Sites along the Colorado

River Corridor in Grand Canyon National

Park. Report on file, Grand Canyon

National Park Science Center, Grand

Canyon, Arizona.

1995b 1995 Summary Report: Monitoring

of Archaeological Sites along the Colorado

River Corridor in Grand Canyon National

Park. Report on file, Grand Canyon

National Park Science Center, Grand

Canyon, Arizona.

COLTON, HAROLD S.

1946 The Sinagua: A Summary of the

Archaeology of the Region of Flagstaff,

Arizona, Northern Arizona Society of 

Science and Art, Flagstaff, Arizona. 328 pp.

1936 “The Basaltic Cinder cones and Lava

Flows of the San Francisco Mountain

258
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Volcanic Field.” Museum of Northern

Arizona bulletin #10.

DARTON, N. H.

1910 “Geology of the Walnut Canyon

Region.” U.S. Geological Survey,

Washington, D.C. Bulletin #435.

DAVIS, K.

1985 “Fire History of Ponderosa Pine

Forest of Walnut Canyon National

Monument.” Report presented to Walnut

Canyon National Monument, National

Park Service, Arizona. Ms on file Walnut

Canyon National Monument.

DESPAIN, D. W., AND J. C. MOSLEY

1990 “Fire History and Stand Structure

of a Pinyon-Juniper Woodland.” At

Walnut Canyon National Monument,

Arizona. Report presented to Southern

Arizona Group, National Park Service,

Phoenix, Arizona. Ms on file Walnut

Canyon National Monument.

DOWNUM, CHRISTIAN, AND GEORGE

GUMERMAN

1998 “Archeological Investigations at

Sunset Crater Volcano National

Monument.” Report on file, Flagstaff Area

National Monuments Headquarters

Library, Flagstaff, Arizona.

DOWNUM, CHRISTIAN, JENNIFER L.

KUNDE, AND NANCY B. ANDREWS

1996 Monitoring the Health of Cultural

Resources: A Case Study from Grand

Canyon National Park. Paper presented at

the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for

American Archaeology, New Orleans,

Louisiana.

DROST, CHARLES

2000 Golden Eagle Monitoring at

Wupatki National Monument. Report to

the National Park Service. U.S. Geological

Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem

Science Center, Biological Resources

Division, Colorado Plateau Field Station.

Flagstaff, Arizona.

EGGLER, W. A. 

1966 “Plant Succession on the Recent

Volcano, Sunset Crater,” Plateau 38, no. 4: 

81-96.

FAIRLEY, HELEN C.

1998 “Preliminary Results and

Management Implications of the Cultural

Resource Monitoring Program in the

Flagstaff Area National Monuments.”

Report on file, Flagstaff Area National

Monuments Administrative Headquarters,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

FAWCETT, WILLIAM B.

1993 “Why Should It Matter if I Take

Another Potsherd? The Impacts of 

Contemporary Artifact Collecting at

Anasazi Villages.” Utah Archaeology 6: 37-

47.

FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

1999 Ideas for Change, Flagstaff/Lake

Mary Ecosystem Analysis, Coconino

National Forest. Peaks Ranger District,

Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff,

Arizona

1993 Integrated Resource Management,

the Road to Ecosystem Management,

Fourth Edition. Southwestern Region,

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

FULE, P. Z., J. D. SPRINGER, D. W.

HUFFMAN, and W. W. COVINGTON

2000 “Response of Rare Endemic,

Penstemon clutei, to Burning and Reduced

below Ground Competition.” Abstract in

Third Southwestern Rare and Endangered

Plant Conference, September 25-28, 2000,

Northern Arizona University. Unpublished

conference program and abstracts.

GALE, FAY

1985 “Monitoring Visitor Behavior at 

Rock Art Sites.” Rock Art Research 2(2):

112-17.

259
BIBLIOGRAPHY

GRATER, R.

1935 Walnut Canyon Bird List. Western

Archaeological and Conservation Center

Archives, National Park Service, Tucson,

Arizona.

GREEN, D. F., AND S. LABLANC, (EDITORS)

1979 Vandalism of Cultural Resources:

The Growing Threat to Our National

Heritage. Cultural Resources Report No.

28. USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Southwest

Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

HAAS, G. E., AND T. J. WAKEFIELD

1998 National Parks and the American

Public: A National Public Opinion Survey

on the National Park System. National

Parks and Conservation Association and

Colorado State University, Fort Collins,

Colorado.

