Final Environmental Impact Statement 

General Management Plan 

WUPATKI 


National Monument • Arizona 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

This general management plan will guide the management of the Wupatki National 


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


four action alternatives, including the National Park Service (NPS) preferred alternative. 


The preferred alternative would include important resources and landscapes north of the 


park within park boundaries, retain existing motorized sightseeing, focus on existing 


major visitor use areas, provide visitor orientation at the existing visitor center and at a 


new contact station at the north entrance, and diversify visitor experiences via new trails, 


new interpretive media and activities, and guided hikes to some cultural sites. 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 habitat; 


visitor experience of park resources; park neighbors; local, state, and tribal land 


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


For more information about this document, contact: 


Superintendent 


Flagstaff Area National Monuments 


6400 N. Hwy 89 


Flagstaff, Arizona 86004 


United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Wupatki National Monument 

SUMMARY 

The purpose of the general management 

plan is to provide a comprehensive 

direction for resource preservation and 

visitor use and a basic foundation for 

decision making for the monument for 

the next 15 to 20 years. The plan 

prescribes the resource conditions and 

visitor experiences that are to be 

achieved and maintained in the park 

over time. The clarification of what must 

be achieved according to law and policy 

is based on review of the park's purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. 

The plan will outline the kinds of 

resource management activities, visitor 

activities, and development that would 

be appropriate in the monument in the 

future. However, the plan will not 

propose specific actions or describe how 

particular programs or projects will be 

implemented or prioritized. More 

detailed site-specific analysis of 

alternatives and specific proposals will be 

required in subsequent phases of 

planning before any major federal 

actions are undertaken. Four action 

alternatives and a no-action alternative 

are presented, and the impacts of 

implementing those alternatives are 

analyzed. A brief summary of the major 

actions under the alternatives, as well as 

the actions that are common to all 

alternatives and the impacts thereof, are 

presented below. 

The Next Step 

This Final Environmental Impact 

Statement/General Management Plan, 

which includes agency and organization 

letters and response to all substantive 

comments, has been distributed. After 

distribution of this final plan, there will 

be a no-action period of at least 30 days. 

After this no-action period, a final plan 

will be selected and approved by the 

National Park Service and a Record of 

Decision will be issued to document the 

approval. 

Actions Common to All 

Alternatives 

Within the broad parameters of the park 

mission and mission goals, various 

approaches to park resource protection, 

use and development are possible. 

Management zones are the tool this plan 

uses to identify how different areas of 

the park could be managed to achieve a 

variety of resources and social conditions 

to serve recreation and resource 

protection needs. Each zone specifies a 

particular combination of physical, 

biological, social and management 

conditions. Nine possible zones were 

described that could be appropriate to 

various areas in Wupatki National 

Monument. They are the resource 

preservation zone, the extended learning 

zone, the guided adventure zone, the 

hiking zone, the motorized sightseeing 

zone, the motorized sightseeing-semiprimitive zone, the natural area 

recreation zone, the overview zone, and 

the administrative zone. 

Common to all alternatives are shortrange planning efforts already underway 

to meet immediate operational needs 

that will continue to exist regardless of 

the alternative selected. These are 

identified in National Park Service-wide 

initiatives, in Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments planning documents, such as 

the Strategic Plan, Annual Performance 

Plan, Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, 

Fire Management Plan, and Resources 

Management Plan, and in local action 

plans to resolve safety, accessibility, 

facility maintenance, and similar issues. 

i 
All alternatives presented recognize the 

opportunity for partnerships, for the 

protection of cultural and natural 

resources, with the USFS, the State of 

Arizona, and private landowners. USFS 

lands south of Wupatki will continue 

under USFS management, in accordance 

with decisions reached in the USFS 

Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis 

(FLEA) planning process. The proposed 

expansion to the north will involve state 

and private lands now within the 

Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands 

(CPNRL). 

Planning and design of new wayside 

exhibits and museum exhibits is in 

progress, in accordance with the Flagstaff 

Areas Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, 

to improve visitor understanding and 

appreciation of Wupatki resources. 

New wayside exhibits will replace and 

expand the existing system of 

interpretive signs along FR545 and at 

major existing visitor use areas. A new 

storage building will be constructed at 

New Heiser specifically to address the 

hantavirus problem and to centralize 

maintenance equipment storage at 

Wupatki. Upon completion of this new 

facility, hantavirus-prone storage 

buildings/trailers will be removed. 

NPS plans to restore historic conditions at 

Heiser Spring, through removal of 

containment and diversion structures, 

restoration of original contours, and 

planting of riparian vegetation. 

The backcountry of Wupatki National 

Monument (defined as all areas beyond 

designated roads, trails, or developed 

facilities within the monument) is closed 

to unguided entry. The closure will be 

made permanent through the 

formulation and publishing of a special 

regulation. Although various alternatives 

may allow guided activities to continue in 

the park backcountry, there will be no 

unguided access. 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

This alternative describes the 

continuation of current management and 

trends; it serves as a basis for comparing 

the other alternatives. 

Visitors to Wupatki National Monument 

generally arrive from the south via US89 

and FR545, after passing through Sunset 

Crater Volcano National Monument. 

Most receive orientation to the 

monuments at Sunset Crater Volcano 

visitor center. This road connection 

between the two monuments facilitates 

the visitor's ability to connect the cultural 

and natural history of the two areas. 

Visitor use is concentrated at the 

Wupatki visitor center, four of the park's 

primary archeological areas (Wupatki 

Pueblo, Wukoki, Lomaki/Box Canyon, and 

Citadel/Nalakihu), and the 

picnic/viewpoint area at Doney Mountain 

on USFS land. These areas were 

specifically developed for interpretive use 

with short trails and interpretive media. 

The vast majority of visitors interact with 

these sites on their own with no on-site 

NPS presence. Two types of guided 

activities are offered into the closed 

areas. Discovery hikes are generally a 

half-day excursion and follow routes 

consistent with resource protection 

concerns. Overnight hikes to Crack-inRock Pueblo are offered on eight 

weekends in April and October. 

Under the No-Action alternative, a large 

number of archeological sites open to the 

public would continue to experience 

adverse impacts due to surface 

disturbance, inadvertent damage, soil 

compaction, trampling, collecting and 

vandalism. Impacts from visitation also 

have adverse impacts on the 

ethnographic resources. Vegetation and 

wildlife habitat within the monument 

will continue to recover from former 

ii 
ranching activities. Occasional incidental 

trampling of vegetation likely has minor 

impacts on plant species. A number of 

unique habitats exist within the 

monument, and most of them are in the 

closed backcountry, which protects them 

from most impacts. The no-action 

alternative would likely have negligible 

to minor impacts on existing wetlands of 

the Little Colorado River, floodplains, 

and riparian resources. Restoration of 

historic conditions at Heiser Spring would 

have moderate beneficial impacts to 

wetlands and riparian resources. 

Main roads providing access to the park 

will see a likely increase in visitor and 

commuter traffic, which may result in 

additional congestion and accidents. 

Maintenance needs would increase. 

Increased use of roads leading to the 

park would increase the difficulties that 

already exist in protecting park resources. 

Alternative 1: Limit 

Motorized Sightseeing and 

Focus On Extended Learning 

This alternative would enhance the 

protection of cultural resources by 

significantly changing the way people 

visit and experience the park. With 

increased emphasis on longer and more 

intensive educational programs, Wupatki 

would become a destination for many 

visitors, rather than a short drive-through 

experience. 

Visitors would enter the park via existing 

FR545 from Sunset Crater Volcano, 

proceed only as far as the existing visitor 

center-Wupatki Pueblo area, and return 

via the same route. A short spur road to 

Wukoki Pueblo would be maintained. 

The north entrance and other entry 

points would be eliminated. FR545 would 

be gated west of the visitor center to 

increase resource protection. Significant 

resources and landscapes north of the 

park would be preserved through 

partnerships with adjacent landowners or 

possible park boundary expansion. The 

proposed boundary expansion to the 

south would include that portion of the 

park entrance road that is on National 

Forest lands, allowing the NPS to manage 

access to the western half of the park. 

Fewer archeological sites would be open 

to unguided or self-guided use than at 

present, resulting in less impact on those 

sites; however, there would be increased 

guided tours to cultural sites that have 

not been stabilized or previously 

developed for visitation. 

New interpretive programs would be 

developed to present a broader range of 

educational and interpretive 

opportunities than are available at 

present. Guided programs, both on foot 

and by vehicle, would be added for those 

with more time and interest. 

The existing visitor center and associated 

housing/maintenance area would be 

retained. A small primitive campground 

would be developed for use only in 

conjunction with sponsored park 

programs. 

Closure of the northern portion of FR545 

would have a major impact on how 

visitors see the park, resource protection 

and park operations. Elimination of the 

drive-through could have a moderate 

adverse impact on neighbors, other land 

and resource managers and residents of 

the Navajo Nation who use that road for 

access to the north. For visitors, closing 

the road would provide a greater 

opportunity to experience natural 

soundscapes. More kinds of ecological 

resources would be open to the public. 

Eliminating the drive-through would 

decrease unregulated use and access to 

the park, affording greater protection of 

park resources. 

Providing special learning opportunities 

for visitors with more time and interest 

could have the effect of decreasing the 

iii 
numbers of visitors to some areas. This 

would have a beneficial effect on 

archeological resources because fewer 

sites would be open to visitation and 

most visitation would be restricted to 

guided tours. Other areas would have 

more concentrated visitor use, leading to 

greater impacts the sites in those areas. 

Fewer visitors at sites would have 

beneficial effects on ethnographic 

resources by increasing their protection 

from vandalism. Updated interpretive 

media and guided tours would increase 

visitor education. 

The proposed road system changes would 

eliminate most traffic through half the 

monument, which would have long-term 

beneficial impacts to most natural 

resources. Minor impacts could result 

from realignment of the Wukoki Pueblo 

access road. Increased extended learning 

areas around the Heiser Spring and 

Citadel-Lomaki could have some adverse 

impacts on pronghorn, grasslands, and 

several sensitive species. Overall, this 

alternative would result in long-term 

negligible to minor impacts on most 

sensitive species and unique habitats 

Alternative 2: Emphasize 

Motorized Sightseeing and 

Resource Protection through 

On-Site Education 

This alternative emphasizes improved 

vehicle access to more of the park for 

diverse motorized sightseeing 

experiences and ensures the presence of 

park personnel at popular use areas for 

visitor contact and site protection 

purposes. The long-term integrity of 

archeological sites and natural resources 

would be enhanced by on-site personal 

orientation and education. In this 

alternative, there is no visitor center. 

Instead, park staff would interpret park 

resources where specific features and 

sites can be seen and/or visited. FR545 

would remain open to 24-hour, two-way 

traffic. A new contact station and 

associated wayside exhibits would be 

built at the north entrance from US89. 

The access roads and parking lots to sites 

would be gated at night to deter afterhours visitation. The proposed boundary 

expansion to the south would include 

that portion of the park entrance road 

that is on National Forest lands, which 

would allow the NPS to manage access to 

the western half of the park. 

Existing roads to the Crack-in-Rock area 

and northern expansion lands would be 

gated and maintained in primitive 

condition. They would be used for 

escorted four-wheel-drive and/or 

mountain bike scenic tours to interpret a 

broader range of park themes. The road 

to Black Falls Crossing would be opened 

to park visitors, and existing primitive 

roads in the north boundary expansion 

would be used for guided tours along a 

scenic backcountry loop. 

One of the largest impacts of this 

alternative will be on visitor use. A 

greater number of archeological sites 

would be open to visitors. However, 

there would be fewer opportunities for 

intimate experiences, because most 

resources would be experienced by 

vehicle. More restrictive uses of lands 

previously under other jurisdictions 

would decrease the ability of visitors to 

experience resources related to park 

significance. 

Changing modes of visitation will have a 

beneficial effect on resources. Fewer 

archeological resources would be 

impacted by human use. There would be 

some benefits to natural systems, as they 

would continue to recover from historic 

land uses. Impacts of building new 

support facilities would be very localized, 

minor and offset by promotion of 

appropriate visitor behavior. Some 

minor adverse impacts would result from 

increased vehicular traffic, and the 

associated noise and disturbance. 

iv 
The elimination of guided hikes and 

dispersed hiking to Crack-in-Rock would 

benefit a large area of sensitive plant 

habitat. 

Operational efficiency will be impacted 

in this alternative by the modified use of 

the existing visitor center and the 

dispersal of park staff to day-use 

locations. There would be increased 

demands of the park infrastructure, 

including park roads and facilities. 

Alternative 3 (Preferred): 

Preserve Sensitive Park 

Resources while Diversifying 

the Range Of Visitor 

Experiences 

This alternative was developed to ensure 

the preservation of sensitive park 

resources while providing a greater 

diversity of visitor experiences and 

locations. 

FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 

two-way traffic. In order to ensure that 

southbound visitors are properly oriented 

before encountering park resources, a 

new contact station and associated 

wayside exhibits would be built at the 

north entrance from US89. Motorized 

sightseeing would remain the same, 

focusing on existing developed areas. 

The access roads and parking lots at 

Wukoki, Lomaki/Box Canyon, and 

Citadel/Nalakihu archeological areas 

would be gated at night to deter afterhours visitation. 

This alternative would improve upon 

existing visitor educational opportunities 

at popular use areas, and provide guided 

access into undeveloped areas of the 

park. The existing visitor center would 

remain open for the purpose of resource 

interpretation. Opportunities for 

independence and solitude would be 

provided by new self-guided trails and 

interpretive activities. A new trail would 

be constructed into the grassland 

ecosystem on Antelope Prairie. For 

visitors desiring a longer hike and greater 

opportunities for solitude, a trail would 

be constructed from the visitor center to 

Wukoki. 

Guided programs would be offered to a 

wide variety of cultural sites in the 

Extended Learning and Guided 

Adventure Zones, and occasional 

escorted activities would occur along 

existing administrative roads, including 

ranch roads into the 

partnership/expansion area to the north. 

The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center. The current Wukoki 

parking area would be pulled back from 

the site, and the access trail would be 

lengthened accordingly. 

The overall impacts of this alternative to 

visitor experience of the park resources 

would be beneficial. The new visitor 

contact station and access to two new 

trails would expand opportunities and 

enhance interpretation, even though 

many of the parks' resources would be 

off limits to visitation. 

This alternative would provide overall 

beneficial impacts to both cultural and 

natural resources. Archeological 

resources would benefit because visitors 

would be restricted to stabilized front 

country sites. There would be some 

adverse impacts on the historic integrity 

of prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes. 

The natural systems would have some 

benefits, as the natural systems continue 

to recover from historic land uses. The 

construction of a new visitor orientation 

station at the north entrance would 

permanently impact a local area of 

habitat for the Wupatki pocket mouse 

and pronghorn. Increased human 

presence in a larger area around the 

Citadel and Lomaki Pueblos and along 

the new grassland trail would have 

v 
moderate adverse impacts to native 

grassland integrity and wildlife in the 

western half of Wutpatki. 

Changes resulting from implementation of 

this alternative would have an overall 

beneficial impact on operational efficiency. 

Most impacts would be in the form of 

increased staff to operate the new contact 

station, perform maintenance on the facilities 

and trails, and see to increased resource 

preservation needs. 

Alternative 4: Emphasize 

Integrated Story Between 

The Parks And Minimize 

Development 

This alternative would restructure the 

way visitors gain access to and experience 

both Wupatki and Sunset Crater Volcano 

National Monuments to provide a more 

unified interpretive story and greater 

protection for natural and cultural 

resources. Visitors would enter only at 

Sunset Crater Volcano. The portion of 

FR545 from the current Wupatki visitor 

center to US89 would be converted to a 

one-way road; the north entrance at 

US89 would be converted to exit-only. 

The visitor function and much of the 

building would be removed from 

Wupatki. Expanded facilities, services, 

and visitor orientation would be 

concentrated at Sunset Crater Volcano. 

As visitors travel through Wupatki, they 

would encounter fewer facilities and 

more pristine resource conditions. The 

Black Falls Crossing Road and the portion 

of FR150 within the park boundary 

would be closed and reclaimed. 

The goals of this alternative are to 

provide an integrated story for Wupatki 

and Sunset Crater Volcano while 

reducing duplicate facilities, minimizing 

development at Wupatki, and preserving 

outstanding park values. 

This alternative takes advantage of 

current visitor use patterns to lead 

visitors through a sequential learning 

experience that presents a unified 

picture. By concentrating visitor use in 

previously developed areas, minimizing 

new developments, and removing 

unnecessary structures, this alternative 

would preserve and enhance the 

minimally altered prehistoric cultural 

landscape, extensive grassland antelope 

habitat, seeps and springs, spectacular 

scenic views, and other key values that 

define Wupatki National Monument. 

The proposed boundary expansion to the 

south would include that portion of the 

park entrance road that is on National 

Forest lands, which would allow the NPS 

to manage access to the western half of 

the park. 

The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center. The parking area would be 

pulled back from the site. For visitors 

wishing a longer hike and greater 

opportunity for solitude, a new primitive 

trail would be developed from the 

current visitor center to Wukoki. 

Visitor opportunities at Wupatki would 

decrease with removal of the visitor 

center/museum; however, extended 

learning would still be provided at each 

of the existing day use sites. Guided 

overnight hikes to Crack-in-Rock would 

be discontinued, but guided vehicle tours 

would be offered in their place, using 

existing primitive roads. 

This alternative has a moderate impact 

on visitors' ability to experience a full 

range of resources related to park 

significance. Elimination of access to 

Black Falls Crossing Road removes some 

significant portions of the Wupatki story. 

However, guided trips to Crack-in-Rock 

add opportunities to see sites that have 

not been previously developed for 

visitation. Changing the access, however, 

provides a more primitive setting for 

visitors. 

vi 
In comparison to existing conditions, 

Alternative 4 would have a major beneficial effect for most resources, because 

visitation would be restricted to 

stabilized front country sites and Crackin-Rock Pueblo. The creation of a new 

trail to Wukoki would offset these 

benefits slightly. There would be some 

adverse impacts on the historic integrity 

of prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes. 

The natural systems would have some 

benefits, as the natural systems continue 

to recover from historic land uses. 

Abandoning the Black Falls Crossing Road 

would have beneficial impacts by 

decreasing impacts to sensitive plant 

species and road mortality to the 

Wupatki pocket mouse. 

The elimination of guided hikes and 

dispersed hiking to Crack-in-Rock would 

benefit a large area of sensitive plant 

habitat. 

Conversion of FR545 to a one-way road 

would have a major, long-term, adverse 

impact on the residents living on the 

CPNRL north of the park, some residents 

living in Alpine Ranchos, and those living 

across the Little Colorado River on the 

Navajo Reservation, because their access 

from US89 would be restricted and 

rerouted through Sunset Crater. 

Boundary expansion could have a 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact on 

access by American Indian tribes. Closure 

of the Black Falls Crossing Road and increased congestion and contact with 

others could have a moderate, long-term 

adverse impact on American Indian tribes 

seeking traditional cultural uses. 

This alternative would dramatically 

reduce and streamline park operations, 

but would have a major adverse impact 

on the effectiveness of park operations. 

There would be a major long-term 

benefit resulting from the more 

restricted access and the conversion of a 

major portion of the park from a drivethrough 24-hour use to day use only. 

There would be a major adverse effect to 

operational efficiency with the removal 

of many of the existing support facilities 

and the transfer of staff to distant work 

locations. There would be a greater need 

for improved communication, and vehicle 

costs would increase. The long-term 

beneficial impacts would include a 

reduction in overall facility and utility 

costs. Removal of the facilities would 

positively affect the cultural landscapes 

and the park's natural resources. 

vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS


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


The Next Step ...................................................................................................................................... i


Actions Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................................. i


No-Action Alternative:....................................................................................................................... ii


Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ ii


Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing and Focus On Extended Learning ........................... iii


Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing and Resource Protection through 


On-Site Education ............................................................................................................................. iv


Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources while Diversifying the Range 


Of Visitor Experiences........................................................................................................................ v


Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................... vi


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


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


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


Reaffirm What Must Be Achieved..................................................................................................... 2


Description Of Scoping Process....................................................................................................... 22


Decide What Might Be Achieved....................................................................................................24


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


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


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


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


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


Boundary Criteria.............................................................................................................................38


Actions Common To All Alternatives..............................................................................................41


ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS ...............................................................................................43


No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions ...................................................................................43


Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning..........................44


Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection Through 


On-Site Education ............................................................................................................................46


Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While Diversifying The 


Range Of Visitor Experiences .......................................................................................................... 47


Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development....................................................................................................................................48


Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Evaluation.............................................49


MITIGATING MEASURES .......................................................................................................54


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


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


ix 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................87


LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...............................................87


HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT .......................................................91


LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES .................................................92


LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES ....................................93


THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES .....................................................98


WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT .....................................................102


ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES ......................................................................106


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


AND LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING AGENCIES .................................................................108


OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY.................................................................................................110


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...............................................................115


METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................115


LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................116


Methodology..................................................................................................................................116


Effects Of The No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.........................................................117


Effects Of Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning.......121


Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................124


Effects Of Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While


Diversifying The Range Of Visitor Experiences ............................................................................126


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................128


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................131


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


Short-Term Gain .............................................................................................................................132


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................................................132


HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT .....................................................133


Methodology..................................................................................................................................133


Effects Of The No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.........................................................134


Effects Of Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning.......136


Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................138


Effects Of Alternative 3: (Preferred) Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While 


Diversifying The Range Of Visitor Experiences ............................................................................140


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................141


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................142


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


Short-Term Gain .............................................................................................................................142


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................................................142


x 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES ...............................................143


Methodology..................................................................................................................................143


Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..........................................................144


Effects Of Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning ......145


Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................147


Effects Of Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Resources While Diversifying 


The Range Of Visitor Experiences.................................................................................................148


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................149


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................149


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


Short-Term Gain.............................................................................................................................149


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................................................................149


LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES ..................................149


Methodology..................................................................................................................................149


Effects Of The No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.........................................................150


Effects Of Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning ......155


Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................159


Effects Of Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While


Diversifying The Range Of Visitor Experiences............................................................................163


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................166


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................170


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


Short-Term Gain.............................................................................................................................170


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................................................................170


THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES....................................................171


Methodology..................................................................................................................................171


Effects of the No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions..........................................................172


Effects Of Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning ......178


Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................181


Effects Of Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While


Diversifying The Range Of Visitor Experiences............................................................................183


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................186


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................188


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


Short-Term Gain.............................................................................................................................188


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................................................................189


WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT......................................................189


Methodology..................................................................................................................................189


Effects Of The No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.........................................................190


xi 
Effects Of Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning.......193


Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................194


Effects Of Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While


Diversifying The Range Of Visitor Experiences ............................................................................195


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................195


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................197


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


Short-Term Gain .............................................................................................................................197


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................................................197


ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES......................................................................197


Methodology..................................................................................................................................197


Effects Of The No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.........................................................198


Effects Of Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning.......200


Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................204


Effects Of Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While


Diversifying The Range Of Visitor Experiences. ...........................................................................207


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................209


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................212


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


Short-Term Gain .............................................................................................................................212


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................................................212


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

LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING AGENCIES..........................................................................213


Methodology..................................................................................................................................213


Effects Of The No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.........................................................213


Effects Of Alternative 1: Limited Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On 


Extended Learning .........................................................................................................................215


Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................218


Effects Of Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While


Diversifying The Range Of Visitor Experiences ............................................................................220


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................221


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................224


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


Short-Term Gain .............................................................................................................................224


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................................................224


OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY.................................................................................................224


Methodology..................................................................................................................................224


Effects Of The No-Action Alternative: Existing Conditions.........................................................225


Effects Of Alternative 1: Limit Motorized Sightseeing And Focus On Extended Learning.......229


xii 
Effects Of Alternative 2: Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing And Resource Protection 


Through On-Site Education...........................................................................................................231


Effects Of Alternative 3 (Preferred): Preserve Sensitive Park Resources While


Diversifying The Range Of Visitor Experiences............................................................................234


Effects Of Alternative 4: Emphasize Integrated Story Between The Parks And Minimize 


Development..................................................................................................................................236


Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources.................................................................239


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


Short-Term Gain.............................................................................................................................239


Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................................................................239


CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.......................................................... 241


HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................241


AGENCY CONSULTION........................................................................................................241


TRIBAL CONSULTATION......................................................................................................241


LIST OF RECIPIENTS .............................................................................................................242


Federal Agencies............................................................................................................................242


Indian Tribes...................................................................................................................................242


State Government..........................................................................................................................243


Local Government..........................................................................................................................243


Organizations/Businesses...............................................................................................................243


Individuals.......................................................................................................................................245


RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PLAN ...........................................................246


APPENDIXES/REFERENCES ............................................................................ 289


Appendix A: Legislation .....................................................................................................289


Appendix B: Table 5............................................................................................................292


Appendix C: Choosing by Advantages and Costs .............................................................293


GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................... 297


BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 301


LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................... 309


PREPARERS ..........................................................................................................................309


Contributors........................................................................................................................310


INDEX............................................................................................................. 313


xiii 
TABLES 

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


Table 2: Summary of Alternatives .......................................................................................71 


Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts....................................................................................73 


Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives..............................................................................83 


Table 5: Resource Attributes for Visitor Use.....................................................................292 


MAPS 

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


Existing Conditions...............................................................................................................63 


Alternative 1 .........................................................................................................................64 


Alternative 2 .........................................................................................................................65 


Alternative 3 (Preferred)......................................................................................................66 


Alternative 4 .........................................................................................................................67 


Alternatives Considered But Rejected.................................................................................68 


Combined Alternative 2.......................................................................................................69


Regional Planning Considerations.......................................................................................69 


xiv

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 Wupatki National Monument (NM). 

Wupatki is currently operating under a 

Master Plan approved in June 1982. It is 

the intent of this planning effort to 

provide a comprehensive direction for 

the next 10 to 15 years and to arrive at 

that direction through public 

participation. In fact this draft GMP is the 

result of extensive interaction with 

interested publics and affected 

government agencies begun in June 1996 

(see Description of Scoping Process and 

Consultation and Coordination sections). 

The approved plan will provide a 

framework for proactive decision 

making, including decisions on visitor 

use, natural and cultural resources 

management, and park development, 

which will allow park managers to 

effectively address future opportunities 

and problems. The general management 

plan will prescribe the resource 

conditions and visitor experiences that 

are to be achieved and maintained in the 

park over time. The clarification of what 

must be achieved according to law and 

policy is based on review of the park's 

purpose, significance, special mandates, 

and the body of laws and policies 

directing park management. 

Management decisions to be made 

where law, policy, or regulations do not 

provide clear guidance or limits will be 

based on the purpose of the monument, 

the range of public expectations and 

concerns, resource analysis, an evaluation 

of the natural, cultural, and social 

impacts of alternative courses of action, 

and consideration of long-term economic 

costs. 

Some of those conditions and 

experiences are specified already in law 

and policy, whereas others are open to 

debate and must be determined through 

planning. Based on determinations of 

desired conditions, the plan will outline 

the kinds of resource management 

activities, visitor activities, and 

development that would be appropriate 

in the monument in the future. However, 

the plan will not propose specific actions 

or describe how particular programs or 

projects will be implemented or 

prioritized. Those decisions will be 

deferred to more detailed 

1

PURPOSE AND NEED 


implementation planning, which will 

follow the broad, comprehensive decision 

making outlined in the general 

management plan. 

NEED FOR THE GMP 

There were many issues and concerns 

that precipitated the need for a GMP. 

Administratively, the three parks of the 

Flagstaff Area (Wupatki, Sunset Crater 

Volcano, and Walnut Canyon National 

Monuments) were combined under one 

superintendent in 1990. A boundary 

expansion of Wupatki (169 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, 

theft, and irreversible damage to 

petroglyphs. 

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. 

Wupatki National Monument protects 

thousands of archeological sites-the 

entire monument is on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Park lands also 

provide critical pronghorn habitat. 

However, park boundaries incorporate 

only a small portion of the cultural 

features and natural systems (especially 

grasslands) that are central to the park's 

purpose. Numerous traditional cultural 

properties have been identified by 

affiliated tribes, and concerns exist about 

public use of some sites. 

Multiple roads enter Wupatki, and the 

inability to physically close them at night 

makes protection of cultural resources 

difficult and increases monetary and 

staffing demands (road maintenance, 

residences, 24-hour emergency response, 

etc.). The Wupatki visitor center, where 

most orientation and interpretation 

occur, is miles from the park entrances. 

The 1960s exhibits are outdated, 

inaccurate, and/or obsolete. The visitor 

center provides limited collections 

storage space. In some cases, facilities, 

parking areas, and roads were built 

almost on top of archeological sites. 

In 1998, the staff of the Flagstaff Areas 

undertook an in-depth review and 

analysis of staffing needs for the three 

monuments and for support positions in 

headquarters. This process identified 

critical positions in visitor services, 

protection, resource management, 

maintenance, and administration that 

are integral to accomplishing the 

purposes of the monuments and the 

National Park Service mission. This review 

evaluated existing conditions and 

personnel shortfalls in terms of National 

Park Service abilities to provide for a 

safe, educational visitor experience and 

for adequate protection and preservation 

of park resources. A number of positions 

were identified as critical to maintaining 

operations at acceptable levels, for both 

current and future needs. These needs 

were identified prior to the general 

management planning process and are 

incorporated into the alternatives 

developed. 

Reaffirm What Must Be 

Achieved 

Each unit in the National Park System is 

guided by agency-wide and park-specific 

laws, regulations, and policies. 

2

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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 

Wupatki National Monument was 

established by Presidential Proclamation 

No. 1721 on December 9, 1924, as a twopiece area to preserve the Citadel and 

Wupatki prehistoric pueblos. It was 

subsequently enlarged by Presidential 

Proclamation No. 2243 on July 9, 1937, 

and was reduced by Presidential 

Proclamation No. 2454 on January 22, 

1941. Public Law 87-134 in 1961 enlarged 

the area again, to preserve additional 

archeological resources. Public Law 104-

33, the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 

Management Act of 1996, revised the 

boundaries yet again. The monument 

now comprises 35,422.13 acres adjacent 

to the Coconino National Forest, the 

Navajo Indian Reservation, and private 

lands. 

The following purpose statement is 

based on and represents the agency's 

interpretation of the above-mentioned 

legislative mandates and National Park 

Service policies. Purpose statements are 

the most fundamental criterion against 

which the appropriateness of all plan 

recommendations, operational decisions, 

and actions are tested. 

• To preserve, protect, care for, and 

manage the ancestral Hopi sites, 

other prehistoric remains, and 

cultural and natural resources of 

historic, ethnographic, and scientific 

interest located within Wupatki 

National Monument. 

Park significance statements capture the 

essence of the park's importance to the 

nation's natural and cultural heritage. 

Understanding park significance helps 

managers to make decisions that 

preserve the resources and values 

necessary to the park's purposes. The 

following significance statements have 

been developed for the park: 

• Wupatki is the only known location in 

the Southwest where physical 

evidence from at least three 

archeologically separate ancestral 

Puebloan cultures is found together 

in a number of archeological sites. 

According to Puebloan oral tradition, 

Wupatki represents one ancestral 

Puebloan group. 

• The natural and cultural resources 

within the monument are known to 

be significant to contemporary native 

tribes, as evidenced by oral history 

and continuing practices and the 

archeological record. 

• Many prehistoric and historic sites are 

well preserved and have a high 

degree of cultural resource integrity. 

• Historic material reveals a rich record 

of human endeavor left by Navajo 

families over a period of 150 years 

and continuing through the present 

day and by ranchers, sheepherders, 

prospectors, Mormons, the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, park custodians, 

and the Museum of Northern 

Arizona. Their activities, combined 

with environmental changes, have 

created complex cultural landscapes 

within the monument. 

• Wupatki protects one of the few 

native grasslands in the Southwest 

that is not being domestically grazed, 

and its integrity is essential to 

3

PURPOSE AND NEED 


perpetuating native species and 

natural ecosystem processes. 

• The setting of Wupatki, undeveloped 

and largely unpolluted, provides the 

exceedingly rare opportunity to see 

more than 60 miles, view the night 

sky, and encounter quiet-an 

experience comparable to that 

experienced by prehistoric peoples. 

These qualities are a baseline against 

which change can be monitored, 

managed, and mitigated. 

MISSION GOALS 

Mission goals were developed for the 

three units in the Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments Strategic Plan (NPS 2000). 

They state that: 

• Natural and cultural resources and 

associated values within the three 

Flagstaff Area monuments are 

protected and maintained in good 

condition and managed within their 

broader ecosystem and cultural 

contexts. 

• Flagstaff Area National Monuments 

actively pursue acquisition of natural 

and cultural resource data through 

NPS staff and funding channels and 

through association with the scientific 

community. Current and complete 

scientific findings are available for 

communication to partners, 

integration into the interpretive 

program and use in the management 

decision process. 

• Facilities, services, and recreational 

opportunities offered are in keeping 

with site-specific requirements of 

resource protection and visitor 

enjoyment. Safety measures are an 

integral part of the visitor experience. 

• Through on-site and off-site 

education, the Flagstaff Area 

National Monuments promote visitor 

understanding of park purpose and 

significance, enhance appreciation 

and enjoyment, and promote an 

attitude of personal responsibility. 

• Flagstaff Area National Monuments 

use current management practices, 

systems, and technologies to 

accomplish their missions. 

• The Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments increase their capabilities 

through initiatives and support from 

other agencies, organizations, and 

individuals. 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

The monument has numerous special use 

agreements with other agencies: 

Law Enforcement Agreements between 

USFS and NPS: National, regional, and 

local agreements exist that allow law 

enforcement operations on each other's 

lands. 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

Coconino County Sheriff's Department: 

Outlines areas of responsibility within the 

national monument and provides for the 

deputization of NPS protection park 

rangers through the Coconino County 

Sheriff's department. 

Interpretive Partnership: This partnership, 

which has been in operation for seven 

years, coordinates interpretive activities 

on 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 

4

PURPOSE AND NEED 


artifacts from the three Flagstaff Area 

monuments, while retaining NPS 

ownership of the collection. 

Cooperative Agreement with Western 

National Parks Association (WNPA): 

Allows WNPA to operate a bookstore in 

each of the Flagstaff Area monuments 

and headquarters, with support provided 

to NPS from those sales. 

Memorandum of Understanding 

between USFS and NPS: Outlines the 

responsibilities and uses of the 

administrative area at Sunset Crater 

Volcano National Monument, where 

there are NPS facilities on USFS lands, as 

well as the maintenance and jurisdiction 

on FR545. 

Letter of Authorization for Stella 

Peshlakai Smith: Provides permission for 

Stella Peshlakai Smith to reside and graze 

sheep on Wupatki National Monument 

for her lifetime. She currently resides in 

the southeast portion of the monument 

and actively grazes sheep in that area. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

As with all units of the National Park 

System, management of Wupatki 

National Monument is guided by the 

1916 act creating the National Park 

Service, the General Authorities Act of 

1970, the act of March 27, 1978, relating 

to the management of the National Park 

System, and other applicable federal laws 

and regulations, such as the Endangered 

Species Act and the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Many resource conditions and some 

aspects of visitor experience are 

prescribed by these legal mandates and 

NPS policies. Although the attainment of 

some of these conditions has been 

deferred in the monument because of 

funding or staffing limitations, NPS will 

continue to strive to implement these 

policies at the monument with or 

without a new GMP. The GMP is not 

needed to decide, for instance, whether 

or not it is appropriate to protect 

endangered species, control exotic 

species, improve water quality, protect 

archeological sites, provide access for 

visitors with disabilities, or conserve 

artifacts. 

The conditions prescribed by laws, 

regulations, and policies most pertinent 

to the planning and management of the 

monument are summarized in this 

section. 

Impairment 

Current laws and policies require the 

analysis of potential effects to determine 

whether or not actions would impair 

park resources. 

Desired Condition 

While Congress has given 

the Service the 

management discretion 

to allow certain impacts 

within parks, that 

discretion is limited by 

the statutory 

requirement 

(enforceable by the 

federal courts) that the 

Park Service must leave 

park resources and 

values unimpaired, 

unless a particular law 

directly and specifically 

provides otherwise. 

The impairment that is 

prohibited by the 

Organic Act and the 

General Authorities Act 

is an impact that, in the 

professional judgment of 

the responsible NPS 

manager, would harm 

the integrity of park 

resources or values, 

including the 

opportunities that 

otherwise would be 

present for the 

enjoyment of those 

Source 

Management 

Policies 

5

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Desired Condition 

resources or values. 

Whether an impact 

meets this definition 

depends on the 

particular resources and 

values that would be 

affected; the severity, 

duration, and timing of 

the impact; the direct 

and indirect effects of 

the impact; and the 

cumulative effects of the 

impact in question and 

other impacts. 

Source 

The fundamental purpose of the 

National Park System, established by the 

Organic Act and reaffirmed by the 

General Authorities Act, as amended, 

begins with a mandate to conserve park 

resources and values. NPS managers must 

always seek ways to avoid, or to 

minimize to the greatest degree 

practicable, adverse impacts on park 

resources and values. However, the laws 

do give the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow impacts 

to park resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of a park, as long as the impact 

does not constitute impairment of the 

affected resources and values. Although 

Congress has given the National Park 

Service the management discretion to 

allow certain impacts within parks, that 

discretion is limited by the statutory 

requirement that the National Park 

Service must leave park resources and 

values unimpaired, unless a particular 

law directly and specifically provides 

otherwise. The prohibited impairment is 

an impact that, in the professional 

judgment of the responsible National 

Park Service manager, would harm the 

integrity of park resources or values, 

including the opportunities that 

otherwise would be present for the 

enjoyment of those resources or values. 

An impact to any park resource or value 

may constitute an impairment. An impact 

would be more likely to constitute an 

impairment to the extent it affects a 

resource or value whose conservation is: 

• Necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation of the 

park; 

• Key to the natural or cultural 

integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or 

• Identified as a goal in the park's 

general management plan or other 

relevant NPS planning documents. 

Impairment may result from National 

Park Service activities in managing the 

park, visitor activities, or activities 

undertaken by concessioners, contractors, 

and others operating in the park. A 

determination of impairment is made in 

the Environmental Consequences section 

for each impact topic. 

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 

Archeological sites 

are identified and 

inventoried, and 

their significance is 

determined and 

documented. 

Source 

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 

6

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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 

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. 

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). 

National Historic 

Preservation Act; 

Executive Order 

11593; 

Archeological and 

Historic Preservation 

Act; the Secretary of 

the Interior's 

Standards and 

Guidelines for 

Archeology and 

Historic 

Preservation; 

Programmatic 

Memorandum of 

Agreement among 

the NPS, Advisory 

Council on Historic 

Preservation, and 

the National Council 

of State Historic 

Preservation Officers 

(1995); NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Many of the historic properties in the 

park exhibit various stages of 

deterioration owing to a lack of 

systematic preservation maintenance. A 

study of planning and architecture of the 

NPS Mission 66 program is under way. 

The study will provide the park with 

baseline data necessary for the long-term 

preservation of these resources. 

7

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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 

Anticipated impacts 

to Indian trust 

resources are 

addressed in 

environmental 

documents. 

Source 

Secretarial Order 

3175; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Although there are no Indian trust 

resources in Wupatki, resources 

important to Indian tribes were 

identified during the scoping process by 

the tribes themselves, and that 

information was carefully incorporated 

into the design of alternatives so that 

these resources would be protected 

under any alternative considered. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Certain contemporary American Indian 

and other communities are permitted by 

law, regulation, or policy to pursue 

customary religious, subsistence, and 

other cultural uses of park resources with 

which they are traditionally associated. 

The National Park Service plans and 

executes programs in ways that 

safeguard cultural and natural resources 

while reflecting informed concern for the 

contemporary peoples and cultures 

traditionally associated with those 

resources. 

8

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Desired Condition 

Ethnographic information will be collected through 

collaborative research that recognizes the sensitive 

nature of such information. 

All agencies shall accommodate access to and ceremonial 

use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners 

and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of 

these sacred sites. 

The National Park Service acknowledges that American 

Indian tribes, including Native Alaskans, treat specific 

places containing certain natural and cultural resources 

as sacred places having established religious meaning 

and as locales of private ceremonial activities. Consistent 

with E.O. 13007, the Service will, to the extent 

practicable, accommodate access to and ceremonial use 

of Indian sacred sites by religious practitioners from 

recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, 

and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of 

such sacred sites. 

Other federal agencies, state and local governments, 

potentially affected American Indian and other 

communities, interest groups, State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

will be given opportunities to become informed about 

and comment on anticipated NPS actions at the earliest 

practicable time. 

All agencies shall consult with tribal governments prior 

to taking actions that affect federally recognized tribal 

governments. These consultations are to be open and 

candid so that all interested parties may evaluate for 

themselves the potential impact of relevant proposals. 

Parks will regularly consult with traditionally associated 

American Indians regarding planning, management, and 

operational decisions that affect subsistence activities, 

sacred materials or places, or other ethnographic 

resources with which they are historically associated. 

Certain research data may be withheld from public 

disclosure to protect sensitive or confidential information 

about archeological, historic, or other NPS resources 

when doing so would be consistent with FOIA. In many 

circumstances, this will allow the NPS to withhold 

information about ethnographic resources. American 

Indians and other individuals and groups linked by ties of 

kinship or culture to ethnically identifiable human 

remains will be consulted when remains may be 

disturbed or are encountered on park lands. 

Source 

NPS Management Policies 

Executive Order 13007 on American Indian Sacred 

Sites 

NPS Management Policies, E.O. 13007 on American 

Indian Sacred Sites 

National Historic Preservation Act; Programmatic 

Memorandum of Agreement among the NPS, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Council of State Historic Preservation 

Officers (1995); Executive Order 11593; American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, American Indian 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive 

Order 13007 on American Indian Sacred Sites; 

Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, on 

Government-to-Government Relations with Tribal 

Governments; NPS Management Policies American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act; Presidential 

Memorandum of April 29, 1994, on Government-toGovernment Relations with Tribal Governments; NPS 

Management Policies 

NPS Management Policies 

NPS Management Policies; American Indian Grave 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

9

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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: 

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. 

Desired Condition 

All museum objects 

and manuscripts are 

identified and 

inventoried, and their 

significance is 

determined and 

documented. 

The qualities that 

contribute to the 

significance of 

collections are 

protected in 

accordance with 

established 

standards. 

