Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Draft General Management Plan 

September 2001 

WALNUT CANYON

National Monument • Arizona
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Draft General Management Plan 

WALNUT CANYON 

National Monument • Arizona 

SUMMARY: 

This general management plan will guide the management of Walnut Canyon National 

Monument for the next 10 to 15 years. Three alternatives were considered - a no-action and 

two action alternatives, including the National Park Service preferred alternative. The 

preferred alternative would preserve untrailed expanses, unfragmented natural systems, and 

relatively pristine conditions throughout much of the park. It would protect Walnut Canyon 

as a critical wildlife corridor. Visitation would be managed with the goal of providing quality 

learning opportunities in an intimate atmosphere while maintaining the health of the 

canyon ecosystem. The natural soundscape and tranquil setting of the canyon would be 

enhanced through strategic placement of facilities. The park would remain day-use only, 

with recreational uses of the western end prohibited. Efforts would be made to provide a 

broader range of educational offerings, and a greater number of archeological sites would 

be available for visitation. The environmental impact statement assesses impacts to 

archeological resources; historic character of built environment; ethnographic resources; 

natural systems and processes; threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; wetlands, 

floodplains and riparian resources; visitor experience of park resources; park neighbors; local, 

state, and tribal land management plans; land/resource managing agencies; and operational 

efficiency. 

Direct questions and send comments to: 

Superintendent 

Flagstaff Areas 

6400 N. Hwy 89 

Flagstaff, Arizona 80004 

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Walnut Canyon National Monument 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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 .............................................................................................23

Decide What Might Be Achieved..........................................................................................25

OUTSTANDING PARK VALUES AND RESOURCE CONCERNS ...................................................29

ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................... 33

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES...........................................................................................33

Resource Analysis...................................................................................................................33

Management Zones...............................................................................................................33

Boundary Expansion Criteria ................................................................................................37

Actions Common to All Alternatives ....................................................................................39

Alternative Descriptions............................................................................................................40

No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions .........................................................................40

Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use.........................................................42

Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation..............................................................43

MITIGATING MEASURES............................................................................................................49

SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................51

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE......................................................................53

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

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

HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ............................................................79

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES ......................................................80

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

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES ..........................................................88

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES..........92

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES.............................................................................95

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

LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING AGENCIES.................................................................................98

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY......................................................................................................101

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY......................................................................................................101

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................. 107

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................107

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................108

Methodology .......................................................................................................................108

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions................................................109

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................112

Effects of Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation...........................................115
PURPOSE AND NEED 

ii

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................117

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................117

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................117

HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................118

Methodology .......................................................................................................................118

Effects of No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.......................................................119

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................122

Effects of Alternative 2: (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation..........................................125

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................128

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................128

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................129

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES ....................................................130

Methodology .......................................................................................................................130

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions................................................130

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................132

Effects of Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation...........................................133

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................133

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................133

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................133

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES .......................................134

Methodology .......................................................................................................................134

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions................................................135

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................139

Effects of Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation...........................................142

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................144

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................144

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................145

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES ........................................................145

Methodology .......................................................................................................................145

Effects Of No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions......................................................146

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................150

Effects of Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation...........................................152

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................155

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................155

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................155

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT ............155

Methodology .......................................................................................................................155

Effects of No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.......................................................156

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................159

Effects of Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation...........................................160

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................162

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................162
iii 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................162

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES...........................................................................162

Methodology .......................................................................................................................162

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions................................................163

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................168

Effects of Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation...........................................173

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................178

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................178

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................178

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

LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING AGENCIES...............................................................................178

Methodology .......................................................................................................................178

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions................................................179

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................181

Effects of Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation...........................................183

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................184

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................184

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................184

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY......................................................................................................186

Methodology .......................................................................................................................186

Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions................................................187

Effects of Alternative 1: Diversify Opportunities for Visitor Use......................................190

Effects of Alternative 2 (Preferred): Emphasize Preservation...........................................193

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................................195

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

Gain ......................................................................................................................................195

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................................................195

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.............................................................. 197

HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.......................................................................................197

AGENCIES CONSULTED............................................................................................................197

LIST OF RECIPIENTS..................................................................................................................198

APPENDIXES/REFERENCES ................................................................................ 203

Appendix A: Legislation..........................................................................................................203

Appendix B: Resource Attributes............................................................................................221

Appendix C: Choosing by Advantages and Costs ..................................................................223

GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................... 225

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 229

LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................... 239

PREPARERS...............................................................................................................................239
PURPOSE AND NEED 

iv

CONTRIBUTORS........................................................................................................................240

INDEX................................................................................................................. 243

TABLES 

Table 1: Cost Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................52 

Table 2: Summary of Alternatives ..........................................................................................57 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts ......................................................................................59 

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives ................................................................................72 

Table 5: Resource Attributes for Visitor Use....................................................................... 221

MAPS 

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

Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................45 

Alternative 1............................................................................................................................46 

Alternative 2............................................................................................................................47 
1

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 Walnut Canyon National Monument 

(NM). 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 

deferred to more detailed implementation 

planning, which will follow the broad, 

comprehensive decision making outlined 

in the general management plan. 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

2

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. A boundary 

expansion of Walnut Canyon 

(approximately 1,333 acres) was added as 

part of the 1996 National Park Service 

(NPS) Omnibus Bill. Visitation has increased 

demands on park resources, resulting in 

documented loss of some resources 

through erosion, vandalism, erosion and 

theft. 

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. 

The development of Walnut Canyon 

created a use pattern that funnels all 

visitors to one place on the canyon rim. 

The parking area and part of the visitor 

center, built by the Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC), are inadequate for today's 

vehicles and visitation levels. Crowded 

conditions exist at times. No orientation 

material is available at the park entrance 

near I-40. The entrance station is three 

miles south, near the visitor center, and 

the park is gated and closed at night at 

this location. 

The visitor center has always had 

accessibility issues, which have been 

temporarily remedied but require a longterm solution. Visitor center exhibits date 

to the 1960s. Interpretive media are 

outdated or inaccurate, and there is no 

consistent integrated message between 

this and the other two Flagstaff area 

parks. The park is a popular location for 

school outings, but there is no group 

facility, auditorium, or place to gather 

people indoors, and groups often exceed 

the capacity of facilities. 

Park boundaries are poorly marked. The 

monument was expanded in 1996 (by the 

Omnibus Parks and Land Management 

Act) by transferring approximately 1,333 

acres from U.S. Forest Service to NPS 

jurisdiction. The lands have not been 

surveyed or fenced, and there is some 

confusion on the part of public users 

regarding where USFS lands end and the 

monument begins. The new lands on the 

west side of the monument are within two 

miles of residential areas of the city of 

Flagstaff, and parts of the western 

boundary of the monument coincide with 

the corporate boundary of the city of 

Flagstaff. Forest resources include 

ponderosa pine, pinyon pine, and juniper, 

which attract woodcutters seeking 

personal firewood. Antelope, elk, and deer 

attract hunters and wildlife viewers. The 

Coconino National Forest administers 

several grazing permits for local ranchers 

in the lands adjacent to the monument. 

Local citizens have traditionally and 

currently used the surrounding forest 

areas for recreational activities, including 

horseback riding, recreational vehicle uses, 

hiking, camping, hunting, birding, 

woodcutting, shooting, and mountain 

biking. A section of the Arizona Trail 

passes the northwest corner of the 

monument and is used by local and 

regional visitors for recreational purposes. 

Because of this proximity, occasional 

inappropriate uses occur on monument 

property, including trespass, shooting, 

hunting, woodcutting, and vehicle travel. 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

3

Three state trust sections of land adjacent 

to, or within two miles of, the monument 

could be offered for sale and 

development. Development could pose 

external threats in the form of increased 

unauthorized uses, trespass by animals, 

noise, and degradation of the viewshed. 

Approximately 291 acres of private land 

exist inside the eastern boundary of the 

monument, and there is potential for 

development by the owner. Development 

of this private property could result in 

water impoundment behind a historic dam 

to create a lake that could possibly back 

up onto monument land. There is the 

potential for residential development and 

increased exposure of park cultural 

resources to trespass and inappropriate 

uses, resulting from residential 

development and the attraction of a lake. 

The canyon has significant biological 

diversity and concentrations of threatened 

and endangered species. Affiliated tribes 

have identified traditional cultural 

properties within park boundaries and 

have concerns about public visitation to 

archeological sites. 

In 1998, the staff of the Flagstaff Area 

monuments (Wupatki, Sunset Crater 

Volcano, and Walnut Canyon National 

Monuments) 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 

Walnut Canyon National Monument was 

established by Presidential Proclamation 

No. 1318 on November 30, 1915, to 

preserve the prehistoric ruins of ancient 

cliff dwellings. The monument was 

enlarged by Presidential Proclamation No. 

2300 on September 24, 1938, and on 

November 12, 1996, by P.L. 104-333. On 

February 28, 1965, Public Land Order 1269 

by the Bureau of Land Management 

withdrew public lands as material source 

sites and added lands to construct a 

monument approach road. The monument 

occupies approximately 3,600 acres 

immediately adjacent to Coconino 

National Forest and to the city limits of 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

The park purpose for Walnut Canyon is: 

• To protect ancient cliff dwellings and 

associated resources that are of great 

ethnographic, scientific, and 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

4

educational interest and to properly 

care for and manage the cultural and 

natural resources of historic, social, and 

scientific interest within Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. 

The park significance for Walnut Canyon 

is: 

• Concentrations of ancestral Puebloan 

habitations are found in Walnut 

Canyon's "island" topography-the 

distribution, diversity, and location of 

sites are unusual and include the only 

cliff dwelling architecture of the 

Northern Sinagua culture. Walnut 

Canyon and Walnut Creek provide vivid 

evidence of the Sinaguas' ability to 

procure sufficient water to sustain life 

and grow crops. 

• The natural and cultural resources 

within the monument are known to be 

significant to contemporary native 

tribes, as evidenced by oral history, 

continuing practices, and the 

archeological record. 

• Within Walnut Canyon, ecological 

communities overlap to form ecotones, 

bringing together species usually 

separated by elevation, and creating a 

rare compression of flora/fauna zones. 

The biodiversity supported by these 

habitats includes a high concentration 

of sensitive species and is thought to 

have contributed to the decision of 

prehistoric people to settle here. 

• Topographic relief and biotic diversity 

make the canyon an outstanding scenic 

resource. Together with adjacent forest 

lands, the monument serves as a 

significant component of a designated 

greenbelt and natural sanctuary 

surrounding the city of Flagstaff. 

• Historic railroad settlements, such as 

Flagstaff, contributed to Walnut 

Canyon becoming one of the first 

archeological areas to be heavily 

visited. Some sites record the extensive 

looting of the period. Today, owing to 

management that emphasizes 

preservation, Walnut Canyon National 

Monument provides scientific 

opportunities to study irreplaceable 

cultural and natural resources. 

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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

5

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 

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 with Southwest 

Parks and Monument Association (SPMA):

Allows SPMA to operate a bookstore in 

each of the Flagstaff Area monuments and 

headquarters, with support provided to 

NPS from those sales. 

Billie Wells Special Use Permit: Allows 

permittee to operate and maintain a 

water line across the northwest corner of 

Walnut Canyon National Monument in 

connection with grazing operations. The 

water line runs across the monument just 

inside the northwest corner, then follows 

FS303, on the north side, to water storage 

tanks on the ranch north of the 

monument. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

As with all units of the National Park 

System, management of Walnut Canyon 

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. 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

6

Desired Condition Source 

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. 

Management 

Policies 

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 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. 

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. 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

7

Cultural Resource Management 

Requirements 

Archeological Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved for 

archeological resources in the park: 

Desired Condition Source 

Archeological sites 

are identified and 

inventoried, and 

their significance is 

determined and 

documented. 

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 

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. 

Portions of the park have not been 

systematically surveyed or inventoried. 

Precise information about the location, 

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 

Historic properties 

are inventoried and 

their significance and 

integrity are 

evaluated under 

National Register 

criteria. 

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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

8

Desired Condition Source 

Agreement among the 

NPS, Advisory Council 

on Historic 

Preservation, and the 

National Council of 

State Historic 

Preservation Officers 

(1995); NPS 

Management Policies 

The qualities that 

contribute to the 

eligibility for listing 

or listing of historic 

properties on the 

NRHP are protected 

in accordance with 

the Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards 

(unless it is 

determined through 

a formal process that 

disturbance or 

natural deterioration 

is unavoidable). 

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 

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. 

Desired Condition Source 

Anticipated impacts to 

Indian trust resources are 

addressed in 

environmental documents. 

Secretarial Order 

3175; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Although there are no Indian trust 

resources in Walnut Canyon, 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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

9

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.

Desired Condition Source 

Ethnographic information will be collected through 

collaborative research that recognizes the sensitive 

nature of such information. 

NPS Management Policies 

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. 

Executive Order 13007 on American Indian 

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. 

NPS Management Policies, E.O. 13007 on 

American Indian 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. 

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-toGovernment Relations with Tribal 

Governments; NPS Management Policies 

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 they are 

historically associated. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; 

Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

on Government-to-Government Relations 

with Tribal Governments; NPS Management 

Policies 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

10

Desired Condition Source 

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. 

NPS Management Policies 

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. 

NPS Management Policies; American Indian 

Grave Protection and Repatriation Act 

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. 

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. 

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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

11

Desired Condition Source 

The qualities that 

contribute to the 

significance of 

collections are 

protected in 

accordance with 

established standards. 

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: 

• Construct and staff an approved 

curatorial facility to house the Flagstaff 

Area collections. 

• Accession 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. 

• 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. 

• Inventory and catalog all park museum 

collections in accordance with 

standards in the NPS Museum 

Handbook. 

• Develop a collection management 

program according to NPS standards to 

guide protection, conservation, and use 

of museum objects. 

• Implement the collection management 

program. 

Natural Resource Management 

Requirements 

Air Quality 

Wupatki is a class II air quality area. 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

monument for air quality: 

Desired Condition Source 

Air quality in the 

monuments meets national 

ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for 

specified pollutants. 

Clean Air Act; 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Park activities do not 

contribute to deterioration 

in air quality. 

Clean Air Act; 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Overall, the regional air quality is good. 

Air flows generally down and away from 

the adjacent San Francisco Peaks and 

visible pollutants generally do not 

accumulate within Walnut Canyon. The 

NPS has very little direct control over air 

quality within the airshed encompassing 

the monument. At times, regional haze 

generated from coal-fired power 

generating stations affects Flagstaff and 

Walnut Canyon, which is in the same 

airshed as Grand Canyon National Park. 

The NPS cooperates with the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) and the Environmental Protection 

Agency to monitor ozone concentrations 

at Walnut Canyon between April and 

October every year. Current results show 

some elevation of ozone levels (ca. 60 ppb) 

during the summer months prior to the 

onset of the monsoon season in July. In 

addition, the NPS remains concerned that 

seasonal air temperature "inversion" 

events trap wood-burning stove smoke 

and other air pollutants near the surface 

around Flagstaff and locally impairs 

visibility within Walnut Canyon. The 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

12

severity of these events would be expected 

to increase as the Flagstaff population 

increases and the city encroaches upon the 

monument boundary. 

The National Park Service will take the 

following kinds of actions to meet legal 

and policy requirements related to air 

quality: 

• Participate in regional air pollution 

control plans and regulations and 

review of permit applications for major 

new air pollution sources. 

• Augment local air quality monitoring 

programs by establishing long-term 

monitoring stations for visibility 

impairment at Walnut Canyon and 

continue monitoring ozone at 

monument. Monitoring will be 

conducted in conjunction with regional 

air quality agencies. 

• Conduct park operations in compliance 

with federal, state, and local air quality 

regulations. 

Water Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

monument for water resources: 

Desired Condition Source 

The Service will 

perpetuate surface 

waters and 

groundwaters as 

integral components of 

park aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. 

Clean Water Act; 

Executive order 

11514; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

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. 

Clean Water Act; 

Executive Order 

12088; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Desired Condition Source 

Natural floodplain 

values are preserved or 

restored. 

Executive Order 

11988; Rivers 

and Harbors Act; 

Clean Water Act; 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

The natural and 

beneficial values of 

wetlands are preserved 

and enhanced. 

Executive Order 

11990; Rivers 

and Harbors Act; 

Clean Water Act; 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

The watershed and riparian resources of 

Walnut Canyon are being altered by 

upstream impoundments at Upper and 

Lower Lake Mary. The NPS and 

Department of Justice are currently 

negotiating a water rights agreement to 

resolve water rights issues for Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. A number of 

entities are involved, including the city of 

Flagstaff, U.S. Forest Service, and Navajo 

and Hopi Tribes. It is anticipated that 

settlements will be reached in the near 

future. 

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. 

• Assess the impacts from the diversion 

of surface water from the Walnut 

Canyon watershed by the city of 

Flagstaff and attempt to mitigate these 

impacts where feasible. 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

13

• Promote greater public understanding 

of water resource issues and encourage 

support for mitigating impacts in the 

Walnut Canyon watershed. 

Geologic Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park for geologic resources: 

Desired Condition Source 

Natural soil resources and 

processes function in as 

natural condition as 

possible, except where 

special management 

considerations are 

allowable under policy 

(areas of special 

management 

considerations will be 

determined through 

management zoning 

decisions in the GMP). 

Monuments' 

enabling 

legislation; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Some areas within Walnut Canyon 

National Monument are receiving heavy 

visitor use, which is causing local soil 

compaction, loss of vegetative cover, and 

erosion. This is particularly evident in steep 

terrain or improperly designed and 

maintained trails. 

The National Park Service will take the 

following kinds of actions to comply with 

legal and policy requirements related to 

soils: 

• Identify areas of Walnut Canyon where 

current human activities and modern 

developments are accelerating soil loss 

and causing erosion problems; take 

actions appropriate to the 

management zone to deter resource 

degradation and restore soil formation 

processes. 

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 Source 

Federal- and state-listed 

threatened and 

endangered species and 

their habitats are sustained. 

Endangered 

Species Act; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Populations of native plant 

and animal species function 

in as natural a condition as 

possible except where 

special management 

considerations are 

warranted. (Areas with 

special management 

considerations will be 

determined through 

management zoning 

decisions in the GMP.) 

Monuments' 

enabling 

legislation; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

The Service will strive to 

restore extirpated native 

plant and animal species to 

parks when specific criteria 

are met. 

Monuments' 

enabling 

legislation; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

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. 

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 Walnut Canyon 

may also provide a unique refuge for 

certain species that are sensitive to other 

land uses. Development for visitor access, 

use, and administrative activities within 

the monument influences plant and 

animal species distribution. Roads divide 

the natural areas of the monument and 

act as barriers or create crossing hazards 

for wildlife. 

Walnut Canyon harbors nesting pairs of 

Mexican spotted owls, a species that is 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

14

listed as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service recently designated critical habitat 

for the Mexican spotted owl within the 

monument. The NPS must ensure that 

management of the monument does not 

adversely impact this species nor degrade 

its habitat. Several other unique and rare 

animal and plant species also inhabit the 

monument. 

Certain species may be subject to 

collection for cultural reasons, and better 

information on them is needed to ensure 

that populations remain stable. 

Roads, trails, and disturbed areas function 

as corridors for invasive species to move 

into the monument. A few species of 

nonnative, invasive plants have become 

established throughout Walnut Canyon. 

Given time, aggressive "exotic" plant 

populations can greatly expand, altering 

natural vegetation, displacing rarer native 

plants, eliminating native forage and cover 

for animals, and changing the original 

scenic character. These effects are already 

apparent in some areas of the monument 

and are expected to worsen substantially if 

left unmanaged. 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; in particular, 

protect and restore natural riparian 

habitat in Walnut Canyon. 

• 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 

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 U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Department and the U.S. Forest Service 

to implement the Mexican Spotted Owl 

Recovery Plan. 

Wildland Fire 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved 

regarding wildland fire in the park: 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

15

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 

The NPS has maintained an active 

prescribed fire program at Walnut Canyon 

National Monument since 1990 and will 

soon prepare a new fire management plan 

(FMP) and environmental assessment. The 

plan would 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 lands are threatened. The NPS 

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. 

Within the monument, approximately 

1,600 acres are dominated by ponderosa 

pine forest and pinyon-juniper woodland. 

Pre-settlement forest reconstruction 

research, fire history, and repeat 

photography studies reveal that level rim 

areas surrounding Walnut Canyon used to 

have fewer but larger ponderosa pines. 

Local fires used to burn through the forest 

floor every 5 years or so, thinning tree 

seedlings and favoring good grass and 

diverse wildflower cover between the 

trees. Although the NPS has implemented 

a limited prescribed fire program to 

restore these vegetation attributes, the 

canyon rim areas remain heavily stocked 

with young trees and accumulated woody 

fuels, and may be prone to moderately hot 

fires. The use of fire is also an accepted 

practice to manage foraging habitat for 

Mexican spotted owls and reduce the 

threat of catastrophic wildfire within 

designated critical habitat for the species. 

The monuments have two agreements 

with park neighbors regarding fire 

protection. The Joint Powers Agreement 

provides for the "nearest available 

resource" to respond to fire emergencies 

on each participant's jurisdiction and to 

recoup costs associated with such actions. 

The structural fire protection agreement 

with the city of Flagstaff allows the city 

fire department to extend fire protection 

beyond the city limits to include the 

facilities at Walnut Canyon. 

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. 

• Use the results from vegetation and 

fire history studies to establish desired 

vegetation condition and 

management-ignited fire objectives; 

revise the fire management plan 

accordingly. 

• Implement a fire management 

program with due regard for 

conserving the Mexican spotted owl 

and designated critical habitat within 

the monument. 

• Ensure management-ignited fires 

comply with Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality air quality 

regulations. 

Night Sky/Lightscape Management 

The monument's night skies are features 

that contribute to the visitor experience. 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

16

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 park 

soundscapes, including noise 

caused by mechanical or 

electronic devices. The 

Service will take action to 

prevent or minimize all noise 

that, through frequency,
PURPOSE AND NEED 

17

Desired Condition Source 

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. 

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. 

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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

18

Desired Condition Source 

Visitors who use federal 

facilities and services for 

outdoor recreation may 

be required to pay a 

greater share of the cost 

of providing those 

opportunities than the 

population as a whole. 

NPS Management 

Policies; 1998 

Executive 

Summary to 

Congress, 

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) 

The park has identified 

implementation 

commitments for visitor 

carrying capacities for all 

areas of the unit. 

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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

19

level of decision making, the desired 

resource conditions and experiences 

describe carrying capacity in qualitative 

terms. These qualitative terms are then 

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 

Walnut Canyon National Monument is 

managed as part of a greater ecological, 

social, economic, and cultural system. 

Current policy requires the following: 

Desired Condition Source 

Public participation in 

planning and decision 

making will ensure that the 

Park Service fully

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Desired Condition Source 

understands and considers 

the public's interests in the 

parks, which are part of their 

national heritage, cultural 

traditions, and 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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

20

general public informed about park 

management activities. Periodic 

consultations will occur with landowners 

and communities affected by park visitors 

and management actions. The National 

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; Museum of Northern Arizona; 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); USGS 

Biological Resources Division, Colorado 

Plateau Field Station, NAU; Coconino 

Plateau Natural Reserve Lands (CPNRL, 

formerly Babbitt Ranches); city of 

Flagstaff; Arizona State Lands Department; 

Coconino County; Natural Resources 

Conservation Services; and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Agencies that the 

monument staff periodically keep 

informed-depending on the issue-include 

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 Source 

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. 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

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, 

energy-efficient lighting
PURPOSE AND NEED 

21

Desired Condition Source 

and appliances, and 

renewable energy 

technologies. Energyefficient construction 

projects are used as an 

educational opportunity 

for the visiting public. 

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 

Land Protection 

One private inholding exists in Walnut 

Canyon National Monument, a tract of 

290.84 acres owned by Warren and Joan 

Smith of Flagstaff, Arizona. This tract is the 

site of the Santa Fe dam and reservoir built 

by the Santa Fe Railroad Company before 

the turn of the century. Included in the 

290.84 acres is a 50-foot strip of land in the 

canyon bottom that provided access from 

the main railroad line to the dam and 

comprises about 14 acres. The private 

parcel of land has been unused since the 

monument was established, with the 

exception of minor repair on a historic 

dam. The dam is listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Any economic 

values associated with the tract would be 

greatly enhanced through the 

improvement of access and development 

of a source of water. The current 

landowner is planning some improvements 

to facilitate restoring the historic dam and 

reestablishing a reservoir. These 

improvements could include a road and 

water well. With improved access and 

available water, this tract will have 

development potential as residential 

and/or commercial property. Although 

much of the tract is steep canyon slope or 

canyon bottom, the rims of the canyon 

offer acceptable building sites. 

A land protection plan prepared for 

Walnut Canyon in March 1990 identified 

fee acquisition of the inholding as the 

preferred method of protection. It found 

that there are no private uses of the 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

22

inholding that would be compatible with 

park management objectives (identified in 

that plan as preservation of the historic 

scene and natural resource values). The 

park mission goal applicable to land 

protection is "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." 

However, until such time as the inholding 

can be purchased, the National Park 

Service recognizes that this inholding is 

private land and respects the rights of this 

landowner. 

Desired Condition Source 

Land protection plans are 

developed and periodically 

reviewed and updated for 

each park containing 

nonfederal lands or interests 

that may be subject to 

acquisition. Land acquisition 

is guided by a park's land 

protection plan. The plans 

identify the alternative 

methods that will provide 

for the protection of 

resources, for visitor use, 

and for development; 

identify the minimum 

interests necessary for those 

purposes; and establish 

priorities for acquisition of 

land or interests in land. 

NPS 

Management 

Policies; NPS 

Land 

Acquisition 

Policy 

Implementation 

Guideline (NPS25); the 

Department of 

the Interior's 

"Policy for the 

Federal Portion 

of the Land and 

Water 

Conservation 

Fund" (FR 

47:19784); the 

NPS "Land 

Protection Plan 

Instructions" 

(FR 48:21121); 

the Uniform 

Relocation 

Assistance and 

Real Property 

Acquisition 

Policies Act (42 

USC 4601 et 

seq.); and 

Executive Order 

12630, 

"Governmental 

Actions and 

Desired Condition Source 

Interference 

with 

Constitutionally 

Protected 

Property 

Rights" 

Rights-of-Way and Telecommunication 

Infrastructure 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition Source 

Park resources or public 

enjoyment of the parks 

are not denigrated by 

nonconforming uses. 

Telecommunications 

Act; 16 USC 5; 16 

USC 79; 23 USC 317; 

36 CFR 14; NPS 

Management 

Policies; Director's 

Order 53A, Wireless 

Telecommunications 

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 or his 

representative and only 

if there is no 

practicable alternative 

to such use of NPS 

lands. 

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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

23

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. 

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. 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

24

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 

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? 

Visitors to Walnut Canyon listed seeing 

archeological ruins, looking at the scenery, 

and having an adventure as the most 

important reasons for visiting. The things 

that bothered visitors included the climb 

up the stairs, safety concerns, and 

inconsiderate visitors. When asked about 

what they would like to see changed, most 

visitors responded, "nothing." Things that 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

25

others did want changed included a trail 

to the canyon bottom, more trails and 

guided hikes, a reconstructed dwelling, 

and changes in the Island Trail, such as 

more railings, wider trails, a one-way trail, 

and water on the trail. Other visitors 

identified desired changes, including some 

type of "up" transportation and updated 

and expanded visitor center displays. 

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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

26

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. 

• 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 Walnut Canyon: 

• 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 

Preserving unfragmented habitats 

Maintaining natural geomorphic and soil 

formation processes 

Restoring fire-dependent ponderosa pine 

"park lands" above the canyon rim 

Preserving movement corridors and 

seasonal habitats for wildlife 

Protecting plant species diversity and the 

locally rich assemblage of plant 

communities 

Maintaining naturally functioning 

drainage systems within the side canyons 

Maintaining the integrity of natural 

systems for ecological research 

Excluding nonnative species

• Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive 

Species 

Protecting federally listed threatened 

and endangered species, "species of 

concern," and critical habitats, including 

the Mexican spotted owl 

Conserving other sensitive plants, 

animals, and unique habitats identified 

during the scoping process 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

27

• Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian 

Resources 

Preserving and restoring riparian 

vegetation and ephemeral pools along 

the Walnut Canyon floor 

Protecting seeps and springs in the side 

canyons 

Facility development and recreational 

impacts to the Walnut Canyon drainage 

system 

Facility development and recreational 

activities in potential flashflood areas

• 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 

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 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

28

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 Walnut 

Canyon 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 woodburning 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. Air quality impacts from 

prescribed burning will be addressed in a 

forthcoming fire management plan and 

environmental assessment. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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 to lined 

evaporative lagoons. None of the existing 

or proposed facilities would be located in 

the vicinity of regulated surface waters or 

aquifer recharge areas. The nearest 

reliable aquifer beneath these facilities is 

at least 1,500 feet deep. The NPS would 

follow established policy requiring the use 

of water-conserving technology and 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

29

environmentally friendly products. 

Although public visitation and motor 

vehicle use are expected to increase during 

the next 20 years, the level of incidental 

hydrocarbon runoff 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. 

Geologic Resources 

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 

geologic resources. Impacts to soils, 

intermittent drainage systems, and 

hydrogeology are assessed separately in 

the Environmental Consequences section. 

NPS national policy prohibits the surface 

mining of soil, gravel, cinder, or rock 

materials for any park operations 

purposes, including the construction of 

roads or facilities. Under any of the 

proposed management alternatives for 

Walnut Canyon National Monument, most 

modifications to access roads and facilities 

would be limited to existing disturbed 

areas and would not likely require blasting 

or other modification of bedrock geology. 

Walnut Canyon was carved by stream 

erosion through the Kaibab Limestone and 

Coconino Sandstone formations. 

Paleontological resources are exposed in 

the limestone walls of the canyon. These 

have been documented in studies and are 

primarily small mollusk, brachiopod, and 

bivalve fossils. While there are a few 

documented incidents of illegal removal of 

fossils, they are believed to receive 

adequate protection by the NPS and to 

have little market value. The potential 

impacts to surface geologic outcrops from 

road or facility construction, visitor 

activities, or NPS operations would be 

negligible. For these reasons, the proposed 

action and all alternatives are deemed to 

have a negligible impact upon geologic 

resources, and are excluded from further 

environmental analysis. 

OUTSTANDING PARK VALUES 

AND RESOURCE CONCERNS 

Walnut Canyon National Monument and 

the area immediately surrounding the 

monument contains hundreds of 

archeological sites dating mostly to the 

11th, 12th, and early 13th centuries A.D. 

These sites and associated artifacts are the 

tangible remains of a prehistoric culture 

that flourished in the Flagstaff region 

from about A.D. 600 until 1400. 

Archeologists call this culture "Sinagua," 

in reference to the early Spanish name for 

this highland region, "Sierra Sinagua" 

(Mountain Range without Water). 

Scattered Sinagua families farmed the 

upland areas around Walnut Canyon for 

centuries, growing small gardens of corn, 

squash, and beans. Beginning in the late 

1000s, however, the population grew 

significantly. By the mid-1100s, many 

people had moved into limestone alcoves 

below the canyon rim, where they 

constructed substantial dwellings with 

locally available stone and clay. Growing 

crops at scattered plots in the surrounding 

forest, raising children, making stone tools 

and other implements, and following the 

ancient ceremonial cycles that had been 

passed down for generations, the Walnut 

Canyon community thrived for about 150 

years. Today, Walnut Canyon preserves a 

portion of the once extensive Sinagua 

cultural landscape. Multiroom residential 

sites (both cliff dwellings and open-air 

pueblos), isolated field structures, "forts," 

quarries, agricultural fields, shrines, rock 

art, and other features are now protected 

within the monument. 

The dense concentration of prehistoric 

ruins, their exceptional state of 

preservation, and their unusual and highly 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

30

scenic setting in sheltered alcoves along 

the canyon walls, coupled with the threat 

of imminent destruction by commercial 

looters and misguided tourists, were key 

factors influencing the creation of Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. These 

original core values persist to the present 

day, and the archeological sites in the 

monument retain a high degree of 

integrity. Approximately 40 of the more 

than 240 archeological sites in the 

monument have been stabilized to some 

degree, but many retain substantial 

amounts of original masonry architecture 

and a more or less complete assemblage of 

artifacts. 

The site density in the monument averages 

almost 100 sites per square mile, compared 

with typical densities of 40 sites per square 

mile in other areas of the ponderosa pine 

forest near Flagstaff. The high site density 

in Walnut Canyon reflects the area's 

biological richness in general. The canyon's 

natural abundance and diversity of plant 

and animal species provided a storehouse 

of resources that sustained the prehistoric 

inhabitants of Walnut Canyon. 

Spanish explorers named the mountainous 

region around Flagstaff "Sierra Sinagua" 

for good reason. In a region renowned for 

its paucity of natural water sources, the 

deep pools and historically more reliable 

flows of Walnut Creek made this canyon 

singularly rare and valuable, even without 

the addition of its archeological treasures. 

The riparian values of Walnut Canyon have 

been severely altered, particularly by two 

upstream (Upper and Lower Lake Mary) 

dams. The downstream Santa Fe dam 

further affects the system, although to a 

much lesser degree. Collectively, these 

dams have greatly decreased seasonal 

water flows within the canyon, modified 

sediment transport, and decreased 

available moisture. These effects have 

combined to modify the natural 

distribution of native riparian species, 

including box elder, willows, cottonwoods, 

and Arizona walnut trees (for which the 

canyon was named). Nevertheless, the 

comparative abundance of moisture in the 

canyon from remaining springs and seeps, 

relative to the surrounding uplands, 

continues to sustain a highly diverse and 

unusually abundant mix of plant and 

animal species. 

The varying exposures and elevations of 

Walnut Canyon, combined with seasonally 

abundant water compressed along a 

relatively narrow band within a larger 

expanse of ponderosa pine forest creates a 

natural biological "hot spot"-a 

concentrated area of biological 

productivity. Several different ecological 

communities overlap within Walnut 

Canyon, mixing species that are usually 

separated by elevation and creating a 

diverse assortment of microhabitats. 

Today, Walnut Canyon supports a wide 

diversity of animals and plants, including 

important large ungulates such as 

antelope, deer, and elk, large predators 

such as black bear and mountain lion, 

numerous raptors, and spotted owls, and 

an unusual assortment of plants. The 

linear expanse of Walnut Canyon also 

serves as an important wildlife migration 

corridor, linking the higher elevation 

forests around Lake Mary with the lower 

elevation pinyon and juniper woodlands 

to the east, as well as protecting strategic 

cross-canyon routes between Campbell 

and Anderson Mesas. 

Walnut Canyon's ancient dwellings and 

rich assortment of plants and animals hold 

traditional cultural importance for several 

American Indian tribes in the area. Several 

Hopi clans maintain specific ancestral 

claims to the dwelling sites in Walnut 

Canyon. Certain Navajo and Apache clans 

claim affiliation to ancestral Pueblo sites in 

general. Numerous plant species were 

traditionally used by Hopis, Yavapais, 

Navajos, and Apache, and many of these 

plants continue to have importance for 

medicinal and ceremonial purposes. Today, 
PURPOSE AND NEED 

31

several culturally important plant species 

are found in much greater abundance 

within the monument than anywhere 

outside of it. 

The scenic qualities of Walnut Canyon 

cannot be divorced from other values; 

nevertheless, the stunning views provided 

by the canyon continue to have 

importance to visitors and local residents. 

For as long as Euro-American settlers have 

lived in the Flagstaff area, Walnut Canyon 

has been a scenic and recreational 

attraction for local residents and out-oftown visitors alike. This attraction 

continues to the present day. As Flagstaff 

continues to grow, the scenic and 

recreational value of Walnut Canyon as a 

relatively natural and undisturbed oasis on 

the edge of an urban setting will grow 

accordingly. Integrating future plans for 

this area within the broader regional 

Flagstaff Open Space Greenway plan is key 

to ensuring its long-term preservation.
33

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 Wupatki 

included: rolling grassland, flat grassland, 

juniper woodland, basalt mesas, shallow 

valley, canyons, cinder cone, Doney Cliffs, 

tilted benches, Painted Desert, Little 

Colorado River floodplain, washes, 

Wupatki Basin, lava flows, and cinder 

dunes. 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 with no public support. 

For example, spotted owl protected 

activity centers (PACs) were mapped and 

development was not considered in those 

areas in order to protect the owls. 

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 

and Need, Decide What Might Be 

Achieved section). For all three Flagstaff 

Area monuments, potential management 

zones were identified and then applied for 
ALTERNATIVES 

34

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 nine zones applicable to Wupatki 

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. 

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 
ALTERNATIVES 

35

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 

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. 

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. 

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 
ALTERNATIVES 

36

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. 

NATURAL AREA RECREATION ZONE 

Resource Condition or Character 

Designated trails could be paved and 

trailside resources manipulated to provide 

for safety or to prevent impacts off of the 

trail (e.g., erosion). However, such 

management actions would be aimed 

primarily at prevention of secondary 

impacts and not at trail improvements. 

There would be a low tolerance for 

resource degradation in these areas. 

Visitor Experience 

Emphasis in these areas would be on 

recreating in a natural setting, therefore, 

trails would be made of natural or naturalappearing materials. Visitors would be 

directed to use and stay on designated 

trails. There would be a moderate 

probability of encountering other visitors. 

A moderate amount of off-site 

interpretive media would be available, but 

there would not be any on-site 

interpretation in these areas. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities 

Facilities, including trails, would be 

primitive and lie lightly on the land. 

Improvements would only be made to 

prevent secondary impacts and provide the 

minimum safety required for natural 

setting recreation. Trails would be 

designed to accommodate a variety of 

exercise pursuits that can vary from 

activities on foot to bicycles and 

horseback; the area would not include 

motorized conveniences. 

Telecommunication infrastructure would 

not be permitted in this zone. 

OVERVIEW 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. 
ALTERNATIVES 

37

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. 

Boundary Expansion Criteria 

WALNUT CANYON 

As previously noted, Walnut Canyon 

National Monument was established by 

Presidential Proclamation in1915 to 

preserve "prehistoric ruins of ancient cliff 

dwellings ... that "are of great ethnologic, 

scientific, and educational interest ... with 

as much land as may be necessary for the 

proper protection thereof." The 

monument was enlarged by Presidential 

Proclamation in 1938. In 1965, Public Land 

Order 1269 withdrew additional land for 

the specific purpose of constructing an 

entrance road to the park. In 1996, Public 

Law 104-333 expanded the boundaries of 

the park to include additional natural and 

cultural resources that directly contribute 

to the purpose and significance of the 

park. This most recent addition was the 

result of a 6,700-acre expansion proposed 

by the National Parks and Conservation 

Association and a local support group 

(Friends of Walnut Canyon) in the late 

1980s and early 1990s. The legislation 

added 1,277 acres, previously administered 

by the Coconino National Forest and 53 

acres of private land. It also confirmed the 

monument has administrative jurisdiction 

on the 370-acre entrance road. The park 

currently occupies approximately 3,600 

acres immediately adjacent to the 

corporate limits of the city of Flagstaff, 

Arizona, and is entirely surrounded by the 

Coconino National Forest. There are 

approximately 291 acres of private land 

within the monument. The acreage is 

located on the east side, and only one 

landowner is involved. 

During the course of this planning process 

and as specified in Section 604 of the 

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 

(16 U.S.C. 1a-5 et seq.), careful 

consideration was given to the expansion 

of boundaries at Walnut Canyon. 

Authority for modifying park boundaries is 

contained in the Land and Water 
ALTERNATIVES 

38

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 

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. 

A boundary expansion assessment 

determined that both natural and cultural 

resources that contribute to the purpose 

and significance of the monument still 

remain outside current monument 

boundaries. However, further expansion of 

existing boundaries at Walnut Canyon was 

not recommended at this time, because 

any further expansion efforts would 

unreasonably complicate the management 

and land use planning on adjoining lands, 

administered by other agencies. The 

Coconino National Forest is currently 

involved in a Flagstaff Lake Mary 

Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA), a planning 

process that addresses public uses on 

national forest land immediately 

surrounding the monument. The city of 

Flagstaff has recently produced and is 

implementing recommendations from an 

Open Space and Greenway Plan (1998), 

and is in the process of developing a 

Regional Land Use and Transportation 

Plan (1999 and 2001) that will address 

population growth issues adjacent to the 

park on the west side. Further, Coconino 

County is working on open space and 

preservation plans that will complement 

the management of Walnut Canyon. In 

addition, there are three sections of 

Arizona State Trust land located 

immediate west and northwest of the park 

that if developed for residential or 

commercial purposes, could have an 

adverse impact on park resources and 

negatively influence the health of the 

canyon ecosystem. Currently, however, 

these lands are being nominated for 

inclusion under the Arizona Preserve 

Initiative. Efforts are also under way to get 

the state committed to managing their 

adjacent lands in a manner that would be 

compatible with the monument. Because 

of these efforts an alternative that 

identified the expansion of boundaries 

was not included in the general 

management plan. 

There are, however, a number of 

circumstances that, if they were to occur, 

would require the National Park Service to 

reconsider the boundary expansion needs 

at Walnut Canyon. They include: (1) a 

change in ability or commitment by 

Coconino National Forest regarding the 

interface of USFS lands with the city of 

Flagstaff, (2) a change in the City of 

Flagstaff's commitment to limit 

development within the existing Urban 

Growth Boundary and to effectively 

manage density development along that 

boundary, and (3) a change in land use or 

the sale or exchange of State Trust lands 

that would result in residential or 

commercial development of these adjacent 

lands. Should any of these situations occur, 

or should there be a degradation of lands 

adjacent to and which contain resources 

that contribute to the significance of 

Walnut Canyon, the subject of boundary 

expansion will be reconsidered. 

In presenting a discussion regarding 

boundary expansions, it is important to 

note that an effort is being undertaken by 

the National Parks and Conservation 

Association and the Friends of Walnut 

Canyon to seek a boundary expansion of 

the park through congressional action. 
ALTERNATIVES 

39

Their goal is to complete the proposal that 

they presented in the late 1980s and early 

1990s that was only partially addressed 

with the expansion in 1996. The boundary 

expansion proposed by these 

organizations would certainly ensure the 

protection of significant resources that 

exist between the city of Flagstaff's Urban 

Growth Boundary and Walnut Canyon 

proper. 

The park's land protection plan (NPS 1990) 

recommends acquisition of the existing 

inholding within the park, and the owner 

has expressed willingness to consider NPS 

acquisition through exchange, or purchase 

by the NPS. The NPS is currently working 

toward this goal, but water rights issues 

and archeological values are complicating 

the negotiations. In the past, the owner 

has expressed an interest in developing 

the property for recreational purposes, 

primarily fishing, and is interested in 

constructing a private residence on the rim 

of the canyon. However, the NPS believes 

the landowner is now fully aware of the 

implications that any such activities would 

have on the protection and preservation 

of the parks significant natural and 

cultural resources. 