HALDEMAN, J. R., AND A. B. Clark

1969 “Walnut Canyon: An Example of

Relationships Between Birds and Plant

Communities.” Plateau, Vol. 41(4): 164-77.

HOFFMEISTER, DONALD F.

1986 Mammals of Arizona. University of

Arizona Press, Tucson.

HOLM, RICHARD F.

1987 “Significance of Agglutinate

Mounds on Lava Flows Associated with

Monogenetic Cones: An Example at Sunset

Crater, Northern Arizona.” Geological 

Society of America Bulletin 99. September

1987: 319-24.

HOLM, RICHARD F., AND RICHARD B.

MOORE

1987 “Holocene Scoria Cone and Lava

Flows at Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona.”

In Geological Society of American 

Centennial Field Guide-Rocky Mountain

Section, pp. 393-97.

HUISINGA, KRISTIN, PHYLLIS HOGAN,

KAREN WRIGHT, HELEN HAMILTON, AND 

SUSAN CROW

2000 Special Status Plants of the Flagstaff 

Area National Monuments. Final Report to

the National Park Service, Arizona

Ethnobotanical Research Association.

JENKINS, P., F. REICHENBACHER, K.

JOHNSON, AND A. GONDOR

1991 “Vegetation Inventory,

Classification, and Monitoring at Walnut

Canyon National Monument.” Study

Report to the National Park Service.

JOHNSON, CRAIG J.

1999 Cultural Resource Management at

Wupatki National Monument: Managing a

Nonrenewable Resource. Northern Arizona

University, Department of Anthropology,

Master’s thesis, p. 73.

JOHNSON, DARRYLL R., JUNE C. RUGH,

MARK E. VANDE KAMP, AND THOMAS C.

SWEARINGEN

1994 “Minor Violations, Major Damage:

A Survey of Noncompliant Visitor Behavior

and Managerial Practices.” Park Science 

(Summer): 6-7.

JOHNSON, DARRYLL R., AND MARK E.

VANDE KAMP

1996 “Extent and Control of Resource

Damage Due to Noncompliant Visitor

Behavior: A Case Study from the U.S.

National Parks.” Natural Areas Journal 

16(2): 134-41.

JOYCE. J. F.

1974 “A Taxonomic and Ecological

Analysis of the Flora of Walnut Canyon,

Arizona.” Unpublished master’s thesis.

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

LEE, MARTHA E., AND DOUGLAS

STEPHENS

1995 Anasazi Cultural Parks Study:

Assessment of Visitor Experiences at Three

Cultural Parks. Colorado Plateau Research

Station, Northern Arizona University,

Flagstaff, Arizona. Technical Report

NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-95/07.

LEE, MARTY, AND LOCHEN TREADWELL

1999 1998 Survey of Flagstaff Monument

Visitors: Final Report. School of Forestry,

260
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff,

Arizona.

LIGHTFOOT, K. G., AND J. E. FRANCIS

1978 “The Effects of Causal Surface

Collection on Behavioral Interpretations of 

Archaeological Data.” In An Analytical

Approach to Cultural Resource

Management: The Little Colorado

Planning Unit, edited by Fred Plog, pp 83-

90. Anthropological Research Paper No.

23, Arizona State University, Tempe.

MACHLIS, GARY

2000 Visitor Survey Card Project, 

University of Idaho Cooperative Park

Studies Unit for the National Park Service,

Moscow, Idaho.

MAGILL, ARTHUR W.

1992 Managed and Natural Landscapes: 

What Do People Like? Pacific Southwest

Research Station, USDA, U.S. Forest

Service, Albany, California. Research Paper

PWS-RP-213.

McCLELLAND, L. F.

1998 Building the National Parks: Historic 

Landscape Design and Construction. Johns

Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,

Maryland.

MCCORMACK, DANIEL

1989 “The Geology of Wupatki National

Monument, Northern Arizona.” Thesis,

Geology Department, Northern Arizona

University, Flagstaff.

MENZEL, J. P.

1996 “Historical Changes in Forest

Structure in the Ponderosa Pine Type,

Walnut Canyon Area, Northern Arizona.”

Unpublished Masters Thesis, Northern

Arizona University, Flagstaff.

MOORE, RICK

1994 Preserving Traces of the Past:

Protecting the Colorado Plateau’s

Archaeological Heritage. Grand Canyon

Trust, Flagstaff, Arizona.