Source 

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 

10

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Desired Condition Source 

Air quality in the 

monuments meets 

national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) 

for specified pollutants. 

Park activities do not 

contribute to deterioration 

in air quality. 

Clean Air Act; 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Clean Air Act; 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

• Ensure objects are housed in proper 

storage. Ensure that museum 

collections not housed in NPS 

repositories are preserved, protected, 

and documented, according to 

National Park Service standards. 

• Acquire and catalog all park museum 

collections in accordance with 

standards in the NPS Museum 

Handbook. All cataloging information 

will be made accessible in the 

Automated National Catalog System. 

• Develop a collection management 

program according to NPS standards 

to guide protection, conservation, 

and use of museum objects. 

• Implement the collection 

management program. 

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: 

Overall, the regional air quality is good. 

Air flows generally down and away from 

the adjacent San Francisco Peaks and 

does not allow concentrations of most 

pollutants to accumulate within the 

monument. However, rapid growth and 

development in the Flagstaff area could 

begin to affect air quality in the parks. 

Some regional haze issues already exist in 

the Wupatki area, which is in the same 

airshed as Grand Canyon National Park. 

Current passive ozone monitoring at the 

monument indicates some elevation of 

ozone levels (ca 60 ppb) during the 

summer months prior to the onset of the 

monsoon season in July. Although the 

National Park Service has very little direct 

control over air quality within the airshed 

encompassing the monument, the 

Flagstaff Areas cooperate with the 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ) and the Environmental 

Protection Agency to monitor air quality 

and ensure that air quality is not 

impaired. 

The National Park Service will take the 

following kinds of actions to meet legal 

and policy requirements related to air 

quality: 

• Enhance monitoring of localized air 

quality by establishing long-term 

monitoring stations for visibility 

impairment in the Wupatki area and 

continue monitoring ozone at the 

monument. (Air quality monitoring 

will be conducted in conjunction with 

regional air quality agencies.) 

• Participate in regional air pollution 

control plans and regulations and 

review of permit applications for 

major new air pollution sources. 

• Conduct park operations in 

compliance with federal, state, and 

local air quality regulations. 

Water Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

monument for water resources: 

Desired Condition 

The Service will perpetuate surface 

waters and groundwaters as integral 

components of park 

aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 

Source 

Clean Water Act; 

Executive order 

11514; NPS 

Management Policies 

11

PURPOSE AND NEED 

Desired Condition Source 

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 

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 National Park Service and 

Department of Justice are currently 

negotiating a water rights agreement to 

resolve water rights issues at Wupatki 

National Monument. A number of 

entities are involved, including the City 

of Flagstaff, U.S. Forest Service, and 

Navajo and Hopi Tribes. It is expected 

that settlement 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. 

• Remove modern developments from 

perennial springs at Wupatki; restore 

native vegetation and wildlife habitat 

at these and selected reaches of the 

Little Colorado River banks. 

• Promote greater public 

understanding of water resource 

issues in the parks. 

Geologic Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following condition be achieved in the 

park for geologic resources: 

Desired Condition Source 

Natural soil resources and 

geologic 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 

The natural weathering of exposed 

geologic outcrops in the monument 

under the prevailing arid climate has led 

to the formation of thin, sparsely 

vegetated soils. A large area within the 

monument harbors fragile soils that are 

sensitive to trampling and visitor use 

development. Historic livestock grazing 

and heavy visitor use in local areas has 

resulted in soil compaction, vegetation 

loss, accelerated wind and storm erosion, 

and altered sediment deposition patterns 

in adjacent drainages. This is particularly 

evident near historic ranch facilities, 

around existing popular visitor-use areas, 

and along poorly designed and 

maintained trails. 

Unique local subterranean features, 

described as "karst" or "earthcracks" are 

found at Wupatki. These features 

provide local conduits for groundwater 

12

PURPOSE AND NEED 


recharge and may provide unique 

habitats for wildlife species. 

The National Park Service will take the 

following kinds of actions to comply with 

legal and policy requirements related to 

soils: 

• Identify areas of Wupatki 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. 

• Inventory abandoned roads, gravel 

and cinder borrow sites, trails, and 

other disturbed lands; address public 

safety threats and restore natural 

contours, drainage patterns, soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat 

where impacts are severe or 

unacceptable. 

• Survey, map, and study soils that are 

sensitive to disturbance; use this 

information during facility and 

visitor-use planning to protect fragile 

resources. 

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 

determined through 

management zoning 

decisions in the GMP.) 

The Service will strive to 

restore extirpated native 

plant and animal species to 

parks when specific criteria 

are met. 

Management of 

populations of exotic plant 

and animal species, up to 

and including eradication, 

will be undertaken 

wherever such species 

threaten park resources or 

public health and when 

control is prudent and 

feasible. 

Source 

Monuments' 

enabling 

legislation; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

NPS 

Management 

Policies; 

Executive Order 

13112, Invasive 

Species 

Many natural areas support populations 

of species that are sensitive to human 

disturbance and development. If these 

species are in serious decline, they are 

protected by law. Preserving the 

prehistoric landscape of Wupatki may 

also provide a unique refuge for certain 

species that are sensitive to other land 

uses. Because Wupatki has one of the 

larger ungrazed grassland areas within 

northern Arizona, an assemblage of 

plant and animal species exists there that 

is reminiscent of native grasslands prior 

to historic ranching and range fire 

suppression within the region. Local 

subterranean karst and earthcrack 

features provide habitat for rare bat 

species and may harbor other unique 

wildlife. In addition, a few perennial 

springs, the Little Colorado River, and 

numerous intermittent drainage channels 

provide significant water sources and 

riparian habitat for wildlife. 

Several species of nonnative, invasive 

plants have become established 

throughout Wupatki and represent a 

threat to native species. Given time, 

aggressive "exotic" plant populations can 

greatly expand, altering natural 

Desired Condition 

Federal- and state-listed 

threatened and 

endangered species and 

their habitats are 

sustained. 

Populations of native plant 

and animal species 

function in as natural a 

condition as possible 

except where special 

management 

considerations are 

warranted. (Areas with 

special management 

considerations will be 

Source 

Endangered 

Species Act; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Monuments' 

enabling 

legislation; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

13

PURPOSE AND NEED 


vegetation, displacing rarer native plants 

and animals, and changing the original 

scenic character. These effects are already 

apparent in some areas of the monument 

and are expected to substantially worsen 

if left unmanaged. A sustained effort is 

needed to control these threats to native 

vegetation and wildlife habitats. 

Development for visitor access, visitor 

use, and administrative activities within 

Wupatki influences plant and animal 

species distribution. Roads divide the 

natural areas of the monument and act 

as barriers or create crossing hazards for 

wildlife. Although not officially listed as 

threatened or endangered, pronghorn 

antelope are declining in the Wupatki 

area. Seasonal pronghorn antelope 

movements are completely thwarted in 

areas where fenced roadsides form 

continuous barriers. Roads, trails, and 

disturbed areas also function as corridors 

for invasive species to move into the 

monument. 

Certain rare species may be subject to 

collection for cultural reasons, and better 

information on them is needed to ensure 

that populations remain stable. 

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 grasslands and 

riparian habitat in Wupatki. 

• 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 Arizona Game and 

Fish, the U.S. Forest Service, Arizona 

Department of Transportation 

(ADOT), and local landowners to 

sustain the regional pronghorn 

antelope herd. 

Wildland Fire 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved 

regarding wildland fire in the park: 

14

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Desired Condition 

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. 

Source 

NPS 

Management 

Policies, 

National Fire 

Management 

Plan 

potential impacts to cultural resources. 

Until these issues have been addressed, 

only limited management-ignited fires 

may be proposed, mainly to support 

restoration research. 

The Park Service will take the following 

kinds of actions to comply with legal and 

policy requirements related to fire 

management: 

• Suppress all unwanted wildfires as 

quickly as possible. 

• Initiate research to understand 

presettlement fire history and recent 

dynamics of grassland and juniper 

woodland at Wupatki; use the results 

to identify desired vegetation 

condition and management-ignited 

fire objectives; revise the Fire 

Management Plan accordingly. 

• Ensure management-ignited fires 

comply with Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality air quality 

regulations. 

Night Sky/Lightscape Management 

The monument's night skies are features 

that contribute to the visitor experience. 

A fire management plan and 

environmental assessment will be 

prepared for Wupatki National 

Monument. The plan will identify the 

appropriate tactics for suppressing 

wildfires and the objectives for using 

management-ignited fire. Aggressive 

suppression tactics are only proposed 

when human life, property, and adjacent 

ranch lands are threatened. Wupatki 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. 

Approximately one-half of Wupatki's 

35,000 acres is dominated by native 

grassland and juniper savanna. Repeat 

photography and other studies show that 

junipers are growing over the grassland. 

The area likely burned more frequently 

in the past, which promoted native 

herbaceous cover and biodiversity, 

thinned junipers, and prevented 

deadwood accumulation and intensely 

hot fires. However, scientific studies of 

local juniper-grassland change and fire 

history are needed to understand the 

role of fire at Wupatki. Monitoring 

programs are also needed to assess 

Desired Condition 

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 

Source 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

15

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Desired Condition Source 

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. 

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. 

The Park Service will take the following 

kinds of actions to comply with this 

policy: 

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, 

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. 

16

PURPOSE AND NEED 


• 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 noise-sensitive 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 

Visitor and employee 

safety and health are 

protected. 

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. 

Park recreational uses 

are promoted and 

regulated, and basic 

visitor needs are met in 

keeping with park 

purposes. 

All reasonable efforts 

will be made to make 

NPS facilities, 

programs, and services 

accessible to and 

usable by all people, 

including those with 

disabilities. 

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. 

Source 

NPS Management 

Policies 

NPS Organic Act; 

Monuments' 

enabling 

legislation; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

NPS Organic Act; 

Monuments' 

enabling 

legislation; Title 

36 of the Code of 

Federal 

Regulations; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

Americans with 

Disabilities Act; 

Architectural 

Barriers Act; 

Rehabilitation 

Act; NPS 

Management 

Policies 

NPS Management 

Policies; 1998 

Executive 

Summary to 

Congress, 

Recreational Fee 

Demonstration 

Program, 

Progress Report 

to Congress, 

Volume I-­

Overview and 

17

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Desired Condition 

The park has identified 

implementation 

commitments for 

visitor carrying 

capacities for all areas 

of the unit. 

Source 

Summary (U.S. 

Department of 

the Interior, 

National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife 

Service, Bureau of 

Land 

Management; 

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 

Forest Service) 

1978 National 

Parks and 

Recreation Act 

(P.L. 95-625); NPS 

Management 

Policies 

These laws, regulations, and policies 

leave considerable room for judgment 

regarding the best mix of types and 

levels of visitor-use activities, programs, 

and facilities. For this reason, most 

decisions related to visitor experience 

and use are addressed in the Decide 

What Might Be Achieved section and in 

the alternatives. However, the authority 

to charge fees is dictated by law and is 

therefore the same for all alternatives. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

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

collect recreation fees of the appropriate 

type for its parks, facilities, and 

programs. Fees are to be reasonable and 

are determined in accordance with the 

criteria and procedures contained in the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

and regulations in 36 CFR 71. Fees 

collected under this authority are 

returned to the U.S. Treasury. Fees are 

also being collected for special park uses 

under 16 U.S.C. 3(a) and 31 U.S.C. 3701, 

in accordance with OMB Circular A-25. 

Under this authority, NPS recovers the 

costs incurred for providing special park 

uses, but returns to the U.S. Treasury any 

revenues in excess of costs. 

Congress authorized the recreational fee 

demonstration program to begin on 

October 1, 1995, and to end on 

September 30, 2002. The program 

authorizes NPS and other agencies to 

implement and test new fees. The 

program allows the participating 

agencies to retain all of the 

demonstration project revenues and to 

retain at least 80 percent of the revenues 

at the sites where they are collected. 

These revenues yield substantial benefits 

because they provide on-the-ground 

improvements at local recreation sites. 

For NPS, the majority of new recreation 

fee revenues are dedicated to reducing 

identified backlogged maintenance, 

infrastructure, and resource management 

needs. Some of the demonstration fee 

revenues are reinvested into 

infrastructure and new collection 

methodologies to prepare additional 

areas to collect fees and provide for 

overall collection efficiency across NPS. 

Regulations governing visitor use and 

behavior in units of the National Park 

System are contained in Title 36 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations and 

Superintendent's Compendium. These 

regulations have force of law and 

address a number of use limitations, such 

as limits on commercial activities. 

Under the 1978 National Parks and 

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

required to address the issue of carrying 

capacity in its general management 

plans. The concept of carrying capacity is 

intended to safeguard the quality of park 

resources and visitor experiences. 

Identifying desired resource conditions 

and visitor experience by zone is part of 

general management planning. At this 

level of decision making, the desired 

resource conditions and experiences 

describe carrying capacity in qualitative 

terms. These qualitative terms are then 

translated into quantitative standards 

18

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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 

Wupatki NM is managed as part of a 

greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system. Current policy requires 

the following: 

Desired Condition Source 

community surroundings. 

The Service will actively 

seek out and consult with 

existing and potential 

visitors, neighbors, people 

with traditional cultural 

ties to park lands, scientists 

and scholars, 

concessioners, cooperating 

associations, gateway 

communities, other 

partners, and government 

agencies. The Service will 

work cooperatively with 

others to improve the 

condition of parks; to 

enhance public service; and 

to integrate parks into 

sustainable ecological, 

cultural, and 

socioeconomic systems. 

In the spirit of partnership, 

the Service will also seek 

opportunities for 

cooperative management 

agreements with state or 

local agencies that will 

allow for more effective 

and efficient management 

of the parks, as authorized 

by section 802 of the 

National Parks Omnibus 

Management Act of 1998 

(16 USC 1a-2l). 

The National Park Service will take the 

following kinds of actions to meet legal 

and policy requirements related to park 

neighbors: 

• Continue to establish and foster 

partnerships with public and private 

organizations to achieve the purposes 

and mission of the monument. 

Partnerships will be sought for 

resource protection, research, 

education, and visitor enjoyment 

purposes. 

• Park staff will keep landowners, land 

managers, local governments, and the 

general public informed about park 

Desired Condition Source 

Public participation in 

planning and decision 

making will ensure that 

the Park Service fully 

understands and considers 

the public's interests in the 

parks, which are part of 

their national heritage, 

cultural traditions, and 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

19

PURPOSE AND NEED 


management activities. Periodic 

consultations will occur with 

landowners and communities 

affected by park visitors and 

management actions. The Park 

Service will work closely with local, 

state, and federal agencies and tribal 

governments whose programs affect, 

or are affected by, activities in the 

monument. Monument staff will 

continue their regular consultations 

with the Arizona State Historic 

Preservation Office, the Arizona State 

Game and Fish Department, and 

Indian tribes. In particular, NPS will 

maintain a close working relationship 

with the U.S. Forest Service to meet 

mutual management needs with staff 

from the Peaks and Mormon Lake 

Ranger Districts on the Coconino 

National Forest. Park staff will 

continue to meet as needed with staff 

from Northern Arizona University 

(NAU) Departments of Anthropology, 

Geography, Geology, and School of 

Forestry; the Museum of Northern 

Arizona; the U.S. Geological Survey 

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

Division, Colorado Plateau Field 

Station at NAU; Coconino Plateau 

Natural Reserve Lands; City of 

Flagstaff; Arizona State Lands 

Department; Coconino County; 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Services; and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Organizations that 

the monument staff periodically keep 

informed-depending on the issueinclude Grand Canyon Trust, National 

Parks and Conservation Association, 

Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, 

Friends of Walnut Canyon, and 

neighboring national parks. 

• Monument staff will continue to 

participate in cooperative regional 

planning to ensure that the 

monuments are treated as issues of 

regional concern. 

Sustainable Design/Development 

Sustainability can be described as the 

result achieved by doing things in ways 

that do not compromise the environment 

or its capacity to provide for present and 

future generations. Sustainable practices 

minimize the short- and long-term 

environmental impacts of development 

and other activities through resource 

conservation, recycling, waste 

minimization, and the use of energy 

efficient and ecologically responsible 

materials and techniques. 

Desired Condition 

Facilities are integrated 

into the park landscape 

and environs with 

sustainable designs and 

systems to minimize 

environmental impact. 

Development does not 

compete with or dominate 

park features, or interfere 

with natural processes, 

such as the seasonal migration of wildlife or hydrologic activity associated 

with wetlands. 

Any facility development, 

whether it be a new building, a renovation, or an 

adaptive reuse of an existing facility, includes improvements in energy 

efficiency and reduction in 

"greenhouse gas" 

emissions for both the 

building envelope and the 

mechanical systems that 

support the facility. 

Maximum energy efficiency 

is achieved using solar 

thermal and photovoltaic 

applications, appropriate 

insulation and glazing 

strategies, energy-efficient 

lighting and appliances, 

and renewable energy 

technologies. Energyefficient construction 

projects are used as an 

Source 

NPS 

Management 

Policies 

20

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

parks regarding land protection: 

The National Park Service will take the 

following kinds of actions to meet legal 

and policy requirements related to land 

protection: 

• A Land protection plan will be 

prepared to determine what land 

Desired Condition 

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. 

Source 

NPS Management 

Policies; NPS Land 

Acquisition Policy 

Implementation 

Guideline (NPS-25); 

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 

Interference with 

Constitutionally 

Protected Property 

Rights" 

21

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Desired Condition Source 

Park resources or 

public enjoyment of 

the parks are not 

denigrated by 

nonconforming 

uses. 

Telecommunication 

structures are 

permitted in the 

parks to the extent 

that they do not 

jeopardize the 

park’s mission and 

resources. 

No new rights-ofway will be 

permitted through 

the parks without 

specific statutory 

authority and 

approval by NPS 

management and 

only if there is no 

practicable 

alternative to such 

use of NPS lands. 

Telecommunications 

Act; 16 USC 5; 16 

USC 79; 23 USC 317; 

36 CFR 14; NPS 

Management 

Policies; Director’s 

Order 53A, Wireless 

Telecommunications 

within the existing legislative 

boundaries of the monument will 

need to be brought into federal 

ownership to carry out park purposes. 

• There are currently mineral rights on 

approximately 7,500 acres of land 

within the monument that are owned 

by the State of Arizona. The State of 

Arizona will be compensated for 

these minerals either through 

exchange of equal value minerals 

outside the monument or some other 

equitable means. 

Rights-of-Way and 

Telecommunication Infrastructure 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 

directs all federal agencies to assist in the 

national goal of achieving a seamless 

telecommunications system throughout 

the United States by accommodating 

requests by telecommunication 

companies for the use of property, rightsof-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 

22

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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 

mail-back form was included. This 

newsletter was followed by another 

public open house, held in Flagstaff, 

December 3, 1998, and attended by 

about 60 people. 

The third newsletter and the open house 

that followed elicited a large response 

compared with the previous newsletters. 

One hundred and twenty-eight individual 

responses were received, along with a 

petition that had 1,200 signatures and 

541 copies of a form letter. The issue 

generating the petition and form letter 

was the proposal to expand the 

boundaries at Sunset Crater and Wupatki 

and eliminate the use of off-highway 

vehicles. Other actions proposed in the 

alternatives (increased access, road 

closures, and road expansion) received 

small numbers of responses, relatively 

equal for and against. 

The fourth newsletter, issued in May 

1999, described the decision to prepare a 

plan concurrently with the Forest Service. 

All newsletters were posted on the 

Internet on the National Park Service 

planning web page. All comments that 

were received through June 1999 were 

considered in this EIS. 

A number of meetings were held with 

staff from the Forest Service and Arizona 

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 

23

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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 Wupatki reported that they 

came to the monument to see 

archeological ruins and to look at the 

scenery. Things that most bothered 

visitors include the heat, smelly rest 

rooms, disturbance of the sites, people 

disobeying rules, and the fact that visitor 

center displays need modification. A few 

visitors commented on a lack of signs 

near the pueblos, unsupervised children, 

and an overall lack of ranger presence. 

When asked about what they would like 

to see changed, most visitors responded, 

"nothing." Among the changes that 

some visitors did want were more ranger 

talks and guided walks and better and 

more information, including updated 

exhibits, a video or movie on how the 

early native people lived, a reconstructed 

dwelling, more detailed maps, living 

history, and self-guided tours to the 

backcountry. (Lee and Treadwell 1999) 

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 

24

PURPOSE AND NEED 


this GMP. The considerations following 

each statement were actual scoping 

comments received. 

1. We need to decide to what extent 

we can provide visitor access to 

cultural and natural resources 

without unacceptable impacts to 

those resources. 

Considerations: 

• Monitoring and protection of 

resources is difficult. 

• Popular resources are trampled by 

visitors. 

• Additional research is needed to 

understand the relationships between 

numbers of visitors and resource 

impacts. 

• There is a need to understand tribal 

requirements for access to and use of 

resources without disruption by 

visitor use. 

• Trail use often exceeds design 

capacity, causing safety and resource 

protection concerns (trails are subject 

to erosion and rockfalls). 

2. Important park goals are to ensure 

adequate visitor orientation and 

education and to minimize use 

impacts. We need to decide whether 

to accomplish this by increasing 

facilities and services or by limiting 

entrance points and visitor 

circulation. 

Considerations: 

• Existing buildings do not meet 

current visitor or employee needs; 

visitation often exceeds visitor center 

and parking lot capacities. 

• Visitors do not receive necessary 

information before they encounter 

sensitive resources. 

• Resources are being lost because of 

vandalism and theft. 

• Visitor centers and exhibits do not 

reflect current scientific thinking or 

relationships between sites and 

people. 

• Some facilities are located in prime 

resource areas and may be causing 

undue impacts on those resources; 

other facilities are not sustainable or 

designed for the landscape. 

• Existing staffing and budget levels 

limit visitor services. 

3. We need to decide the extent to 

which park operations, visitor 

experiences, and resource protection 

can be integrated across the three 

Flagstaff Area parks or whether they 

need to be treated separately. 

Considerations: 

• There is redundancy and inefficiency 

in park facilities and infrastructure; 

much of the infrastructure is 

antiquated and inadequate. 

• 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. 

25

PURPOSE AND NEED 


• 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 Wupatki: 

• 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 

Preserving unfragmented natural 


systems 


Preserving microhabitats 


Maintaining the pristine 


character/condition of grasslands 


Movement of herd species, wildlife, 


and migratory birds 


Integrity of natural systems for 


ecological research 


Excluding exotic species 


• Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive Species 

Protecting federally listed 


threatened and endangered 


species, "species of concern," and 


critical habitats 


Conserving other sensitive plants, 


animals, and unique habitats 


identified during the scoping 


process 


• Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian 

Resources 

Preserving and restoring perennial 


springs and the Little Colorado 


River 


Facility development and 


recreational impacts to intermittent 


drainages (dry washes and/or 


arroyos) 


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 


26

PURPOSE AND NEED 


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 lowincome 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 low-income 

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 low-income 

population or community. Although 

there are several Indian tribes nearby, a 

series of consultation meetings has 

resulted in alternatives carefully crafted 

to incorporate and resolve the tribal 

concerns identified. Therefore 

environmental justice was dismissed as an 

impact topic. 

Prime and Unique Agricultural 

Lands 

In August 1980, the Council on 

Environmental Quality directed that 

federal agencies must assess the effects 

of their actions on farmland soils 

classified by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture's Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime or 

unique. Prime or unique farmland is 

defined as a soil that particularly 

produces general crops such as common 

foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique 

farmland produces specialty crops such as 

fruits, vegetables, and nuts. According to 

NRCS, none of the soils in the project 

area are classified as prime or unique 

farmlands. Therefore, the topic of prime 

and unique farmlands was dismissed as 

an impact topic in this document. 

Air Quality 

The President's Council on Environmental 

Quality guidelines for preparing 

environmental impact statements require 

the lead agency to analyze the impacts of 

the proposed action and alternatives on 

air quality. Under each of the proposed 

27

PURPOSE AND NEED 


management alternatives for Wupatki 

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. 

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 

Wupatki National Monument, visitor use 

and administrative operations would 

require similar amounts of drinking 

water and generate similar levels of 

water pollutants from road run-off, 

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 700 feet deep 

and hydraulically isolated from the 

surface by horizontal rock formations of 

interbedded shale and sandstone. The 

NPS would follow established policy 

requiring the use of water-conserving 

technology and environmentally friendly 

products. Although public visitation and 

motor vehicle use are expected to 

increase during the next 20 years, the 

level of incidental hydrocarbon run-off 

from roads is not expected to 

dramatically increase or contaminate 

local waterways. For these reasons, the 

proposed action and all alternatives are 

deemed to have a negligible impact on 

the environment and water quality and 

this topic is excluded from further 

environmental analysis. 

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 

28

PURPOSE AND NEED 


proposed management alternatives for 

Wupatki 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. Under all of the 

proposed alternatives, the NPS would 

restore certain abandoned roads and 

materials borrow quarries. The potential 

impacts of these actions are assessed 

separately in the Actions Common to All 

Alternatives section. There are likely 

limited paleontological resources, but 

their extent and significance has not 

been determined. There are currently no 

documented incidents of illegal removal 

of paleontological specimens, and they 

are believed to either receive adequate 

protection by the NPS or to have little 

market value. There are also subsurface 

karst features within the western half of 

the monument, including sinkholes and 

earthcracks. These features may provide 

unique wildlife habitat, and potential 

impacts are analyzed under the section 

on threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species. The Doney Mountain 

Anticline is well exposed in cross section 

within the monument. The anticline and 

other geologic features serve as useful 

examples for education purposes, 

particularly with university-level geology 

programs. Typical field-mapping exercises 

are permitted as a special use within the 

closed backcountry area. This activity is 

considered part of overall backcountry 

visitor use, and potential impacts are 

analyzed elsewhere in this document. 

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 the geologic 

resources of the regional environment 

and are excluded from further 

environmental analysis. 

OUTSTANDING PARK VALUES 

AND RESOURCE CONCERNS 

Wupatki National Monument and the 

area surrounding the monument contain 

thousands of archeological sites, dating 

mostly to the period after the eruption 

of the Sunset Crater Volcano (1064 until 

about 1275). The monument contains an 

exceptionally well-preserved 

archeological landscape, including large 

residential sites, isolated field structures, 

ceremonial ballcourts, lithic quarries, 

agricultural fields, shrines, rock art, and 

other features created primarily during 

the 12th and 13th centuries. The density 

of sites in this area is astounding 

(typically there are more than 40 sites per 

square mile, and in some cases, there are 

more than 100 sites per square mile). Few 

places in the world have such a wellpreserved and densely populated 

landscape with as much potential to 

provide an understanding of prehistoric 

lifeways. In the American Southwest, 

Mesa Verde National Park is one of the 

few places that rivals the density and 

preservation of Wupatki's archeological 

resources. 

The dense concentration of prehistoric 

remains, their exceptional state of 

preservation, and the relatively large 

number of sizable remains with intact 

standing architecture were key factors 

influencing the creation of Wupatki 

National Monument. These original 

values persist to the present day. The 

archeological sites in the monument 

retain a high degree of integrity and 

relatively few of the sites have been 

excavated. Most retain their original 

masonry architecture and a more or less 

complete assemblage of artifacts. 

Approximately 50 of the more than 2,100 

architectural sites in the monument have 

been stabilized to some degree, but only 

a dozen sites were substantially altered 

by extensive stabilization work. 

29

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Traditionally, Wupatki has been 

represented as a cultural frontier-a place 

where multiple prehistoric cultural 

groups lived and interacted. The three 

main cultural groups identified by 

archeologists at Wupatki are the 

Ancestral Puebloans (Anasazi), Cohonina, 

and Sinagua. The Hopi and Zuni consider 

all three prehistoric groups to be their 

ancestors. Although the interpretation of 

Wupatki as a cultural frontier still holds 

true in a general sense, an intensive 

archeological inventory of the monument 

in the 1980s, plus more recent work in 

the general vicinity, confirms that 

Wupatki is primarily a place inhabited by 

people of the Ancestral Puebloan cultural 

tradition. The area south of the 

monument and north of the Coconino 

Divide contains abundant sites affiliated 

with the Cohonina tradition, and south 

of the divide, in the vicinity of Sunset 

Crater, sites are predominantly affiliated 

with the Sinagua tradition. Although 

partly contemporaneous with the main 

occupation of Wupatki, the Cohonina 

and Sinagua sites south of the monument 

boundary have a strikingly different 

appearance and feel, dominated by 

pithouse villages with basalt masonry 

architecture and plainware pottery. 

Although outside the established 

boundaries of Wupatki National 

Monument, the vast majority of the more 

than 5,000 sites in the area between the 

south boundary of Wupatki and the 

north boundary of Sunset Crater National 

Monuments are direct extensions of the 

larger Wupatki settlement system. 

The archeological sites that Wupatki 

National Monumet was created to 

protect are considered to be the 

ancestral homes of modern-day Hopi, 

Zuni, and other Puebloan people. Certain 

Navajo clans also claim affiliation to the 

prehistoric pueblo remains, as well as to 

the historic Navajo residential sites in the 

monument. These sites preserve a 

tangible record of the clan migrations 

recorded by tribal oral traditions. Hopi 

shrines situated within and outside the 

current Wupatki boundaries are part of a 

sacred landscape linking the Hopi Mesas 

with the San Francisco Peaks. There are 

several shrines along a prehistoric trail 

that crosses the Little Colorado River near 

Black Falls then passes through the 

Wupatki area and the Cinder Hills to the 

south, en route to Sunset Crater. In 

addition to the archeological sites and 

shrines, other Wupatki resources are of 

traditional importance to the American 

Indian tribes in the area. Numerous plant 

species were traditionally used by 

Navajos and Hopis, and many of these 

plants continue to have importance for 

medicinal and ceremonial purposes. 

Today, owing to the fact that grazing is 

no longer permitted in the monument, 

several culturally important plant species 

are found in much greater abundance 

within the monument than outside it. 

The Wupatki grassland remains in 

relatively pristine condition compared 

with most grasslands on the Colorado 

Plateau, the majority of which have 

experienced invasion by a number of 

nonnative species, including brome 

grasses. For the most part, the Wupatki 

grassland is still dominated by native 

perennial bunchgrasses, and it continues 

to be the focus of a number of research 

projects because of its important 

scientific value as relatively pristine 

native grassland. 

Today, the open Wupatki grasslands 

provide important habitat for antelope. 

Habitat for antelope has diminished 

throughout Arizona in recent years 

because of expansion of housing 

developments, highway construction, and 

cross-fencing of formerly open range 

land. As habitat has been lost elsewhere, 

the relative importance of the Wupatki 

grassland as antelope habitat has 

increased. 

30

PURPOSE AND NEED 


Springs and seeps are extremely rare in 

the region. Historically, these water 

sources were extremely important to 

wildlife as well as to the human 

inhabitants of Wupatki. Today, most of 

the major seeps or springs at Wupatki are 

developed for park use and are therefore 

unavailable for use by wildlife. 

Restoration of these water sources is an 

important long-term objective, both for 

enhancing wildlife habitat and for 

resurrecting key natural features that 

helped shape the prehistoric cultural 

landscape. 

The largely undeveloped terrain, 

unpolluted air, and extensive scenic vistas 

of Wupatki NM preserve a setting similar 

to that experienced by the prehistoric 

occupants of Wupatki. As the population 

of the Western United States continues 

to grow, opportunities to see for more 

than 60 miles, to view a natural 

landscape unmarred by modern 

intrusions, to enjoy a night sky 

unpolluted by urban light sources, and to 

encounter natural quiet are becoming 

increasingly rare. As these opportunities 

have decreased elsewhere, the value of 

Wupatki's natural vistas and soundscapes 

has increased in importance. This natural 

landscape and its associated visual and 

auditory values provide a rare baseline 

against which to measure and monitor 

regional environmental trends. 

31


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 having no public 

support. For example, sensitive eagle 

areas were mapped, and those areas 

were considered off limits for visitor use 

in order to protect the eagles. An 

alternative considered early in the 

process would have closed the loop road 

connecting Wupatki and Sunset Crater 

Volcano; this alternative was rejected 

because of the lack of public support. 

Management Zones 

Within the broad parameters of the park 

mission and mission goals, various 

approaches to park resource protection, 

use, and development are possible. 

33

ALTERNATIVES 


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 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 

34

ALTERNATIVES 


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

interpretive media, signs), but some 

opportunities for discovery would also be 

available. Visitors would need to exert 

some physical effort and make at least a 

moderate time commitment. At certain 

times of the day or season there could be 

opportunities for solitude, but in general 

there would be a moderate probability 

of encountering other visitors. The 

probability of encountering park staff 

and other evidence of NPS management 

would be high. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities 

Trails (which could be surfaced and up to 

5 feet wide), overlooks, and wayside 

exhibits and other interpretive media 

would be appropriate in these areas. 

Support facilities, such as rest rooms and 

small picnic areas, could also be present. 

Predominant activities would include 

hiking, viewing resources, and attending 

interpretive walks and talks. 

Telecommunication infrastructure would 

not be permitted in this zone. 

GUIDED ADVENTURE ZONE 

Resource Condition or Character 

Resources in these areas would appear 

pristine. Low levels of management for 

resource protection and visitor safety 

would be appropriate in these areas, but 

any resource modifications would be 

minimal and would harmonize with the 

natural environment. Tolerance for 

resource degradation in these areas 

would be low. 

Visitor Experience 

Visitors would explore park resources as 

part of a guided group. Areas where this 

experience would be offered would 

usually be untrailed and free from 

developments. Intimacy with resources, 

learning, social interaction among the 

group, and the security of a guided 

experience would be key elements of this 

experience. The probability of 

encountering other groups would be 

low, and there would be some 

opportunities for individual solitude. The 

environment would offer a moderate 

level of challenge, but the need for 

individual outdoor skills would be low. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities 

No permanent facilities would be 

appropriate in these areas except for 

primitive trails if deemed necessary for 

resource protection. Hiking and camping 

with a guide would be the predominant 

activity in these areas. 

Telecommunication infrastructure would 

not be permitted in this zone. 

HIKING ZONE 


Resource Condition or Character 


Resources would appear pristine. On-site 

controls and restrictions would be used if 

needed for resource protection. The 

tolerance for resource modifications and 

degradation would be low. 

Visitor Experience 

Visitors would explore the park using 

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

4 feet), and few other facilities would be 

present. Visitors would need to make a 

moderate time commitment. There 

would be a low probability of 

encountering NPS staff and a moderate 

probability of encountering other visitors 

or evidence of visitor impacts. Off-site 

management of visitors could include 

eligibility requirements before entering 

such an area, and limits on numbers of 

visitors and length of stay could be in 

place. 

35

ALTERNATIVES 


Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities 

Few facilities except for trails, trailheads, 

occasional pit toilets, and minimal 

interpretation would be appropriate in 

these areas. Hiking would be the 

predominant activity. Telecommunication 

infrastructure would not be permitted in 

this zone. 

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 well-maintained, paved road, 

and would be perceived as 

linear/sequential in nature. Observing the 

natural environment would be 

important, and there would be a sense of 

adventure, but there would be little need 

for visitors to exert themselves, apply 

outdoor skills, or spend a long time in 

the area. The probability of encountering 

other visitors would be high, and there 

would be a moderate probability of 

encountering NPS staff. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities 

The motorized sightseeing experience 

would occur in a substantially developed 

area. The paved roads, pullouts, 

overlooks, and associated short trails and 

picnic areas, parking areas, and other 

facilities that support visitor touring 

would be included in these areas. Most 

facilities and some trails would be 

accessible in this area. 

Telecommunication infrastructure would 

not be permitted in this zone. 

MOTORIZED SIGHTSEEING-SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE 

Resource Condition or Character 

Only moderate levels of management 

would be provided in this area to ensure 

resource protection and public safety. 

The tolerance for resource modifications 

and degradation would be low. 

Visitor Experience 

In this zone, unpaved, four-wheel-drive 

roads would be used for touring some 

areas of the park. The visitor experience 

would be dependent on a vehicle or 

bicycle and would involve driving or 

riding along unpaved roads with highclearance vehicles or mountain bikes. 

Visitors would travel at their own risk, 

with only minimal interpretation 

provided. Observing the natural 

environment would be important, and 

there would be a sense of adventure, 

requiring a moderate time commitment. 

The probability of encountering other 

visitors would be low, and there would 

be a very low probability of encountering 

NPS staff. 

Appropriate Kinds of Activities or 

Facilities 

No development other than the roadway 

and primitive camping areas would be 

provided. Use could be seasonal to 

prevent surface damage during wet 

weather and to avoid the need to plow 

snow. Telecommunication infrastructure 

would not be permitted in this zone. 

36

ALTERNATIVES 


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 

natural-appearing 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 offsite interpretive media would be 

available, but there would not be any onsite 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. 

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 

37

ALTERNATIVES 


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 Criteria 

WUPATKI 

The National Park Service has long 

recognized that resources critical to the 

Wupatki story remain outside monument 

boundaries; official boundary studies in 

1935 and 1944 proposed expansion to 

include approximately 30,000 to 60,000 

acres immediately south of the 

monument. Current scientific evaluations, 

including those recently conducted on a 

portion of the Coconino Plateau Natural 

Reserve Lands (CPNRL) immediately north 

of the park, reaffirm the uniqueness of 

these resources and their intimate 

relationship to those within Wupatki 

National Monument. 

Expansion of current monument 

boundaries, to include critical resources 

and for administrative purposes, was 

considered as part of the planning 

process, as specified in Section 604 of the 

National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5 et seq.). Authority 

for modifying boundaries is contained in 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

Act amendments of June 10, 1977 (Public 

Law 95-42). Consideration for 

modifications to the boundaries was 

based on one or more of the following 

criteria: (1) expansion would include 

significant resources or opportunities for 

public enjoyment, (2) expansion would 

address operational and management 

issues, or (3) expansion would protect 

monument resources critical to fulfilling 

the purpose of the park. Boundary 

expansions are considered practical or 

necessary if: (1) the added lands could 

feasibly be administered, taking into 

consideration the size of the proposed 

expansion, configuration, ownership, 

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

alternatives for management and 

resource protection are not considered 

adequate. The following provides a brief 

description of the boundary expansion 

options that were considered and 

ultimately presented in various 

alternatives that were developed. 

38

ALTERNATIVES 


Current Conditions 

Since Wupatki National Monument was 

established in 1924, boundary expansions 

and modifications have occurred on nine 

different occasions. The expressed intent 

was to include significant resources that 

contribute to the purpose and 

significance of the park. In all instances, 

and as currently represented, boundaries 

for the monument were drawn along 

section lines and private property 

boundaries. Development of the 

boundaries lines did not attempt to 

correspond to the topography or natural 

geologic features. Subsequent to the 

development of the existing boundaries, 

many of the monument's primary access 

roads were constructed in the most 

convenient and accessible locations. The 

monument's primary access road (FR545) 

and a significant number of the 

secondary administrative roads cross in 

and out of NPS land, other federal land, 

and private land. 

Despite prior boundary expansion and 

modification, current boundaries of the 

monument do not fully encompass the 

Wupatki prehistoric settlement system 

and cultural and natural landscape. 

Approximately 38,000 acres of land south 

of the monument and approximately 

23,000 acres of land north of the 

monument contain significant 

environmental and cultural features 

intimately related to the story of 

Wupatki. 

In the years since the monument was 

established, archaeologists have learned 

that the set of archeological remains 

situated between Sunset Crater and 

Wupatki and to the north of the current 

monument boundaries are a direct 

extension of the cultural landscape 

partially preserved within the current 

monument boundaries. The archeology 

and landscape resources in these areas 

are comparable in terms of their quality, 

density, and diversity to the sites 

currently protected within the 

boundaries of Wupatki National 

Monument, but many of the resources 

outside the monument boundaries 

complement, rather than duplicate, the 

ones currently within the monument. 

The area located south of the current 

monument boundaries between US89 

and FR545 has been included in at least 

three previous proposals for boundary 

expansion. In 1935, an official NPS 

boundary expansion of approximately 

60,000 acres was proposed. 

Approximately half of this area was 

incorporated within the 1937 monument 

expansion. In 1945, a study of the 

Wupatki National Monument boundaries 

reaffirmed the desirability of eventually 

expanding the monument to include 

approximately 30,000 acres south of the 

monument, the same area that was 

proposed for monument status in 1935, 

but not included in the 1937 boundary 

expansion. In the 1945 study it was 

recommended that these lands be added 

to the monument at some point in the 

future because the area "contained a 

great number of archeological sites" and 

"some of the best scenery in the Wupatki 

vicinity" (Thompson 1945:17). For a 

variety of reasons, including rapid 

turnover of NPS managers in the late 

1940s and early 1950s and lack of support 

by the U.S. Forest Service, the boundary 

expansion proposal did not move 

forward. In 1988, the National Parks and 

Conservation Association recommended a 

major expansion of monument 

boundaries to include all the U.S. Forest 

Service lands south of Wupatki and east 

of US89 to the boundary with Sunset 

Crater National Monument, an area of 

approximately 70,000 acres. 

Only recently has consideration been 

given to expanding the boundaries of the 

monument to the north. This is based in 

part on recent archeological studies and 

interest expressed by the owners of the 

39

ALTERNATIVES 


Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands 

in selling, donating, or exchanging a 

portion of CPNRL lands to the NPS, or 

establishing conservation easements or 

cooperative management agreements to 

effectively manage approximately 23,000 

acres along the existing north boundary 

of the park. Recent archeological studies 

in this area show that the density of 

archeological sites that exists within the 

monument continues for 1 to 2 miles 

north of the current northern monument 

boundary fence into Coconino Plateau 

Natural Reserve Lands. Archeologists who 

have studied this area (Brown and 

Downum 1997; Downum, personal 

comm. 1999) are convinced that these 

resources represent a direct extension of 

the cultural landscape partially preserved 

within the current monument 

boundaries. 