Actions Common to All 

Alternatives 

Short-range planning is underway 

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, and 

Resources Management Plan, and in local 

action plans to resolve safety, accessibility, 

facility maintenance, and similar issues. 

PARTNERSHIPS AND REGIONAL 

PLANNING 

All alternatives presented recognize the 

opportunity for partnerships for the 

protection of cultural and natural 

resources, with the USFS, the State of 

Arizona, Coconino County, the city of 

Flagstaff, and private landowners. It is 

anticipated that, for the life of this plan, 

USFS lands surrounding Walnut Canyon 

National Monument will continue under 

USFS management, in accordance with 

decisions reached in the Flagstaff Lake 

Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) process, 

but the two agencies will actively 

coordinate a variety of activities. There will 

be increased emphasis on monitoring 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. 

The monument's proximity to the city 

limits of Flagstaff will require close 

coordination with city and county 

planning efforts to ensure preservation of 

park resources and values. Conversely, 

both the city and county recognize the 

value of NPS participation in the 

preparation, review, and implementation 

of the Flagstaff Open Spaces and 

Greenways Plan, the Flagstaff Area 

Regional Land Use and Transportation 

Plan, and similar efforts, to achieve mutual 

goals. 

INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS 

Planning and design of new wayside and 

museum exhibits is in progress, in 

accordance with the Flagstaff Areas 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, to 

improve visitor understanding and 

appreciation of Walnut Canyon resources. 

New wayside exhibits will replace and 

expand the existing system of interpretive 

signs along the entrance road and at 

major existing visitor use areas. New 

museum exhibits will replace the outdated 
ALTERNATIVES 

40

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. 

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. The Rim Trail will be improved 

to provide access at least to the canyon 

overlook, a pithouse, and a pueblo for 

those with mobility impairments. 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. 

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. 

DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

recently designated critical habitat for the 

Mexican spotted owl within Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. Any 

proposed developments other than 

nonconsumptive recreation use will 

require consultation with USFWS under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

INHOLDING 

There is a parcel of private land within the 

monument of approximately 291 acres. 

This inholding has been identified as 

desirable for acquisition in the 

monument's Land Protection Plan due to 

the presence of archeological and 

ecological resources that are integral to 

the significance and purpose of the 

monument. 

EXISTING HOUSING AND 

MAINTENANCE 

Existing housing and maintenance facilities 

will be retained in all alternatives. 

BACKCOUNTRY MANAGEMENT 

The backcountry of Walnut Canyon 

National Monument (defined as all areas 

beyond designated roads, trails, or 

developed facilities within the monument) 

has been closed to unguided entry for 

many years, and this policy will continue in 

all alternatives. Note, however, that some 

alternatives designate new roads and trails 

and conditions for their use by visitors. 

A temporary exception has been made for 

the lands acquired in the 1996 boundary 

expansion, where most existing 

recreational uses have been allowed to 

continue, pending boundary surveys and 

resource inventories. The boundaries of 

these new lands will be fenced and signed, 

and appropriate recreational uses and 

locations will be determined in the future. 

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Walnut Canyon National Monument is 

seven miles east of Flagstaff and is reached 

via a three-mile paved entrance road from 

I-40 (see Existing Conditions map). The 
ALTERNATIVES 

41

entrance station is located 1/4 mile north 

of the visitor center. There are three small 

picnic areas along the entrance road and 

another larger one near the visitor center. 

Walnut Canyon National Monument 

preserves a portion of a once active 

prehistoric community. The shelter 

provided by the natural alcoves in the 

steep canyon walls and the diversity of 

flora and fauna were attractive to the 

people who lived here then just as they 

are to us today. The current management 

provides the public with a glimpse of the 

remnants of this community while 

protecting its sensitive features. 

Walnut Canyon is operated as a day-use 

area, and the visitor center parking area is 

closed and gated at night. FR303 and 

other U.S. Forest Service roads allow 24-

hour access to USFS lands surrounding the 

monument. Entrance fees are required at 

the monument; access is limited to 

established trails, roadways, and 

developed facilities. Areas not designated 

and identified for public activities are 

closed to unguided entry. 

The road terminates in a parking area at 

the visitor center, which contains an 

information/fee collection desk, exhibits, a 

bookstore, and an observation room with 

a panoramic view. Maintenance facilities 

and park housing are located nearby. 

Additional details regarding the current 

use and development of the monument 

can be found in the Affected Environment, 

Operational Efficiency section. 

Orientation and interpretation are 

accomplished primarily through the visitor 

center and the self-guided Island and Rim 

Trails. The Island Trail descends 185 feet 

into the canyon, passing six cliff dwellings 

with a total of 25 rooms. Many other cliff 

dwellings are visible across the canyon 

from the Island Trail. This strenuous 0.9-

mile round trip is one of the best ways to 

experience the park. The fairly level 0.7-

mile Rim Trail provides canyon views and 

access to a pithouse and a surface pueblo. 

Various interpretive programs, including 

guided hikes to the historic ranger cabin 

and additional cliff dwellings, are offered 

as staffing permits. 

Accessible rest rooms are located at the 

visitor center. The Rim Trail is currently 

partially accessible, but other trails are not, 

due to terrain. 

The monument boundary was expanded in 

1996 to include approximately 1,300 

additional acres. The NPS would survey the 

new boundary and inventory natural and 

cultural resources. After this is done, 

consideration would be given to 

continuation of traditional, 

nonconsumptive, recreational activities in 

appropriate areas. 

The NPS and USFS work cooperatively in 

the areas of law enforcement, wildland 

fire, resource protection and management, 

interpretation, and facility management 

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 sharing 

of equipment and staffing, administration 

of special use permits, research permits, 

and a variety of other activities. 

Visitor satisfaction with the current park 

experience is high, as measured by the 

2000 Visitor Survey Card responses 

(Machlis 2000). The survey showed that 

95% of visitors were satisfied with 

opportunities for "learning about nature, 

history or culture" and 81% were satisfied 

with "sightseeing opportunities." Ninetyeight percent were satisfied with outdoor 

recreation (camping, bicycling, boating, 

hiking, etc.) opportunities. 
ALTERNATIVES 

42

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

GENERAL CONCEPT 

The goal of this alternative is to provide 

more diverse visitor experiences and access 

to more of the park (see Alternative 1 

map), including areas acquired in the 1996 

boundary expansion. This alternative 

emphasizes easier access to different parts 

of the monument, in order to decrease 

congestion at the visitor center and on the 

Island Trail. There would be more choices 

and opportunities for different types of 

visitor experiences. A variety of motorized 

and nonmotorized activities would be 

spread across the area north of the canyon 

rim. A new scenic drive would be 

developed along the north rim to disperse 

use to a new area and provide different 

views of the canyon. A portion of an 

existing USFS road would be used to link 

to the new scenic drive. 

The existing visitor center would be 

remodeled to accommodate more visitor 

use by removing administrative offices. 

Parking would be redesigned and 

relocated away from the canyon rim, and 

visitors would walk a short trail to the 

canyon edge. The park would remain dayuse only, with the road gated at night at 

the intersection of the entrance road and 

FR303. Installation of an entrance 

station/fee collection facility near the I-40 

intersection would be considered. 

This alternative responds to public input 

regarding the need for increased 

sightseeing from automobiles; for hiking, 

biking, and horseback access; and for 

improved balance among various public 

uses. This alternative also responds to the 

concern that visitor use exceeds facility 

design capacity. 

KEY ACTIONS 

• The existing entrance road and picnic 

areas would remain, but parking and 

orientation would be redesigned and 

relocated away from the canyon rim. 

Visitors would walk a short trail to the 

canyon and the existing visitor center. 

The existing parking area would be 

kept for handicapped and 

administrative parking only. The park 

would remain day-use only, with the 

road gated at night at the intersection 

of the entrance road and FR303. 

• Offices would be removed from the 

visitor center, and the building would 

be remodeled to allow more space for 

visitor orientation, new exhibits, and 

group presentations. New 

administrative offices would be 

constructed near the new parking area. 

• An existing primitive USFS road would 

be substantially upgraded and new 

road segments would be constructed to 

provide a new scenic drive along the 

north rim. Initially, this would be a 

semiprimitive guided experience until 

improvements to existing dirt roads 

could be accomplished. 

• A new pullout and/or turnaround 

would be constructed at the park 

entrance near the I-40 exit, and might 

include an entrance station/fee 

collection facility. New wayside exhibits 

at this location would better orient and 

prepare park visitors before they 

encounter park resources. Additional 

orientation media would be installed 

at the new parking area near the 

visitor center to alert visitors to the 

diverse experiences available (walking, 

driving, biking, guided hikes). 

• In addition to the existing visitor 

center, self-guided trails, and rangerled hikes, guided tours to the recently 

acquired First Fort archeological area 

would be possible via the new north 

rim scenic drive. Additional guided 

activities would occur in areas of the 

north rim. Interpretation and new 

wayside exhibits along the entrance 

and rim roads would provide the 

opportunity to learn about different 
ALTERNATIVES 

43

aspects of the park and its place in the 

regional story. 

• Hiking, biking, and horseback riding 

would occur on existing roads and 

trails on the rim, in western portions of 

the newly acquired lands. 

• Areas of the park not zoned for 

administrative or visitor use would be 

closed to protect resources. 

Alternative 2 (Preferred): 

Emphasize Preservation 

GENERAL CONCEPT 

This alternative would preserve untrailed 

expanses, unfragmented natural systems, 

and relatively pristine resource conditions 

throughout much of the park (see 

Alternative 2 map). Walnut Canyon would 

be protected as a critical wildlife corridor. 

Visitation to Walnut Canyon would be 

managed with the goal of providing 

quality learning opportunities in a quieter, 

more intimate historic atmosphere. This 

alternative would provide a glimpse of the 

remnants of the prehistoric community 

and canyon flora and fauna, while 

protecting sensitive features and 

maintaining the health of the canyon 

ecosystem. Preservation and protection of 

threatened and endangered species, 

preservation of riparian habitat, and 

maintenance of the long-term integrity of 

systems and natural processes would be 

emphasized. 

Because past management of Walnut 

Canyon has worked well, this alternative 

explores ways to keep future visitor 

experience and resource protection 

comparable to today's, by providing better 

ways to handle any increased visitation. 

The natural soundscape and tranquil 

setting of the canyon would be enhanced 

by removing some facilities from the rim 

area and placing them in a relatively less 

sensitive area near I-40. The park would 

remain day-use only, with the road gated 

at night near I-40 and at FR303. Ticketing, 

reservation, or shuttle systems could be 

implemented in the future to alleviate 

traffic congestion and maintain quality 

visitor experiences. The new visitor center 

and parking lot would be designed to 

include collection of entrance fees and to 

be readily adaptable for shuttle system use 

if needed in the future. Current 

recreational uses in the western end of the 

monument would be redirected to nearby 

USFS lands. 

Consistent with this concept, efforts would 

be made to provide a broader range of 

educational offerings. Some of these 

experiences would be provided through 

partnerships with other agencies or 

organizations. The ratio of visitors to 

educators would be kept low to provide 

for a personalized experience. Compared 

with the No-Action Alternative, more 

ranger-guided tours would be offered to 

archeological sites. Acquisition of private 

land in the park would facilitate providing 

this alternative's visitor experiences. 

 KEY ACTIONS 

• The existing entrance road and parking 

area would be retained and used as 

they are now unless crowding increases 

to the point that visitor experiences 

and/or resources are degraded. Then 

actions would be taken to control 

visitor numbers. 

• A new fully accessible visitor center and 

parking area would be built near I-40 

at the park entrance, to orient visitors 

before they encounter park resources, 

and to collect entrance fees. Visitation 

numbers could be managed from this 

location when necessary. 

• The modern additions to the existing 

historic Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC)-constructed visitor center would 

be removed, making the building less 

visible on the rim and restoring the 

small, intimate nature of the historic 

structure. The remaining portion would 

be adaptively used for both trailhead 
ALTERNATIVES 

44

and canyon orientation and as an 

educational center for more in-depth 

learning opportunities, such as ranger 

talks, special events, workshops, 

seminars, demonstrations, and so on. 

• Three gates would be located along 

the entrance road: one near the I-40 

exit and one on each side of FR303, to 

eliminate after-hours access to the 

monument road while allowing 24-

hour use of FR303. 

• Within the Extended Learning Zone, 

self-guided trails and ranger-led 

activities in the vicinity of the current 

visitor center would remain as they are 

now. The potential exists to develop 

self-guided activities using existing 

primitive roads to the ranger cabin 

area. Efforts would be made through 

development of new media to provide 

a broader range of educational and 

interpretive programs aimed at indepth learning. Some of these 

experiences would be provided 

through partnerships with affiliated 

tribes, organizations, institutions, 

and/or other agencies. 

• Visitors would have access to the 

eastern end of the park via rangerguided hikes. An existing USFS road 

would be upgraded and used 

administratively to facilitate these 

guided activities. A parking area would 

be established within the monument 

from which the guided hikes would be 

staged. 

• Visitors desiring hiking, biking, or 

horseback riding experiences would be 

directed to nearby forest land, where 

such experiences are already available. 

• Areas of the park not zoned for visitor 

or administrative uses would be closed 

to protect resources. 

ALTERNATIVES 

46

ALTERNATIVES 

49

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 

using 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. Silt removal would be 

accomplished in such a way as to avoid 

introduction into any wetlands or flowing 

water bodies. 

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 
ALTERNATIVES 

50

blasting would use the minimum amount 

necessary to accomplish the task. All 

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. 
ALTERNATIVES 

51

The flow of vehicle traffic on roads would 

be maintained as much as possible during 

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 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 
ALTERNATIVES 

52

for each alternative versus advantages 

provided were compared and analyzed. 

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 

estimate are general, in keeping with the 

general nature of GMP alternatives, and 

should be used for comparison purposes 

only. 

Table 1: Summary of Comparative Costs 

(FY 2000 Dollars) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

(Preferred) 

Initial 

Development 

Costs 

$3,531,000 $ 2,687,000 

Total Life 

Cycle Costs 

(Present 

Worth) 

$4,447,000 $3,945,000 

Selection of the preferred alternative 

considers the advantages provided by each 

alternative (from the CBA) as compared to 

the cost of the alternative. The chart 

below summarizes the results. Alternative 

2 provides the greatest advantages and is 

the lowest cost. Alternative 1 provides a 

slightly more diverse Visitor experience, 

but had substantially less resource 

protection.
ALTERNATIVES 

53

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 

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 Walnut 

Choosing by Advantages

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000

INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Net)

A

D

VA

N

TA

G

E

R

ATIN

G

Alternative 2 

280

Alternative 1 

100
ALTERNATIVES 

54

Canyon 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 two 

archeological interpretive areas (Island and 

Rim trails and at ranger cabin). Resource 

protection patrols are even less frequent 

on the south side of the canyon. The 

majority of visitors to the park see the two 

archeological areas on their own with no 

on-site NPS presence. The ranger cabin 

area is by guided tour only. For resource 

protection purposes, areas of the park 

other than the developed sites and 

administrative areas are closed to 

unguided entry. Since the No-Action 

Alternative maintains the Mission 66 

visitor experience, diversity of educational 

opportunities is limited. Protection of 

cultural and natural resources would be 

less enhanced than under Alternative 2. 

Visitor opportunities would not be as 

diverse as under Alternative 1. The NoAction Alternative does not fully realize 

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

Alternative 1 provides more diverse visitor 

experience and access to more of the park 

to decrease congestion at the visitor center 

and on the Island Trail meeting goals 3 

and 5 of the National Environment Policy 

Act. A variety of motorized and 

nonmotorized activities would be spread 

across the area north of the canyon rim. 

Parking would be redesigned and 

relocated away from the canyon rim, and 

visitors would walk a short trail to the 

canyon edge. The park would remain dayuse only, with the road gated at night at 

the intersection of the entrance road and 

FR303. Gating the road may disrupt 

recreational use of the road (such as biking 

and jogging) and may affect access to 

grazing allotments, not fully realizing goal 

4. The existing visitor center would be 

remodeled to accommodate more visitor 

use by removing administrative offices, 

and a new scenic drive would be 

developed along the north rim to disperse 

use to a new area and provide different 

views of the canyon. Construction of a 

scenic drive in the east end of the park 

would fragment wildlife habitat, not 

meeting goal 6 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Areas of the 

park not zoned for administrative or 

visitor use would remain closed to protect 

resources, partially realizing goal 6. As 

compared to the No-Action Alternative 

and Alternative 2, Alternative 1 meets 

goals 3 and 5 by providing more diverse 

visitor experiences, and partially realizes 

goals 4 and 6. Protection of natural and 

cultural resources would not be as 

enhanced as under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 would preserve untrailed 

expanses, unfragmented natural systems, 

and relatively pristine resource conditions 

throughout much of the park. Walnut 

Canyon would be protected as a critical 

wildlife corridor, meeting goal 6 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Visitation to the park would be managed 

with the goal of providing quality learning 

opportunities in an intimate atmosphere 

while maintaining the health of the 

canyon ecosystem. Preservation and 

protection of threatened and endangered 

species, preservation of riparian habitat, 

and maintenance of the long-term 

integrity of systems and natural processes 

would be emphasized. Efforts would be 

made to provide a broader range of 

educational programs (ranger guided 

hikes in the east end of the park and a 

self-guided trail to ranger cabin), partially 

realizing goals 3 and 5 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The park 

entrance road would be gated at night, 

while allowing 24-hour use of FR303. 

Gating the road may disrupt recreational 

use of the road (such as biking and 

jogging) and may affect access to grazing 

allotments, not fully realizing goal 4. 

Compared with the No-Action Alternative 

and Alternative 1, Alternative 2 provides 
ALTERNATIVES 

55

the greatest protection to the cultural and 

natural resources of the park. 

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 2. Alternative 2 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 resources 

or natural resources, or better enhance 

visitor experience, Alternative 2 overall 

does (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. 
Table 2: Summary of Alternatives 

No-Action Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversity Opportunities 

for Visitor Use 

Alternative 2 (Pre

Preser

Under the No-Action Alternative visitors would continue to access Walnut Canyon would via a three-mile paved entrance road from I-40 and the entrance station 1/4 mile north of the visitor center. The three small picnic areas along the entrance road and another larger one near the visitor center would remain. The public would continue to be provided with a glimpse of the remnants of a once-active prehistoric community while protecting its sensitive features. The monument would continue to be operated as a day-use area, and the visitor center parking area would be closed and gated at night. Entrance fees would continue to be collected at the monument and access would continue to be limited to established trails, roadways, and developed facilities. Areas not designated and identified for public activities would remain closed to unguided entry. The road terminates in a parking area at the visitor center, which contains an information/fee collection desk, exhibits, a bookstore, and an observation room with a panoramic view. These facilities would continue to be available. Location of maintenance facilities and park housing would remain unchanged. Orientation and interpretation would continue to be accomplished via the visitor center and the self-guided Island and Rim Trails. Various interpretive programs, including guided hikes to the historic ranger cabin and additional cliff dwellings, would continue to be offered as staffin

g

permits. The 

Under Alternative 1, the existing entrance road and picnic areas would remain, but parking and orientation would be redesigned and relocated away from the canyon rim. Visitors would walk a short trail to the canyon and the existing visitor center. The existing parking area would be kept for handicapped and administrative parking only. The park would remain dayuse only, with the road gated at night at the intersection of the entrance road and FR303. Offices would be removed from the visitor center, and the building would be remodeled to allow more space for visitor orientation, new exhibits, and group presentations. New administrative offices would be constructed near the new parking area. An existing primitive USFS road would be substantially upgraded and new road segments would be constructed to provide a new scenic drive along the north rim. Initially, this would be a semiprimitive guided experience until improvements to existing dirt roads could be accomplished. A new pullout and/or turnaround would be constructed at the park entrance near the I40 exit, and might include an entrance station/fee collection facility. New wayside exhibits at this location would better orient and prepare park visitors before they encounter park resources. Additional orientation media would be installed at the new parking area near the visitor center to alert visitors to the diverse experiences available (walking, driving, biking,

guided 

Under Alternative 2, troad and parking area and used as they are nincreases to the point experiences and/or reThen actions would bvisitor numbers. A new visitor center and parbuilt near I-40 at the porient visitors before resources, and to colleVisitation numbers cothis location when neadditions to the existiConservation Corps (Cvisitor center would bthe building less visibrestoring the small, inhistoric structure. The would be adaptively utrailhead and canyon educational center for learning opportunitiespecial events, workshdemonstrations, and swould be located alonone near the I-40 exit of FR303, to eliminate the monument road wuse of FR303. Within tZone, self-guided traiactivities in the vicinitvisitor center would rnow. The potential ex

guided activities usin

g 
ALTERNATIVES 

58

Table 2: Summary of Alternatives 

No-Action Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversity Opportunities 

for Visitor Use 

Alternative 2 (Pre

Preser

monument boundary was expanded in 1996. The NPS would survey the new boundary and inventory natural and cultural resources. After this is done, consideration would be given to continuation of traditional, nonconsumptive, recreational activities in appropriate areas. The NPS and USFS would continue to work cooperatively in the areas of law enforcement, wildland fire, resource protection and management, interpretation, and facility management. 

hikes). In addition to the existing visitor center, self-guided trails, and ranger-led hikes, guided tours to the recently acquired First Fort archeological area would be possible via the new north rim scenic drive. Additional guided activities would occur in areas of the north rim. Interpretation and new wayside exhibits along the entrance and rim roads would provide the opportunity to learn about different aspects of the park and its place in the regional story. Hiking, biking, and horseback riding would occur on existing roads and trails on the rim, in western portions of the newly acquired lands. Areas of the park not zoned for administrative or visitor use would be closed to protect resources. 

roads to the ranger cawould be made throunew media to provide educational and interaimed at in-depth leaexperiences would be partnerships with affiorganizations, institutagencies. Visitors woueastern end of the pahikes. An existing USFupgraded and used adfacilitate these guided area would be establimonument from whicwould be staged. Visibiking, or horseback rwould be directed to where such experiencavailable. Areas of the visitor or administraticlosed to protect reso
Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

Archeological Resources The No-Action Alternative 

would have a major beneficial effect on maintaining the longterm integrity of the majority of archeological resources within the monument by concentrating visitor activities and park management impacts on previously disturbed and stabilized sites. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Alternative 1 would have a major long-term adverse effect on at least 20% of the archeological resources (60-70 archeological sites) in the monument. This adverse effect would be offset to some degree by benefits derived from visitors receiving more education and an enhanced appreciation of the resources from expanded interpretive media and from participating in guided adventures. However, the net effect would be a significant increase in the degradation of sensitive archeological resources caused by construction of the north rim scenic drive and the increased visitor access to backcountry resources, and the inevitable impacts that would result from increasing visitation to archeological sites. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of Alternative 1 would have a major long-term adverse effect on archeological resources in the monument. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Alternativmoderateeffects to archeologresult of imalternativoverall redarcheologsites, but the resourineligible National RPlaces. In mentionedother, less result of imalternativ
ALTERNATIVES 

60

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

Historic Character of Build Environment 

The No-Action Alternative would have minor to moderate long-term visual impacts on the prehistoric and CCC landscapes, and a long-term moderate, adverse impact on the CCC visitor center. There would be an overall reduction of integrity in the prehistoric and CCC 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, CCC or Mission 66 landscapes, in conjunction with the minor to moderate cumulative impacts of previous changes and this alternative, could result in moderate cumulative impacts to the prehistoric, CCC and Mission 66 landscapes. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Alternative 1 would have longterm moderate, adverse impacts on the prehistoric landscape and long-term moderate adverse impacts on the CCC/Mission 66 visitor center. There would be an overall reduction of historic integrity of the prehistoric landscape and the CCC/Mission 66 visitor center, but not to the extent that they would no longer be potentially eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Any future alterations to the prehistoric landscape or the visitor center, in conjunction with the moderate, adverse cumulative impacts of previous changes and this alternative could result in moderate, adverse cumulative impacts to the prehistoric landscape and the CCC/Mission 66 visitor center. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Alternative term modeon the preranger cabMission 66 this alternalong-term prehistoric removing tof the visitthe visual prehistoric There woumajor benecenter by rdeveloped intimate, rwould, howreduction othe landscaranger cab66), but nothey would to be listed Register of future altelandscapesthe adversprevious cpreferred ain major, aimpacts to addition to there wouimpacts as implement
Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

Ethnographic Resources The No-Action Alternative 

would perpetuate any current and ongoing moderate to major effects to ethnographic resources, both adverse and beneficial, including vandalism from visitor access, limitation of access by tribe members to culturally significant resources or places for traditional cultural purposes, both adverse effects, and a beneficial effect as a result of improving and correcting interpretive media about tribal histories and cultural values, with the involvement of associated tribes. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe effects of implementing this alternative. 

The effects of Alternative 1 would be both adverse and beneficial, depending on the degree of tribal involvement in park planning. The increased impacts to archeological sites as a result of building new facilities and allowing increased visitation to numerous additional sites would also constitute a major impairment to ethnographic resources. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe effects of implementing this alternative. 

Overall, thalternativbeneficial ethnograpadverse efarcheologremain. Fuwith the tthe impacresources are modermajor, and potential not constiethnograpaddition tthere wousevere effthis altern

Natural Systems and Processes 

Under the No-Action Alternative, natural systems and processes would be sustained with relatively few long-term adverse environmental impacts, except for those that are attributable to increasing visitation, historic land use, and regional watershed, airshed, and ecosystem degradation. Soils, intermittent drainage systems, vegetation, and wildlife are generally stable, and inherent biodiversity is relatively

Under Alternative 1, natural systems within Walnut Canyon National Monument would continue to recover from historic land use impacts. NPS operations and visitor activities around the existing northcentral canyon area, and fencing the 1996 boundary area would have similar impacts to those identified for the No-Action Alternative. The combined impact of the new road system, trail corridors, and dispersed 

Under Altsystems wNational Mcontinue thistoric laimpacts frand visitoexisting narea, contthe existinfencing thand closinexpansion activities w
ALTERNATIVES 

62

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

intact. The NPS would manage for the continued recovery of natural systems from historic land uses and restore fire to the ecosystem. No new visitor facilities would be developed, therefore avoiding related adverse impacts. Continued use of the entrance road would have negligible to long-term, minor adverse impacts to natural systems, with a greater degree of adverse impact to wildlife. NPS operations and visitor activities are causing long-term, minor adverse impacts around interpretive areas and support facilities within the north-central canyon rim area. Most of the area within the monument is closed to the general public to protect sensitive resources, which ensures the long-term integrity of natural systems and processes. Fencing the 1996 boundary expansion area would have long-term, moderate beneficial impacts to solitary wildlife species. The availability of the monument for public enjoyment might influence regional urban development around Flagstaff and cumulative impacts to regional natural 

hiking across the entire north canyon rim would magnify adverse impacts such as unplanned trail segments, soil compaction, vegetation trampling, localized erosion, spread of nonnative plants, and noise and disturbance to wildlife. Sustained daytime human presence and traffic noise along most of the north canyon rim would have longterm, moderate adverse impacts to solitary wildlife species within the narrow canyon. Some of the impact to wildlife would be mitigated by the nighttime closure of the monument. The new road and visitor use areas would also provide for dispersal of nonnative plant species virtually anywhere within the north rim area. Alternative 1 would result in long-term, moderate adverse cumulative impacts to natural systems and processes within the monument. The area impacted by NPS facilities and frequent visitor use would increase from 5% to an estimated 20% of the total area within the monument. Alternative 1 would result in no major impacts on natural systems and processes in Walnut 

those idenAction Altclosure of from I-40 tcenter wominor benwildlife. Tnew visitohave localadverse imsystems aHowever, would enamanagemcrowding, and resouthe north-area, offseconstructiIncreased activity wExtended the north-would havadverse imimproved canyon rim term, minmost aspeDependinand timing noise coulmoderate solitary spuse remot
Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

systems, but these impacts are believed to be negligible and considerably offset by the value of the monument as a long-term conservation area. Approximately 5% of the total monument area would remain impacted by visitor use and NPS support infrastructure. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Canyon National Monument. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Canyon. Vexpanded floor withGuided Adwould cauadverse imof natural depending frequency and access long-termimpacts on species. Esin the east result in loadverse cuthe WalnuThe area ifacilities aincrease frestimated within the remaining monumenrecognizePreservatihave longbeneficial systems aaddition tthere wousevere effimplemen
ALTERNATIVES 

64

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

There are six threatened/sensitive plant species and six threatened/sensitive animal species that are either known or could potentially occur within the monument. Vegetation and wildlife habitat would continue to recover from historic land uses. Monitoring programs are needed to routinely assess the distribution and status of sensitive species, and to ensure they are not impacted by visitor use and NPS operations. Approximately 95% of the area within the monument remains closed to general public access. The backcountry closure effectively protects most sensitive plant and animal species habitat, including all designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. Current NPS operations and visitor activities would remain concentrated in a relatively small area around the northcentral canyon rim. No plant species of concern are known to occur within existing developed or visitor use areas, but Hedeoma diffusum occurs in nearby canyon rim habitat and experiences the greatest risk of 

Under Alternative 1, habitat for sensitive plant and wildlife species would continue recovering from former land uses within the monument. Proposed new facilities in proximity existing facilities in the north-central canyon area would likely have no adverse impacts to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. The cumulative effect of proposed new road, trails, and dispersed hiking areas would result in sustained daytime human presence and increased ambient noise along most of the north canyon rim, which would cause a disturbance to sensitive wildlife species within the adjacent narrow canyon. Approximately 80% of the area within the monument area would be formally recognized as a Resource Preservation Zone, and unauthorized access would be prohibited. This would effectively preclude most disturbance to Mexican spotted owl critical habitat, riparian habitat within the canyon bottom, densely forested canyon terrain, and remote cliff faces. Under Alternative 1, sensitive species would be 

Under Altsensitive pspecies worecovering uses withiContinued visitor actcentral cannegligible threatenesensitive snew visitoarea near proximity species lochabitats, anegligible threatenesensitive s1996 westexisting rewould likeimpacts to species knwestern cplant specproposed Zone, nortaccess roaAdventure canyon arand avoidimpacts to species wiGuided Ad
Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

impacts from current visitor use. Sensitive plant species that are restricted to riparian habitats may be experiencing long-term declines as a result of the creation of Upper and Lower Lake Mary, but long-term monitoring data would be needed to reliably assess trends. Other cumulative effects could result from exceeding visitor carrying capacity within the monument and from nearby development within the town of Flagstaff. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

surveyed and monitored more intensively, and mitigating measures would be adopted to effectively protect them and their habitats within Walnut Canyon National Monument. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

eastern camitigated of the morestricting accompanmonitorinuse disturestablishinduring breApproximwithin the formally rResource Pand unautbe prohibprecluding critical habspotted owthose menbe other lresult of imalternativ

Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian Resources 

Under the No-Action Alternative, continued NPS operations and visitor uses would have negligible impacts to wetland, floodplain, and riparian resources within the Walnut Canyon watershed. Fencing the 1996 boundary expansion areas along the canyon floor and closing the area to the general public would likely have negligible impacts, and excluding livestock 

Under Alternative 1, continued NPS operations and visitor activities above the north canyon rim would have negligible impacts, as with the No-Action Alternative. The impacts of fencing the 1996 boundary expansion areas would be the same as those described for the No-Action Alternative. The continued existence of the Santa Fe Dam within the monument would 

Under AltNPS operaactivities acanyon rim negligible No-Action impacts of boundary would be identified Alternativexistence within the 
ALTERNATIVES 

66

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

grazing from the eastern boundary expansion area would likely have long-term, minor to moderate beneficial impacts. The historic Santa Fe dam would likely have negligible impacts because most storm flows pass through the dam's spillway. The greatest impacts to wetland, floodplain, and riparian resources are attributable to cumulative impacts from upstream impoundments of Walnut Creek at Upper and Lower Lake Mary. Stream geomorphic processes, localized wetlands, and riparian vegetation would continue to experience a long-term decline in response to the cessation of seasonal flows. A few obligate wetland and riparian plant species might become extirpated from the monument. The impoundments have also altered flood stages and floodplain areas, and a dam failure would cause catastrophic damage to riparian resources within the monument. Continued disruption of flows within the watershed would have long-term, moderate adverse cumulative impacts to wetland, floodplain, and 

also have negligible impacts, as with the No-Action Alternative. The proposed new facilities along the existing entrance road would be entirely within an upland environment and also would have negligible impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and riparian resources. Approximately 2 miles of road would be built along the northeast canyon rim and would cross tributary drainages of Walnut Canyon. Frequent vehicle use along the new road could potentially introduce trace amounts of non-point source pollution from motor and exhaust residue into the Walnut Canyon watershed. The proposed road would likely have negligible to long-term, minor adverse impacts on riparian resources. Dispersed guided hiking would occur in 1/2 mile of riparian corridor along the east canyon floor, increasing disturbance to stream banks, terraces, and riparian vegetation. This impact would probably be offset by fencing the 1996 boundary to exclude livestock grazing. Visitor use within this area would likely result in negligible to long-term,

also have with the NThe propoalong the road wouan upland would havto wetlanriparian reprimitive rupgraded access to trim. The rodesigned tinterfereninfrequensource poand exhauminimal. Twould likeimpacts. Doccur in 2 corridor afloor, incrstream bariparian vewould profencing thexclude livVisitor accwould liketo long-teimpacts. In mentionedother less 
Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

riparian resources within the monument. Riparian resources within the Walnut Canyon watershed would remain buffered from water quality degradation by surrounding undeveloped forest lands. Much of the land within the watershed could eventually be acquired for development by the city of Flagstaff. This would increase non-point source pollution, and have long-term, minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts to riparian and wetland resources within Walnut Canyon National Monument. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

minor adverse impacts. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

result of imalternativ

Ability to Experience Park Resources 

The No-Action Alternative would result in moderate benefits for many visitors, particularly those with an interest in cliff dwellings and with the physical ability to walk to them. Recently improved access to the visitor center and its resources represents a major benefit for visitors with physical disabilities and those wishing to examine exhibits and artifacts. Continuation of traditional interpretive 

Alternative 1 would result in major benefits to visitors wishing to experience a greater variety of park resources than are available under the NoAction Alternative. Removal of offices from the visitor center would alleviate crowding and create space for new expanded museum exhibits, artifact displays, and indoor interpretive programs for visitors and organized school groups-all 

Alternativmoderate wanting a educationWalnut Cacenter funrelocated the existinrestored tConservatconfiguratreduce intstructures 
ALTERNATIVES 

68

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

programs would provide moderate benefits for all visitors in understanding of park resources and their significance. The ability to enjoy the scenery and a minimally altered environment, and to do so in a relatively quiet, uncrowded atmosphere, would continue as a moderate benefit in the near future, but would be increasingly impacted by expected visitation increases in the future. This alternative would result in minor adverse impacts to visitor experience by continuing to limit access to the full range of park resources, including the opportunity to visit prehistoric sites other than cliff dwellings. Visitors with disabilities would suffer moderate adverse impacts due to continued inaccessibility of most structures and other resources related to park significance. Some visitors will experience minor to moderate adverse impacts from the lack of opportunity to explore beyond the limited developed area now available for public use. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other less severe impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

major benefits for visitor understanding and viewing of the "real thing." Remodeling of the visitor center would also provide major benefits in accessibility: physical barriers (multiple building levels and stairs) would be resolved to provide full accessibility and exhibits would be designed for use by visitors with a variety of physical and mental impairments. A new scenic drive would provide views of additional cliff dwellings and other types of structures, some relatively undisturbed, which are not available under the NoAction Alternative. This experience would be accessible. Removal of the busy parking lot from the canyon rim and spreading out use along the rim would create a less crowded visitor experience and enhance the ability to hear natural sounds, both moderate benefits. Because all visitors would no longer be confined to the existing developed area, there would be opportunities to experience new scenic views of Walnut Canyon and to enjoy a minimally altered environment, both moderate benefits. 

historic scviews from the Island would incnatural soaltered ena less crowthroughouvisitor censpace for artifact didemonstrainterpretivvisitors angroups. Trprograms new longehikes wouprovide mgreater vaarcheologbe availaband/or selwould incFirst Fort, other dwethose avaAction Altconstitute benefit. Thand its exaccessible variety of impairmenprovide eq
Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

Traditional interpretive programs and cultural demonstrations would continue (a moderate benefit), together with new guided tours of the scenic drive and hike to First Fort. This alternative would result in moderate short-term adverse impacts to several aspects of visitor experience during construction and remodeling of the existing developed area, but these would be short term. There would be minor to moderate impacts to personal freedoms and traditional recreational activities resulting from zoning of newly acquired lands and removal of some uses from the park. These impacts would be partially mitigated by increased on-site information on regional recreational opportunities. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

for resourcanyon teaccessiblebe accessiNo-Action Trail woulprovide acpithouse aguiding trranger cabaccessiblemoderate walks to Fcanyon, hmade accealternativmajor advseveral asexperiencand remoddeveloped would be alternativreservatiosystems if visitation adverse imfreedoms systems waddition tthere wousevere effimplemen
ALTERNATIVES 

70

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

Park Neighbors Within existing conditions, the 

management actions of the NPS would provide many beneficial impacts to other agencies, neighbors, and American Indian tribes in terms of cooperative resources management, planning, and visitor uses. Existing conditions would result in only minor impacts to the workload of others in terms of additional administrative tasks, interpretive planning, agreement reviews, and joint planning/management efforts. Growth and development of the city of Flagstaff would create moderate, long-term, adverse impacts to other land and resource managers and neighbors, in terms of additional workloads and loss of recreational areas and opportunities. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Management actions in Alternative 1 would provide benefits to other agencies, neighbors, and American Indian tribes in terms of cooperative resources management, planning, visitor uses, and access to traditional cultural resources. There would be only minor impacts to the workload of others in terms of additional administrative tasks, interpretive planning, agreement reviews, and joint planning/management efforts. Growth and development of the city of Flagstaff would create moderate, long-term, adverse impacts to other land and resource managers and neighbors, in terms of additional workloads and loss of recreational areas and opportunities. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

The loss oon the wemonumenmoderate impacts to neighborhThe eliminof the climmonumenlong-term very few ito those mwould be effects as implemen

Operational Efficiency 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 

Implementation of Alternative 1 would have a long-term beneficial impact on operational efficiency. There would be major, short-term impacts resulting from the construction of a new visitor center and 

Alternativlong-term operationwould be adverse imthe proponew admi
Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

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 compound the difficulties that already exist in protecting park resources, including entry to areas of the park that are closed to visitation and intentional and unintentional damage to archeological resources. The effects to facilities, utilities, and staffing would be minor to moderate. Without improvement to the facilities or utilities, conditions would worsen. Limitations on current staff levels 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. 

parking lot, rehabilitation of the old visitor center, construction associated with the road to First Fort, and access and trail improvements necessary for the increased visitor uses on the western and eastern portions of the park. However, following construction, there would remain only 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 the inadequacies with the existing visitor center and parking lot; however, it should improve the work environment for the park staff. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

and parkinvisitor cenHowever, constructithere woumoderate operationimpacts wof increasrequiremeaddition tthere wousevere effimplemen
ALTERNATIVES 

72

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives

Objective No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

1. Maximize Protection of Cultural Resources 

Walnut Canyon is operated as a day-use area, and the visitor center parking area is closed and gated at night. The monument boundary was expanded in 1996 to include approximately 1,300 additional acres. Areas not designated and identified for public activities are closed to unguided entry. 

The park road would remain day-use only, with the road gated at night at the intersection of the entrance road and FR303. Parking and orientation would be redesigned and relocated away from the canyon rim. New wayside exhibits at the I-40 pullout/turnaround would better orient and prepare park visitors before they encounter park resources. Areas of the park not zoned for administrative or visitor use would be closed to protect resources. 

The existinparking arand used unless crothe point degraded. be taken tnumbers. located alroad: one one on eaeliminate the monuvisitor cenwould be park entrabefore theresources. additions CCC- constwould be building leand restorintimate nstructure. zoned for administraclosed to p

2. Maximize Protection of Natural Resources 

Walnut Canyon is operated as a day-use area, and the visitor center parking area is closed and gated at night. The monument boundary was 

The park road would remain day-use only, with the road gated at night at the intersection of the entrance road and FR303. Parking and 

The existinparking arand used unless crothe point 
Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives

Objective No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

expanded in 1996 to include approximately 1,300 additional acres. Areas not designated and identified for public activities are closed to unguided entry. 

orientation would be redesigned and relocated away from the canyon rim. New wayside exhibits at the I-40 pullout/turnaround would better orient and prepare park visitors before they encounter park resources. Areas of the park not zoned for administrative or visitor use would be closed to protect resources. 

degraded. be taken tnumbers. located alroad: one one on eaeliminate the monuA new visparking arnear I-40 ato orient vencounter of the paror adminisclosed to p

3. Expand Diversity of Visitor Experience 

Orientation and interpretation are accomplished primarily through the visitor center and the self-guided Island and Rim Trails. Various interpretive programs, including guided hikes to the historic ranger cabin and additional cliff dwellings, are offered as staffing permits. Access is limited to established trails, roadways, and developed facilities. 

The existing entrance road and picnic areas would remain, but parking and orientation would be redesigned and relocated away from the canyon rim. New wayside exhibits at the I-40 pullout/turnaround would better orient and prepare park visitors before they encounter park resources. The existing visitor center would be remodeled to allow more space for visitor orientation, new exhibits, and group presentations. An existing primitive road would be substantially upgraded to provide a new scenic drive along the north rim. Initially, this 

The existinparking arand used unless crothe point experiencactions wocontrol visvisitor cenwould be park entrabefore theresources. the visitor adaptively trailhead aorientatioeducationlearning o
ALTERNATIVES 

74

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives

Objective No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

would be a semiprimitive guided experience until improvements to existing dirt roads could be accomplished. Additional orientation media would be installed at the new parking area near the existing visitor center to alter visitors to the diverse experiences available (walking, driving, biking, guided hikes). In addition to the existing visitor center, selfguided trails and ranger-led hikes, guided access to the recently acquired First Fort archeological area would be possible via the new rim road. Additional guided activities would occur in areas of the north rim. Interpretation and new wayside exhibits along the entrance and rim roads would provide the opportunity to learn about different aspects of the park and its place in the regional story. Hiking, biking, and horseback riding would occur on existing roads and trails on the rim, in the western portions of the newly acquired land. 

ranger talworkshopdemonstraExtended guided traactivities icurrent visremain as potential guided actprimitive rcabin areamade thronew medirange of einterpretivin-depth lethese expprovided twith affiliorganizatiand/or othwould haveastern enranger-gu

4. Limit Effect on Neighbors Walnut Canyon is operated as a 

day-use area, and the visitor center parking area is closed and gated at night. FR303 and 

The park road would remain day-use only, with the road gated at night at the intersection of the entrance 

The existinparking arand used unless cro
Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives

Objective No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

other U.S. Forest Service roads allow ungated, 24-hour access to USFS lands surrounding the monument. 

road and FR303. the point 

and/or resThen actiocontrol visa shuttle swould be entrance rexit and oFR303, to access to twhile alloFR303. An would be accommodhikes in thmonumenbe establimonumenguided hikHiking, bikriding wonearby foexperiencavailable. 