MURDOCK, L.

1994 “Analysis of Woodrat (Neotoma)

Middens Found in Walnut Canyon,

Coconino County, Arizona.” Unpublished

master’s thesis, Northern Arizona

University, Flagstaff.

MUSEUM OF NORTHERN ARIZONA

1929 “Sunset Crater and the Lava Beds.”

Museum Notes of the Museum of

Northern Arizona. Volume 2, number 4.

October. Flagstaff, Arizona.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

2001 Draft NPS Species Flora and Fauna

Database for Walnut Canyon National

Monument, National Park Service Natural

Resource Inventory and Monitoring

Program, Colorado Plateau Cooperative

Ecological Studies Unit, Northern Arizona

University, Flagstaff.

2000 Flagstaff Areas Strategic Plan,

Wupatki, Sunset Crater Volcano, and

Walnut Canyon National Monuments,

FY2001-FY2005. Flagstaff Area Office,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

2000 Management Policies. Washington,

D.C.

http://www.nps.gov/planning/mngmtplc/

npsmptoc.html.

1998 “Planning for Interpretation and

Visitor Experience.” Division of

Interpretation, Harpers Ferry Center,

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.

1997 Director’s Order-28, Cultural

Resources Management. Washington

Office, Washington, D.C.

1996 “Resources Management Plan.” On

file. Flagstaff Area National Monuments

Research Library, Flagstaff, Arizona.

1994 “Draft Statement for Management,

the Flagstaff Areas.” Wupatki, Sunset

Crater Volcano, and Walnut Canyon

National Monuments, Flagstaff, Arizona.

1993 Visual Quality of Built Environments

in National Parks. Denver Service Center,

Denver, Colorado.

261
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1990 Land Protection Plan, Walnut

Canyon National Monument, Western

Regional Office, San Francisco.

1982a General

Management/Development Concept Plan,

Wupatki and Sunset Crater National

Monuments. Denver Service Center,

Denver, Colorado.

1982b Finding of No Significant Impact,

General Management/Development

Concept Plan, Wupatki and Sunset Crater

National Monuments. Intermountain

Support Office-Denver, Denver, Colorado.

1981 Proposal/Environmental

Assessment, General Management

Plan/Development Concept Plan, Wupatki

and Sunset Crater National Monuments.

Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado.

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

INTERIOR; FOREST SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

1998 Executive Summary to Congress,

Recreational Fee Demonstration Program,

Progress Report to Congress, Volume IOverview and Summary. Washington, D.C.

http://www.nps.gov/

pub_aff/feedemo/recfee.htm.

NATIONS, J. DALE, AND RAYMOND L.

EASTWOOD

N.d. “Potential Environmental Impact of

Future Surface Mining Operations on the

Coconino National Forest.” On file.

Flagstaff Area National Monuments’

Research Library, Flagstaff, Arizona.

NICKENS, PAUL R.

1991 “The Destruction of Archaeological

Sites and Data.” In Protecting the Past, 

edited by George S. Smith and John E.

Ehrenhard, pp. 73-81. CRC Press, Ann

Arbor, Michigan

NIELSEEN, A. E. 

1991 “Trampling the Archeological

Record: An Experimental Study.” American

Antiquity 56(3): 483-503.

O’HARA, F. MICHAEL, AND CRAIG J.

JOHNSON

1997 Archeological Site Monitoring at 

Wupatki National Monument, Summer

1997. Report on file, Flagstaff Area

National Monuments Administrative

Headquarters, Flagstaff, Arizona.

PERSONS, TREVOR B.

2001 Distribution, Activity, and Road

Mortality of Amphibians and Reptiles at

Wupatki National Monument, Arizona.

Final Report to the National Park Service,

USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem

Science Center, Biological Resources

Division, Colorado Plateau Field Station.

Flagstaff, Arizona.

PHILLIPS, BARBARA G.

1990 Riparian Inventory of Walnut

Canyon National Monument: Vegetation

Map, Sampling Plots, Annotated Checklist.

Tucson, Arizona: Southwest Parks and

Monuments Association.

PILLES, PETER J.

1978 “The Field House and Sinagu

Demography.” In Limited Activity and 

Occupatin Sites: A Collection of 

Conference Papers, edited by Albert E.

Ward, pp. 119-34. Center for

Anthropoliogical Studies, Albuquerque,

New Mexico.

PILLES, PETER J. JR.