Administrative Boundary 

Expansion to the South 

(Alternatives 1, 2, and 4) 

Approximately 4,480 acres of land 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service 

located along the south boundary of the 

monument would be transferred to the 

NPS. This limited expansion and 

adjustment of monument boundaries 

would be primarily for management 

purposes and would be solely an 

administrative change of landownership 

between the National Park Service and 

the U.S. Forest Service. The primary 

intent of this expansion would be to 

incorporate the monument's primary 

access road (FR545) and the Doney 

Mountain picnic/viewpoint area within 

NPS boundaries. The picnic/viewpoint 

area is currently maintained by the NPS 

as one of the monument's primary 

developed interpretive areas under a 

Memorandum of Understanding with the 

U.S. Forest Service. The adjustment would 

also help regulate unauthorized access to 

closed areas of the monument. Although 

placement of the boundaries would be 

along existing section lines, it would 

result in the inclusion within monument 

boundaries of entire minor topographic 

features, specifically Doney Mountain, 

Arrowhead Tank, and a portion of 

Deadman Wash, that directly contribute 

to the significance of the park. It would 

eliminate some of the impacts associated 

with the management and maintenance 

of the existing boundary lines and 

multiple fence lines. The fence along 

FR545 would be moved out of view of 

the visiting public and fencing currently 

used to control domestic animal grazing 

would be removed, enhancing antelope 

mobility in this section of the monument. 

Boundaries would be more logically 

placed in areas that enhance the 

preservation of significant cultural 

resources, geologic features, and wildlife 

and would allow for the placement of 

the required boundary delineations and 

fencing in less invasive and more 

manageable and maintainable locations. 

The U.S. Forest Service is not supportive 

of any expansion or modification of 

monument boundaries onto Forrest 

Service lands at Wupatki. Because of this, 

no boundary expansions were presented 

in Alternative 3, the preferred 

alternative. 

Boundary Expansion to the North, 

involving State and Private Lands 

(All Alternatives) 

This expansion would involve state trust 

lands, private lands, and lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management that currently exist within 

the boundaries of the Coconino Plateau 

Natural Reserve Lands. It would expand 

monument boundaries by 23,000 acres. 

The primary purpose would be to include 

additional archeological resources 

directly related to monument purpose 

and to unify the management and 

protection of cultural and natural 

resources identified as critical 

40

ALTERNATIVES 


components of the Wupatki cultural 

landscape. In addition to protecting 

resources that contribute to the purpose 

of the monument, such inclusion would 

prevent future development or the 

exploitation of mineral resources. This 

area does contain heavy gravel deposits 

that could be subject to mining in the 

future. CPNRL has recently been 

approached about the potential for 

extracting gravel in one section 

immediately adjacent to the park. This 

request was not granted. This and any 

other potential development poses a 

severe threat to highly significant natural 

and cultural resources and to outstanding 

scenic values that exist on CPNRL lands as 

well as adjacent monument property. 

For the existing private lands, the NPS 

would acquire a fee interest in these 

lands to protect resources. Lands owned 

by other federal agencies would be 

identified for transfer of administrative 

jurisdiction to the NPS. State Trust Lands 

would likely be acquired in fee. The State 

is currently trying to obtain the 

legislation needed to authorize land 

exchanges with federal agencies. In the 

interim, the NPS will explore 

opportunities to work in concert with 

nonprofit conservation organizations to 

lease State Trust Lands to preclude 

incompatible uses. The goal would be to 

facilitate conservation of the sensitive 

and scenic resources in these areas and 

on adjacent NPS land. The long-range 

goal would be to acquire fee interest in 

these lands. Eventual NPS ownership 

would be essential for management of 

visitation and for preservation of 

sensitive 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, Fire 

Management Plan, and Resources 

Management Plan, and in local action 

plans to resolve safety, accessibility, 

facility maintenance, and similar issues. 

A. PARTNERSHIPS AND BOUNDARY 

EXPANSION 

All alternatives presented recognize the 

opportunity for partnerships, for the 

protection of cultural and natural 

resources, with the USFS, the State of 

Arizona, and private landowners. USFS 

lands south of Wupatki will continue 

under USFS management, in accordance 

with decisions reached in the USFS 

Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis 

(FLEA) planning process, but the two 

agencies will actively coordinate a variety 

of activities. There will be continued 

monitoring of the effects of recreation, 

grazing, and other human uses on these 

lands; documentation of unacceptable 

impacts will provide a basis for 

management changes to control those 

effects. 

The proposed expansion to the north will 

involve state and private lands now 

within the Coconino Plateau Natural 

Reserve Lands (CPNRL). Management 

consistent with NPS policies will be 

sought via boundary expansion, 

conservation easements, cooperative 

management agreements, and/or other 

means to satisfy the management goals 

of both NPS and CPNRL. Ranch owners 

are willing participants in this process. 

B. INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS 

Planning and design of new wayside 

exhibits and museum exhibits is in 

progress, in accordance with the Flagstaff 

Areas Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, 

to improve visitor understanding and 

41

ALTERNATIVES 


appreciation of Wupatki resources. New 

wayside exhibits will replace and expand 

the existing system of interpretive signs 

along FR545 and at major existing visitor 

use areas, that is, at Wukoki, Wupatki 

Pueblo, Lomaki, Citadel, and Doney 

Mountain picnic area. New museum 

exhibits will replace the outdated and 

inaccurate exhibits at the existing visitor 

center. Like the wayside exhibits, they 

will convey current knowledge of the 

park's natural and cultural resources and 

explain their significance. 

C. 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. 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. 

D. 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. 

E. MAINTENANCE FACILITY 

A new storage building will be 

constructed at New Heiser specifically to 

address the hantavirus problem and to 

centralize maintenance equipment 

storage at Wupatki. Upon completion of 

this new facility, hantavirus-prone 

storage buildings/trailers will be 

removed. 

F. HABITAT RESTORATION 

NPS plans to restore historic conditions at 

Heiser Spring, through removal of 

containment and diversion structures, 

restoration of original contours, and 

planting of riparian vegetation. Other 

selected impacted sites, such as 

abandoned roads and construction 

material quarries, will be restored to 

natural surface contours, and native 

vegetation will be reestablished. 

G. BACKCOUNTRY CLOSURE 

The backcountry of Wupatki National 

Monument (defined as all areas beyond 

designated roads, trails, or developed 

facilities within the monument) is closed 

to unguided entry. 

From approximately 1988 to 1996, 

unguided access to portions of the park 

backcountry was allowed through a 

permit system. In response to specific acts 

of vandalism to archeological resources, 

lack of baseline data, and measured 

impacts to the sites from permitted 

public access, the backcountry was closed 

temporarily at that time. The closure was 

extended and formalized during 1998 

General Management Plan (GMP) 

discussions. The closure will be made 

permanent through the formulation and 

publishing of a special regulation. While 

various alternatives may allow guided 

activities to continue in the park 

backcountry, there will be no unguided 

access. 

42

ALTERNATIVES 


ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS 

No-Action Alternative: 

Existing Conditions 

This alternative represents existing 

conditions, which are based on the 

exceptional state of preservation and 

high concentration of archeological sites 

with substantial standing walls, 

combined with outstanding scenic vistas 

that provide a remarkable visual setting. 

The existing use and development is 

based on planning initiated in the 1950s 

and put into place in the late 1950s to 

early 1960s. (See Existing Conditions 

map.) Additional details regarding the 

current use and development of the 

monument can be found in the Affected 

Environment, Operational Efficiency 

section. 

Visitors to Wupatki National Monument 

generally arrive from the south via US89 

and FR545, after passing through Sunset 

Crater Volcano National Monument. 

Most receive orientation to the 

monuments at Sunset Crater Volcano 

visitor center. USFS, state, and private 

lands located between the two 

monuments are generally viewed by 

visitors as part of the national park, 

although NPS jurisdiction through those 

lands is limited to the roadway corridor. 

This road connection between the two 

monuments facilitates the visitor's ability 

to connect the cultural and natural 

history of the two areas. The opportunity 

to view the remarkable transition of 

vegetation and landscape in a relatively 

short distance is a popular experience 

with the public and is an essential 

element of the interpretive story. 

Visitor use is concentrated at the 

Wupatki visitor center, four of the park's 

primary archeological areas (Wupatki 

Pueblo, Wukoki, Lomaki/Box Canyon, and 

Citadel/Nalakihu), and the 

picnic/viewpoint area located at Doney 

Mountain on USFS land. These areas have 

been specifically developed for 

interpretive use and contain short trails 

and interpretive media. Most visitor use 

of these resources/areas is unguided. The 

visitor center, located adjacent to 

Wuptaki Pueblo, contains a museum and 

bookstore. The Southwest Parks and 

Monuments Association operates the 

bookstore. By agreement with USFS, the 

Doney Mountain picnic area is 

maintained by the NPS and contains 

picnic tables and a short trail up Doney 

Mountain. Limited visitor use of the 

backcountry is provided via guided hikes. 

Wupatki is usually visited as part of a 

larger travel itinerary, and the average 

visitor stay is two hours or less. Trails are 

open from sunrise to sunset, although 

FR545 is open 24 hours per day. 

Resource protection messages and 

interpretation are accomplished through 

exhibits and personal contact at the 

visitor centers and are reinforced by 

media at the five developed visitor use 

areas. Personal services interpretation 

and resource protection patrols are 

sporadic at both the Wupatki pueblo 

and the other front country sites. The 

vast majority of visitors interact with 

these sites on their own with no on-site 

NPS presence. For resource protection 

purposes, areas of the park other than 

these developed sites and administrative 

areas are closed to unguided entry. Two 

types of guided activities are offered into 

the closed areas. Discovery hikes are 

generally a half-day excursion and follow 

routes consistent with resource 

protection concerns. Overnight hikes to 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo are offered on 

eight weekends in April and October. 

The NPS and USFS have long worked 

cooperatively in the areas of law 

enforcement, wildland fire, resource 

protection and management, 

interpretation, and facility management 

at Wupatki and will continue to do so. 

43

ALTERNATIVES 


NPS staff frequently assists visitors in 

finding suitable USFS lands on which to 

engage in recreational and other 

activities that may not be suitable on NPS 

lands. Conversely, USFS staff direct 

visitors who are looking for more 

structured interpretive visits to NPS lands. 

Cooperation extends to the sharing of 

equipment and staffing, administration 

of special use and research permits, and a 

variety of other activities. Maintenance 

and administration of the Doney 

Mountain picnic area and USFS portions 

of FR545 are primarily the responsibility 

of the NPS through an agency 

Memorandum of Understanding. The 

distinct missions of the two agencies 

offer a greater range of opportunity for 

visitor activities. 

Visitor satisfaction with the current park 

experience is high as measured by the 

visitor survey card responses. The 2000 

survey showed that 95% of visitors were 

satisfied with opportunities for "learning 

about nature, history, or culture" and 

94% were satisfied with "sightseeing 

opportunities." Outdoor recreation 

(camping, bicycling, boating, hiking, etc.) 

was the only topic with a substantial 

negative response (11% rated such 

opportunities as poor), although 67% 

responded that outdoor recreation 

opportunities were good or very good. 

Alternative 1: Limit 

Motorized Sightseeing And 

Focus On Extended Learning 

GENERAL CONCEPT 

This alternative would enhance the 

protection of cultural resources by 

significantly changing the way people 

visit and experience the park (see 

Alternative 1 map). With increased 

emphasis on longer and more intensive 

educational programs, Wupatki would 

become a destination for many visitors, 

rather than a short drive-through 

experience. 

Visitors would enter the park via existing 

FR545 from Sunset Crater Volcano, 

proceed only as far as the existing visitor 

center-Wupatki Pueblo area, and return 

via the same route. A short spur road to 

Wukoki Pueblo would be maintained. 

The north entrance and other entry 

points would be eliminated to ensure 

that visitors receive orientation before 

encountering park resources. FR545 

would be gated west of the visitor center 

to increase resource protection. 

Significant resources and landscapes 

north of the park would be preserved 

through partnerships with adjacent 

landowners or possible park boundary 

expansion. The proposed boundary 

expansion to the south would include 

that portion of the park entrance road 

that is on National Forest lands, allowing 

the NPS to manage access to the western 

half of the park. The current backcountry 

closure would be maintained to protect 

sensitive natural and cultural resources. 

Convenient day-use access to Wupatki 

and Wukoki Pueblos would be 

maintained for self-guided tours by 

vehicle and short trails. Day use of the 

park would be concentrated in these 

areas. Fewer 

archeological sites would be open to 

unguided or self-guided use than at 

present, resulting in less impact on those 

sites; however, there would be increased 

guided tours to cultural sites that have 

not been stabilized or previously 

developed for visitation. Visitor use 

impacts to archaeological sites would be 

monitored, and access would be modified 

accordingly. 

This alternative responds to desires 

expressed through the scoping process to 

provide added educational emphasis, 

access to a wider variety of cultural sites, 

and more primitive backcountry 

44

ALTERNATIVES 


experiences. New interpretive programs 

would be developed to present a broader 

range of educational and interpretive 

opportunities than are available at 

present. Guided programs, both on foot 

and by vehicle, would be added for those 

with more time and interest. Special 

learning opportunities, ranging from 

half-day to multi-day adventures, would 

be offered to a wider variety of cultural 

sites in the Extended Learning and 

Guided Adventure Zones. Educational 

workshops and seminars could 

supplement these activities. Some of 

these experiences might be provided 

through partnerships with affiliated 

tribes, organizations, institutions, and/or 

other agencies. To accommodate the 

longer stay implied in this concept, a 

primitive campground would be 

developed, but use would be limited to 

groups attending sponsored programs. 

Key Actions: 

• Visitors would enter on existing FR545 

from Sunset Crater Volcano and travel 

to the existing Wupatki visitor center. 

Visitors would exit the park via the 

same route, and the park entrance 

would be gated at night. 

• FR545 between the Lomaki-Citadel 

area and US89 would be abandoned, 

and the pavement would be 

removed. A primitive road would be 

maintained along the former route 

for administrative uses. FR545 

between the visitor center and the 

Lomaki-Citadel area would be closed 

to traffic except for guided access. 

Entrance to the park via FR150 would 

be eliminated. The Black Falls 

Crossing Road would be maintained 

for administrative purposes, including 

access for Navajo Reservation 

residents. 

• The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center. The current Wukoki 

parking area would be pulled back 

from the site, and the access trail 

would be lengthened accordingly, to 

at least one-quarter of a mile. This 

would eliminate vehicle traffic from 

the immediate vicinity of Wukoki 

Pueblo and provide a more peaceful 

visitor experience. 

• Self-guided tours would be improved, 

and the number of guided tours 

would be increased. Wukoki and 

Wupatki Pueblos would be open for 

day use and visited on a self-guided 

basis, as they are now. Guided vehicle 

and walking tours would allow 

visitors to see and experience the 

Doney Mountain and the 

Citadel/Nalakihu and Lomaki/Box 

Canyon areas. Unguided hiking in the 

Resource Protection Zone would be 

prohibited. 

• Additional in-depth learning would 

be achieved through ranger-led hikes 

(full day or multi-day) into the Guided 

Adventure Zone, including the Crackin-Rock area. Visitor numbers would 

be managed to keep these 

experiences personalized and to 

minimize resource damage. 

Educational workshops and seminars 

could be offered in conjunction with, 

or to supplement, these activities. 

• The existing visitor center and 

associated housing/maintenance area 

would be retained. A small primitive 

campground would be developed for 

use only in conjunction with 

sponsored park programs. To increase 

in-depth learning activities, one of 

the existing houses would be 

converted to educational and 

meeting space. 

• Areas of the park not zoned for 

administrative or visitor use would 

remain closed to protect resources. 

45

ALTERNATIVES 


Alternative 2: Emphasize 

Motorized Sightseeing And 

Resource Protection Through 

On-Site Education 

GENERAL CONCEPT 

This alternative emphasizes improved 

vehicle access to more of the park for 

diverse motorized sightseeing 

experiences and ensures the presence of 

park personnel at popular use areas for 

visitor contact and site protection 

purposes (see Alternative 2 map). 

Wupatki's high concentration of 

archeological sites in an exceptional state 

of preservation and outstanding scenic 

vistas provide a highly desirable visual 

setting for sightseeing and on-site 

interpretation. The long-term integrity of 

archeological sites and natural resources 

would be enhanced under this 

alternative, because social studies and 

experience have shown that the best 

protection for archeological sites is 

afforded when there is on-site, personal 

orientation and education. In this 

alternative, there is no visitor center. 

Instead, park staff would interpret park 

resources where specific features and 

sites can be seen and/or visited. FR545 

would remain open to 24-hour, two-way 

traffic. To ensure that park visitors are 

properly oriented before encountering 

park resources, a new contact station and 

associated wayside exhibits would be 

built at the north entrance from US89. 

The access roads and parking lots at 

Wukoki, Lomaki/Box Canyon, 

Citadel/Nalakihu, and Doney Mountain 

picnic area would be gated at night to 

deter after-hours visitation. The 

proposed boundary expansion to the 

south would include that portion of the 

park entrance road that is on National 

Forest lands, which would allow the NPS 

to manage access to the western half of 

the park. 

In addition to maintaining motorized 

access to existing popular features, 

sightseeing would be expanded to new 

areas. The road to Black Falls Crossing 

would be opened to park visitors, and 

existing primitive roads in the north 

boundary expansion would be used for 

guided tours along a scenic backcountry 

loop. The tours would include a shorter 

interpretive hike to the Crack-in-Rock 

area. This experience might be provided 

through a concessionaire arrangement. 

The NPS would monitor impacts to 

resources resulting from tours and adjust 

visitation numbers accordingly. Other 

guided backcountry hiking experiences 

would not be offered. 

Key Actions: 

• FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 

2-way traffic and would provide the 

same access to Wupatki, Wukoki, 

Citadel/Nalakihu, and Lomaki/Box 

Canyon. Access to these front country 

areas would be gated at night. 

• A new visitor contact station and 

wayside orientation exhibit would be 

constructed near the north entrance 

from US89.Park staff that were 

previously dedicated to the visitor 

center operation would instead be 

stationed at the Wupatki, Wukoki, 

Lomaki/Citadel, and Doney Mountain 

areas to provide on-site 

interpretation. Work schedules would 

be established to ensure staff 

presence during normal operating 

hours. The Wukoki, Lomaki/Box 

Canyon, and Citadel/Nalakihu areas 

would likely need minimal support 

facilities (e.g., backcountry toilets, 

shelters, picnic tables). 

• Existing NPS visitor services operations 

at the visitor center would cease. The 

Southwest Parks and Monuments 

Association would be given the 

option to use a portion of the 

building for continued sales of books 

and educational materials. The rest of 

46

ALTERNATIVES 


the structure would be converted to 

offices and research/storage space. 

• Existing housing and maintenance 

facilities would be retained. 

• Existing roads to the Crack-in-Rock 

area and northern expansion lands 

would be gated and maintained in 

primitive condition. They would be 

used for escorted four-wheel-drive 

and/or mountain bike scenic tours to 

interpret a broader range of park 

themes, such as prehistoric culture, 

Navajo, and ranching history. Crackin-Rock Pueblo would be visited on 

guided hikes during the four-wheeldrive tours. The scenic loop corridor 

would likely need minimal support 

facilities (e.g., backcountry toilets, 

shelters, picnic tables). 

• The Black Falls Crossing Road would 

be maintained in current condition 

and open to park visitors. New 

waysides would be installed to 

interpret Navajo history and provide 

information on the neighboring 

Navajo Reservation. 

• Areas of the park not zoned for 

administrative or visitor use would 

remain closed to protect resources. 

Alternative 3 (Preferred): 

Preserve Sensitive Park 

Resources While Diversifying 

The Range Of Visitor 

Experiences 

GENERAL CONCEPT 

This alternative was developed to ensure 

the preservation of sensitive park 

resources while providing a greater 

diversity of visitor experiences and 

locations (see Alternative 3 map). 

FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 

two-way traffic. In order to ensure that 

southbound visitors are properly oriented 

before encountering park resources, a 

new contact station and associated 

wayside exhibits would be built at the 

north entrance from US89. Motorized 

sightseeing would remain the same, 

focusing on existing developed areas. 

The access roads and parking lots at 

Wukoki, Lomaki/Box Canyon, and 

Citadel/Nalakihu archeological areas 

would be gated at night to deter afterhours visitation. The current backcountry 

closure would be maintained to protect 

sensitive natural and cultural resources. 

This alternative would improve upon 

existing visitor educational opportunities 

at popular use areas, and provide guided 

access into undeveloped areas of the 

park. The existing visitor center would 

remain open for the purpose of resource 

interpretation. Opportunities for 

independence and solitude would be 

provided by new self-guided trails and 

interpretive activities. Guided programs 

would be offered to a wide variety of 

cultural sites in the Extended Learning 

and Guided Adventure Zones, and 

occasional escorted activities would occur 

along existing administrative roads, 

including ranch roads into the 

partnership/expansion area to the north. 

Key Actions 

• FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 

2-way traffic and would provide the 

same access to Wupatki, 

Citadel/Nalakihu, and Lomaki/Box 

Canyon archeological areas; access to 

these areas would be gated at night. 

• The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center. The current Wukoki 

parking area would be pulled back 

from the site, and the access trail 

would be lengthened accordingly to 

at least one-quarter of a mile. This 

would eliminate vehicle traffic from 

the immediate vicinity of the ruin and 

provide a more peaceful visitor 

experience. 

47

ALTERNATIVES 


• Ranch roads within the proposed 

partnership/expansion area to the 

north would be maintained in 

existing condition for administrative 

purposes and occasional escorted 

activities. The Black Falls Crossing 

Road would be maintained in existing 

condition as an administrative road. 

• A new visitor contact station and 

wayside orientation exhibit would be 

constructed near the north entrance 

from US89. 

• The existing visitor center would 

remain open. 

• A broader range of resources, both 

cultural and natural, would be 

interpreted in Extended Learning 

Zones around Wupatki, Lomaki/Box 

Canyon, Citadel/Nalakihu, and 

Wukoki archeological areas. Guided 

hikes would continue into a Guided 

Adventure Zone, including overnight 

trips to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

• A new trail would be constructed into 

the grassland ecosystem on Antelope 

Prairie. For visitors desiring a longer 

hike and greater opportunities for 

solitude, a trail would be constructed 

from the visitor center to Wukoki. 

• Areas of the park not zoned for 

administrative or visitor use would 

remain closed to protect resources. 

Alternative 4: Emphasize 

Integrated Story Between 

The Parks And Minimize 

Development 

GENERAL CONCEPT 

This alternative would restructure the 

way visitors gain access to and experience 

both Wupatki and Sunset Crater Volcano 

National Monuments to provide a more 

unified interpretive story and greater 

protection for natural and cultural 

resources (see Alternative 4 map). Visitors 

would enter only at Sunset Crater 

Volcano. The portion of FR545 from the 

current Wupatki visitor center to US89 

would be converted to a one-way road; 

the north entrance at US89 would be 

converted to exit-only. Expanded 

facilities, services, and visitor orientation 

would be concentrated at Sunset Crater 

Volcano. As visitors travel through 

Wupatki, they would encounter fewer 

facilities and more pristine resource 

conditions. 

The goals of this alternative are to 

provide an integrated story for Wupatki 

and Sunset Crater Volcano while 

reducing duplicate facilities, minimizing 

development at Wupatki, and preserving 

outstanding park values. Although 

Wupatki and Sunset Crater have long 

been under one management, the parks 

were originally developed to have 

administration, maintenance, and most 

staff housed at Wupatki. Over the years, 

accommodation for these functions 

shifted to Sunset Crater and then to 

Flagstaff, leaving the parks with some 

facilities that no longer serve a purpose. 

Similarly, interpretation of the parks has 

shifted from separate stories, to a slightly 

related story, to the present emphasis on 

interpreting the bigger regional picture, 

of which these parks are only a small, but 

inextricably linked, part. 

This alternative takes advantage of 

current visitor use patterns to lead 

visitors through a sequential learning 

experience that presents a unified 

picture. By concentrating visitor use in 

previously developed areas, minimizing 

new developments, and removing 

unnecessary structures, this alternative 

would preserve and enhance the 

minimally altered prehistoric cultural 

landscape, extensive grassland antelope 

habitat, seeps and springs, spectacular 

scenic views, and other key values that 

define Wupatki National Monument. 

The proposed boundary expansion to the 

south would include that portion of the 

48

ALTERNATIVES 


park entrance road that is on National 

Forest lands, which would allow the NPS 

to manage access to the western half of 

the park. 

Key Actions 

• Visitors would enter at Sunset Crater 

Volcano only. FR545 would be 

modified to be a one-way exit road 

from the existing Wupatki visitor 

center to the north junction with 

US89. Twenty-four-hour, two-way 

traffic would be retained between 

Wupatki and Sunset Crater Volcano. 

The road would be gated at the 

beginning of the one-way and closed 

at night. The Black Falls Crossing Road 

and the portion of FR150 within the 

park boundary would be closed and 

reclaimed. 

• The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center. The parking area would 

be pulled back from the site, and the 

trail would be lengthened accordingly 

(trail would be about 1/4 to 1/2 mile 

long). For visitors wishing a longer 

hike and greater opportunity for 

solitude, a new primitive trail would 

be developed from the existing visitor 

center to Wukoki. Off-trail 

backcountry hiking would not be 

permitted. 

• Most of the existing housing, 

maintenance, and administrative 

facilities at Wupatki would be 

removed and the areas rehabilitated. 

One historic structure would be 

retained as a residence, and the 

historic portion of the visitor center 

would be retained as a ranger station. 

The remainder of the visitor center 

would be removed. Minimal facilities 

would be provided at some locations, 

including backcountry toilets, 

drinking water, and picnic tables. 

• Visitor opportunities at Wupatki 

would decrease with removal of the 

visitor center/museum; however, 

extended learning would still be 

provided at each of the existing day 

use sites. Guided overnight hikes to 

Crack-in-Rock would be discontinued, 

but guided vehicle tours would be 

offered in their place, using existing 

primitive roads. The NPS would 

monitor impacts to resources 

resulting from tours and adjust the 

frequency of tours accordingly. 

• Areas of the park not zoned for 

administrative or visitor use would be 

closed to protect resources. 

Alternatives Considered But 

Eliminated From Detailed 

Evaluation 

EXPAND PARK BOUNDARIES TO 

EMPHASIZE PRESERVATION OF 

CRITICAL RESOURCES AND 

INCREASE RANGE OF VISITOR 

EXPERIENCES 

General Concept 

This alternative would extend NPS 

management and protection by 

expanding park boundaries to include 

additional features, sites, and landscapes 

of primary park significance (see 

Expanded Boundary map). Motorized 

sightseeing would remain the same, 

focused on existing major visitor use 

areas; FR545 would remain open 24 

hours, although individual sites would be 

gated at night. Visitor orientation would 

occur at a new contact station at the 

north entrance from US89 and at the 

existing visitor center. Diverse 

experiences would be provided via new 

trails and new interpretive media and 

activities, and guided hikes would be 

conducted to several cultural sites. 

Additional guided and/or unguided entry 

into the expansion areas would be 

considered following completion of 

resource inventories and impact 

assessments. Forest Service lands beyond 

49

ALTERNATIVES 


the expanded boundaries would 

continue to be managed in accordance 

with the decisions reached in the FLEA 

process. 

The Park Service has long recognized that 

resources critical to the Wupatki story 

remain outside park boundaries; official 

boundary studies in 1934, 1944, and 1977 

proposed expansion to include 

approximately 30,000 acres immediately 

south of the monument. Recent 

archeological studies have significantly 

increased understanding of the Wupatki 

settlement system compared with what 

was known when Wupatki's current 

boundaries were created. The monument 

incorporates only a small fraction of the 

environmental zones and diversity of 

archeological sites that make up the 

prehistoric Wupatki community. The 

quality and density of archeological 

resources preserved in the monument are 

matched, and in some cases even 

exceeded, by those to the south and 

north of the existing park boundary. 

This alternative is based on the most 

current scientific evaluations, which 

reaffirm the outstanding values of the 

resources located outside monument 

boundaries. The proposed expansion to 

the north would involve state and private 

lands now within the Coconino Plateau 

Natural Reserve Lands (CPNRL). Current 

boundaries for the park are drawn along 

section lines and at private property 

boundaries. In most instances, they do 

not correspond to the topography or 

natural geologic features and cut across 

drainages, ridges, and other similar 

features. The boundaries do not include 

many significant natural and cultural 

resources that contribute to the purpose 

and significance of the park. The 

boundaries also do not include many of 

the primary access roads into the park. 

Some of the primary administrative roads 

cross in and out of private property, 

making it impossible to enter some parts 

of the park without crossing private land. 

Management consistent 

with NPS policies would be sought via 

boundary expansion, conservation 

easements, cooperative management 

agreements, and/or other means to 

satisfy the management goals of both 

NPS and CPNRL. Ranch owners would be 

willing participants in this process. The 

proposed expansion to the south 

contains significant environmental zones 

and archeological features intimately 

related to, but not represented within, 

the park. Including these resources within 

park boundaries would provide 

maximum protection in accordance with 

NPS mandates and legislative authorities. 

This concept provides for interpretation 

of newly acquired resources as an 

integral part of the post-eruptive Sunset 

Crater-Wupatki story. It also retains the 

current level of motorized sightseeing 

opportunities and day use access to the 

developed sites along FR545. 

Key Actions 

The following key actions would be 

taken to achieve this alternative: 

• Park boundaries would be expanded 

to the south, in cooperation with 

USFS, and to the north, in 

cooperation with local landowners, to 

include the key features previously 

described. 

• FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 

2-way traffic and would provide the 

same access to Wupatki, Citadel, and 

Lomaki; these individual sites would 

be gated at night. The spur road to 

Wukoki would be shortened and 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center, and the trail would be 

lengthened, to remove vehicles from 

the immediate landscape. 

• Access to some forest roads within 

the expanded south boundary would 

be limited, in order to provide greater 

protection to resources. FR782 would 

50

ALTERNATIVES 


be closed, as would much of FR150. 

The roads to Black Falls Crossing and 

Woodhouse Mesa would be 

maintained as administrative roads 

for authorized travel. FR779 and 

other roads outside the expanded 

boundary would be managed by USFS 

in accordance with the decisions 

reached in the FLEA process. 

• Ranch roads within the expanded 

north boundary would be maintained 

for administrative purposes and 

considered for possible future use in 

historic tours. 

• A new visitor contact station/wayside 

complex would be constructed for 

orientation and fee collection near 

the north entrance from US89. The 

existing visitor center would remain 

open, and new exhibits would be 

installed to reflect current 

understanding of the archeological 

story. 

• Visitors would receive orientation 

before encountering park resources 

(via the new contact station to the 

north and/or the existing visitor 

center). Wayside exhibits would be 

installed along FR545 to improve 

interpretation of natural and cultural 

landscapes. Self-guided tours at 

Wupatki, Wukoki, and Lomaki would 

be improved, and a broader range of 

resources, both cultural and natural, 

would be interpreted near Lomaki. 

Guided hikes to Crack-in-Rock would 

continue, and additional resources 

near Cedar Ridge, FR150, and Doney 

Mountain would be experienced as 

guided adventures led by NPS staff. 

• A new trail would be constructed 

near Lomaki to provide exposure to 

the grasslands environment. The 

parking area for Wukoki would be 

pulled back, as previously described, 

necessitating a longer trail to the site. 

For visitors desiring a longer hike and 

greater opportunities for solitude, an 

alternative trail would be constructed 

from the visitor center to Wukoki. An 

additional hiking route would be 

available in Deadman Wash between 

the visitor center and the Doney 

Mountain picnic area. 

• Within expanded boundaries, grazing 

and consumptive uses would be 

eliminated, and motorized vehicle 

access would be limited. A new 

resource inventory zone would be 

established for areas requiring 

detailed study. Although a variety of 

visitor uses might eventually prove to 

be appropriate in these expanded 

areas, they would not be designated 

until resource values were 

determined. Areas of the park not 

zoned for resource inventory, 

administrative, or visitor use would be 

closed to informal entry. 

Basis for Rejection of This 

Alternative 

This alternative was considered and 

rejected in light of the current planning 

efforts of the Coconino National Forest 

and their desire to work cooperatively 

with NPS in managing resources on lands 

south of Wupatki. The Forest Service 

expressed desires to work with NPS to 

increase efforts to preserve natural and 

cultural resources and to provide for 

public uses that would help sustain the 

integrity of those resources. With 

participation from both agencies, 

integrated programs could accomplish 

resource preservation and visitor use and 

education without a major boundary 

expansion. 

SUNSET CRATER 

VOLCANO/WUPATKI: EMPHASIZE 

PRESERVATION AND LIMIT 

MOTORIZED SIGHTSEEING 

General Concept 

This alternative (identified in the third 

newsletter as Combined Alternative 2) 

51

ALTERNATIVES 


would extend a high degree of 

protection to park resources. Consistent 

with a preservation emphasis, fewer 

areas of the parks would be seen by car, 

and in some cases, visitors would have to 

exert more effort to see sites at Wupatki. 

No new sites would be opened to 

visitation. Ranger-guided backcountry 

tours to Crack-in-Rock would cease. New 

wayside exhibits would be limited, and 

the parks would be physically closed at 

night. The number of facilities would be 

reduced and relocated to less-sensitive 

areas. Although there would be impacts 

from construction of new facilities, 

buildings would not intrude on cultural 

and natural landscapes and impact sites 

as they do now. 

The parks would not be connected by a 

loop drive. Visitors would enter the parks 

at the existing US89 entrances and return 

via the same route. The new visitor 

centers would be located at the park 

entrances, and visitors would be oriented 

before encountering park resources. 

Visitors would experience a more natural, 

undisturbed, and quiet Sunset Crater 

Volcano with the removal of a portion of 

the park road. In both parks, emphasis 

would be placed on opportunities for 

learning about the parks via self-guided 

or ranger-led activities at existing sites 

and trails. Boundaries would be adjusted 

to incorporate Coconino National Forest 

land containing administrative facilities 

and some features essential to the 

monument's story; at Wupatki, the 

emphasis of boundary expansions would 

be on acquiring lands to enhance the 

preservation of cultural and natural 

systems rather than on providing for 

more diverse visitor experiences. The 

Combined Alternative 2 map shows how 

the parks would be zoned and how 

boundaries would be changed. 

This alternative responds to scoping 

concerns about the need to educate 

visitors before they encounter park 

resources (especially at the north 

entrance to Wupatki) and 

recommendations to restrict access and 

control use to ensure that resources are 

adequately protected. This is consistent 

with scoping suggestions that placing 

certain areas off-limits would be 

acceptable if they could be seen by other 

means and explanations were provided. 

This alternative also would reduce the 

impact caused by facilities and 

developments in prime resource areas 

and would simplify managed visitor use 

(shuttle systems, reservations, ticketing), 

should a future need arise. An increase in 

funding would be needed to build new 

facilities; however, NPS would not spend 

as much time and money as it does now 

providing 24-hour emergency service and 

maintaining multiple residences and 36 

miles of FR545. 

Key Actions 

At Wupatki: 

• Visitors would enter the park at the 

existing north entrance and return via 

the same route. FR545 would end at 

the junction with the Wukoki Road, 

and the remainder of the road to the 

south entrance would eventually be 

removed and rehabilitated. (A 

portion of the road would be 

retained for access to the Peshlakai 

residence until expiration of this 

special use permit). The road would 

be gated at the north entrance and 

closed at night. Provisions would be 

made for emergency access. 

• Access to the current developed sites 

(Lomaki, Citadel, Doney Mountain, 

Wupatki, and Wukoki) would remain 

as it is now. Vehicle access could 

become managed if crowding/visitor 

experience indicators were exceeded 

and control of visitor numbers 

warranted. 

• The road to Black Falls Crossing would 

be maintained for access to the 

52

ALTERNATIVES 


Navajo Reservation, and consistent 

with the concept of the alternative, 

would be used for administrative use. 

Access to the park via FR150 would be 

eliminated. 

• To better accomplish visitor 

orientation/education, a new visitor 

center would be built at the north 

junction of FR545 and US89. Park 

administrative offices, maintenance 

facility, and minimal housing would 

be part of this complex. All existing 

maintenance, storage facilities, and 

park housing would be removed, 

except for one historical structure 

(residence #1), and the areas would 

be rehabilitated. Offices would be 

removed from the existing visitor 

center, creating space for curatorial 

storage/research. 

• Existing picnic areas would be 

retained, but rest rooms would be 

upgraded to environmentally sound, 

sanitary facilities (e.g., use of 

dehydrating or composting systems, 

waterless soap, etc.). 

• To make the most of existing sites 

developed for visitation, new 

interpretive media (guides, brochures, 

etc.) and programs would be 

developed. 

• The function of the existing visitor 

center would shift from visitor 

orientation to being a museum with 

additional display of collections, new 

exhibits, and interpretive media, 

some of which would allow visitors to 

experience and "see" sites and 

resources that are otherwise 

inaccessible or closed. 

• Consistent with the concept of this 

alternative, overnight backpacking 

trips to Crack-in-Rock and 

backcountry guided day hikes would 

be discontinued. Off-trail backcountry 

hiking would not be permitted. The 

existing primitive road to Crack-inRock would be retained for patrol/ 

resource protection functions. 

At Sunset Crater Volcano: 

• Vehicle access on existing FR545 

would be from US89 to the Lava Flow 

Trail parking area only. Visitors would 

exit the park via the same route. 

O'Leary Peak Road would be closed to 

motorized access and promoted as a 

hiking opportunity. Off-trail 

backcountry hiking would not be 

permitted. 

• Consistent with the concept of day 

use, Bonito Campground would be 

removed. The Park Service would seek 

an agreement with USFS to relocate 

camping to the west side of US89, 

near the junction of FR545. Park 

housing, maintenance facilities, and 

administrative offices would be 

removed and the areas rehabilitated. 

The existing visitor center, which is 

inadequate, would also be removed 

and a new visitor center built west of 

Bonito Park, affording a view of the 

volcano and increased educational 

opportunities. Minimal 

administration, maintenance, and 

housing facilities would be part of 

this complex. 

• To acquire associated features, the 

proposed boundary would 

incorporate sections 21 and 22, and 

portions of sections 12, 15, 16, 17, and 

20 of T23N, R8E. 

• In addition to the current self-guided 

and ranger-led activities, FR545 from 

the Lava Flow Trail parking to the 

eastern park boundary would revert 

to a hiking trail with ranger-led 

activities and self-guiding interpretive 

media. Lenox Crater, Bonito Lava 

Flow, and pithouses near Bonito Park 

would be interpreted via a variety of 

media and activities. Wayside exhibits 

would be developed for the park 

road. A contact station and waysides 

53

ALTERNATIVES 


would provide improved orientation 

to the Lava Flow Trail and new 

extended learning opportunities 

accessed from that location. 

BASIS FOR REJECTION OF THIS 

ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative was rejected because 

significant public input discouraged 

closing the connecting loop road 

between the monuments. There was 

concern about access to the private 

property between the monuments and to 

the Navajo Reservation. There was also 

concern about losing the link between 

the two monuments' stories and about 

losing the transition from ponderosa pine 

into the lower desert environment and 

the scenic vistas that are available along 

FR545. 

REGIONAL PLANNING 

CONSIDERATION 

General Concept 

The National Parks and Conservation 

Association (NPCA), in an earlier letter, 

urged the Park Service to expand 

boundaries at Sunset Crater Volcano and 

Wupatki National Monuments to include 

all the land between the two 

monuments. (See Regional Planning 

Consideration map.) The NPCA 

recommendation was based on acquiring 

features, sites, and landscapes primary to 

park purposes and on protecting park 

viewsheds, values, and the resources of 

these associated lands. Such an expansion 

would enhance interpretation of park 

themes, provide diverse visitor 

experiences, and transfer from the Forest 

Service to the National Park Service land 

that is in many ways perceived as part of 

the parks and within which NPS has de 

facto management by virtue of proximity 

and presence. The goals of the NPCA 

recommendation could also be achieved 

through partnership with USFS, rather 

than through boundary expansions. 

Basis for Rejection of This 

Alternative 

Analysis of this alternative indicated that 

joint planning/management with USFS 

could achieve the same goals without 

actual transfer of lands. Elements of this 

alternative were incorporated into 

Wupatki Alternative 3 and Sunset Crater 

Volcano Alternative 3. 

MITIGATING MEASURES 

Under any of the action alternatives 

proposed, mitigating measures would be 

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 (1995). 

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 earthdisturbing 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 

54

ALTERNATIVES 


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. 

Wherever possible, new facilities would 

be placed 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 

would 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 caseby-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 sandbags 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 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 its 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 

undertaken to reconstruct the natural 

spacing, abundance, and diversity of 

native plant species. All disturbed areas 

would be restored as nearly as possible to 

pre-construction conditions shortly after 

construction activities are completed. The 

principal goal is to avoid interfering with 

natural processes. 

Some petrochemicals from construction 

equipment could seep into the soil. To 

minimize this possibility, equipment 

would be checked frequently to identify 

and repair any leaks. Any blasting would 

conform with NPS-65, Explosives Use and 

Blasting Program (1991), specifications. 

All blasting would use the minimum 

amount of explosives necessary to 

55

ALTERNATIVES 


accomplish the task, and 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 earthdisturbing activities. Similarly, in those 

areas where the existence of subsurface 

remains appears likely, an archeologist 

would be on hand to monitor landmodifying 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. 

56

ALTERNATIVES 


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 a logical and trackable process, 

the criteria used to evaluate the 

alternatives were derived from the 

impact topics in the EIS. Alternatives 

were evaluated to see how well they: 

• MAXIMIZE PROTECTION OF 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (long-term 

integrity of archeological resources 

and cultural landscapes, historic 

character of the built environment, 

long-term integrity of ethnographic 

resources) 

• MAXIMIZE PROTECTION OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES (long-term integrity of 

natural systems and processes, 

threatened and endangered species 

and sensitive species, long-term 

integrity of geological features, 

floodplains, and riparian habitat) 

• EXPAND DIVERSITY OF VISITOR 

EXPERIENCE (ability to experience full 

range of resources related to 

significance, provide a diversity of 

opportunities to experience park 

resources, and perceived wild 

character) 

• LIMIT EFFECT ON NEIGHBORS (park 

neighbors; local, state, and tribal land 

management; land/resource 

managing agencies) 

• IMPROVE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

(health and safety, conservation, 

distance to work, management of 

resources, communication) 

Alternatives for each of the three 

monuments were rated on the attributes 

relating to each of the factors just listed. 