5. Improve Operational Efficiency 

The NPS and USFS work cooperatively in the areas of law enforcement, wildland fire, resource protection and management, interpretation, and facility management. Walnut Canyon is operated as a day-use area, and the visitor center parking area is closed and gated at night. 

The park would remain day-use only, with the road gated at night at the intersection of the entrance road and FR303. Offices would be removed from the visitor center. New administrative offices would be constructed near the new parking lot. A new pullout and/or turn around would be constructed near the I-40 exit,

A new fulcenter and be built neentrance, to collect gates wouthe entranI-40 exit aFR303, to access to tSome visit
ALTERNATIVES 

76

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives

Objective No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1: Diversify 

Opportunities for Visitor Use 

Alterna

Empha

and might include an entrance/fee collection facility. 

be providepartnershtribes, orginstitutionagencies. would be administraranger-gueastern enA parking establishefrom whicbe staged
77

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

ARCHEOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

Impact topics were identified though 

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, wellpreserved 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 EuroAmerican global economy. 

The forested area surrounding Walnut 

Canyon National Monument contains 

hundreds of archeological sites. A few 

of these sites date to the late Archaic 

period, ca. 2500 B.C.-A.D. 1, but most 

of the sites and associated artifacts 

are the tangible remains of a 

prehistoric farming culture that 

flourished in the Flagstaff region from 

about A.D. 600 until 1400. 

Archeologists call this culture 

"Sinagua," in reference to the early 

Spanish name for this highland 

region, "Sierra Sinagua" (Mountain 

Range without Water). 

Scattered Sinagua families cultivated 

the upland areas around Walnut 

Canyon for centuries, growing small 

gardens of corn, squash, and beans. 

Early settlers lived in subterranean pit 

structures, but by the early 1100s, 

most habitations included at least 

some aboveground structures. During 

the 1100s in the Walnut Canyon area, 

there was also a notable shift toward 

living in cliff alcoves. By the mid1100s, a large segment of the local 

Sinagua population had moved into 

limestone alcoves below the canyon 

rim, where they constructed 

substantial dwellings with locally 

available stone and clay. Growing 

crops at scattered plots in the 

surrounding forest, raising children, 

making stone tools and other 

implements, and following the 

ancient ceremonial cycles that had 

been passed down for generations, 

the Walnut Canyon community 

thrived for about 150 years. 

Population in the Flagstaff region 

peaked in the mid-1100s through 

early 1200s, coincident with the peak 

occupation of Walnut Canyon, but it 

declined precipitously in the following 

century. By the early 1300s, the 

Sinagua had moved out of Walnut 

Canyon, presumably to Anderson 

Mesa or points farther south and east, 

although their Pueblo descendants 

continued to visit the area for 

hunting, gathering, and ceremonial 

purposes. During the following 

centuries, the area around Walnut 

Canyon was also visited by ancestors 

of the Yavapai and Havasupai, and 

after the 1700s by Apache and 

Navajo, for seasonal hunting and 

gathering. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

78

Today, Walnut Canyon preserves a 

portion of the once extensive Sinagua 

cultural landscape. Multiroom 

residential sites (both cliff dwellings 

and open-air pueblos), isolated field 

structures, "forts," quarries, 

agricultural fields, check dams, 

shrines, rock art, and other features 

are now protected within the 

monument. 

Park 

Walnut Canyon National Monument 

on the southern edge of the Colorado 

Plateau was specifically created to 

preserve and interpret some 

exceptional prehistoric archeological 

sites. The primary archeological 

remains of Walnut Canyon are 

unique, in that the monument 

preserves the only known 

concentration of northern Sinagua 

cliff dwellings in the region. These 

well-preserved architectural sites, 

situated in alcoves below the canyon 

rim, were constructed by the Sinagua 

primarily between A.D. 1100 and A.D. 

1250. In addition, this monument 

contains a representative cross section 

of the types and variety of 

archeological sites found throughout 

the Four Corners area, including small 

and large masonry pueblos, rock 

shelters, open campsites, agricultural 

field systems, ceremonial shrines, 

historic cabins, rock art panels, 

miscellaneous artifact scatters, and a 

variety of other physical remains 

reflecting the diverse cultures and 

economic strategies of the various 

people who have attempted to make 

a living in this beautiful yet 

challenging environment. 

The site density in the monument 

averages almost 100 sites per square 

mile, compared with typical densities 

of 40 sites per square mile in other 

areas of the ponderosa pine forest 

near Flagstaff. The high site density in 

Walnut Canyon reflects the area's 

biological richness. The canyon's 

natural abundance and diversity of 

plant and animal species provided a 

storehouse of resources that attracted 

and sustained the prehistoric 

inhabitants of Walnut Canyon. 

About 45 percent of the 

approximately 3,600 acres in Walnut 

Canyon National Monument have 

been intensively inventoried for 

archeological resources. All of the 

inventoried areas are within the old 

(pre-1996) boundaries of the 

monument. Areas that have been 

specifically inventoried for 

archeological resources include the 

fence line along the entrance road, 

the north and south rim areas, plus 

approximately half of the inner 

canyon zone. None of the private 

inholding (approximately 291 acres), 

or any of the new lands added to the 

monument in 1996, have been 

surveyed for archeological resources. 

A total of 251 archeological sites have 

been recorded within the inventoried 

areas. Of this total, 87 are classified as 

cliff dwellings. In addition, the 

monument includes 5 "forts" (walled, 

defensible sites located on 

promontories within the canyon), 5 

lithic scatters, 87 one- and two-room 

field houses (some with associated 

field complexes), 18 pithouses, and 11 

multiroom pueblos. Several historic 

sites (a cabin, a dam, plus several trash 

dumps) are also present in the 

monument. 

The dense concentration of 

prehistoric ruins, their exceptional 

state of preservation, and their 

unusual and highly scenic setting in 

sheltered alcoves along the canyon 

walls, coupled with the threat of 

imminent destruction by commercial 

looters and misguided tourists, were 

key factors influencing the creation of 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

79

Walnut Canyon National Monument 

in 1915. These original core values 

persist to the present day. 

Approximately 40 of the 251 

archeological sites in the monument 

have been stabilized to some degree, 

in order to withstand impacts from 

visitation and weathering, but many 

still retain a high degree of integrity, 

including substantial amounts of 

original masonry architecture and a 

more or less complete assemblage of 

artifacts. 

HISTORIC CHARACTER OF 

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

Region 

The historic built environment of the 

region has been shaped, like many 

small Western towns, by timber, cattle 

grazing, and the mining industry 

(Cline 1994). A few grand homes 

survive in the area, which were 

constructed by Flagstaff's first 

entrepreneurs of 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 

There are three historic periods of 

construction at Walnut Canyon 

National Monument. Visitors 

experience each of these episodes via 

interpretive guided walks or selfguided tours. Except for the ranger 

cabin, however, the structures are not 

interpreted specifically for their 

historic value. 

The ranger cabin was constructed in 

1904 as a ranger station/residence by 

the San Francisco Mountain Reserve 

(later the Coconino National Forest). 

The cabin remains intact but in poor 

condition. Associated with the cabin 

are overgrown garden beds, one fruit 

tree, an outbuilding, and a cistern. A 

fire lookout tree is some distance 

from the cabin. Remnants of early 

camps left by visitors and other forest 

users are still present throughout the 

monument. 

The second era of major construction 

at the park is represented by rustic 

architecture constructed by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps (1938-

1940). A complex of buildings was 

constructed, including two ranger 

residences and an associated 

outbuilding, visitor center, and 

associated rest rooms. The Island Trail 

(primary interpretive area in the park) 

was constructed during this time. Each 

of the buildings was constructed from 

material quarried on-site-typical of 

rustic architecture that dominated 

NPS design in the 1930s and 1940s. A 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

80

split rail fence was also constructed by 

the CCC to prevent cattle from 

straying into the park along FR303. 

Walnut Canyon's CCC structures 

"reflect an architectural theme based 

on native materials and methods for 

construction and sometimes a cultural 

theme drawn from the region's 

pioneering or indigenous 

architecture" (McClelland 1998). 

Buildings were designed to fit with 

the natural character of the park. The 

visitor center and housing complex at 

Walnut Canyon reflect the desire for 

the buildings to harmonize with the 

surrounding environment. 

The third era of major construction at 

Walnut Canyon was the Mission 66 

program, during which two houses 

and an addition to the CCC visitor 

center were constructed. Exhibits in 

the visitor center were also developed 

during this period and have changed 

little since. In the mid-1970s a peaked 

roof was added to the CCC and 

Mission 66 portions of the visitor 

center. In 1996 an addition was 

constructed to the Mission 66 portion 

to provide more room for cooperating 

association book sales. 

The visitor center and houses 

constructed during the Mission 66 

program represent an era of modern 

methods of landscape and 

architectural design. Well-known 

architect Cecil Doty designed the 

Mission 66 portion of the visitor 

center. It reflects the Mission 66 

concept of open design, wide floorto-ceiling windows, and lightcontrolled areas for displaying 

artifacts. 

The majority of visitors to Walnut 

Canyon enter the Mission 66 portion 

of the visitor center and walk the 

nearby Rim and Island Trails. The 

visitor center and trails can be 

congested at times, and efforts have 

been made to modify the building to 

accommodate all visitors. Impacts 

(building additions, installation of 

wheelchair lifts) to the visitor center 

are the direct result of increasing 

numbers of visitors and the design 

limitations of the building. 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. 

Cultural landscapes at Walnut Canyon 

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 landscapes. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

ETHNOGRAPHIC 

RESOURCES 

NPS guidelines describe ethnographic 

resources as "variations of natural and 

standard cultural resource types. They 

are subsistence and ceremonial locales 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

81

and sites, structures, objects, and rural 

and urban landscapes assigned 

cultural significance by traditional 

users. 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, they become 

ethnographic and thus cultural 

resources as well" (NPS 1997). 

Region 

Walnut Canyon National Monument 

in north-central Arizona is part of a 

region lying between extensive highaltitude national forest lands to the 

southwest and semidesert 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 

As described in the Purpose and Need 

and Consultation/Coordination 

sections, NPS consulted with many 

tribes in identification of 

ethnographic resources. The Hopi, 

Zuni, and Navajo Tribes conducted 

field research, using culturally 

appropriate methods to identify 

ethnographic resources about which 

they might have concerns in the 

context of the GMP. Although tribal 

representatives identified those 

resources of particular concern, it 

should be stressed that the resources 

identified for this project are not 

necessarily all the ethnographic 

resources that exist in the park. 

The Navajo Nation identified fourteen 

culturally significant plant species at 

Walnut Canyon, in addition to white 

clay, a culturally significant mineral. 

The Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni 

identified the archeological resources 

in Walnut Canyon, including preColumbian architectural remains and 

petroglyphs, as part of their 

traditional histories and 

contemporary cultural identities. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND 

PROCESSES 

The integrity of the natural systems 

and process within Walnut Canyon 

National Monument depends on 

conserving native plant communities, 

preserving unfragmented wildlife 

habitats, maintaining natural 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

82

geomorphic and soil formation 

processes, and ensuring that 

intermittent drainage systems 

function properly. 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 

is conserved. During the public and 

agency scoping process, specific 

environmental impact issues were 

identified, including: restoring firedependent ponderosa pine "park 

lands" above the canyon rim, 

preserving regional movement 

corridors and seasonal habitats for 

wildlife, including: elk, deer, 

pronghorn antelope, wild turkey, 

black bear, and mountain lion; 

protecting plant species diversity and 

the locally rich assemblage of plant 

communities; healthy function of 

tributary canyon watersheds; 

maintaining the integrity of natural 

systems for ecological research; and 

excluding nonnative species. 

Additional summaries of affected 

threatened/endangered/sensitive 

species and 

wetlands/floodplains/riparian 

resources are presented in separate 

sections below. 

Region 

Walnut Canyon National Monument is 

located along the southern margin of 

the Colorado Plateau biotic province. 

In the Mogollon highlands-Coconino 

Plateau region surrounding the 

monument, 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. The region 

has been 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 prevalent cinder cones and lava 

flows. The Painted Desert stretches 

east within the Little Colorado River 

Basin toward Petrified Forest National 

Park. Soil types also vary within the 

region, depending on whether they 

are derived from weathered 

limestone, sandstone, shale, or 

volcanic bedrock. Unique areas of 

relatively young, deep cinders are also 

present, where soils are still forming 

and vegetation is colonizing. 

The regional climate varies 

tremendously with elevation above 

sea level. Walnut Canyon National 

Monument, at 6,900 feet elevation, 

receives approximately 20 inches of 

precipitation per year, and 

temperatures typically range from 

near 0 in winter to the mid-90s in 

summer. Thirty miles to the northeast, 

the Little Colorado River Basin at 

4,500 feet elevation typically receives 

fewer than 7 inches of precipitation 

per year. Winter daytime 

temperatures are typically warmer 

than they are in Flagstaff, and 

summer temperatures may exceed 

100. Above 10,000 feet on the 

adjacent San Francisco Peaks, annual 

precipitation exceeds 40 inches, 

temperatures are considerably cooler, 

and the growing season is remarkably 

shorter. 

The remarkable combination of 

geologic, elevation, and climatic 

differences within a relatively small 

geographic area has contributed to a 

considerable diversity of vegetation. 

This diversity is exhibited by the range 

of plant communities from alpine 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

83

tundra on top of the San Francisco 

Peaks to Sonoran Desert at the 

bottom of the Grand Canyon. Within 

Walnut Canyon, Sunset Crater 

Volcano, and Wupatki National 

Monuments surrounding Flagstaff, 

one can observe many of the 

dominant vegetation types. Walnut 

Canyon contains a narrow stand of 

broadleaf deciduous forest along the 

bottom of the canyon, mixedconiferous forest on north-facing 

slopes, and ponderosa pine forest and 

parkland above the canyon rim, 

respectively. Traveling a short distance 

to Sunset Crater Volcano, one passes 

through expansive ponderosa pine 

forest, high elevation meadows, and 

recent volcanic lava flows and cinder 

barrens. As one descends in elevation 

to Wupatki, juniper woodlands, 

Colorado Plateau grasslands, and 

Colorado Plateau desert scrub 

communities are common. The 

highest elevations in the neighboring 

San Francisco Peaks 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 upon 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. 

Fire has played a major role in 

shaping the vegetation in the 

Southwestern United States. In the 

past, low-intensity, lightning-ignited 

fires frequently burned the forest 

understory to maintain open pine 

stands with diverse grass and 

wildflower cover between the trees. 

Fire suppression for more than a 

century has caused well-documented 

changes within forests and grasslands 

of the region. Tree densities have 

risen dramatically, and forests are 

now at risk from intensely hot, 

catastrophic fires. 

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. 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 grasslanddependent 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

84

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 combination with rangefire 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 doublefenced highway rights-of-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. 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 

Approximately six miles of Walnut 

Canyon are encompassed within the 

3,000-acre area of the monument. The 

land surface ranges from 6,200 feet to 

6,900 feet above sea level. The canyon 

trends from west to east, following 

the sinuous, entrenched meanders 

along the Walnut "Creek" drainage. It 

is typically 1/4 mile wide from north 

rim to south rim, 400 feet deep at the 

western (upstream) boundary, and 

250 feet deep at the eastern 

(downstream) boundary. The canyon 

walls are nearly vertical slickrock 

throughout most of the monument. 

Above the canyon rims are level 

terraces. Three prominent tributary 

side canyons enter from the south 

side and another enters from the 

north side near the western 

monument boundary. 

The geology of Walnut Canyon is not 

complex, and is described and 

mapped by Darton (1910), Vandiver 

(1936), and Benfer (1971). The canyon 

is eroded into sedimentary rock layers 

of the Kaibab Limestone and 

Coconino Sandstone formations. The 

drainage of Walnut Creek became 

entrenched in the canyon as the 

formations were locally uplifted. 

More recent volcanic events within 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

85

the San Francisco Volcanic Field have 

influenced the drainage pattern of 

Walnut Canyon and surrounding 

canyons (Colton 1936). 

Despite its relatively small area, 

Walnut Canyon National Monument 

harbors a rich flora and assemblage of 

vegetation types. Inventories of the 

flora of the pre-1996 monument area 

have documented more than 400 

species (Arnberger 1947, Spangle 

1953, Joyce 1974, Jenkins et al. 1991, 

National Park Service 2001). The 

vegetation of the pre-1996 

monument area was surveyed and 

mapped in 1991 (Jenkins et al.). 

Surveys of riparian vegetation along 

the canyon bottom drainage were 

completed by Brian (1985) and Phillips 

(1990). In addition, a new vegetation 

classification map is being completed 

by the USGS Biological Resources 

Division (Thomas 2001). A study of 

plant macrofossils found in packrat 

middens determined to be 3,800 years 

old was completed by Murdock 

(1994). A study reconstructing the 

forest vegetation circa 1880 for the 

north canyon rim area was completed 

by Menzel (1996). Land use histories 

are summarized in Bremer (1988) and 

Menzel (1996). Studies of the fire 

history within the monument are 

available for ponderosa pine forest 

(Davis 1985, Swetnam et al. 1990) and 

pinyon-juniper woodland (Despain 

and Mosley 1990). In addition, a 

network of vegetation study plots has 

been installed to assess the effects of 

prescribed burning (Schon 2000). 

The monument area is dominated by 

coniferous forest and woodland 

vegetation. The north-facing canyon 

slopes and tributary canyons are more 

shaded and moist, and are dominated 

by Douglas fir-Gambel oak forest. The 

south-facing slopes are more arid, and 

dominated by pinyon and juniper 

trees, a diverse array of shrubs and 

herbaceous species, and even cacti 

and succulents. The narrow canyon 

floor harbors a strand of riparian 

vegetation dominated by broadleaf 

deciduous trees and shrubs. The 

terraces above the canyon rim are 

dominated by ponderosa pine forest. 

The eastern (downslope) end of the 

rim terraces are generally more arid, 

and ponderosa trees give way to 

pinyon-juniper woodland and open 

grassland. 

For a relatively small area, Walnut 

Canyon National Monument also 

harbors a rich assemblage of wildlife 

habitats. Checklists have been 

prepared for mammals (Salomonson 

1973) and birds (Grater 1935, 

Wetherill 1937, Spangle and 

Spangle1954, Haldeman and Clark 

1969). Scientific surveys of the canyon 

fauna are generally lacking, but 

observation records confirm that 

much of the inherent faunal diversity 

of the canyon is intact. Wildlife 

habitats and migration corridors have 

remained relatively undisturbed 

under historic regional management 

conditions. This is largely attributed to 

the ruggedness of the canyon terrain, 

heavy vegetative cover, and reliable 

surface waters. The long-term closure 

of the backcountry area within the 

monument has also minimized human 

presence and noise disturbance of 

solitary wildlife species. 

Observations by the NPS, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, and U.S. 

Forest Service confirm that Walnut 

Canyon harbors an important wildlife 

migration corridor and seasonal 

habitat for elk, mule deer, and 

pronghorn antelope. Large predators, 

including mountain lions and black 

bear, also frequent the area. The 

south side of the canyon provides 

habitat for wild turkey. The steep 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

86

terrain and secluded side canyons 

provide favorable habitat for 

numerous raptor species, including 

Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, 

red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, prairie 

falcon, flammulated owl, and great 

grey owl. In addition, the Mexican 

spotted owl, peregrine falcon, and 

northern goshawk, among the rarest 

of raptor species in the Southwestern 

United States, are residents of Walnut 

Canyon. 

The canyon's natural system and 

processes were no doubt heavily 

influenced by the Sinagua Culture 

until they abandoned the area during 

the 13th century. During historic time, 

vegetation and wildlife within the 

Walnut Canyon watershed have been 

heavily influenced by former logging 

and timber management, wildfire 

suppression, game hunting, and 

predator control. The northern 

boundary of the monument is 

surrounded by a "checkerboard" 

pattern of sections of Coconino 

National Forest and Arizona State 

lands, while the southern boundary is 

dominated by the Coconino National 

Forest. The easily accessible forests 

adjacent to the north canyon rim 

were heavily cut over between 1880 

and 1925, and a series of salvage cuts 

was conducted during the 1960s. The 

terrain south of the canyon rim is 

much less accessible and was not 

extensively logged until the 1970s. 

Livestock grazing continued within 

the monument on the canyon rim 

areas until the boundary was fenced 

in 1973. Cattle grazing continues in 

several grazing allotments on the 

Coconino National Forest within the 

Walnut Canyon watershed. 

Fire history and presettlement forest 

reconstruction studies have shown 

that the ponderosa pine forest along 

the north rim has changed 

considerably during the last century. 

Prior to 1890, the north rim forest 

experienced a fire every 4 to 8 years, 

and the forest was composed of 

fewer, larger pine trees clustered in 

isolated stands with an open 

understory of diverse grasses, 

wildflowers, and forbs. Today, as a 

result of logging the old-growth 

trees, wildfire suppression, and loss of 

the herbaceous understory due to 

overgrazing, the forest is dominated 

by numerous younger, smaller trees 

and a mid-story of woodland species 

such as Gambel oak, pinyon, and 

juniper. The dense pine and 

woodland canopy is shading out the 

rich understory flora. Beginning in 

1990, the NPS implemented a 

management-ignited fire program to 

restore presettlement ponderosa pine 

forest conditions on the canyon rim 

terraces. Preliminary results from fire 

effects monitoring plots show 

effective reductions in ponderosa 

seedlings and saplings, junipers, 

deadwood, and the ground litter 

layer. The program was implemented 

under a series of fire management 

plans. The latest plan recently expired 

and, in order to continue the 

program, the NPS must prepare a new 

fire management plan and 

accompanying assessment of potential 

environmental impacts. 

Except for the documented 

vegetation changes, NPS management 

of Walnut Canyon National 

Monument has generally favored the 

long-term protection of natural 

systems and processes. Less than 5% 

of the monument's approximately 

3,600 acres is currently affected by 

fences, roads, buildings, utilities, and 

visitor activities. Visitor use areas and 

NPS support facilities are located on 

the north-central canyon rim. The 

entrance road generally lies outside of 

the main canyon drainage area, and 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

87

was designed to minimize 

interference with local drainage 

patterns. The road is used mostly 

during the day while the monument is 

open to the public, resulting in some 

traffic and noise disturbance to 

wildlife. Nighttime use is much more 

limited, but nevertheless increases the 

risk of mortality to wildlife, and 

animals are occasionally killed 

crossing the road. Visitor use and NPS 

operation impacts are primarily 

concentrated around the visitor 

center and parking area, the Rim 

Trail, and "Island" Trail, and include 

localized vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, unplanned trail 

segments, minor disruption of 

drainage patterns, increased noise, 

and disturbance to wildlife. The 

existing eastern boundary fence has 

been locally modified to 

accommodate seasonal movements by 

wildlife, including pronghorn. 

Most of the monument area prior to 

the 1996 boundary expansion has 

long been closed to public access to 

protect sensitive cultural resources. 

The pre-1996 boundary has been 

surveyed, fenced, and posted as 

closed. Backcountry access continues 

for authorized special uses, such as 

cultural site preservation, research, 

and educational activities. Occasional 

unauthorized hiking occurs within the 

closed area, which is likely to continue 

because there is insufficient staff to 

ensure frequent patrols. The lands 

added by the 1996 boundary 

expansion have yet to be surveyed, 

fenced, and posted. These areas 

continue to receive public uses similar 

to those under former management 

by the U.S. Forest Service. 

Predominant uses include hiking, 

bicycling, and horse riding. Isolated 

incidents of off-road driving, wildlife 

poaching, firewood cutting, and trash 

dumping are occurring. An active U.S. 

Forest Service livestock-grazing lease 

encompasses the eastern expansion 

area. These activities will continue to 

impact natural systems and processes 

within the monument until the NPS 

surveys and fences the 1996 boundary 

expansion areas. 

At least 23 species of nonnative plants 

have dispersed into the monument. 

Invasive nonnative species directly 

compete with native plants, and can 

significantly alter natural plant 

communities and wildlife habitats. 

Nonnative species may rapidly 

colonize areas where the ground 

surface is heavily disturbed by 

equipment or constant foot traffic. 

Within the monument, populations of 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), mullein 

(Verbascum thapsus), filaree (Erodium 

cicutarium), horehound (Marrubium 

vulgare), and dalmation toadflax 

(Linaria dalmatica) have infested 

disturbed areas along road and trail 

corridors, developed areas, or areas of 

heavy visitation. Although these 

species are commonly observed, the 

monument currently lacks sufficient 

staff or funding to actively monitor or 

attempt to control them. Success in 

controlling invasive plants would be 

predicated upon early detection of 

infestations before they grow out of 

control, or upon the availability of 

ecologically sound and affordable 

technology. The best measures to 

control these species are proactive 

planning of access routes and grounddisturbing activities to minimize the 

potential for establishment and 

spread. 

U.S. Forest Service management of 

the Walnut Canyon watershed has the 

greatest potential to affect natural 

systems and processes within the 

monument. The NPS hopes to 

alleviate interagency concerns 

through increased communication, 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

88

monitoring ecosystem conditions, and 

better participation in the U.S. Forest 

Service planning process. If successful, 

improved coordination with the U.S. 

Forest Service could mitigate certain 

adjacent land use impacts upon 

natural resources within the 

monument, including actions such as 

road closures, fence realignment, and 

joint fire management near the 

current monument boundary. 

The city of Flagstaff has annexed all 

lands adjacent to the north and west 

boundary of the monument. Flagstaff 

is rapidly growing, and residential 

development is also occurring on 

private lands to the northeast of the 

monument near the communities of 

Cosnino and Winona. Natural systems 

and processes within the monument 

are currently buffered from 

development impacts by Coconino 

National Forest and Arizona State 

lands. However, Flagstaff could 

eventually acquire and develop these 

lands. This would greatly increase 

recreational and illegal impacts to 

Walnut Canyon, further fragment 

wildlife habitat, and deter the NPS 

from using fire to maintain natural 

vegetation communities. 

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 

number of "species of concern" occur 

within habitats nearby and similar to 

Walnut Canyon. The status of these 

species is regularly assessed by 

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, "species of 

concern," and designated critical 

habitats that might be affected by a 

proposed action. The potential 

impacts to other identified 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 Game and Fish Department 

2001). 

Among all biological groups, fish are 

the most threatened. A 

disproportionate number of rare and 

threatened plant, animal, and 

invertebrate species also require 

perennial streams, wetlands, or 

riparian habitats, reflecting the 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

89

widespread alteration of entire 

region's freshwater ecosystems. 

Of the region's rare plant species, 

several are endemic to the Mogollon 

Highlands and San Francisco 

Mountains, including the San 

Francisco Peaks groundsel (Senecio 

franciscianus), listed as threatened, 

and Bebb's willow (Salix bebbiana). 

The Sunset Crater penstemon 

(Penstemon clutei) and cinder lady's 

tresses (Phacelia welshii) are 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 on 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 spp. lucida) is found 

within the region in dense, mixedconifer forests, particularly in canyons. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

recently designated critical habitat for 

the species. The Southwestern willow 

flycatcher, an endangered bird 

species, depends upon 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 

Marshall Lake. Although recently 

removed from the endangered species 

list by 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, 

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 (Accipiter gentilis) 

and ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). 

Although it is not formally listed or 

considered a species of concern, 

wildlife managers and the general 

public are concerned about the 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 

because of its low population density, 

ecological importance as a predator 

and indicator of environmental 

quality, public concern for its welfare, 

and traditional importance to 

American Indians. As with other wideranging 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 within the Colorado Plateau 

Region. Although the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service recently proposed a 

study to assess the status of the 

species throughout the western 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

90

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. Wildlife managers are 

concerned about the decline in the 

pronghorn population in northern 

Arizona over the past few decades 

(Bright and Van Riper III 2000). 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 open grassland habitat. 

Park 

Walnut Canyon provides habitat for a 

few threatened and several sensitive 

species. The Arizona Heritage Data 

Management System (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. Plant species on the list were 

compared with the flora summary 

checklist recently compiled by the NPS 

(2001). In addition, a survey for special 

status plants at the Flagstaff Area 

National Monuments, including 

Walnut Canyon, was recently 

completed by Huisinga and others 

(2000). 

Currently, no federally listed 

threatened or endangered plant 

species are known to occur in Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. 

One plant species, Rumex 

orthonuerus, currently listed as 

threatened, occurs in wetland 

meadows in the Mogollon Highlands 

southeast of the Coconino Plateau. 

The species could potentially occur at 

wetter sites along the Walnut Canyon 

floor. However, it has not been 

discovered during numerous botanical 

inventories of the monument, and 

likely does not occur because of the 

relative scarcity of deep soil terraces 

adjacent to perennial waters. 

Although not formally protected 

under the Endangered Species Act, 

two plant species of concern occur 

within the monument-Aquilegia 

desertorum and Erigeron saxatalis. 

Several populations of Aquilegia 

desertorum are documented within 

the monument. The species inhabits 

moist soil pockets in rocky limestone 

terrain. Several populations of 

Erigeron saxatalis are documented 

within in the monument in riparian 

vegetation along the canyon bottom. 

Another three plant species of 

concern have not been documented 

but could potentially occur within the 

monument-Cimicifuga arizonica, 

Clematis hirutissima var. arizonica, 

and Hedeoma diffusum. Cimicifuga 

arizonica occurs within the Mogollon 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

91

Highlands region in deep, narrow 

canyon habitats on moist, loamy soil 

and beneath heavily shaded riparian 

and coniferous forest canopy cover. 

This species has not been discovered 

during several field surveys and 

probably does not occur within the 

monument because of the relative 

scarcity of deep soil terraces adjacent 

to perennial waters. Clematis 

hirutissima var. arizonica occurs in the 

Walnut Canyon watershed upstream 

from the monument. The subspecies 

grows in colonies under shaded forest 

and woodland vegetation on gentle 

slopes with well-developed, 

limestone-derived soils. This 

subspecies has yet to be discovered 

during botanical surveys of the 

monument, but likely occurs because 

of the presence of good habitat. 

Hedeoma diffusum grows along 

limestone bluffs in Walnut Canyon, 

and has been documented near the 

monument boundary on the Coconino 

National Forest. This species has yet to 

be discovered during botanical 

surveys of the monument, but likely 

occurs because of the presence of 

good habitat. 

The Mexican spotted owl, peregrine 

falcon, and northern goshawk are 

known to inhabit Walnut Canyon. The 

Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida) is federally listed 

as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act. The species is relatively 

solitary and found in dense, unevenaged forest in steeply sloping or 

canyon terrain. Mexican spotted owls 

nest in the monument, and breeding 

activity has been monitored at various 

times between 1989 and 1998. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently 

designated critical habitat for the 

species within the monument, which 

primarily encompasses the 

backcountry closure area. Some level 

of recreational use and associated 

noise disturbance likely occurs in the 

1996 western boundary expansion 

area, which will continue until the 

new boundary is surveyed, fenced, 

and posted. The NPS is cooperating 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and U.S. Forest Service to implement 

the management actions identified in 

the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery 

Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1995). Specific actions include 

monitoring nesting activity and 

breeding success, protecting critical 

habitat from wildfire, and managing 

forest vegetation to conserve specific 

microhabitat attributes. 

The peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus ssp. anatum) occurs within 

Walnut Canyon. The species was 

recently removed from the 

endangered species list by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, but the 

recovery plan requires that the 

population be monitored for longterm stability. Peregrine falcons have 

established two breeding aeries on 

steep cliff faces within the 

monument. One of the aeries lies 

within the backcountry closure area 

within the monument. The other is 

included in the 1996 western 

boundary expansion area, and is 

located on a cliff that has been 

subject to recreational climbing 

activity in the past. Some recreational 

disturbance will likely continue until 

the new boundary is surveyed, fenced, 

and posted. No NPS management 

activities, including visitor activities, 

are currently occurring or proposed 

on or above known peregrine aerie 

cliffs. 

The northern goshawk (Accipiter 

gentilis), a species of concern, also 

nests within the monument. Northern 

goshawks are relatively solitary 

raptors that prefer forest interior 

habitats. Two nest sites have been 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

92

documented within the monument in 

the backcountry closure area. 

The mountain lion (Felis concolor), 

although not formally protected or 

designated a species of concern, 

remains a concern for NPS managers 

because it is a large predator with an 

expansive home range that transcends 

the monument boundary. The NPS 

currently has very little information 

on the distribution and abundance of 

mountain lions within the Walnut 

Canyon area, but suspects the canyon 

provides good den sites. As Flagstaff 

continues to grow, residential 

development is anticipated to 

encroach upon the western 

monument boundary. Along with this 

growth, recreational activity is 

expected to increase in proximity to 

the boundary, along with the 

potential for human-mountain lion 

interactions. NPS resource 

management policy directs the agency 

to sustain the ecological role of 

natural predators while minimizing 

threats to public safety. 

Bat species are considered to have 

specialized habitat requirements and 

sensitivity to environmental impacts. 

Twelve species are currently 

monitored within Coconino County as 

species of concern. The fractured 

limestone faces of Walnut Canyon 

provide ample bat habitat, and 

Townsend's big-eared bat and other 

sensitive species potentially occur 

within the monument. The NPS has 

little information on the bat fauna, 

but recently began efforts to 

inventory this faunal group. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, 

AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES 

This section complements the 

preceding section on natural systems 

and processes, and is intended to 

specifically address compliance with 

executive orders mandating wetlands 

conservation and floodplain planning 

requirements. In addition, most 

floodplains and wetlands in the 

Southwestern United States harbor 

unique riparian habitats and rare 

species. During the public and agency 

scoping process, pertinent issues 

include potential impacts to the 

narrow riparian corridor along the 

Walnut Canyon floor and isolated 

perennial seeps and springs found 

primarily within the tributary side 

canyons. Scoping issues also included 

the development of facilities and 

accommodation of visitor activities in 

potential flashflood areas. The 

primary concern expressed about 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

habitat was ensuring that the unique 

riparian resources are conserved 

within Walnut Canyon. 

Region 

The southern Colorado Plateau 

receives a limited amount of 

precipitation, and surface waters are 

scarce. Accordingly, streams, 

wetlands, and riparian areas within 

the region surrounding Walnut 

Canyon National Monument are 

precious resources. Among all 

biological groups within the region, 

the fishes have the greatest number 

of species that are formally protected 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department 

2001). Numerous protected and 

sensitive plants, animals, and 

invertebrates are restricted to 

perennial streams, wetlands, or 

riparian habitats, reflecting 

widespread alteration and threats to 

most of the region's freshwater 

ecosystems. 

The region typically experiences a 

period of drought from early spring 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

93

through summer, a strong 

thunderstorm "monsoon" from late 

summer through early autumn, and 

unpredictable precipitation during 

the winter. Precipitation amounts 

strongly correlate with elevation. 

Most of the regional watershed drains 

northeastward from the San Francisco 

Mountains and surrounding Coconino 

Plateau into the Little Colorado River. 

The Little Colorado River headwaters 

reach 200 miles southeast into New 

Mexico. The river flows into the 

Colorado River at Marble Canyon and 

then through the Grand Canyon. A 

smaller area of the regional 

watershed drains south of the 

Mogollon Rim highlands into the 

Verde River basin. 

All perennial streams and intermittent 

tributary washes are heavily impacted 

by human uses, primarily livestock 

grazing, but also by damming, 

diversion, and groundwater 

withdrawals for public water supply, 

hydropower generation, limited 

agriculture and industry, and public 

recreation. Narrow galleries of 

cottonwood, willow, and sycamore 

trees once dominated most stream 

banks, but are now almost entirely 

replaced by thickets of nonnative 

tamarisk and desert scrub. Available 

riparian habitat and water sources for 

wildlife have also diminished during 

the last century, especially for birds. 

Reliable springs and seeps are rare 

throughout the region and even 

scarcer in the northern half. Although 

springs support small riparian areas, 

these are usually rich in plant species 

and provide important surface water 

for wildlife such as elk, deer, and 

antelope. Springs are fed either from 

shallow, perched aquifers or from the 

large, regional Coconino Aquifer (Bills 

et al. 2000). Winter precipitation 

seems to play an important role in 

recharging these aquifers. Most 

springwater within the Inner Basin of 

the San Francisco Mountains is 

completely used as part of the public 

water supply for Flagstaff. Many 

reliable springs that are near areas 

with good rangeland have been fully 

contained and diverted for livestock 

use and are no longer available to 

wildlife. Some, such as Oak Creek, are 

now popular public recreation 

attractions. 

Considerable vegetation change has 

occurred within the regional 

watershed during the last century, 

which is likely having a measurable 

influence on groundwater recharge 

rates. Fire suppression at higher 

elevations is leading to overcrowded 

forest stands. At mid-elevation, fire 

suppression and livestock grazing are 

believed to contribute to woodland 

encroachment into existing 

grasslands. Livestock grazing at lower 

elevations has favored the expansion 

of desert scrub into former arid 

grasslands. Increased forest and 

woodland tree numbers are 

intercepting groundwater in the root 

zone before it can infiltrate and 

recharge aquifers. Increasing aridity 

and loss of herbaceous cover at lower 

elevations promotes rapid 

precipitation runoff and decreases soil 

infiltration rates. 

The combined extreme nature of 

summer thunderstorms, rapid spring 

snowmelt during some years, reduced 

herbaceous cover, and thin 

hydrophobic soils over much of the 

watershed make flash flooding a real 

safety threat within the region. Many 

of the major washes and Little 

Colorado River flood quite frequently 

following these events. Storm runoff 

patterns in most intermittent 

tributary washes that feed the Little 

Colorado are also influenced by the 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

94

construction of numerous stock tank 

impoundments in support of ranching 

operations. 

Other regional surface water sources 

include windmills and powered pump 

wells. Because reliable groundwater is 

typically limited to the Coconino 

Aquifer at depths of 1,700 feet or 

more, the use of water wells is fairly 

cost prohibitive. Passive precipitation 

catchment systems, or "guzzlers" have 

recently become popular for 

supporting wildlife, ranching, and 

recreational activities. 

Park 

Wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources within Walnut Canyon 

National Monument are restricted to 

the narrow canyon bottom and a 

number of perennial seeps found in 

the tributary canyons on the south 

side of the monument. The floor of 

Walnut Canyon within the monument 

harbors approximately 80 acres of 

well-developed riparian vegetation, 

which is locally dominated by stands 

of Arizona walnut and cottonwood 

trees. Box elder, New Mexico locust, 

Arizona wild rose, and red osier 

dogwood are also common. The 

riparian plant community is very rich 

in shrub, wildflower, vine, and a few 

obligate wetland species. In the 

narrow reaches of the drainage, 

water catchment basins are scoured 

into Coconino Sandstone bedrock. 

These are filled seasonally by local 

snowmelt and rainfall and provide 

important water sources for wildlife. 

In addition, numerous localized seeps 

have been recorded in the fractures 

and bedding planes of the steep 

canyon walls. Prominent seeps are 

also found in the tributary canyons on 

the south side of the monument. 

Wetlands that meet U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service jurisdictional criteria 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act are likely restricted to the narrow 

canyon drainage and perennial seeps. 

The Walnut Canyon watershed drains 

an area of approximately 170 square 

miles. The headwaters of Walnut 

Creek are found in the Mormon 

Mountain-Mormon Lake area more 

than 20 miles south of the monument. 

Prior to 1900, the creek is believed to 

have intermittently flowed through 

the bottom of Walnut Canyon on a 

biannual cycle. Reliable flows typically 

occurred early each year during the 

period of spring snowmelt, and less 

predictable flows likely occurred later 

each year during in the summer and 

fall thunderstorm season. The natural 

hydrology within the Walnut Canyon 

drainage was severely altered when 

the city of Flagstaff began 

impounding Walnut Creek for use as 

its public water supply. Around 1900, 

the first dam was built upstream of 

the monument to create Lower Lake 

Mary. The dam significantly disrupted 

seasonal water flow through the 

canyon. A second dam was built in 

1941 to create Upper Lake Mary, at 

which time Walnut Creek ceased 

flowing. Since 1941, the canyon has 

flooded only three times during 

extreme storm events that completely 

filled both lakes. Flows of lesser 

magnitude occur about once a decade 

from smaller tributary watersheds 

below the lakes. 

The impoundment and diversion of 

Walnut Creek for the last 60 years has 

greatly impacted the wetland, 

floodplain, and riparian resources 

within the monument. The processes 

of stream channel scouring, sediment 

transport, terrace formation, and local 

spring and seep recharge have been 

altered in ways that may never be 

fully understood. Riparian vegetation 

is also changing in the absence of 

seasonal flows. Historic photographs 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

95

from the 1940s show a well-defined 

stream channel along the canyon 

bottom. Today, the channel is 

obscured by vegetation. True riparian 

species, including the Arizona walnut 

for which the canyon is named, are 

believed to be decreasing in number, 

and New Mexico locust now 

dominates the former open drainage 

channel. Most of the riparian species 

that have persisted for the last four 

decades are expected to survive, 

albeit in different proportions than 

prior to the construction of the dams. 

Local wildlife populations have 

probably already adapted to lessreliable surface water. Aquatic 

invertebrates and amphibians were 

likely impacted the most. The NPS 

believes that the riparian system is still 

changing in response to dewatering 

of the drainage, and long-term trends 

have yet to be assessed. The 

restoration of wetland, floodplain, 

and riparian resources is predicated 

upon cooperation by the city of 

Flagstaff to provide seasonal water 

releases from Upper and Lower Lake 

Mary. 

Another relatively small 

impoundment exists near the 

downstream end of the canyon within 

the monument. The Santa Fe Dam 

was built around1885 to supply water 

to the Santa Fe Railway, and has 

locally impacted riparian resources. 

The former reservoir area is now 

almost entirely filled with sediment, 

and most local storm flows pass 

through the dam's spillway. The 

Walnut Creek stream channel and 

sediment plain behind the dam are 

dominated by both native and 

nonnative weedy annual species, such 

as Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), 

horehound (Marrubium vulgare), 

sweet clover (Melilotus albus), and 

field bindweed (Convovulus arvensis). 

The canyon floor area around the 

reservoir is seasonally used by wildlife 

for both browse and water. 

Currently, there are no NPS visitor 

facilities within the Walnut Canyon 

bottom or near the perennial seeps. 

Riparian resources are buffered from 

water quality degradation by 

surrounding undeveloped Coconino 

National Forest and Arizona State 

trust lands. However, the city of 

Flagstaff has annexed all lands to the 

north and west boundary of Walnut 

Canyon National Monument, 

including a relatively large area 

contiguous to the canyon rim and 

tributary canyons west of the 

monument. Development of these 

lands within the relatively pristine 

canyon watershed could significantly 

increase non-point source pollution, 

such as motor and exhaust residue 

from streets, and fertilizers, 

herbicides, and pet waste from lawns. 