1974 “Post Sunset Crater Eruption

Developments in the Sinagua Culture: A

Re-evaluation.” Paper presented at the 39th

Annual Meeting of the Society for

American Archeology, Washington, D.C.

ROGGENBUCK, JOSEPH W., CAROLYN J.

WIDNER, AND DENNIS W. STRATTON

1997 Reducing Theft of Petrified Wood

at Petrified Forest National Park: A Final

262
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Research Report. On file, Petrified Forest

National Park, Arizona. 160 pp.

SALOMONSON, MICHAEL

1973 “The Mammals of Walnut Canyon

National Monument.” Ms on File Northern

Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.

SCHON, K.

2000 Saguaro National Park and Walnut

Canyon National Monument 2000 Fire

Effects Report. Fire Effects Monitoring

Program, Saguaro National Park.

SCHURIG, RUDOLPH G.

1971 “Soil Survey of Wupatki National

Monument, Arizona.” In Soil Survey and 

Range Site and Condition Inventory.

Report prepared by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

Ms on file Wupatki National Monument,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

SMILEY, TERAH L.

1958 “The Geology and Dating of Sunset

Crater, Flagstaff, Arizona.” In Guidebook 

of the Black Mesa Basin Northeastern

Arizona, Ninth Field Conference. New

Mexico Geological Society.

SPANGLE, P.F.

1953 “A Revised Checklist of the Flora of

Walnut Canyon National Monument.”

Plateau Vol. 26, pp. 86-88.

SPANGLE, P. F., AND E. L. SPANGLE

1954 Birds of Walnut Canyon.

Southwestern Monuments Association,

Globe, Arizona. Western Archaeological

and Conservation Center Archives,

National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona.

SUTER, GLEN W., AND DANIEL S. JONES

1981 Raptor Research. Vol. 15, pp. 12-18.

SWEARINGEN, THOMAS C., AND DARRYLL

R. JOHNSON

1994 “Keeping Visitors on the Right

Track: Sign and Barrier Research at Mount

Rainier.” Park Science (Fall): 17-19.

1995 “Visitors’ Responses to Uniformed

Park Employees.” Journal of Park and

Recreation Administration 13(1): 73-85.

SWETNAM, T. W., W. E. WRIGHT, A. C.

CAPRIO, P. M. BROWN, AND C. H. BASIAN

1990 Fire Scar Dates from Walnut Canyon

National Monument. Final Report to the

National Park Service, Southern Arizona

Group Office, Tucson, Arizona.

THOMAS, KATHRYN

In Preparation. Vegetation Map of 

Wupatki National Monument. National

Park Service Inventory Monitoring

Program. USGS Forest and Rangeland

Ecosystem Science Center, Biological

Resources Division, Colorado Plateau Field

Station. Flagstaff, Arizona.

2001 Progress Report on Vegetation

Mapping for the Flagstaff Area National

Monuments. Memorandum from the U.S.

Geological Survey, Colorado Plateau Field

Station, Northern Arizona University, to 

the Division of Resources Management,

Flagstaff Area National Monuments.

THOMPSON, BEN H.

1945 Report to Mr. Mr. Tillotson,

Regional Direct, National Park Service,

Region Three, Santa, New Mexico. Ms. On

file, Wupatki National Monument,

Flagstaff.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

1995 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Washington, D.C.

http://www2.cr.nps.gov/TPS/secstan1.htm

1993 Secretarial Order No. 3175, 

Departmental Responsibilities for Indian

Trust Resources. Washington, D.C.

http://www.doi.gov/oait/docs/policies.htm

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

1995 Recovery Plan for the Mexican

Spotted Owl: Volume I. Albuquerque, New

Mexico.

263
BIBLIOGRAPHY

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

2000 Hydrogeology of the Regional

Aquifer Near Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994-97.

Water Investigations Report 00-4122, U.S.

Geological Survey.

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

1987 Cultural Resources: Problems

Protecting and Preserving Federal

Archeological Resources. Government

Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

VANDE KAMP, MARK E., DARRYLL R.

JOHNSON, AND THOMAS C. SWEARINGEN

1994 “Preventing Visitor-Caused Damage

to National Park Resources: What Do We

Know? What Should Be Done?” Park

Science (Summer): 8-10.

VANDIVER, V. W.

1936 Geological Report on Walnut

Canyon, Arizona. Western Archaeological

and Conservation Center Archives,

National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona.

WETHERILL, M.