Then the advantages of the attributes 

were compared and the alternative with 

57

ALTERNATIVES 

the most advantages was selected. Costs 

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 

Table 1: Summary of Comparative Costs 

(FY 2000 Dollars) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 -

Preferred Alternative 4 

Initial 

Development 

Costs 

$1,373,000 $ 4,063,000 $1,845,000 $1,436,000 

Total Life Cycle 

Costs 

(Present Worth) 

$4,356,000 $8,106,000 $3,178,000 $3,219,000 

58

ALTERNATIVES 


Choosing by Advantages 

300 

ADVANTAGE RATING 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

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

Alternative 2 

165 

Alternative 1 

140 

Alternative 3-

Preferred 

185 

Alternative 4 

260 

INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (Net) 

general nature of GMP alternatives, and 

should be used for comparison purposes 

only. 

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 that follows summarizes the 

results. Alternative 1 provided the fewest 

advantages at the lowest cost. 

Alternative 4 the greatest amount of 

advantages at only a slightly higher cost 

than Alternative 1. However, there was 

little support for the boundary changes 

proposed in that alternative, especially 

by the Forest Service. Alternative 3 

provided higher quality visitor 

experiences, slightly improved cultural 

resource protection, and slightly 

improved impacts on neighbors, for 

approximately $450,000 more in costs. 

Alternative 2 provides the highest 

amount of resource protection; however, 

it provides the lowest amount of 

advantages for visitor experience. The 

advantages of Alternative 2 are; 

therefore, slightly less overall than the 

preferred, Alternative 3, and the costs 

are excessively higher. 

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 "the 

environmentally preferable alternative is 

59

ALTERNATIVES 


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 

Wupatki 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 each of the four archeological 

interpretive areas, and the majority of 

visitors interact with these sites on their 

own with no on-site NPS presence. For 

resource protection purposes, areas of 

the park other than the developed sites 

and administrative areas are closed to 

unguided entry. Because the No-Action 

Alternative maintains the Mission 66 

designed visitor experience, the diversity 

for educational opportunities and the 

protection of cultural resources is limited. 

Protection of cultural resources and 

visitor opportunities would not be as 

enhanced as under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 

4. The No-Action Alternative does not 

impact access to neighboring lands, 

unlike Alternatives 2 and 4. The NoAction Alternative does not fully realize 

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

Alternative 1 strives to limit motorized 

sightseeing in the park and focus on 

longer and more intensive educational 

programs to enhance the protection of 

cultural and natural resources, thus 

meeting national environmental policy 

goal 6. This alternative restricts the visitor 

experience by eliminating the drivethrough experience in favor of a longer 

intensive stay. This alternative also limits 

access by park neighbors to the Navajo 

Reservation, ranch land, and USFS lands 

surrounding the monument. National 

environmental policy goals 3, 4, and 5 are 

not fully realized under this alternative 

to the same extent as in Alternative 4. In 

addition, it does not fully realize 

provisions 3 and 5 of the goals when 

compared with Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Alternative 2 promotes improved vehicle 

access to more of the park for diverse 

motorized sightseeing experiences and 

ensures presence of park personnel at 

popular use areas for visitor contact and 

site protection purposes. Motorized 

access to existing popular features would 

be maintained, and sightseeing would be 

expanded to new areas. The road to 

Black Falls Crossing would be opened to 

park visitors, and existing primitive roads 

in the north boundary expansion would 

60

ALTERNATIVES 


be used for guided tours along a scenic 

backcountry loop. Opening the Black 

Falls Crossing Road to motorized 

sightseeing could cause congestion for 

Navajo residents that use the road to 

commute to Flagstaff and could cause 

congestion for other American Indians 

seeking traditional cultural uses in that 

area. Alternative 2 meets national 

environmental policy goals 3 and 5 by 

providing access to more of the park's 

resources. It does not meet the national 

environmental policy goal 4 (preserve 

important historic, cultural, and natural 

aspects . . .) for those groups traditionally 

associated with the park 

Alternative 3 provides for the greatest 

range of diverse visitor experiences and 

access to Wupatki National Monument. 

This alternative would improve upon 

existing visitor educational opportunities 

at popular use areas and provide guided 

access into undeveloped areas of the 

park. The traffic circulation pattern 

would remain the same and access to 

neighboring lands would remain 

unchanged. Areas of the park not zoned 

for administrative or visitor use would 

remain closed to protect resources. The 

four archeological areas of the park 

would be gated at night for protection. 

There may be some increased congestion 

for American Indians seeking traditional 

cultural uses from expanded visitor 

opportunities. Alternative 3 would 

realize each of the applicable provisions 

of the national environmental policy 

goals. 

Alternative 4 restructures the way visitors 

gain access to and experience both 

Wupatki and Sunset Crater Volcano 

National Monuments to provide a more 

unified interpretive story and greater 

protection for natural and cultural 

resources. FR545 would be modified to a 

one-way exit road from the existing 

Wupatki visitor center to the north 

entrance of the Wupatki. The road would 

be gated at the beginning of the oneway and closed at night, impacting ranch 

and Navajo residents who use the road to 

commute to Flagstaff. Visitor 

opportunities would decrease with the 

removal of the visitor center/museum; 

however, extended learning would still 

be provided at each of the day use sites. 

Most of the existing housing, 

maintenance, and administrative facilities 

would be removed and the area would 

be rehabilitated to more closely resemble 

its historical appearance. Although 

Alternative 4 would realize most of the 

applicable provisions of the national 

environmental policy goals, it would fall 

short of satisfying criterion 5 by 

precluding access through the park by 

park neighbors to the Navajo 

61

ALTERNATIVES 


Reservation, ranch land, and USFS lands 

surrounding the monument. 

After careful review of potential resource 

and visitor impacts and developing 

proposed mitigation for impacts to 

natural and cultural resources, 

Alternative 3 has been determined to be 

the environmentally preferred 

alternative. Alternative 3 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 3 overall does (1) provide 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) maintain an 

environment that supports diversity and 

variety of individual choice; (3) integrate 

resource protection with an appropriate 

range of visitor uses; and (4) 

accommodate the access needs of park 

neighbors and affiliated American Indian 

Tribes. 

62


ALTERNATIVES 


64


ALTERNATIVES 


66


ALTERNATIVES 


68



Table 2: S

ummary of Alterna

tives 

No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Pref

erred) 

The No-Action Alternative would involve no new construction, no additional trail 

developments, and no road realignments. The existing CCC and Mission 66 visitor center would remain, as would the Mission 66 houses, apartment complex, and maintenance facility. Facilities would be maintained to support current activities, but no new facilities, 

other than a new storage building at New Heiser, specifically to address the hantavirus 

problem, would be built, and 

existing management activities would continue. Planning and 

design of new wayside exhibits and museum exhibits is in progress and would continue under 

the NoAction Alternative. Plans are in accordance with the Flagstaff Areas Comprehensive Interpretive Plan, to improve visitor understanding and appreciation of Wupatki resources. Plans are 

under way to restore historic conditions at Heiser Spring and 

would continue under the NoAction Alternative. The backcountry would remain closed for 

unguided visitor activities, and 

unguided visitor access to archeological sites would continue. Recent archeological 

studies show that the density of 

archeological sites within the monument continues for 1 to 2 

miles north of the northern monument boundary fence into 

Coconino Plateau Natural ReAlternative 1 would significantly change the way people visit and experience Wupatki NM. Empha­ sis would be on maintaining easy access to the most popular fea­ tures for most visitors, while cre­ ating special learning opportuni­ ties for those with more time and interest. Visitors would enter the park via existing FR545 from Sunset Crater Volcano, proceed only as far as the existing Wupatki visitor center and Wukoki Pueblo, and return via the same route. The park en- trance would be gated at night to 

increase resource protection. FR545 between the LomakiCitadel area and US89 would be 

abandoned and the pavement 

would be removed. A pri

mitive 

road would be maintained along 

the former route for administrative uses. FR545 between the visitor center and the Lomaki-Citadel 

area would be closed to traffic except for guided access. Entrance to the park via FR150 would be 

eliminated. The Black Falls Crossing Road would be maintained for administrative purposes, including access for Navajo Reservation residents. The 

Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the visitor center. The current Wukoki parking area would be 

pulled back from the site and the access trail would be lengthened 

to at least one-quarter of a mile, eliminating vehicle traffic from the immediate vicinity of Wukoki 

Alternative 2 would emphasize improving vehicle access to 

more of the park to provide for diverse sightseeing experiences and on-site interpretation. 

Educational information would 

be provided on-site, allowing 

specific features/sites to be seen/visited, rather than being provided from a central facility, which would enhance longterm integrity of archeological 

sites and natural resources. FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 2-way traffic and would provide the same access to Wupatki, Wukoki, Citadel/Nalakihu, and Lomaki/Box Canyon as it d

oes 

now. Access to these areas 

would be gated at night. A 

new visitor contact station and wayside orientation exhibit would be constructed near the north entrance from US89. Park staff previously dedicated to the visitor center operation would be stationed at the Wupatki, Wukoki, Lomaki/ Citadel, and Doney Mountain areas to provide on-site interpretation. Wukoki, Lomaki/Box Canyon, and Citadel/Nalakihu areas would likely need backcountry toilets, shelters, and picnic tables. NPS 

visitor services operations at the visitor center would cease. 

The preferred alternative was developed to ensure the preservation of sensitive park resources while providing a 

greater diversity of visitor 

experiences and locations. 

FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 2-way traffic and would pro

vide the same access 

to Wupatki, Citadel/Nalakihu, and Lomaki/Box Canyon archeological areas as it does now; access t

o these areas 

would be gated at night. The Wukoki spur road would be realigned to meet FR545 north 

of the visitor center. The current Wukoki parking area would be pulled back from the 

site, and the access trail would be lengthened to at least onequarter of a mile, eliminating vehicle traffic from the immediate vicinity of the ruins and providing a more peaceful visitor experience. Ranch roads 

within the proposed partnership/expansion area to the north would be maintained in existing condition for administrative purposes and occasional escorted activities. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road 

would be maintained in its existing condition as an administrative road. A new visitor c

ontact station and 

wayside orientation exhibit would be constructed near the 
ALTERNATIVES 


Table 2: Summary of Alternatives 

No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) 

serve Lands. Archeologists believe that these resources are a direct extension of the cultural 

landscape partially preserved within current monument boundaries. In order to provide 

protection for these valuable 

cultural resources, expansion of 

the park boundary to the north has been proposed. Management actions consistent with 

this goal would continue under 

the No-Action Alternative. 

Pueblo and providing a more peaceful visitor experience. Selfguided tours would be improved, 

and the number of guided tours would be increased. Wukoki and 

Wupatki Pueblos would continue 

to be open for day use and visited 

on a self-guided basis. Guided vehicle and walking tours would 

allow visitors to see and experience the Doney Mountain and the Citadel/Nalakihu and Lomaki/ Box Canyon areas. Unguided 

hiking in the Resource Protection 

Zone would be prohibited. Additional in-depth learning would be 

achieved through ranger-led 

hikes (full day or multi-day) into 

the Guided Adventure Zone, including the Crack-in-Rock area. 

Visitor numbers would be managed to keep these experience s 

personalized and to minimize resource damage. Educational workshops and seminars could be 

offered in conjunction with, or to supplement, these activities. The existing visitor center and associated housing/maintenance area 

would be retained. A small 

primitive campground would be developed for use only in conjunction with sponsored park programs. To increase in-depth learning activities, one of the existing houses would be converted 

to education and meeting space. 

Areas of the park not zoned for administrative or visitor use would remain closed to protect resources. 

The Southwest Parks and Monuments Association would be given the option to use part of the building for continued sales of books and educational materials. The rest of the structure would be converted to offices and research/storage space. Existing housing and maintenance facilities would be retained. Existing roads to the Crack-in-Rock and northern 

expansion lands would be 

gated and maintained in primitive condition. They would be used for escorted four-wheel-drive and/or mountain bike tours to interpret a broader range of park themes, such as prehistoric culture, Navajo, and ranching history. Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would be 

visited on guided hikes during the four-wheel-drive tours. The scenic loop corridor would 

likely need backcountry toilets, shelters, and picnic tables. The 

Black Falls Crossing Road would 

be maintained in its current condition and opened to park visitors. New waysides would be installed to interpret Navajo history and provide information on the neighboring Navajo Reservation. Areas of the park not zoned for administrative or visitor use would remain closed to protect resources. 

north entrance from US89.The existing visitor center would remain open. A broader range of resources, both cultural and natural, would be interpreted in Extended Learning Zones around Wupatki, Lomaki/Box Canyon, Citadel/Nalakihu, and Wukoki archeological areas. 

Guided hikes would continue 

into a Guided Adventure Zone, including overnight trips to 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. A new 

trail would be constructed into the grassland ecosystem on Antelope Prairie. For visitors 

desiring a longer hike and greater opportunities for solitude, a trail would be constructed from the visitor center to Wukoki. Areas of the park not zoned for administrative or visitor use would remain closed to protect resources. 

72 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) 

Archeological Resources The No-Action Alternative 

would have the greatest adverse effect on archeological resources, because a large number of sites (up to 25%) would potentially 

be open to some form of visitation. Adverse impacts from visitation would be offset to some degree by positive benefits derived from visitors receiving education and an enhanced 

appreciation of the resources from participating in guided adventures. In 

addition to those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a result of i

mplementing 

this alternative. 

In comparison to existing conditions, Alternative 1 

would have a beneficial effect on archeological resources because fewer sites would be open to visitation and most visitation would be 

restricted to guided tours. However, more visitors would be concentrated in 

specific areas, including Wupatki, Wukoki, the Antelope CanyonDoney Cliffs area, and the CitadelLomaki area, leading to greater impacts to the sites in those areas. Adverse impacts from more concentrated visitation would be 

offset to some degree by positive benefits derived from visitors receiving more education and an enhanced appreciation of 

the resources from participating in guided adventures. In addition to 

those mentioned, there would be other, less-severe 

effects as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

In comparison to existing 

conditions, Alternative 2 would have a major beneficial effect on archeological resources, because visitation would be largely restricted to stabilized front country sites and Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. In 

comparison to existing conditions, considerably 

fewer archeological resources would be i

mpacted, because substantially less backcountry area 

would be open to visitation and the associated 

impacts from human use. Visitation impacts at Crackin-Rock Pueblo would 

increase relative to existing conditions, and sites in 

close proxi

mity to the 

Crack-in-Rock and Black Falls Crossing Roads could 

sustain damage from cyclic maintenance activities, but these adverse i

mpacts 

would be offset to some degree by positive benefits derived from visitors receiving more education 

and an enhanced appreciation of the resources. In addition to those mentioned, there would be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

The preferred alternatiwould have a moderatbeneficial effect on bac

country archeological rsources relative to exisconditions, because vistion would be restrictestabilized front country sites, sites in the LomaCitadel vicinity, the DoCliffs area, and Crack-inRock Pueblo. In comparison with existiconditions, considerab

fewer archeological resources would be impacted by visitation. addition to th

ose 

mentioned, there wou

be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 
ALTERNATIVES 


Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) 

Historic Character of the 

Built Environment 

The No-Action Alternative would have minor to moderate impacts on the CCC and Mission 66 built environments. Any future alterations to the Mission 66 

landscape, in conjunction 

with the minor, cumulative effects of previous changes and this alternative could 

result in moderate cumulative effects to the Mission 66 designed landscape. 

Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

Alternative 1 would have a long-term moderate adverse impact on the prehistoric landscape, a minor impact on the Old Heiser maintenance yard and housing area, and a minor to moderate adverse impact on the designed Mission 66 landscape. There would be an overall 

reduction of integrity in the prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes, but not to the extent that they would no longer be eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Any future alterations to 

the prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes, in conjunction with the moderate adverse, cumulative effects of previous changes and this alternative could result in moderate, adverse cumulative effects to the prehistoric and Mission 66 designed landscape. Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

Alternative 2 would have minor to moderate, adverse impact(s) on the visitor center and the Black Falls Crossing Road and 

would have a moderate adverse impact on the prehistoric cultural landscapes at the north entrance to the monument 

and at Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. Future alterations to the prehistoric landscape, the visitor center, or the Black Falls Crossing Road, in conjunction with the minor and 

moderate adverse impacts of this alternative could result in moderate, adverse cumulative effects to the prehistoric landscape. Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

The preferred alternatiwould have long-term 

moderate adverse impaon the prehistoric landscape and the Mission 

landscape. There would an overall reduction of toric integrity of both landscapes, but not to extent that they would longer be eligible to be listed on the National Rister of Historic Places. future alteration to the prehistoric and Mission landscapes, in conjunctwith the moderate, adverse cumulative effof previous changes an

this alternative could result in moderate, adverse cumulative effto both designed landscapes. Other minoimpacts would also resfrom implementation othis alternative. 

Ethnographic Resources The No-Action Alternative 

would continue to have moderate to major adverse effects on ethnographic resources to the extent that 

visitor access continues to have an adverse effect on 

Alternative 1 would have 

long-term, beneficial effects on ethnographic resources by increasing their protection from the vandalism that could result from visitor access, as well 

Alternative 2 would provide overall beneficial 

effects to ethnographic resources. Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

Alternative 3 would prvide overall beneficial fects to ethnographic rsources. Tribal consultation would be 

imperative to ensure thare no adverse effects 

74 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) 

archeological resources. Some of the actions common to the No-Action Alternative and all alternatives, including proposed 

boundary expansions, updating of interpretive exhibits, restoration of the Old Heiser spring, and 

backcountry closures, have the potential to produce 

moderate to major beneficial impacts to ethnographic resources, 

provided these actions are implemented in consultation with the traditionally associated tribes. Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

as by increasing visitor education through updated interpretive media and messages. Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

ethnographic resources a result of developing 

self-guided trails and overnight trips to CrackRock. Other minor i

mp

would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

Natural S

ystems and 

Processes 

The existing management of Wupatki National Monument has resulted in few long-term adverse i

mpacts to natural systems 

and processes. Under the 

No-Action Alternative, the NPS would manage for the continued recovery of 

natural systems from historic land uses, control nonnative species when feasible, and restore disturbed areas and other natural processes, such as fire, to the ecosystem. The proposed boundary expansion would have long-term beneficial impacts, espeThe presence of Wupatki as a recreational area might contribute to community gro

wth around 

Flagstaff, and thus to cumulative effects upon regional natural systems, but these impacts are believed to be negligible 

and considerably offset by the value of the monument as a long-term resource conservation area. In addition to these impacts, there would be other, less severe impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Alternative 2 would have an overall long-term, minor beneficial impact on the natural systems and processes of Wupatki National Monument. The 

NPS would manage for the continued recovery of natural systems from historic land uses, control nonnative species when feasible, and restore disturbed areas and other natural processes to the ecosystem. The impacts from proposed changes to visitor access would result in negligible impacts within the Extended 

Alternative 3 would ha

an overall long-term, m

erate beneficial impact the natural systems anprocesses of Wupatki National Monument. TNPS would manage for continued recovery of 

natural systems from htoric land uses, control nonnative species whefeasible, and restore di

turbed areas and other natural processes to thecosystem. Impacts of routing the Wukoki Puaccess road and trail wbe mitigated through rtoration of the old acce
ALTERNATIVES 


Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) 

cially to wildlife. Traffic along FR545 and Black Falls Crossing Road contributes 

to increased mortality rates of wildlife. The presence of Wupatki as a recreational 

area might contribute to community growth around Flagstaff and cumulative effects 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 resource conservation area. 

In addition to these impacts, there would be other, less severe impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Learning Zone, and longterm, minor beneficial 

impacts to areas that receive occasional visitor use under existing conditions. Impacts of building new support facilities would be very localized, minor, and offset by promotion of appropriate visitor behavior. The impacts 

of the scenic loop and visitor use along the Black Falls Crossing Road would 

depend on the timing of road traffic and the size of guided groups. The proposed road changes would likely result in long-term, negligible to locally minor 

impacts to soils, intermittent drainage patterns, vegetation, and increased 

noise and disturbance to wildlife, as well as more pronounced, long-term, 

moderate adverse impacts within the grassland ecosystem and wildlife populations in the western portion of the monument. The presence of Wupatki as a recreational area would have the same effects as it would in the No-Action Alternative. In 

addition to these impacts, there would be other, less severe impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

road and parking lot. Tarea receiving increasevisitor use could see loized, long-term, negligto minor adverse impacto soils, vegetation, intmittent drainages, and wildlife. Increased humpresence in a larger arearound the Citadel and 

Lomaki Pueblos and alo

the new grassland trail would have long-term, minor to moderate adverse impacts to natgrassland integrity and wildlife in the western of Wupatki. The impactWupatki as a recreationarea would be the samunder the No-Action 

Alternative. In addition these impacts, there wbe other, less severe impacts as a result of implementing this altenative. 

76 

Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) 

Threate

n

e

d/ Endangered 

Speci

es 

No threatened or endangered species are known to occur within Wupatki National Monument. Vegetation and wildlife habitat 

within the monument will 

continue to recover from former ranching activities. There are 11 sensitive plant and 7 sensitive animal species known to occur within Wupatki or within similar nearby habitats. The backcountry closure effectively 

protects most sensitive plant habitats from disturbance. Current visitor activity near developed areas and demand for traditionally used species may cause increased threats to plants. Occasional incidental trampling of vegetation during off-trail activities likely has long-term, negligible to minor adverse i

mpacts on plant "species of 

concern." Current visitor 

use and NPS operations at Wupatki likely have longterm, negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to the Wupatki pocket mouse, 

Townsend's big-eared bat, 

and spotted bat. The NPS is cooperating with other 

agencies and landowners 

to improve conditions, for 

pronghorn. The existing 

access road and ongoing juniper woodland expansion have long-term, modAlternative 1 would cause no adverse impacts to threatened and endan­ gered species at Wupatki National Monument. Most of the monument would remain closed to general visitor access, and the im­ pacts for many sensitive species and unique habitats would likely be similar to those identified for the NoAction Alternative. The proposed changes in the road system would eliminate most traffic through the western half of the monument, which would have long- term, moderate beneficial impacts to pronghorn. Development of a campground and es­ tablishing an Extended Learning Zone around Heiser Spring would deter 

NPS efforts to restore the spring as a source of drinking water for wildlife, which would have a longterm, moderate adverse 

impact to pronghorn 

within the monument. Minor impacts could result 

from local realignment of the Wukoki Pueblo access road and extension of the trail. The larger Extended Learning Zone around the 

Citadel-Lomaki area would increase human presence and disturbance to grassAlternative 2 would cause no adverse impacts to threatened and endan­ gered species at Wupatki National Monument. Most of the monument would remain closed to general visitor access, and the im­ pacts for many sensitive species and unique habitats would likely be similar to those identified under the NoAction Alternative. Increase to road system and vehicle access within the monument would have 

long-term, moderate adverse impacts to pronghorn and increase disturbance to sensitive plant habitats. Construction of a new visitor orientation station at the north entrance would permanently impact a local area of habitat for the Wupatki pocket mouse and 

pronghorn. Pronghorn 

movement and foraging patterns would be moderately disrupted by increased human presence. 

The Extended Learning Zone around the CitadelLomaki area would 

increase human presence and potential disturbance to grassland habitat, karst features, several sensitive plant species, Townsend's big-eared bat, spotted bat, pronghorn, and golden 

The preferred alternatiwould cause n

o advers

impacts to threatened endangered species at Wupatki National M

on

ment. Most of the monment would remain cloto general visitor accesand the impacts for masensitive species and unique habitats would likely be similar to thosidentified under the NoAction Alternative. The constructi

on of a new v

tor orientation station the north entrance wopermanently impact a larea of habitat for the Wupatki pocket mouse and pronghorn. Pronghmovement and foraginpatterns would be modately disrupted by increased human presencThe proposed learning zone around the CitadeLomaki area would increase human presence 

and p

otential disturban

to grassland habitat, kafeatures, several sensitplant species, T

ownsen

big-eared bat, spotted pronghorn, and golden 

eagle. The a new oriention facility combined wincreased visitor access within the western halthe monument would slightly increase cumulative adverse 
ALTERNATIVES 


Table 3: Summary of Major Impacts 

No-Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) 

erate adverse impacts. The boundary fence and visitor 

use have long-term, minor 

adverse impacts. Road traffic and visitor use may interfere with breeding golden eagles. Accordingly, 

the NPS recently decided to close the Citadel Pueblo to visitors during the breeding season. Continued human disturbance of 

nesting sites likely results in long-term, moderate to major impacts within the monument. A number of 

unique habitats exist 

within the monument, and most of them are located within the closed backcountry area, which protects them from most impacts. The proposed 

boundary expansion would 

nearly double grassland 

habitat and have longterm, moderate, beneficial 

impacts to grassland-dependent species. Existing visitor use and NPS operations have minor impacts 

upon karst features and negligible to minor impacts upon the cinder alluvial 

fan and the Doney Monocline.In addition to those 

mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

land habitat, karst features, and several sensitive species. An increase in the level of dispersed hiking with the proposed Guided Adventure Zone, especially 

around Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo, would result in increased impacts to habitat 

for several sensitive plant species. If visitor numbers, access patterns, and the timing of guided visits are appropriately managed by the NPS, this alternative would result in long-term negligible to minor impacts to most sensitive species and unique habitats. Other minor impacts would also occur as a result of implementing this alternative. 

eagle. Opening the Black Falls Crossing Road to park 

visitors would result in increased road mortality of Wupatki pocket mouse and 

trampling of rare plant habitats adjacent to the road corridor. The elimination of guided 

"discovery hikes" and dispersed hiking access to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

would benefit a large area of sensitive plant habitat. If 

visitor numbers, access patterns, and the timing of guided visits are appropriately managed by the NPS, 

this alternative would result in long-term negligible to minor impacts to most sensitive species and 

unique habitats, except 

perhaps for pronghorn. 

Other minor impacts would 

also result from implementation of this alternative. 

impacts to the integrity grasslands and have loterm, minor to moderaadverse impacts on the pronghorn herd. Minor 

impacts could result fro

local realignment of thWukoki Pueblo access rand extension of the tr

An increase in the levedispersed hiking with tproposed Guided 

Adventure Zone, and testablishment of two ntrails would increase oftrail vegetation trampland have negligible to 

long-term, minor impacto suitable habitat for seral sensitive plant speOther minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

78 

Wetlands, Floodplains 

and Riparian Habitat 

Historic and continuing 

land use within the Little Colorado River basin and 

manipulation of the Little 

Colorado River through impoundments have severely 

impacted wetland, floodplain, and riparian resources within Wupatki 

National Monument. The 

No-Action Alternative 

would likely have negligible to minor impacts to existing wetlands, floodplains, and riparian resources along the Little 

Colorado River. Historic ranching and NPS management actions have 

severely impacted the only three springs within the monument. The NPS proposal to eventually restore early historic conditions at Heiser Spring would have 

long-term, moderate beneficial impacts to wetland 

and riparian resources within the monument. The NPS would coordinate with 

the U.S. Forest Service to address potential impacts to the recharge area in the Coconino National Forest. 

In addition, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

The impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

habitats would be the same as identified for the No-Action Alternative, except increased visitor activity around Heiser Spring would potentially deter NPS efforts to restore 

wetlands and riparian 

habitat at the spring. Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

Except for the impacts of increased vehicle use on intermittent drainage channels and floodplains, under 

Alternative 2, the impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and riparian habitats would be the same as under the No-Action 

Alternative. There would be some other negligible to minor adverse impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Except for the impacts increased visitor use on termittent drainage chanels and floodplains, thimpacts to wetlands, floodplains, and ripariahabitats would be the same as under the NoAction Alternative. Thewould be some other nligible to minor adverse impacts as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Ability to Experience 

Full Range of Resources 

The overall effect of the 

No-Action Alternative on access to park resources by the general public and by 

visitors with disabilities would be moderate and long term, with both beneThe overall effect of Alter- native 1 on access to park resources by the general public and for visitors with disabilities would be mod­ erate and would have both beneficial and adverse ele- Visitors would have an op­ portunity to experience more variety of resources in this alternative compared with the No- Action Alternative. More restrictive uses of lands Within the park bound

ries, visitors would havaccess to all of the park sources that are availabunder existing conditio

with the exception of tBlack Falls Crossing Roa
ALTERNATIVES 


ficial and adverse elements. The ability to see the real thing and the ability to experience a 

minimally altered environment would be 

changed moderately. The 

ability to understand park resources and the regional context of the parks would be moderately beneficial. In addition to those mentioned, there would be 

other, less severe effects as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

ments. The ability to understand park resources and the regional context of the parks would be affected moderately in a beneficial way. Elimination of the drive-through experience would have a significant impact on 

regional visitors and would 

bea more educational experience. There would be a greater opportunity to experience natural soundscapes. More kinds of ecological resources would 

be open to the public than 

under the No-Action Alternative. Fewer visitors would be likely to access 

areas that would be available only on guided tours. In addition to those mentioned, there would 

be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

previously under other jurisdictions would decrease the ability of visitors to experience resources related to park significance. The overall impact to visitor experience would be one 

of decreased ability to view 

resources. Some new areas would be open on rangerled programs, which would 

allow access to more of the tangibles and intangibles 

of the Wupatki landscape and cultures than in the No-Action Alternative. In 

combination with actions being taken outside of the park, an increase in 

visitation seems likely. There would be other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Visitors would have ad

access to the new trail Wukoki and the grasslanear Lomaki.With enhanced interpretation, tors would gain a greaunderstanding of all paresources, including thoon expanded lands, although many of the paresources would be off limits to visitation. The 

overall impact to visitoexperience of the park sources would be long term and beneficial, buminor. In addition to th

mentioned, there woulbe other, less severe effects as a result of implementing this alternative. 

Park Neighbors Within existing conditions, 

the management actions 

for the NPS provide beneficial impacts to other agencies, neighbors, and American Indian tribes. The existing conditions result in 

only minor impacts to the workloads of others in terms of additional administrative tasks, interpretive 

planning, agreement reviews, and joint planning 

efforts. Other minor impacts also exist. 

Cooperative management and protection efforts with the USFS, the Navajo Nation, and the CPNRL 

would continue to produce major, long-term, positive impacts in law enforcement, resource management, wildfire management, protection, and visitor services. Closure of FR545 as a park entrance and exit could have a moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact on neighbors, other land and resource managers, and residents of the 

Cooperative management and protection efforts with the USFS, the Navajo Nation, and the CPNRL would continue to produce major, long-term beneficial impacts in law enforcement, resource management, wildfire management, protection, and visitor services. For-fee interpretive programs conducted by partners or concessionaires could have 

major, long-term, beneficial impacts from profits gained. Increased 

Cooperative managemand protection efforts the USFS, the Navajo Nation, and the CPNRL would continue to prodmoderate, long-term bficial impacts in law enforcement, resource maagement, wildfire management, protection, avisitor services. Increascongestion and contact with others could have moderate, long-term adverse impact on AmericIndian tribes seeking trtional cultural uses. Ot

80 

Navajo Nation, who would normally use that road for access to and from the north. Increased congestion and contact with others could have a moderate, long-term impact on American Indian tribes seeking traditional cultural uses. Other minor 

impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

congestion and contact 

with others could have a moderate, long-term adverse impact on American Indian tribes 

seeking traditional cultural uses. Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

minor impacts would a

result from implementation of this alternative. 

Operational Efficiency The No-Action Alternative 

would result in no substantial change in park operations. The effects of implementing the No-Action 

Alternative would be 

minor to moderate. Most of the major roads providing access to the park will see a likely increase in visitor and commuter traffic, which would result in additional congestion and accidents. Maintenance needs would 

increase. Increased use of roads leading to the park would increase the difficulties that already exist in protecting park resources, including accessing areas of the park that are closed 

Alternative 1 would have a long-term moderate beneficial effect on the operational efficiency of the 

park. It would dramatically change the use of the park from a drive-through experience to a destination park, which would result in a major increase in the management of unregulated use and access into the park, affording greater 

protection of park resources. Proposed actions 

would have a moderate 

impact on park operations, resulting in highter operational costs and an increase in the need for maintenance of the roadway segment between 

Alternative 2 would result in minor changes in operational efficiency. The most substantial change would be the modified use of the existing visitor center and the dispersal of park staff to day-use locations. There would be increased demands on the park infrastructure, including roads and facilities. Proposed 

boundary expansions coupled with how adjacent 

land managers propose to 

manage their land would 

have a moderate beneficial impact on operational efficiency. Other minor 

impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

Changes resulting from implementation of this alternative would have 

overall beneficial impaon operational efficien

There would be some short-term moderate impacts as a result of the construction of the new 

visitor contact facility athe north entrance, new trails, and the realignmof the Wukoki spur roaOnce this construction been completed there would be a minimal to moderate impact to operational efficiency. Most impacts would be the form of increased sto operate the new contact station, perform 
ALTERNATIVES 


to visitation and intentional and unintentional damage to 

archeological resources. The effects to facilities, 

utilities, and staffing would be minor to 

moderate adverse. Many improvements are needed to protect visitor and staff health and safety. Current staff levels have achieved a certain level of efficiency, 

however, limitations do 

exist that inhibit the park's ability to provide adequate 

levels of resource 

protection and preservation, maintenance 

of existing facilities, and 

visitor serviceS. Other minor impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

Wupatki and Sunset Crater 

Volcano and a new 

primitive campground. 

Proposed limited boundary expansion coupled with 

changes in how adjacent 

land managers propose to manage their land would 

have a moderate beneficial impact on the park. The level of protection and 

preservation of park resources would be greatly increased. Other minor 

impacts would also result from implementation of this alternative. 

maintenance on the faties and trails, and see increased resource pres

vation needs. The 

proposed changes in 

visitor use would significantly improve adiversify visitor experience; however, 

there would be increasresource protection anpreservation needs. In dition to those mentionthere would be other, severe effects as a resuof implementing this 

alternative. 

82 

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives 

Objective No-Action Alternative 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 Limit Motorized Sightseeing and Focus on Extended 

Learning 

Alternative 2 Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing and Resource Protection 

through on-Site Education 

Alternative 3 (Prefer

Preserve Sensitive PaResources while Diversifying the Rang

of Visitor Experience

1. Maximize Protection of Cultural Resources 

Resource protection messages are accomplished 

through exhibits and personal contact at the visitor 

center and reinforced by media at the five developed visitor use areas. Resource protection patrols 

are sporadic at Wupatki Pueblo and other front country sites. For resource protection purposes, areas of the park other than these developed sites and administrative areas are closed to unguided entry. 

Cultural resource protection would be enhanced with increased emphasis on longer and more 

intensive educational programs. Wupatki would 

become a destination 

rather than a short drivethrough experience. 

The long-term integrity of 

cultural resources would be enhanced through on-site 

protection and orientation. 

The access roads and parking lots at WukoLomaki/Box Canyon, Citadel/Nalakihu archlogical areas would bgated at night to detafter-hour visitation. Areas of the park nozoned for administrative or visuse would remain closed to protect resources. 

2. Maximize Protection of Natural Resources 

Resource protection messages are accomplished 

through exhibits and personal contact at the visitor 

center and reinforced by media at the five developed visitor use areas. Resource protection patrols 

are sporadic at Wupatki Pueblo and other front country sites. For resource protection purposes, areas of the park other than these developed sites and administrative areas are closed to unguided entry. 

Natural resource protection would be 

enhanced with increased emphasis on longer and more intensive educational 

programs. Wupatki would 

become a destination 

rather than a short drivethrough experience. 

The long-term integrity of 

natural resources would be enhanced through on-site 

protection and orientation. 

Areas of the park not zoned for administrativor visitor use would remain closed to protecresources. 

3. Expand Diversity of 

Visitor Experience 

Visitor use is concentrated at Wupatki visitor center, four of the park's primary 

Fewer archeological sites would be open to unguided or self-guided use 

Motorized sightseeing would be maintained and would be expanded to new 

A broader range of resources, both cultural anatural, would be inter
ALTERNATIVES 


Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives 

Objective No-Action Alternative 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 Limit Motorized Sightseeing and Focus on Extended 

Learning 

Alternative 2 Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing and Resource Protection 

through on-Site Education 

Alternative 3 (Prefer

Preserve Sensitive PaResources while Diversifying the Rang

of Visitor Experience

archeological areas, and the picnic/viewpoint area 

located at Doney Mountain. The vast majority of visitors interact with the four archeological areas on 

their own with no on-site NPS presence. Two types of guided activities are offered into the closed areas (discovery hikes and overnight Crack-in-Rock Pueblo hikes). Wupatki is 

usually visited as part f a larger travel itinerary, and 

the average visitor stay is two hours or less. 

than at present. There would be an increase in the number of guided tours to cultural sites that have not been stabilized or previously developed for visitation. New interpretive programs would be 

developed to present a broader range of 

educational and interpretive opportunities. 

areas of the park. The road to Black Falls Crossing 

would be opened to park visitors, and existing primitive roads in the north boundary expansion would be used for guided tours along a scenic backcountry 

loop. 

preted in the Extended Learning Zones around Wupatki, Wukoki, LomBox Canyon, and Citad

Nalakihu archeological areas. Guided overnighhikes would continue tCrack-in-Rock Pueblo. A new trail would be con

structed in the grasslan

ecosystem on Antelope Prairie, and a trail woube constructed from thvisitor center to WukokPueblo. 

4. Limit Effect on Neighbors 

USFS, state, and private lands located between Sunset Crater Volcano and 

Wupatki are generally 

viewed by visitors as part of the national parks, although NPS jurisdiction 

through those lands is limited to the roadway 

corridor. 

FR545 between the visitor 

center and the Lomaki/ Citadel area would be closed to traffic, except for guided access. FR545 between Lomaki/Citadel and US89 would be abandoned and the pavement would be removed. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be open to park visitors. Tours to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

might be offered through a concessionaire arrangement. 

FR545 would remain opto 24-hour, 2-way traffand would provide the 

same access to WupatkCitadel/Nalakihu, and Lomaki/Box Canyon archeological areas. Rancroads within the propopartnership/expansion area to the north woulmaintained in existing dition for administrativpurposes and occasiona

escorted activities. The Black Falls Crossing Roa

would be maintained iexisting condition as an administrative road. 

5. Improve Operational Efficiency 

The existing use and development of the park is based on planning 

The north entrance of the park and other entry 

points would be 

The access roads and parking lots at Wukoki, Lomaki/ Box Canyon, Citadel/ 

FR545 would remain opto 24-hour, 2-way traffand would provide the 

84 

Table 4: Objectives Met by Alternatives 

Objective No-Action Alternative 

Existing Conditions 

Alternative 1 Limit Motorized Sightseeing and Focus on Extended 

Learning 

Alternative 2 Emphasize Motorized Sightseeing and Resource Protection 

through on-Site Education 

Alternative 3 (Prefer

Preserve Sensitive PaResources while Diversifying the Rang

of Visitor Experience

initiated in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s. 

eliminated to ensure that visitors receive orientation before encountering park resources. Day use of the park would be concentrated at Wupatki and Wukoki Pueblos. 

Nalakihu, and Doney 

Mountain picnic area would be gated at night to deter after-hours visitation. The proposed boundary expansion to the south would include that portion 

of the park entrance road that is on National Forest lands, which would allow NPS to manage access to the western half of the park. 

same access to WupatkCitadel/Nalakihu, and Lomaki/Box Canyon archeological areas. Rancroads within the propopartnership/ expansion area to the north woulmaintained in existing dition for administrativpurposes and occasiona

escorted activities. The Black Falls Crossing Roa

would be maintained iexisting condition and 

used as an administrat

road. A new visitor con

station and wayside orientation exhibit wobe constructed near the north entrance from US

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Impact topics were identified though the 

scoping process. Concerns covered by this 

section include maintaining the longterm scientific integrity and culturally 

sensitive values of archeological sites, 

including prehistoric and historic 

architecture, shrines, humanly 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 Euro-American global 

economy. Wupatki National Monument 

preserves an important piece of the 

prehistoric story of human occupation 

and adaptation on the southern edge of 

the Colorado Plateau. The monument 

was created to protect concentrations of 

well-preserved prehistoric architecture, 

specifically dating to the 12th and early 

13th centuries, when formerly scattered 

families began to consolidate into larger 

village communities and build substantial 

multiroom structures. 

In addition to protecting impressive 

concentrations of prehistoric 

architecture, the monument contains a 

representative cross section of the types 

and variety of archeological sites found 

throughout the Four Corners region. Site 

types include masonry pueblos, 

pithouses, cliff dwellings, rock shelters, 

open campsites, agricultural field 

systems, ceremonial shrines, Navajo 

hogans, historic cabins and corrals, rock 

art panels, miscellaneous artifact scatters, 

and a variety of other physical remains. 

These archeological remains reflect the 

diverse cultures and differing economic 

strategies of the various people who 

have attempted to make a living in this 

beautiful, yet challenging, environment 

during the past 12,000 years. 

Almost as soon as the first Wupatki 

National Monument was established in 

1924, local archeologists and Flagstaff 

town fathers advocated expanding the 

monument to include additional 

abundant archeological sites located 

north and south of the current 

monument boundaries. Like Wupatki 

National Monument itself, the immediate 

surrounding area contains literally 

thousands of sites. Some sites predate 

the eruption of Sunset Crater at 

approximately A.D. 1065, but the vast 

majority date to the period after the 

eruption until about A.D. 1275, 

contemporary with the prehistoric 

occupation of Wupatki. The lands 

surrounding the monument contain an 

exceptionally well-preserved 

archaeological landscape, including 

residential sites, ceremonial ballcourts, 

lithic quarries, agricultural fields, shrines, 

rock art, and other features created 

primarily during the 12th and 13th 

centuries. The current level of 

preservation of this landscape is largely 

due to the previous lack of residential 

development, lack of commercial timber 

prospects, and generally limited 

commercial value of this area. Most 

historic use of the land around the 

monument has been limited to 

woodcutting, grazing, and hunting, but 

this situation is starting to change with 

87

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


recent expansion of residential 

development near the monument and 

increasing recreational pressures on 

Forest Service land around Flagstaff and 

nationwide. 

The archaeological sites and features of 

the surrounding landscape are integral to 

the Wupatki story. Recent archaeological 

studies by Northern Arizona University, 

Desert Archaeology, Northland Research, 

Coconino National Forest, and other 

archeological research groups, have 

significantly increased our understanding 

of the prehistoric occupation of the 

Wupatki area compared to what was 

known when the monument's current 

boundaries were created. We know that 

after Sunset Crater erupted, a settlement 

system arose to the north and east of 

Sunset Crater, populated by people from 

diverse backgrounds living in multiple 

environmental zones and interacting 

across those zones. We understand that 

Wupatki currently incorporates only a 

small fraction of the environmental 

zones and diversity of archaeological 

sites that made up this "post-eruptive" 

settlement system. We know that the 

quality and density of the archeological 

resources preserved in Wupatki National 

Monument is matched, and in some cases 

even exceeded, by those outside the 

monument. The area encompassed 

within the current boundaries of 

Wupatki National Monument today 

represents only the northernmost 

expression of that prehistoric settlement 

system. 