The occurrence of shallow 

groundwater is expressed only via the 

aforementioned seeps within 

sedimentary rock fractures and 

bedding planes. It is believed that the 

seeps are recharged via local fractures 

and limestone "karst" erosion 

features in the watershed, and there 

is little threat of contamination or 

aquifer depletion under current land 

uses within the watershed. The only 

reliable groundwater beneath the 

monument is found at a depth 

greater than 1,500 feet within the 

regional Coconino Aquifer. The NPS 

maintains a well into the aquifer to 

supply operations at the monument, 

and the water table has remained 

relatively stable. 

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE 

PARK RESOURCES 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

96

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 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, 

while inappropriate on NPS lands, are 

both appropriate and encouraged 

elsewhere. 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 

non-NPS 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

97

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 a variety of impairments is being 

addressed in the Comprehensive 

Interpretive Plan. 

The opportunity to present this type 

of interpretive message in a 

comprehensive manner is great, 

because travel patterns of visitors to 

the Flagstaff Area monuments are 

fairly well defined. Visitor surveys (Lee 

and Treadwell 1999) 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 Walnut Canyon 

visitors, 49% also go to Sunset Crater 

Volcano and 38% to Wupatki; for 

61% this is part of a longer trip. 

Park 

As described in the Purpose and Need 

section, Walnut Canyon's purpose is 

"to protect ancient cliff dwellings and 

associated resources that are of great 

ethnographic, scientific, and 

educational interest, and to properly 

care for and manage the cultural and 

natural resources of historic, social, 

and scientific interest..." 

Because of the physical layout of the 

park, visitors have the opportunity to 

experience the variety of park 

resources, but within a limited portion 

of the entire canyon. Walnut Canyon 

as a meandering geological feature is 

approximately 14 miles long. Ten 

miles lie within park boundaries, but 

only short segments and occasional 

side canyons are visible from most 

vantage points. This presents a 

confusing picture to visitors trying to 

understand the extent of prehistoric 

settlement and the direction of water 

flow through the canyon. An 

interpretive goal both in the visitor 

center and at overlooks is to make the 

canyon-the primary resourceunderstandable. 

Unlike the other two Flagstaff Area 

monuments, Walnut Canyon is not a 

drive-through experience. The threemile entrance road ends at the visitor 

center parking lot, which also serves 

the primary picnic area and two selfguided trails. Visitation to the canyon 

is therefore concentrated in this small 

area, occupying about 1/2 square 

mile, and is pedestrian in nature. 

The visitor center affords excellent 

views into the canyon and contains a 

small museum in which exhibits 

convey basic concepts about the 

people who built the cliff dwellings. 

The building is constructed on several 

levels connected by stairs; the 

resulting accessibility issues have been 

temporarily remedied through the 

installation of wheelchair lifts, but 

long-term architectural solutions are 

needed. 

Visitors can walk two interpretive 

trails. The half-mile Rim Trail follows 

the edge of Walnut Canyon to two 

overlooks, then winds through 

pinyon-juniper forest to a small 

pueblo and pithouse, returning finally 

to the picnic area and visitor center 

parking lot. This trail is relatively level 

and paved. The first 100 yards (to the 

first overlook) currently meet 

accessibility standards, and additional 

improvements are planned to provide 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

98

access to the pithouse area. The Island 

Trail descends 185 feet (about 

halfway) into the canyon, passing 25 

cliff dwelling rooms that encircle the 

base of Third Fort (structural remains 

perched on the highest point of the 

"island" landform within the canyon). 

The "fort" itself is off-trail and not 

open to visitation. The trail is paved 

and includes 240 concrete steps, 

making this experience a physical 

impossibility for many visitors. 

Ranger-led hikes are offered 

seasonally to the historic ranger cabin, 

which predates NPS management of 

the monument, and to other 

archeological sites in the canyon. 

Hiking is not permitted in the canyon 

bottom. 

Motorized sightseeing is limited to 

views of the forest along the entrance 

road; the canyon, and cliff dwellings, 

and rim side dwellings are not visible 

from the road. Occasional visitation 

occurs to the south side of the canyon 

via unpaved USFS roads, but there is 

no NPS presence and no on-site 

interpretation of the resources. 

We can only imagine the actual 

appearance of the canyon walls, 

cultivated croplands, vegetative cover, 

and other elements as they were 

during the occupation of the cliff 

dwellings. To today's visitors, the 

forested Walnut Canyon environment 

appears natural and little altered by 

modern activities. However, water 

flows in the canyon have been greatly 

altered by upstream dam construction 

during the last century, and wildlife 

and vegetation within the canyon 

have changed accordingly. Additional 

alteration to the natural scene is 

probable as Flagstaff residential 

development extends closer to the 

park boundary. 

According to recent visitor surveys 

(Lee and Treadwell 1999), visitors are 

generally satisfied with their 

experience at Walnut Canyon. Most 

visitors incorporate their trip as part 

of a larger travel plan, and many are 

on their way to or from Grand Canyon 

National Park. Many visitors want to 

see Walnut Canyon and its 

archeological ruins. Many also 

expressed the desire to look at 

scenery, enjoy the sights and sounds 

of nature, and share the park with 

others (many are locals who are 

giving a tour to family and/or friends). 

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 

Walnut Canyon National Monument is 

east of the city of Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Phoenix, a rapidly growing 

metropolitan complex of 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. 

Flagstaff 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

99

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, surrounding Sunset 

and Walnut and bordering 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 area 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 the finding 

of meteorites and meteorite 

diamonds has 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. 

Woodcutting, shooting/hunting, and 

off-road vehicle activities are evident 

throughout Forest Service areas 

adjacent to the monument. 

Occasionally, these incompatible 

activities spill over onto monument 

property because boundaries have not 

yet been completely fenced. 

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. 

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 

Expansion of the monument in 1996 

added approximately 1,333 acres, 

which have not been surveyed or 

fenced. There is some confusion on 

the part of public users regarding 

where forest lands end and the 

monument begins. The new lands on 

the west side of the monument are 

within two miles of residential areas 

of the city of Flagstaff, and parts of 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

100

the west boundary of the monument 

coincide with the corporate boundary 

of the city of Flagstaff. Forest 

resources include ponderosa pine, 

pinyon pine, and juniper, which 

attract woodcutters seeking personal 

firewood. There are antelope, elk, 

and deer that attract hunters and 

wildlife viewers. The Coconino 

National Forest administers several 

permits for grazing by local ranchers 

in the lands adjacent to the 

monument. Traditional and current 

forest uses by citizens of Flagstaff 

include. horseback riding, recreational 

vehicle uses, hiking, camping, 

hunting, birding, woodcutting, 

shooting, and mountain biking. A 

section of the Arizona Trail passes the 

northwest corner of the monument 

and is used by local and regional 

visitors for recreational purposes. 

Because of this proximity, occasional 

inappropriate uses occur on 

monument property, including 

trespass, shooting, hunting, 

woodcutting, and vehicle travel. 

Park Service staff are involved in the 

long-range planning efforts of the 

city and county. User and resource 

protection activities occasionally 

involve Forest Service, Arizona Game 

and Fish, City of Flagstaff, Coconino 

County, and other units of the 

National Park System. Relationships 

with these other agencies are strong 

and cooperation is excellent. 

Emergency responses in the Walnut 

Canyon area come from the various 

land management agencies and 

public safety organizations. The 

National Park Service provides 

assistance with law enforcement, 

search and rescue, emergency medical 

assistance, and wild fire management 

in the immediate area. The county 

deputizes NPS rangers, and members 

of the NPS staff serve as crew on 

national forest fire fighting teams. 

Coconino County provides law 

enforcement and search and rescue. 

The Forest Service provides law 

enforcement relative to recreation, 

consumptive uses, grazing, and wild 

fire suppression. Arizona Game and 

Fish provides law enforcement 

relative to hunting activities. The 

Arizona Department of Public Safety 

provides law enforcement (traffic) on 

primary roads and air support in 

search and rescue operations. The city 

of Flagstaff (Guardian Ambulance) 

provides medical emergency 

responses (ground and air). 

Three state trust sections of land 

adjacent to, or within two miles of, 

the monument could be offered for 

sale and development. Development 

could pose external threats in the 

form of increased unauthorized uses, 

trespass by animals, pollution, noise, 

and degradation of the viewshed. 

Approximately 291 acres of private 

land exist inside the eastern area of 

the monument, and there is potential 

for development by the owner. The 

owner is supportive of NPS programs 

and is very cooperative; however, 

development of this private property 

could result in water impoundment 

behind a historic dam to create a lake 

that could possibly back up onto 

monument land. There is the 

potential for residential development 

and increased exposure of cultural 

resources to trespass and 

inappropriate uses resulting from 

residential development and the 

attraction of a lake. The land 

protection plan (NPS 1990) 

recommends acquisition of this 

inholding, and the owner has 

expressed willingness to consider NPS 

acquisition. 

The NPS money generation model is a 

formula used to estimate the benefits 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

101

attributed to the local economy 

resulting from the number of visitors 

to National Park System areas. The 

estimates of those contributions to 

the greater Flagstaff economy from 

Walnut Canyon National Monument 

include tax revenue of $106,119 and a 

total spending revenue of $2,122,377 

(based on the latest calculations from 

1996). 

There are several cooperative 

agreements with other agencies: a 

multiagency agreement for wild fire 

management, an agreement with the 

Coconino National Forest and 

Coconino County Sheriff's Office for 

joint law enforcement activity, a 

cooperative program with Coconino 

National Forest for educational 

activities on both forest and park 

lands, and an annual contract with 

the city of Flagstaff for structural fire 

suppression. 

The canyon has significant biological 

diversity and concentrations of 

threatened and endangered species. 

Additionally, mountain lion, bear, 

antelope, deer, and elk move through 

the monument, exemplifying the 

diverse habitat located so close to city 

development. Visitation to the canyon 

itself is not encouraged, and local uses 

are minimum and seasonal. The 

monument staff works in cooperation 

with other land and resource 

management agencies in inventory 

and monitoring activities. 

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. 

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

Roadways and Access 

Access to Walnut Canyon National 

Monument is gained primarily via I40, approximately 5 miles south of the 

city of Flagstaff, and a paved 3-mile 

entrance road. Visitors travel 2.1 miles 

before entering park boundaries. The 

entrance road was constructed in 

1963 and was built specifically to 

provide access from I-40 to the park. 

Construction of I-40 was completed in 

the late 1950s and early 1960s and 

replaced the famed Route 66. 

The entrance road provides the 

primary access to the north rim and to 

the park's residential area and 

maintenance complex. The road 

terminates at a loop parking lot 

immediate adjacent to the visitor 

center. Three small pullouts with 

picnic areas exist along the roadway; 

two are on the west side of the road, 

and one is on the east side. Employees 

and visitors traveling this road are at 

risk of hitting large game, primarily 

deer. Shoulders have steep drop-offs 

and are quite narrow. There is seldom 

room for a vehicle to safely pull to the 

side of the road. 

The original entrance road, also know 

as the Old Walnut Canyon Road, or 

FR303, begins at the Flagstaff city 

limits and terminates at I-40 

approximately two miles west of the 

Walnut Canyon exit. It intersects with 

the park entrance road approximately 

1/2 mile north of the entrance station. 

This road is sometimes used as a 

commuter route by residents living 

near Cosnino on the north and south 

sides of I-40. Both the paved entrance 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

102

road and FR303 are patrolled by NPS 

personnel. The Forest Service and 

Coconino County maintain FR303, and 

NPS maintains the entrance road. Use 

of the entrance road and FR303 is not 

regulated. Entrance to the park, 

however, is gated just beyond the 

entrance station, and locked at night. 

There are a number of official and 

unofficial roads USFS roads to the 

west and northwest of the monument 

that provide access up to park 

boundaries. Most of these roads 

emanate off of FR303. 

The south rim of the park is closed to 

all visitation. Myriad undeveloped 

roads provide access to the south 

boundary, including FR128 and 

FR128c. FR128 is accessed via I-40 at 

the Townsend/Winona exit, 

approximately six miles east of the 

Walnut Canyon exit. FR128 leads to 

Anderson Mesa and Marshall Lake 

and terminates at Lake Mary at the 

intersection of Forest Highway 3 (the 

Lake Mary Road). Only one road 

provides access into the park on the 

south rim: FR128c, a 3.4-mile spur 

road off FR128, was constructed by 

the Forest Service in the 1980s and 

leads to a small overlook that 

provides a view of the Walnut Canyon 

drainage system. 

Public access via Forest Service roads 

on the south rim, and the lack of NPS 

presence make protection of park 

resources difficult. The extensive 

travel time (approximately 1 hour via 

FR128) to the south rim poses 

difficulties in responding to 

emergencies in a timely fashion. The 

inability to regulate the use of forest 

roads adjacent to park boundaries 

makes protection of resources 

difficult, and unauthorized access into 

the park occurs fairly frequently. 

Facilities 

Visitor use areas and facilities within 

the park include two self-guided 

trails, a visitor center, museum, and 

picnic areas. As noted previously, 

three small picnic areas are located 

along the entrance road. 

Other facilities include four singlefamily residences, one mobile home, a 

maintenance shop complex, a historic 

log cabin (in need of extensive and 

comprehensive preservation 

treatment) and support infrastructure 

(utilities, secondary roads, fences, and 

other outbuildings), all dated and in 

need of substantial upgrade. Four 

permanent employees reside in park 

housing, and the mobile home is used 

for one or two seasonal employees. 

Two housing units are historic, built in 

1939, and both need extensive 

upgrade. The mobile home needs to 

be removed and replaced with 

adequate seasonal quarters. Three 

employees are required occupants 

and provide minimum after-hours 

coverage for protection and 

maintenance emergencies. 

Park facilities and infrastructure date 

from the late 1930s and early 1940s 

and from the 1960s (Mission 66). 

Maintenance activities focus primarily 

on custodial activities and routine 

required tasks. There is insufficient 

staff to function in a proactive 

manner in regard to preventive 

maintenance. 

The visitor center is vintage Mission 66 

construction and essentially serves as 

a substantial addition to the original 

visitor center. A large "loop" parking 

lot adjacent to the visitor center also 

serves the Island and Rim Trails. The 

visitor center also serves as offices for 

park interpretive and law 

enforcement staff. It also contains 

space for curatorial collections and a 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

103

small museum. This facility is 

considered inadequate and obsolete 

and in serious need of upgrading and 

remodeling. The lack of fire and 

climate control and the existence of 

outdated utilities and features has 

placed collections and exhibits at risk 

and has created an inhospitable work 

environment. 

The parking lot is too small for buses 

and vehicles towing trailers and for 

the number of park visitors, resulting 

in overflow onto the entrance road, 

which creates an unsafe situation. In 

extreme situations, visitors are denied 

entry to the park. 

The primary visitor attraction is the 

Island Trail, which begins and ends at 

the visitor center and requires visitors 

to descend (and ascend) 240 steps into 

the canyon. There are numerous steep 

exposures along the trail, and it is 

quite narrow and often overcrowded, 

forcing people to step off onto rough 

terrain to allow others to pass. The 

climb out of the canyon in 

conjunction with the elevation of 

6,700 feet often taxes the capabilities 

of visitors. The trail is a little under a 

mile long, and it encircles the "Third 

Fort," allowing visitors access to 25 

cliff dwellings rooms. Because of the 

steepness of the trail, it is not 

accessible to persons with disabilities. 

A second trail, the Rim Trail, is a 0.7-

mile loop trail that takes visitors along 

the north rim of the canyon and past 

two developed archeological sites. It is 

fairly flat and accessible to persons 

with mobility impairments for a 

portion of its length. 

For resources protection and 

preservation purposes, the remaining 

portion of the park, including the 

south rim, are closed to visitor use. 

The new additions to the park as a 

result of the recent boundary 

expansion remain open to the public. 

Some uses that occurred within these 

areas before management was 

transferred to the NPS may continue 

to be allowed. Consumptive uses, such 

as hunting, firewood cutting, will not 

be allowed. OHV use is restricted to 

established roads. 

There are no gas, food service, 

camping, or concession operations in 

the park. The visitor center contains a 

bookstore operated by the Southwest 

Parks and Monuments Association. 

Fees are collected at the entrance 

station during peak visitor use periods 

(mid-May through September), and at 

all other times are collected at the 

visitor center. 

Utilities 

The Park Service owns and operates 

the water and wastewater (sewer) 

systems. Arizona Public Service 

provides electrical service. U.S. West 

and AT&T provide the telephone 

service, but the monument owns its 

own phone system. The city of 

Flagstaff provides trash (solid waste) 

pickup through contract. 

The park's domestic water supply is 

provided by a 440-foot well and 

contained in an elevated 50,000-

gallon storage tank. 

A large surface lagoon located along 

the north central boundary of the 

park manages wastewater. The 

lagoon currently operates at 

maximum capacity and requires 

pumping on a regular basis. 

Walnut Canyon is connected to the 

other two 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 

damage from lightning strikes. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

104

Staffing 

A central Headquarters, located in 

Flagstaff, provides administrative 

services for the three monuments and 

is the office location for the 

superintendent and 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 and for 

other parks and points of interest in 

northern Arizona. 

Resource management activities are 

accomplished by headquarters-based 

staff. Both resource management 

staff and park law enforcement staff 

have implemented a resource 

monitoring and patrol program. 

Resources management staff conducts 

limited research; however, the 

majority of the research is conducted 

by various agencies and institutions 

and selected and qualified interested 

individuals. 

Interpretation and law enforcement 

staffing is concentrated at the visitor 

center and visitor services are 

provided primarily from that location. 

Because of the need to run both an 

information desk and fee collection 

kiosk, it is often difficult to provide 

staff for patrols, interpretive 

programs, and interpretive presence 

at the park resources. 

Ranger patrols are conducted within 

the monument, around its perimeter, 

and occasionally onto adjacent 

National Forest lands. During busy 

visitation periods, there are not 

enough permanent staff members to 

respond to the increased needs of 

visitor services, protection, and 

resource management. Most visitor 

contact functions and programs are 

accomplished through Student 

Conservation Association employees 

and Volunteers-in-Park. 

Staffing levels in all aspects of park 

operations, that is, to provide the 

necessary protection and preservation 

of park resources, to address visitor 

use needs, and to perform the 

necessary maintenance to park 

facilities and infrastructure, are 

considered inadequate. 

One maintenance employee is a 

required occupant at Walnut Canyon. 

Staff numbers are inadequate to 

provide the desired level of janitorial 

services, and many routine 

housekeeping and maintenance needs 

are deferred. Maintenance staff from 

Sunset Crater Volcano provide 

assistance on an as-needed basis. 

The majority of collections for the 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments 

have been relocated to the Wupatki 

curatorial storage room. Storage 

space, storage environment, and 

protection at Walnut Canyon and 

Sunset Crater Volcano for museum 

objects are limited and poor. Storage 

environment at Wupatki is also poor, 

although it does provide a more 

secure location for the bulk of the 

collection. Approximately 50,000 

objects, including historic photograph 

files, archives, natural history 

specimens, and archeological, 

ethnographical, and historical items, 

are stored at Wupatki. 

All unprocessed collections, the rare 

book collection, the research library, 

and computer support are housed at 

the headquarters office. 

Approximately 500 objects, including 

natural history specimens, ground 

stone artifacts, and archival material, 

are stored in the Walnut Canyon 

visitor center lunchroom. Storage 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

105

space is limited to two small closets 

and some office space. The storage 

environment and security of the 

collections at Walnut Canyon is 

extremely poor. Because of limited 

space and environmental and 

accountability concerns, the majority 

of the collection has been moved to 

the Wupatki curatorial storage room. 

Employee health and safety issues 

include potential exposure to 

hantavirus and other diseases 

resulting from 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 are exposed to potentially 

dangerous driving conditions if they 

are required to conduct business at 

the other Flagstaff Area parks or 

headquarters during inclement 

weather. Mountain lion and black 

bear are known to occasionally 

frequent the general area of the trail 

and visitor center, posing a potential 

risk to visitors and 

employees.
107

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 is returned 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 that, 

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 be 

some reduction in roads. Monitoring 

of impacts will increase, but existing 

activities will continue unless 

monitoring shows problems. Forest 

closures/increased restrictions 

(including those related to fire hazard 

conditions) may transfer some 

pressure to parks. Increased access to 

different locations on USFS lands may 

affect park-eligible resources. The 

Forest Service is currently managing 

areas next to the city as open space, 

but would rather exchange such areas 

in accordance with regional land use 

plans. The urban boundary would 

then move closer to the parks. The 

Forest Service "Company's Coming" 

program could affect all three parks. 

Increased growth of Flagstaff could 

mean more visits/demand 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. 

Upstream dams and impoundments 

(Upper and Lower Lake Mary) will 

continue to affect water flow and the 

riparian corridor within Walnut 

Canyon. 

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 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

108

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 Walnut Canyon. However, there 

may be a decrease in the number of 

visitors, but more demand for things 

to do by those who do come. 

Development of the private inholding 

within Walnut Canyon National 

Monument could impact natural and 

cultural resources, including the 

historic Santa Fe Dam, and could alter 

views from primary public use areas 

within the monument. 

Our ability to manage wildlife may be 

influenced by Arizona Game and Fish 

Department objectives. There will be 

increased ecosystem research (longterm monitoring). 

Past activities like grazing and pot 

hunting continue to have effects. 

LONG-TERM 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 was 

compiled (Baldwin and Bremer 1986; 

NPS Flagstaff Area archives; MNA, 

USFS and NPS archeological site files). 

Map locations of archeological sites 

were compared with locations of 

proposed developments and proposed 

modifications to existing facilities. 

Predictions about short- and longterm site impacts 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 other 

nonrenewable resources in nearby 

parks (Roggenbuck et al. 1997), as 

well as 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; Vande Kamp et al. 1994; 

Swearingen and Johnson 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 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

109

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 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 hike to an archeological site 

may have a negligible effect on site 

integrity, the cumulative impact of 

hundreds of hikers 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. 

As noted above, effects to 

archeological resources can be either 

beneficial or adverse, direct or 

indirect, or short- or long-term. 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 National 

Register eligible or listed 

archeological sites, the impact 

changes one or more 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 

Under the No-Action Alternative, as 

well as the other two WACA 

alternatives, the following actions 

would occur: 

The National Park Service would 

continue to work with the City of 

Flagstaff, Coconino County, the State 

of Arizona, the U.S. Forest Service, 

and other agencies to develop 

mutually beneficial partnerships. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

110

Resources located on Forest Service 

land adjacent to the monument 

would be managed in accordance 

with decisions reached in the FLEA 

process. Continuing NPS involvement 

in interagency planning and regional 

planning efforts would benefit 

archeological resources by ensuring 

that regional land management 

decisions take into account effects on 

archeological resources both inside 

and outside of the monument 

boundaries. 

New interpretive wayside and 

museum exhibits would be installed in 

accordance with the Flagstaff Areas 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan. 

Potentially, an upgrading/updating of 

interpretive media could improve 

long-term integrity of archeological 

resources through improving 

education of visitors about the 

significance, importance, and fragility 

of resources and how visitors can 

reduce their impacts to archeological 

sites. 

The park would remain committed to 

improving accessibility for visitors 

with disabilities, and modifications of 

trails and other facilities to ensure 

safety for all visitors would continue. 

Improved definition and continued 

maintenance of trails would benefit 

archeological resources located in the 

vicinity by increasing compliance with 

rules restricting pedestrian activities 

to designated trails and reducing 

erosion problems adjacent to trails. 

Under this and all other alternatives, 

the existing housing and maintenance 

area would be maintained in its 

current location. This would be a 

major benefit to archeological 

resources by confining the zone of 

disturbance from residential and 

maintenance activities to this 

previously disturbed area. 

Under this and all other alternatives, 

the new lands added to the 

monument in 1996 would be surveyed 

and fenced. An archeological 

inventory of the boundary would be 

performed prior to installing the 

fence, to ensure that no archeological 

sites are inadvertently impacted. The 

fencing would be a major benefit to 

archeological resources by restricting 

off-road vehicular trespass on the 

monument. Furthermore, fencing and 

posting the monument boundaries 

would ensure that visitors are 

adequately informed of the fact that 

they are entering a national 

monument where certain specific 

activities such as hunting, camping 

and woodcutting, which can have 

both direct and indirect adverse 

impacts on archeological resources, 

are prohibited. 

The current backcountry closure policy 

limiting visitor access beyond front 

country areas to ranger-guided tours, 

and requiring the issuance of permits 

for researchers and educational 

groups that have a special need to 

enter backcountry areas, would 

remain in effect. The closure will 

continue to have a major beneficial 

effect on archeological resources by 

substantially reducing impacts from 

unregulated 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. 

Unlike the other two alternatives, the 

No-Action Alternative would involve 

no new construction, no additional 

trail developments and no road 

realignments, so there would be no 

new impacts to resources as a result of 

this alternative. Visitors would 

continue to have unguided access to 

six cliff-dwelling sites and two 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

111

surface-dwelling sites within the 

monument along the Island and Rim 

Trails. In addition, they would 

continue to visit five cliff-dwelling 

sites and one surface site via seasonal 

ranger-guided tours along the Ranger 

Cabin/Ledge Trail. The remaining sites 

in the monument would continue to 

be closed to visitor use. 

Archeological resources adjacent to or 

easily accessible from public use areas 

would continue to be vulnerable to 

surface disturbance, inadvertent 

damage, soil compaction, and 

vandalism. Inadvertent impacts 

include knocking top course stones 

loose by walking on or leaning 

against ruin walls, touching original 

plasters, picking up or otherwise 

displacing pottery sherds and other 

artifacts, compacting cultural 

deposits, and creating social trails 

(which ultimately leads to erosion 

problems and destabilization of 

original architecture), plus the 

incremental cumulative effects of 

thousands of people walking around 

and through rooms. Intentional 

vandalism includes removing artifacts, 

inscribing graffiti, dismantling walls, 

and probing or digging in 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 

additional stabilization of site 

architecture (all front country sites 

have already been stabilized to some 

degree), rehabilitating social trails, 

and/or systematically collecting 

surface artifacts for long-term 

curation; however, over the long 

term, these management actions 

would detrimentally affect site 

integrity. Occasionally, the public 

would also adversely affect other sites 

through unauthorized pedestrian and 

vehicular access to backcountry areas 

of the monument. 

In summary, past management 

strategies have limited most impacts 

at archeological sites to eight heavily 

stabilized sites on the Island and Rim 

Trails and, since 1987, to five partially 

stabilized sites on the Ranger 

Cabin/Ledge Trail. Implementation of 

the No-Action Alternative would 

continue to provide access to these 

previously stabilized sites. In addition, 

an unknown number of sites in the 

"new lands" area of the monument 

would continue to receive impacts 

from uses that currently occur in these 

remote sections of the monument; 

however, these impacts would be 

substantially reduced by fencing and 

posting the monument boundaries. 

Overall, the current management 

approach has and would continue to 

limit adverse impacts to a relatively 

small number of previously stabilized 

sites. Therefore, the No-Action 

Alternative would continue to provide 

major long-term benefits to the longterm integrity of the majority of 

archeological resources in Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Past management strategies have 

limited visitor impacts at archeological 

sites to eight heavily stabilized sites 

on the Island and Rim Trails, and since 

1987, to five partially stabilized sites 

on the Ranger Cabin/Ledge Trail. This 

policy would continue under the NoAction Alternative. 

The continuing growth of Flagstaff 

and ongoing efforts by the Flagstaff 

Chamber of Commerce to promote 

visitation to the Flagstaff Area 

national monuments would ultimately 

result in increased impacts to the 

monument's archeological resources. 

These impacts would primarily result 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

112

from increased permitted visitor use 

at front country interpreted sites in 

the form of incidental artifact 

collection, inadvertent destabilization 

of walls, and social trailing, although 

impacts from vandalism and illegal 

excavations in backcountry locations 

would likely increase as well. 

Continued growth in Flagstaff is also 

likely to result in significant 

development of private lands near the 

monument boundaries, which is also 

likely to result in increased unguided 

visitation to backcountry 

archeological sites within the 

monument. 

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 

impacts on USFS lands and resources 

would continue to increase, resulting 

in additional degradation of 

archeological sites. As archeological 

sites are degraded and destroyed 

outside the park, the relative rarity 

and importance of the protected 

archeological resources within the 

monument would increase. 

Road closures on Forest Service lands 

adjacent to the park could have a 

long-term major beneficial effect on 

archeological resources both inside 

and outside the park boundaries, by 

reducing levels of visitation and 

associated impacts (artifact collection, 

graffiti, etc.) and by reducing impacts 

from vehicles on archeological sites 

generally (rutting and erosion of 

topsoil, soil compaction, vegetation 

damage and removal). 

Development of the inholding, either 

for private or commercial purposes, 

could have a long-term detrimental 

impact of archeological resources 

within and adjacent to the 

monument. Adverse impacts could 

include destruction of individual sites 

by the construction of new facilities or 

degradation of resource values from 

increasing visitation impacts (artifact 

collection, trampling, grafitti, etc.) or 

from introducing new recreational 

activities (camping, fishing, horseback 

riding) in this remote corner of the 

monument. 

CONCLUSION 

The No-Action Alternative would have 

a major beneficial effect on 

maintaining the long-term integrity 

of the majority of archeological 

resources within the monument by 

concentrating visitor activities and 

park management impacts on 

previously disturbed and stabilized 

sites. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts from installation of new 

waysides, upgrading of trails and 

facilities to accommodate accessibility, 

and fencing of the new monument 

boundary would be the same as 

described under the No-Action 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

113

Alternative. Existing maintenance 

facilities and housing would be 

retained. 

Under Alternative 1, access to the 

park via the existing entrance road 

would be the same as under the NoAction Alternative. 

No archeological sites would be 

impacted by the construction of the I40 orientation pullout. At least two 

sites would be permanently 

obliterated by construction of a new 

parking lot and trail south of FR303. 

An unknown number of archeological 

sites (but probably fewer than 10) 

could be damaged or destroyed as a 

result of constructing the north rim 

scenic drive. (The exact number of 

sites that would be affected is 

uncertain, because intensive 

archeological inventories have not 

been completed for this east canyon 

area). 

Alternative 1 would involve relocation 

of administrative functions from the 

visitor center to a new administrative 

facility adjoining a new parking area. 

Preliminary orientation functions 

would be relocated to the I-40 

junction area. Over the long term, 

orientation provided at I-40 could 

reduce damage to archeological 

resources by giving visitors basic 

resource protection information 

before they enter the park. Relocating 

administrative functions would free 

up space in the visitor center that 

could potentially be used to increase 

public awareness of resource 

issues/impacts in general and thereby 

improve long-term integrity of 

archeological resources. Expanding 

and upgrading interpretive media 

could potentially improve long-term 

and scientific integrity of 

archeological resources through 

improved education of visitors about 

the significance, importance, and 

fragility of archeological resources 

and the most effective means of 

reducing human impacts to park 

resources. 

Alternative 1 would provide visitor 

access to many areas on the north rim 

that are currently closed to the public 

(hiking, biking, and horseback riding 

in the northwest corner, guided hikes 

east and west of the visitor center and 

at First Fort, plus motorized 

sightseeing along the north rim scenic 

drive). Through ranger-guided hikes, 

visitors would also be able to enter a 

large portion of the backcountry not 

currently open to visitation. 

Numerous archeological sites could 

potentially be impacted by increased 

visitation to areas of the monument 

that are currently closed. Increasing 

visitation could affect the long-term 

integrity of archeological resources 

through the direct actions of visitors, 

as well as by secondary actions that 

could be taken by NPS staff to 

manage visitor impacts. Direct visitor 

impacts include displacement and 

collection of artifacts, damage to 

petroglyphs from touching or tracing, 

destabilization of standing walls by 

sitting and climbing on them, and 

increasing rates of erosion caused by 

soil trampling and social trailing. NPS 

actions could include stabilizing walls 

to withstand visitor impacts, which 

alters the original architectural fabric 

of the ruins, or constructing trails or 

physical barriers, which could result in 

disturbance of archeological deposits. 

At least 50 archeological sites would 

be subject to visitation impacts 

through guided tours, excluding those 

sites in the recently acquired lands. 

Numbers of sites that would be 

impacted by natural area recreation 

and visitor use in areas adjoining the 

north rim scenic drive are unknown, 

because these new lands have not 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

114

been inventoried. In the short run, 

guided hikes in the First Fort area 

would result in the creation of new 

trails to and through archeological 

sites. Over the long term, trails would 

need to be formalized in the First Fort 

area to minimize impacts from 

erosion and social trailing. Moderate 

adverse impacts to archeological site 

integrity could result from cumulative 

loss of surface artifacts, increased soil 

compaction, social trailing and 

erosion, graffiti, a possible increase in 

illegal excavation of sites (as locations 

of sites become widely known), and 

from NPS actions that are 

subsequently taken to mitigate these 

various impacts. Some of the adverse 

impacts to archeological resources 

could be partially offset by the 

intensive, person-to-person education 

of visitors participating in guided 

adventures. Over the long term, 

however, the cumulative effects of 

providing additional visitor access to 

such a larger number of 

nonrenewable archeological resources 

would be major and adverse. 

In addition to the impacts noted 

above, an estimated additional 6 to 

10 sites would probably require 

excavation and/or stabilization within 

the expanded Extended Learning 

Zones to accommodate new trails, 

waysides, rest rooms, and so forth. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects would be the same 

as described for the No-Action 

Alternative, with the following 

exceptions: 

Past management strategies have 

limited visitor impacts at archeological 

sites to eight heavily stabilized sites 

on the Island and Rim Trails, and since 

1987, to five partially stabilized sites 

on the Ranger Cabin/Ledge Trail. 

Implementation of Alternative 1 

would open up dozens of additional 

sites to visitation. Incremental impacts 

from increased visitation would 

eventually result in loss of artifacts, 

destabilization of walls, increased soil 

compaction and erosion, and 

increased social trailing and erosion. 

Some of these impacts could be 

mitigated through stabilizing site 

architecture, rehabilitating social 

trails, and/or systematically collecting 

surface artifacts; however, the longterm implications of these 

management actions would 

detrimentally affect site integrity. In 

addition, an estimated 10-20 sites 

would be impacted or obliterated as a 

result of construction of new facilities, 

roads, and trails. These impacts would 

require mitigation through some form 

of data recovery. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 1 would have a major 

long-term adverse effect on at least 

20% of the archeological resources 

(60-70 archeological sites) in the 

monument. This adverse effect would 

be offset to some degree by benefits 

derived from visitors receiving more 

education and an enhanced 

appreciation of the resources from 

expanded interpretive media and 

from participating in guided 

adventures. However, the net effect 

would be a significant increase in the 

degradation of sensitive archeological 

resources caused by construction of 

the north rim scenic drive and the 

increased visitor access to backcountry 

resources, and the inevitable impacts 

that would result from increasing 

visitation to archeological sites. The 

direct, indirect and cumulative 

impacts of Alternative 1 would have a 

major long-term adverse effect on 

archeological resources in the 

monument. In addition to those 

mentioned, there would be other, less 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

115

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 

Walnut Canyon 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 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The visitor center and administrative 

offices would be relocated to I-40 

under this alternative. Construction of 

new facilities could impact or destroy 

an unknown number of archeological 

resources. The exact number of 

archeological resources that would be 

affected by proposed developments is 

unknown, because archeological 

surveys have not been completed for 

all areas of the monument, but the 

number is expected to be very low, if 

any at all are affected. Loss of 

resources could be partially mitigated 

through excavation, documentation 

and curation. 

From a management standpoint, the 

relocation of visitor orientation 

functions to a larger visitor center 

near I-40 could enhance long-term 

integrity of archeological resources by 

providing visitors with more 

education about the 

importance/significance/fragility of 

cultural resources and means of 

reducing their impacts on them 

before they have a chance to come in 

contact with them. On the other 

hand, relocation of visitor 

center/administrative offices could 

have a long-term moderate adverse 

effect by decreasing uniformed 

presence in proximity to the 

archeological sites and slowing ranger 

response time to resource violations. 

The presence of uniformed personnel 

has been demonstrated to be an 

effective deterrent to inappropriate 

behaviors that result in resource 

damage. Thus, the frequency and 

extent of damage to resources could 

be greater under this alternative than 

if the visitor center were to remain at 

its current location on the rim. 

Physical removal of the Mission 66 

addition to the visitor center would 

have no effect on archeological 

resources. Rehabilitating the area 

where the nonhistoric portion of the 

visitor center currently stands also 

would not affect archeological 

resources. 

The addition of guided hikes in the 

eastern portion of the monument and 

expansion of the Extended Learning 

Zone to include the rim area west of 

visitor center would subject more 

cultural resources to visitation 

damage and increase the need for 

mitigation of impacts. Within the 

Extended Learning Zone, a moderate 

loss of integrity to approximately 6-12 

archeological resources would occur 

because of increased visitation and 

the need to stabilize sites and/or 

harden and expand trails to 

accommodate more intensive use. 

These impacts could be partially 

mitigated through excavation and 

long-term curation. Expansion of the 

Extended Learning Zone would also 

require increased preservation 

maintenance and hardening of at 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

116

least six sites to accommodate 

increased visitor traffic and use. 

An unknown number of archeological 

sites (but at least 8) would be 

impacted by increased visitation in the 

eastern canyon through the 

implementation of guided adventures 

in an area where none currently 

occur. Visitation impacts could include 

loss of artifacts, increased soil 

compaction, trailing and erosion, plus 

the need to stabilize structures to 

withstand repeated visitation. Impacts 

could also include increased graffiti 

and other forms of vandalism, as the 

sites and means of access to them 

become known to the public. These 

effects on the resource would be 

moderately adverse over the long 

term. On the other hand, increased 

impacts could be offset to some 

extent by greater public awareness of 

resource issues and impacts acquired 

through participating in guided 

adventures and by an increased NPS 

presence in the eastern monument. 

Closure of the entrance road at night 

would lessen impacts to archeological 

sites along the entrance road from 

off-road vehicular traffic, evening 

picnickers, and illegal campers. There 

would be no change from existing 

condition in terms of impacts in other 

areas of the park, because these areas 

are already closed to the public. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative impacts would be the 

same as those identified for the NoAction Alternative, with the following 

exceptions: 

Past management strategies have 

limited visitor impacts at archeological 

sites to eight heavily stabilized sites 

on the Island and Rim Trails and, since 

1987, to five partially stabilized sites 

on the Ranger Cabin/Ledge Trail. 

Implementation of Alternative 2 

would open up at least eight 

additional sites to visitation impacts. 

In addition, approximately six sites 

would require stabilization and 

routine preservation maintenance to 

accommodate increased visitation in 

the expanded Extended Learning 

Zone. Alternative 2 would have a 

long-term moderate adverse effect on 

at least 14 archeological sites. Adverse 

impacts would be offset to some 

degree by benefits derived from 

visitors receiving more education and 

an enhanced appreciation of the 

resources from participating in 

interpretive programs. However, 

relative to existing conditions, the net 

effect would be a moderate increase 

in the degradation of sensitive 

archeological resources caused by 

increased visitor access and associated 

visitation impacts, plus loss of site 

integrity from increased preservation 

maintenance and the inevitable need 

for future modifications of the 

landscape (i.e., designated trails) to 

accommodate visitor use in additional 

areas. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 2 would result in 

moderately adverse long-term effects 

to approximately 14-20 archeological 

resources as a result of implementing 

this alternative. There would be an 

overall reduction of archeological 

integrity at these sites, but not 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, 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 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

117

Walnut Canyon 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 

As described under Unavoidable 

Adverse Effects (below), 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, soil compaction, removal of 

artifacts, and vandalism. A loss of the 

surface archeological materials, 

alteration of artifact distribution, and 

a reduction of contextual evidence 

would result. However, the most 

heavily impacted front country sites 

are already documented, so, although 

the actual artifacts and contextual 

evidence are lost, information is 

retained through drawings, 

photographs, and reports. Overall, the 

effects of the No-Action Alternative 

would be moderately beneficial for 

maintaining the long-term integrity 

of the majority of archeological 

resources in the monument, because 

visitor impacts would continue to be 

concentrated at the previously 

stabilized front country sites. The 

remaining resources would continue 

to be protected in areas of the 

monument that are closed to public 

use. 

Alternative 1 would have a long-term 

adverse effect on an estimated 20% 

of the archeological resources in the 

monument, which would be offset to 

some degree by benefits derived from 

visitors receiving more education and 

an enhanced appreciation of the 

resources from participating in 

interpretive programs. However, the 

net effect would be a major increase 

in the degradation of sensitive 

archeological resources caused by the 

construction of the north rim scenic 

drive and the increased visitor access 

to numerous additional backcountry 

resources and the inevitable impacts 

that result from increasing visitation 

to archeological sites. The cumulative 

impact of Alternative 1 would be a 

major long-term adverse effect to 

archeological resources in the 

monument, some of which would be 

irreversible. 

Alternative 2 would not result in a 

major adverse effect to archeological 

resources. There would be some 

moderately adverse long-term effects 

to archeological resources as a result 

of this alternative. 

Loss in Long-Term 

Availability or Productivity 

of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

Although there would be short-term 

effects on archeological resources 

caused by construction activities 

under all action alternatives, data 

recovery efforts would limit the longterm loss of the site information. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

continuing use of existing visitor 

centers and trails would directly and 

indirectly affect archeological 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

118

resources in the immediate vicinity. 

Archeological resources adjacent to, 

or easily accessible from, public areas 

would continue to be vulnerable to 

surface disturbance, soil compaction, 

inadvertent damage, artifact 

collection and vandalism. Impacts to 

archeological sites from inappropriate 

visitor activities (artifact collection, 

graffiti, etc.) would continue to be a 

major long-term problem at the front 

country and some backcountry sites. 

Overall, however, the effects of the 

No-Action Alternative would be 

moderately beneficial to the longterm integrity of the archeological 

resources. 

Alternative 1 would have a long-term 

adverse effect on an estimated 20% 

of the archeological resources in the 

monument, which would be offset to 

some degree by benefits derived from 

visitors receiving more education and 

an enhanced appreciation of the 

resources from participating in 

interpretive programs. However, the 

net effect would be a major increase 

in the degradation of sensitive 

archeological resources caused by 

construction of the north rim scenic 

drive, increased visitor access to 

backcountry resources and the 

inevitable impacts that result from 

increasing visitation to archeological 

sites. The cumulative impact of 

Alternative 1 would be a major longterm adverse effect to archeological 

resources in the monument. 

Alternative 2 would not result in a 

major adverse effect to archeological 

resources. There would be moderately 

adverse long-term effects to some 

archeological resources as a result of 

this alternative, but none would be 

compromised to the extent that the 

sites would no longer be eligible for 

listing on the National Register. 

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 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 the 

intensity of impacts to the built 

environment and cultural landscapes 

at Walnut Canyon 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 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

119

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 feature(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 No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The Mission 66 visitor center addition 

has a long-term moderate, adverse 

impact on the CCC visitor center. 

During Mission 66 construction a 

portion of the CCC visitor center roof 

was altered to accommodate the 

addition, and interior modifications 

changed the configuration of the 

small space for offices and a 

lunchroom. In the 1970s a pitched 

roof was added to the remaining 

portion of the CCC visitor center and 

to the Mission 66 addition. Although 

the CCC visitor center was modified 

extensively, it may yet be eligible for 

listing in the National Register. 