1937 Birds Seen at Walnut Canyon

National Monument. Western

Archaeological and Conservation Center

Archives, National Park Service, Tucson,

Arizona.

WESTHEIMER, DUFFIE

1988 “Black Falls Trading Post: 1941-

1964.” Unpublished. Ms. on file, Flagstaff

Area National Monuments’ Research

Library, Flagstaff, Arizona.

WILDESEN, LESLIE E.

1982 “The Study of Impacts on

Archaeological Sites.” In Advances in 

Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 5,

edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 51-96.

Academic Press, New York.

WOOD, CHARLES A., AND JURGEN KIENLE

1990 Volcanoes of North America.

Cambridge University Press, New York.

WOOD, W. R., AND D. L. JOHNSON

1978 “A Survey of Disturbance Processes

in Archaeological Site Formation.” In

Advances in Archaeological Method and 

Theory Vol. 1, edited by Michael B.

Schiffer, pp. 315-81. Academic Press, New

York.

ZUBE, E. H., J. L. SELL, AND J. G. TAYLOR

“Landscape Perception: Research,

Application, and Theory.” Landscape 

Planning 9: 75-96.

264
LIST OF PREPARERS

PREPARERS

Anita Davis, Interpreter, Sunset Crater

Volcano NM, National Park Service. B.S.,

Wildlife Biology, M.S. Biology; 10 years

NPS. Responsible for impact analysis

sections on visitor use and experience.

Jeri DeYoung, Archeologist, Flagstaff

Area Offices, National Park Service. B.I.S.

Archaeology, History, Botany, M.A.

Anthropology (Historic Archaeology). 4 

years U.S. Forest Service, 6 years NPS.

Responsible for alternatives development

and impact analysis on historic character of 

the built environment.

Helen Fairley, Archeologist, Flagstaff

Area Offices, National Park Service. B.A.

Anthropology, M.A. Anthropology

(Archeology). 5 seasons U.S. Forest Service,

3 years private consultant, 10 years NPS.

Responsible for alternatives development

and impact analysis on long-term integrity

of archeological resources.

Sue Fischer, Former Interpreter, Wupatki

NM, National Park Service, now at Grand

Canyon NP. B.A. Geology; 20 years NPS in

interpretation and employee training and

development. Responsible for alternatives

development and alternatives descriptions

for newsletter and draft document.

Sam Henderson, Superintendent,

Flagstaff Areas, National Park Service. B.S.

Archeology, 32 years NPS, 26 years

Superintendent-11 Casa Grande Ruins, 5 

Walnut Canyon, 10 Flagstaff Areas.

Responsible for the overall management

of the three Flagstaff Areas and impact

analyses on park neighbors; local, state,

and tribal land management; and

land/resource managing agencies and

operational efficiency.

Marilyn Hof, Senior Planner, Denver

Service Center, National Park Service. B.S.

Recreational Resources, M.S. Recreational

Resources; 2 years Bureau of Land

Management, 20 years NPS. Responsible

for management zones, alternatives

development, and carrying capacity

analysis.

Lori Kinser, Visual Information Specialist,

Intermountain Support Office-Denver. 27

years NPS. Responsible for all graphics.

Carol Kruse, Interpretive Specialist,

Flagstaff Area National Monuments. B.S.

Zoology; 30 years NPS park management

and interpretation. Responsible for

development of newsletters, impacts on 

ability to experience park resources, and

description of alternatives.

Todd Metzger, Chief Resources

Management, Flagstaff Area Office,

National Park Service. B.A. Anthropology;

8 years private practice, 13 years NPS.

Responsible for American Indian

consultation, alternatives development,

and impact analyses on park neighbors;

local, state, and tribal land management;

and land/resource managing agencies and

operational efficiency.

Steve Mitchelson, Former Natural

Resource Specialist, Flagstaff Area National

Monuments, now at the Intermountain

Regional Office, National Park Service. B.S.

Biology; M.S. Plant Ecology; 17 years NPS, 1 

year Corps of Engineers. Responsible for

alternatives development and natural

resource impact analysis, including

threatened and endangered species and

sensitive species, long-term integrity of 

natural systems and processes; long-term

integrity of geologic resources, and

floodplains and wetlands.

265
LIST OF PREPARERS

Alexa Roberts, Anthropologist,

Intermountain Support Office-Santa Fe,

National Park Service. Ph.D. Anthropology,

5 years private sector, 8 years Navajo

Nation, 5 years NPS. Responsible for

alternatives development, American Indian

consultation, and impact analysis on longterm integrity of ethnographic resources.