Park 

At Wupatki, archeological remains 

associated with prehistoric ancestral 

Puebloan groups (Cohonina, Sinagua, 

and Anasazi) are well represented, along 

with historic Navajo and Anglo ranch 

sites. Lt. Lorenzo Sitgreaves, who passed 

through the region in 1851, first brought 

the remarkable prehistoric ruin now 

known as Wupatki Pueblo to the 

attention of Euro-Americans. John 

Wesley Powell, founder of the Bureau of 

American Ethnology, reported on the 

presence of prehistoric ruins near the 

Citadel area in 1885. The first formal 

archeological investigation of the 

Wupatki area occurred in April 1900, 

when local prospector Ben Doney guided 

Jesse Walter Fewkes of the Smithsonian 

Institution to the ruins. Several additional 

surveys of the Wupatki area were 

conducted subsequent to Fewkes's initial 

study (Barrett in 1924, Colton in the 

1920s). The work of Fewkes and Harold 

Colton, founder of the Museum of 

Northern Arizona, was instrumental in 

having the area set aside as a national 

monument in 1924. 

Wupatki NM was originally set aside to 

preserve and interpret several large 

pueblos with standing architecture: 

Wupatki, Wukoki, Citadel, Nalakihu, 

Lomaki, and the two Box Canyon 

pueblos. Subsequent legislation added 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo to the monument. 

These eight prominent architectural sites 

have been the focus of most past and 

present interpretive efforts and 

preservation work at Wupatki NM. In 

addition to the seven front country sites 

and Crack-in-Rock Pueblo, approximately 

45 other sites in the monument have 

received some form of stabilization 

treatment. At least 50 additional 

architectural sites have been identified as 

needing some form of preservation 

treatment in the foreseeable future. 

A complete inventory of archeological 

resources within Wupatki NM was 

completed in the mid-1980s, revealing a 

total of 2,668 archeological sites 

(Anderson 1990). This total did not 

include the four largest front country 

sites---Wupatki, Wukoki, Citadel, and 

Nalakihu-which brings the total number 

of documented sites to 2,672. Of this 

total, 2,405 are prehistoric or have 

prehistoric components and 2,214 sites 

88 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


have architectural remains. Site 

components recorded during the 

inventory were characterized according 

to their most predominant features. Site 

types included pithouse villages (28), 

pueblos (176), rock art sites (132), hogans 

(89), corrals (57), sweathouses (16), slablined features (141), terraced field 

systems (18), ramadas (18), isolated 

hearths (16), rock shelters (177), burials 

(49), cairns (63), dams and reservoirs (8), 

fences (6), walls (125), fieldhouses 

(1,374), depressions (139), shrines (13), 

kivas (3), catchments (19), camps (24), 

historic trash dumps (44), artifact scatters 

(52), borrow pits (7), borrow dumps (43), 

windbreaks (78), quarries (31), enclosures 

(779), check dams (55), earth cracks (9), 

field systems (278), modified springs (3), 

and miscellaneous other historic sites 

(10). 

Based on the results of the archeological 

inventory, the prehistory of Wupatki 

National Monument can be 

reconstructed. The earliest recorded 

remains in the monument consist of an 

isolated Clovis point dating to 11,500-

11,000 B.P. (9500-9000 B.C.). A number of 

younger spear points and some rock art 

elements apparently dating to the 

Archaic Period, 9,000-3,000 B.P. (7000-

1000 B.C.) have also been recorded in the 

monument. Colton (1946: 57, 63) 

speculated on the possible presence of 

Basketmaker II people living at the site of 

Wupatki Pueblo, based on the presence 

of cist-like features found beneath the 

floor of the "amphitheater." Besides 

these isolated occurrences, however, no 

archeological sites unequivocally 

associated with preceramic use or 

occupation of the monument have been 

identified. 

The first evidence of Puebloan 

occupation does not appear until after 

A.D. 1000 and is confined to only a 

couple of small sites. The Wupatki 

Archeological Inventory Survey of 1981-

87 (hereafter referred to simply as the 

Wupatki Survey) identified only two sites 

dating prior to the eruption of Sunset 

Crater in A.D. 1064-1065. The vast 

majority of archeological sites in the 

monument date between A.D. 1100-

1250. 

Wupatki has been characterized as a 

cultural frontier zone, where numerous 

prehistoric cultures came together and 

intermingled following the eruption of 

Sunset Crater (Colton 1946). Pottery 

evidence indicates extensive use and 

occupation of the area by three 

contemporary prehistoric groups in the 

12th and early 13th centuries A.D. 

Archeologists refer to these groups as the 

Cohonina, Sinagua, and Kayenta Anasazi. 

Evidence of occupation or at least 

ceramic trade contacts with people 

affiliated with the Prescott culture and 

the Little Colorado (Winslow) Branch of 

Anasazi are also present in the 

monument. 

Colton (1946) speculated that this 

cultural interaction zone developed as 

the result of a prehistoric "land rush," 

which came about after the eruption of 

Sunset Crater created a water-retaining 

cinder mulch over a widespread area, 

allowing land that was previously 

unsuitable for cultivation to sustain a 

large farming population. Pilles (1974) 

has been an outspoken critic of the 

Colton hypothesis. Pilles argues instead 

for local population increases 

accompanied by changes in settlement 

strategies brought about by widespread 

favorable climatic conditions during the 

11th century A.D. to explain the 

apparent population surge in the 

Wupatki area during the Pueblo II and 

early Pueblo III periods. 

Whatever the explanation, it is clear that 

site populations within the monument 

increased dramatically and rapidly after 

A.D. 1065, with 18+ sites ceramically 

dated between A.D. 1060 and 1130, 99+ 

89

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


sites dated between A.D. 1130 and 1160, 

and 369 sites dated between A.D. 1160 

and 1220. (There are twice as many sites 

with ceramic assemblages spanning more 

than one period that are not included in 

these minimum numbers.) Of the 2,668 

sites recorded during the Wupatki 

Survey, 2,397 exhibited artifacts, 

petroglyphs, and/or architecture 

indicative of prehistoric use, and of these, 

977 were datable on the basis of 

associated ceramics. Of the 977 dated 

sites, 949 or 97% dated between A.D. 

1065± and 1220±. 

The vast majority of recorded sites in the 

monument are small unit pueblos or 

pithouse villages with fewer than six 

rooms. Of the 2,397 recorded prehistoric 

sites, 1,080 have one room or one 

pithouse and 723 have two to six rooms 

or pithouses. The large sites such as 

Wupatki Pueblo (100+ rooms) and the 

Citadel (50+ rooms) clearly stand out as 

unusual structures. 

Wupatki Pueblo was apparently a center 

for trade, ceremonial activity, and 

cultural interaction within the region. Its 

prominence is probably due to its 

strategic location on or near several 

natural travel corridors. Natural travel 

routes included the east-west Little 

Colorado Valley, Deadman Wash (part of 

an ancient NE-SW trade route linking the 

Hopi Mesas with the San Francisco Peaks), 

plus a series of mountain passes to the 

south and east of Wupatki that allowed 

travelers to pass from the low country 

below the Mogollon Rim to the Colorado 

Plateau highlands. Ideas and trade goods 

flowed into and out of Wupatki Pueblo, 

as evidenced by abundant woven cotton 

fabrics, turquoise and shell jewelry, and 

the largest concentration of scarlet 

macaws in the American Southwest. The 

Pueblo also contains a diverse assortment 

of ceramics, as well as non-local 

architectural features, such as the 

Hohokam-style ballcourt and Chacoanstyle banded masonry. Although the 

decorated pottery at Wupatki Pueblo is 

mostly from the Kayenta Anasazi region 

in NE Arizona, the vast majority of 

pottery at Wupatki Pueblo is Alameda 

Brownware, the local Sinagua utility 

ware. Hence, despite exhibiting 

numerous outside cultural influences, 

Wupatki Pueblo is generally considered 

to be a Sinagua site. 

In contrast to Wupatki Pueblo and a few 

other sites in the immediate vicinity, the 

majority of masonry pueblos in Wupatki 

National Monument appear to be 

affiliated with the Kayenta branch of the 

Anasazi (Ancestral Pueblo) culture. This is 

based on the predominance of distinctive 

Anasazi decorated and "corrugated" 

utility pottery at most prehistoric sites in 

the monument. Cohonina pottery is 

common at many of these sites, 

particularly in the western reaches of the 

monument, but unequivocal Cohonina 

residences are quite rare within the 

monument. It is interesting to note, 

however, that concentrations of large 

Cohonina pithouse villages are found 

only a few miles to the south and west of 

the monument. 

The intense period of building and 

occupation in the Wupatki area is 

sometimes referred to as the "Wupatki 

Phenomenon." The "phenomenon" was 

relatively short lived, lasting 

approximately 120-150 years. Site 

population decreased dramatically after 

A.D. 1220, and the area was apparently 

abandoned by the mid-13th century. The 

ultimate cause of the abandonment is 

unclear, although climatic deterioration 

and the accompanying removal and 

redistribution of water-retaining cinder 

mulch by wind action has been suggested 

as one possible cause. 

The area continued to be used on a 

sporadic basis after the 13th century, 

primarily by Hopi travelers and later by 

ancestral Havasupai for seasonal hunting 

90 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


and gathering. Beginning sometime in 

the 1800s, Navajo herders moved into the 

region and began using the Wupatki 

Basin as a seasonal residence. 

Approximately 220 of the 2,668 sites 

recorded during the Wupatki Survey are 

attributed to the historic Navajo 

occupation of the area. Of these 220 

sites, approximately 170 have 

architectural features (hogans, corrals, 

ramadas, masonry dams, and/or sweat 

lodges) associated with them. 

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 

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 a 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 club house 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 Pai groups, 

early cattle and sheep ranchers, and 

lumbermen. 

Park 

The historical built environment at 

Wupatki represents two eras of National 

Park Service development. These two 

eras-dedicated to harmonizing, to the 

extent possible, the construction of 

roads, trails, and buildings-include the 

CCC period of rustic architecture 

followed by the Mission 66 construction 

program. 

Two CCC structures are in current use. 

Ranger residence 1 (designed by Cecil 

Doty and constructed in 1938), and the 

original visitor center (a small semisubterranean structure now part of the 

Mission 66 visitor center), have been 

melded into the Mission 66 setting, which 

includes the visitor center, planned 

parking, apartments, and two detached 

houses. Other CCC construction in the 

park includes Black Falls dam, constructed 

at Black Falls Crossing on the Little 

Colorado River. The dam was constructed 

to support agriculture on the adjacent 

Navajo Reservation. Emmett Kellam 

constructed a trading post on what is 

now park land to support farming Navajo 

families. The park bulldozed the Black 

Falls Trading Post in 1964 (Boston 1991). 

The Wupatki visitor center complex 

(visitor center, houses, and apartments) 

was constructed as part of the NPS 

Mission 66 construction program. "The 

Mission 66 program was intended to 

improve and expand visitor services by. . . 

constructing modern facilities, and 

upgrading existing roads, trails, 

campgrounds, and other facilities in 

national parks" (McClelland 1998). The 

complex represents a Park Service era 

influenced by techniques of design and 

construction to provide for the greatest 

amount of enjoyment of our national 

91

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


parks. Trails and roads were constructed 

to coincide with the complex in order to 

promote the best experience. 

The Wupatki visitor center complex and 

associated roads and trails have not been 

adequately documented. 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 on the National 

Register of Historic Places can be 

determined by the review board prior to 

completion of the context study. 

The visitor center and houses constructed 

during the Mission 66 program represent 

an era of modern methods of landscape 

and architectural design. The visitor 

center reflects the Mission 66 concept of 

open design, wide floor-to-ceiling 

windows, and light-controlled areas for 

displaying artifacts. 

The majority of visitors to Wupatki enter 

the Mission 66 portion of the visitor 

center and walk the nearby Wupatki 

Pueblo trail. Recent changes to the visitor 

center are the direct result of increasing 

numbers of visitors and the design 

limitations of the building. A central 

dividing wall was removed to reduce 

congestion and to encourage a traffic 

flow pattern. The Mission 66 apartments 

and houses are visible from the visitor 

parking lot and were constructed to 

blend in with the surroundings. Recently, 

pitched roofs were added to one of the 

houses and the apartment complex. 

Ranger residence 1, constructed by the 

CCC, is adjacent to the Mission 66 visitor 

center and is part of the first view visitors 

get upon arrival at the park. In the 1980s 

a foam roof and solar panels were added 

to ranger residence 1. These additions 

have resulted in significant interior wall 

damage. Improper techniques were also 

used to treat the stone walls of the 

residence and have added to the 

structure's deterioration. 

Cultural landscapes at Wupatki 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 

Region 

NPS guidelines describe ethnographic 

resources as "variations of natural and 

standard cultural resource types. They are 

subsistence and ceremonial locales 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 to 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). 

Wupatki National Monument in northcentral Arizona is part of a region lying 

between extensive high-altitude national 

forest lands to the southwest and semidesert mesas of the Hopi and Navajo 

92 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


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). Tribal 

perspectives on the regional context of 

the parks' ethnographic resources were 

provided in reports prepared by 

individual tribes for this planning process. 

Park 

As indicated in the Purpose and Need 

and Consultation/Coordination sections, 

NPS consulted initially with ten tribes and 

in depth with three tribes in 

identification of ethnographic resources 

for the purposes of this plan. The Hopi, 

Navajo, and Zuni Tribes conducted field 

research using culturally appropriate 

methods to identify ethnographic 

resources about which they might have 

concerns in the context of this GMP. 

Although tribal representatives identified 

those resources of particular concern for 

this EIS, it should be stressed that the 

resources identified for this project are 

not necessarily all the ethnographic 

resources that exist in the three parks. 

The three tribes identified many 

ethnographic resources of concern to 

each tribe and identified several 

resources in common. Resources 

identified as culturally significant 

included archeological sites in general 

(both pre-Columbian and historic), which 

include petroglyph panels and preColumbian agricultural field features, 

numerous plant species, and culturally 

significant natural resources, such as 

springs, blowholes, and certain 

geographic features, such as hills, the 

Little Colorado River, river crossings, 

trails, and various ceremonial locales. The 

identification of plants and other natural 

resources and geographic features as 

having particular cultural significance 

points to the fact that ethnographic 

resources include resources that have 

conventionally been distinguished as 

natural and cultural. When considered as 

ethnographic resources, the distinction 

becomes meaningless, because natural 

resources also are imbued with cultural 

meaning. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND 

PROCESSES 

The integrity of the natural systems and 

process within Wupatki National 

Monument depends on conserving native 

plant and animal communities, 

maintaining geomorphic and soil 

formation processes, and ensuring that 

intermittent drainage systems function 

properly. During the public and agency 

scoping process, specific environmental 

impact issues were identified, including: 

preservation of microhabitats; 

93

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


preservation of unfragmented natural 

systems; movement of herd species, 

wildlife, migratory birds; 

character/condition of Wupatki 

grasslands; healthy function of 

intermittent drainage systems; integrity 

of natural systems for ecological research; 

and exclusion of exotics. Additional 

summaries of affected threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species, 

unique habitats, and wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian resources are 

presented in separate sections below. 

Region 

Wupatki National Monument is located 

in the southern part of the Colorado 

Plateau. In this general region north of 

the Mogollon Rim, elevations vary from a 

low of 2,400 feet above sea level at the 

bottom of the Grand Canyon, to a high 

of 12,670 feet above sea level at the San 

Francisco Peaks, fewer than fifty miles 

away. The plateau was shaped by erosion 

to reveal geologic outcrops of red 

sandstone and white limestone. The area 

surrounding the monument is also 

characterized by an extensive volcanic 

field (the San Francisco Volcanic Field) 

with prevalent cinder cones and lava 

flows. The Painted Desert stretches east 

from Wupatki to 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 climate of the region varies 

tremendously with elevation above sea 

level. The Little Colorado River basin 

adjacent to Wupatki lies near 4,300 feet 

in elevation, receives approximately 6 to 

7 inches of precipitation per year and 

experiences temperatures from -4° to 

105° F. The visitor center at Sunset Crater 

Volcano National Monument, 15 miles 

south of Wupatki is located at 7,000 feet 

elevation, receives about 20 inches of 

precipitation annually, and generally has 

colder winters and milder summers. 

Another 20 miles to the south, Walnut 

Canyon National Monument, also at 

7,000 feet elevation, receives similar 

precipitation to Sunset Crater Volcano 

and experiences temperatures from far 

below 0° to the 90°s F. 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 

the plant communities. This diversity is 

exhibited by the range of vegetation 

communities from alpine tundra on top 

of the San Francisco Peaks to Sonoran 

Desert at the bottom of the Grand 

Canyon. Within Wupatki, Walnut 

Canyon, and Sunset Crater Volcano 

National Monuments surrounding 

Flagstaff, one can observe many of the 

dominant vegetation types. Juniper 

woodlands, Colorado Plateau grasslands, 

and Colorado Plateau desert scrub 

communities are common at Wupatki. 

Traveling a short distance to Sunset 

Crater Volcano, one passes through 

pinyon-juniper woodland, ponderosa 

pine forest, and lava flow and cinder 

barrens. Walnut Canyon contains a 

narrow stand of broadleaf deciduous 

forest along the bottom of the canyon, 

mixed-coniferous forest on north-facing 

slopes, and ponderosa pine forest and 

parkland above the canyon rim, 

respectively. Higher elevations harbor 

aspen groves, and spruce and fir forests. 

Prehistoric, historic, and current land uses 

have undoubtedly played a major role in 

shaping the landscape of the area as 

well. In addition to relying heavily upon 

agricultural land use, prehistoric peoples 

94 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


utilized 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 entire region, as it 

has in most of the Southwestern United 

States. In ponderosa pine areas, fire 

suppression has had a well-documented 

effect on the forests of this area. 

Densities of trees have risen dramatically 

because fire has been excluded from the 

forests for the past 75 to 100 years. In 

some areas, tree densities have increased 

so drastically that there is severe risk of 

catastrophic fire. This type of fire is a 

dramatic contrast to the low-level natural 

fires that existed when pine stands were 

open and fires burned primarily in the 

understory. 

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 

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 range-fire suppression 

is favoring juniper encroachment into 

grasslands. Cattle remove much of the 

grass and forbs and enhance the ability 

of juniper seedlings to germinate and 

establish in what were once continuous 

grassland areas. Other scientists believe 

that we are witnessing a natural 

succession process in which junipers are 

returning to formerly occupied habitat. 

Human occupation of much of the region 

certainly must have included the use of 

any available wood sources for fuel and 

construction purposes. 

Modern landownership patterns and uses 

have also resulted in increased habitat 

fragmentation within the region. Fences, 

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

of numerous wildlife species, including 

pronghorn antelope. Roads throughout 

the area serve as conduits for the spread 

of exotic weedy plants. Much of the land 

within the region is managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service for sustained multiple uses, 

including hunting, firewood collecting, 

grazing, off-highway vehicle use, 

backpacking, and hiking. A large area of 

95

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


the region belongs to sovereign 

American Indian tribes. Their culture is 

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 has been 

extensively invaded by nonnative annual 

bromegrasses, drastically altering natural 

fire regimes, displacing native perennial 

bunchgrasses, and reducing or 

eliminating forage or cover for grasslanddependent 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 

Wupatki National Monument harbors a 

sizable natural area of relatively 

undisturbed vegetation and wildlife 

habitats. An inventory of natural 

resources within Wupatki was completed 

during the late 1970s (Bateman 1976, 

1979). This study remains the best 

available documentation of the 

monument's flora and fauna. A soil 

survey was completed in 1971 (Schurig). 

The vegetation is currently being 

mapped (Thomas 2001). Wupatki is 

roughly divided in half by the Doney 

Monocline, with each half having distinct 

geology, elevation, and dominant 

vegetation. At lower elevations to the 

east of the monocline, the monument is 

dominated by sandstone and shale 

geologic formations, saline soils, and 

open desert scrub vegetation. At higher 

elevations to the west of the monocline, 

the monument is dominated by 

limestone and volcanic formations, fertile 

soils, and juniper savanna and grassland 

vegetation. 

The natural systems and processes within 

Wupatki National Monument were 

heavily influenced by former ranching 

activity, game hunting, and predator 

control. Cattle grazing was discontinued 

during the late 1980s. Occasionally, a cow 

from a neighboring ranch strays into the 

monument until the owner removes it. 

Under a "life estate" agreement 

between the NPS and a Navajo resident, 

a small flock of sheep continues grazing 

a small area on the east side of the 

monument. The grazing history and 

associated impacts at Wupatki have not 

been specifically studied and are difficult 

to assess. However, in view of the 

documented regional impacts of historic 

ranching activities, grasslands in the 

western half at Wupatki are still 

dominated by native perennial 

bunchgrasses and believed to be in good 

condition. Biologists are increasingly 

concerned about the growing population 

of juniper trees in the southwestern 

portion of the monument. The desert 

areas in the eastern half are more likely 

altered by Navajo sheep herding and 

ranching, especially the intermittent 

drainage system and riparian areas. 

Under continued NPS management, the 

natural resources of Wupatki should 

continue to recover from historic 

livestock grazing impacts, and relatively 

pristine grassland should only increase in 

ecological importance and scientific 

value. 

Until the last century, grassland and 

savanna areas of Wupatki likely 

experienced periodic wildfires, which 

played a major role in plant dominance 

and succession in these natural systems. 

The NPS plans a limited managementignited fire program to test the impacts 

of fire on juniper woodland and 

grassland within the western half of 

Wupatki. Prior to conducting test burns, 

96 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


the NPS must prepare a Fire 

Management Plan and accompanying 

environmental assessment to review 

potential impacts. 

Of the total 35,400 acres within Wupatki, 

approximately 5% is currently affected 

by fences, roads, NPS facilities, and visitor 

activity. A number of fences around the 

boundary, together with FR545 and 

US89, generally dissect grassland habitat 

around the western half of Wupatki, and 

effectively hinder the movement of 

pronghorn and other wildlife in and 

around the monument. Roads were 

planned and constructed with regard for 

natural drainage patterns and only cause 

local ponding on upslope sides or limited 

erosion at culvert downspouts. In the 

past, nonnative plants have dispersed 

into the monument along road corridors 

and become established in areas 

disturbed by maintenance activities. NPS 

operations include facilities that are 

concentrated around the visitor center 

and at New Heiser. Visitor use is primarily 

concentrated along existing roads, 

parking lots, visitor center, trails, four 

archaeological interpretive areas, and the 

Doney Mountain picnic area. Visitor and 

NPS operation impacts are primarily 

evident around these areas and include 

native vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, unplanned trail 

development, minor alterations in 

drainage patterns, noise, and disturbance 

to wildlife. Local populations of 

nonnative plants, including Russian 

thistle (Salsola kali) are persisting in 

disturbed areas and along trail corridors. 

In 1998, most of the area within Wupatki 

National Monument was closed to public 

access to protect sensitive resources. Up 

until then, backcountry use was readily 

permitted, but the effect on natural 

systems is difficult to assess because the 

NPS maintained no statistics on visitation 

numbers or commonly visited areas. 

Backcountry access continues for 

authorized special uses, such as research 

and educational activities. There is also 

occasional unauthorized hiking within 

the closed area, which will likely 

continue. Occasional guided day hikes 

and vehicle trips, and as many as eight 

overnight guided backpacking trips are 

made per year to the Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo. Although dispersed hiking is 

encouraged instead of hiking on a 

developed trail, hikers are narrowly 

confined by rugged terrain in certain 

reaches, and short trail segments are 

evident. Around the Crack-in-Rock area, 

unplanned trails become established 

between the interpreted archaeological 

sites. Localized vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, and accelerated erosion is 

occurring, and local patches of nonnative 

Russian thistle (Salsola kali) are also 

evident. Although these impacts are very 

localized, they illustrate how sensitive 

the desert environment can be to low 

levels of human activity. 

There are numerous abandoned roads 

and construction material quarries at 

Wupatki. Most of these are within the 

closed area and remain as scars on the 

landscape today. Projects are currently 

proposed or already under way to 

inventory disturbed lands. Many of the 

older and more remote roads and sites 

are probably best left to recover under 

natural ecological processes. Some 

impacted sites, including several 

materials quarries, are currently being 

considered for restoration treatments, 

which would include: reshaping surface 

contours, promoting natural soil 

development, restoring local drainage 

patterns, reestablishing native 

vegetation, and controlling nonnative 

plant infestations. 

There currently is little information on 

the distribution or impacts of nonnative 

plants within the monument. Nonnative 

plant infestations, predominantly Russian 

thistle (Salsola spp.) and a few other 

97

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


small annual plant species, are generally 

confined to road corridors, developed 

areas, or areas of heavy visitation. These 

species benefit from the additional 

runoff associated with paved surfaces 

and often out-compete native vegetation 

along road shoulders. Nonnative plants 

may also rapidly colonize areas where 

the ground surface is heavily disturbed by 

equipment or heavy foot traffic. Annual 

brome-grasses (Bromus spp.) have been 

observed at Wupatki, but the area of 

infestation has yet to be assessed. There 

is no feasible method for controlling 

these small, weedy annuals. Camelthorn 

(Alhagi maurorum), a tenacious shrub 

species, has also invaded an estimated 20 

acres of intermittent drainages within 

Wupatki. Some nonnative species have 

been planted by employees around their 

residences, but none of these are 

believed to be naturalizing and escaping 

into the surrounding environment. The 

monument currently lacks sufficient staff 

or funding to actively monitor or attempt 

to control nonnative species; however, 

attention to these issues is anticipated in 

the near future. Many species can 

potentially be controlled with persistent 

efforts to remove plants and control root 

systems with herbicides. Success in 

controlling an invasive species would be 

predicated upon early detection of 

infestations before they grow out of 

control, or upon the availability of 

ecologically sound and affordable 

technology. 

A neighboring landowner is currently 

proposing to donate more than 20,000 

acres to Wupatki National Monument. 

The proposed boundary expansion would 

increase the area within the monument 

by 60% and effectively double the area 

of grassland and riparian habitat. The 

NPS remains concerned that illegal 

activities occuring on U.S. Forest Service 

lands south of the monument are 

adversely affecting the condition of large 

watersheds that drain through the 

monument. Illegal poaching, 

woodcutting, and off-road-vehicle use 

have resulted in unauthorized access 

within the closed area of the monument. 

The NPS hopes to alleviate these concerns 

through increased communication, 

monitoring ecosystem conditions, and 

better coordination with the U.S. Forest 

Service. Both the boundary expansion 

and coordination with the U.S. Forest 

Service could lead to the removal or 

closure of some roads, removal of fence 

segments, and joint fire management 

near the current monument boundary. 

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 the region surrounding Wupatki, 

and their status 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, 

candidate species, and designated critical 

habitats that might be affected by a 

proposed action. The potential impacts to 

a number of 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. Oldgrowth coniferous forests and other 

vegetation communities in the region, 

98 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


combined with physiographic features 

such as canyons and mountains, provide 

habitat for a number of threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species. Within 

Coconino County, Arizona, there are 5 

plant, 9 animal (including fish), and 1 

invertebrate species that are formally 

listed as threatened or endangered. 

There are another 54 plant, 51 animal 

(including fish), and 5 invertebrate 

species that may be exceedingly rare and 

are being monitored by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish 

Dept., U.S. Forest Service, and Navajo 

Natural Heritage Program (Arizona 

Heritage Data Management System 

2001). 

Among all biological groups within the 

region, fish are threatened to the 

greatest extent. Several other plant, 

animal, and invertebrate species also 

require perennial streams, wetlands, or 

riparian habitats, reflecting the 

widespread alteration of entire region's 

freshwater ecosystems. 

Of the region's rare plant species, several 

are endemic to the Mogollon Highlands 

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 lucida) is found within 

the region in dense, mixed-conifer 

forests, particularly in canyons. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process 

of designating critical habitat for the 

species. The owl occurs along the Grand 

Canyon, in Walnut Canyon, and near 

Sunset Crater Volcano. The Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, an endangered bird 

species, depends 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 Marshal 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 and ferruginous hawk 

(Buteo regalis). 

Although the golden eagle (Aquila 

chrysaetos) is not formally listed or 

considered a species of concern, wildlife 

managers and the general public are 

concerned about it, because of its low 

population density, ecological 

importance as predators and indicators of 

environmental quality, and traditional 

importance to American Indians. As with 

other wide-ranging raptor species, the 

99

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


numbers of golden eagles have declined 

as a result of habitat loss, historic 

predator control programs, and power 

line electrocution. Eagles are legally 

protected from being killed or taken 

under the Eagle Protection Act. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service administers this 

Act and annually issues permits to 

American Indian tribes to take specified 

numbers of golden eagles and feathers 

for ceremonial use. Golden eagles are 

solitary animals, and little is known 

about their distribution, number, and 

status around Wupatki. Although the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently 

proposed a study to assess the status of 

the species throughout the Western 

United States, there is no regional 

management framework for ensuring 

the species remains viable. 

Bat species are considered to have 

specialized habitat requirements and 

sensitivity to environmental impacts. 

Twelve species are currently monitored as 

species of concern. 

Although not formally listed or 

considered a species of concern, 

pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra 

americana) are the focus of considerable 

wildlife management effort, because 

they are attractive large herbivores and 

an important game species, and the 

public is concerned about their continued 

survival. The species was historically 

overhunted and nearly extirpated in the 

Southwestern United States. The 

continuing decline is primarily attributed 

to habitat fragmentation caused by 

conventional range fences, which 

antelope do not jump over and therefore 

must find weak sections of fence to cross 

under. Pronghorn herds are effectively 

confined and prevented from moving to 

water and forage during drought years 

or to lower elevations during severe 

winters. Other causes of decline include 

road mortality and continuing loss of 

grassland habitat. Wildlife managers are 

concerned about the pronghorn decline 

in the population in northern Arizona 

over the past few decades, including the 

herd west of Wupatki and north of the 

San Francisco Mountains (Bright and Van 

Riper III 2000). Local coyote populations 

have been controlled to protect 

pronghorn fawns from predation (Terry 

Miller, AZGF, pers. comm.). 

Park 

The Arizona Heritage Database (Arizona 

Game and Fish Department 2001) was 

consulted via the internet to generate a 

list of threatened and endangered 

species and other species of concern for 

Coconino County, Arizona. This list was 

compared with the inventory of natural 

resources within Wupatki completed by 

Bateman (1976, 1979), which remains the 

best available documentation of the 

monument's flora and fauna. In addition, 

a survey for special status plants at the 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments, 

including Wupatki, was just completed 

(Huisinga et al. 2000). Currently, no 

federally listed threatened or 

endangered plant or animal species are 

known to occur in Wupatki National 

Monument. 

At Wupatki, there are three plant species 

of concern for which there are historic or 

recent records: Pediocactus simpsonii, 

Phacelia serrata, and Psorothamnus 

thompsoniae var. whitingi. The 

distribution of these within the 

monument is not well known. Another 

six species of concern are known from 

similar habitats nearby the monument, 

including Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

ambiguus, Cymopterus megacephalus, 

Errazurizia rotunda, Pediocactus 

peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae, Phacelia 

welshii, and Puccinella parishii. Field 

searches and mapping efforts are needed 

to assess the distribution and status each 

species. In addition to these, other plants 

at Wupatki, including Amsonia 

peeblesiana, Phragmites communis, and 

100 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


Poliomintha incana, are considered to be 

increasingly threatened by overcollection for traditional uses by Native 

Americans. Phragmites communis occurs 

at only one location in the monument 

and could easily be eliminated by overcollection. Although little is known about 

these plants, existing roads, trails, and 

facilities in the monument are limited in 

extent and avoid most available habitat. 

Site-specific surveys are required prior to 

any ground or vegetation disturbing 

activity to ensure they are not impacted. 

Three animal species of concern are 

known to occur within the monument, 

including Wupatki pocket mouse 

(Perognathus amplus cineris), spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum), and Townsend's 

big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). 

The Wupatki pocket mouse is 

documented in grasslands in the western 

half of the monument. Very little is 

known about the distribution or status of 

the subspecies, but it is presumed that it 

would be impacted by development and 

land use activities in similar ways as other 

grassland-dependent wildlife. At 

Wupatki, this would include disturbance 

from the entrance road and from visitor 

activities. Spotted bats and Townsend's 

big-eared bat occur in several of the 

cave-like karst features in the Lomaki/Box 

Canyon area. These geologic features 

may also serve as unique habitats for 

other rare species, especially 

invertebrates, and preliminary surveys 

and biological inventory efforts have just 

begun. Some of these features are near 

popular visitor use areas, and have been 

impacted from prior NPS management 

activities, including attempts to block 

entrances as a public safety precaution. 

However, most visitor use and support 

facilities avoid karst habitats, and the 

NPS is planning to restore the historically 

impacted entrances. 

Two bird species of concern, the 

ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) and 

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularea ssp. 

hypugaea) are known from similar 

habitats near the monument. The 

ferruginous hawk inhabits open 

grassland surrounding Wupatki. The 

burrowing owl inhabits burrows 

constructed by many mammals. Although 

ome burrowing mammal communities 

have been observed within the 

monument, the presence of burrowing 

owls has not been confirmed. Very little 

is known about the distribution or status 

of either species, but it is presumed that 

both would be impacted by development 

and land use activities in similar ways as 

other grassland-dependent wildlife. 

Although not formally listed as a species 

of concern, the pronghorn antelope 

(Antilocapra americana) herd within 

Wupatki was identified as a management 

issue during the public and agency 

scoping process. The pronghorn 

population has declined in and around 

Wupatki during the last few decades 

(Bright and Van Riper III 2000). The 

species is being affected by regional 

habitat fragmentation and loss, including 

loss of habitat within the monument as 

juniper woodland takes over available 

grassland. The boundary fence confined 

the herd within Wupatki during heavy 

snows in the mid-1970s and was blamed 

for a number of deaths. Perennial water 

sources are scarce, and the animals must 

move back and forth to water on 

adjacent lands. Recent boundary fence 

modifications should allow the animals to 

move between neighboring lands. 

Existing roads within the monument are 

not fenced, and from time to time 

animals are killed by automobiles. 

Although golden eagles (Aquila 

chrysaetos) are not formally listed as a 

species of concern, their status within 

Wupatki was identified during the public 

and agency scoping process. Golden 

eagles have historically nested within 

Wupatki, though no nesting pairs were 

101

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


discovered during recent surveys (Britten 

1999, Drost 2000). The best nesting 

habitat, as evidenced by old nests, is in 

the Citadel Sink, Doney Mountain, and 

Doney Anticline areas. In the past, public 

visitation, especially to the Citadel Pueblo 

area, may have interfered with breeding 

eagles. They are known to be sensitive to 

human presence. If disturbed by noise or 

rapid movements, adult birds may fail to 

use a nest site or temporarily abandon 

their eggs or chicks, which exposes them 

to undue cold temperatures and/or 

predators. Some biologists recommend 

establishing a 1/4- to 2-mile-diameter 

buffer zone around nests. Accordingly, 

park managers recently decided to close 

the Citadel Pueblo to visitors during the 

breeding season. 

In addition to grasslands and karst 

features (and riparian areas, which are 

discussed separately in the Wetlands, 

Floodplains, and Riparian Habitat section 

below), two other unique plant 

communities were identified by Bateman 

(1976). The first is the alluvial fan of 

vegetated cinder dunes to the east of 

Woodhouse Mesa. The second is the 

massive, exposed limestone faces of the 

Doney Anticline, in the center of the 

monument, including Antelope Canyon, 

which bisects the anticline. Although 

these areas are generally not critical 

habitat for the sensitive plants or animals 

listed above, they harbor numerous 

plants not otherwise found (e.g., 

Echinocactus polycephalus) and greatly 

contribute to overall biodiversity within 

the monument. The cinder dune fan is 

bisected by the entrance road, but is 

mostly within the area that is closed to 

general visitor access. The established 

backcountry hiking route to Crack-inRock Pueblo follows along the base of 

the Doney Anticline and near the mouth 

of Antelope Canyon. Although dispersed 

hiking is encouraged instead of hiking on 

a developed trail, hikers are narrowly 

confined by rugged terrain in certain 

reaches, and short trail segments are 

evident. Some visitor use impacts are 

locally evident around the Crack-in-Rock 

area, including unplanned trails, 

localized vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, accelerated erosion, and 

patches of nonnative Russian thistle 

(Salsola kali). Although these impacts are 

very localized, they illustrate how 

sensitive the desert environment can be 

to low levels of human activity. 

WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, 

AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

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. Many 

floodplains and wetlands in the 

Southwestern United States harbor 

unique riparian habitats and rare species. 

During the public and agency scoping 

process, pertinent impact issues were 

identified regarding the potential 

impacts to floodplains associated with 

intermittent drainages (dry washes 

and/or arroyos), perennial springs, and 

the Little Colorado River. This includes 

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 these very unique resources 

are conserved at Wupatki. 

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 Wupatki 

National Monument are extremely scarce 

and precious resources. Among all 

biological groups within the region, the 

fishes have the greatest number of 

102 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


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 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. A small area 

of the regional watershed drains south of 

Flagstaff into Oak Creek and the Verde 

River basin. 

All perennial streams and intermittent 

tributary washes are heavily impacted by 

human uses, primarily from 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 promote 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 

103

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


Colorado are also influenced by the 

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 

Wupatki National Monument is largely 

included within the upland watershed 

that drains the east and northeast San 

Francisco Mountain slopes, including the 

San Francisco Volcanic Field. Wetland, 

floodplain, and riparian resources at 

Wupatki are restricted to the Little 

Colorado River banks and two perennial 

springs-Peshlaki Spring and Heiser Spring. 

Approximately 11/2 to 2 miles of the 

Little Colorado River flow along the 

monument's eastern boundary. Wetlands 

that meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

jurisdictional criteria under Section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act are likely only found 

on the bed of the intermittently flowing 

Little Colorado River. Here, jurisdictional 

wetlands are probably restricted to the 

scoured cobble and stone riverbed, which 

is almost devoid of vegetation and may 

be dry for months at a time during an 

average year. Peshlaki Spring and Heiser 

Spring have no measurable surface flow, 

and surface water is typically available 

only if a shallow basin is dug and 

maintained. Above Peshlaki Spring, 

Phragmites communis grows over 

approximately 750 square feet. This is the 

only obligate wetland plant species 

recorded within Wupatki. Although 

extremely limited in area, Peshlaki Spring 

may also meet jurisdictional wetland 

criteria. 

The Little Colorado River floodplain is 

very distinct, and supports a narrow band 

of riparian vegetation. It was likely 

dominated by cottonwood-willow gallery 

forest in the early 1900's. Now, the 

floodplain is mostly dominated by 

nonnative tamarisk thickets, likely as a 

result of long-term grazing pressure and 

altered flood regimes from upstream 

impoundments and diversions. Local 

Navajo residents continue to graze 

livestock on both banks upstream and 

downstream from the monument, and 

the NPS is prevented from fencing the 

sizeable riparian area within the 

monument because intense flooding 

would likely destroy any fence structures 

near the riverbed. At a few areas where 

large tributary washes meet the Little 

Colorado River, such as Deadman Wash, a 

high water table supports tamarisk 

thickets. These areas may be far enough 

removed from river flooding that they 

can be effectively fenced to exclude 

livestock and restored to native 

vegetation. The proposed boundary 

expansion would more than double the 

area of river floodplain, including a few 

remnant cottonwood groves. 

Currently the only human development 

within the floodplain at Wupatki is the 

Black Falls Crossing. Local Navajo 

residents cross the river at this location 

year-round, except during high water. 

Continual use and maintenance has 

caused ruts, erosion, and gradual 

widening of the crossing, which locally 

influences hydrology and sediment 

movement for less than 100 feet 

downstream within the river channel. 

During the 1940s, the Black Falls Dam 

was built 1/8 mile upstream from the 

crossing (Westheimer 1988). At one time 

the dam site and affected river reach 

were within the monument boundary, 

but the lands were withdrawn to the 

Bureau of Reclamation. The Black Falls 

Dam silted up several years ago and now 

holds only a small amount of water. The 

104 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


Bureau of Reclamation has 

administratively transferred jurisdiction 

of the site to the Bureau of Land 

Management. The riverbed crossing and 

dam have locally altered this reach of the 

Little Colorado River floodplain. 

There are three natural springs within 

Wupatki National Monument: Peshlaki, 

Heiser, and Wupatki. All of them were 

modified historically by Navajo 

occupants, ranchers, and/or the NPS, and 

they are likely the most severely 

impacted natural resources within the 

monument. Prior to the arrival of Anglo 

culture, the springs were undoubtedly 

used by American Indian peoples and 

would have been critical water sources 

for wildlife. Water flow at all three is 

believed to have steadily diminished 

during the 20th century. The reasons for 

this are not known, but it is likely a 

combined result of long-term weather 

and vegetation change within the 

recharge area. Peshlaki Spring was 

heavily relied upon by local Navajo 

sheepherders, and still has an installed 

water containment and animal trough 

system. Heiser Spring was first modified 

by the Heiser family ranching operation, 

and was later distributed to NPS 

residences for drinking water. Installed 

"spring-boxes" divert springwater 

through piping to a local Navajo property 

inholder, leaving no surface water at the 

spring site. Wupatki Spring was also 

developed by the NPS as the original 

water supply for the visitor center. 

Wupatki Spring ceased flowing during 

the 1950s, possibly as a result of NPS 

efforts to stimulate its flow. 

Peshlaki Spring is the only remaining 

perennial spring with available surface 

water for wildlife within the monument. 

The NPS is planning to eventually restore 

Heiser Spring, including removing 

containment and diversion structures, 

restoring original contours, and planting 

riparian vegetation. Several intermittent 

seeps have also been recorded in the 

monument, but a full inventory and 

condition assessment is needed for seeps 

and ephemeral water sources. 

There is a shallow water table along the 

river, but the water is highly gypsiferous 

and very poor in quality. Peshlaki Spring, 

Heiser Spring, and the former Wupatki 

Spring flow from a local, perched aquifer 

within interbedded sandstone and shale 

in the Moenkopi Formation. Spring flows 

are highly variable, increasing during 

winter and spring, and declining through 

the summer and fall. Flows do not 

correlate directly with annual 

precipitation amounts. The aquifer is 

recharged within the area of heavily 

fractured surface basalts from 

Woodhouse Mesa southward of the 

monument boundary at least five miles 

to the Strawberry Crater area. Most of 

the recharge area is managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service. Land use and vegetation 

condition within the recharge area likely 

affects the spring flows. 