The ranger cabin and the CCC and 

Mission 66 facilities have a long-term 

moderate adverse visual impact on 

the prehistoric cultural landscape. 

However, the CCC buildings were 

designed and constructed of native 

material to blend with the natural 

and historic setting partially 

mitigating the visual impact. Ranger 

cabin is located at a distance from the 

CCC and Mission 66 developed areas; 

consequently, they do not impact the 

ranger cabin landscape. The Mission 

66 designed landscape has a longterm moderate adverse visual impact 

on the CCC landscape, primarily from 

the construction of a large 

maintenance facility within view of 

the CCC ranger residences. The 

Mission 66 houses were constructed to 

blend with the natural surroundings. 

More recently a trailer house was 

added to the housing area adjacent to 

the CCC residences, creating a longterm moderate adverse visual impact 

to that landscape. 

Installation of new wayside exhibits 

would have a minor visual impact on 

the cultural landscapes (prehistoric 

and CCC cultural landscape and 

Mission 66 cultural landscape). To 

mitigate the impact, signs would be 

constructed of material that is 

compatible with the historic setting 

and/or the natural surroundings, as 

appropriate. 

Installation of new exhibits in the 

Mission 66 visitor center would have 

long-term minor adverse impact by 

changing the planned Mission 66 

visitor center circulation pattern. 

However, the new exhibits would not 

adversely affect any character 

defining features of the structure's 

interior. If any materials were 

removed during rehabilitation, they 

would be evaluated to determine 

their value to the park's museum 

collections and/or for their 

comparative use in future 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

120

preservation work at the site. All work 

would be undertaken in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior's 

Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). 

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 effects. 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. 

Fencing the boundary of the new 

lands of the monument would have a 

long-term minor, adverse visual 

impact on the surrounding prehistoric 

landscape, and could damage 

landscape features (e.g., agricultural 

alignments etc.). To partially mitigate 

the visual impact and the damage to 

landscape features, the fence would 

be sited to avoid as many landscape 

features as possible and be 

constructed of material compatible 

with the natural setting. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The park boundaries represent the 

geographic area in which cumulative 

impacts that affect the built 

environment and cultural landscapes 

of Walnut Canyon National 

Monument were identified. 

Past development has altered the 

prehistoric landscape and the CCC 

built environment. However, only 

minor modifications have been made 

to the Mission 66 designed landscape. 

Ranger cabin was constructed in 1904 

as a ranger residence/visitor contact 

station and included several 

outbuildings and gardens. The cabin 

was constructed in a prehistoric 

agricultural area. The CCC constructed 

a small visitor center, detached rest 

rooms, the Island Trail, two ranger 

residences, and a maintenance 

building in the late 1930s and early 

1940s. The CCC maintenance building 

has since burned down. More 

recently, stand-alone garages were 

constructed adjacent to the CCC 

structures, creating a long-term 

moderate adverse visual impact to the 

planned CCC residential area. During 

the Mission 66 program a visitor 

center was constructed and attached 

to the existing CCC visitor center, 

obscuring the smaller rustic structure. 

Two houses, a maintenance building, 

storage area, and the Rim Trail were 

also constructed as part of the Mission 

66 program. A new entrance road and 

parking area at the visitor center were 

redesigned. Modifications to the 

Mission 66 designed landscape include 

the addition of a pitched roof to both 

the CCC and Mission 66 portions of 

the visitor center, construction of a 

book sales area at the rear of the 

visitor center, installation of 

wheelchair lifts, and construction of 

an accessible rest room adjacent to 

the Mission 66 addition. The addition 

of the pitched roof and accessible rest 

room is a long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact to the 

prehistoric cultural landscape of the 

canyon. The pitched roof detracts 

from both the Mission 66 and CCC 

visitor centers, originally constructed 

with flat roofs to blend with the 

canyon setting. The Rim Trail would 

be upgraded to accommodate and 

meet current accessibility standards. 

The majority of the trail would remain 

the same; however, new sections of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

121

the trail would be constructed in 

areas not previously disturbed. To 

reduce the long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact to the 

surrounding prehistoric landscape and 

Mission 66 landscape, new sections of 

the trail, would be constructed of 

materials compatible with the natural 

surrounding and historic setting. 

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 

and to historic structures could bring 

the integrity of the landscape and 

structures as a whole (especially 

design) down to the level where 

National Register eligibility would be 

questioned. 

The CCC built environment and the 

prehistoric cultural landscape have 

been extensively modified by the 

Mission 66 development. The CCC 

cultural landscape included a small 

rustic visitor center, outbuildings, two 

residences and a maintenance shed. 

The Mission 66 development included 

a new entrance road where visitors 

could drive to the canyon rim and see 

the canyon from an expanded visitor 

center, parking area, and the Rim 

Trail. Two ranger residences and a 

large maintenance facility were 

constructed in the CCC housing area. 

Construction of the Mission 66 

facilities created a long-term 

moderate, adverse visual impact on 

the intimate planned CCC landscape. 

Construction of the ranger cabin and 

associated outbuildings, the CCC 

residences, visitor center, trail and 

maintenance building, and the 

Mission 66 development have 

damaged or destroyed prehistoric 

landscape features and create a longterm moderate, adverse visual impact 

on the prehistoric landscape. The 

ranger cabin and CCC developments 

were limited in size and were 

constructed of native materials 

blending with the natural setting. The 

Mission 66 development and more 

recent changes, including the addition 

of a trailer house and the accessible 

rest room, were not designed to 

blend with the setting, and 

consequently, have a long-term 

moderate, adverse visual impact on 

the natural setting. Because these 

landscapes have not been evaluated, 

it is difficult to determine National 

Register eligibility. However, because 

the primary design elements of the 

CCC landscape and primary, original 

features of the prehistoric cultural 

landscape remain intact, the 

landscapes are considered to be 

potentially National Register eligible. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have minor to 

moderate long-term visual impacts on 

the prehistoric and CCC landscapes, 

and a long-term moderate, adverse 

impact on the CCC visitor center. 

There would be an overall reduction 

of integrity in the prehistoric and CCC 

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, CCC or Mission 66 

landscapes, in conjunction with the 

minor to moderate cumulative 

impacts of previous changes and this 

alternative, could result in moderate 

cumulative impacts to the prehistoric, 

CCC and Mission 66 landscapes. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse impacts to resources whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes in the establishing 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

122

legislation or proclamation for 

Walnut Canyon 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: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts resulting from installation of 

waysides and exhibits and upgrade of 

facilities to accommodate accessibility 

would be the same as identified 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

Impacts to the CCC and Mission 66 

housing and maintenance area would 

be the same as described for the NoAction Alternative. 

Impacts resulting from installation of 

a boundary fence would be the same 

as those described for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Construction of a new parking area 

south of FR303, construction of 

orientation waysides, and installation 

of a gate at the intersection of FR303 

and the park road would have longterm moderate, adverse visual impacts 

on the surrounding prehistoric 

cultural landscape. To partially 

mitigate the impact, the parking lot, 

orientation exhibits, and gate would 

be situated to reduce visual impacts 

and would be constructed of 

materials that are compatible with 

the natural surroundings. 

Construction of administrative offices 

would have long-term moderate, 

adverse impacts to the prehistoric 

cultural landscape by damaging or 

destroying landscape features and 

would have long-term moderate 

visual impacts as well. The 

administrative offices would be sited 

to avoid as many landscape features 

as possible and situated to reduce 

visual impact. The administrative 

office would be constructed of 

materials that are compatible with 

the natural surroundings. 

Adaptively rehabilitating the visitor 

center building would neither 

significantly alter the present form or 

character of the structure's exterior 

nor adversely affect any significant 

character defining features of the 

structure's interior. If any materials 

were removed during rehabilitation, 

they would be evaluated to 

determine their value to the park's 

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 the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995). Converting the 

visitor center to accommodate visitor 

orientation, new exhibits, and group 

presentations would have a long-term 

moderate impact on the building. 

Upgrading the existing primitive road 

along the north rim to accommodate 

motorized sightseeing would have 

long-term moderate adverse impacts 

on the prehistoric cultural landscape 

by damaging or destroying landscape 

features. The road would need to be 

graded and widened, which could 

damage field houses and associated 

agricultural features that may be 

adjacent to the road, or previously cut 

through by the road. However, the 

road would be designed to avoid as 

many landscape features as possible 

and would be constructed of 

materials that are compatible with 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

123

the natural surroundings. Installation 

of new wayside exhibits along the 

scenic drive would have minor longterm visual impacts to the prehistoric 

landscape. To partially mitigate the 

visual impact, signs would be 

designed and constructed of material 

compatible with the natural 

surroundings. Constructing the scenic 

drive to the east end of the 

monument would have long-term 

moderate, adverse impact on the 

planned Mission 66 experience by 

changing the way visitors currently 

see Walnut Canyon. The Mission 66 

designed experience brought visitors 

to the edge of the canyon, to leave 

their cars behind and experience the 

canyon by foot in a quiet natural 

setting. The new scenic drive would 

create a motorized visit disturbing the 

tranquility (and the feeling of 

isolation) of the canyon. 

Constructing a new pullout (and 

possible entrance station) and/or 

turnaround at the junction of I-40 and 

the park road would have long-term 

moderate adverse visual impact on 

the surrounding prehistoric cultural 

landscape. The pullout and entrance 

station would be situated to reduce 

visual impact and would be 

constructed of materials that are 

compatible with the natural 

surroundings. 

Construction of a trail to First Fort 

would have long-term moderate 

impacts on the prehistoric cultural 

landscape by damaging or destroying 

landscape features. However, the trail 

would be designed to avoid as many 

landscape features as possible and 

would be constructed of material 

compatible with the natural 

surrounding and historic setting. 

Installation of new wayside exhibits 

along the trail would have minor 

long-term adverse visual impacts to 

the surrounding prehistoric landscape. 

Like the trail, the signs would be 

constructed of material compatible 

with the natural and historic setting. 

Formalizing a trail to ranger cabin 

using the existing primitive road 

would have a long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact on the 

surrounding prehistoric landscape. 

The trail would be hardened and 

delineated to direct visitors to the 

cabin. The trail would be designed to 

blend with the natural setting to 

reduce the visual impact. Installing 

wayside exhibits along the trail would 

have long-term moderate visual 

impacts. To mitigate the visual 

impacts, signs would be constructed 

of material compatible with the 

natural surrounding and historic 

setting. 

Formalizing a trail to ranger cabin 

using the existing primitive road 

would have a long-term minor, 

adverse impact on the historic ranger 

cabin landscape. The trail would be 

hardened and delineated to direct 

visitors to the cabin. The trail would 

be designed to blend with the historic 

setting to partially mitigate the visual 

impact. Installing wayside exhibits 

along the trail to the cabin would 

have long-term minor, adverse visual 

impact on the historic setting. To 

partially mitigate the impact, the 

signs would be constructed of 

material compatible with the historic 

setting. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Past and more recent development 

has altered the prehistoric landscape, 

the ranger cabin landscape and the 

CCC built environment. However, only 

minor modifications have been made 

to the Mission 66 designed landscape. 

Ranger cabin was constructed in 1904 

as a ranger residence/visitor contact 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

124

station and included several 

outbuildings and gardens. The cabin 

was constructed in a prehistoric 

agricultural area. The CCC constructed 

a small visitor center, detached rest 

rooms, the Island Trail, two ranger 

residences, and maintenance building 

in the late 1930s and early 1940s east 

of ranger cabin. The CCC maintenance 

building has since burned down. More 

recently stand-alone garages were 

constructed adjacent to the CCC 

structures creating a long-term 

moderate adverse visual impact to the 

planned CCC residential area. During 

the Mission 66 program a visitor 

center was constructed and attached 

to the existing CCC visitor center, 

obscuring the smaller rustic structure. 

Two houses, a maintenance building, 

storage area, and the Rim Trail were 

also constructed as part of the Mission 

66 program. A new entrance road and 

parking area at the visitor center were 

redesigned. Modifications to the 

Mission 66 designed landscape include 

the addition of a pitched roof to both 

the CCC and Mission 66 portions of 

the visitor center, construction of a 

book sales area at the rear of the 

visitor center, installation of 

wheelchair lifts, and construction of 

an accessible rest room adjacent to 

the Mission 66 addition. The addition 

of the pitched roof and accessible rest 

room is a long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact to the 

prehistoric cultural landscape of the 

canyon. The pitched roof detracts 

from both the Mission 66 and CCC 

visitor centers, originally constructed 

with flat roofs to blend with the 

canyon setting. The Rim Trail would 

be upgraded to accommodate and 

meet current accessibility standards. 

The majority of the trail would remain 

the same; however, new sections of 

the trail would be constructed in 

areas not previously disturbed. To 

reduce the long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact to the 

surrounding prehistoric landscape, 

CCC landscape, and Mission 66 

landscape, new sections of the trail, 

would be constructed of materials 

compatible with the natural 

surrounding and historic setting. 

Because the primary, original design 

elements of the ranger cabin 

landscape, CCC and Mission 66 

designed landscapes are still intact, 

and the original primary features of 

the prehistoric landscape are still 

intact, the landscapes are considered 

to be potentially National Register 

eligible (however, this landscape has 

yet to be formally evaluated). Any 

future alterations of the landscapes 

and to historic structures could bring 

the integrity of the landscapes and 

structures as a whole (especially 

design) down to the level where 

National Register eligibility would be 

questioned. 

Historical uses of the east end of the 

monument, including grazing, 

logging, and construction of the 

Santa Fe dam in the late 1800s, have 

had a long-term moderate, adverse 

impact on the prehistoric cultural 

landscape. Construction of logging 

roads, railroad grades and the Santa 

Fe dam damaged or destroyed 

prehistoric landscape features (field 

houses, agricultural features). 

Although the above modifications to 

the east end of the monument have 

taken place, the majority of primary 

features (prehistoric landscape 

features) remain intact; consequently, 

the prehistoric 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 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

125

a whole down to the level where 

National Register eligibility would be 

questioned. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have long-term 

moderate, adverse impacts on the 

prehistoric landscape and long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on the 

CCC/Mission 66 visitor center. There 

would be an overall reduction of 

historic integrity of the prehistoric 

landscape and the CCC/Mission 66 

visitor center, but not to the extent 

that they would no longer be 

potentially eligible to be listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Any future alterations to the 

prehistoric landscape or the visitor 

center, in conjunction with the 

moderate, adverse cumulative impacts 

of previous changes and this 

alternative could result in moderate, 

adverse cumulative impacts to the 

prehistoric landscape and the 

CCC/Mission 66 visitor center. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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: 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts resulting from installation of 

waysides and exhibits and upgrade of 

facilities to accommodate accessibility 

would be the same as those described 

for the No-Action Alternative. 

Impacts to the CCC and Mission 66 

housing and maintenance area would 

be the same as those described for the 

No-Action Alternative. 

Impacts resulting from installation of 

a boundary fence would be the same 

as those described in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Construction of a new visitor center at 

the junction of I-40 and the park 

entrance road would have long-term 

moderate impact on prehistoric 

landscape features and long-term 

moderate visual impact on the 

surrounding landscape. To partially 

mitigate the impacts the visitor center 

would be sited to avoid as many 

landscape features as possible and be 

constructed of material compatible 

with the natural surroundings. 

Removing the Mission 66 portion of 

the visitor center would have longterm moderate beneficial impact on 

the CCC visitor center. The Mission 66 

portion of the visitor center, including 

recent additions of the pitched roof 

and book sales area obscure the small, 

rustic structure. Removing the Mission 

66 portion of the visitor center and 

the pitched roof would remove the 

long-term moderate, adverse visual 

impact on the prehistoric landscape of 

the canyon. The CCC structure was 

constructed to blend with the setting, 

and is not visible from the Island Trail. 

Adaptively rehabilitating the CCC 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

126

visitor center would neither 

significantly alter the present form or 

character of the structure's exterior 

nor adversely affect any significant 

character defining features of the 

structure's interior. If any materials 

were removed during rehabilitation, 

they would be evaluated to 

determine their value to the park's 

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. Removing the Mission 66 

portion of the visitor center would 

have a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on the planned Mission 66 

experience and designed landscape. 

Installation of gates at the junction of 

the park entrance road and I-40 and 

on either side of FR303 would have 

long-term minor visual impact on the 

surrounding prehistoric landscape. To 

reduce the visual impact the gates 

would be constructed of material 

compatible with the natural and 

cultural setting. 

Formalizing a trail to ranger cabin 

using the existing primitive road 

would have a long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact on the 

surrounding prehistoric landscape. 

The trail would be hardened and 

delineated to direct visitors to the 

cabin. The trail would be designed to 

blend with the natural setting to 

reduce the visual impact. Installing 

wayside exhibits along the trail would 

have long-term moderate visual 

impacts. To mitigate the visual 

impacts, signs would be constructed 

of material compatible with the 

natural surrounding and historic 

setting. 

Formalizing a trail to ranger cabin 

using the existing primitive road 

would have a long-term minor, 

adverse impact on the historic ranger 

cabin landscape. The trail would be 

hardened and delineated to direct 

visitors to the cabin. The trail would 

be designed to blend with the historic 

setting to partially mitigate the visual 

impact. Installing wayside exhibits 

along the trail to the cabin would 

have long-term minor, adverse visual 

impact on the historic setting. To 

partially mitigate the impact, the 

signs would be constructed of 

material compatible with the historic 

setting. 

Construction of a parking area and 

trail in the east end of the monument 

would have long-term moderate, 

adverse impact on prehistoric 

landscape features by damaging or 

destroying field houses and 

agricultural features. Construction of 

the trail and parking area would also 

have long-term moderate adverse 

visual impact on the surrounding 

prehistoric landscape. To reduce the 

adverse impacts, the parking area 

would be sited to avoid as many 

features as possible and the trail 

would be constructed of material 

compatible with the natural 

surrounding. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Past development has altered the 

prehistoric landscape and the CCC 

built environment. However, only 

minor modifications have been made 

to the Mission 66 designed landscape. 

Ranger cabin was constructed in 1904 

as a ranger residence/visitor contact 

station and included several 

outbuildings and gardens. The cabin 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

127

was constructed in a prehistoric 

agricultural area. The CCC constructed 

a small visitor center, detached rest 

rooms, the Island Trail, two ranger 

residences, and a maintenance 

building in the late 1930s and early 

1940s. The CCC maintenance building 

has since burned down. More recently 

stand-alone garages were constructed 

adjacent to the CCC structures 

creating a long-term moderate 

adverse visual impact to the planned 

CCC residential area. During the 

Mission 66 program a visitor center 

was constructed and attached to the 

existing CCC visitor center, obscuring 

the smaller rustic structure. Two 

houses, a maintenance building, 

storage area, and the Rim Trail were 

also constructed as part of the Mission 

66 program. A new entrance road and 

parking area at the visitor center were 

redesigned. Modifications to the 

Mission 66 designed landscape include 

the addition of a pitched roof to both 

the CCC and Mission 66 portions of 

the visitor center, construction of a 

book sales area at the rear of the 

visitor center, installation of 

wheelchair lifts, and construction of 

an accessible rest room adjacent to 

the Mission 66 addition. The addition 

of the pitched roof and accessible rest 

room is a long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact to the 

prehistoric cultural landscape of the 

canyon. The pitched roof detracts 

from both the Mission 66 and CCC 

visitor centers, originally constructed 

with flat roofs to blend with the 

canyon setting. The Rim Trail would 

be upgraded to accommodate and 

meet current accessibility standards. 

The majority of the trail will remain 

the same; however, new sections of 

the trail would be constructed in 

areas not previously disturbed. To 

reduce the long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact to the 

surrounding prehistoric landscape and 

Mission 66 landscape, new sections of 

the trail, will be constructed of 

materials compatible with the natural 

surrounding and historic setting. 

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 

and to historic structures could bring 

the integrity of the landscape and 

structures as a whole (especially 

design) down to the level where 

National Register eligibility would be 

questioned. 

Cumulative impacts to the Mission 66 

landscape would be the same as 

described for the No-Action 

Alternative, but with the following 

changes. Any future alterations of the 

designed landscape, in conjunction 

with the adverse 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. However, 

this landscape has not yet been 

formally evaluated. The long-term 

major, adverse impacts and most 

importantly, any potential impacts of 

future actions could result in major, 

adverse cumulative impacts to the 

Mission 66 designed landscape. 

Cumulative impacts to the CCC 

landscape would be the same as 

described for the No-Action 

Alternative, but with the following 

changes. Removing the Mission 66 

portion of the visitor center from the 

smaller, rustic CCC visitor center 

would have a major long-term benefit 

to the CCC visitor center by returning 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

128

the developed area to a more 

intimate setting. 

Because few alterations have occurred 

to the ranger cabin landscape, the 

landscape is considered potentially 

National Register eligible (however, 

this landscape has not yet been 

formally evaluated). Any future 

alterations of the ranger cabin 

landscape beyond the scope of what 

is proposed in this alternative could 

bring the integrity of the landscape as 

a whole down to the level where 

National Register eligibility would be 

questioned. 

Cumulative impacts to the prehistoric 

landscape would be the same as those 

described for the No-Action 

Alternative, but with the following 

changes. Removing the Mission 66 

portion of the visitor center from the 

CCC visitor center would reduce the 

visual impact of the visitor center 

from the prehistoric landscape of the 

canyon. Because the primary design 

elements of the prehistoric landscape 

of the monument remain in tact, the 

landscape is considered to be 

potentially National Register eligible. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on the 

prehistoric landscape, the ranger 

cabin landscape, and the Mission 66 

landscape. However, this alternative 

would also have long-term major 

benefit to the prehistoric landscape 

by removing the Mission 66 portion of 

the visitor center and reducing the 

visual impact to the prehistoric 

canyon landscape. There would also 

be a long-term major benefit to the 

CCC visitor center by returning the 

developed area to a more intimate, 

rustic setting. There would, however, 

be an overall reduction of historic 

integrity in the landscapes 

(prehistoric, ranger cabin, CCC and 

Mission 66), 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 the preferred 

alternative, could result in major, 

adverse cumulative impacts to each 

landscape. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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. The 

Mission 66 portion of the visitor 

center would be removed. 

Loss in Long-Term 

Availability or Productivity 

of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

The continuing lack of a cultural 

landscape inventory would lead to a 

long-term loss of the integrity of 

these resources. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

129

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

The No-Action Alternative would have 

long-term moderate, adverse impact 

on the prehistoric cultural landscape 

from past development (ranger cabin, 

CCC, Mission 66 and from more recent 

alterations). There would be a longterm minor, adverse impact to all 

landscapes (prehistoric, ranger cabin, 

CCC and Mission 66) from installation 

of new wayside exhibits. There would 

be a long-term minor, adverse impact 

to upgrade historic facilities (CCC and 

Mission 66) to accommodate and 

meet current accessibility standards. 

Alternative 1 would have the same 

long-term moderate, adverse impacts 

to the prehistoric cultural landscape 

from past development including 

ranger cabin, CCC, Mission 66 and 

recent alterations). There would be 

long-term minor and moderate, 

adverse visual impacts to all 

landscapes from installation of new 

wayside exhibits. Construction of 

administrative offices and a new 

parking area south of FR303 would 

have long-term moderate, adverse 

impact on the surrounding prehistoric 

landscape and would damage or 

destroy landscape features (such as 

field houses and associated 

agricultural alignments). Converting 

the visitor center to accommodate 

large group presentations and new 

exhibits would have long-term 

moderate, adverse impact on the 

historic structure, but would not 

affect any character defining features. 

Trail construction to the ranger cabin 

area would have long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impacts on the 

prehistoric landscape surrounding the 

cabin, but would have long-term 

minor, adverse visual impact on the 

ranger cabin landscape. Formalizing a 

scenic drive to the east end of the 

monument would have long-term 

moderate, adverse visual impact on 

the surrounding prehistoric landscape, 

and would have long-term moderate, 

adverse impact on the planned 

Mission 66 drive-up, park, and see the 

park on foot experience. Motorized 

sightseeing would disrupt the quiet of 

the canyon setting. 

Alternative 2 would have the same 

long-term moderate, adverse impacts 

to the prehistoric cultural landscape 

from past development including 

ranger cabin, CCC, Mission 66 and 

recent alterations). There would be 

long-term minor and moderate, 

adverse visual impacts to all 

landscapes from installation of new 

wayside exhibits. Construction of a 

new visitor center at the junction of I40 and the park entrance road would 

have long-term moderate, adverse 

visual impact on the surrounding 

cultural landscape, and could damage 

or destroy landscape features (field 

houses and associated agricultural 

alignments). Removing the Mission 66 

portion of the visitor center would 

have long-term moderate, adverse 

impact on the planned Mission 66 

experience by eliminating the 

observation room. Trail construction 

to the ranger cabin area would have 

long-term moderate, adverse visual 

impacts on the prehistoric landscape 

surrounding the cabin, but would 

have long-term minor, adverse visual 

impact on the ranger cabin landscape. 

Construction of a parking area and 

trail at the east end of the monument 

would have long-term moderate, 

adverse visual impact on the 

surrounding prehistoric landscape, 

and would damage or destroy 

prehistoric landscape features. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

130

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

ETHNOGRAPHIC 

RESOURCES 

Methodology 

Ethnographic resources are those 

cultural and natural resources to 

which park-associated 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, 

Zuni, and Navajo Tribes 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 

Tribal representatives have identified 

all pre-Columbian archeological sites 

at Walnut Canyon as ethnographic 

resources that are important in tribal 

histories and cultural identities. Any 

adverse impacts that presently occur 

to archeological sites as a result of 

vandalism owing to visitor access 

would continue to constitute 

moderate to major adverse effects to 

ethnographic resources. Conversely, 

any protection to archeological sites 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

131

that is currently afforded by lack of 

visitor access constitutes a major 

beneficial effect to archeological sites 

as ethnographic resources. 

A moderate to major adverse effect to 

ethnographic resources could 

continue under the No-Action 

Alternative, only to the extent that 

tribal access to culturally significant 

resources or places for traditional 

cultural purposes is limited by the 

presence of visitors. Conversely, 

existing conditions for tribal access to 

ethnographic resources that would 

continue under the No-Action 

Alternative would constitute a 

moderate to major beneficial effect. 

Adverse effects would be minimized 

by consultation with associated tribes 

and continued tribal access to 

ethnographic resources for traditional 

cultural purposes. 

Moderate to major beneficial effects 

to ethnographic resources would 

occur under the No-Action Alternative 

due to the planning and design of 

new interpretive messages that is an 

action common to all alternatives. 

Improvements and corrections to the 

interpretive media about the tribal 

histories and cultural values to which 

the ethnographic resources are 

related will have a beneficial effect, 

provided that associated tribes are 

involved in interpretive planning. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Prior to the establishment of 

monument boundaries, the lands 

encompassed by what is now Walnut 

Canyon National Monument were 

part of the customary use areas or 

traditional lands of several American 

Indian tribes. These lands included 

ancestral dwellings or other sites, 

medicinal plants, prayer offering 

places, homes of deities, pilgrimage 

routes, or other places integral to 

tribal cultural identity and continuity. 

With the establishment of federal 

land management boundaries, 

including Walnut Canyon 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. Closure of 

backcountry disrupted land use 

patterns. Stabilization of 

archeological sites and opening them 

to public visitation violated cultural 

values about the treatment of 

ancestral remains. Interpretive 

messages told stories of the past that 

differ from tribal knowledge of their 

own histories. 

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 this alternative, some 

impacts to ethnographic resources 

would continue into the future, such 

as the effects of stabilization and 

visitation, but some impacts, including 

those due to backcountry closures, 

would be improved by the 

development of long-term consulting 

relationships and agreements 

between the NPS and the tribes. 

Conversely, if backcountry closures 

affect tribal access to the 

ethnographic resources with which 

they are affiliated, the adverse effect 

would be moderate to major and 

long-term. Cumulative impacts would 

also be improved by updated 

interpretive stories that incorporate 

tribal versions of their own histories 

and connections to monument lands 

and resources. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

132

CONCLUSION 

By perpetuating the status quo, the 

No-Action Alternative would also 

perpetuate any current and ongoing 

moderate to major effects to 

ethnographic resources, both adverse 

and beneficial. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Any adverse effects to archeological 

resources as a result of this alternative 

would also constitute a moderate to 

major adverse effect to the sites as 

ethnographic resources. Standard 

archeological mitigation measures 

that might recover some of the 

archeological values of the resources 

do not serve to mitigate adverse 

effects on ethnographic values. 

Potential disturbance of archeological 

resources due to development, 

degradation due to high rates of 

visitation, or vandalism due to 

increased exposure of more sites to 

the public, would constitute a 

moderate to major adverse effect to 

ethnographic resources. Similarly, lack 

of tribal ability to access ethnographic 

resources for traditional cultural 

purposes due to the constant 

presence of visitors would also have 

an adverse effect on ethnographic 

resources. The backcountry closures in 

effect under the actions common to 

all alternatives could have a major to 

moderate beneficial impact on 

ethnographic resources by protecting 

them from the effects of visitation 

Moderate to major beneficial effects 

to ethnographic resources would 

occur under Alternative 1 due to the 

planning and design of new 

interpretive messages. This is an 

action common to all alternatives. 

Improvements and corrections to the 

interpretive media about the tribal 

histories and cultural values to which 

the ethnographic resources are 

related will have a beneficial effect, 

provided that associated tribes are 

involved in interpretive planning. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects of this 

alternative on ethnographic resources 

would primarily be the moderate to 

major, long term, regional adverse 

effects of disturbance to archeological 

resources through increased 

development, increased visitation to 

more places, and potential for 

increased vandalism due to more 

exposure and access to 

ethnographically significant 

archeological sites. Increased 

visitation to more resources could also 

have an adverse effect on tribal access 

to ethnographic resources for 

traditional cultural purposes. Some 

impacts would be improved by the 

development of long-term consulting 

relationships and agreements 

between the NPS and the tribes. 

Cumulative impacts would also be 

improved by updated interpretive 

stories that incorporate tribal versions 

of their own histories and connections 

to monument lands and resources. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

133

CONCLUSION 

The effects of this alternative would 

be both adverse and beneficial, 

depending on the degree of tribal 

involvement in park planning. The 

increased impacts to archeological 

sites as a result of building new 

facilities and allowing increased 

visitation to numerous additional sites 

would also constitute a major 

impairment to ethnographic 

resources. 

Effects of Alternative 2 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Overall, this alternative would have 

moderate to major, long-term 

beneficial effects on ethnographically 

significant archeological and natural 

resources from the effects of 

increasing visitor use and access, 

although any adverse effects that 

would result to archeological sites 

under this alternative would still 

constitute adverse effects to 

ethnographic resources. The 

preservation of untrailed expanses 

and unfragmented natural systems 

could have a moderate to major 

beneficial impact on ethnographic 

resources by protecting them from 

the effects of visitation. The 

development of updated interpretive 

programs and media and new indepth learning experiences through 

partnerships with tribes and other 

entities would also have a moderate 

to major beneficial effect on 

ethnographic resources. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

By preserving untrailed expanses, 

unfragmented natural systems, and 

relatively pristine resource conditions 

throughout much of the park and 

improving interpretive media and 

learning experiences in partnership 

with associated tribes, the overall 

cumulative effects to ethnographic 

resources would be moderate to 

major, long term, and regionally 

beneficial. The only adverse effects to 

ethnographic resources that would 

result from this alternative are those 

that would adversely affect 

archeological resources. 

CONCLUSION 

Overall, the preferred alternative 

would have beneficial effects on 

ethnographic resources. Some adverse 

effects, associated with archeological 

resources, would remain. Further 

consultation with the tribes may 

reveal that the impacts to 

archeological resources from this 

alternative are moderate, rather than 

major, and therefore, the potential 

impacts identified may not constitute 

an impairment to ethnographic 

resources. 

Irreversible/Irretrievable 

Commitments of 

Resources 

There would be no 

irreversible/irretrievable commitments 

of resources. 

Loss in Long-Term 

Availability or Productivity 

of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

There would be no short-term gains 

resulting in long-term losses. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Tribal representatives have identified 

all pre-Columbian archeological sites 

at Walnut Canyon as ethnographic 

resources that are important in tribal 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

134

histories and cultural identities. 

Adverse impacts that presently occur 

to archeological sites as a result of 

visitor use would continue to 

constitute moderate to major adverse 

effects to ethnographic resources. 

As described under impacts to 

archeological resources, an estimated 

20% of the archeological resources in 

the monument would be adversely 

affected under Alternative 1. Any 

adverse effects to archeological sites 

would also constitute a moderate to 

major effect to the sites as 

ethnographic resources. Further, 

standard archeological mitigation 

measures that might recover some of 

the archeological values of the 

resources would not serve to mitigate 

adverse effects on cultural values. 

Potential disturbance of archeological 

resources, especially involving 

potential disturbance to human 

remains, would constitute a major 

adverse effect to ethnographic 

resources and their associated cultural 

values. 

Alternative 2 is estimated to have a 

long-term, detrimental effect on 14-

20 archeological sites, which could 

constitute a long-term, major adverse 

effect on ethnographic resources. 

Further 

consultation 

with the 

tribes may 

reveal that 

the impacts 

to 

archeological 

resources 

from this 

alternative 

are moderate, rather than major, and 

therefore, the potential impacts 

identified may not constitute an 

impairment to ethnographic 

resources. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND 

PROCESSES 

Methodology 

Available information on the natural 

systems of Walnut Canyon National 

Monument and surrounding 

ecosystem was reviewed, including 

information on geology, soils, 

intermittent drainage systems, 

vegetation, and wildlife. Potential 

impacts to rare species/unique 

habitats, and 

wetlands/floodplains/riparian 

resources within the monument are 

assessed in separate sections below. 

Physiographic maps of the monument 

were used to generally characterize 

the natural systems surrounding 

proposed visitor use and support 

facilities, and the anticipated visitor 

uses and administrative activities 

within the various management 

zones. The potential impacts of each 

alternative on those systems were 

then evaluated, including pertinent 

issues identified during the scoping 

process. Predictions about short- and 

long-term impacts were based on past 

studies of land use and visitor impacts 

to the regional ecosystem, including 

some studies at the monument. 

Sociological studies comparing the 

deterrent effects of signs versus 

ranger presence at sites were also 

considered. The predicted intensity of 

impacts is articulated according to the 

following criteria: 

Negligible: An action that would 

affect very few individuals of species 

populations, or affect the existing 

natural environment within Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. The 

change would be so small or localized 

that it would have no measurable or 

perceptible consequence to the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

135

populations or natural system 

function. 

Minor: An action that would affect a 

relatively small number of individuals 

within species populations, or affect 

the existing natural environment 

within Walnut Canyon 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 effects 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 

environment within Walnut Canyon 

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 a species 

population numbers, dynamics 

between multiple species, habitat 

area or important habitat attributes, 

or the existing natural environment 

within Walnut Canyon 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 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

natural systems and processes within 

Walnut Canyon National Monument 

would be allowed to continue 

recovering from the adverse impacts 

of historic logging, fire suppression, 

and livestock grazing. Development 

of new public access and use facilities 

would not occur, and developmentrelated adverse impacts to soils, 

intermittent drainage systems, 

vegetation, and wildlife would be 

entirely avoided. 

Daytime use of the paved entrance 

road by park visitors would continue. 

Most visitation occurs between the 

months of April and October, and 

between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 

p.m. Local residents occasionally use 

the road for other purposes yearround at any time of the day or night. 

Motor noise from passing vehicles 

frequently disturbs wildlife, and 

occasionally animals are killed in 

collisions with motor vehicles. The 

entrance road generally conveys most 

storm water flows through the 

natural drainage system. At a few 

locations, storm water is impounded 

on the upslope side and "jetting" 

erosion occurs on the downslope side 

of culverts, causing very local erosion 

and vegetation changes. Under the 

No-Action Alternative, continued use 

of the entrance road would have 

negligible to long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to soils, intermittent 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

136

drainage systems, vegetation, and 

wildlife. 

Approximately 180 acres, or 5%, of 

the total monument area is currently 

impacted by visitor use and NPS 

support infrastructure. Visitor use and 

NPS operations impacts to natural 

systems and processes are primarily 

concentrated around the visitor 

center, maintenance shop, and 

employee housing area near the 

north-central canyon rim. Routine 

maintenance activities, including 

vegetation management, are limited 

to the entrance road, parking lot, 

maintenance shop, employee housing 

area, and utility corridors. Two short 

trails provide visitor access into the 

canyon and along the rim within the 

north-central canyon area. Rangerguided hikes also provide dispersed 

visitor access along the north rim area 

immediately west of the visitor center. 

Most visitor use impacts are expected 

to be localized to within 300 feet of 

the north canyon rim facilities and 

trails, and include trampling of 

vegetation, compaction of soils, 

development of social trails, minor 

alterations in drainage patterns, 

noise, and disturbance to wildlife. 

Local populations of nonnative plants 

also persist in heavy use areas and 

along trail corridors. Ongoing efforts 

to improve visitor orientation about 

appropriate behavior toward sensitive 

resources could mitigate some adverse 

visitor use impacts to natural systems 

and processes. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, long-term, minor adverse 

impacts from NPS operations and 

visitor activities would continue 

around interpretive areas and support 

facilities within the north-central 

canyon rim area. 

Approximately 95% of the area 

within the monument has long 

remained closed to the general public 

to protect sensitive cultural and 

natural resources. The monument has 

also remained closed and gated at 

night. This effectively minimizes 

human disturbance to wildlife within 

the canyon bottom, south rim, and 

tributary canyons. Occasional 

unauthorized hiking and other 

isolated natural resource impacts 

would continue to occur within the 

closed area because the existing 

staffing level is too low to ensure 

frequent patrols. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, continuing the 

backcountry closure would ensure 

that the integrity of natural systems 

and processes within the monument is 

preserved, and would have long-term, 

moderate beneficial impacts to 

solitary wildlife species. 

Approximately 1,300 acres within the 

1996 boundary expansion area would 

be surveyed, fenced, and posted. Until 

these actions are completed, these 

areas would continue to receive 

public uses similar to those under 

former management by the U.S. 

Forest Service. Predominant uses 

include hiking, bicycling, and horse 

riding. These activities are causing 

vegetation trampling, soils 

compaction, localized erosion, noise, 

and wildlife disturbance. Numerous 

unplanned trail and road segments 

are evident. Isolated incidents of offroad driving, firewood cutting, 

wildlife poaching, and trash dumping 

would also likely occur, which have 

greater adverse impacts to natural 

systems and processes. Livestock 

would continue to graze the eastern 

expansion area under an approved 

U.S. Forest Service allotment plan. 

Construction of a boundary fence 

would require the removal of a 

narrow strip of vegetation along the 

boundary line, and wildlife and soils 

would be disturbed along the 

boundary line while the fence is built. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

137

The fence would be appropriately 

designed to allow wildlife to cross at 

existing movement corridors, which 

would mitigate potential long-term, 

adverse impacts to wildlife. The 

construction of the boundary fence 

would therefore have short-term, 

minor adverse impacts, while the 

exclusion of recreational and illegal 

activities within the 1996 boundary 

expansion areas would have longterm, minor beneficial impacts to 

natural systems and processes, and a 

long-term, moderate beneficial 

impact to solitary wildlife species. 

During the last 10 years, the NPS has 

conducted several managementignited fires in ponderosa pine 

vegetation on the canyon rim 

terraces. The fires have functioned 

essentially the same as presettlement 

natural fires to thin tree saplings, 

reduce the buildup of deadwood and 

vegetation litter, and promote 

healthy soils and herbaceous 

groundcover. The fires generate 

smoke and haze from the combustion 

of natural vegetation, but prevailing 

winds and climatic conditions 

effectively disperse smoke away from 

human habitation or sensitive plant 

and animal habitats. Past 

management-ignited fires have had 

both moderate short-term and minor 

long-term beneficial impacts upon 

natural systems and processes within 

the monument. The continuation of 

the fire management program would 

require preparation of a new Fire 

Management Plan, additional 

opportunities for public scoping and 

comment, and assessment of 

environmental impacts pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, local 

infestations of nonnative plants 

would likely persist in disturbed areas 

along road and trail corridors, 

developed areas, or areas of heavy 

visitation. The NPS would attempt to 

monitor and control nonnative species 

when warranted. Feasible control 

technologies are not readily available 

for small, annual invasive plants, and 

success in controlling them is 

generally predicated on early 

detection and control, or upon the 

availability of ecologically sound and 

affordable technology. The best 

measures to control these species are 

careful planning of access routes and 

ground-disturbing activities to 

minimize the potential for 

establishment and spread. The NPS 

would continue to follow established 

policy of prohibiting ground 

disturbing activities without prior 

assessment and mitigation of 

potential impacts from invasive 

plants. Despite these efforts, existing 

invasive, nonnative species would 

likely continue to have long-term, 

minor to moderate adverse impacts 

on soils, intermittent drainage 

systems, vegetation, and wildlife 

habitats. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area used for 

assessing cumulative effects is the 

Walnut Canyon watershed. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

cumulative impacts of continuing 

public visitation and NPS operations 

at Walnut Canyon National 

Monument on natural systems and 

processes are difficult to estimate. The 

primary adverse cumulative impacts 

resulting from NPS management 

would likely result from failure to 

manage increased visitation and road 

traffic, or from poorly planned 

facilities. Over time, these 

circumstances would be expected to 

increase adverse impacts to soils, 

intermittent drainages, vegetation, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

138

and wildlife. Although carrying 

capacity for visitor use has not been 

established, a threshold could be 

reached where the adverse impacts to 

natural systems and processes, 

especially for wildlife, exceed those 

stated in the analysis above. 

The proximity of Walnut Canyon 

National Monument to the city of 

Flagstaff likely contributes to the local 

"quality of life," which influences 

regional population growth. The 

recreational aspect of the monument 

may therefore slightly contribute to 

urban development and habitat 

fragmentation around Flagstaff, and 

associated regional impacts to air and 

water quality, geology, soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, and riparian 

resources. However, given the 

diversity of public lands and 

recreational opportunities within the 

region, public enjoyment of the 

monument is likely not among the 

prominent reasons for urban growth. 

In this regard, the No-Action 

Alternative would likely have 

negligible cumulative impacts upon 

regional natural systems and 

processes. 

Conversely, the existence of the 

monument as a protected area where 

natural systems and processes are 

sustained may contribute significantly 

to the conservation of regional 

natural systems and biodiversity. As 

time passes, Walnut Canyon should 

have increasing scientific value as a 

relatively undisturbed ecosystem from 

which to assess regional land use 

impacts. In this regard, the No-Action 

Alternative would have long-term, 

beneficial cumulative impacts to 

regional natural systems. 

CONCLUSION 

Current management of Walnut 

Canyon National Monument ensures 

natural systems and processes would 

be sustained with relatively few longterm adverse environmental impacts, 

except for those that are attributable 

to increasing visitation, historic land 

use, and regional watershed, airshed, 

and ecosystem degradation. Soils, 

intermittent drainage systems, 

vegetation, and wildlife are generally 

stable, and inherent biodiversity is 

relatively intact. The NPS would 

manage for the continued recovery of 

natural systems from historic land uses 

and restore fire to the ecosystem. 