Nicole Tancreto, Cartographic

Technician, Flagstaff Area National

Monuments, National Park Service. B.S.

Ecology and Systematic Biology; 6 years

NPS. Contributed to natural resource

impact analysis, including threatened and

endangered species and sensitive species,

long-term integrity of natural systems and

processes, and floodplains and wetlands

Christine Turk, Regional Environmental

Quality Officer, Intermountain Support

Office-Denver, National Park Service. B.A.

Biological Sciences, 22 years NPS, 5 years U 

DE College of Marine Studies. Responsible

for purpose and need, environmental

consequences, consultation/coordination,

references, and appendixes.

Terri Urbanowski, Landscape Architect,

Denver Service Center, National Park

Service. B.S. Landscape Horticulture, M.L.A.

Landscape Architecture, 15 years NPS, 3 

years private practice. Job Captain,

responsible for alternatives, management

zones, costs, and graphics coordination.

Kim Watson, Chief Ranger. Responsible

for alternatives development, impact

analyses on park neighbors; local, state,

and tribal land management, and

land/resource managing agencies; ability

to experience park resources; and

operational efficiency.

Paul Whitefield, Natural Resource

Specialist, Flagstaff Area National

Monuments. B.S. Biology. 5 years

Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute, 11

years NPS, including 2 seasons Guadalupe

Mountains, 5 years Big Thicket, 4 years

Chaco Culture, 6 months Flagstaff

Monuments. Responsible for revising all

sections pertaining to natural

systems/processes,

threatened/endangered/sensitive species,

and wetlands/floodplains/riparian

resources.

CONTRIBUTORS

National Park Service,

Flagstaff Area Offices

John Bland, Protection Ranger, Sunset

Crater Volcano NM

Mary Blasing, District Ranger, Wupatki NM

Tom Ferrell, Former District Ranger,

Walnut Canyon NM

Bill Hudson, Former District Ranger,

Wupatki NM, now District Ranger, Sunset

Crater Volcano NM

Judi Irons, NPS/USFS Interpreter

SuZan Pearce, Former Interpretive Ranger,

Sunset Crater Volcano NM

Al Remley, Archeologist, Flagstaff Area

Monuments

Nancy Schultz, Administrative Officer,

Flagstaff Area Monuments

Michael Stuckey, Former District Ranger,

Sunset Crater Volcano NM

Richard Sullivan, Former Chief of 

Maintenance, Flagstaff Area Monuments

Michael Schneegas, Facility Manager,

Flagstaff Area Monuments

National Park Service,

Intermountain Support OfficeDenver

Kenneth Bennett, Historical Architect,

Volunteer-in-Parks

Christine Maylath, Environmental

Protection Assistant/Planning Tech

266
LIST OF PREPARERS

National Park Service

Ken Mabery, Former Management

Assistant, El Malpais NM

U.S. Forest Service, Coconino

National Forest

Alvin Brown, Flagstaff Lake Mary

Ecosystem, Peaks/Mormon Lake Ranger

District

Linda Farnsworth, Archeologist, Peaks 

Ranger District

Kath Farr, Supervisor’s Office

Allen Madril, Archeologist, Peaks/Mormon

Lake Ranger District

Sandra Nagiller, Wildlife Biologist, Peaks 

Ranger District

John Nelson, Recreation and Wildlife Staff

Office, Peaks/Mormon Lake Ranger District

Peter Pilles, Forest Archeologist,

Supervisor’s Office

267

INDEX

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 22,

87, 102, 137, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179,

180, 195 

Babbitt Ranches, 95, 197 

Bonito Park, iv, v, 2, 28, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42,