Five major intermittent drainage systems 

traverse the eastern half of the 

monument-Citadel Wash, Antelope 

Wash, Doney Mountain Wash, Deadman 

Wash, and Kana-a Wash. Each drains a 

sizeable area, and all are subject to 

infrequent, but intense flash flooding. 

The wash beds are characteristic braided 

sand sands and gravels. Thicker desert 

scrub vegetation lines the drainages. 

Except for a few road crossings, there are 

no NPS facilities within the intermittent 

drainage floodplains. None of the washes 

possesses hydrologic, soil, or vegetation 

characteristics indicative of jurisdictional 

wetlands. Except for their respective 

confluences with the Little Colorado 

River, none would be considered riparian 

habitat. 

There are a few human-made earthen 

stock tank impoundments within the 

monument, which are left over from 

former ranching operations. Several 

105

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


abandoned gravel and cinder quarries 

also seasonally hold water. All of these 

are used by wildlife, including 

pronghorn. 

ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK 

RESOURCES 

The scoping process identified the 

visitors' ability to experience park 

resources related to park significance as 

an issue. Concerns include access to park 

resources by the general public, access to 

information provided by museum 

collections and ability to see the "real 

thing" (actual artifacts, dwellings, etc., as 

opposed to replicas or simulations); 

minimally altered environment; access to 

a full spectrum of 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 nonNPS lands. Interpretation of park 

resources as part of a regional system is 

crucial, but not currently being 

accomplished. In all three Flagstaff Area 

monuments, wayside and museum 

exhibits are outdated and inaccurate and 

fail to emphasize the desired big picture. 

A major interpretive planning effort to 

replace wayside interpretive signs along 

trails and roadsides and to redo museum 

exhibits in the visitor centers is under 

way, concurrent with this GMP. The new 

exhibits will present a cohesive story, 

106 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


linking the natural and cultural resources 

of these three monuments with NPS, 

USFS, and other sites throughout the 

region. They will be designed for full 

accessibility, to serve visitors with 

disabilities and/or different learning 

styles. And they will enhance visitors' 

ability to see the "real thing," using the 

actual structure, feature, or artifact 

whenever possible, or models, electronic 

images, virtual tours, or other means 

when necessary. Programmatic 

accessibility for visitors with vision, 

hearing, and mental impairments is 

being addressed in the Comprehensive 

Interpretive Plan. 

The opportunity to present this type of 

interpretive message in a comprehensive 

manner is great, since travel patterns of 

visitors to the Flagstaff Area monuments 

are fairly well defined. Visitor surveys 

(1998) indicate that the majority of 

Sunset Crater Volcano/Wupatki visitors 

travel from south to north along FR545, 

the 36-mile scenic road connecting the 

two parks. Most (68-70%) are engaged in 

a longer trip and are en route to Grand 

Canyon National Park and/or points 

north. Of Wupatki visitors, 92% also go 

to Sunset Crater Volcano and 35% to 

Walnut Canyon; for 68% this is part of a 

longer trip. 

Park 

As described in the Purpose and Need 

section, Wupatki's purpose is to 

"preserve, protect, care for, and manage 

the ancestral Hopi sites, other prehistoric 

remains, and cultural and natural 

resources of historic, ethnographic, and 

scientific interest." 

Thousands of archeological sites are 

protected within the monument. Major 

pueblos (Wupatki, Wukoki, Lomaki, 

Citadel) have been developed for selfguided interpretation and "hardened" 

for visitation; these are reached via short 

spur trails leading from parking areas. 

Short interpretive programs, both talks 

and guided walks, are offered when 

staffing permits. The Crack-in-Rock area 

and other backcountry sites are visited 

via ranger-led programs available four to 

eight times per year. The rest of the park 

is currently closed to visitation. 

For most visitors, Wupatki is largely a 

drive-through experience. The typical 

visit includes the visitor center and 

museum exhibits and walks to one or two 

of the pueblos. For visitors with mobility 

impairments, accessibility of the 

archeological sites is difficult or 

impossible. A viewing platform is 

available for Wupatki Pueblo, and 

limited views of some of the other 

structures are possible from the parking 

areas. The visitor center/museum itself is 

accessible. 

Throughout the park, broad vistas of 

desert grasslands, mesas, buttes, and 

volcanic hills contrast sharply with the 

San Francisco Peaks, which are visible in 

the distance. Spectacular views of the 

landscape within and beyond the 

monument are a major part of the road 

trip through both Sunset Crater Volcano 

and Wupatki National Monuments. 

Associated plants and wildlife can be 

viewed from the roadside and 

designated trails. 

Many significant features occur outside 

park boundaries, on U.S. Forest Service or 

private land. Most park visitors remain 

unaware of their existence or 

significance, with the exception of those 

who stop at the Doney Mountain picnic 

area and viewpoint, where interpretive 

displays inform visitors of the geology 

and archeology of the Doney Mountain 

area. Recreational opportunities, 

including hiking, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, backpacking, fourwheel-drive excursions and off-highway 

vehicle use, are available on nearby USFS 

lands. 

107

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


According to recent visitor surveys (Lee 

and Treadwell 1999), visitors are 

generally satisfied with their experience 

in the park. Most are incorporating their 

trip to Wupatki as part of a larger travel 

plan, and the vast majority are on their 

way to or from Grand Canyon National 

Park. The majority of visitors are 

expecting to experience archeological 

ruins and are motivated by a desire to 

learn about the way of life of the people 

who built the structures. Visitors also 

expressed a desire to view scenery and to 

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 

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 

Wupatki National Monument is located 

35 miles north of the City of Flagstaff, 

Arizona, and 185 miles north of Phoenix, 

a rapidly growing metropolitan complex 

of more than two million people. 

Flagstaff, a major community of northern 

Arizona, has a population of 

approximately 55,000 and offers 

numerous services for the extensive 

ranching, lumber, and tourism activities 

of northern Arizona. The area between 

Flagstaff and Sunset Crater Volcano and 

Walnut Canyon is being subjected to 

increasing residential and business 

development. The remainder of the 

region surrounding the monuments is 

sparsely populated, although a private 

development (known as Alpine Ranchos) 

is increasing in population northeast of 

Sunset Crater Volcano, leading to 

substantial increases in nonpark travel on 

park roads. 

Land use in the region varies from the 

expanding urban influences of Flagstaff 

near Sunset Crater Volcano and Walnut 

Canyon to low-intensity grazing at 

Wupatki. The Coconino National Forest, 

which borders Wupatki on the south and 

west, is under multiple-use management. 

The primary uses near the monuments 

are recreation and grazing. 

Information from the U.S. Geological 

Survey indicates that some lands in the 

vicinity of the monuments are 

prospectively valuable for oil and gas, 

geothermal steam, and associated 

geothermal resources. Because of the 

lack of surface indications and drilling 

data, the potential for geothermal 

energy development and for discovery of 

oil and gas in the area is unknown at the 

present time. The Coconino National 

Forest and adjacent region are currently 

being studied by the U.S. Geological 

Survey and private corporations for 

potential geothermal development. 

Permits have been granted by the U.S. 

Forest Service to energy-related firms for 

research on Forest Service lands adjacent 

to the Wupatki boundary. Based on 

present information, there are no 

additional valuable leasable minerals. 

Minerals, including cinder, pumice, 

gypsum, miscellaneous clays, sulfur, and 

uranium, are reported in the area 

surrounding the park, and meteorites 

and meteorite diamonds have been 

reported in the vicinity. It is unknown to 

what extent, if any, these minerals exist 

at commercially valuable levels in the 

108 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


monument. A cinder quarry operation is 

located outside Sunset Crater Volcano, 

northwest of the visitor center. The haul 

road for this operation crosses the main 

park road (FR545) near US89. 

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

throughout Forest Service areas adjacent 

to the monument. Occasionally, these 

activities spill over onto monument 

property and present illegal and 

incompatible use. 

The location of the monument within 

this regional complex of public lands is 

one of the most important aspects 

determining its visitation pattern, as well 

as its resource management problems 

and programs. 

Land management plans exist for some 

of the areas surrounding the monument. 

This general management plan will be 

compatible with the City Open 

Space/Greenway Plan, the County 

Regional Plan, the Forest Service Flagstaff 

Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA), the 

Forest Management Plan, and with the 

land and resource management plans of 

Babbitt Ranches, now called the 

Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands. 

The Ranch has entered into an 

agreement with the Navajo and Hopi 

Tribes to manage their lands 

professionally with respect to the 

environment and resources conservation. 

The 1995 "Hopit Potskwaniat," Hopi 

Tribe Consolidated Strategic Plan, 

presents the goals of the Hopi Tribe to 

initiate sound planning for the 

development of tribal land and resources 

for the benefit of the Hopi People. The 

plan specifically addresses preservation of 

the Hopi way of life and the protection 

of sacred places and subsistence 

gathering areas. 

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 

The western two-thirds of Wupatki's 

south boundary is bordered by the 

Coconino National Forest. The eastern 

one-third is predominately privately 

owned land. State-owned lands border 

the west boundary. The Coconino Plateau 

Natural Reserve Lands (CPNRL), formerly 

known as Babbitt Ranches, and a 

checkerboard of state-owned sections 

exist along the north boundary. The east 

boundary of the monument is bordered 

by the Navajo Reservation. The east and 

west sides of the monument are defined 

by the Little Colorado River and US89, 

respectively. 

Park neighbors include residents of 

Alpine Ranchos, a community located 

south of the monument. Although 

several miles distant, the residents 

identify with the monument, often 

stopping at the visitor center to request 

assistance from law enforcement rangers, 

to report crimes, and so on. Many are 

dependent upon NPS for road access to 

and from Flagstaff. Small businesses, such 

as Hank's and Sinagua Trading Post, 

located along US89 on the north and 

south boundaries of the park, also 

identify with the monument. In many 

instances, towing services provided by 

these small businesses are solicited by 

stranded visitors. 

Similarly, many Navajo Reservation 

residents pass through the monument 

and depend on monument resources to 

serve a variety of needs, including 

maintenance of their main travel route. 

109

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


Reservation communities and Alpine 

Ranchos have expressed some concerns 

over any plans to terminate roads in the 

park, particularly as to effects on their 

quality of life, increased commuting time, 

and diminished access to conveniences 

such as gas, phone, mail, and groceries. 

The park has trained and commissioned 

law enforcement rangers and employees 

certified in emergency medical response. 

The park is usually the initial contact in 

an emergency. Off-hours response is, 

however, minimal. Cooperative law 

enforcement is performed through 

written agreements with the Coconino 

National Forest and the Coconino County 

Sheriff's Office. All commissioned park 

rangers are special deputies of the 

County Sheriff's Office. 

Cooperative agreements in firefighting, 

law enforcement, and facility 

maintenance often result in NPS 

personnel responding to incidents on 

USFS lands to the south. Hiking, hunting, 

woodcutting, climbing, mountain biking, 

horseback riding, and shooting activities 

within the area sometimes result in 

physical intrusion onto the monument. 

The NPS money generation model is a 

formula used to estimate the benefits 

attributed to the local economy resulting 

from the number of visitors to National 

Park System areas. The estimates of those 

contributions to the greater Flagstaff 

economy from Wupatki National 

Monument include tax revenue of 

$331,108 and a total spending revenue of 

$6,221,653 (based on the latest 

calculations from 1996). 

Ten affiliated tribes have identified 

traditional relationships and/or cultural 

properties within park boundaries and 

have concerns about public access to 

sites; some groups need access to 

restricted use areas for plant gathering 

and traditional activities. Consultation 

with these tribes is routine and ongoing. 

The area is of great interest to various 

agencies involved in research, including 

the U.S. Geological Survey, Northern 

Arizona University, and others who, 

although they do not own or administer 

any lands, will have an interest in 

management decisions affecting the 

resources of the area. 

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

Operational efficiency refers to adequacy 

of the staffing levels and the quality and 

effectiveness of the infrastructure used in 

the operation of the park in order to 

adequately protect and preserve vital 

park resources and provide for an 

effective visitor experience. Also 

identified through the scoping process 

were concerns about employee and 

visitor health and safety and 

management of collections and other 

resources. 

Roads and Trails 

Access to Wupatki is gained primarily via 

US89 and FR545. Because of the fourlane, high-speed nature of US89, visitors 

and employees are exposed to dangerous 

situations when entering and exiting the 

park via the north entrance. Traffic is 

controlled by a single stop sign on the 

FR545 side of the intersection. 

FR545 is a simple two-way, asphalt-paved 

roadway, which forms a loop between 

Wupatki and Sunset Crater Volcano 

National Monuments. The overall 

condition of FR545 is fair to poor, with 

large sections of thermal, longitudinal, 

transverse, and block cracking. In many 

locations, the shoulders are too narrow 

and are raveling. The road currently does 

not meet NPS standards. The segment of 

road between Doney Mountain picnic 

area and just beyond Lomaki is 

considered hazardous, and numerous 

accidents have occurred there. Most 

accidents are the result of excessive 

110 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


speed and the failure to negotiate the 

road's S-shaped curves. 

The NPS currently has the primary 

responsibility for the maintenance of 

FR545; however, funding deficits 

significantly limit the nature and 

frequency of maintenance activities. 

Additional responsibilities include 

plowing the roadway during the winter 

months. FR545 presents some hazards to 

both visitors and employees. Accidents, 

although infrequent, are sometimes 

serious. Shoulder drop-offs could 

contribute to the severity of vehicle 

accidents. The distance from medical 

response other than NPS exacerbates this 

issue, although local care providers are 

generally responsive to NPS needs. 

The use of these roads is not regulated. 

The inability to physically close any of the 

roads in the park, especially at night, 

makes protection of park resources 

difficult. This situation has resulted in an 

increase in monetary and staffing 

demands (road maintenance; housing to 

accommodate resident law enforcement, 

and maintenance staff; 24-hour 

emergency response, etc.). 

It takes 50 minutes to one hour to drive 

from Wupatki to the City of Flagstaff, 

which represents a significant commute 

for staff members who are required to 

conduct business in the other Flagstaff 

Area parks or at headquarters. Obviously 

this situation is the same for Flagstaff 

Area staff members who work in the 

other parks or headquarters and need to 

conduct business at Wupatki. This 

commute can be even more difficult in 

inclement weather. Wildlife can also pose 

a risk to commuter traffic. 

Visitor Use 

Visitor use in the park is focused at the 

Wupatki Visitor Center, four of the park's 

primary archeological sites (Wupatki 

Pueblo, Wukoki, Citadel/Nalakihu, 

Lomaki/Box Canyon), and the picnic/view 

point area located at Doney Mountain on 

USFS land. Visitors are exposed to uneven 

terrain on some of the trails leading to 

the various interpreted areas. Poisonous 

insects and reptiles are common, 

although negative interactions with them 

are infrequent. 

Generally, high summer temperatures 

pose the most significant threat to 

visitors. In addition, typical afternoon 

thunderstorms in the summer months 

expose visitors to a high rate of lightning 

strikes and the potential for having to 

deal with flood conditions. Winter storms 

can pose significant problems for visitors, 

including blowing and drifting snow, icy 

and snow-packed roads, blowing 

freezing temperatures, and extreme 

wind chill. 

Facilities 

There are two separate housing and 

maintenance facilities. In some cases, 

these facilities, parking areas, and the 

park road were built almost on top of 

archeological sites and are intrusions on 

the viewshed and cultural landscape. 

Park facilities near the visitor center 

include a small maintenance facility, and 

the park's primary residential area. One 

historic and two Mission 66 residences 

and a four-unit apartment complex are 

immediately adjacent to the visitor 

center. 

The visitor center also serves as offices for 

park interpretive and law enforcement 

staff and contains space for curatorial 

collections and a small museum. This 

facility is considered inadequate and 

obsolete and in serious need of 

upgrading and remodeling. The lack of 

111

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


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. 

A secondary residential and maintenance 

complex is located at New Heiser, 

approximately two miles south of the 

visitor center on the east side of FR545. 

The complex includes one wood frame 

and two modular residences, four 

condemned trailers, a fire cache, and a 

maintenance storage yard that contains 

gas and diesel pumps. Access to these 

facilities is provided via a short paved 

road off FR545. A moderately sized 

sewage evaporation pond is across from 

these facilities to the east, in view of all 

residential and maintenance facilities. 

A partially abandoned historic 

residential/maintenance complex is 

located across from New Heiser, on the 

west side of FR545. The surviving features 

include a Quonset hut and a spring/pump 

house. The Quonset hut continues to be 

used for storage purposes, although the 

facility evokes a number of health and 

safety concerns. 

A letter of authorization provides for 

lifetime residence and grazing rights for 

a Navajo occupant within the monument 

boundary. This involves a residence, 

associated outbuildings, and a small herd 

of sheep. 

Utilities 

The Park Service owns and operates the 

water and wastewater (sewer) systems. 

Arizona Public Service provides electrical 

service. 

The park's domestic water supply is 

provided by a NPS-owned well and two 

storage tanks, with combined capacity of 

approximately 100,000 gallons. Although 

the quality of the water meets current 

health standards, the water is thought to 

have a high mineral concentration and is 

not exceptionally palatable. 

Wastewater is managed by two surface 

lagoons. One is immediately in front of 

the visitor center across the entrance 

road and serves as the primary 

wastewater treatment facility for the 

administrative and visitor use facilities at 

Wupatki. It is in full view of the visitor 

center and seriously disrupts the 

viewshed and detracts from the 

significance of the cultural landscape. 

The second lagoon is in the New Heiser 

residential/maintenance area. Although 

out of site of the visiting public, it is 

immediately west of the employee 

housing area and presents both a visual 

intrusion and occasional odor problems. 

The two lagoons currently do not meet 

health and safety standards and require 

pumping on a regular basis. 

U.S. West and AT&T provide telephone 

service, but the monument owns its own 

phone system. The park experiences 

frequent and prolonged electrical and 

telephone outages, particularly during 

the summer monsoon season. This 

significantly impacts the park's ability to 

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

use the Internet, and to connect with the 

outside world via the computer, and it 

seriously impacts the staff's quality of 

life. Cell phone coverage in the park is 

extremely poor. 

The park is connected to the other 

Flagstaff Area monuments and the 

headquarters office via radio. The 

repeater for the radio is located on 

O'Leary Peak adjacent to Sunset Crater 

Volcano and is subject to lightning 

damage. 

The monument provides removal of solid 

waste to the county landfill. 

Staffing 

A central Headquarters, located in 

Flagstaff, provides administrative services 

112 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT


for the three monuments and is the 

office location for the superintendent 

and the division heads for 

administration, resource management, 

ranger activities and fee collection, and 

maintenance, and for the cooperating 

association (Southwest Parks and 

Monuments Association). The facility also 

serves as a visitor information center for 

the three Flagstaff monuments as well as 

for other parks and points of interest in 

northern Arizona. 

Resources management activities are 

accomplished by headquarters-based 

staff. The developed front country 

pueblos are actively maintained, 

monitored, and patrolled by resources 

management and park law enforcement 

staff. Resources management staff 

conducts limited research; however, the 

majority of the research is conducted by 

various agencies and institutions and 

qualified individuals. 

Visitor use and law enforcement staffing 

are concentrated at the visitor center, 

and visitor services are provided from 

that location. Owing to the necessity of 

running both an information and fee 

collection desk, it is often difficult for 

staff to provide law enforcement and 

resource protection coverage at desired 

levels. Three employees are required 

occupants in the park in order to provide 

minimal 24-hour maintenance, law 

enforcement, and other emergency 

response. Depending on annual funding 

levels, temporary staff are used to 

support basic visitor services. 

Visitor services demonstrate reasonable 

operational efficiency, with the majority 

of activities focused at the visitor center. 

However, this limits NPS presence on the 

resource, where the majority of visitors 

spend their time. 

Because of the remoteness of the road at 

Crack-in-Rock, law enforcement patrols 

are infrequent. Unauthorized entry to 

the area does occur, but cases have been 

prosecuted successfully. Remote sensors 

provide 24-hour monitoring of some 

archeological resources. 

There is minimal staff to provide the 

necessary janitorial services. One 

maintenance employee is a required 

occupant at Wupatki, and assistance is 

provided by maintenance staff from 

Sunset Crater Volcano on an as-needed 

basis. 

Employee health and safety issues 

include potential exposure to hantavirus 

and other diseases caused by rodent 

infestations in government quarters and 

workspaces. Efforts to mitigate the 

presence of rodents are ongoing, but 

mice and other rodents often get into 

buildings. The existing visitor center has a 

marginally efficient evaporative cooling 

system. Visitor center workers are often 

exposed to indoor temperatures that 

exceed 90°F during the summer. 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. 

The majority of museum collections 

(approximately 50,000 objects, including 

historic photographs, site files, archives, 

natural history specimens, and 

archeological, ethnographical, and 

historical items), for the Flagstaff Area 

national monuments have been 

relocated to Wupatki, due to limited 

storage space and protection at Walnut 

Canyon and Sunset Crater Volcano. The 

storage environment at Wupatki is also 

poor, although it does provide a more 

secure location for the bulk of the 

collection. All unprocessed collections, 

the rare book collection, the research 

library and computer support for the 

collections management program are 

housed at headquarters. 

113


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

METHODOLOGY 

All alternatives were evaluated for their 

effects on the resources and values 

determined during the scoping process, 

and impact topics were developed. For 

each impact topic, impacts are defined in 

terms of context, intensity, duration, and 

timing. Direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects are discussed in each impact topic. 

Definitions of intensity levels varied by 

impact topic, but, for all impact topics, 

the following definitions were applied. 

Beneficial: A positive change in the 

condition or appearance of the resource 

or a change that moves the resource 

toward a desired condition. 

Adverse: A change that moves the 

resource away from a desired condition 

or detracts from its appearance or 

condition. 

Direct: An effect that is caused by an 

action and occurs in the same time and 

place. 

Indirect: An effect that is caused by an 

action but is later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but is still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

Short-term: An effect that within a short 

period of time (generally one or two 

years but no more than five years) would 

no longer be detectable as the resource 

returns to its predisturbance condition or 

appearance, generally fewer than 5 

years. 

Long-term: A change in a resource or its 

condition that does not return to 

predisturbance condition or appearance 

and for all practical purposes is 

considered permanent. 

All alternatives were also evaluated 

based on external factors which, together 

with the actions of each NPS alternative, 

could have Cumulative Effects. In order 

to determine Cumulative Effects, a 

cumulative scenario was developed. That 

scenario included the following actions: 

On the CPNRL lands, there will be a 

natural reserve into which buffalo are 

being introduced. 

Construction of housing at Gray 

Mountain could add more traffic to the 

Black Falls Crossing Road. 

On Forest Service lands, there will be 

some reduction in roads. Monitoring of 

impacts will continue, and existing 

activities will continue unless monitoring 

shows problems. 

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. 

The Development of Roden Crater (near 

Alpine Ranchos) may increase traffic on 

FR545. Subdivision of lots in Alpine 

Ranchos may increase the population of 

the area. 

US89 from Flagstaff to Wupatki's south 

boundary (and eventually north to Page) 

will be 4-lane. 

Expansion of utility lines is proposed 

from Glen Canyon to the southwestern 

part of the Navajo reservation. 

There is a possibility that old pumice 

mines could be reactivated. 

Changes at Grand Canyon National Park 

could have implications for all three 

parks. The transportation plan restricts 

visitor use at the east entrance (visitors 

are no longer allowed to stop; they can 

only drive through). This could mean that 

115
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

visitors arriving in Flagstaff after visiting 

Grand Canyon may have more time to 

spend at Wupatki/Sunset Crater. There 

may also be increased use by Grand 

Canyon visitors who want the drivethrough experience they can no longer 

get at Grand Canyon. However, there 

may be a decrease in the number of 

visitors, but more demand for things to 

do by those who do come. 

The monument anticipates more requests 

for individual business permits for various 

services (guides, horseback rides, etc.). 

Our ability to manage wildlife may be 

influenced by Arizona Game and Fish 

Department objectives. There will be 

increased ecosystem research (long-term 

monitoring). 

Past activities like grazing and 

pothunting 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 

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 add to the natural processes of 

deterioration, and they can substantially 

accelerate the rate of site deterioration. 

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 

(Anderson 1990; NPS archeological site 

files), and map locations of archeological 

sites were compared with locations of 

proposed developments and proposed 

modifications to existing facilities. 

Predictions about short- and long-term 

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). 

Generally speaking, it is not possible to 

stop 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 

116 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

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. 

For the purposes of this analysis, levels of 

impact to archeological resources were 

defined as follows: 

Negligible: The impact on archeological 

sites is at the lowest levels of detection, 

barely perceptible, and not measurable. 

Minor: The impact on archeological sites 

is measurable or perceptible, but it is 

slight and localized within a relatively 

small area of a site or group of sites. The 

impact does not affect the character 

defining features of a National Register 

of Historic Places eligible or listed 

archeological site and would not have a 

permanent effect on the integrity of any 

archeological sites. 

Moderate: The impact is measurable and 

perceptible. The impact changes one or 

more character defining feature(s) of an 

archeological resource but does not 

diminish the integrity of the resource to 

the extent that its National Register 

eligibility is jeopardized. 

Major: The impact on archeological sites 

is substantial, noticeable, and 

permanent. The impact is severe or of 

exceptional benefit. For a National 

Register eligible or listed archeological 

sites, the impact changes a character 

defining features(s) of an archeological 

resource, diminishing the integrity of the 

resource to the extent that it is no longer 

eligible for listing in the National 

Register. 

Effects Of The No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The No-Action Alternative would involve 

no new trail developments, no new 

visitor contact facilities, no zoning of 

parkland, and no road realignments. 

FR545 would remain open to two-way 

traffic 24 hours per day, the north 

entrance to Wupatki would be 

unrestricted, and the Black Falls Crossing 

Road would remain open to local 

commuter traffic. Under this alternative 

(and all other alternatives), park 

boundaries would be expanded to the 

north, and resources located on Forest 

Service land to the south would be 

managed in accordance with decisions 

reached in the FLEA process. New 

interpretive wayside and museum 

exhibits would be installed in accordance 

with the Flagstaff Areas Comprehensive 

Interpretive Plan. 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. Under this and all other 

alternatives, a new maintenance and 

curatorial facility will be constructed in 

the New Heiser maintenance yard, and 

riparian habitat will be restored in the 

Old Heiser area. The current backcountry 

closure policy limiting visitor access 

beyond the front country areas to 

117
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

ranger-guided tours and requiring the 

issuance of permits for researchers and 

educational groups who have a special 

need to access backcountry areas will 

remain in effect. 

The continuing use of existing visitor 

centers and trails would directly and 

indirectly affect archeological resources 

in the immediate vicinity of these 

existing facilities. Archeological resources 

adjacent to or easily accessible from 

public access areas would continue to be 

vulnerable to surface disturbance, 

inadvertent damage, soil compaction, 

and vandalism. 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. 

Impacts to archeological sites from 

inappropriate visitor activities (artifact 

collection, graffiti, etc.) would continue 

to be a major long-term problem, 

because visitors would continue to access 

most of the front country and some 

backcountry sites without receiving prior 

orientation at the visitor center. These 

adverse impacts would be offset 

somewhat by the fact that no sites would 

be adversely impacted by new 

construction, trail developments, or other 

new infrastructure improvements. 

Overall, however, the effects of the NoAction Alternative would be moderately 

adverse to the long-term integrity of the 

archeological resources. 

Without visitor use zoning, the No-Action 

Alternative would continue to allow 

access to archeological sites throughout 

the entire monument through weekly 

guided adventure activities. Under the 

No-Action Alternative, most of the 2,672 

sites in the monument would potentially 

be subject to visitation impacts. However, 

in all likelihood, less than 25% of the 

total number of sites would be the focus 

of ranger-guided hikes. Impacts could 

include 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 long-term 

implications of these management 

actions would detrimentally affect site 

integrity. Although participation in 

guided hikes could result in greater 

public awareness of resource issues and 

impacts, the lack of increased National 

Park Service patrols in the backcountry 

areas of the monument would offset 

many benefits derived from offering 

guided hikes. Impacts from vandalism, 

such as graffiti and pothunting, could 

increase as the sites and means of access 

to them become better known to the 

public. Although most impacts from 

guided visitation would be minor and 

incremental, the long-term cumulative 

effects would have a moderate adverse 

effect on the integrity of backcountry 

archeological resources. 

Potentially, an upgrading/updating of 

interpretive media could improve longterm integrity of archeological resources 

through better educating visitors about 

the significance, importance, and fragility 

of resources and how visitors can reduce 

their impacts to archeological sites. 

Construction of the new maintenance 

facility and restoration of the Old Heiser 

spring will have no effect on 

archeological resources. 

The No-Action Alternative would 

continue the current backcountry closure 

118 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

in terms of unguided visitor activities. In 

theory the closure should have a major 

beneficial effect on archeological 

resources by substantially reducing 

impacts from unstructured visitation, 

such as collection of artifacts, 

destabilization of walls, soil compaction, 

social trailing, vandalism, and so on, 

thereby reducing the need for future 

impact mitigation. However, current 

staffing limits do not provide sufficient 

staff to actively patrol and enforce the 

closure, and the inability to close the 

park at night further hinders 

enforcement. Hence, impacts to 

backcountry resources are likely to 

continue under the No-Action 

Alternative. Resources in these areas 

would continue to be vulnerable to both 

inadvertent disturbance and deliberate 

and illicit disturbance in the form of 

digging and collecting of archeological 

materials. 

Boundaries to the north of the 

monument will be expanded to include 

lands currently managed as part of the 

Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve. This 

expansion will incorporate many 

additional archeological resources that 

are integral to the park purpose. The 

inclusion of these resources will be at 

least moderately beneficial to 

maintaining their long-term integrity. 

The benefits may be major, depending 

on what decisions are reached 

concerning long-term landownership, 

maintenance of cattle grazing, controls 

on public access, and other decisions 

affecting future uses of these added 

lands. 

In theory, boundary adjustments would 

have a beneficial effect on any 

archeological resources included within 

the proposed park additions by 

proactively protecting them from offroad vehicle damage and other impacts 

associated with camping, mining, 

grazing, and other multiple uses. These 

impacts potentially include increased 

rates of erosion of archeological deposits 

from cattle trailing, road development, 

overgrazing, and off-road vehicles; 

increased rates of artifact breakage from 

cattle trampling and off-road vehicles; 

illegal artifact collection by woodcutters, 

recreationists, and other users; 

commercial pothunting; fire pits and 

other impacts associated with 

unrestricted camping on or near 

archeological sites (digging of sump pits, 

leveling tent sites, etc.); destabilization of 

standing architecture by cattle sheltering 

in the ruins; and destruction of 

archeological sites from mining activities. 

Park protection of these resources would 

be enhanced by including most of them 

in lands zoned for long-term preservation 

purposes. 

The boundaries south of the monument 

would remain unchanged under the NoAction Alternative. Many archeological 

resources that are integral to the purpose 

and significance of Wupatki would 

remain outside the monument 

boundaries, where they would continue 

to be subject to impacts from multiple 

uses (mining, grazing, fuel wood 

harvesting, OHV impacts, etc.). The 

exclusion of these resources from the 

park would have a major adverse effect 

on their long-term and scientific 

integrity, as degradation due to multiple 

use activities would likely continue over 

the long term. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Past management strategies have 

allowed visitor access to virtually all 

archeological sites in the monument. Past 

management strategies have also 

promoted "hardening" of the ruins 

through various stabilization treatments 

as the primary means of mitigating 

visitor impacts to archeological sites. 

Recently, the backcountry areas of 

Wupatki National Monument have been 

closed to unguided access because of 

119
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

concerns over vandalism and recreational 

impacts to archeological sites. Currently, 

visitors can visit seven heavily stabilized 

front country sites on their own, and 

many other sites can be visited on an 

intermittent basis via weekly rangerguided tours. Although individual 

impacts from visitation would be mostly 

minor and incremental, the cumulative 

effects of this alternative on the longterm integrity of these archeological 

resources would be moderately adverse 

because a significant number of sites 

would gradually be degraded by 

continued visitor use, and stabilization of 

these sites in order to withstand 

continuing visitor impacts would 

eventually be necessary. 

The continuing growth of Flagstaff and 

ongoing efforts by the Flagstaff Chamber 

of Commerce to promote visitation to the 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments will 

result in increased impacts to Wupatki's 

archeological resources. These impacts 

will primarily result from increased visitor 

use (e.g., incidental artifact collection, 

inadvertent destabilization of walls, 

social trailing, etc.), although impacts 

from vandalism and illegal excavations 

would likely increase as well. Continued 

growth in Flagstaff is also likely to result 

in significant development of private 

lands near the monument boundaries, 

which in turn is likely to result in 

increased unpermitted visitation to 

backcountry areas of the monument. 

Rural residential growth will also increase 

impacts to archeological resources on 

Forest Service lands that are integral to 

the Wupatki story and currently receive 

relatively little human use. 

Within the Flagstaff region generally, 

construction of new roads, housing 

subdivisions, mines, and other 

developments will continue to cause 

destruction of individual archeological 

sites. As the population of Flagstaff 

grows, recreational demands on U.S. 

Forest Service lands and resources will 

continue to increase, resulting in the 

potential for additional degradation of 

archeological sites. Proactive 

management of the Coconino Plateau 

Natural Reserve Lands north of the 

monument is likely to have a long-term 

major beneficial effect on archeological 

resources both within and outside the 

northern monument boundary by 

controlling public access and ensuring the 

continuation of a healthy grassland 

ecosystem. Maintenance of healthy 

grassland will help to preserve 

archeological resources by stabilizing 

soils, reducing erosion, and reducing the 

visibility of archeological remains. 

Forest Service policies may have an 

adverse impact on the long-term 

integrity of archeological resources 

within and south of the monument. 

Although road closures on Forest Service 

lands adjacent to the park could have a 

long-term major beneficial effect on 

archeological resources outside the park 

boundaries, the road closures could 

inadvertently push use onto the 

monument, since many roads within the 

forest are planned for closure but very 

few roads immediately adjacent to or 

leading into the monument are being 

closed. The Forest Service has indicated 

that it might institute a recreational 

impact monitoring program on lands 

south of Wupatki National Monument; 

however, monitoring by itself will not 

mitigate the effects of recreational 

impacts on archeological resources. 

Currently, there are no plans to explicitly 

link monitoring results to specific 

management actions, so incremental 

degradation of archeological resources 

because of recreational and grazing 

impacts is likely to continue. 

CONCLUSION 

In comparison to other proposed 

alternatives, the No-Action Alternative 

would have the greatest adverse effect 

120 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

on archeological resources because a 

large number of sites (up to 25%) would 

potentially be open to some form of 

visitation. Adverse impacts from visitation 

would be offset to some degree by 

positive benefits derived from visitors 

receiving education and an enhanced 

appreciation of the resources from 

participating in guided adventures. Even 

so, this alternative would potentially 

subject more archeological sites in the 

monument to regulated (ranger-guided) 

and unregulated visitation impacts, in 

comparison to any of the other 

alternatives being proposed. Over the 

long term, under current management 

practices, in conjunction with cumulative 

effects, there would be a moderate 

adverse effect on long-term integrity of 

archeological resources under the NoAction Alternative. In addition to those 

mentioned, there would be other, less 

severe effects as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

This alternative would have long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. There would be 

an overall reduction of archeological 

integrity, but not to the extent that the 

resources would become ineligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

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 Wupatki 

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: 

Limit Motorized Sightseeing 

And Focus On Extended 

Learning 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts from installation of new 

waysides, boundary expansion to the 

north, upgrading of facilities to 

accommodate accessibility, construction 

of the maintenance facility at New 

Heiser, and restoration of Heiser Spring 

are the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

In Alternative 1, visitors would enter the 

park from the south via FR545 and travel 

to the Wupatki Visitor Center before 

encountering park resources. The north 

entrance to Wupatki would be closed, 

except for administrative uses. Closure of 

the north entrance would presumably 

enhance long-term/scientific integrity of 

archeological resources by reducing the 

number of visitors who interact with 

resources without receiving orientation 

at the visitor center. 

FR545 would be closed to unguided 

public access west of the visitor center, 

and FR150 would be closed at the new 

park boundary. Closure of FR545 west of 

the visitor center would significantly 

reduce impacts to archeological sites 

from inappropriate visitor activities 

(artifact collection, graffiti, etc.), 

especially at the front country sites that 

currently receive most visitor impacts. 

The entrance to the Wukoki Road would 

be realigned to take off from the visitor 

center. A portion of the road to Wukoki 

east of the Black Falls Crossing Road 

junction would be closed to vehicles and 

converted to a trail. The realignment of 

the road to Wukoki would have a minor 

beneficial effect on that particular site by 

ensuring that visitors receive orientation 

at the visitor center prior to encountering 

the resource. Conversion of a portion of 

121
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the Wukoki Road to a pedestrian trail 

would not impact archeological resources 

directly, although there is a potential for 

moderate increased visitation impacts to 

sites that are visible from the pedestrian 

trail, because people moving at a slower 

pace would have more opportunity to 

recognize sites and wander off-trail to 

inspect them. Visitation impacts at 

Wukoki Pueblo itself would probably be 

reduced somewhat, owing to the lesser 

numbers of visitors who would be willing 

or able to walk to the site. Alternatively, 

vandalism impacts might increase at 

Wukoki as a result of the site receiving 

less visitation and more infrequent 

patrols. Overall, however, the effect of 

the realignment and trail conversion 

would be a minor benefit to the 

archeological resources. 

Alternative 1 would eliminate guided 

adventure hikes in large areas of the 

monument and eliminate unguided 

visitation along FR545 west of the visitor 

center, as well as at most front country 

sites. Elimination of guided adventure 

hikes throughout most of the monument 

and elimination of unguided visitation at 

several front country sites would have a 

major beneficial effect on archeological 

resources by substantially reducing 

impacts such as collection of artifacts, 

destabilization of walls, soil compaction, 

social trailing, vandalism, etc. It would 

also reduce the need for future 

mitigation of impacts, provided that 

there is active patrolling and proactive 

management of the designated 

preservation zone. 

Alternative 1 would promote access to 

Antelope Canyon and along the base of 

the Doney Cliffs through guided day 

hikes and overnight backpacking trips, 

and there would be expansion of access 

to areas surrounding Citadel and Lomaki 

through designation of a new Extended 

Learning Zone. Concentrating visitation 

in these new Guided Adventure and 

Extended Learning Zones would 

potentially impact a large number of 

archeological sites (448), because these 

areas contain some of the highest site 

densities within the monument. Impacts 

could include loss of artifacts, 

destabilization of walls, increased soil 

compaction and erosion, and increased 

social trailing and erosion. Impacts could 

also include forms of vandalism, such as 

graffiti and pothunting, as the public 

learns where the sites are and how best 

to access to them. In combination, these 

various impacts would have a major 

adverse effect on the archeological 

resources. On the other hand, impacts 

from increased levels of visitation would 

be offset to some extent by greater 

public awareness of resource issues and 

impacts, gained through education 

received by participating in guided 

adventures, and because of an increased 

NPS presence in these areas of the 

monument. Within the extended 

learning areas, some loss of integrity to a 

portion of the 257 sites in this zone 

would also occur because of the need to 

stabilize sites and/or harden and expand 

trails to accommodate more intensive use 

of these areas. These impacts could be 

partially mitigated through systematic 

documentation, excavation, and longterm curation. 

Alternative 1 involves construction of a 

new primitive campground, and 

development of new trails and waysides 

in a significantly expanded Extended 

Learning Zone around the CitadelLomaki area. There is also the potential 

for new primitive trails in the Guided 

Adventure Zone, especially around Crackin-Rock Pueblo. Construction of new 

trails and campground facilities would 

impact or destroy a small number of 

archeological sites (6-10). Construction 

activities would affect the uppermost 

layers of earth as vehicles compact the 

soils and alter the horizontal and vertical 

distribution of buried archeological 

122 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

remains. These activities would also 

destroy surface sites by damaging and 

destroying artifactual remains and their 

contextual environments. 

New Heiser housing would be converted 

to an educational/meeting center. 

Conversion of the New Heiser housing 

would have a negligible effect on 

cultural resources, except possibly 

indirectly, by improving education of the 

public about resource issues and "Leave 

No Trace" ethics. 

In addition to the north boundary 

expansion, which is common to all 

alternatives, the boundaries of the 

monument would be expanded by 

approximately 4,000 acres to the south. 

While this proposed boundary expansion 

is primarily for administrative purposes, it 

would include additional cultural 

resources that are integral to the story of 

Wupatki. The inclusion of these resources 

in the park would have a major longterm beneficial effect, by enhancing the 

long-term and scientific integrity of these 

resources by including them in lands 

being proactively managed for long-term 

preservation purposes and by removing 

them from areas subject to impacts from 

grazing and other multiple use impacts. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects would be the same as 

for the No-Action Alternative, except for 

following differences: Implementation of 

Alternative 1 would limit unguided 

visitor access to two front country sites: 

Wukoki and Wupatki Pueblos. Visitors 

could access the remaining front country 

sites, Crack-in-Rock Pueblo, and up to 450 

additional sites via guided tours. 

Visitation impacts and the need for 

preservation treatments would increase 

at Wupatki, Wukoki, and Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblos and in the Antelope-Doney Cliffs 

and Citadel-Lomaki area over the long 

term; however, impacts would be 

reduced at the remaining front country 

sites, and visitation impacts to a majority 

of sites (80%) in the backcountry would 

be virtually eliminated. Cumulatively, the 

effects of Alternative 1 on long-term 

integrity of archeological resources 

would be moderately beneficial. 

CONCLUSION 

In comparison to existing conditions, 

Alternative 1 would have a beneficial 

effect on archeological resources because 

fewer sites would be open to visitation 

and most visitation would be restricted to 

guided tours. However, more visitors 

would be concentrated in specific areas, 

including Wupatki, Wukoki, the Antelope 

Canyon-Doney Cliffs area, and the 

Citadel-Lomaki area, leading to greater 

impacts to the sites in those areas. 

Adverse impacts from more concentrated 

visitation would be offset to some 

degree by positive benefits derived from 

visitors receiving more education and an 

enhanced appreciation of the resources 

from participating in guided adventures. 