No new visitor facilities would be 

developed, and related adverse 

impacts would be entirely avoided. 

Continued use of the entrance road 

would have negligible to long-term, 

minor adverse impacts to natural 

systems, with a greater degree of 

adverse impact to wildlife. NPS 

operations and visitor activities are 

causing long-term, minor adverse 

impacts around interpretive areas and 

support facilities within the northcentral canyon rim area. Most of the 

area within the monument is closed 

to the general public to protect 

sensitive resources, which ensures the 

long-term integrity of natural systems 

and processes. Fencing the 1996 

boundary expansion area would have 

long-term, moderate beneficial 

impacts to solitary wildlife species. 

The availability of the monument for 

public enjoyment might influence 

regional urban development around 

Flagstaff and cumulative impacts to 

regional natural systems, but these 

impacts are believed to be negligible 

and considerably offset by the value 

of the monument as a long-term 

conservation area. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

approximately 5% of the total 

monument area would remain 

impacted by visitor use and NPS 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

139

support infrastructure. The No-Action 

Alternative would result in no major 

impacts on natural systems and 

processes in Walnut Canyon National 

Monument. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 1, natural systems 

and processes within Walnut Canyon 

National Monument would be 

allowed to continue recovering from 

the adverse impacts of historic 

logging, fire suppression, and 

livestock grazing. The impacts of NPS 

operations and visitor activities 

around the existing north-central 

canyon area, and the impacts of 

fencing the 1996 boundary area 

would be the similar to those 

identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. Ongoing efforts to 

improve visitor orientation about 

appropriate behavior toward sensitive 

resources could mitigate some adverse 

visitor use impacts to natural systems 

and processes. 

Under Alternative 1, new facilities 

would be developed and visitor access 

would be expanded to new areas. The 

existing entrance road would be 

shortened by approximately 1/4 mile, 

and a new parking area would be 

built farther from the canyon rim; 

both the old portion of the entrance 

road and the parking area near the 

visitor center would be retained for 

handicapped parking and other 

administrative purposes. The park 

would remain closed and gated at 

night. Impacts to wildlife from the 

shortened road and new parking area 

would be similar to the No-Action 

Alternative, because existing traffic 

levels would continue over most of 

the existing entrance road, the new 

facilities would be in close proximity 

to the road, and wildlife in the vicinity 

is already adapted to existing traffic 

disturbance. Lengthening pedestrian 

access to the visitor center would have 

negligible to long-term minor adverse 

impacts along the pedestrian corridor, 

including localized vegetation 

trampling, soils compaction, 

unplanned trail development, 

drainage pattern interference, and 

nonnative plant establishment. 

The installation of a new orientation 

facility near I-40, new parking area, 

and new administrative offices would 

require the removal of several acres of 

vegetation and associated loss of 

wildlife habitat, soils disturbance, and 

local disruption of drainage patterns. 

The NPS would be required to 

manage native vegetation 

surrounding the larger developed 

area, including actions such as 

removing individual hazard trees, 

which would have negligible impacts 

to vegetation. These impacts would 

be somewhat offset by the reduced 

use of motor vehicles in close 

proximity to the canyon rim at the 

visitor center, which could reduce the 

existing level of vehicle noise 

currently projected into Walnut 

Canyon. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

140

Approximately 11/4 miles of existing 

primitive road would be improved 

through the adjacent Coconino 

National Forest, and another 2 miles 

would be constructed along the 

northeastern canyon rim. An 

undetermined area of vegetation 

would be removed and wildlife 

habitat would be lost along the route. 

Soils and intermittent drainage 

patterns would also be locally 

disrupted. The proposed route would 

bisect a known elk and pronghorn 

movement corridor. Motor vehicle 

noise would be projected directly into 

the eastern end of canyon, increasing 

disturbance to wildlife. Vehicle use 

along the new road would increase 

wildlife mortality from vehicle 

collisions. Much of the potential 

impact to wildlife would be mitigated 

by the nighttime closure of the 

monument. The road would also 

provide a new dispersal corridor for 

nonnative plant species. For these 

reasons, the proposed scenic road 

would have long-term, minor adverse 

impacts to most aspects of natural 

systems, including soils, intermittent 

drainage systems, and vegetation. 

Depending upon the frequency and 

timing of traffic, the road would have 

long-term, minor adverse impacts to 

more abundant wildlife species, and 

long-term, moderate adverse impacts 

to solitary species that currently use 

remote areas of Walnut Canyon. 

Under Alternative 1, a variety of 

nonmotorized, visitor use areas would 

be formalized within the proposed 

Extended Learning, Guided 

Adventure, and Natural Area 

Recreation Zones. A local trail system 

would be established along 

abandoned roads within the northcentral canyon rim area, and rangerguided hikes would be routinely 

conducted along the north canyon 

rim and east canyon floor areas. 

Increased visitor activity within these 

management zones would potentially 

result in unplanned trail segments to 

popular archaeological features 

and/or scenic viewpoints, and 

localized soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, erosion, spread of 

nonnative plants, and noise 

disturbance to wildlife. Visitor use 

within the proposed Extended 

Learning Zone would have long-term, 

minor adverse impacts upon natural 

systems and processes. 

The proposed Natural Area Recreation 

Zone encompasses the northwest 

canyon rim area included in the 1996 

boundary expansion. Popular 

recreational activities that occurred 

under former U.S. Forest Service 

management of this area, including 

hiking, bicycling, and horseback 

riding, would be allowed to continue. 

Many potential adverse impacts from 

recreational activities to soils, local 

drainage patterns, vegetation, and 

wildlife are already occurring. 

Although nonmotorized recreational 

use would be expected to increase 

within the zone, this use would likely 

have negligible to long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to natural systems 

within the northwest canyon rim area. 

Guided hiking activity within the east 

canyon area would provide frequent 

visitor access to the canyon floor. 

Although dispersed hiking is proposed 

initially, instead of fixed trail routes, 

access to the canyon floor would 

require "scrambling" down and up 

the steep canyon slopes. The rugged 

terrain would necessitate the 

repeated use of a few ledge routes 

and/or tributary drainages to reach 

the canyon bottom. Eventually, trails 

would need to be formalized to 

minimize damage from erosion and 

social trailing. The east canyon area is 

a known movement corridor and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

141

seasonal foraging area for elk and 

pronghorn, and is inhabited by other 

solitary wildlife species. Depending on 

the timing and frequency of tours, 

group size, and access routes, visitor 

use in the Guided Adventure Zone 

would cause long-term, minor adverse 

impacts to soils, tributary canyon 

drainages, vegetation, and more 

abundant wildlife species. Visitor use 

within the east canyon area would 

have long-term, moderate adverse 

impacts to solitary wildlife species 

unless the area is closed during 

important breeding and/or migration 

seasons, and tour frequency and 

group size are limited. 

The remaining area within the 

monument area would be formally 

recognized as a Resource Preservation 

Zone, and unauthorized entry would 

be prohibited. This would have longterm, moderate beneficial impacts to 

natural systems and processes. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 1, the total area 

within the monument impacted by 

NPS facilities and visitor use would 

increase from the current 180 acres 

(5% of the total area) to an estimated 

700 acres (20% of the total area). The 

existing road system would almost 

double in length and visitor access in 

one form or another would be 

formalized along the entire north 

canyon rim and the east canyon floor. 

The combined effect of the new road, 

trails, and dispersed hiking areas 

would magnify adverse impacts such 

as unplanned trail segments, soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, 

localized erosion, spread of nonnative 

plants, and noise and disturbance to 

wildlife. More significantly, the new 

road and visitor uses would result in 

sustained daytime human presence 

and vehicle noise along much of the 

north side of Walnut Canyon. The 

resulting noise would increase the 

level of disturbance to solitary wildlife 

species within the narrow canyon. 

Some of the cumulative impact to 

wildlife would be mitigated by the 

nighttime closure of the monument. 

The new road and visitor use areas 

would also provide for dispersal of 

nonnative plant species virtually 

anywhere within the north rim area. 

For these reasons, Alternative 1 would 

have long-term, moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts to natural systems 

and processes within the monument. 

The cumulative impacts of NPS 

management of Walnut Canyon on 

the surrounding region and of 

adjacent land use impacts on natural 

systems within the monument would 

be the same as those described for the 

No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Under Alternative 1, natural systems 

within Walnut Canyon National 

Monument would continue to recover 

from historic land use impacts. NPS 

operations and visitor activities 

around the existing north-central 

canyon area, and fencing the 1996 

boundary area would have similar 

impacts to those identified for the NoAction Alternative. The combined 

impact of the new road system, trail 

corridors, and dispersed hiking across 

the entire north canyon rim would 

magnify adverse impacts such as 

unplanned trail segments, soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, 

localized erosion, spread of nonnative 

plants, and noise and disturbance to 

wildlife. Sustained daytime human 

presence and traffic noise along most 

of the north canyon rim would have 

long-term, moderate adverse impacts 

to solitary wildlife species within the 

narrow canyon. Some of the impact to 

wildlife would be mitigated by the 

nighttime closure of the monument. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

142

The new road and visitor use areas 

would also provide for dispersal of 

nonnative plant species virtually 

anywhere within the north rim area. 

Alternative 1 would result in longterm, moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts to natural systems and 

processes within the monument. 

The area impacted by NPS facilities 

and frequent visitor use would 

increase from 5% to an estimated 

20% of the total area within the 

monument. Alternative 1 would result 

in no major impacts on natural 

systems and processes in Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 2, natural systems 

and processes within Walnut Canyon 

National Monument would be 

allowed to continue recovering from 

the adverse impacts of historic 

logging, fire suppression, and 

livestock grazing. The impacts of 

existing NPS operations and visitor 

activities around the north-central 

canyon area would be similar to the 

No-Action Alternative. The impacts of 

fencing the 1996 boundary area, and 

closing that area to existing 

recreational activities would be similar 

to what is described for the No-Action 

Alternative. Ongoing efforts to 

improve visitor orientation about 

appropriate behavior toward sensitive 

resources could mitigate some adverse 

visitor use impacts to natural systems 

and processes. 

The impacts from continued daytime 

use of the existing entrance road 

would be the same as the No-Action 

Alternative. However, under 

Alternative 2 the entire entrance road 

from I-40 to the existing visitor center 

would be gated at night. This would 

likely reduce occasional nighttime 

traffic along the road and associated 

noise disturbance and wildlife 

mortality, resulting in long-term, 

minor beneficial impacts to wildlife 

within the monument. 

A new visitor center and parking area 

would be built near I-40 at the park 

entrance, which would require the 

removal of several acres of vegetation 

and associated loss of wildlife habitat, 

soils disturbance, and local disruption 

of drainage patterns. The surrounding 

area within 300 feet of the facility 

would likely be impacted by heavy 

visitor use, resulting in the 

establishment of unplanned trail 

segments, localized soil compaction, 

erosion, vegetation trampling, noise 

disturbance to wildlife, and spread of 

nonnative plants. The NPS would be 

required to manage native vegetation 

surrounding the larger developed 

area, including actions such as 

removing individual hazard trees. The 

development of new facilities at I-40 

would allow the NPS to manage 

visitor crowding, traffic congestion, 

and resource degradation along the 

north-central canyon rim area in the 

future if natural resource impact 

thresholds become unacceptable. The 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

143

ability to reduce long-term adverse 

impacts to natural systems along the 

canyon rim would offset the impacts 

of constructing the facilities. 

A portion of the existing visitor center 

would be removed, and the disturbed 

area would be restored to natural 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. There 

would be short-term, minor adverse 

impacts to vegetation and soils 

around the visitor center during the 

remodeling and vegetation 

restoration effort. 

Under Alternative 2, visitor access and 

activity would increase within the 

proposed Extended Learning Zone 

along the north-central canyon rim. 

Ranger-guided hikes would be 

routinely conducted, and a local selfguided trail system would be 

established along abandoned roads 

within this management zone. 

Increased visitor activity within these 

management zones would potentially 

result in unplanned trail segments to 

popular archaeological features 

and/or scenic viewpoints, and 

localized soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, erosion, spread of 

nonnative plants, and noise 

disturbance to wildlife. Visitor use 

within the proposed Extended 

Learning Zone would have long-term, 

minor adverse impacts on natural 

systems and processes. 

Approximately 11/4 miles of existing 

primitive road would be improved 

through the adjacent Coconino 

National Forest, and a staging area 

would be established along the 

northeast canyon rim for access into 

the Guided Adventure Zone. 

Improving and maintaining the road 

would disturb soils, local drainage, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat along 

the existing route. Increased vehicle 

use would cause a greater disturbance 

to local elk and pronghorn 

populations. Motor noise would be 

projected directly into the canyon at 

the staging area, increasing 

disturbance to solitary wildlife species. 

Much of the potential impact to 

wildlife would be mitigated by the 

nighttime closure of the monument. 

For these reasons, the proposed road 

improvements and staging area 

would have long-term, minor adverse 

impacts to most aspects of natural 

systems, including soils, intermittent 

drainage systems, and vegetation. 

Depending on the frequency and 

timing of traffic, the road would have 

long-term, minor adverse impacts to 

more abundant wildlife species, and 

long-term, moderate adverse impacts 

to solitary species that currently use 

remote areas of Walnut Canyon. 

Guided hiking activity within the 

proposed Guided Adventure Zone in 

the east canyon area would expand 

visitor use into the canyon floor. 

Although dispersed hiking is proposed 

at first instead of fixed trail routes, 

access to the canyon floor would 

require "scrambling" down and up 

the steep canyon slopes. The rugged 

terrain would necessitate the 

repeated use of a few ledge routes 

and/or tributary drainages to reach 

the canyon bottom. The east canyon 

area is a known movement corridor 

and seasonal foraging area for elk 

and pronghorn, and is inhabited by 

other solitary wildlife species. 

Depending upon the timing and 

frequency of tours, group size, and 

access routes, visitor use in the Guided 

Adventure Zone would cause longterm, minor adverse impacts to soils, 

tributary canyon drainages, 

vegetation and more abundant 

wildlife species. Visitor use within the 

east canyon area would have longterm, moderate adverse impacts to 

solitary wildlife species unless the area 

is closed during important breeding 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

144

and/or migration seasons, and tour 

frequency and group size are limited. 

The remaining area within the 

monument (approximately 93%) 

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Preservation Zone, and 

unauthorized access would be 

prohibited. This would have longterm, moderate beneficial impacts to 

natural systems and processes. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 2, the total area 

within the monument impacted by 

NPS facilities and visitor use would 

increase from the current 180 acres 

(5% of the total area) to an estimated 

230 acres (7% of the total area). 

Establishing visitor access into the east 

canyon area within the proposed 

Guided Adventure Zone would result 

in long-term, minor adverse 

cumulative impacts to the Walnut 

Canyon ecosystem. The cumulative 

effects of NPS management on 

regional natural systems and adjacent 

land use impacts on natural systems 

within the monument would be the 

same as identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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 

Under the various management 

alternatives, the total area of natural 

systems and processes directly 

impacted by visitor access and NPS 

support facilities would range from 

180 to 700 acres of the total 3,000 

acres within Walnut Canyon National 

Monument. Under Alternatives 1 and 

2, localized areas of soils, vegetation, 

and wildlife habitat would be 

impacted to develop new visitor 

access or NPS support facilities. 

However, these areas could 

potentially be restored to near 

natural conditions should the facilities 

be removed at some future time. 

Accommodating increased visitation 

levels would increase the amount of 

human disturbance to wildlife 

populations and could permanently 

disrupt certain species population 

numbers within the monument. 

Loss in Long-Term 

Availability or Productivity 

of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

Various long-term local disturbances 

to natural systems and processes 

would be incurred under the 

alternatives in order to expand visitor 

use infrastructure, visitor support 

facilities, and/or NPS administrative 

facilities. Under Alternative 1, the 

integrity of the Walnut Canyon 

ecosystem and key wildlife habitat 

would be degraded in order to 

provide visitors a scenic driving 

experience. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

145

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Historical land 

use and 

occasional visitor 

use have 

occurred within 

the backcountry 

area of Walnut 

Canyon National 

Monument for 

more than a 

century and have 

had unknown 

impacts to natural systems and 

processes. Under all the alternatives, 

the entrance road would interfere to 

varying degrees with the local 

movement or migration of many 

animal species. Construction of new 

buildings parking areas, roads, and 

trails under Alternatives 1 and 2 

would locally disturb soils, drainage 

patterns, vegetation, wildlife habitat, 

and potentially increase the area 

dominated by nonnative, invasive 

plant species. Visitor use around the 

proposed interpretive, education, and 

discovery zones would likely result in 

local unplanned trail segments 

between popular features and 

increased soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, disruption of intermittent 

drainage systems and erosion, spread 

of nonnative plants, and noise and 

disturbance to wildlife. Alternative 1 

proposes significantly expanded road 

and visitor access across most of the 

north canyon rim area, which would 

have unavoidable adverse impacts to 

solitary wildlife species that currently 

find natural quiet and remote habitat 

within Walnut Canyon. Alternative 2 

would also expand visitor access to 

the east canyon floor, but the NPS 

would also be able to mitigate 

impacts to solitary wildlife species 

through seasonal restrictions. 

THREATENED, 

ENDANGERED, AND 

SENSITIVE SPECIES 

Methodology 

This section is intended to augment 

the impact analysis for natural systems 

and processes, by analyzing specific 

impacts of the proposed management 

alternatives upon federally listed 

threatened, endangered, and other 

sensitive species. The Arizona 

Heritage Data Management System 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department 

2001) was consulted via the Internet 

to generate a list of threatened and 

endangered species, and "species of 

concern" for Coconino County, 

Arizona. This list was compared to the 

draft National Park Species database 

for Walnut Canyon National 

Monument, which was recently 

compiled as part of the NPS Natural 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring 

Program and is the most current 

documentation of the monument's 

flora and fauna. In addition, the 

results of a recent survey for special 

status plants at the monument were 

considered (Huisinga et al. 2000). The 

recent designation of critical habitat 

for the threatened Mexican spotted 

owl within the monument requires 

careful consideration of potential 

adverse impacts upon this area. The 

locations of proposed visitor access, 

activities, and support facilities for the 

various alternatives were compared to 

known sensitive species distribution 

records and habitat types in order to 

assess potential impacts. The actual 

status and distribution for several of 

the identified species is not well 

known, and predictions about impacts 

were largely based on available 

research describing a given species 

biology, ecology, and recent 

monitoring data from the region 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

146

surrounding Walnut Canyon. The 

results of past studies of visitor and 

land use impacts to regional 

ecosystems were also used where 

similar impacts would be anticipated. 

The predicted intensity of adverse 

impacts is articulated according to the 

following criteria: 

Negligible: An action that would not 

affect any individuals of a sensitive 

species or their habitat within Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. 

Minor: An action that would affect a 

few individuals of sensitive species or 

have very localized impacts upon their 

habitat within Walnut Canyon 

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 effects on: (1) a 

relatively moderate number of 

individuals within a sensitive species 

population, (2) the existing dynamics 

between multiple species (e.g., 

predator-prey, herbivore-forage, 

vegetation structure-wildlife breeding 

habitat), or (3) a relatively large 

habitat area or important habitat 

attributes within Walnut Canyon 

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 Walnut Canyon 

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 No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Currently, no federally listed 

threatened or endangered plant 

species are known to occur in Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. Rumex 

orthonuerus, a threatened plant 

species, could potentially occur in 

wetland habitat within the 

monument. However, it has not been 

discovered during numerous botanical 

inventories and likely does not occur 

because of the relative scarcity of 

deep soil terraces adjacent to 

perennial waters. Another three 

"species of concern" are documented 

or potentially occur in habitats at the 

bottom the canyon, including riparian 

habitats. Aquilegia desertorum occurs 

within the monument along the 

Walnut Canyon floor and southern 

tributary drainages. Erigeron saxatalis 

also occurs within the monument 

along the drainage at the bottom of 

Walnut Canyon. Cimicifuga arizonica 

potentially occurs within heavily 

shaded areas in Walnut Canyon, 

including riparian habitat, but has not 

been discovered during numerous 

botanical inventories of the 

monument. 

Two additional plant species of 

concern could potentially occur in 

upland habitats within the 

monument. Clematis hirutissima var. 

arizonica is documented within the 

Walnut Canyon watershed upstream 

from the monument. This subspecies 

prefers gentle, north-northeast 

trending slopes with well-developed 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

147

limestone soils. Clematis hirutissima 

var. arizonica has yet to be discovered 

during botanical surveys of the 

monument, but likely occurs because 

of the presence of good habitat. 

Hedeoma diffusum grows along 

limestone bluffs in Walnut Canyon 

upstream from the monument. This 

species has yet to be discovered 

during botanical surveys, but likely 

occurs because of the presence of 

good habitat. 

One threatened animal species and a 

number of animal "species of 

concern" occur within the monument. 

The Mexican spotted owl, listed as 

threatened by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, nests within the 

monument in densely forested, 

steeply sloping canyon terrain. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently 

designated critical habitat for the 

species within the monument. The 

designated habitat is entirely within 

the backcountry closure area, and 

existing NPS operations and visitor 

activities have negligible impacts. The 

NPS would continue to consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

order to ensure management actions 

do not adversely impact the Mexican 

spotted owl. The NPS would continue 

to monitor the owl, protect known 

nesting territories, and preserve 

specific habitat attributes in 

accordance with the Mexican Spotted 

Owl Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1995). 

Two additional sensitive raptor 

species are known to occur within the 

monument. The peregrine falcon 

nests on the massive cliff faces of 

Walnut Canyon. Although the species 

was recently removed from the 

endangered species list by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the NPS 

would continue to monitor breeding 

activity. Northern goshawk, a species 

of concern, also nests within densely 

forested, steeply sloping canyon 

terrain within the monument. The 

NPS would attempt to monitor this 

species. Most of the preferred habitat 

for these species is within the 

backcountry closure area, and existing 

NPS operations and visitor activities 

likely have negligible impacts. 

Twelve species of bats that occur 

within Coconino County are 

considered species of concern. The 

fractured cliff faces of Walnut Canyon 

provide ample bat habitat, and 

sensitive species such as Townsend's 

big-eared bat potentially occur within 

the monument. The NPS currently has 

little information on the bat fauna, 

and would attempt to inventory the 

species occurring within the 

monument. 

Walnut Canyon provides ideal den 

sites for mountain lions. Although not 

formally designated as a sensitive 

species, concern was identified during 

the scoping process because mountain 

lions are large predators with 

expansive home ranges that transcend 

the monument boundary. The agency 

would attempt to develop 

information on the distribution and 

abundance of mountain lions, and 

follow established agency policy to 

sustain the ecological role of natural 

predators while minimizing threats to 

public safety. 

Threatened and sensitive species 

within the monument have likely 

been impacted by historic logging, 

timber management, fire suppression, 

livestock grazing, and water 

impoundments within Walnut 

Canyon. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, habitat for sensitive plant 

and wildlife species would continue 

recovering from former land uses 

within the monument. The NPS would 

continue to periodically assess the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

148

distribution and status of sensitive 

species, to restore the ecological role 

of fire within ponderosa forest along 

the level canyon rim terraces, and to 

attempt to control nonnative plant 

infestations when feasible. 

Current NPS operations and visitor 

activities would remain concentrated 

in a relatively small area of upland 

habitats in proximity to the northcentral canyon rim. No plant species 

of concern are known to occur within 

existing developed or visitor use 

areas, but Hedeoma diffusum occurs 

in nearby canyon rim habitat, and 

current visitor use could cause minor 

trampling impacts to individual 

plants. No new visitor access or NPS 

facilities are currently proposed 

within the preferred habitats of 

sensitive wildlife species. 

Approximately 1,300 additional acres 

added in the 1996 boundary 

expansion would be closed to current 

recreational activities. Until the new 

boundary is surveyed, fenced, and 

posted, some recreational disturbance 

to sensitive wildlife species would 

likely cause short-term, minor adverse 

impacts. 

Mexican spotted owls, peregrine 

falcons, northern goshawks, and 

mountain lions continue to be 

observed within the monument, and 

have tolerated existing visitor 

activities, NPS operations, and 

associated ambient noise thresholds 

generated within the north-central 

canyon area for decades. Although 

little is known about the bat fauna in 

the canyon, these species are 

predominantly nocturnal, and impacts 

from existing daytime visitor use 

around the archaeological 

interpretive areas are likely negligible. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

approximately 95% of the area within 

the monument would remain closed 

to general public access to protect 

sensitive cultural and natural 

resources. This effectively precludes 

most disturbance to riparian habitat 

within the canyon bottom, densely 

forested, steeply sloping canyon 

terrain, and cliff faces. Occasional 

dispersed hiking would continue 

within the closed area during cultural 

site preservation projects, guided 

hikes, resource monitoring studies, 

scientific research, educational 

activities, other special uses, and 

unauthorized hiking. Site-specific 

surveys would be required prior to 

any ground/vegetation disturbance, 

change in access corridors, or change 

in ambient noise levels to ensure 

sensitive species are not impacted. 

Sensitive plant and animal species 

would be effectively protected from 

disturbance, and unique habitat 

attributes would be preserved within 

Walnut Canyon National Monument. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

No-Action Alternative would likely 

have no adverse impacts on 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative impacts of continuing 

public visitation to and NPS 

administration of Walnut Canyon 

National Monument on threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species are 

difficult to estimate. Many of these 

species are experiencing long-term 

declines as a result of regional 

development and land uses over 

which the NPS has very little control. 

Others are sensitive because they have 

very localized habitats or very specific 

habitat attributes which could be 

heavily impacted by relatively minor 

management actions. At Walnut 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

149

Canyon, the NPS cooperates when a 

regional species management 

framework is needed to sustain a 

widespread species. The narrowly 

distributed species are well protected 

within Walnut Canyon by the 

backcountry closure. Adverse 

cumulative impacts would likely only 

result from increased visitation and 

road traffic, especially for sensitive 

wildlife species. 

The greatest cumulative impacts to 

sensitive species within Walnut 

Canyon are undoubtedly attributed to 

the impoundment of Walnut Creek 

upstream from the monument at 

Upper and Lower Lake Mary. The 

lakes have prevented seasonal stream 

flows through Walnut Canyon since 

1941. As a result, Cimicifugia arizonica 

and Erigeron saxatilis may be 

experiencing long-term decline along 

with other riparian-dependent species 

in the canyon drainage system. The 

impoundments have also changed the 

seasonal reliability of surface water 

for wildlife species, and may have 

caused subtle changes in the riparian 

prey base and predator-prey 

interactions. However, sensitive 

wildlife species persist and are 

believed to have adapted to these 

changes. Long-term monitoring data 

would be required to reliably assess 

these impacts. 

As Flagstaff continues to grow, 

residential development is anticipated 

to encroach upon the northwestern 

monument boundary. Along with this 

growth, recreational activity is 

expected to increase in proximity to 

the monument, along with the 

potential for increased unauthorized 

access into sensitive species habitat, 

introduction and spread of invasive 

plants, increased predation by feral 

cats and dogs, degradation of water 

quality in riparian areas, and 

increased human-mountain lion 

interactions. These actions could all 

have adverse cumulative impacts 

upon threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species within the 

monument. 

CONCLUSION 

There are six threatened/sensitive 

plant species and six 

threatened/sensitive animal species 

that are either known or could 

potentially occur within the 

monument. Vegetation and wildlife 

habitat would continue to recover 

from historic land uses. Monitoring 

programs are needed to routinely 

assess the distribution and status of 

sensitive species, and to ensure they 

are not impacted by visitor use and 

NPS operations. 

Approximately 95% of the area 

within the monument remains closed 

to general public access. The 

backcountry closure effectively 

protects most sensitive plant and 

animal species habitat, including all 

designated critical habitat for the 

Mexican spotted owl. Current NPS 

operations and visitor activities would 

remain concentrated in a relatively 

small area around the north-central 

canyon rim. No plant species of 

concern are known to occur within 

existing developed or visitor use 

areas, but Hedeoma diffusum occurs 

in nearby canyon rim habitat and 

experiences the greatest risk of 

impacts from current visitor use. 

Sensitive wildlife species appear to 

have adapted well to existing NPS 

operations, visitor uses, ambient noise 

levels, and historic changes within the 

Walnut Canyon watershed caused by 

upstream impoundments. Sensitive 

plant species that are restricted to 

riparian habitats, including 

Cimicifugia arizonica and Erigeron 

saxatilis, may be experiencing long-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

150

term declines as a result of the 

creation of Upper and Lower Lake 

Mary, but long-term monitoring data 

would be needed to reliably assess 

trends. Other cumulative effects could 

result from exceeding visitor carrying 

capacity within the monument, and 

from nearby development within the 

town of Flagstaff. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 1, habitat for 

sensitive plant and wildlife species 

would continue recovering from 

former land uses within the 

monument. Existing facilities, NPS 

operations, and visitor activities in 

proximity to the north-central canyon 

area would have negligible impacts to 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. The proposed shortening of 

the existing access road, new parking 

area, and new orientation facility 

near I-40 would not occur near known 

sensitive species locations or preferred 

habitats, and would likely have 

negligible impacts to threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. The 

NPS would continue to consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

order to ensure management actions 

do not adversely impact the Mexican 

spotted owl. The NPS would continue 

to monitor the owl, protect known 

nesting territories, and preserve 

specific habitat attributes in 

accordance with the Mexican Spotted 

Owl Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1995). 

The proposed north rim scenic drive 

(involving improvement of an existing 

primitive road through the adjacent 

Coconino National Forest and 

development of two miles of road 

along the northeastern canyon rim) 

could potentially impact undiscovered 

populations of Hedeoma diffusum or 

Clematis hirutissima var. arizonica. 

Site-specific surveys would be 

required prior to any 

ground/vegetation disturbance to 

ensure sensitive plant species are 

avoided. Most of the proposed road 

would be routed far enough from 

Mexican spotted owl critical habitat 

to minimize ambient traffic noise. 

However, monitoring would be 

required to reliably ensure this action 

has no adverse impact to the Mexican 

spotted owl. Similar impacts would be 

expected for the northern goshawk 

and mountain lion, which also inhabit 

the east canyon area. Continued 

nighttime closure of the monument 

mitigates many impacts from the 

proposed road. Other potential 

mitigating measures include 

strategically routing the road farther 

from the canyon rim, transporting 

visitors via quiet shuttle buses, and/or 

temporary closure of the area during 

sensitive species breeding seasons. 

Under Alternative 1, a variety of 

nonmotorized, visitor use areas would 

be formalized within the proposed 

Extended Learning, Guided 

Adventure, and Natural Area 

Recreation Zones. Increased visitor 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

151

activity along the proposed trails and 

ranger-guided hikes along the north 

canyon rim area could potentially 

impact Hedeoma diffusum or Clematis 

hirutissima var. arizonica. The area 

would be fully surveyed and any 

discovered populations would be 

avoided. Within the 1996 western 

boundary expansion area, hiking, 

bicycling, and horse riding activities 

would continue above the northwest 

canyon rim at levels similar to prior 

U.S. Forest Service management of 

these lands. Sensitive plant 

populations, including Hedeoma 

diffusum or Clematis hirutissima var. 

arizonica, might suffer minor adverse 

impacts from occasional trampling. 

Sensitive wildlife species, including 

Mexican spotted owl, have likely 

adapted to existing levels of human 

activity and noise within the area, and 

this action would have negligible 

impacts to them. 

Guided hiking activity would be 

established within a limited area of 

the canyon floor near the eastern 

monument boundary. Although 

dispersed hiking is proposed at first 

instead of fixed trail routes, access to 

the canyon floor would require 

"scrambling" down and up the steep 

canyon slopes. Sensitive plants 

occurring in both canyon rim habitats 

(Hedeoma diffusum or Clematis 

hirutissima var. arizonica) and riparian 

habitats on the canyon floor 

(Aquilegia desertorum, Erigeron 

saxatilis, or Cimicifugia arizonica) 

could receive minor adverse impacts 

from occasional trampling. The 

proposed guided hiking area is more 

than 11/2 miles away from designated 

critical habitat for the Mexican 

spotted owl, and no adverse impacts 

are anticipated. The east canyon area 

is also a known habitat area for the 

northern goshawk and mountain lion. 

Increasing visitor activity would 

potentially disturb either species, 

and/or increase human-mountain lion 

interactions. Unfavorable mountain 

lion behavior would result in 

relocation or killing of the animal, 

which would have a minor adverse 

impact upon the regional mountain 

lion population. Potential adverse 

impacts to sensitive wildlife species 

would be mitigated by continued 

closure of the monument at night, 

monitoring for potential visitor use 

disturbance impacts, and/or 

establishing seasonal closures during 

breeding seasons. 

The remaining area within the 

monument area would be formally 

recognized as a Resource Preservation 

Zone, and unauthorized access would 

be prohibited. This effectively 

precludes most disturbance to 

designated critical habitat for the 

Mexican spotted owl, riparian habitat 

within the canyon bottom, densely 

forested canyon terrain, and remote 

cliff faces. Occasional dispersed hiking 

would continue within the closed area 

during cultural site preservation 

projects, resource monitoring studies, 

scientific research, educational 

activities, other special uses, and 

unauthorized hiking. 

Under Alternative 1, sensitive plant 

and animal species would be 

effectively protected from 

disturbance, and unique habitat 

attributes would be preserved within 

Walnut Canyon National Monument. 

For the reasons discussed above, this 

alternative would likely have no 

adverse impacts on threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 1, the total area 

within the monument impacted by 

NPS facilities and visitor use would 

increase from the current 180 acres 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

152

(5% of the total area) to an estimated 

700 acres (20% of the total area). The 

existing road system would almost 

double in length, and visitor access in 

one form or another would be 

formalized along the entire north 

canyon rim and the east canyon floor. 

Extensive survey of the north rim and 

east canyon floor area for sensitive 

plant species would be required to 

avoid potential adverse impacts. The 

cumulative effect of the new road, 

trails, and dispersed hiking areas 

would result in sustained daytime 

human presence and vehicle use 

along most of the north side of 

Walnut Canyon. A resulting increase 

in ambient noise is anticipated, which 

would increase disturbance to 

sensitive wildlife species within the 

narrow canyon. Some of the 

cumulative impact to sensitive wildlife 

would be mitigated by the continued 

nighttime closure of the monument. 

Other cumulative effects resulting 

from NPS management of Walnut 

Canyon on the surrounding region 

and from adjacent land uses on 

natural systems within the monument 

would be the same as those identified 

for the No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Under Alternative 1, habitat for 

sensitive plant and wildlife species 

would continue recovering from 

former land uses within the 

monument. Proposed new facilities in 

proximity existing facilities in the 

north-central canyon area would 

likely have no adverse impacts to 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. The cumulative effect of 

proposed new road, trails, and 

dispersed hiking areas would result in 

sustained daytime human presence 

and increased ambient noise along 

most of the north canyon rim, which 

would cause a disturbance to sensitive 

wildlife species within the adjacent 

narrow canyon. Approximately 80% 

of the area within the monument 

area would be formally recognized as 

a Resource Preservation Zone, and 

unauthorized access would be 

prohibited. This would effectively 

preclude most disturbance to Mexican 

spotted owl critical habitat, riparian 

habitat within the canyon bottom, 

densely forested canyon terrain, and 

remote cliff faces. 

Under Alternative 1, sensitive species 

would be surveyed and monitored 

more intensively, and mitigating 

measures would be adopted to 

effectively protect them and their 

habitats within Walnut Canyon 

National Monument. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 2, habitat for 

sensitive plant and wildlife species 

would continue recovering from 

former land uses within the 

monument. Continued use of the 

entrance road, existing NPS facilities, 

and visitor activities in proximity to 

the north-central canyon area would 

have no adverse impacts to 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

153

threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. The proposed new visitor 

center and parking area near I-40 are 

not in proximity to known sensitive 

species locations or preferred 

habitats, and would likely have no 

adverse impacts to threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. The 

proposed closure of the 1996 

boundary expansion area to existing 

recreational activities would likely 

have beneficial effects on sensitive 

wildlife species known to inhabit the 

western canyon area within the 

monument. The NPS would continue 

to consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in order to ensure 

management actions do not adversely 

impact the Mexican spotted owl. The 

NPS would continue to monitor the 

owl, protect known nesting 

territories, and preserve specific 

habitat attributes in accordance with 

the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery 

Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1995). 

Under Alternative 2, visitor activity 

would increase with new trails and 

ranger-guided hikes in the proposed 

Extended Learning Zone, which could 

potentially impact Hedeoma diffusum 

or Clematis hirutissima var. arizonica 

in the north-central canyon rim area. 

The area would be fully surveyed and 

any discovered populations would be 

avoided. Existing ambient noise levels 

within the north-central canyon rim 

area would not be expected to 

noticeably increase, and increased 

visitor use would have negligible 

impacts to sensitive wildlife species, 

including Mexican spotted owl. 

Approximately 11/4 miles of existing 

primitive road would be improved 

through the north-central canyon rim 

area, and terminate at a staging area 

for guided hikes. The road would 

approach the northeastern canyon 

rim near designated critical habitat 

for the Mexican spotted owl. 

However, general vehicle access 

would be prohibited, and ambient 

noise would not be expected to 

noticeably increase within the canyon. 

Much of the potential impact to 

sensitive wildlife species would be 

mitigated by the continued nighttime 

closure of the monument, restricted 

use of the road, and establishing 

seasonal closures during important 

periods of sensitive species activity. 

For these reasons, development of the 

new road would likely have negligible 

impacts to the Mexican spotted owl 

and other sensitive wildlife species. 

Guided hiking activity would increase 

human presence and noise 

disturbance within the east canyon 

floor. Dispersed hiking is proposed at 

first, instead of fixed trail routes, and 

access would require "scrambling" 

down and up the steep canyon slopes. 

Sensitive plants occurring in both 

canyon rim habitats (Hedeoma 

diffusum or Clematis hirutissima var. 

arizonica) and riparian habitats on the 

canyon floor (Aquilegia desertorum, 

Erigeron saxatilis, and Cimicifugia 

arizonica) could be occasionally 

trampled. The area would be fully 

surveyed and any discovered 

populations would be avoided. The 

proposed guided hiking area is 

outside of the designated critical 

habitat area for the Mexican spotted 

owl, and no adverse impact to the 

species is anticipated. The east canyon 

area is also a known habitat area for 

the northern goshawk and mountain 

lion. Increasing visitor activity would 

potentially disturb either species, 

and/or increase human-mountain lion 

interactions. Unfavorable mountain 

lion behavior would result in 

relocation or killing of the animal. 

Potential adverse impacts to sensitive 

wildlife species would be mitigated by 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

154

continued closure of the monument 

at night, restricting visitor entry unless 

accompanied by NPS staff, monitoring 

for potential visitor-use disturbance 

impacts, and establishing seasonal 

closures during breeding seasons. 

Approximately 93% of the total area 

within the monument would be 

designated a Resource Preservation 

Zone, and unauthorized entry would 

be prohibited. This effectively 

precludes most disturbance to critical 

habitat for the Mexican spotted owl: 

riparian habitat within the canyon 

bottom, densely forested canyon 

terrain, and remote cliff faces. 

Occasional dispersed hiking would 

continue within the closed area 

during cultural site preservation 

projects, resource monitoring studies, 

scientific research, educational 

activities, other special uses, and 

unauthorized hiking. 

Under Alternative 2, threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species 

would be effectively protected from 

disturbance, and unique habitat 

attributes would be preserved within 

Walnut Canyon National Monument. 

For the reasons discussed above, this 

alternative would likely have no 

adverse impacts on threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects for Alternative 

2 would be similar to those identified 

for the No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Under Alternative 2, habitat for 

sensitive plant and wildlife species 

would continue recovering from 

former land uses within the 

monument. Continued NPS operations 

and visitor activities in the northcentral canyon area would have 

negligible impacts to threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. The 

proposed new visitor center and 

parking area near I-40 are not in 

proximity to known sensitive species 

locations or preferred habitats, and 

would likely have negligible impacts 

to threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species. Closure of the 1996 

western boundary area to existing 

recreational activities would likely 

have beneficial impacts to sensitive 

wildlife species known to inhabit the 

western canyon area. Sensitive plant 

species within the proposed Extended 

Learning Zone, northeast canyon rim 

access road, and the Guided 

Adventure Zone in the east canyon 

area would be surveyed and avoided. 

Potential adverse impacts to sensitive 

wildlife species within the proposed 

Guided Adventure Zone in the eastern 

canyon area would be mitigated by 

continued closure of the monument 

at night, restricting visitor entry unless 

accompanied by NPS staff, monitoring 

for potential visitor use disturbance 

impacts, and establishing seasonal 

closures during breeding seasons. 

Approximately 93% of the area 

within the monument would be 

formally recognized as a Resource 

Preservation Zone, and unauthorized 

entry would be prohibited. This 

effectively would preclude most 

disturbance to critical habitat for the 

Mexican spotted owl: riparian habitat 

within the canyon bottom, densely 

forested canyon terrain, and remote 

cliff faces. 

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 

Walnut Canyon National Monument; 

(2) key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

155

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 of 

irretrievable commitments of 

threatened, endangered, or species, 

or their habitats. 

Loss in Long-Term 

Availability or Productivity 

of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

Under Alternatives 1 and 2, road 

improvements along the northeast 

canyon rim would provide more 

convenient access to the east canyon 

area. This would increase ambient 

traffic noise levels and potential 

disturbance of sensitive wildlife 

species within the narrow canyon. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Historical land use and occasional 

visitor use have occurred within the 

backcountry area for many years, and 

had unknown impacts to sensitive 

species and their respective habitats. 

Under all of the alternatives, 

continuing visitor activity and NPS 

operations within the north-central 

canyon area would disturb sensitive 

animal species. The trend of 

increasing visitor numbers and 

associated vehicle traffic to the northcentral canyon rim could also 

eventually have adverse impacts to 

sensitive wildlife species. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 2, proposed 

road improvements, new trails, and 

new facilities would potentially 

increase the risk of establishment and 

dispersal of nonnative, invasive plant 

species. Expanding visitor access 

corridors and use areas along the 

north canyon rim and into the east 

canyon floor could increase human 

presence and noise disturbance to 

sensitive wildlife species within the 

narrow canyon. Under Alternative 1, 

increased visitor use within the 

proposed Natural Area Recreation 

Zone could result in increased 

trampling of sensitive plant species 

and increased noise disturbance to 

sensitive wildlife species. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, 

AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

Methodology 

Available information 

on riparian resources for 

Walnut Canyon 

National Monument 

was reviewed. This 

included information on 

the riparian corridor 

along the floor of 

Walnut Canyon, and 

perennial seeps on the 

canyon floor and in 

tributary side canyons, 

primarily from the 

investigations of Brian 

(1985) and Phillips (1990). Very little 

information is available on the 

hydrology and water quality for the 

reach of Walnut Creek, intermittent 

drainages, or seeps within the 

monument. The potential impacts of 

each alternative on wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian areas were 

evaluated by comparing their 

locations to proposed visitor and 

support facilities, and to the 

anticipated visitor uses and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

156

administrative activities within the 

various management zones. 