43, 44, 46, 60, 63, 65, 67, 68, 74, 75, 76,

78, 80, 84, 88, 98, 106, 107, 108, 109,

110, 111, 112, 114, 119, 120, 126, 127,

128, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141,

142, 149, 150, 151, 157, 162, 163, 164,

168, 175, 177, 178, 179, 190, 254 

boundary expansion, 37, 68, 109, 110, 117, 

119, 120, 124, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152,

153, 200, 232, 250

Bureau of Land Management, 16, 266, 269 

camping, ii, 34, 37, 39, 46, 94, 99, 105, 109, 

112, 129, 138, 155, 163, 165, 174 

carrying capacity, 17, 18, 146, 269 

Cinder Hills OHV Area, 44, 91, 94, 96, 129, 

148, 149, 151, 155, 168, 178, 180 

city of Flagstaff, 19, 94, 174, 175, 179, 184, 

185, 197, 262 

Coconino National Forest, ii, 3, 19, 29, 36,

39, 45, 75, 81, 83, 84, 85, 90, 91, 92, 95,

96, 145, 147, 150, 151, 157, 160, 163,

165, 170, 232, 263, 266, 271

cultural resources, 1, 4, 14, 15, 20, 24, 35, 

37, 43, 55, 57, 60, 61, 69, 75, 80, 92, 102,

106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116,

145, 167, 179, 189, 190, 257, 258 

decision points, 21, 23, 31

Doney Park, 5, 96, 99, 197, 198

endangered, i, iv, 5, 8, 9, 24, 31, 32, 57, 67,

81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 137, 138, 139, 140,

141, 142, 143, 257, 259, 269, 270 

fire, 10, 16, 26, 27, 28, 39, 82, 83, 84, 86, 

88, 91, 94, 96, 155, 156, 159, 161, 164,

165, 169, 171 

Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem, ii

Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem Area, 195 

Forest Service, ii, 9, 10, 16, 19, 21, 24, 31,

35, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 59, 71, 77, 81,

83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101,

105, 129, 139, 146, 174, 175, 176, 177,

178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 187, 188,

192, 195, 196, 197, 200, 232, 262, 264,

265, 269, 271 

FR545, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, 2, 5, 37, 38, 39, 40, 

41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 60, 61, 63, 69,

71, 74, 75, 76, 84, 85, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97,

98, 99, 103, 108, 119, 121, 122, 123, 126,

129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 140, 141,

142, 143, 147, 149, 151, 154, 155, 156,

157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166,

167, 170, 171, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179,

180, 182, 184, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191,

192

FR776, v, 42, 44, 63, 69, 75, 96, 98, 108, 

109, 122, 132, 133, 134, 135, 141, 143,

151, 162, 163, 164, 177, 178, 179, 180,

189, 190, 191, 192

Grand Canyon NP, 196, 269 

guided activities, ii, iv, 22, 38, 41, 63, 131

Havasupai, 22, 195, 196 

Hopi, 22, 28, 36, 78, 80, 82, 95, 96, 97, 123, 

178, 195, 196, 199

Hualapai, 196 

management prescriptions, 23, 228 

natural soundscapes, 2, 11, 25, 69, 92, 157,

159, 165, 167, 170, 258 

Navajo, 22, 28, 36, 45, 47, 60, 79, 80, 82,

86, 95, 96, 97, 101, 123, 174, 176, 178,

180, 185, 195, 196, 270 

noise, 2, 11, 12, 36, 85, 88, 96, 129, 133, 

139, 170 

269 
INDEX 

O’Leary Peak, 35, 38, 46, 80, 93, 98, 100, 

104, 106, 108, 110, 111, 114, 124, 130,

131, 132, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 147,

148, 149, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159, 163,

164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 174, 175, 176,

177, 178, 179, 181, 183, 186, 189, 190,

191, 192 

Off-road vehicles, 146 

Resources/Values at Stake, 24 

rights-of-way, 20, 83 

riparian, 26, 27, 57, 82, 83, 86, 197, 258, 

261, 266, 270 

San Juan Paiute, 22 

telecommunications, 20, 35

threatened, i, iv, 8, 9, 10, 24, 31, 57, 67, 81, 

85, 86, 87, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, 259,

269, 270 

Tonto Apache, 22, 195, 196 

trip fact sheets, 22

U.S. Geological Survey, 19, 95, 97, 261, 262, 

263, 267, 268 

visitor center, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, 2, 22, 23, 26,

35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 60, 61, 63,

65, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81,

84, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 103, 106, 107,

108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116,

117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 129, 131,

132, 133, 135, 140, 141, 143, 147, 148,

149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158,

159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166,

167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176,

177, 179, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 190,

192, 193, 194, 199

White Mountain Apache, 22, 28, 36, 195,

196

Yavapai Apache, 22, 195, 196 

Yavapai-Prescott, 22, 195 

zones, i, 9, 21, 23, 31, 32, 56, 195, 269, 270 

Zuni, 22, 80, 123, 195, 196

270 
NPS D-52a