Although the exact number of 

archeological resources that would be 

affected by this alternative is unknown 

(because specific locations for new 

facilities have not been decided), overall 

fewer resources would be impacted 

under Alternative 1 than under existing 

conditions, because large areas of the 

monument would be zoned for 

preservation purposes. The net effect 

would be moderately beneficial for the 

long-term integrity of most archeological 

resources in the monument. 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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

123
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts from installation of new 

waysides, boundary expansion to the 

north, upgrading of facilities to 

accommodate accessibility, construction 

of the maintenance facility at New 

Heiser, and restoration of Heiser Spring 

are the same as for the No-Action 

Alternative. Existing facilities and 

housing would be retained. 

Under Alternative 2, access on FR545 and 

to the five main interpretive areas in the 

park would be the same as under the NoAction Alternative, except that access to 

the interpretive sites would be gated at 

night. This would have a moderate 

beneficial effect on those resources. 

The development of a visitor contact 

station at the north entrance would have 

a moderate beneficial impact on 

archeological sites by ensuring that 

visitors entering via the north entrance 

were fully informed about rules and 

regulations and educated about 

minimizing their impacts before they 

encounter the resource. 

Under this alternative, initial visitor 

contacts would occur either at the north 

entrance station or at the front country 

sites, instead of at the visitor center 

(which would be closed). Rangers would 

be stationed at the front country sites 

during peak visitor use periods to answer 

visitor questions and provide short tours. 

The stationing of rangers at front country 

sites would have moderate short- and 

long-term beneficial effects by 

discouraging visitors from conducting 

inappropriate activities on the sites 

(walking on walls, picking up artifacts, 

adding graffiti, etc.) and by significantly 

reducing vandalism. Closure of the visitor 

center would not have a noticeable 

effect on archeological resources, as any 

losses in education at the VC would be 

compensated by the increased presence 

of interpretive staff at the front country 

sites. 

In Alternative 2, the Black Falls Crossing 

Road would be maintained for 

interpretive purposes. Also, visitors would 

be able to access Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

and CPNR lands by guided motorized 

tours via use of an existing, 24-mile-long, 

currently unmaintained, two-track road 

that passes around Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

and through the CPNR lands. Increased 

use of these road tours would be 

accompanied by the need for increased 

maintenance and the addition of several 

new viewpoints, new trails around Crackin-Rock Pueblo, plus minimal support 

facilities such as backcountry toilets and 

picnic tables. An unknown but relatively 

small number of sites in proximity to the 

motorized routes would be impacted by 

road maintenance activities and 

construction of viewpoints. Construction 

of new trails and picnic facilities could 

also impact or destroy a small number of 

archeological sites. Construction and road 

maintenance activities would affect the 

uppermost layers of the 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. 

Over the long term, incidental visitation 

impacts would cumulatively impact sites 

in proximity to these roads. The guided 

124 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

motorized tours would have a moderate 

adverse impact on Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

and neighboring pueblos by funneling 

large numbers of visitors into an area 

that currently receives fewer than 250 

visits per year, resulting in increased 

impacts from visitation and increasing 

the need for more frequent and 

comprehensive stabilization treatments. 

Visitation can affect the long-term 

integrity of archeological resources 

through displacement and collection of 

artifacts, damage to petroglyphs, 

destabilization of standing walls, and 

increasing rates of erosion owing to soil 

trampling and social trailing. 

Stabilization treatments alter the original 

architectural fabric of the ruins. 

On the other hand, impacts from 

increased levels of visitation may be 

offset to some extent by greater public 

awareness of resource issues and impacts 

gained through education received by 

participating in guided tours and because 

of an increased NPS presence in these 

areas of the monument. In summary, 

impacts to sites along the tour route 

would undoubtedly increase under this 

alternative, but impacts would be 

substantially reduced at the front country 

sites compared with existing conditions, 

and human impacts would be largely 

eliminated from other areas of the park. 

Overall, these changes in visitor use 

patterns would have a long-term major 

beneficial impact for the archeological 

resources. 

Most backcountry areas of the 

monument, which currently can be 

accessed on an intermittent basis via 

weekly ranger guided hikes, would be 

closed to visitation. Ranger-guided 

"discovery hikes" would be eliminated. 

The closure of most of the backcountry 

and elimination of guided hikes in these 

areas would have a major long-term 

beneficial impact on the park's 

archeological resources by minimizing 

visitation impacts and reducing the need 

for future stabilization treatments. 

Impacts from boundaries expansions 

north and south of the monument would 

be the same as in Alternative 1, that is to 

say, a major benefit. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects would be the same as 

in the No-Action Alternative, except for 

the following differences: 

Implementation of Alternative 2 would 

continue the current policy of limiting 

unguided visitor access to the seven 

stabilized front country sites. Also in 

keeping with the current policy, visitors 

could access Crack-in-Rock Pueblo via 

guided tours only. However, unlike the 

current situation, which restricts visitor 

access to Crack-in-Rock to overnight 

backpacking trips eight weekends per 

year, visitors would be able to access 

Crack-in-Rock via guided one-day or halfday motorized trips throughout most of 

the year. The remaining sites in the 

monument would be closed to visitation. 

Although visitation impacts and the need 

for preservation treatments would 

increase substantially at Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo, visitation impacts would be 

reduced at the front country sites, 

because of the increased presence of NPS 

interpreters. In addition, a few sites in 

immediate proximity to the viewpoints 

along the Crack-in-Rock and Black Falls 

Crossing Roads could sustain damage 

from incidental visitation. Furthermore, 

sites adjacent to the Crack-in-Rock and 

Black Falls Crossing Roads could sustain 

damage from increased road 

maintenance activities. For the vast 

majority of archeological resources, 

however, visitation impacts and the need 

for stabilization treatments would be 

virtually eliminated. Cumulatively, the 

effects of Alternative 2 on the long-term 

integrity of archeological resources 

would be major and beneficial. 

125
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CONCLUSION 

In comparison to existing conditions, 

Alternative 2 would have a major 

beneficial effect on archeological 

resources, because visitation would be 

largely restricted to stabilized front 

country sites and Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. In 

comparison to existing conditions, 

considerably fewer archeological 

resources would be impacted, because 

substantially less backcountry area would 

be open to visitation and the associated 

impacts from human use. Visitation 

impacts at Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would 

increase relative to existing conditions, 

and sites in close proximity to the Crackin-Rock and Black Falls Crossing Roads 

could sustain damage from cyclic 

maintenance activities, but these adverse 

impacts would be offset to some degree 

by positive benefits derived from visitors 

receiving more education and an 

enhanced appreciation of the resources. 

The net effect would be a decrease in the 

degradation of sensitive archeological 

resources, and the overall effect would 

be a major benefit to the archeological 

sites in the monument. 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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 3 

(Preferred): Preserve 

Sensitive Park Resources 

While Diversifying The Range 

Of Visitor Experiences 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts from installation of new 

waysides, boundary expansion to the 

north, upgrading of facilities to 

accommodate accessibility, construction 

of the maintenance facility at New 

Heiser, and restoration of Heiser Spring 

would be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. Existing facilities and 

housing would be retained. 

Under Alternative 3, access on FR545 and 

to the five main interpretive areas in the 

park would be the same as under the NoAction Alternative, except that access to 

the interpretive sites would be gated at 

night. This change would have a 

moderate beneficial effect on those 

resources. 

Other changes proposed in Alternative 3 

include realignment of the road to 

Wukoki and pulling back the parking 

area at Wukoki approximately 1/4 mile. 

The entrance to the Wukoki Road would 

be realigned to take off from the visitor 

center. The realignment of the road to 

Wukoki would have a minor beneficial 

effect on that particular site by ensuring 

that visitors receive orientation at the 

visitor center prior to encountering the 

resource. Realignment of the road and 

conversion of a portion of the Wukoki 

Road to a pedestrian trail would not 

impact archeological resources directly. 

However, there is a potential for 

increased visitation impacts (e.g., social 

trailing, illegal artifact collection, etc.) to 

two sites that are visible from the 

pedestrian trail. Visitation impacts at 

Wukoki Pueblo would probably be 

reduced somewhat, owing to the lesser 

numbers of visitors who would be willing 

126 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

or able to walk 1/4 mile to the site. 

Alternatively, vandalism impacts might 

increase at Wukoki as a result of the site 

receiving less visitation and more 

infrequent patrols. Overall, however, the 

effect of the realignment and trail 

conversion would be a minor benefit to 

the archeological resources. 

Under Alternative 3, the existing visitor 

center would be retained and a new 

visitor contact station would be 

constructed at the north entrance. Visitor 

contacts would occur at this station, at 

the front country sites, or at the existing 

visitor center. The development of a 

visitor contact station at the north 

entrance would have a moderate 

beneficial impact on archeological sites 

by ensuring that visitors entering via the 

north entrance were fully informed 

about rules and regulations and 

educated about minimizing their impacts 

before they encounter the resource. 

Visitor experience opportunities at 

Wupatki would be significantly modified 

from existing conditions under this 

alternative. Visitors would still be able to 

visit the five main interpretive areas on 

their own, although access after dark 

would no longer be available, because 

these sites would be gated at night. 

Guided hikes to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo and 

other backcountry sites along the Doney 

Cliffs would continue to be offered, but 

guided hikes would be eliminated from 

other backcountry areas. For visitors 

wishing to get out of their cars and hike, 

a trail from Wupatki to Wukoki would be 

created and another shorter trail would 

be created near Lomaki. These changes 

would have a major beneficial effect on 

most archeological resources at Wupatki 

by concentrating visitor impacts at the 

hardened front country sites, the Doney 

Cliffs area, and Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

Alternative 3 would promote visitor 

access along the base of the Doney Cliffs 

through guided adventure activities, and 

there would be significant expansion of 

access to areas surrounding Citadel and 

Lomaki through designation of a new 

Extended Learning Zone. Concentrating 

visitation in these new Guided Adventure 

and Extended Learning Zones could 

potentially impact a large number of 

archeological sites (400+), because these 

areas contain some of the highest site 

densities within the monument. Impacts 

could include loss of artifacts, 

destabilization of walls, increased soil 

compaction and erosion, and increased 

social trailing and erosion. Impacts could 

also include forms of vandalism, such as 

graffiti and pothunting, as the public 

learns where the sites are and how to get 

to them. Within the extended learning 

areas, some loss of integrity to a portion 

of the 200+ sites in this zone would likely 

occur because of the need to stabilize 

sites and/or harden and expand trails to 

accommodate more intensive use of 

these areas. These moderately adverse 

impacts could be partially mitigated 

through excavation and long-term 

curation. On the other hand, impacts 

from increased levels of visitation may be 

offset to some extent by greater public 

awareness of resource issues and impacts 

gained through education received by 

participating in guided adventures and 

because of an increased NPS presence in 

these areas of the monument. In 

summary, impacts to sites in the 

Extended Learning and Guided 

Adventure Zones would probably 

increase under this alternative, but there 

would not be any significant change at 

the other front country sites compared 

with existing conditions, and human 

impacts would be largely eliminated 

from other areas of the park. Overall, 

these changes in visitor use patterns 

would have a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact for the archeological 

resources. 

Impacts from boundaries expansions 

north of the monument would be the 

127
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

same as in the No-Action Alternative, 

that is to say, a major benefit. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative, except 

for the following differences: 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would 

continue the policy of allowing unguided 

visitor access to the five primary "front 

country" interpretive areas and would 

permit guided access to sites along the 

Doney Cliffs area and at Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo. There would also be significant 

expansion of access to areas surrounding 

Citadel and Lomaki through designation 

of a new Extended Learning Zone. The 

remaining sites in the monument would 

be closed to visitation. Although 

visitation impacts at most front country 

sites would probably remain comparable 

to those realized under existing 

conditions, visitation impacts and the 

consequent need for preservation 

treatments would increase somewhat in 

the Doney Cliffs area, and impacts and 

the need for stabilization would increase 

substantially in the Lomaki-Citadel 

Extended Learning Zone and at Crack-inRock Pueblo. With the exception of a few 

sites in immediate proximity to the new 

trail connecting Wupatki and Wukoki 

Pueblos, which could sustain increased 

damage from incidental visitation, 

visitation impacts would be virtually 

eliminated from all other sites in the 

monument. These various changes in 

visitor use patterns will be moderately 

adverse to the long-term integrity of 

some archeological sites, although 

overall, the effect of these changes will 

be moderately beneficial when compared 

with those experienced under existing 

conditions. 

CONCLUSION 

In comparison to existing conditions, 

Alternative 3 would have a moderately 

beneficial effect on backcountry 

archeological resources, because 

visitation would be restricted to 

stabilized front country sites, sites in the 

Lomaki-Citadel vicinity, the Doney Cliffs 

area, and Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. In 

comparison with existing conditions, 

considerably fewer archeological 

resources would be impacted by 

visitation. The net effect, relative to 

existing conditions, would be a decrease 

in the degradation of sensitive 

archeological resources throughout most 

of the monument. 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 Wupatki 

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 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts from installation of new 

waysides, boundary expansion to the 

north, upgrading of facilities to 

accommodate accessibility, construction 

of the maintenance facility at New 

Heiser, and restoration of Heiser Spring 

would be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

In Alternative 4, visitors would enter the 

park from the south via FR545 and travel 

to the Wupatki Visitor Center before 

encountering park resources. FR545 

128 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

would become one-way heading west 

beyond (west of) the visitor center, and 

FR150 would be closed at the new park 

boundary. The north entrance to 

Wupatki would be retained as an exit 

only. The park would be closed at night 

and gated at the visitor center. Closure of 

the park at night would benefit the longterm and scientific integrity of cultural 

resources by limiting after-hours access to 

sites in the park. Closure of the north 

entrance would presumably reduce 

impacts to archeological sites from 

inappropriate visitor activities (artifact 

collection, graffiti, etc.) and enhance 

long-term/scientific integrity of 

archeological resources by ensuring that 

visitors receive orientation at a visitor 

center before interacting with resources. 

The entrance to the Wukoki Road would 

be realigned to take off from the visitor 

center. A portion of the road to Wukoki 

east of the Black Falls Crossing Road 

junction would be closed to vehicles and 

converted to a trail. The realignment of 

the road to Wukoki would have a minor 

beneficial effect on that particular site by 

ensuring that visitors receive orientation 

at the visitor center prior to encountering 

the resource. Conversion of a portion of 

the Wukoki Road to a pedestrian trail 

would not impact archeological resources 

directly, although there is a potential for 

moderate increased visitation impacts to 

sites that are visible from the pedestrian 

trail, because people moving at a slower 

pace would have more opportunity to 

recognize sites and wander off-trail to 

inspect them. Visitation impacts at 

Wukoki Pueblo itself would probably be 

reduced somewhat, owing to the lesser 

numbers of visitors who would be willing 

or able to walk to the site. Alternatively, 

vandalism impacts might increase at 

Wukoki as a result of the site receiving 

less visitation and more infrequent 

patrols. Overall, however, the effect of 

the realignment and trail conversion 

would be a minor benefit to the 

archeological resources. 

For visitors wishing to get out of their 

cars and hike, Alternative 4 would 

involve the development of a new 

primitive trail between Wupatki Pueblo 

and Wukoki. Three sites could be directly 

impacted by trail development; another 

15 sites are adjacent to or within 50 

meters of the proposed trail and would 

be subjected to increased visitation 

impacts over the long term. The loss of 

resources could be partially mitigated 

through documentation, excavation, and 

curation. These impacts could be 

moderately adverse. 

Since the goal of this alternative is to 

retain and enhance a remote, 

undeveloped feeling in the Wupatki 

area, many existing developments would 

be removed from Wupatki and visitor 

services would be concentrated at Sunset 

Crater. The museum and administrative 

offices in the current visitor center would 

be relocated to Sunset Crater, and all but 

one historic residence would be removed. 

A portion of the current visitor center 

would function as a ranger station and 

bookstore outlet. These changes would 

have no direct effect on archeological 

resources. 

Visitor experience opportunities would 

be modified from existing conditions 

under this alternative. Visitors would still 

be able to access the five primary 

interpretive areas on their own, although 

access after dark would no longer be 

available. Guided hikes to Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo and other backcountry sites 

would no longer be offered; guided 

motorized tours to Crack-in-Rock would 

be made available instead. These changes 

would have a major beneficial effect on 

most archeological resources by 

concentrating visitor impacts on the 

previously "hardened" front country sites 

and at Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

129
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts to Crack-in-Rock and outlying 

sites in the Lomaki area would increase 

under this alternative, but there would 

not be any significant change at the 

other front country sites compared with 

existing conditions. Increased use of the 

road to Crack-in-Rock would be 

accompanied by the need for increased 

maintenance. An unknown but relatively 

small number of sites in proximity to the 

road could be impacted by road 

maintenance activities. Road 

maintenance activities would affect the 

uppermost layers of the earth as vehicles 

compact the soils and alter the horizontal 

and vertical distribution of buried 

archeological remains. These impacts 

would be moderately adverse. 

Impacts from boundary expansions north 

and south of the monument would be 

the same as for Alternative 1, that is to 

say, a major benefit. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects would be the same as 

those for the No-Action Alternative, 

except for the following differences: 

Unlike the current situation, where 

visitors' access to Crack-in-Rock is 

restricted to overnight backpacking trips 

eight weekends per year, visitors would 

be able to visit Crack-in-Rock via guided 

motorized trips multiple times 

throughout the year. The existing front 

country sites (Lomaki/Box Canyon, 

Citadel/Nalakihu, Wukoki, Wupatki 

Pueblo, and the Doney Mountain picnic 

area) would remain open for unguided 

visitation. The remaining sites in the 

monument would be closed to visitation. 

Although visitation impacts and the 

consequent need for preservation 

treatments would increase substantially 

at Crack-in-Rock Pueblo, visitation 

impacts at most of the front country sites 

would probably decrease somewhat, 

owing to closure of the north entrance 

and conversion of FR545 to a one-way 

road west of the visitor center. With the 

exception of a few sites in immediate 

proximity to the new trail connecting 

Wupatki and Wukoki Pueblos, which 

might sustain increased damage from 

incidental visitation, visitation impacts 

would be virtually eliminated from all 

other sites in the monument. These 

various changes in visitor use patterns 

would have a major beneficial effect on 

the long-term integrity of most 

archeological sites in the monument. 

CONCLUSION 

In comparison to existing conditions, 

Alternative 4 would have a major 

beneficial effect for most archeological 

resources, because visitation would be 

restricted to stabilized front country sites 

and Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. The creation 

of a new trail to Wukoki would offset 

these benefits slightly. Impacts at Crackin-Rock Pueblo would increase 

substantially relative to existing 

conditions, but the vast majority of sites 

in the monument would be protected 

from incremental degradation from longterm visitor use. The net effect would be 

a major decrease in the degradation of 

sensitive archeological resources 

throughout most of the monument. 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 Wupatki 

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. 

130 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Irreversible/Irretrievable 

Commitments Of Resources 

As described under Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts, 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 access areas 

would continue to be vulnerable to 

surface disturbance, inadvertent damage, 

and vandalism. A loss of the surface 

archeological materials, alteration of 

artifact distribution, and a reduction of 

contextual evidence would result. Under 

the No-Action Alternative, impacts to 

archeological sites from inappropriate 

visitor activities (artifact collection, 

graffiti, etc.) would continue to be a 

major long-term problem, because 

visitors would continue to access most of 

the front country and some backcountry 

sites without receiving prior orientation 

at the visitor center. Because these are 

nonrenewable resources, this would be 

an irreversible/irretrievable loss of these 

resources. 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. The 

effects of the No-Action Alternative 

would be moderately adverse to the 

long-term integrity of the archeological 

resources. In this alternative, as in all 

others, some form of data recovery (e.g., 

documentation, surface collection of 

artifacts, excavation) would be conducted 

at potentially impacted sites to reduce 

the amount of information lost. 

Overall, fewer resources would be 

impacted under Alternative 1 than under 

existing conditions, because large areas 

of the monument would be zoned for 

long-term preservation purposes. 

However, more areas and sites would be 

open to guided hikes under Alternative 1 

than in Alternatives 2, 3, or 4, and more 

visitation impacts would be concentrated 

in areas that currently receive limited 

use. However, when all effects are 

considered together, the overall effect of 

this alternative would be moderately 

beneficial for the archeological resources. 

Under Alternative 2, considerably fewer 

archeological resources would be 

adversely impacted, because substantially 

less backcountry area would be open to 

visitation impacts. Visitation impacts at 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would increase 

relative to existing conditions, and sites 

in close proximity to the Crack-in-Rock 

and Black Falls Crossing Roads could 

sustain damage from cyclic maintenance 

activities, but these adverse impacts 

would be offset to some degree by 

positive benefits derived from visitors 

receiving more education and an 

enhanced appreciation of the resources 

from participating in guided motorized 

tours. The net effect would be a decrease 

in the degradation of sensitive 

archeological resources, and the overall 

effect would be a major benefit to the 

archeological sites in the monument. 

In comparison with existing conditions, 

Alternative 3 would have a moderately 

beneficial effect on backcountry 

archeological resources because visitation 

would be restricted to stabilized front 

country sites, the Lomaki-Citadel and 

Doney Cliffs areas, and Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo. In comparison with existing 

conditions, considerably fewer 

archeological resources would be 

impacted, because less land area would 

be open to visitation. The net effect, 

relative to existing conditions, would be 

a decrease in the degradation of sensitive 

archeological resources throughout most 

of the monument. 

In comparison with existing conditions, 

Alternative 4 would have a major 

beneficial effect on backcountry 

archeological resources because visitation 

131
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would be restricted to stabilized front 

country sites and Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

The creation of a new trail to Wukoki 

would offset these benefits slightly. 

Impacts at Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would 

increase substantially relative to existing 

conditions, but the vast majority of sites 

in the monument would be protected 

from incremental degradation from longterm visitor use. The net effect would be 

a major decrease in the degradation of 

sensitive archeological resources 

throughout most of the monument. 

Loss In Long-Term 

Availability Or Productivity 

Of The Resource To Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

Although under all action alternatives 

there would be short-term effects on 

archeological resources caused by 

construction activities, data recovery 

would be undertaken to minimize the 

long-term loss of the information. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

continuing use of existing visitor centers 

and trails would directly and indirectly 

affect archeological resources in the 

immediate vicinity. Archeological 

resources adjacent to, or easily accessible 

from, public access areas would continue 

to be vulnerable to surface disturbance, 

inadvertent damage, surface artifact 

removal, soil compaction, and vandalism. 

A loss of the surface archeological 

materials, alteration of artifact 

distribution, and a reduction of 

contextual evidence would result. 

Impacts to archeological sites from 

inappropriate visitor activities (artifact 

collection, graffiti, etc.) would continue 

to be a major long-term problem, 

because visitors would continue to visit 

most of the front country and some 

backcountry sites without receiving prior 

orientation at the visitor center. Overall, 

the effects of the No-Action Alternative 

would be moderately adverse to the 

long-term integrity of the archeological 

resources. 

Under Alternative 1 fewer archeological 

sites would be open to visitation and 

most visitation would be restricted to 

guided tours. However, more visitors 

would be concentrated in specific areas, 

including Wupatki, Wukoki, the Antelope 

Canyon-Doney Cliffs area, and the 

Citadel-Lomaki area, leading to greater 

adverse effects to the sites in those areas. 

Although the exact number of 

archeological resources that would be 

affected by this alternative is unknown 

(because specific locations for new 

facilities have not been decided), overall 

fewer resources would be impacted in 

Alternative 1 than under existing 

conditions, because large areas of the 

monument would be zoned for 

preservation purposes. Any sites to be 

disturbed would have archeological 

surveys before disturbance, and data 

recovery programs would reduce the 

amount of information lost. 

Under Alternative 2, considerably fewer 

archeological resources would be 

adversely affected, because substantially 

132 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

less backcountry area would be open to 

visitation impacts. Visitation impacts at 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would increase 

relative to existing conditions, and sites 

in close proximity to the Crack-in-Rock 

and Black Falls Crossing Roads could 

sustain damage from cyclic maintenance 

activities. These adverse impacts would 

be offset to some degree by positive 

benefits derived from visitors receiving 

more education and an enhanced 

appreciation of the resources from 

participating in guided motorized tours. 

As before, data recovery would be used 

to reduce the amount of information 

lost. 

In comparison with existing conditions, 

Alternative 3 would have a moderately 

beneficial effect on backcountry 

archeological resources because visitation 

would be restricted to stabilized front 

country sites, the Lomaki-Citadel and 

Doney Cliffs areas, and Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo. Adverse effects as identified 

under the No-Action Alternative would 

continue at these sites. 

In comparison with existing conditions, 

Alternative 4 would have a major 

beneficial effect on backcountry 

archeological resources because visitation 

would be restricted to stabilized front 

country sites and Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

and adverse effects would be limited to 

those sites. The creation of a new trail to 

Wukoki would offset these benefits 

slightly. Impacts at Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

would increase substantially relative to 

existing conditions, but the vast majority 

of sites in the monument would be 

protected from incremental degradation 

from long-term visitor use. As before, 

data recovery would be used to reduce 

the amount of information lost. 

HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE 

BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

Methodology 

The National Historic Preservation Act 

requires agencies to take into account 

the effects of their actions on properties 

listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. The 

assessment of impacts to the cultural 

resources followed a three-step process: 

(1) determining the area of potential 

effect of the proposed actions; (2) 

identifying the cultural resources within 

the area of potential effect that are 

either listed in or eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places 

(see Affected Environment); and (3) 

assessing the extent and type of impacts 

the proposed action may have upon 

cultural resources. An impact on a 

cultural resource occurs if an action has 

the potential of altering in any way the 

characteristics that qualify the resource 

for inclusion in the National Register. If a 

proposed action diminishes the integrity 

of such characteristics, it is considered to 

have an adverse effect. Impacts that may 

occur later than, or at a distance from the 

location of a proposed action are also 

potential impacts of the action, and are 

considered to be indirect impacts. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the 

following will be used to describe 

impacts to the built environment and 

cultural landscapes at Wupatki National 

Monument: 

Negligible: The impact is at the lowest 

levels of detection, barely perceptible, 

and not measurable. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but 

detectable. The impact does not affect 

the character defining features of a 

National Register of Historic Places 

eligible or listed historic structure, 

cultural landscape, or historic district. 

133
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Moderate: The impact is readily 

apparent. For a National Register eligible 

or listed historic structure, cultural 

landscape, or historic district, the impact 

changes a character defining feature(s) of 

the resource but does not diminish the 

integrity of the resource to the extent 

that its National Register eligibility is 

jeopardized. 

Major: The impact is severe or of 

exceptional benefit. For a National 

Register eligible or listed historic 

structure, cultural landscape, or historic 

district, the impact changes a character 

defining features(s) of the resource, 

diminishing the integrity of the resource 

to the extent that it is no longer eligible 

for listing or listed on the National 

Register. 

Effects Of The No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The CCC and Mission 66 visitor center 

would remain, as would the Mission 66 

houses, apartment complex, and 

maintenance facility. The Mission 66 

addition has a long-term moderate, 

adverse impact on the CCC visitor center. 

During Mission 66 construction the roof 

orientation of the rustic visitor center 

was altered to accommodate the 

addition, and interior modifications 

changed the configuration of the small 

space for offices and storage. Because 

the CCC visitor center has been modified 

extensively, it is likely not eligible for 

listing in the National Register. However, 

it has not yet been formally evaluated. 

The boundaries of the monument would 

be expanded substantially to the north. 

The proposed boundary expansion would 

include prehistoric landscapes that have 

been dissected by artificial boundaries. 

The inclusion of these resources in the 

park would be a major benefit to their 

long-term and scientific integrity by 

including them in lands being proactively 

managed for preservation purposes. 

Installation of new wayside exhibits 

would have a minor visual impact on the 

cultural landscape. To mitigate the 

impact, signs would be constructed of 

material that is compatible with the 

historic setting and the natural 

surrounding. New museum exhibits 

would be constructed, but would not 

alter the distinguishing characteristics of 

the Mission 66 visitor center. 

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. 

A storage unit would be constructed at 

the New Heiser maintenance yard. The 

structure would replace the Quonset hut 

at the Old Heiser maintenance yard and 

would be built in a previously disturbed 

area and hidden from view behind a 

small mesita in the New Heiser 

maintenance yard and housing area. 

Construction of the storage facility would 

have a long-term minor impact on the 

New Heiser cultural landscape. The New 

Heiser housing area and maintenance 

yard was constructed in the 1980s, and 

several changes have occurred since that 

time. To mitigate the visual impact of the 

new storage facility, construction 

materials would be used that are 

compatible with the historic setting and 

natural surroundings. The new structure 

134 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

would not alter the topography, spatial 

relationships, or circulation patterns of 

the cultural landscape. Removal of the 

Quonset hut at the Old Heiser 

maintenance yard would have a longterm minor impact on that landscape. 

Because many alterations have occurred 

at the Old Heiser maintenance yard over 

the years, integrity of the landscape is 

already somewhat diminished. 

Heiser Spring would be rehabilitated to 

resemble its historic appearance. The 

spring water is currently being piped offsite. The spring has been used through 

time by early ranchers, Navajo families, 

and the NPS; consequently, the spring has 

been modified several times to 

accommodate a particular use. The Old 

Heiser maintenance yard and housing 

area will be evaluated in 2001 for 

eligibility to be listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places. If the 

landscape is eligible to be listed in the 

National Register, modifying the spring 

to its pre-NPS appearance would have a 

long-term minor to moderate impact on 

the Old Heiser maintenance yard 

landscape. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The park boundaries represent the 

geographic area in which Cumulative 

Effects that affect the built environment 

and cultural landscapes at Wupatki 

National Monument were identified. 

Past development has significantly 

altered the CCC built environment. 

However, only minor modifications have 

been made to the Mission 66 designed 

landscape. A small visitor center and 

ranger residence were constructed by the 

CCC in 1939-1940. At the Old Heiser 

maintenance yard, the original CCC 

housing site for the monument, several 

modifications have been made. A 

Quonset hut for maintenance equipment 

was constructed, CCC houses were 

removed and trailer houses moved onsite in the 1960s and 1970s. Water from 

Heiser spring that once supplied the Old 

Heiser area has been piped off-site. The 

Quonset hut is slated for removal in 

2001, and Heiser spring will be 

rehabilitated. 

During the Mission 66 program a visitor 

center was constructed and attached to 

the existing CCC visitor center, 

completely obscuring the small structure. 

Two houses, an apartment complex, 

maintenance building, and sewer lagoons 

were also constructed as part of the 

Mission 66 program. A new entrance 

road and access to Wupatki, Wukoki, 

Citadel/Nalakihu, and Lomaki/Box 

Canyon Pueblos and the Doney Mountain 

picnic area were also redesigned. A few 

minor alterations have occurred to the 

Mission 66 designed landscape, including 

construction of the New Heiser housing 

area in the 1980s (two miles away from 

the visitor center and developed area) 

and parking lot modifications. Because 

the primary, original design elements of 

the Mission 66 designed landscape are 

still intact, the landscape is considered to 

be potentially National Register eligible 

(however this landscape has yet to be 

formally evaluated). Any future 

alterations of the designed landscape 

could bring the integrity of the landscape 

as a whole (especially design) down to 

the level where National Register 

eligibility would be questioned. 

The CCC built environment has been 

modified extensively by the Mission 66 

development. Because this landscape has 

not been evaluated, it is difficult to 

determine National Register eligibility. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have minor to 

moderate impacts on the CCC and 

Mission 66 built environments. 

Any future alterations to the Mission 66 

landscape, in conjunction with the minor, 

Cumulative Effects of previous changes 

135
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

and this alternative could result in 

moderate Cumulative Effects to the 

Mission 66 designed landscape. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation for Wupatki 

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: 

Limit Motorized Sightseeing 

And Focus On Extended 

Learning 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The boundaries of the monument would 

be expanded substantially to the north, 

and administrative adjustments would be 

made to the south of the existing 

monument. The proposed boundary 

expansion would include prehistoric 

landscapes that have been dissected by 

artificial boundaries. The inclusion of 

these resources in the park would be a 

major benefit to their long-term and 

scientific integrity, by including them in 

lands being proactively managed for 

preservation purposes. 

The impacts from installation of waysides 

and exhibits, upgrading of facilities to 

accommodate accessibility, construction 

of the maintenance storage facility at 

New Heiser, and rehabilitation of Heiser 

Spring would be the same as under the 

No-Action Alternative. 

FR545 between the Lomaki-Citadel area 

and US89 would be abandoned, and the 

pavement would be removed. A primitive 

road would be maintained along the 

former route for administrative uses. 

FR545 between the Visitor Center and 

the Lomaki-Citadel area would be closed 

to traffic except for guided access. 

Closing FR545 between the Visitor Center 

and the Lomaki-Citadel area would alter 

the planned Mission 66 circulation 

pattern, resulting in a long-term 

moderate impact to the Mission 66 drivethrough experience. 

Realigning the Wukoki spur road would 

have a long-term moderate impact on 

the designed Mission 66 road to Wukoki 

by changing the planned circulation 

pattern, and would have a long-term 

moderate impact on the prehistoric 

cultural landscape by damaging or 

destroying landscape features. However, 

the road would be designed to avoid 

landscape features and would be 

constructed of materials that are 

compatible with the natural surrounding 

and historic setting. 

A small primitive campground would be 

developed at the Old Heiser maintenance 

yard and housing area. Over time, 

various construction and development 

activities have diminished the integrity of 

the site to the extent that it may no 

longer be considered eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic 

Places. Although construction of a 

primitive campground in the original 

location of the first Wupatki housing 

development would alter or remove the 

few remaining features of the site, the 

additional construction would only result 

in a long-term minor to moderate impact 

on the former housing area due to 

extensive disturbance of the site in the 

past. 

Implementing this alternative would 

result in the long-term moderate impact 

to the planned Mission 66 drive-through 

experience and minor impact at the Old 

Heiser maintenance yard and housing 

area. There would be an overall 

reduction of historic integrity in the 

136 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

Mission 66 historic designed landscape, 

but not to the extent that the landscape 

would no longer be eligible to be listed 

in the National Register of Historic Places 

because (1) the primary, original design 

elements of the landscape would remain 

in tact (only a 1/4 mile of the Wukoki 

road would be realigned and the road 

between the visitor center and 

Citadel/Lomaki area, although closed to 

traffic, would remain for administrative 

access; (2) the realigned road segment 

would be designed to be visually 

compatible with its surroundings; and (3) 

all impacted historic structures and 

landscape elements associated with the 

planned Mission 66 drive-through 

experience would be documented to the 

standards of the Historic American 

Engineering Record prior to construction. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Various alterations to the prehistoric 

landscape, primarily from the Mission 66 

designed landscape, have occurred over 

the years. Few changes have altered the 

Mission 66 landscape. The CCC designed 

landscape included a small visitor center 

and ranger residence and housing area at 

the Old Heiser maintenance yard. The 

Mission 66 landscape included a road, 

trails, parking lots, a visitor center, 

housing area, maintenance yard and 

sewer lagoons. In the 1980s the New 

Heiser maintenance yard and housing 

area were developed. Because the 

primary design elements of the 

prehistoric landscape remains intact, the 

landscape is considered to be potentially 

National Register eligible. Because the 

primary, original design elements of the 

prehistoric landscape are still intact, the 

landscape is considered to be potentially 

National Register eligible (however this 

landscape has yet to be evaluated). Any 

future alterations of the designed 

landscape could bring the integrity of the 

landscape as a whole (especially design) 

down to the level where National 

Register eligibility would be questioned. 

Various alterations to the Old Heiser 

maintenance yard landscape and housing 

area have occurred over the years. At the 

Old Heiser maintenance yard trailer 

houses replaced CCC constructed houses 

in the 1960s and alterations were made 

to Heiser Spring that once supplied the 

housing area with water. Water from the 

spring is now piped off-site. During the 

late 1970s, trailers were removed, and 

the New Heiser housing area was 

developed across the road. Because the 

primary design elements of the Old 

Heiser maintenance yard and housing 

area are not intact the landscape is likely 

not eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register. However, the landscape has not 

yet been formally evaluated. 

Impacts to the designed Mission 66 

landscape would be the same as those 

identified under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

CONCLUSIONS 

This alternative would have a long-term 

moderate adverse impact on the 

prehistoric landscape, a minor impact on 

the Old Heiser maintenance yard and 

housing area, and a minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the designed Mission 

66 landscape. There would be an overall 

reduction of integrity in the prehistoric 

and Mission 66 landscapes, but not to the 

extent that they would no longer be 

eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Any future alterations to the prehistoric 

and Mission 66 landscapes, in conjunction 

with the moderate adverse, cumulative 

effects of previous changes and this 

alternative could result in moderate, 

adverse cumulative effects to the 

prehistoric and Mission 66 designed 

landscape. 

137
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Because there would be no major 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Wupatki National Monument; (2) key 

to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

park or to the opportunities for 

enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified 

as a goal in relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment of the park's resources 

or values. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts from expanding the boundary 

would be the same as those described 

under Alternative 1. 

Impacts from installation of waysides and 

exhibits, upgrade of facilities to 

accommodate accessibility, construction 

of the maintenance storage facility at 

New Heiser, and rehabilitation of Heiser 

Spring would be the same as those 

identified for the No-Action Alternative. 

Construction of the new contact station 

would have a long-term moderate visual 

impact on the surrounding cultural 

landscape. The station and exhibit would 

be situated to reduce visual impact and 

would be constructed of materials that 

are compatible with the natural 

surrounding and historic setting. 

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 more sales 

space, offices, and storage would have a 

long-term, minor to moderate impact on 

the building. 

Toilets, picnic tables, and shelters would 

be constructed near Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

to accommodate four-wheel-drive tours. 

Construction of the shelter and toilets 

and installation of the picnic tables 

would have a long-term moderate visual 

impact on the prehistoric landscape, 

however, the facilities could be situated 

to reduce visual impact and would be 

constructed of material that is 

compatible with the historic setting and 

natural surroundings. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

maintained in its current condition and 

opened to park visitors. New waysides 

would be installed to interpret Navajo 

history and provide information on the 

neighboring Navajo Reservation. 

Installation of new waysides would have 

a long-term minor visual impact on the 

cultural landscape. To partially mitigate 

the impact, signs would be constructed of 

material compatible with the historic 

setting and natural surroundings. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Few alterations have been made at the 

west end of the monument since the 

design of FR545 in the late 1950s as part 

of the Mission 66 program. A fee kiosk 

was installed at the north entrance in the 

late 1980s but was removed in 1991. 

Because few alterations have occurred to 

the prehistoric landscape at the north 

entrance of the monument, the 

landscape is considered potentially 

138 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

National Register eligible (however, this 

landscape has yet to be formally 

evaluated). Any future alterations of the 

prehistoric landscape beyond the scope 

of what is proposed in this alternative 

could bring the integrity of the landscape 

as a whole down to the level where 

National Register eligibility would be 

questioned. 

Little has changed at Black Falls Crossing 

Road since the construction of the dam 

by the CCC in the late 1930s, the use of 

borrow material for FR545 in the late 

1950s, and the demolition of Black Falls 

Trading Post by the NPS in the 1960s. 

Because the primary original design 

elements of the CCC designed landscape 

are still intact, the landscape is 

considered to be potentially National 

Register eligible (however, this landscape 

has yet to be formally evaluated). Only a 

few features and artifacts remain from 

the Black Falls Trading Post. Demolition 

of the post and maintenance activities 

related to maintaining the Black Falls 

Crossing Road have diminished the 

integrity of this landscape; consequently, 

it is likely not eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register. However, the 

landscape has not yet been formally 

evaluated. 

Very few changes have occurred at the 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. Preservation 

treatment at the site was conducted in 

the 1960s, and tours (foot and vehicle) 

were initiated to the site in the 1970s 

and continue today. A rest room for use 

during overnight stays is located off the 

monument on CPNRL lands. 

Because the primary, original design 

elements of the prehistoric landscape are 

still intact, the landscape is considered to 

be potentially eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register. However, this 

landscape has not yet been formally 

evaluated. Any future alterations of the 

prehistoric landscape beyond the scope 

of what is proposed in this alternative 

could bring the integrity of the landscape 

as a whole down to the level where 

National Register eligibility would be 

questioned. 

The Wupatki Visitor Center has had only 

minor modifications. A secondary wall 

was removed in the mid-1990s to ease 

the flow of traffic in the building, and 

the office configuration was slightly 

altered in the past to create a hall. 

Because primary, original design 

elements of the Mission 66 structure 

remain intact, the building is considered 

potentially National Register eligible 

(however, this building has not yet been 

formally evaluated). Any future 

alterations of this building beyond the 

scope of what is proposed in this 

alternative could bring the integrity of 

the structure as a whole (especially 

design, materials, and workmanship) 

down to the level where National 

Register eligibility would be questioned. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have minor to 

moderate, adverse impact(s) on the 

visitor center and the Black Falls Crossing 

Road and would have a moderate 

adverse impact on the prehistoric cultural 

landscapes at the north entrance to the 

monument and at Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

Future alterations to the prehistoric 

landscape, the visitor center, or the Black 

Falls Crossing Road, in conjunction with 

the minor and moderate adverse impacts 

of this alternative could result in 

moderate, adverse cumulative effects to 

the prehistoric landscape. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Wupatki National Monument; (2) key 

to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

park or to the opportunities for 

enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified 

139
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

as a goal in relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment of the park's resources 

or values. 

Effects Of Alternative 3: 

(Preferred) Preserve 

Sensitive Park Resources 

While Diversifying The Range 

Of Visitor Experiences 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Impacts of expanding the boundary, 

installation of waysides and exhibits, 

upgrading of facilities to accommodate 

accessibility, construction of the 

maintenance storage facility at New 

Heiser, and rehabilitation of Heiser 

Spring would be the same as under the 

No-Action Alternative. 

Realigning the Wukoki spur road would 

have a long-term moderate impact on 

the designed Mission 66 road to Wukoki 

by changing the historic circulation 

pattern and would have a long-term 

moderate impact on the prehistoric 

cultural landscape by damaging or 

destroying landscape features. However, 

the road would be designed to avoid as 

many landscape features as possible and 

would be constructed of materials that 

are compatible with the natural 

surrounding and historic setting. 

Construction of the new contact station 

near the north entrance of US89 would 

have a long-term moderate visual impact 

on the surrounding cultural landscape. 