Predictions about short- and longterm impacts were based on past 

studies of land use and visitor impacts 

to similar watersheds within the 

regional ecosystem. The predicted 

intensity of adverse impacts is 

articulated according to the following 

criteria: 

Negligible: An action that would 

cause no change in an existing 

wetland area or function, the ability 

of a floodplain to convey floodwaters, 

or to riparian vegetation and wildlife 

communities. 

Minor: An action that would cause 

no change in wetland or floodplain 

area and function. The action would 

affect a few individuals of plant or 

wildlife species within an existing 

wetland or riparian area within the 

monument. The change would 

require considerable scientific effort 

to measure and have barely 

perceptible consequences to wetland 

or riparian habitat function. 

Moderate: An action that would 

change an existing wetland area or 

floodplain function, but the impact 

could be mitigated by the creation of 

artificial wetlands or modification of 

proposed facilities in floodplains. The 

action would have a measurable 

effect on plant or wildlife species 

within an existing wetland or riparian 

area, but all species would remain 

indefinitely viable within the 

monument. 

Major: An action that would have 

drastic and permanent consequences 

for an existing wetland area or 

floodplain function which could not 

be mitigated. Wetland and riparian 

species dynamics would be upset, and 

species would be at risk of extirpation 

from the monument. 

Effects of No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources within Walnut Canyon 

National Monument are restricted to 

the narrow canyon bottom and 

localized perennial seeps found in the 

tributary canyons on the south side of 

the monument. There are no existing 

NPS facilities or visitor uses within 

wetlands, floodplains, or riparian 

areas, and these resources are entirely 

within the backcountry closure area 

of the monument. The existing 

entrance road and most facilities 

drain away from the canyon rim, and 

are not affecting storm runoff stages 

or contributing pollutants to the 

Walnut Canyon watershed. Occasional 

hiking would continue within the 

riparian corridor on the canyon floor 

for cultural site stabilization projects, 

monitoring studies, scientific research, 

educational activities, and other 

special uses. In addition, occasional 

unauthorized hiking would likely 

continue along the canyon bottom. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

continued NPS operations and visitor 

uses would have negligible impacts to 

wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources within the monument. 

The 1996 boundary expansion 

included an additional 4-mile 

upstream reach and 4-mile 

downstream reach of the meandering 

Walnut "Creek" drainage within the 

monument. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, both the upper and lower 

reaches of the canyon floor, including 

the wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources they encompass, would be 

surveyed, fenced, and closed to 

general visitor access. The upper 4 

miles of riparian resources within the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

157

monument receive occasional hiking 

impacts, and the downstream 4 miles 

are being impacted from livestock 

grazing under U.S. Forest Service 

grazing leases. Excluding recreational 

impacts would likely have negligible 

impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian resources within the 

monument. Excluding livestock 

grazing from the canyon floor would 

likely have long-term, minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts to 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

resources within the monument. 

The Santa Fe Dam, a small 

impoundment near the downstream 

end of the canyon, would continue to 

exist on privately owned land within 

the monument. The dam is more than 

100 years old and is a significant 

historical site. The NPS is seeking to 

acquire this land and would become 

owner of the dam and reservoir. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

NPS would probably not remove the 

dam unless it is determined to be a 

public safety threat or to be causing 

serious resource impacts. Although 

the reservoir has locally impacted 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

resources since it was constructed, it is 

almost entirely filled with sediment, 

and most local storm flows pass 

through the dam's spillway. The local 

reach of the historically impacted 

stream channel and sediment plain 

behind the dam would continue to be 

dominated by both native and 

nonnative weedy annual species, such 

as Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), 

horehound (Marrubium vulgare), 

sweet clover (Melilotus albus), and 

field bindweed (Convovulus arvensis). 

The canyon floor area around the 

reservoir would continue to be 

seasonally used by wildlife for browse. 

A shallow area of water would 

continue to accumulate during 

periods of storm runoff, which would 

also continue to be used by wildlife. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

continued existence of the historic 

reservoir would have negligible 

impacts to wetland, floodplain, and 

riparian resources within Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area used in the 

consideration of cumulative impacts is 

the Walnut Canyon watershed. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

historic Santa Fe dam would likely 

have negligible cumulative impacts to 

wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources within the Walnut Canyon 

watershed. The reservoir area behind 

the dam is mostly filled with 

sediment, and storm flows pass 

through the dam's spillway to 

maintain downstream riparian 

resources. 

The greatest cumulative impacts to 

wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources within Walnut Canyon are 

attributable to the impoundment of 

Walnut Creek upstream from the 

monument at Upper and Lower Lake 

Mary. The lakes have prevented 

seasonal stream flows through 

Walnut Canyon since 1941. As a result, 

wetland and riparian resources in the 

canyon drainage system are believed 

to be experiencing a long-term 

decline. The processes of stream 

channel scouring, sediment transport, 

terrace formation, and local spring 

and seep recharge have been altered 

in response to the cessation of 

seasonal flows. Riparian vegetation 

cover and composition would 

continue to change, and a few 

obligate wetland and riparian plant 

species might become extirpated from 

the watershed. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

158

The impoundments have also altered 

flood stages and flood risk areas. 

Since 1941, the canyon has flooded 

three times from extreme storm 

events that completely filled both 

lakes. Smaller magnitude flows or 

flash floods also occur approximately 

once a decade from tributary 

watersheds below the lakes. A failure 

of either Upper or Lower Lake Mary 

Dams would result in catastrophic 

damage to riparian resources within 

the monument. The lowest reach of 

the Island Trail could be within this 

flood stage, and the NPS would post 

warnings and consider closure of the 

trail should warnings of a possible 

dam failure be issued. The restoration 

of wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources would be predicated upon 

cooperation by the city of Flagstaff to 

provide regular seasonal water 

releases from Upper and Lower Lake 

Mary. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, continued disruption of 

flows within the watershed would 

have long-term, moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts to wetland, 

floodplain, and riparian resources 

within the monument. 

Riparian resources within the Walnut 

Canyon watershed would remain 

buffered from water quality 

degradation by surrounding 

undeveloped Coconino National 

Forest and Arizona State trust lands. 

However, much of the land within the 

watershed lies within the Flagstaff 

city limits, and could potentially be 

acquired for development. The 

development of streets, residential, 

and commercial districts within the 

relatively pristine canyon watershed 

would increase non-point source 

pollution, such as wind-blown litter, 

motor and exhaust residue from 

streets, and fertilizers, herbicides, and 

pet waste from lawns. This would 

have long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative impacts to 

riparian and wetland resources within 

Walnut Canyon National Monument. 

CONCLUSION 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

continued NPS operations and visitor 

uses would have negligible impacts to 

wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources within the Walnut Canyon 

watershed. Fencing the 1996 

boundary expansion areas along the 

canyon floor and closing the area to 

the general public would likely have 

negligible impacts, and excluding 

livestock grazing from the eastern 

boundary expansion area would likely 

have long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. The historic Santa 

Fe dam would likely have negligible 

impacts because most storm flows 

pass through the dam's spillway. 

The greatest impacts to wetland, 

floodplain, and riparian resources are 

attributable to cumulative impacts 

from upstream impoundments of 

Walnut Creek at Upper and Lower 

Lake Mary. Stream geomorphic 

processes, localized wetlands, and 

riparian vegetation would continue to 

experience a long-term decline in 

response to the cessation of seasonal 

flows. A few obligate wetland and 

riparian plant species might become 

extirpated from the monument. The 

impoundments have also altered 

flood stages and floodplain areas, and 

a dam failure would cause 

catastrophic damage to riparian 

resources within the monument. 

Continued disruption of flows within 

the watershed would have long-term, 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts 

to wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources within the monument. 

Riparian resources within the Walnut 

Canyon watershed would remain 

buffered from water quality 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

159

degradation by surrounding 

undeveloped forest lands. Much of 

the land within the watershed could 

eventually be acquired for 

development by the city of Flagstaff. 

This would increase non-point source 

pollution, and have long-term, minor 

to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts to riparian and wetland 

resources within Walnut Canyon 

National Monument. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 1, continued NPS 

operations and visitor activities above 

the north canyon rim would have 

negligible impacts, as with the NoAction Alternative. The impacts of 

fencing the 1996 boundary expansion 

areas would be the same as those 

described for the No-Action 

Alternative. The continued existence 

of the Santa Fe Dam within the 

monument would also have negligible 

impacts, as with the No-Action 

Alternative. The proposed new 

facilities along the existing access 

road would also be entirely within an 

upland environment and would have 

negligible impacts to wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian resources. 

Approximately 2 miles of road would 

be built to provide a new scenic drive 

along the northeast canyon rim. The 

proposed road route is entirely within 

an upland environment, but would 

cross as many as five large tributary 

channels that drain from the 

northeast canyon rim into Walnut 

Canyon. The road would be properly 

designed to minimize interference 

with storm flows into the canyon. 

However, frequent vehicle use along 

the new road could potentially 

introduce trace amounts of non-point 

source pollution from motor and 

exhaust residue into the Walnut 

Canyon watershed. The proposed 

road along the northeast rim would 

likely have negligible to long-term, 

minor adverse impacts on riparian 

resources within the monument. 

Under Alternative 1, dispersed guided 

hiking would be established in 

approximately 1/2 mile of riparian 

corridor along the east canyon floor. 

Dispersed hiking along the narrow 

riparian area would result in 

occasional trampling of intermittent 

channels, stream terraces, and 

riparian vegetation. Hiking would be 

prohibited in wetland areas. 

Depending upon the level of 

disturbance, stream banks and 

terraces could erode more easily 

during infrequent flash floods. This 

impact would probably be offset by 

fencing the 1996 boundary and 

excluding livestock from the east 

canyon floor. The proposed visitor 

access to riparian resources would 

likely result in negligible to long-term, 

minor adverse impacts to riparian 

resources and floodplains within the 

monument. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

160

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative impacts of Alternative 

1 on wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian resources would be the same 

as those described for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Under Alternative 1, continued NPS 

operations and visitor activities above 

the north canyon rim would have 

negligible impacts, as with the NoAction Alternative. The impacts of 

fencing the 1996 boundary expansion 

areas would be the same as those 

described for the No-Action 

Alternative. The continued existence 

of the Santa Fe Dam within the 

monument would also have negligible 

impacts, as with the No-Action 

Alternative. The proposed new 

facilities along the existing entrance 

road would be entirely within an 

upland environment and also would 

have negligible impacts to wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian resources. 

Approximately 2 miles of road would 

be built along the northeast canyon 

rim and would cross tributary 

drainages of Walnut Canyon. 

Frequent vehicle use along the new 

road could potentially introduce trace 

amounts of non-point source 

pollution from motor and exhaust 

residue into the Walnut Canyon 

watershed. The proposed road would 

likely have negligible to long-term, 

minor adverse impacts on riparian 

resources. Dispersed guided hiking 

would occur in 1/2 mile of riparian 

corridor along the east canyon floor, 

increasing disturbance to stream 

banks, terraces, and riparian 

vegetation. This impact would 

probably be offset by fencing the 

1996 boundary to exclude livestock 

grazing. Visitor use within this area 

would likely result in negligible to 

long-term, minor adverse impacts. 

The cumulative impacts of Alternative 

1 on wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian resources would be the same 

as those identified for 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 

Walnut Canyon 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 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 2, continued NPS 

operations and visitor activities above 

the north canyon rim would have 

negligible impacts, as with the NoAction Alternative. The impacts of 

fencing the 1996 boundary expansion 

areas would be the same as those 

described for the No-Action 

Alternative. The continued existence 

of the Santa Fe Dam within the 

monument would also have negligible 

impacts, as with the No-Action 

Alternative. The proposed new visitor 

center along the existing access road 

would be entirely within an upland 

environment and also would have 

negligible impacts to wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian resources. 

An existing primitive road through 

the adjacent Coconino National Forest 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

161

would be upgraded to provide visitor 

access to the northeast canyon rim. 

The route is entirely within an upland 

environment, but would traverse the 

head of a major tributary canyon that 

drains into Walnut Canyon. The road 

would be properly designed to 

minimize interference with storm 

flows into the canyon. The road 

would be infrequently used for 

guided tours only, and would likely 

generate negligible non-point source 

pollution from motor and exhaust 

residue. The proposed road would 

likely have negligible impacts on 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

resources within the Walnut Canyon 

watershed. 

Under Alternative 2, dispersed guided 

hiking would be established in 

approximately 2 miles of riparian 

corridor along the east canyon floor. 

Dispersed hiking along the narrow 

riparian area would result in 

occasional trampling of intermittent 

channels, stream terraces, and 

riparian vegetation. Hiking would be 

prohibited in wetland areas. 

Depending upon the level of 

disturbance, stream banks and 

terraces could erode more easily 

during infrequent flash floods. This 

impact would probably be offset by 

fencing the 1996 boundary and 

excluding livestock grazing from the 

east canyon floor. The proposed 

visitor access to riparian resources 

would likely result in negligible to 

long-term, minor adverse impacts to 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

resources within the monument. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative impacts of Alternative 

2 on wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian resources would be the same 

as those identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Under Alternative 2, continued NPS 

operations and visitor activities above 

the north canyon rim would have 

negligible impacts, as with the NoAction Alternative. The impacts of 

fencing the 1996 boundary expansion 

areas would be the same as those 

identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. The continued existence 

of the Santa Fe Dam within the 

monument would also have negligible 

impacts, as with the No-Action 

Alternative. The proposed new visitor 

center along the existing entrance 

road would be entirely within an 

upland environment and also would 

have negligible impacts to wetlands, 

floodplains, or riparian resources. 

An existing primitive road would be 

upgraded to provide visitor access to 

the northeast canyon rim. The road 

would be properly designed to 

minimize drainage interference, 

would be used infrequently, and nonpoint source pollution from motor 

and exhaust residue would be 

minimal. The proposed road would 

likely have negligible impacts. 

Dispersed hiking would occur in 2 

miles of riparian corridor along the 

east canyon floor, increasing 

disturbance to stream banks, terraces, 

and riparian vegetation. This impact 

would probably be offset by fencing 

the 1996 boundary to exclude 

livestock grazing. Visitor access within 

this area would likely result in 

negligible to long-term, minor 

adverse impacts. 

The cumulative impacts of Alternative 

2 on wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian resources would be the same 

as those identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse impacts to resources whose 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

162

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation for 

Walnut Canyon 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 wetlands, floodplains, or riparian 

resources. 

Loss in Long-Term 

Availability or Productivity 

of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

There would be no short-term gains 

that result in long-term loss of 

availability or productivity of 

wetlands, floodplains, or riparian 

resources. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

There would be no unavoidable 

adverse impacts from NPS operations 

or visitor activities under the NoAction Alternative. Under Alternative 

1, the proposed road along the 

northeast canyon rim could increase 

non-point source pollution within the 

Walnut Canyon watershed and have 

long-term, minor adverse impacts to 

riparian resources within the 

monument. Under Alternatives 1 and 

2, dispersed guided hiking activity 

along the eastern canyon floor would 

have negligible to long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to riparian and 

floodplain resources, but these 

impacts would likely be offset by 

fencing the monument boundary to 

exclude livestock from this area. 

Unavoidable adverse cumulative 

impacts to wetland, floodplain, and 

riparian resources within the 

monument would continue from 

upstream impoundments at Upper 

and Lower Lake Mary. 

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE 

PARK RESOURCES 

This topic includes analysis of the 

following broad areas: access to park 

resources by the general public and by 

visitors with disabilities; the ability to 

see the real thing and the ability to 

experience a minimally affected 

environment; and the ability of the 

public to understand park resources 

and the regional context of the park. 

Also analyzed 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, OHV use, etc.). 

Methodology 

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 

mentioned in the park significance 

statement. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

163

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 

Access to Park Resources by the 

General Public and for Visitors 

with Disabilities 

Under this alternative, visitor 

opportunities to experience park 

resources at Walnut Canyon National 

Monument would remain 

concentrated within a small portion 

of the canyon; the types of 

experiences would be essentially the 

same as those that have been 

available for the past several decades. 

For the majority of visitors, a one- to 

two-hour trip incorporating the visitor 

center museum and observation 

room, the Island Trail, and/or the Rim 

Trail would continue to constitute the 

entire Walnut Canyon experience. 

This provides only a glimpse of the 

total resources contained within the 

canyon and the monument, although 

this fact might not be evident to all 

visitors. In a 1998 survey (Lee and 

Treadwell 1999), visitors were asked 

what things they would like to see 

changed at Walnut Canyon. The most 

common answer (15%) was 

"nothing." However, specific requests 

included more trails, including one to 

the bottom of the canyon; 

improvements to existing trails; more 

guided hikes, films exhibits, and 

information; more access to other 

monument areas, more access for 

persons with disabilities, and 

numerous other changes. 

In the 1999 Visitor Survey Card 

(Machlis 2000) approximately 96% of 

visitors expressed overall satisfaction 

with their visit. This reflects the 

proportion of visitors who rated 

existing facilities (rest rooms, visitor 

centers, picnic area, exhibits, services, 

and recreational opportunities as very 

good or good. Significantly, only 58% 

of these same visitors demonstrated 

understanding of the significance of 

the park. This reflects limitations of 

existing interpretive media, coupled 

with a lack of visitor access to the full 

range of resources that could 

contribute to full understanding and 

indicates a moderate adverse impact. 

Because access to the canyon floor is 

prohibited within the monument, 

visitors lack the opportunity to 

experience the canyon's riparian zone 

and the meanders and seeps so 

characteristic of this canyon. The 

desire to hike to the canyon bottom is 

occasionally expressed by visitors, and 

a few (3 of 304 surveyed) mentioned 

this as one of the things that 

bothered them about their visit. A 

larger number (16 of 304) listed this as 

a change they wanted to make to the 

park. This is a minor adverse impact to 

this group of visitors. 

The visitor 

center/museum/observation room has 

been modified to provide full 

accessibility, via temporary wheelchair 

lifts. All visitors now have access to 

the information desk for personal 

interactions with park staff, to 

museum exhibits, the publications 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

164

sales area, and the observation room 

and adjacent outdoor patio, both of 

which provide views into the canyon. 

Although planned interpretive 

improvements would serve visitors 

with other impairments, there are 

currently no specialized provisions for 

these groups. Impacts on visitors with 

disabilities are moderate and 

beneficial in the visitor center area, 

depending on individual abilities. 

Visitors with mobility disabilities have 

difficulty reaching even a limited 

range of park resources elsewhere. 

Access to cliff dwellings, located along 

the Island Trail, cannot be provided 

because of canyon terrain; no 

equivalent experience is currently 

available. The Rim Trail, which 

provides an overlook and view of the 

canyon and cliff dwellings, is currently 

accessible to mobility impaired visitors 

for approximately 100 yards. A pueblo 

and pithouse, located at the end of 

the trail, could be accessible for some, 

with assistance. This is moderate 

adverse impact for those who are 

physically unable to negotiate park 

trails and are therefore unable to 

experience any actual structures. 

However, accessibility to the pithouse 

and pueblo is being planned 

concurrent with the GMP. 

The quality of this visitor experience is 

high, although limited by the area 

available for visitation. The view from 

the visitor center interior is 

overwhelming. From here people can 

see up and down the canyon, across 

to the south side, and have a fair view 

of the San Francisco Peaks. Looking at 

scenery was a very popular activity, 

identified by 90% of visitors (Lee and 

Treadwell 1999). It was followed by 

looking at visitor center exhibits 

(84%), hiking/walking (83%), and 

taking pictures (82%). Continuation 

of these activities is of major, longterm benefit to visitors. 

Access to Information Provided 

by Collections (Ability to see 

the "Real Thing") and to a 

Minimally Altered Environment 

A number of the park's cliff dwellings 

can be viewed, visited, and even 

entered along the Island Trail, and 

this provides a sense of what the rest 

of the monument is like. Views of cliff 

dwellings and access to two other 

structure types, a pithouse and a 

pueblo, are provided from the Rim 

Trail. Guided walks to the historic 

ranger cabin are available on a 

limited, seasonal basis. A small 

number of artifacts are on display in 

the visitor center. Exploring the ruins 

is important to 83% of Walnut 

Canyon visitors surveyed, as are 

touching and being close to ruins and 

seeing how prehistoric people lived. 

Under current conditions, access to 

numerous cliff dwellings is a major 

benefit to visitors able to hike the 

Island Trail. However, other visitors 

and those interested in other types of 

dwellings and/or artifacts experience 

moderate adverse impacts. 

To many visitors, the forested Walnut 

Canyon environment appears natural 

and minimally altered, despite past 

changes resulting from logging and 

dam building (which virtually 

eliminated water flow through the 

canyon). "To be in a forested setting" 

was rated as moderately important by 

visitors, and this is achieved along the 

3-mile entrance road, at adjacent 

picnic areas, and along interpretive 

trails. All of these are located within 

the small area available for 

concentrated public use and are 

subject to the sights and sounds of 

traffic, other visitors, and modern 

facilities. The ability to experience this 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

165

perceived natural environment is a 

moderate benefit available to all 

visitors; the inability to venture 

farther from the modern human 

environment represents a minor to 

moderate adverse impact. 

It is often difficult to find solitude in 

this park for more than a few 

moments at a time. According to park 

staff, crowding is common seasonally 

and can be very severe for short 

periods of time. Visitation is 

concentrated in a relatively small 

area. This is especially true in spring, 

when numerous school groups visit 

simultaneously. However, according 

to the visitor survey, visitors do not 

generally feel crowded. On a scale of 

1 = not at all crowded and 9 = 

extremely crowded, responses 

averaged 2.5. A few praised the lack 

of crowds. However, 20% said there 

were places where they felt 

particularly crowded-mentioned were 

the Island Trail and the visitor center, 

the two primary visitor use areas. 

Annual visitation at Walnut Canyon 

increased 74%, from 70,585 in 1979 to 

122,544 in 1999. The perceived 

uncrowded atmosphere is a moderate 

benefit to today's visitors; 

deterioration of this quality would be 

a moderate adverse impact. 

 Sunsets, sunrises, and the night sky 

are outside of normal visitor 

experience because the park is open 

at most from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. 

Crepuscular and nocturnal animals are 

also not observed by visitors because 

of the park closure times. Exceptions 

occur occasionally during summer 

evening programs. Impact on the park 

experience is negligible. 

Natural sounds, particularly those of 

birds and of wind in the trees, 

predominate at times. However, most 

locations are within sight or sound of 

the visitor center, parking area, 

entrance road, and/or other visitors. 

Occasional intrusion is created by 

visitors yelling into or across the 

canyon to produce echoes. Sounds, 

smells, tranquility, peace and quiet, 

and related topics were mentioned by 

many people as things they most 

enjoyed about their visit to Walnut 

Canyon. Preservation of this aspect is 

a major long-term benefit. 

Visitor activities are fairly regimented, 

with use restricted to established 

roads and trails. Access to the ranger 

cabin and other resources is limited to 

ranger-guided tours. However, a 

variety of less-structured 

opportunities exist immediately 

outside park boundaries on USFS 

lands making this impact negligible to 

minor for most visitors. 

Effects on Ability of Public to 

Understand Park Resources and 

Regional Context 

The biodiversity of Walnut Canyon is 

interpreted in the visitor center and 

along the Rim and Island Trails. 

People can discern broad changes in 

vegetation on the different slopes, 

top, and bottom of the canyon and 

gain understanding of the importance 

of native plants to prehistoric peoples. 

Museum exhibits, wayside exhibits 

along the two trails, ranger-guided 

tours, and sales publications interpret 

various cultural and natural features 

as well as the lifeways of the people 

who lived in the dwellings. Exhibits 

are generally outdated and 

inaccurate, and regional contexts of 

cultural and natural resources are not 

adequately presented. In particular, 

the oral history of contemporary 

native tribes and the links between 

past and present cultures are not 

evident to the majority of visitors. 

Even so, interpretive efforts are 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

166

moderately effective: in 1999, 58% of 

visitors demonstrated understanding 

of the significance of the monument, 

as measured by the Visitor Survey 

Card project (Machlis 2000). The 

current lack of a complete and 

coherent interpretive story is a 

moderate adverse impact to park 

visitors. A major interpretive planning 

effort to replace wayside interpretive 

signs along trails and roadsides and to 

redo museum exhibits in the visitor 

center is under way, concurrent with 

this general management plan. The 

result will be a moderate benefit for 

all visitors. 

Traditional interpretive services would 

continue as in the past, consisting 

primarily of self-guiding trails, rangerled hikes, and occasional cultural 

demonstration programs. Of visitors 

surveyed (Lee and Treadwell 1999), 

27% reported talking to a ranger or 

listening to an interpretive talk. 

Continuation of these activities would 

be of moderate to major importance, 

both for conveying understanding to 

visitors and for decreasing physical 

impacts and ensuring preservation of 

resources. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered for 

cumulative effects for this alternative 

includes the Flagstaff Area 

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, and 

local residents. Additional detail 

follows for each. 

USFS management actions within the 

area of consideration could work in 

combination to increase total 

visitation to Walnut Canyon. 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 visitor facility 

expansion could increase interest 

in visiting nearby park facilities. 

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, visitors 

perceive a generally uncrowded 

environment from NPS actions and 

consider this a major benefit. 

However, visitation projections 

indicate that crowding would be 

inevitable within the lifetime of this 

plan and would become a moderate 

adverse impact. The cumulative 

impact would be moderate and 

adverse. 

Changes in visitor use patterns and 

transportation at Grand Canyon 

National Park could result in visitation 

changes at Walnut Canyon: 

• visitation could increase, especially 

by those seeking the independent 

drive-through 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 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

167

the park, probably to a minor degree. 

In this alternative, visitors perceive a 

generally uncrowded environment 

from NPS actions and consider this a 

major benefit. However, visitation 

projections indicate that crowding 

would be inevitable within the 

lifetime of this plan and would 

become a moderate adverse impact. 

The cumulative impact would be 

moderate 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 major benefit would be 

expected from NPS actions. The 

cumulative effect would be the same. 

Increased growth of Flagstaff could 

increase park visitation by local 

residents. Possible effects: 

• visitation could increase 

• the number of repeat visits could 

increase, as residents return for 

more information and/or 

additional experiences 

• 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 

remain moderate 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 to major benefit to 

visitors. In this alternative, for 

traditional recreational activities, 

minor to moderate benefits would be 

expected. Addition of such activities 

would be of negligible impact. 

Summary. In this alternative, 

cumulative impacts of NPS and 

external actions would cause no 

measurable change to visitor ability to 

experience park resources. 

CONCLUSION 

The No-Action Alternative would 

result in moderate benefits for many 

visitors, particularly those with an 

interest in cliff dwellings and with the 

physical ability to walk to them. 

Recently improved access to the visitor 

center and its resources represents a 

major benefit for visitors with physical 

disabilities and those wishing to 

examine exhibits and artifacts. 

Continuation of traditional 

interpretive programs would provide 

moderate benefits for all visitors in 

understanding of park resources and 

their significance. The ability to enjoy 

the scenery and a minimally altered 

environment, and to do so in a 

relatively quiet, uncrowded 

atmosphere, would continue as a 

moderate benefit in the near future, 

but would be increasingly impacted 

by expected visitation increases in the 

future. 

This alternative would result in minor 

adverse impacts to visitor experience 

by continuing to limit access to the 

full range of park resources, including 

the opportunity to visit prehistoric 

sites other than cliff dwellings. 

Visitors with disabilities would suffer 

moderate adverse impacts due to 

continued inaccessibility of most 

structures and other resources related 

to park significance. Some visitors will 

experience minor to moderate 

adverse impacts from the lack of 

opportunity to explore beyond the 

limited developed area now available 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

168

for public use. There are also impacts 

that are less severe. 

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 

Walnut Canyon 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: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Effects on Access to Park 

Resources by the General 

Public and for Visitors with 

Disabilities 

This alternative would expand the 

area open to visitation to include 

more of the park's variety of natural 

and cultural resources. The canyon 

floor, and associated habitats and 

microclimates would remain closed, as 

would the south rim. More of the 

north rim and more archeological 

sites would be available, allowing 

visitors a more complete 

understanding of the kinds of 

archeological structures that make 

Walnut Canyon unique: they could 

visit cliff dwellings, rim structures, 

First Fort, and the historic ranger 

cabin. New guided walks would be 

provided to archeological sites along 

the east and west rims of Walnut 

Canyon, and an existing gravel road 

would be upgraded to provide a new 

scenic drive, with interpretive 

waysides, along the north rim. The 

opportunity to experience this greater 

diversity of sites and their settings 

would be a moderate benefit to 

overall visitor experience. 

Offices would be removed from the 

visitor center, creating space for 

expanded museum exhibits and 

interpretive programs and 

contributing to greater visitor 

understanding and appreciation of 

both cultural and natural resources. 

This would be a moderate benefit for 

visitors. Moderate short-term adverse 

impacts would occur for visitors 

during visitor center remodeling, 

when access to exhibits would be 

limited or nonexistent. However, this 

impact would be mitigated by 

increased ranger presence, special 

interpretive programs, and temporary 

exhibits. 

Remodeling of the visitor center and 

construction of a trail from the new 

parking area would include a fully 

accessible design, to replace the 

existing wheelchair lifts and eliminate 

barriers for visitors with all types of 

disabilities. New museum exhibits 

would be designed for universal 

accessibility. Guided motorized trips 

would provide new opportunities to 

experience First Fort and other 

archeological sites firsthand, allow 

more opportunities to view wildlife 

habitats, and make natural 

soundscapes and natural 

environments more accessible to all. 

As described in the No-Action 

Alternative, the Rim Trail would be 

improved to provide accessibility for 

visitors with mobility impairments. 

These improvements would be a 

major benefit. 

The south rim of the canyon would 

remain closed to visitation. This would 

be a negligible to minor impact, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

169

based on the number of these park 

users. 

Hiking, biking, and horseback riding 

would occur on existing roads and 

trails on the rim in portions of the 

newly acquired lands in the western 

part of the monument. Climbing 

would be redirected to locations 

outside the park. New orientation and 

interpretive exhibits at trailheads, 

road junctions, and the park entrance 

would inform visitors of recreational 

opportunities available within the 

park and on adjacent lands. Impacts 

would range from minor adverse for 

those whose preferred uses would be 

removed from the park to minor 

benefit because of the availability of 

increased information. 

Effects on Access to 

Information Provided by 

Collections (Ability to See the 

"Real Thing") and to a 

Minimally Altered Environment 

Cliff dwellings, a pithouse, and a 

pueblo would still be available via the 

Island and Rim Trails, as described 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

Additional dwellings could be viewed 

from a distance on guided tours and 

along the new scenic drive. Also, First 

Fort would be opened to visitation on 

guided tours, providing visitors the 

opportunity to experience firsthand 

one of the sites that makes Walnut 

Canyon's archeology unique. The 

remodeled visitor center would 

provide space for new interpretive 

exhibits and the display of a greater 

diversity of artifacts. All of these 

expanded experiences would provide 

moderate beneficial impacts for park 

visitors. 

As described under the No-Action 

Alternative, the Walnut Canyon 

environment is perceived by many 

visitors as less altered than it actually 

is, even within the existing developed 

area. This alternative would expand 

access to a natural-appearing 

environment along more of the 

canyon rim and would provide new 

opportunities to leave the modern 

human environment, via guided tours 

and the new scenic drive. This would 

be a moderate beneficial impact for 

park visitors. 

In addition, guided tours would 

provide an opportunity to compare 

firsthand the differences between 

relatively undisturbed archeological 

sites and the highly stabilized sites 

along the Island Trail. The No-Action 

Alternative provides fewer such 

opportunities because visitor 

attention is directed primarily to 

structures that are already impacted 

and stabilized. This would result in 

moderate benefits to visitors. 

More views of the meandering nature 

of the canyon and of the San 

Francisco Peaks would be available 

from the rim trails and scenic drive. 

Removal of congestion from the 

canyon's edge might increase the 

chances of visitor encounters with 

wildlife. The Natural Area Recreation 

Zone in the western part of the park 

would provide an even greater 

opportunity for viewing wildlife 

because fewer people would be likely 

to visit this area. Because time is 

limited for most Walnut Canyon 

visitors, not all would take advantage 

of these new opportunities. Beneficial 

impact would be minor to moderate. 

The opportunity for visitors to 

experience solitude would be 

enhanced in this alternative. In 

contrast to the relatively congested 

visitor center and Island and Rim Trail 

areas, guided tours along the rims 

would provide opportunities for small 

groups of people to enjoy quiet areas 

of the park. Spreading out use 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

170

through a larger area of the park 

would mean that encounters with 

other visitors (even in the busier 

areas) would be reduced as well; it 

would also mitigate future expected 

visitation increases. Preservation of 

uncrowded experiences would be a 

moderate benefit for all visitors. 

Impact to night skies would remain a 

negligible impact, as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Physical alterations related to this 

alternative (construction of the new 

office building, parking lot and trail, 

and remodeling of the visitor center) 

would result in moderate, but shortterm, adverse impacts for visitors 

present during the construction 

period. 

Removal of the activity and noise 

associated with a busy parking lot 

would increase visitors' ability to 

enjoy the natural sounds of the 

canyon and enhance opportunities to 

see and hear wildlife along the rim. 

This would be a moderate long-term 

beneficial impact for all park visitors. 

Because the guided activities would 

limit numbers of people and because 

they would emphasize places farther 

from the developed area, visitors 

would have a greater opportunity to 

experience natural soundscapes. 

However, they would not be able to 

explore these areas alone. This would 

be a moderate benefit to park visitors. 

Effects on Ability of Public to 

Understand Park Resources and 

Regional Context 

Offices would be removed from the 

visitor center, allowing the entire 

building to be remodeled for a variety 

of visitor orientation, interpretation, 

and education programs that are not 

feasible under the No-Action 

Alternative. Space available for 

museum exhibits would increase, and 

more artifacts would be displayed. 

Expanded cultural demonstration 

programs would more readily convey 

the links between the "old ways" of 

the Sinagua and the contemporary 

lifeways of American Indians. Indoor 

meeting space in which to assemble a 

group of visitors, especially in bad 

weather, would be available for the 

first time, and interpretive programs 

would no longer be dependent on 

weather. Increased quantity and 

quality of interpretation in and near 

the visitor center, at trailheads, and at 

the park entrance would provide a 

major benefit to visitor understanding 

and ability to experience the park. 

Significantly different types of 

archeological sites would be open to 

visitation via guided trips, allowing 

greater understanding of the 

complete cultural history of the area. 

New wayside exhibits would help 

visitors understand the relationship of 

natural resources to the lives of 

cultures both past and present. This 

would be a moderate benefit to park 

visitors. 

Interpretive programs would continue 

as described under the No-Action 

Alternative, and additional guided 

tours, both walking and driving, 

would be offered in areas not 

previously open to the public. Indoor 

space would be available in the 

remodeled visitor center for cultural 

demonstrations, interpretive talks, 

and other programs. These additional 

programs would be a moderate 

benefit. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered for 

cumulative effects for this alternative 

includes the Flagstaff Area 

monuments, the greater Flagstaff 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

171

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, and 

local residents. Additional detail 

follows for each. 

USFS management actions within the 

area of consideration could work in 

combination to increase total 

visitation to Walnut Canyon. 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 visitor service facility 

expansion could increase interest 

in visiting nearby park facilities. 

• New information services 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 major 

benefit 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 Walnut Canyon: 

• visitation could increase, especially 

by those seeking the independent 

drive-through 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 major benefit is 

expected from NPS actions. 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 would be 

expected from NPS actions. The 

cumulative effect would be the same. 

Increased growth of Flagstaff could 

increase park visitation by local 

residents. Possible effects: 

• visitation could increase 

• the number of repeat visits could 

increase, as residents return for 

more information and/or 

additional experiences 

• 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. 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 major 

benefit to visitors. In this alternative, 

for traditional recreational activities, 

impacts ranging from minor adverse 

to minor benefit would be expected 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

172

from NPS actions. Additional such 

activities would be of negligible 

impact. Cumulative impacts would 

remain the same. 

 Summary. In this alternative, 

cumulative impacts of NPS and 

external actions would cause minor 

change to visitor ability to experience 

park resources. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would result in major 

benefits to visitors wishing to 

experience a greater variety of park 

resources than are available under the 

No-Action Alternative. Removal of 

offices from the visitor center would 

alleviate crowding and create space 

for new expanded museum exhibits, 

artifact displays, and indoor 

interpretive programs for visitors and 

organized school groups-all major 

benefits for visitor understanding and 

viewing of the "real thing." 

Remodeling of the visitor center 

would also provide major benefits in 

accessibility: physical barriers (multiple 

building levels and stairs) would be 

resolved to provide full accessibility 

and exhibits would be designed for 

use by visitors with a variety of 

physical and mental impairments. A 

new scenic drive would provide views 

of additional cliff dwellings and other 

types of structures, some relatively 

undisturbed, which are not available 

under the No-Action Alternative. This 

experience would be accessible. 

Removal of the busy parking lot from 

the canyon rim and spreading out use 

along the rim would create a less 

crowded visitor experience and 

enhance the ability to hear natural 

sounds, both moderate benefits. 

Because all visitors would no longer 

be confined to the existing developed 

area, there would be opportunities to 

experience new scenic views of 

Walnut Canyon and to enjoy a 

minimally altered environment, both 

moderate benefits. Traditional 

interpretive programs and cultural 

demonstrations would continue (a 

moderate benefit), together with new 

guided tours of the scenic drive and 

hike to First Fort. 

This alternative would result in 

moderate short-term adverse impacts 

to several aspects of visitor experience 

during construction and remodeling 

of the existing developed area, but 

these would be short term. There 

would be minor to moderate impacts 

to personal freedoms and traditional 

recreational activities resulting from 

zoning of newly acquired lands and 

removal of some uses from the park. 

These impacts would be partially 

mitigated by increased on-site 

information on regional recreational 

opportunities. 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 

Walnut Canyon 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. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

173

Effects of Alternative 2 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Effects on Access to Park 

Resources by the General 

Public and for Visitors with 

Disabilities 

In this alternative, the visitor center 

function would be relocated to the I40 junction, creating a quieter 

experience within and on the rim of 

the canyon. The existing visitor center 

building would be restored to its 

original CCC configuration to preserve 

canyon views. This would be a major 

benefit, affecting all visitors. 

A more complete understanding of 

the kinds of archeological structures 

that make Walnut Canyon unique 

would be available to visitors: they 

could experience cliff dwellings, rim 

structures, First Fort, and the historic 

ranger cabin. Visitors would also have 

greater opportunities to experience 

natural habitats, including the canyon 

floor and its regionally rare riparian 

communities. Most of these 

experiences would occur via guided 

tours and would constitute a 

moderate benefit. The Island Trail 

would remain as in the No-Action 

Alternative, and the Rim Trail would 

be improved for greater accessibility. 

The western end and the south side of 

the park would be closed to visitation; 

a minor adverse impact based on 

current use levels. 

Remodeling of the existing visitor 

center and construction of the new 

visitor center building at I-40 would 

ensure full accessibility to both 

structures for visitors with physical, 

hearing, vision, mental, and other 

disabilities. Exhibits and services 

would be designed for universal 

accessibility and would include 

equivalent experiences for those 

resources that could not be made 

accessible. This would be a moderate 

beneficial impact. 

Resources along the Island Trail would 

remain inaccessible to the physically 

impaired, because of terrain. The Rim 

Trail would be improved to provide 

full accessibility at least to the 

pithouse and pueblo, in addition to 

the existing accessible overlook. 

Improved accessibility to a wider 

range of resources would be a major 

benefit. Ranger-led walks along the 

rims, to First Fort, and into the canyon 

would be on rough terrain, 

preventing most visitors with physical 

disabilities from entering these newly 

opened areas. Adverse impacts would 

still exist, because not all natural and 

cultural sites could be visited, but 

these impacts would mitigated by 

alternative experiences incorporated 

into visitor center exhibits and 

possibly elsewhere. 

Changing the existing visitor center 

back to its original CCC configuration 

would enhance the scenic quality of 

views from the Island Trail. This would 

be a minor beneficial impact for park 

visitors. 

People could view more of the 

meandering nature of this canyon 

from the rim and from within the 

canyon than under the No-Action 

Alternative. Unique scenic 

perspectives would be seen from 

within the canyon, and additional 

wildlife sightings would be possible. 

This would be a moderately beneficial 

impact for park visitors. 

The south rim of the canyon would be 

closed to visitation; the relatively 

small amount of visitor use that 

previously took place informally there 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

174

and within newly acquired portions of 

the monument would not be 

permitted under the zoning of this 

alternative. This would be a negligible 

to minor impact, based on the 

number of these park users. 

Personal freedoms might be restricted 

at times, depending on the future 

need to regulate visitation numbers. 

Those visitors arriving at peak times 

might be unable to visit when they 

wished, or might be required to arrive 

by some form of shuttle vehicle. This 

would be a moderate to major 

adverse impact, but would be offset 

by the benefits described above 

(effects on uncrowded visitor 

experiences) for those allowed to 

enter the park. 

Hiking, biking, and horseback riding 

would be directed to the Arizona Trail 

and other areas outside the park. The 

adverse impact would be negligible to 

minor. 

Effects on Access to 

Information Provided by 

Collections (Ability to See the 

"Real Thing") and to a 

Minimally Altered Environment 

Cliff dwellings, a pithouse, and a 

pueblo would be available via the 

Island and Rim Trails, as described 

under the No-Action Alternative. The 

historic ranger cabin would be 

considered for a self-guided trail, 

rather than guided access only, as in 

the No-Action Alternative. First Fort 

would be opened to visitation on 

guided tours (involving a drive along 

existing U.S. Forest Service roads and 

an extended hike), providing visitors 

the opportunity to experience 

firsthand one of the sites that makes 

Walnut Canyon's archeology unique. 

The new visitor center would provide 

space for new interpretive exhibits 

and the display of more artifacts. 

More specialized information and 

assistance would be available at the 

remodeled CCC building, which could 

also be appreciated for its historic 

architecture and relationship to park 

history. Collectively, these expanded 

experiences would provide major 

benefits for park visitors. 

Guided hikes would provide an 

opportunity for visitors to experience 

the canyon floor and its associated 

biological communities. 

As described under the No-Action 

Alternative, the Walnut Canyon 

environment is perceived by many 

visitors as less altered than it actually 

is, even within the existing developed 

area. This alternative would expand 

access to a natural-appearing 

environment along more of the 

canyon rim and in the canyon bottom 

and would provide new opportunities 

to leave the modern human 

environment, via guided tours. This 

would be a moderate beneficial 

impact for park visitors. 

Removal of existing facilities near the 

rim would result in moderate shortterm adverse impacts during the 

demolition period. Long-term 

impacts, following rehabilitation and 

revegetation of the area, would be 

moderately beneficial by providing 

more natural surroundings. 

 In addition, guided tours would 

provide an opportunity to compare 

firsthand the differences between 

relatively undisturbed archeological 

sites and the highly stabilized sites 

along the Island Trail. The No-Action 

Alternative provides no such 

opportunity, since visitors encounter 

only structures that have already been 

impacted and stabilized. This would 

result in moderate benefits both to 

visitors and to archeological sites, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

175

owing to greater appreciation for 

their fragility. 

The opportunity for visitors to 

experience solitude would be greatly 

enhanced in this alternative by 

removing most facilities from the 

canyon rim. Spreading out use 

through a larger area of the park 

would mean that encounters with 

other visitors (even in the busier 

areas) would be lessened as well. The 

possibility of regulating numbers of 

visitors would ensure less crowded 

conditions in the park if/when faced 

with future visitation increases. There 

would be a moderate to major 

beneficial impact to park visitors 

afforded a relatively uncrowded 

experience. 

Sunsets, sunrises, and the night sky 

would be outside of normal visitor 

experience because the park and 

entire entrance road would be closed 

at night. Crepuscular and nocturnal 

animals would also not be observed 

by visitors because of the park closure 

times. Exceptions occur occasionally 

during summer evening programs. 

This would remain a negligible 

impact, as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Physical alterations related to 

remodeling of the visitor center and 

vicinity would result in moderate to 

major, but short-term, adverse 

impacts for visitors present during the 

construction period. 

The natural soundscapes and tranquil 

setting of the canyon would be 

enhanced by removing most facilities 

from the rim. This action would 

enhance visitor ability to enjoy the 

natural sounds of the canyon and 

opportunity to see and hear wildlife 

along the rim. This would be a major 

long-term beneficial impact for all 

park visitors. 

Because the guided activities would 

limit numbers of people and because 

they would venture to places more 

removed from the developed area of 

the park, visitors would have a 

greater opportunity to experience 

natural soundscapes. This would be a 

moderate benefit to park visitors. 

Effects on Ability of Public to 

Understand Park Resources and 

Regional Context 

Construction of the new visitor center 

at the I-40 junction would provide 

orientation and interpretation for 

visitors before they encounter park 

resources and would enhance their 

ability to plan their activities. Space 

would be available for enhanced 

museum exhibits, artifact displays, 

interpretive programs, and 

educational programs for large 

groups. Additional cultural 

demonstrations could be provided for 

larger groups of visitors. Such 

programs readily convey the links 

between the "old ways" of the 

Sinagua and the contemporary 

lifeways of American Indians. The 

existing CCC visitor center would 

provide in-depth learning 

opportunities in a more personal 

setting. These changes in fixed 

interpretive services would be a major 

beneficial impact to visitors. 

Physical alterations related to 

remodeling of the existing visitor 

center building and vicinity would 

result in moderate to major, but 

short-term, adverse impacts for 

visitors present during the 

construction period. Most impacts 

could be mitigated by ensuring 

completion of the new visitor center, 

complete with interpretive exhibits, 

first. 

Interpretive programs would continue 

as in the No-Action Alternative, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

176

except that the ranger cabin might be 

a self-guided experience rather 

ranger-led. 

Opportunities for in-depth 

interpretive and educational 

presentations would increase, using 

the remodeled CCC visitor center. The 

new visitor center would offer 

additional opportunities for visitor 

interactions with rangers. 

Significantly different sites would be 

open to visitation via longer guided 

hikes, allowing greater understanding 

of the complete cultural history of the 

area. Impact would be moderate to 

major benefits. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered for 

cumulative effects for this alternative 

includes the Flagstaff Area 

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, and 

local residents. Additional detail 

follows for each. 

USFS management actions within the 

area of consideration could work in 

combination to increase total 

visitation to Walnut Canyon. 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 facility expansion 

could increase interest in visiting 

nearby park facilities. 

• Management of the new 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 

benefit 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 Walnut Canyon: 

• visitation could increase, especially 

by those seeking the independent 

drive-through 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. 

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 to major 

short-term adverse impacts and major 

benefits would be expected from NPS 

actions. The cumulative effect would 

be the same. 

Increased growth of Flagstaff could 

increase park visitation by local 

residents. Possible effects: 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

177

• visitation could increase 

• the number of repeat visits could 

increase, as residents return for 

more information and/or 

additional experiences 

• 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. 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 

to major benefit to visitors. For 

traditional recreational activities, 

impacts ranging from negligible to 

minor adverse would be expected 

from NPS actions. Additional such 

activities would be of negligible 

impact. Cumulative impacts would 

remain the same. 

 Summary. In 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 

moderate benefits to visitors wanting 

a quieter, more educational 

experience at Walnut Canyon. The 

visitor center function would be 

relocated near the I-40 junction; the 

existing building would be restored to 

its original Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) configuration. This would 

reduce intrusion of modern structures 

on the natural and historic scene and 

enhance views from the rim and from 

the Island Trail. Other benefits would 

include ability to hear natural sounds, 

see a minimally altered environment, 

and enjoy a less crowded experience 

throughout the park. The new visitor 

center would provide space for new 

museum exhibits, artifact displays, 

cultural demonstrations, and indoor 

interpretive programs for visitors and 

organized school groups. Traditional 

interpretive programs would 

continue, and new longer guided 

tours and hikes would be added to 

provide moderate benefits. 

A greater variety of natural and 

archeological resources would be 

available via guided tours and/or selfguided trails. These would include the 

canyon floor, First Fort, the ranger 

cabin, and other dwellings, in 

addition to those available under the 

No-Action Alternative, and would 

constitute a moderate to major 

benefit. 

The new visitor center and its exhibits 

would be fully accessible to visitors 

with a variety of physical and mental 

impairments, and would provide 

equivalent experiences for resources 

which, because of canyon terrain, 

cannot be made accessible. More 

features would be accessible than 

under the No-Action Alternative: the 

Rim Trail would be improved to 

provide access at least to the pithouse 

and pueblo, and a self-guiding trail to 

the historic ranger cabin would be 

accessible. These would be moderate 

benefits. Ranger-led walks to First 

Fort and into the canyon, however, 

could not be made accessible. 

This alternative would result in major 

adverse impacts to several aspects of 

visitor experience during construction 

and remodeling in the existing 

developed area, but these would be 

short-term. This alternative would 

consider reservation and/or shuttle 

systems if necessary to control 

visitation numbers. Moderate adverse 

impacts on personal freedoms could 

result if such systems were 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

178

implemented. 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 

Walnut Canyon 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 

resources. 

Loss in Long-Term 

Availability or Productivity 

of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

There would be no short-term gains 

affecting long-term productivity. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

The No-Action Alternative would 

result in moderate adverse impacts to 

visitor experience by continuing to 

limit access to the full range of park 

resources, including the opportunity 

to visit prehistoric sites other than cliff 

dwellings. Visitors with disabilities 

would experience major adverse 

impacts caused by continued 

inaccessibility of most structures and 

other resources related to park 

significance. Some visitors would 

experience minor to moderate 

adverse impacts from the lack of 

opportunity to explore beyond the 

limited developed area now available 

for public use. 

Alternative 1 would result in 

moderate adverse impacts to several 

aspects of visitor experience during 

construction and remodeling of the 

existing developed area, but these 

would be short term. There would be 

minor to moderate impacts to 

personal freedoms and traditional 

recreational activities because of 

zoning of newly acquired lands and 

removal of some uses from the park. 

These impacts would be partially 

mitigated by increased on-site 

information on regional recreational 

opportunities. 

Alternative 2 would result in major 

adverse impacts to several aspects of 

visitor experience during construction 

and remodeling in the existing 

developed area, but these would be 

short term. This alternative would 

consider reservation and/or shuttle 

systems if necessary to control 

visitation numbers. Moderate adverse 

impacts on personal freedoms could 

result if such systems were 

implemented. 

PARK NEIGHBORS; LOCAL, 

STATE, AND TRIBAL LAND 

MANAGEMENT PLANS; 

AND LAND/RESOURCE 

MANAGING AGENCIES 

Methodology 

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 

park to local economies, access to 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

179

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 

Most impacts resulting from this 

alternative would be of a beneficial 

nature to NPS neighbors, American 

Indian tribes, and other land and 

resource managers. 

Cooperative efforts with the USFS 

have beneficial, moderate, long-term 

impacts on their resource 

management programs in the area in 

terms of interpretation, recreational 

uses, and resource management. 

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. 

Cooperative efforts with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department are 

focused on preserving wildlife and 

habitat, which results in minor, longterm, adverse impact to that agency 

in terms of wildlife management 

workloads. However, there are 

moderate, long-term benefits in their 

maintaining healthy and diverse 

wildlife populations. 

The alternative accommodates 

American Indian access to traditional 

cultural resources within the 

monument, resulting in moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impacts to those 

users. There may be occasions when 

they experience minor, short-term 

adverse impacts resulting from 

congestion (traffic and public use) 

during busy visitor periods. 

The Forest Service is involved in an 

amendment to the USFS Forest Plan 

for a large area adjacent to the 

Flagstaff National Monuments. The 

Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem 

Analysis (FLEA) addresses recreational 

opportunities, access, roads, offhighway vehicles, trails, forest health, 

camping, groups uses, special events, 

outfitter/guides, minerals 

withdrawals, snow play sites, 

motocross and commercial uses. The 

National Park Service is a participant 

in this planning activity and will 

represent concerns that arise from 

proposals affecting areas near the 

monuments. The National Park Service 

recommendations for 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 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

180

Forest Service in relative to FLEA 

elements that could address 

protection of park resources, vistas 

and natural sounds. 

The monument is a component of the 

Flagstaff Open Spaces and Greenways 

Plan, and thus provides a moderate, 

long-term, beneficial impact to the 

city by providing desirable "park-like" 

environments adjacent to the urban 

development. 

The entrance road is open 24 hours a 

day and provides a moderate, longterm, beneficial impact to neighbors 

who use it for access to USFS lands 

adjacent to the monument. 

Accommodating access to lands on 

the west side of the monument would 

have minor to moderate, short- and 

long-term, and both beneficial and 

adverse impacts on neighbors in terms 

of modified access and intrusions 

during work periods. 

Occasionally, visitors are directed to 

USFS areas 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. 

Climbing activities that have occurred 

in the new lands on the west 

boundary would be redirected to 

other areas on the National Forest. 

This restriction would have minor, 

long-term, adverse impacts to a very 

few individuals. 

The relocation of climbing activities 

out of the monument and onto USFS 

lands could have minor, long-term 

impacts through increased workloads 

involved with managing and 

monitoring this activity. 

Existing conditions would have minor, 

but increasing and long-term, adverse 

impacts to other land and resource 

management agencies in terms of 

administrative workloads, resulting 

from increased agency cooperation as 

the city continues to grow and 

visitation to and recreational 

demands on the monument and 

adjacent forests increase. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered in 

this alternative includes the city of 

Flagstaff on the west, the Winona 

community on the east, Upper and 

Lower Lake Mary on the south, I-40 

on the north, and the lands generally 

enclosed by these landmarks. 

Changes in visitor and neighbor uses 

of the monument and growth and 

development of the city and 

surrounding areas would result in 

minor to moderate, short- and longterm adverse impacts to other land 

and resource managers (USFS, state, 

city, and Arizona Game and Fish) in 

terms of increased administrative 

workloads. 

As the city continues to expand nearer 

the monument there could be 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts 

on other agency staff providing law 

enforcement and resource protection. 

There could be moderate, long-term 

adverse impacts to the neighboring 

public who could lose recreational 

opportunities in lands adjacent to the 

monument as development 

encroaches and precludes existing 

recreational opportunities. 

The combined effects of the actions 

by all land and resource management 

agencies would result in minor to 

moderate, short- and long-term, 

adverse impacts to one another and 

to park neighbors. The contribution 

to these impacts resulting from 

implementing the NPS No-Action 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

181

Alternative would be minor, primarily 

a result of changes in visitor and 

neighbor use areas and activities. 

CONCLUSION 

Within existing conditions, the 

management actions of the NPS 

would provide many beneficial 

impacts to other agencies, neighbors, 

and American Indian tribes in terms of 

cooperative resources management, 

planning, and visitor uses. Existing 

conditions would result in only minor 

impacts to the workload of others in 

terms of additional administrative 

tasks, interpretive planning, 

agreement reviews, and joint 

planning/management efforts. 

Growth and development of the city 

of Flagstaff would create moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts to other 

land and resource managers and 

neighbors, in terms of additional 

workloads and loss of recreational 

areas and opportunities. In addition 

to those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a result of 

implementing this alternative. 

Effects of Alternative 1: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The Forest Service planning (FLEA) 

implications would be the same as 

they are under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Park neighbors who currently recreate 

adjacent to and within the west 

boundary of the monument would 

experience moderate, long-term 

beneficial, impacts by having 

enhanced access to monument 

features, but through controlled entry 

points. The new lands on the west 

side of the monument would be 

available for residential neighbor uses 

and would be reached from the 

Arizona Trail that runs near the 

northwest corner of the monument. 

Most existing roads in this area of the 

monument would be eradicated. 

Some would be converted to trails for 

hiking, mountain bike, and horseback 

access, which would have moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts on those 

neighbors who have traditionally 

entered this area by motorized 

vehicle. However, this action would 

result in moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts to those neighbors 

who enter by foot, bicycle, or on 

horseback. There would be minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts to some 

neighbors as natural sounds and vistas 

are disturbed during actual 

eradication of roads and trail 

development activities. There would, 

likewise, be minor, short-term, 

adverse impacts to neighborhood 

recreational users during these work 

periods, as their access would be 

restricted at times. 

Improvement of the road along the 

north rim could create interruptions 

to wildlife movement resulting from 

increased vehicle traffic. This would 

require consultation and interaction 

with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department relative to mitigating 

impacts to wildlife and corridors and 

would result in minor, intermittent, 

adverse impacts that would increase 

wildlife monitoring workloads. 

Climbing activities would be 

redirected out of the monument, as in 

the No-Action Alternative. 

Changes in visitor activities and use 

areas could result in minor, long-term, 

adverse impacts to American Indian 

tribes, because they could experience 

increased contacts with visitors during 

traditional uses of areas of the 

monument. Other implications to 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

182

American Indian traditional uses 

would be the same as under the NoAction Alternative. 

Additional visitor uses and 

opportunities in the monument and 

adjacent area could result in extended 

stays in the community, which, in 

turn, could result in moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts to Flagstaff in 

terms of increased revenues from 

lodging, dining, and related services. 

The development of a new 

orientation area near I-40, and the 

relocation of administrative facilities 

would have minor, short term, 

adverse impacts on neighbors 

resulting from construction activities 

(dust, noise, traffic delays). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered in 

this alternative are the same as in the 

No-Action Alternative 

The growing population of Flagstaff 

will increase pressure on the USFS and 

State of Arizona to provide for 

recreational opportunities for 

residents. NPS actions, in combination 

with these other actions, would result 

in minor to moderate, short- and 

long-term impacts to other land and 

resource managers by requiring a 

commitment of time, funds, and 

personnel to plan and implement new 

management strategies in response to 

changing demands on recreational 

resources. 

Changes in access to lands on the west 

side of the monument would have 

minor to moderate, short- and longterm, and both beneficial and adverse 

impacts to neighbors in terms of 

modified access and intrusions during 

work periods. 

Neighbors participating in climbing 

activities in the monument would 

experience minor, long-term, adverse 

impacts with the relocation of that 

recreational area. 

A local rancher would experience a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact in 

the loss of a very small portion of 

grazing land to a fenced roadway 

along the north rim of the canyon. 

Changes in visitor and neighbor uses 

of the monument and growth and 

development of the city and 

surrounding areas would result in 

minor to moderate, short- and longterm adverse impacts to other land 

and resource managers (USFS, state, 

city, and Arizona Game and Fish) in 

terms of increased administrative 

workloads. 

American Indian uses would be 

accommodated as described under 

the No-Action Alternative. 

The combined effects of the 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 minor, primarily resulting 

from changes in visitor and neighbor 

use areas and activities. 

CONCLUSION 

Management actions in this 

alternative would provide benefits to 

other agencies, neighbors, and 

American Indian tribes in terms of 

cooperative resources management, 

planning, visitor uses, and access to 

traditional cultural resources. There 

would be only minor impacts to the 

workload of others in terms of 

additional administrative tasks, 

interpretive planning, agreement 

reviews, and joint 

planning/management efforts. 

Growth and development of the city 

of Flagstaff would create moderate, 

long-term, adverse impacts to other 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

183

land and resource managers and 

neighbors, in terms of additional 

workloads and loss of recreational 

areas and opportunities. In addition 

to those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a result of 

implementing this alternative. 

Effects of Alternative 2 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The Forest Service planning (FLEA) 

implications and implications of the 

growth of the city of Flagstaff would 

be the same as identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

There would be major, long-term 

impacts to park neighbors who 

currently enjoy recreational 

opportunities within the new lands 

added through the 1996 boundary 

expansion. This alternative would 

eliminate public uses in this area, 

which could result in moderate, longterm impacts to the Forest Service as 

public uses increase on lands adjacent 

to the monument. Administrative 

workloads and resource management 

actions could increase in response to 

these increased recreational activities. 

The location of a new visitor center 

near I-40 could have a beneficial, 

moderate, long-term impact to other 

land managers, because they could 

have the opportunity to share their 

agency messages from this facility. 

Minor short-term impacts to those 

agencies' administrative workloads 

could occur during the preparation of 

interpretive messages for the public. 

The entrance road would be gated 

during closed hours near I-40, and on 

each side of F303. This would have a 

minor, long-term impact to local 

neighbors who have used this road 

for after-hours access to USFS areas; 

they would be restricted to FR303, 

which would remain open 24 hours a 

day and provide reasonable access to 

the national forest along the north 

boundary of the monument. 

The improved road to the parking 

area for the First Fort trail would have 

minimal long-term adverse impacts to 

the grazing permittee. There would 

be increased seasonal (summer) visitor 

traffic and increased contacts with 

monument users, but the change 

would create no loss in grazing area. 

The new interpretive trail to First Fort 

could create barriers to wildlife 

movement and result in moderate 

long-term impacts to the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. That 

agency would have increased 

administrative workloads in animal 

management and monitoring. 

Climbing activities would be 

redirected out of the monument as in 

Alternative 1. 

The implications to American Indian 

traditional uses would be the same as 

those identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered in 

this alternative is the same as in the 

No-Action Alternative. 

A new visitor center could have minor 

to moderate short- and long-term 

impacts on other land managers, by 

providing an opportunity for them to 

share their information with the 

visiting public, but requiring the 

commitment of resources to prepare 

the informational messages and 

media. 

Some neighbors would experience a 

minor long-term adverse impact, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

184

because they would lose use of the 

entrance road during closed hours. 

The loss of access to the new lands on 

the west side of the monument would 

have moderate long-term adverse 

impacts to those neighbors who have 

traditionally used that area for 

recreational activities. The loss could 

be replaced in other areas of the 

National Forest, resulting in minor 

long-term adverse impacts to Forest 

Service administrative and 

management workloads. 

A local rancher would experience a 

minor long-term adverse impact, 

resulting from increased contacts with 

monument visitors during busy 

seasons. 

Changes in visitor and neighbor uses 

of the monument and growth and 

development of the city and 

surrounding areas would result in 

minor to moderate short- and longterm adverse impacts to other land 

and resource managers (USFS, state, 

city, and Arizona Game and Fish) in 

terms of increased administrative 

workloads. 

The implication to American Indians 

would be the same as identified for 

the No-Action Alternative. 

The combined effects of the actions 

by all land and resource management 

agencies would result in minor to 

moderate impacts to one another, 

and to park neighbors. The 

contribution to these impacts from 

proposed NPS actions would be 

minor, primarily resulting from 

changes in visitor and neighbor use 

areas and activities. 

CONCLUSION 

The loss of access to new lands on the 

west side of the monument would 

create moderate long-term adverse 

impacts to traditional neighborhood 

uses of that area. 

The elimination and relocation of the 

climbing area in the monument 

would have minor long-term adverse 

impacts to a very few individuals. 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 

Short-Term Gain 

There would be no short-term gains 

affecting long-term productivity. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

cooperative efforts with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department are 

focused on preserving wildlife and 

habitat, which results in minor longterm adverse impact to that agency in 

terms of wildlife management 

workloads. Existing conditions would 

have minor, but increasing and longterm, adverse impacts to other land 

and resource management agencies in 

terms of administrative workloads, 

resulting from increased cooperation 

as the city continues to grow, and 

visitation and recreational demands 

on the monument and adjacent 

forests increase. As the city continues 

to grow nearer the monument there 

could be moderate long-term impacts 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

185

on other agency staff providing law 

enforcement and resource protection. 

There could be major long-term 

impacts to the neighboring public 

who could lose recreational 

opportunities in lands adjacent to the 

monument as development 

encroaches. 

Under Alternative 1, most existing 

roads in the newly acquired area of 

the monument would be eradicated. 

Some would be converted to trails for 

hiking, mountain bikes, and 

horseback riding, which would have 

moderate long-term adverse impacts 

on those neighbors who have 

traditionally traveled this area by 

motorized vehicle. There would be 

minor short-term adverse impacts to 

some neighbors as natural sounds and 

vistas are disturbed during eradication 

and improvement activities. There 

would, likewise, be minor short-term 

adverse impacts to neighborhood 

recreational users during these work 

periods. Increased visitor use along 

the north rim of the canyon to First 

Fort could be a minor long-term 

adverse impact to a neighboring 

rancher, because fencing of the road 

would result in a very slight reduction 

in the permitted area. This action 

could also create a minor intermittent 

adverse impact on the USFS, and there 

would be a slight increase in their 

administrative workload in terms of 

negotiating with the permittee. 

Improvement of the north rim scenic 

drive could create interruptions to 

wildlife movement, resulting from 

increased vehicle traffic. This would 

require consultation and interaction 

with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department relative to mitigating 

impacts to wildlife and corridors and 

would result in minor intermittent 

adverse impacts that would increase 

wildlife monitoring workloads. The 

relocation of climbing activities out of 

the monument and onto USFS lands 

could have minor long-term impacts 

in the form of increased workloads 

required for managing and 

monitoring this activity. Changes in 

visitor activities and use areas could 

result in minor long-term adverse 

impacts to American Indian tribes, 

because they could experience 

increased contacts with visitors during 

traditional uses of areas of the 

monument. 

The USFS is involved in a major 

planning effort for this area through 

the Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem 

Analysis. In that plan, they are 

considering some reduction in roads, 

increased monitoring activities, forest 

closures/restrictions, and forest 

restoration activities. The increasing 

population of Flagstaff would 

increase pressure on the USFS and the 

State of Arizona to provide for 

recreational opportunities for these 

nearby residents. 

In Alternative 2, NPS proposed 

actions, in combination with these 

other actions, would result in minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term 

impacts to other land and resource 

managers, by requiring a commitment 

of time, funds, and personnel to plan 

and implement new management 

strategies in response to changing 

demands on recreational resources. 

There would be major, long-term 

impacts to park neighbors who 

currently enjoy recreational 

opportunities within the new lands 

added through the 1996 boundary 

expansion. Alternative 2 would 

eliminate public uses in this area, 

which could result in moderate longterm impacts to the Forest Service as 

public uses increase on lands adjacent 

to the monument. Administrative 

workloads and resource management 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

186

actions could increase in response to 

these increased recreational activities. 

The entrance road would be gated 

during closed hours; fees would be 

collected near I-40 during hours of 

operation. This would have a minor 

long-term impact to local neighbors 

who have used this road for access to 

forest areas. FR303 would remain 

open and still provide reasonable 

access to the national forest along the 

north boundary of the monument. An 

improved road to the parking area for 

the First Fort trail would have minimal 

long-term adverse impacts to the 

grazing permittee. There would be 

increased seasonal (summer) visitor 

traffic and increased contacts with 

monument users, but the change 

would create no loss in grazing area. 

The new interpretive trail to First Fort 

could create barriers to wildlife 

movement and result in moderate 

long-term impacts to the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. That 

agency would have increased 

administrative workloads in animal 

management and monitoring. The 

relocation of climbing activities out of 

the monument and onto USFS lands 

could have minor long-term impacts 

through increased workloads involved 

with managing and monitoring this 

activity. Changes in visitor activities 

and use areas could result in minor 

long-term adverse impacts to 

American Indian tribes, because they 

could experience increased contacts 

with visitors during traditional uses of 

areas of the monument. 

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 

parks. 

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 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

187

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. 

The installation of new wayside and 

museum exhibits would have longterm impacts that would moderately 

change operational efficiency in a 

beneficial manner. Interpretation 

presented to the visiting public would 

afford a higher level of awareness of 

the significance of the resources in 

the park, and information would be 

provided 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. 

Increasing accessibility of facilities and 

natural and cultural features would 

have a negligible to minor impact on 

to 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 the other facilities in 

the park would be addressed and 

mitigated. 

The designation of Mexican spotted 

owl critical habitat would not have a 

notable impact on operational 

efficiency. Since the backcountry of 

Walnut Canyon is closed to unguided 

visitor use there would be no impact 

as a result of visitor use. There would, 

however, be a long-term commitment 

to monitor and maintain the habitat 

and conduct consultations with U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. This would 

marginally increase the workload for 

resources management staff. 

The existing inholding would not 

have an impact to operational 

efficiency as long as the existing use 

of the land does not change. The 

owner has expressed an interest in 

developing this property. Any efforts 

of development would have minor to 

moderate long-term adverse impacts 

to operational efficiency. Increased 

law enforcement patrols would be 

needed as a result of exposure of park 

resources to trespass and 

inappropriate uses. A substantial 

short-term effort would have to be 

made to determine the most effective 

way to protect and eliminate impacts 

to significant natural and cultural 

resources. This would have a minor to 

moderate adverse impact on 

operational efficiency. 

The existing backcountry of Walnut 

Canyon has never been open to 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

188

unguided use. Since this alternative 

would continue this situation there 

would be no impact to operational 

efficiency. Additional backcountry 

closure areas, which are closed to 

unguided use, may be designated in 

the 1996 expansion lands once 

boundary surveys and resource 

inventories have been completed. 

Since a number of management 

activities are already being carried out 

on the expansion lands, this action 

would have a negligible long-term 

adverse impact on operational 

efficiency. Formalization of the 

prescribed management use of the 

backcountry would have a minor, 

short-term impact on operational 

efficiency due to the need to increase 

staff presence in order to effectively 

implement any change in use of the 

new lands. This would mostly consist 

of making contact with users of the 

area who are unaware that the 

ownership, use, and access to the area 

have changed. This impact would be 

mitigated as the public becomes 

familiar with the change. 

Roadways and Access 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

Walnut Canyon would continue to be 

accessed via I-40 and the three-milelong entrance road. Additional visitor 

access would be via FR303, 

approximately 1/2 mile north of the 

entrance station. This would have a 

negligible to minor impact on park 

operations. Visitors and staff would 

continue to be exposed to steep and 

narrow shoulders, with few places to 

pull off safely in the event of an 

emergency, and to the risk of hitting 

large game. There is potential for this 

situation to increase given the likely 

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 

impacts on park operations with the 

continued use of FR303. It is likely 

that there would be an increase in 

both visitor and commuter traffic, 

resulting in increased accidents. 

Continued use of FR128 and FR128c 

would have a minor to moderate 

impact on operational efficiency. 

Given the current inability to 

physically close any of the roads that 

provide access up to park boundaries, 

an increase in use of the associated 

roads 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 archeological resources. There 

would be an increased demand on 

staff to accomplish patrols and to 

provide 24-hour emergency response. 

Visitor Use 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

visitor use of the park would continue 

as it exists currently, which would 

have a negligible, long-term impact 

on park operations. Park operations 

currently work reasonably well, 

because most visitor uses are 

concentrated at the visitor center. 

There would be continued inability to 

provide immediate contact when 

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 interpreted 

features. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

189

Facilities 

Implementation of the No-Action 

Alternative would have a minor to 

moderate, long-term adverse impact 

on park 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. 

The existing parking lot would 

continue to be insufficient to handle 

the visitor demand. Conflicts would 

continue to exist between pedestrians 

and vehicles. 

Many of the existing deficiencies and 

health and safety needs in other 

facilities would remain, and worsen if 

not addressed. 

Utilities 

The No-Action Alternative would have 

a minor to moderate, long-term 

adverse impact on the utilities in the 

park. Without 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 long-term adverse impact 

on staffing within the park. 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. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area of consideration 

in this alternative includes the city of 

Flagstaff on the west, I-40 on the 

north, FR128 on the east, and 

Anderson Mesa on the south. 

Growth and development of the city 

of Flagstaff and the outlying 

communities would have a minor to 

moderate long-term 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 Cosnino or Winona, would 

increase, resulting in an increase in 

the need for law enforcement patrols 

and emergency response. 

Increased growth of the surrounding 

communities would increase the 

interest and demand to access USFS 

land surrounding the park. Such use 

could result in unauthorized entry to 

closed areas of the park, with possible 

intentional and unintentional impacts 

to park resources. This could have 

minor to moderate long-term impacts 

on operational efficiency, resulting in 

an increased need for law 

enforcement patrols to protect to 

protect park resources 

The USFS is considering increasing use 

and access regulation, including the 

closure of a number of nonessential 

roads, regulation of off-road driving, 

and the development of definable 

trail systems. Implementation of these 

actions would reduce the need for 

NPS patrols along park boundaries for 

resources protection purposes. If the 

use of these areas were to increase, 

there would also likely be a need to 

provide 24-hour emergency response. 

The effect of these actions would long 

term and adverse, but the impacts 

would be minor. 

Partnerships and ongoing regional 

planning efforts have the potential to 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

190

mitigate the impacts described above. 

The city of Flagstaff, U.S. Forest 

Service, State of Arizona and 

Coconino County are currently 

initiating planning efforts that should 

facilitate the protection and 

preservation of lands adjoining the 

park. The results of these efforts 

would be long term and beneficial. 

CONCLUSION 

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 

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 

compound the difficulties that already 

exist in protecting park resources, 

including entry to areas of the park 

that are closed to visitation and 

intentional and unintentional damage 

to archeological resources. 

The effects to facilities, utilities, and 

staffing would be minor to moderate. 

Without improvement to the facilities 

or utilities, conditions would worsen. 

Limitations on current staff levels 

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: 

Diversify Opportunities for 

Visitor Use 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The impacts resulting from the 

installation of new waysides and 

museum exhibits, increasing the 

park's ability to accommodate visitors 

with disabilities, addressing health 

and safety issues, designating of 

critical habitat, managing the park's 

inholding, and developing 

management use determinations on 

the new lands would all be the same 

as those described for 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 

The entrance road would continue to 

be used as it is used now, and many of 

the associated issues and concerns 

would continue to exist. This should 

have a negligible to minor, adverse 

impact on operational efficiency. 

There would be two changes, 

however, that would dramatically 

improve how the public moves 

through the park. These changes 

would be moderately beneficial to 

operational efficiency. They include 

the following: a new orientation 

facility that would be constructed at 

the park entrance at I-40 and would 

include a pullout and/or turnaround 

for vehicles towing trailers, and 

relocation of the existing visitor 

center parking lot (except for 

handicapped and administrative 

parking) to an area southeast of the 

intersection of FR303 and the 

entrance road. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

191

For both actions there would be 

major, short-term adverse actions 

requiring extensive compliance and 

mitigation. There would be 

substantial initial costs for 

construction of the parking area, and 

additional long-term maintenance 

would be required. 

A new scenic drive would be 

developed along the north rim, using 

an existing USFS road, to provide 

additional views of the canyon and 

the First Fort area, and opportunities 

to view wildlife and experience the 

environment. Initially, this unpaved 

road would be maintained in a semiprimitive condition for seasonal use, 

and park staff would be required to 

escort visitors. However, the road 

could be substantially upgraded in the 

future. There would be major, shortterm actions requiring extensive 

compliance and mitigation. There 

would be substantial initial costs for 

engineering and construction of the 

road and parking area at First Fort 

and long-term maintenance 

requirements. Additional staff and 

equipment would be required to 

provide for visitor use and education 

and to meet maintenance needs. This 

would have a minor to moderate 

long-term adverse impact on 

operational efficiency. 

Hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, 

and guided hikes would occur on 

existing roads and trails on the rim in 

the newly acquired lands in the 

western part of the monument. 

Climbing activities would be 

discontinued. Providing controlled 

access to the new lands would include 

the initial costs associated with 

established trailheads and improved 

trails. This would have a short-term 

moderate adverse impact on 

operational efficiency. Long-term 

funding and staff would be required 

to facilitate visitor use, provide 

educational opportunities, and 

respond to increased maintenance 

requirements. This would have a 

minor to moderate adverse impact on 

operational efficiency. Guided hikes 

to the First Fort area on the extreme 

east side of the park would result in 

similar impacts to operational 

efficiency. 

All areas of the south rim would be 

closed to visitor use. FR128c would be 

gated at the park boundary and used 

for administrative purposes only. The 

impact to operational efficiency 

would be no greater than what 

currently exists. However, changes in 

land use policy could require 

increased law enforcement patrols, 

which would have a minor, long-term 

adverse impact on operational 

efficiency. 

Visitor Use 

New wayside exhibits would be 

placed on the entrance road near I-40 

to provide visitors with an overview of 

the monument prior to their reaching 

the resources. Wayside exhibits would 

require design and placement in a 

newly constructed traffic pullout. 

Ground disturbances would 

necessitate compliance actions and 

consultation with the Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Officer and 

affiliated tribes. Staff time would be 

needed to mitigate impacts to cultural 

and natural resources. There would be 

short-term requirements of staff in 

design, construction, and mitigation, 

and there would be long-term 

requirements for maintenance of the 

waysides and for keeping the wayside 

information current. This would have 

a negligible adverse impact on 

operational efficiency. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

192

Facilities 

Administrative offices in the existing 

visitor center would be relocated to 

new facilities at the intersection of 

the entrance road with FR303. The 

existing parking lot would be retained 

to accommodate the requirements of 

visitors with disabilities. A new 

parking area would be constructed a 

few hundred feet to the north. These 

would be major actions requiring 

substantial construction, compliance, 

and mitigation of impacts to cultural 

and natural resources. All this would 

result in some short-term 

inconveniences to staff. There would 

be substantial initial costs for 

construction and long-term costs 

associated with maintenance 

requirements. 

Existing housing and maintenance 

areas would be retained. Moderate, 

long-term beneficial impacts of this 

action would result from removing 

the majority of vehicle traffic from 

the rim of the canyon and converting 

the existing visitor 

center/administrative offices into a 

facility that could accommodate 

expanded visitor service activities and 

programs. This building would require 

extensive modification to 

accommodate wheelchair users and 

visitors with other disabilities. 

Staffing 

The actions of this alternative would 

have minor to major impacts on the 

staffing component of operational 

efficiency. 

There would be an increase in rangerconducted visitor uses on the north 

rim in areas east and immediately 

west of the visitor center. These 

actions would require initial inventory 

and ongoing monitoring of cultural 

and natural resources and the 

designation of specific areas to be 

available for expanded visitor uses. 

There would be a long-term need for 

increased staff to provide for this 

dispersal of visitor use; however, 

access into new areas would alleviate 

crowded conditions on the Island and 

Rim Trails. 

Administrative needs would be 

increased, including purchasing and 

contracting for supplies, materials, 

and services, especially during the 

time when construction is ongoing. 

This would have a major, short-term 

adverse impact on operational 

efficiency. 

Maintenance staff would have 

increased workloads on roads, trails, 

and facilities, including the 

maintenance of a new trail and visitor 

center. They would continue to work 

in less than desirable maintenance 

facilities, which would have a longterm, moderate 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 locations. This would 

have a major, short-term adverse 

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 hiking 

areas. Operational efficiency would 

benefit by having adequate office and 

workspace. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects to operational 

efficiency under this alternative 

would be similar to the No-Action 

Alternative. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

193

CONCLUSION 

Implementation of Alternative 1 

would have a long-term beneficial 

impact on operational efficiency. 

There would be major, short-term 

impacts resulting from the 

construction of a new visitor center 

and parking lot, rehabilitation of the 

old visitor center, construction 

associated with the road to First Fort, 

and access and trail improvements 

necessary for the increased visitor uses 

on the western and eastern portions 

of the park. However, following 

construction, there would remain only 

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 the inadequacies with the 

existing visitor center and parking lot; 

however, it should improve the work 

environment for the park staff. In 

addition to those mentioned, there 

would be other, less severe effects as 

a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Because the identified major adverse 

impacts are to operational efficiency 

rather than to a resource or value 

whose conservation is 1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Walnut Canyon 

National Monument; 2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

park or to the opportunity for 

enjoyment of the park; or 3) 

identified as a goal in relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be 

no impairment of the park's resources 

or values. 

Effects of Alternative 2 

(Preferred): Emphasize 

Preservation 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The impacts resulting from the 

installation of new waysides and 

museum exhibits, increasing the 

park's ability to accommodate visitors 

with disabilities, addressing health 

and safety issues, designating of 

critical habitat, managing the park's 

inholding, and developing 

management use determinations on 

the new lands, would all be the same 

as described for 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 

The entrance road would continue to 

be used as it is used now, and many of 

the associated issues and concerns 

would continue to exist. This should 

have a negligible to minor adverse 

impact on operational efficiency. 

A new fully accessible visitor center 

and parking area would be 

constructed near I-40 and the 

entrance road. The entrance road 

would be gated and locked during 

the night at this location and at the 

intersection of FR303. FR303 would 

remain open for visitor and local use. 

An additional gate would be located 

just beyond FR303 and the entrance 

road to eliminate after-hours entry 

into the park. This would have a 

minor to moderate, long-term 

beneficial impact on operational 

efficiency. It would eliminate 

unauthorized use of the entrance 

road and the park and would reduce 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

194

the need for law enforcement patrols 

and 24-hour emergency response. 

Many of the issues associated with the 

parking area and the visitor center 

would be eliminated by the 

construction of the parking area near 

I-40. This would have a moderate, 

long-term beneficial impact on 

operational efficiency. As a result of 

the proposed construction, there 

would be major, short-term adverse 

actions requiring extensive 

compliance and mitigation. There 

would be substantial initial costs for 

construction of the parking area and 

long-term maintenance requirements, 

which would have a minor impact on 

operational efficiency. 

Facilities 

A new visitor center with offices and 

associated parking lot would be 

constructed at the intersection of I-40 

and the entrance road. The modern 

additions to the existing visitor center 

would be removed and the facility 

would be restored to its historic 

appearance. The remaining portion of 

the visitor center would be retained 

for visitor orientation and education 

purposes. This would have a longterm, moderately beneficial impact on 

operational efficiency. There would 

be major actions associated with 

facility construction, including 

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 visitor centers, 

there would be only a negligible to 

minor adverse impact on operational 

efficiency. 

Existing housing and maintenance 

facilities would be retained, which 

would have a negligible, adverse 

impact on operational efficiency. 

Visitor Use 

Self-guided and ranger-led trails 

would be unchanged. All new lands 

within the recent boundary expansion 

would be closed to all entry. Visitor 

use in the vicinity, including hiking, 

biking, and horseback riding, would 

be restricted to the Arizona Trail and 

adjacent USFS lands. FR128c would be 

gated at the park boundary and used 

for administrative purposes only. The 

impact to operational efficiency 

would be no greater than what 

currently exists. However, changes in 

land use policy could require 

increased law enforcement patrols, 

which would have a minor, long-term 

adverse impact on operational 

efficiency. 

An existing undesignated USFS road 

would be used for access to the 

eastern portion of the monument, 

including guided hikes into the 

bottom of Walnut Canyon. This would 

have minor to moderate, long-term 

adverse impact on operational 

efficiency. Initial costs would be 

required for establishment of 

trailheads and road improvements. 

Long-term costs would include those 

for law enforcement patrols for 

resource protection and those for 

road maintenance. 

Staffing 

The actions of this alternative would 

have minor to major impacts on the 

staffing component of operational 

efficiency. 

There would be an increase in rangerconducted visitor uses on the north 

rim in areas east and west of the 

visitor center. These actions would 

require initial inventory and ongoing 

monitoring of cultural and natural 

resources. There would be a longterm need for an increase in staff to 

accommodate this dispersal of visitor 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

195

use; however, use of new areas would 

alleviate crowded conditions on the 

Island and Rim Trails. 

Administrative needs would be 

increased, including the purchasing 

and contracting for supplies, 

materials, and services, especially 

during construction periods. This 

would have a major, short-term 

impact on operational efficiency. 

Maintenance staff would have 

increased workloads on roads, trails, 

and facilities. They would continue to 

work in less than desirable 

maintenance facilities, which would 

have a long-term, moderate adverse 

impact on operational efficiency. 

As a result of the proposed new 

construction, resources management 

staff would have increased workloads 

associated with consultation, 

compliance, and clearance of the 

proposed construction locations. This 

would have a major, short-term 

adverse 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 trails. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects to operational 

efficiency under this alternative 

would be similar to those identified 

for the No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have a longterm beneficial effect on operational 

efficiency. There would be major, 

short-term adverse impacts resulting 

from the proposed construction of a 

new administrative building and 

parking lot, and existing visitor center 

rehabilitation. However, following 

construction and rehabilitation, there 

would be only minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on operational 

efficiency. Most impacts would occur 

in the form of increased maintenance 

requirements for facilities. In addition 

to those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a result of 

implementing this alternative. 

Because the identified major adverse 

impacts are to operational efficiency 

rather than to a resource or value 

whose conservation is 1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in 

the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Walnut Canyon 

National Monument; 2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

park or to the opportunity for 

enjoyment of the park; or 3) 

identified as a goal in relevant NPS 

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. 

Loss in Long-Term 

Availability or Productivity 

of the Resource to Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

There would be no short-term gains 

affecting long-term productivity. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

most of the major roads providing 

access to the park would realize a 

likely increase in visitor and commuter 

traffic, which would result in 

additional congestion and a likely 

increase in accidents, increasing 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

196

maintenance needs. 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 archeological resources. The effects 

to facilities, utilities, and staffing 

would be minor to moderately 

adverse. Without improvement to the 

facilities or utilities, existing 

conditions would worsen. Staffing 

limitations 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, there would be 

major, short-term adverse impacts, 

resulting from the construction of a 

new visitor center and parking lot, 

rehabilitation of the old visitor center 

and parking lot, construction 

associated with a new road to First 

Fort, and trail improvements 

necessary for the increased visitor uses 

on the western and eastern portions 

of the park. However, following 

construction and rehabilitation, there 

would be only 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. 

Alternative 2 would have major, 

short-term impacts, resulting from the 

proposed construction of a new visitor 

center and parking lot, and existing 

visitor center rehabilitation. However, 

following construction and 

rehabilitation, there would be only 

minor to moderate adverse impacts 

on operational efficiency, most of 

which would be in the form of 

increased maintenance requirements.
197

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. 

AGENCIES CONSULTED 

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. 

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, YavapaiPrescott 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, 

Yavapai-Prescott, 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 
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

198

to conduct 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 
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

199

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 

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 
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

200

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 

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 
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

201

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 

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 
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

202

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.