The station and exhibit would be 

situated to reduce visual impact and 

would be constructed of materials that 

are compatible with the natural 

surroundings and historic setting. 

Construction of the grassland trail and 

the trail to Wukoki would have longterm moderate visual impacts on the 

prehistoric cultural landscape. The 

impacts could be mitigated by building 

the trails to avoid landscape features and 

with materials compatible with the 

historic setting and natural surroundings. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Various alterations to the prehistoric 

landscape, primarily from the Mission 66 

designed landscape, have occurred over 

the years. Few changes have altered the 

Mission 66 landscape. The CCC designed 

landscape included a small visitor center 

and ranger residence and housing area at 

the Old Heiser maintenance yard. The 

Mission 66 landscape included a road, 

trails, parking lots, a visitor center, 

housing area, maintenance yard, and 

sewer lagoons. In the 1980s the New 

Heiser maintenance yard and housing 

area were developed. Because the 

primary design elements of both the 

prehistoric and historic Mission 66 

designed landscapes remain intact, the 

landscapes are considered to be 

potentially National Register eligible. 

Few alterations have been made at the 

west end of the monument since the 

design of FR545 in the late 1950s as part 

of the Mission 66 program. A fee kiosk 

was installed at the north entrance in the 

late 1980s but was removed in 1991. 

Because few alterations have occurred to 

the prehistoric landscape at the north 

entrance of the monument, the 

landscape is considered potentially 

National Register eligible (however, this 

landscape has yet to be formally 

evaluated). Any future alterations of the 

prehistoric landscape 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. 

Impacts to the designed Mission 66 

landscape would be the same as those 

identified for the No-Action Alternative. 

140 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on the 

prehistoric landscape and the Mission 66 

landscape. There would be an overall 

reduction of historic integrity of both 

landscapes, but not to the extent that 

they would no longer be eligible to be 

listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places. Any future alteration to the 

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes, in 

conjunction with the moderate, adverse 

cumulative effects of previous changes 

and this alternative could result in 

moderate, adverse cumulative effects to 

both designed landscapes. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Wupatki National Monument; (2) key 

to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

park or to the 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 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The impacts of the boundary expansion 

would be the same as those described in 

Alternative 1. 

The impacts of installation of waysides 

and exhibits, upgrading of facilities to 

accommodate accessibility, construction 

of the maintenance storage facility at 

New Heiser, and rehabilitation of Heiser 

Spring would be the same as those 

identified for the No-Action Alternative. 

Creating a one-way road from the 

Wupatki visitor center to the north 

entrance of Wupatki would result in a 

long-term moderate impact to the 

designed Mission 66 circulation pattern. 

Closing and rehabilitating the Black Falls 

Crossing Road would result in a longterm moderate impact to this traditional 

travel route. The corridor has been used 

for many years by Navajo residents, 

traders, and others as a route to 

Flagstaff. The road today serves as a 

primary access for Navajos. 

The Mission 66 designed visitor center, 

houses, apartment complex and 

maintenance building would be 

removed, and the CCC visitor center and 

ranger residence would remain as the 

visitor contact station and residence. 

Removing the Mission 66 development 

would result in long-term major adverse 

impact to the planned Mission 66 

experience and designed landscape. 

Developing a primitive trail from the 

visitor center to Wukoki Pueblo would 

result in a long-term moderate impact on 

the prehistoric landscape. To mitigate 

some of the impact, the trail would be 

constructed to avoid landscape features. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Minor alterations have occurred to the 

Mission 66 designed landscape, while CCC 

and Mission 66 development, including 

recent construction and other activities, 

have altered the prehistoric cultural 

landscape. 

Few changes have occurred to the 

designed Mission 66 landscape; 

modifications include trail and trail 

drainage repairs, parking lot repairs, and 

landscaping in the housing area. Because 

the primary, original design elements of 

the Mission 66 designed landscape are 

still intact, the landscape is considered to 

be potentially National Register eligible 

(however, this landscape has yet to be 

evaluated). Any future alterations of the 

141
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

designed landscape, in conjunction with 

the adverse, cumulative effects of past 

changes and this alternative, would bring 

the integrity of the landscape as a whole 

(especially design) down to the level 

where it is no longer National Register 

eligible. The long-term, major, adverse 

impacts and, most importantly, any 

potential impacts of future actions, could 

result in major, adverse cumulative 

effects to the Mission 66 designed 

landscape. 

Because few alterations have occurred to 

the prehistoric landscape of the 

monument, the landscape is considered 

potentially National Register eligible 

(however, this landscape has yet to be 

formally evaluated). Any future 

alterations of the prehistoric landscape 

beyond the scope of what is proposed in 

this alternative could bring the integrity 

of the landscape as a whole down to the 

level where National Register eligibility 

would be questioned. Removing the 

Mission 66 designed landscape from the 

monument would be a long-term, major 

benefit to the prehistoric landscape. The 

Mission 66 landscape would be 

rehabilitated, and the monument would 

appear closer to what it did historically. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on the 

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes. 

There would be an overall reduction of 

historic integrity in the landscapes, but 

not to the extent that they would no 

longer be eligible to be listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places. Any 

future alterations of the landscapes, in 

conjunction with the adverse, cumulative 

effects of previous changes and the 

preferred alternative, could result in 

major, adverse cumulative effects to the 

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Wupatki National Monument; (2) key 

to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

park or to the 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 4. All Mission 

66 facilities would be removed from the 

park. 

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 longterm loss of the integrity of these 

resources. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

The No-Action Alternative would have 

minor to moderate impacts on the CCC 

and Mission 66 built environments. 

Construction of a maintenance storage 

facility at New Heiser would have a longterm moderate visual impact on the 

prehistoric landscape. Installation of 

wayside exhibits would have a long-term 

moderate visual impact on the Mission 66 

and prehistoric landscapes. Upgrading 

facilities to meet accessibility standards 

would have a long-term minor impact on 

the Mission 66 facilities. 

Alternative 1 would have a long-term 

moderate adverse impact on the 

prehistoric landscape, a minor impact on 

142 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

the Old Heiser maintenance yard and 

housing area, and a minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the designed Mission 

66 landscape. Realigning Wukoki road 

and closing FR545 past the visitor center 

would have a long-term moderate impact 

on the planned Mission 66 circulation 

pattern. Construction of a primitive 

campground at Old Heiser would have a 

long-term minor impact on the CCC 

landscape. 

Alternative 2 would have minor to 

moderate, adverse impact(s) on the 

visitor center and the Black Falls Crossing 

Road and would have a moderate 

adverse impact on the prehistoric cultural 

landscapes at the north entrance to the 

monument and at Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

Construction of a new contact station at 

the north entrance of the monument 

would have long-term moderate visual 

impact on the surrounding prehistoric 

landscape. The addition of picnic tables 

and portable toilets in the area of Crackin-Rock Pueblo would have long-term 

moderate visual impact. 

Alternative 3 would have long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on the 

prehistoric landscape and the Mission 66 

landscape. Construction of a contact 

station at the north entrance of the 

monument would have long-term 

moderate visual impacts on the 

surrounding prehistoric cultural 

landscape. Realigning the Wukoki road 

would have long-term moderate adverse 

impact on the designed Mission 66 

circulation pattern. Construction of a 

grassland trail and a trail from the visitor 

center to Wukoki Pueblo would have 

long-term moderate visual impact on the 

Mission 66 and prehistoric cultural 

landscapes. 

Alternative 4 would have long-term, 

moderate adverse impacts on the 

prehistoric and Mission 66 landscapes. 

Making FR545 a one-way road would 

have long-term, moderate adverse 

impact on the designed Mission 66 

circulation pattern. Removal of all 

Mission 66 development (infrastructure 

including the visitor center, houses, 

apartment complex, and maintenance 

facility) would have a long-term major 

adverse impact on that designed 

landscape. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Methodology 

Ethnographic resources are those cultural 

and natural resources to which parkassociated communities ascribe cultural 

significance and that continue to play a 

role in a community's identity and way of 

life. Only members of the communities to 

whom the resources hold cultural value 

can determine ethnographic resources 

and potential impacts to them. After 

initial consultation meetings with 

representatives of several American 

Indian tribes having possible traditional 

associations with park lands and 

resources, the tribes determined that the 

Hopi, Zuni, and Navajo Tribes have the 

closest association with resources that 

could be affected by various 

management alternatives. The National 

Park Service entered into small contracts 

with each of these tribes to visit the 

parks and identify culturally significant 

resources that might be affected by 

various management alternatives. The 

Hopi and Navajo Tribes 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 

143
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

regional in scope. In addition, because 

ethnographic resources are tied to 

communities' cultural identities, effects 

to the resources also have an effect on 

the communities to which they are tied in 

perpetuity. Therefore, the duration of 

impacts to ethnographic resources is 

forever. Although the tribes themselves 

did not identify the intensity of potential 

impacts to ethnographic resources, the 

National Park Service defines intensity as 

follows: 

Negligible: The impact is at the lower 

levels of detection. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but 

detectable. 

Moderate: The impact is readily 

apparent. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial. 

Any adverse impacts to ethnographic 

resources would be readily apparent to 

the tribes to whom the resources hold 

cultural significance, and in most cases, 

because impacts to these resources affect 

cultural identity and ways of life, most 

adverse impacts would be considered 

severely adverse. Therefore, most impacts 

to ethnographic resources, whether 

beneficial or adverse, would be moderate 

to major. 

Effects of the No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

conditions would remain as they are at 

the present time, with the exception of 

the actions common to all alternatives. 

With the continuation of present 

conditions, unguided visitor access to 

archeological sites and petroglyphs 

would remain the same. Inability to 

control looting of or vandalism to 

archeological sites is an adverse impact to 

the tribal values placed on these sites as 

ethnographic resources and traditional 

cultural properties. 

Moderate to major adverse impact to 

ethnographic resources can result if 

visitation conflicts with ongoing 

ceremonial uses of these areas. Impacts 

can be caused by the presence of visitors 

during tribal conduct of ceremonial 

activities, by visitors collecting or 

disturbing offerings left at such places, 

and by direct damage to the resources 

themselves. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, specific measures would 

need to be implemented in consultation 

with affected tribes to mitigate the 

effects of tourism on the cultural values 

of these ethnographic resources. 

Proposed boundary expansions under the 

No-Action Alternative and all alternatives 

would have a moderate to major 

beneficial impact on ethnographic 

resources, if the expansion or 

management partnerships for the 

proposed lands include increased 

protection for archeological resources 

and other culturally significant resources 

and landforms identified by the tribes 

involved in this planning effort. 

Planning and design of new interpretive 

exhibits under the No-Action Alternative 

and all alternatives will have a moderate 

to major beneficial impact on the ways in 

which messages about tribal connections 

to park resources are presented to the 

public, especially American Indian 

children learning about their own 

histories, provided that the tribes are 

involved in the development of 

interpretive plans. 

Restoration of the springs and 

surrounding habitat in the vicinity of Old 

Heiser will also have a beneficial impact 

on the ethnographic value of the springs. 

The backcountry closures in effect under 

the No-Action Alternative could have a 

major to moderate beneficial impact on 

144 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

ethnographic resources by protecting 

them from the effects of unlimited 

visitation. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Prior to the establishment of monument 

boundaries, the lands encompassed by 

what is now Wupatki 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 

Wupatki National Monument, the 

construction of fences and the 

implementation of land use regulations, 

over the years, traditional tribal uses and 

treatment of resources were precluded. 

Increased tourism interfered with 

ceremonial activities at certain places 

within monument lands. Elimination of 

residential and livestock grazing uses 

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 tourism, but some 

impacts, including those caused by 

backcountry closures and boundary 

expansions/cooperative management 

areas, would be improved by the 

development of long-term consulting 

relationships and agreements between 

the NPS and the tribes. Cumulative 

effects would also be improved by the 

creation of updated interpretive stories 

that incorporate tribal versions of their 

own histories and connections to 

monument lands and resources. 

CONCLUSION 

The No-Action Alternative would 

continue to have moderate to major 

adverse effects on ethnographic 

resources to the extent that visitor access 

continues to have an adverse effect on 

archeological resources. 

Some of the actions common to the NoAction Alternative and all alternatives, 

including proposed boundary expansions, 

updating of interpretive exhibits, 

restoration of the Old Heiser spring, and 

backcountry closures, have the potential 

to produce moderate to major beneficial 

impacts to ethnographic resources, 

provided these actions are implemented 

in consultation with the traditionally 

associated tribes. 

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 Wupatki 

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: 

Limit Motorized Sightseeing 

And Focus On Extended 

Learning 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Overall, this alternative would have a 

beneficial effect on ethnographic 

resources by increasing the protection of 

145
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

cultural resources in general and 

improving the quality of interpretive 

media and programs, many of which 

could include updating the messages 

about tribal histories and associations 

with the park. Changes to interpretive 

messages would have long-term 

beneficial effects by providing more 

updated information to park visitors and 

visiting tribal members that more 

accurately reflects knowledge of the park 

and park resources as known by the 

tribes themselves. 

The tribes also endorse guided visits to 

remote sites such as Crack-in-Rock as a 

way of monitoring and inhibiting 

possible vandalism to cultural resources, 

including archeological sites and 

petroglyphs, thus reducing adverse 

effects to traditional cultural properties 

and other sites that hold cultural value 

for traditionally associated tribes. 

Although roads would be closed to the 

general public, tribal access to 

ethnographic resources that might be 

affected by these closures would be 

facilitated. Closure of the road between 

Wupatki Pueblo and the north entrance 

could have a benefit to some 

ethnographic resources by preventing 

damage caused by too much visitation, as 

well as potential conflicts between 

tourism and ceremonial use. The nature 

of these effects will be determined 

during continued consultation with the 

associated tribes. 

Installation of a primitive camping area 

would be designed so as to avoid 

adversely affecting any springs, thus 

eliminating impacts to these 

ethnographic sites. 

The effects of boundary expansions and 

cooperative management areas, as well 

as backcountry closures, would be the 

same as in the No-Action Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effect of Alternative 1 

would be enhanced preservation of 

ethnographic resources by providing 

better control of visitor access to 

archeological sites, petroglyphs, and 

ceremonial locations, thus decreasing the 

possibility of vandalism and protecting 

the tribal cultural values associated with 

them. Redesign of interpretive media 

could also have a long-term moderate to 

major beneficial effect on ethnographic 

resources by increasing tribal 

involvement in interpretive planning and 

promoting accurate interpretations of 

the tribal histories in which the 

ethnographic resources play a role. Road 

closures could have a long-term 

moderate to major beneficial effect on 

some ethnographic resources by limiting 

general visitation to them, while 

providing tribal access for purposes of 

traditional use. The cumulative effects of 

boundary expansions and cooperative 

management areas, as well as 

backcountry closures, would be the same 

as in the No-Action Alternative. The 

nature of these effects will be 

determined during continued 

consultation with the associated tribes. 

None of the potential impacts identified 

constitutes an impairment to 

ethnographic resources. 

CONCLUSION 

Overall, Alternative 1 would have longterm, beneficial effects on ethnographic 

resources by increasing their protection 

from the vandalism that could result 

from visitor access as well as by increasing 

visitor education through updated 

interpretive media and messages. 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 

146 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

specific purposes in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation for Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Alternative 2 would have a long-term 

beneficial effect on ethnographic 

resources, because interpretive messages 

and educational opportunities would be 

updated to reflect the tribal histories, 

values, and associations with park lands 

and resources in which the ethnographic 

resources play a role. In addition, the 

increased on-site NPS presence proposed 

in this alternative would help protect 

archeological sites, petroglyphs, and 

other ethnographic resources by reducing 

the possibility of vandalism caused by 

uncontrolled visitor access. The increased 

road access offered by this alternative 

could also have a beneficial effect on 

ethnographic resources by facilitating 

tribal entry for appropriate cultural uses. 

The nature of these effects will be 

determined during continued 

consultation with the associated tribes. 

The effects of boundary expansions and 

cooperative management areas, as well 

as backcountry closures, would be the 

same as under the No-Action Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Overall, the cumulative effects to 

ethnographic resources would be the 

same as those identified for Alternative 

1, with the possibility of a slightly 

improved impact to some ethnographic 

resources because traditional tribal users 

of these resources would have easier 

access as a result of fewer road closures. 

The cumulative effects of boundary 

expansions and cooperative management 

areas and backcountry closures would be 

the same as those described under the 

No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 2 would provide overall 

beneficial effects to ethnographic 

resources. None of the potential impacts 

identified constitutes and impairment to 

ethnographic resources. In addition to 

those mentioned, there would be other, 

less severe effects as a result of 

implementing this alternative. 

Because there would be no major 

adverse impacts to resources whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes in the establishing 

legislation or proclamation for Wupatki 

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. 

147
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Effects Of Alternative 3 

(Preferred): Preserve 

Sensitive Resources While 

Diversifying The Range Of 

Visitor Experiences 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Effects on ethnographic resources under 

Alternative 3 would be similar to those 

under Alternative 2. Interpretive 

messages and educational opportunities 

would be updated to reflect the tribal 

histories, values, and associations with 

park lands and resources in which the 

ethnographic resources play a role, 

resulting in a beneficial effect on them. 

The increased on-site NPS presence 

proposed in this alternative would help 

protect archeological sites, petroglyphs, 

and other ethnographic resources by 

reducing the possibility of vandalism 

caused by uncontrolled visitor access. 

Potential adverse impacts to 

ethnographic resources by development 

of new self-guided trails could be 

avoided by developing the trails in 

consultation with associated tribes. 

Potential adverse effects to Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo and in-use shrines near it could be 

avoided by consulting with associated 

tribes in the development of plans for 

overnight trips there. 

The available road access offered by this 

alternative could also have a beneficial 

effect on ethnographic resources by 

facilitating tribal access for appropriate 

cultural uses. The nature of these effects 

will be determined during continued 

consultation with the associated tribes. 

The effects of boundary expansions and 

cooperative management areas, as well 

as backcountry closures, would also be 

the same as those described for the NoAction Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects of the improved 

educational opportunities, resource 

protection measures, and tribal access to 

ethnographic resources would be the 

same as those described under 

Alternative 2. Tribal consultation would 

be imperative to ensure that there are no 

adverse effects on ethnographic 

resources as a result of developing new 

self-guided trails and overnight trips to 

Crack-in-Rock. The cumulative effects of 

boundary expansions, cooperative 

management areas, and backcountry 

closures would be the same as under the 

No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

The overall conclusion for this alternative 

is the same as for Alternative 2, with the 

caveats regarding self-guided trails and 

overnight trips to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo, 

as stated above. 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 Wupatki 

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. 

148 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

Effects Of Alternative 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Alternative 4 would provide the most 

beneficial effects to ethnographic 

resources of all the Wupatki alternatives, 

primarily in its landscape orientation and 

its greatly increased emphasis on 

resource preservation and reduction of 

visitor impacts to resources. The 

connection of the Wupatki and Sunset 

Crater landscapes more accurately 

reflects tribal perceptions of 

ethnographic resources as interrelated 

components of an integrated, regional 

landscape. Closure of the park at night 

and elimination of off-trail backcountry 

hiking would provide the greatest 

protection to culturally sensitive 

archeological resources, and visitor 

impacts to public sites would be reduced. 

Expanded educational opportunities, 

developed in conjunction with associated 

tribes, would have a beneficial effect on 

the tribal cultural values associated with 

ethnographic resources throughout the 

entire landscape. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects of enhanced resource 

protection and interpretation would be 

the same as described for Alternative1, 

although there would be greater benefit 

to the tribes with the emphasis on an 

integrated, regional landscape. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 4 would provide a beneficial 

effect on tribal cultural values and would 

provide the greatest protection to 

ethnographic resources of all proposed 

alternatives. 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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Irreversible/Irretrievable 

Commitments Of Resources 

There would be no irreversible/ 

irretrievable commitments of resources. 

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 

The No-Action Alternative would have 

long-term adverse effects on 

ethnographic resources and the 

interpretation of native peoples' 

histories, which in turn would affect 

American Indian cultural values on a 

regional scale and at moderate to major 

levels of intensity. All action alternatives 

would reduce or eliminate these adverse 

effects. 

LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF 

NATURAL SYSTEMS AND 

PROCESSES 

Methodology 

Available information on the natural 

systems of Wupatki National Monument 

149
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

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 

(including 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 access 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 on 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 

physical environment within Wupatki 

National Monument. The change would 

be so small or localized that it would 

have no measurable or perceptible 

consequence to the populations or 

natural system function. 

Minor: An action that would affect a 

relatively small number of individuals of 

species populations, or affect the existing 

physical environment within Wupatki 

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 physical 

environment within Wupatki National 

Monument. A species population, plant 

and animal communities, habitats, or 

natural system function might deviate 

from normal levels under existing 

conditions, but all species would remain 

indefinitely viable within the monument. 

Major: An action that would have drastic 

consequences for species population 

numbers, dynamics between multiple 

species, habitat area or important habitat 

attributes, or the existing physical 

environment within Wupatki 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, 

significant beneficial impacts would be 

realized by proposals to expand the area 

within Wupatki National Monument to a 

total of 55,600 acres through willing 

landowner (Coconino Plateau Natural 

Reserve Lands) donation of more than 

20,000 acres. The NPS also proposes 

increased coordination of resource 

150 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

management activities with the U.S. 

Forest Service on lands to the south of 

the monument. The proposed boundary 

expansion would increase the area within 

the monument by 60% and effectively 

double the area of grassland and riparian 

habitat. Coordinated management of 

U.S. Forest Service lands south of the 

monument could improve the condition 

of large watersheds, which drain through 

the monument, and reduce instances of 

poaching, woodcutting, off-road-vehicle 

use, and unauthorized access within the 

closed area of the monument. Both the 

boundary expansion and coordination 

with the U.S. Forest Service could lead to 

the removal or closure of some roads and 

removal of fence segments near the 

current monument boundary, which 

would decrease wildlife habitat 

fragmentation. These actions would have 

a long-term, moderate, beneficial impact 

to soils, vegetation, intermittent 

drainage systems, wildlife, sensitive 

species, unique habitats, wetlands/ 

floodplains, riparian resources, and 

efforts to preserve the overall 

biodiversity within the monument. 

Most of the area within Wupatki 

National Monument remains closed to 

public access to protect sensitive 

resources. Access is permitted for certain 

special uses, such as research and 

educational activities. There is scattered 

evidence of occasional unauthorized 

hiking within the closed area, which will 

likely continue because the existing 

staffing level is too low to ensure 

frequent patrols. The impacts of special 

and unauthorized uses within the 

backcountry are negligible. This ensures 

natural systems and processes are 

sustained with relatively few long-term 

adverse environmental impacts, except 

for those that are attributable to the 

impacts of historic livestock grazing 

within the monument, to adjacent land 

uses, and to regional watershed, airshed, 

and ecosystem degradation. 

Most adverse impacts to natural systems 

within Wupatki National Monument are 

attributed to former ranching activity, 

game hunting, and predator control. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

soils, intermittent drainages, vegetation, 

wildlife, sensitive species, unique 

habitats, wetlands/floodplains, and 

riparian resources should continue to 

recover from historic livestock grazing 

impacts. Regional Navajo sheepherding 

dates to the period of Spanish settlement 

of the Southwestern United States. Under 

a "life estate" agreement between the 

NPS and a Navajo resident, a small flock 

of sheep would be permitted to continue 

grazing a small area on the east side of 

the monument. Cattle grazing was 

discontinued in the monument during 

the late 1980s. Occasionally, a cow from a 

neighboring ranch strays into the 

monument until the owner removes it. 

The impacts of historic grazing have not 

been specifically studied at Wupatki and 

are difficult to assess. Ecologists theorize 

that regional grazing pressure caused or 

contributed to a wide range of adverse 

impacts to natural systems and processes 

within the Southwestern United States, 

including: loss of grassland cover; 

reduction or extirpation of grasslanddependent species; accelerated erosion 

and gullying of drainage systems; 

extirpation or extinction of predators; 

and loss of cottonwood-willow riparian 

vegetation, which has had significant 

adverse impacts to both migratory and 

breeding birds. The impacts may be more 

severe at lower elevations, where there is 

a documented increase in desert 

vegetation and noxious plants. At higher 

elevations, grazing is believed to have 

partially contributed (along with rangefire suppression) to increased juniper 

establishment and encroachment into 

grasslands. Grazing also favors the 

establishment of nonnative species, 

including annual bromegrasses, and 

tamarisk within riparian areas. Despite 

151
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

these documented regional impacts, 

grasslands at Wupatki are still dominated 

by native perennial bunchgrasses and are 

believed to be in good condition. As time 

passes, the relatively pristine grassland 

within the monument should only 

increase in ecological importance and 

scientific value. 

Approximately 1,630 acres within the 

expanded monument area (less than 3%) 

are currently impacted by visitor-use and 

support infrastructure. Development of 

new public access and use facilities would 

not occur, and related adverse impacts to 

geology, soils, intermittent drainage 

systems, vegetation, and wildlife would 

be entirely avoided. A range of impacts 

associated with the existing road system 

and motor vehicle access would continue. 

FR545 is used by everyone who tours the 

park. Most visitation occurs between the 

months of April and October, and 

between the hours of 10 AM and sunset. 

Local residents use the road year-round 

at any time of the day or night. Motor 

noise from passing vehicles would 

frequently disturb wildlife. FR545 

generally bisects the grassland habitat 

within the western half of the monument 

and interferes considerably with large 

animal movement. The results of a recent 

wildlife mortality study along FR545 

indicate that vehicle traffic causes 

frequent incidental injury and death to 

amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals 

(Persons 2001). Routine road 

maintenance activities, including 

roadside vegetation management, are 

limited to FR545 and paved parking lots. 

Existing roads locally impede storm water 

flows through the natural drainage 

system. At a few locations along FR545, 

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. The unpaved Black Falls 

Crossing Road must be regraded 

occasionally, which has local effects on 

roadside drainage, soils, vegetation, and 

wildlife. The river bottom is locally 

impacted from maintaining the Black 

Falls Crossing Road. In the past, 

nonnative plants have dispersed into the 

monument along road corridors, and 

populations have become locally 

established in areas disturbed by 

maintenance activities. Under the NoAction Alternative, continued use and 

maintenance of existing access roads 

would have negligible impacts to 

geology, soils, vegetation, and 

intermittent drainage systems. Existing 

roads and motor vehicle traffic would 

continue to cause minor to moderate 

impacts to wildlife. 

There are numerous abandoned roads 

and construction material quarries within 

the monument. Most of these are within 

the backcountry closure area and remain 

as scars on the landscape today. Under 

the No-Action Alternative, the NPS would 

inventory disturbed lands and select 

impacted sites for restoration, including 

reshaping surface contours, promoting 

natural soil development, restoring local 

drainage patterns, reestablishing native 

vegetation, and controlling nonnative 

plant infestations. Many of the older and 

more remote roads and sites would be 

left to continue recovering under natural 

ecological processes. This would have 

long-term, minor, beneficial impacts 

upon natural systems and processes 

within the monument. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, a 

management-ignited fire program would 

be used to manage juniper woodland 

and grassland vegetation in the western 

half of Wupatki. This would thin 

unwanted juniper encroachment into the 

grassland, stimulate herbaceous cover 

and biodiversity, and improve habitat 

conditions for Pronghorn and other 

grassland-dependent animals. Fires 

would likely generate smoke and haze 

from the combustion of natural 

152 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

vegetation. Burning would only occur 

when prevailing winds and climatic 

conditions favor the efficient rise and 

dispersal of smoke away from human 

habitation or sensitive plant and animal 

habitats. Prior to implementing a 

management-ignited fire program, the 

NPS would prepare a separate Fire 

Management Plan and accompanying 

environmental assessment and would 

ensure public scoping, comment, and 

review of potential impacts. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the NPS 

would monitor for nonnative plant or 

animal invasion and attempt to control 

these species when warranted. Nonnative 

plant invasiveness would be assessed in 

different habitats, and infested areas 

would be mapped. This information 

would then be used to prioritize areas 

for treatment. Success in controlling an 

invasive species would be predicated 

upon early detection of infestations 

before they grow out of control, or upon 

the availability of ecologically sound and 

affordable technology. Within the 

monument, nonnative plant infestations, 

predominantly Russian thistle (Salsola 

spp.) and a few other small annual plant 

species are generally confined to road 

corridors and in proximity to developed 

areas. The grassland of Wupatki remains 

in relatively pristine condition, but 

annual bromegrasses have been 

observed. Camelthorn (Alhagi maurorum) 

has also invaded an estimated 20 acres of 

intermittent drainages within Wupatki. 

Feasible control technologies are not 

readily available for small annual invasive 

plants, but the NPS would follow 

established policy of prohibiting ground 

disturbing activities without prior 

assessment and mitigation of the 

potential impacts from invasive plants. 

Camelthorn can potentially be controlled 

with persistent efforts to remove plants 

and control root systems with herbicides. 

Despite these efforts, existing invasive, 

nonnative species would likely continue 

to have long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on soils, intermittent 

drainages, vegetation, wildlife, 

wetlands/floodplains, and riparian 

resources. 

Most visitor-use impacts to natural 

systems are primarily concentrated along 

existing roads, parking lots, visitor center, 

trails, four archaeological interpretive 

areas, and the Doney Mountain picnic 

area. Impacts are expected to be 

localized to within 1/8 mile of these areas 

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, including Russian thistle (Salsola 

kali) are persisting in disturbed areas and 

along trail corridors. Occasional guided 

day hikes and vehicle trips into the closed 

backcountry area are led by NPS staff. Up 

to eight overnight guided backpacking 

trips are made per year to the Crack-inRock Pueblo. Dispersed hiking is 

encouraged instead of hiking on a 

developed trail. Some noise and 

disturbance to wildlife likely occurs. 

Along most of the hiking route, impacts 

to soils, intermittent drainages, and 

vegetation are not evident and are 

considered negligible. In certain areas 

along the route, hikers are narrowly 

confined within rugged terrain, and short 

trail segments are evident. Around the 

Crack-in-Rock area, unplanned trails are 

evident between the interpreted 

archaeological sites. Localized vegetation 

trampling, soil compaction, and 

accelerated erosion are occurring. Local 

patches of nonnative Russian thistle 

(Salsola kali) are evident. Under the NoAction Alternative, long-term, minor 

adverse impacts from visitor use would 

continue around interpretive areas, 

support facilities, and the hiking route to 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

153
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

NPS administration and operation of 

Wupatki National Monument currently 

requires facilities that are concentrated 

in two areas-around the visitor center 

and at New Heiser. Each area has a 

maintenance shop, employee residences, 

water supply, wastewater disposal 

system, and utilities. Offices and storage 

space are at the visitor center. There is a 

gasoline depot with modern, 

aboveground storage tanks at New 

Heiser. Most impacts to geology, soils, 

intermittent drainages, vegetation, and 

wildlife are confined to these facilities 

and the existing road system. Vegetation 

is managed around developed areas, 

including routine trimming and mowing 

where needed along roadsides for traffic 

safety. Some nonnative species have 

been planted by employees around their 

residences, but none of these are 

believed to be naturalizing and escaping 

into the surrounding environment. The 

impacts from park operations on natural 

systems are generally the same as for 

visitor access and use (described above), 

with the exception of vegetation 

management, which is also considered 

minor. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area used in the 

consideration of Cumulative Effects 

includes the western portion of the Little 

Colorado River watershed and is 

bounded on the south by the Mogollon 

Plateau and Clear Creek, the Little 

Colorado River and Painted Desert on the 

east, and the San Francisco Peaks and 

Coconino Plateau on the west. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

cumulative effects on natural systems 

and processes of continuing public 

visitation to and NPS administration of 

Wupatki National Monument are difficult 

to estimate. The primary adverse 

cumulative effects resulting from NPS 

management would likely be a result of 

failure to manage increased visitation 

and road traffic and poorly planned 

development in support of NPS 

operations. Over time, these 

circumstances would be expected to 

increase adverse impacts to soils, 

intermittent drainages, vegetation, and 

wildlife. Although carrying capacity for 

visitor access and use have 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 above 

analysis. 

The proximity and availability of Wupatki 

to the rapidly growing town of Flagstaff 

might enhance local citizens' "quality of 

life," and influence regional population 

growth. The continued management of 

Wupatki, therefore, could contribute 

slightly to housing development and 

habitat fragmentation around Flagstaff, 

which is impacting regional air and water 

quality, geology, soils, vegetation, 

wildlife, and riparian resources. However, 

given the diversity of public lands and 

recreational opportunities surrounding 

Flagstaff, the existence of Wupatki as a 

recreational area is likely not one of the 

prominent reasons for regional 

development. In this regard, the NoAction Alternative would likely result in 

negligible cumulative adverse impacts to 

regional natural systems and processes. 

Conversely, the existence of the 

monument as a protected area where 

natural systems and processes are 

sustained could contribute significantly 

to the conservation of regional natural 

systems and biodiversity. As time passes, 

Wupatki should have increasing scientific 

value as a relatively undisturbed 

ecosystem from which to assess regional 

land use impacts. In this regard, the NoAction Alternative could result in 

beneficial cumulative effects to regional 

natural systems. 

154 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

CONCLUSION 

The existing management of Wupatki 

National Monument has resulted in few 

long-term adverse impacts to natural 

systems and processes. The soils, 

intermittent drainage systems, 

vegetation, and wildlife of Wupatki are 

generally stable, and inherent 

biodiversity is relatively intact. Historic 

ranching activity may have had the 

greatest adverse impacts to natural 

systems and processes, but conditions 

should continue to improve under NPS 

management. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, the NPS would manage for 

the continued recovery of natural systems 

from historic land uses, control nonnative 

species when feasible, and restore 

disturbed areas and other natural 

processes, such as fire, to the ecosystem. 

The proposed boundary expansion would 

increase the area of the monument by 

60% and have long-term beneficial 

impacts, especially to wildlife. 

Development of new public access and 

use facilities would not occur, and related 

impacts to natural systems would be 

avoided. FR545 acts as a movement 

barrier to wildlife and as a dispersal 

corridor for invasive plant species. Visitor 

and local commuter traffic along FR545 

and Black Falls Crossing Road contributes 

to increased mortality rates of wildlife. 

Impacts from visitor-use and NPS 

operations are highly concentrated 

within a very small area of the park and 

include long-term, negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to soils, vegetation, 

intermittent drainages, and wildlife 

within these areas. Continuing occasional 

backcountry use likely has a negligible 

impact to natural systems and processes. 

Current management of the monument 

ensures that natural systems and 

processes would be sustained with 

relatively few long-term adverse 

environmental impacts, except for those 

that are attributable to historic livestock 

grazing within the monument and to 

regional watershed, airshed, and 

ecosystem degradation. The presence of 

Wupatki as a recreational area might 

contribute to community growth around 

Flagstaff and cumulative effects 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 resource 

conservation area. In addition to these 

impacts, there would be other, less 

severe impacts 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 Wupatki 

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: 

Limit Motorized Sightseeing 

And Focus On Extended 

Learning 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 1, the impacts from 

the proposed boundary expansion, 

increased coordination with the U.S. 

Forest Service, restoration of natural 

systems from historic land-use impacts, 

fire management, and efforts to control 

non-ative species would likely be the 

same as those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

Visitor access and impacts to the eastern 

half of the monument and the visitor 

center, Wupatki Pueblo, and Wukoki 

Pueblo would be the same as under the 

No-Action Alternative. 

155
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Impacts from NPS operation and 

maintenance of the existing visitor 

center, employee housing, offices, shops, 

parking lots, and utilities would remain 

highly concentrated at the same locations 

and would be the same as those 

identified for the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts from use and maintenance 

of the Crack-in-Rock Road and Black Falls 

Crossing Road would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

The existing closed backcountry area 

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Protection Zone, and 

unauthorized access would be 

prohibited. Impacts to the Resource 

Preservation Zone would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

Under Alternative 1, Wupatki National 

Monument would be increased to 

approximately 59,400 acres. More than 

20,000 acres would be acquired through 

willing landowner donation. In addition, 

approximately 4,000 acres would be 

acquired through administrative transfer 

of U.S. Forest Service lands along the 

monument's southern boundary, 

including FR545 and FR150 access from 

the Coconino National Forest to the 

western half of the monument. The land 

acquisition would be required for NPS to 

implement the proposed road system 

changes, but would also allow the closure 

of FR150 and management of 

unauthorized access to the western half 

of the monument. This would allow NPS 

to address concerns about continued 

FR150 access to the southern monument 

boundary and incidental poaching, 

woodcutting, off-road-vehicle use, and 

unauthorized recreational access within 

the backcountry closure area of the 

monument. The proposed northern and 

southern boundary expansions would 

allow removal of fence segments near 

the current monument boundary, which 

would significantly decrease 

fragmentation of the native grassland 

and improve wildlife habitat conditions. 

These actions would have a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact to soils, 

vegetation, intermittent drainage 

systems, and wildlife within the 

monument. 

Most of the area within the monument 

would remain undeveloped and closed to 

public access, to protect sensitive cultural 

resources. Visitor access would be 

significantly modified. Much of the paved 

road system and private vehicle access 

would be eliminated. The monument 

would be closed at night. Visitor access 

via guided tours within the Extended 

Learning Zone and Guided Adventure 

Zone would be increased over that 

available under the No-Action 

Alternative. The NPS would attempt to 

manage visitor impacts through 

enhanced orientation before resources 

are encountered. Existing visitor-use and 

administrative buildings, support 

facilities, and utilities would be retained. 

A small campground would be added 

within the existing developed area for 

limited use for educational activities. The 

overall infrastructure and visitor access 

area would occupy less than 5% of the 

total landscape within the enlarged 

monument boundary. 

Traffic and motor noise would persist 

along FR545 between the east entrance 

and the visitor center area, but access 

would generally be restricted to daylight 

hours. Approximately 9 miles of FR545 

(approximately 45% of the existing 

paved road) between the visitor center 

and the Citadel-Lomaki area would be 

closed to traffic except for guided vehicle 

access. Vehicle use would be considerably 

reduced along this segment of FR545, 

including virtually no nighttime traffic, 

reducing incidental noise disturbance, 

injury, and death to amphibians, reptiles, 

and small mammals. Approximately 4 

miles of FR545 between the CitadelLomaki area and the existing western 

156 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

boundary at US89 would be abandoned 

(approximately 20% of the existing 

paved road within the monument). The 

pavement would be removed and a 

primitive administrative road would be 

maintained along the former route. 

Vehicle traffic to the western boundary 

of the monument, including most of the 

grassland area, would be nearly 

eliminated. Road maintenance would be 

needed less frequently, resulting in less 

roadside disturbance. The proposed 

changes in use and maintenance of 

FR545 would reduce existing grassland 

habitat fragmentation and potential for 

nonnative plant dispersal and would 

significantly reduce wildlife disturbance, 

movement interference, and mortality 

within the western half of the 

monument. The overall impacts of the 

proposed road changes would be 

negligible to locally beneficial for soils, 

intermittent drainage patterns, and 

vegetation. Although adverse impacts to 

wildlife populations within the western 

portion of the monument would be 

significantly reduced, overall impacts to 

wildlife populations within the 

monument from roads and traffic would 

remain long term and minor. 

The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center. The road would be 

shortened by at least 1/4 mile, a new 

parking area would be built farther from 

the site, and the access trail would be 

lengthened accordingly. The road 

realignment would require the 

construction of approximately 1/4 mile of 

new road and parking lot, which would 

impact an estimated 45,000 square feet 

of native vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

This would be offset by the 

abandonment and restoration of a 

slightly longer reach of the former access 

road, and the resulting beneficial impacts 

from closing the road at night. Increasing 

the length of the Wukoki trail would 

increase off-trail impacts along the 

proposed trail corridor, including 

localized vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, unplanned trail 

development, drainage pattern 

interference, wildlife disturbance, and 

nonnative plant establishment. These 

impacts would be somewhat offset by 

the shortened road to Wukoki Pueblo, 

which would reduce traffic noise and 

road maintenance and associated adverse 

impacts to small animal populations and 

roadside vegetation. 

Proposed changes in road access would 

ensure that visitors receive adequate 

orientation to sensitive resources before 

encountering them. Guided adventure 

hikes would be confined to the Extended 

Learning Zone and Guided Adventure 

Zone. Two of the existing four 

archaeological interpretive areas plus the 

Doney Mountain picnic area would be 

accessible only via guided tours. The 

proposed change to guided access to 

Citadel-Lomaki area could reduce the 

potential impacts from large numbers of 

unmanaged visitors. However, the 

proposed larger Extended Learning Zone 

would add to existing impacts from 

learning activities, potentially resulting in 

new trail segments between popular 

archaeological features and increased soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, 

localized erosion, spread of nonnative 

plants, and noise and disturbance to 

wildlife. The enlarged Extended Learning 

Zone around the Citadel-Lomaki area 

would lie within the geographic center of 

the native grassland within Wupatki and 

would have a minor to moderate overall 

adverse effect on the habitat 

fragmentation of the grassland, 

depending upon the timing and number 

of guided tours and the number of 

visitors per tour. 

Under Alternative 1, both the number of 

tours and visitors would likely increase 

within the Guided Adventure Zone. The 

desert environment within the proposed 

157
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

zone is sensitive to repeated disturbance, 

and increased use could worsen soils, 

drainage, vegetation, and wildlife 

conditions within the zone, particularly 

around Crack-in-Rock Pueblo and other 

popular cultural sites. The actual impacts 

are difficult to quantify and would 

depend upon the timing, frequency, and 

size of visitor groups. 

The conversion of an existing residence 

at New Heiser to an education center 

would have a negligible effect on natural 

systems and processes. The new 

campground and Extended Learning 

Zone around Heiser Spring would 

introduce limited overnight visitor use to 

the monument. Because Heiser Spring 

has already been developed for NPS use 

and the area surrounding it is heavily 

impacted, building the campground 

would result in negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to soils, vegetation, 

wildlife habitat, and intermittent 

drainage patterns. However, the 

campground and Extended Learning 

Zone together would interfere with 

efforts to restore riparian habitat and a 

water source for wildlife at the spring. 

The campground and sustained visitor 

use within the Extended Learning Zone 

would result in localized secondary 

impacts beyond the historically 

developed area, such as new social trails, 

vegetation trampling, soil compaction, 

local drainage pattern alteration, noise 

and wildlife disturbance, and spread of 

nonnative plants. The actual amount of 

disturbance is difficult to quantify and 

would depend upon the timing, 

frequency, and size of visitor groups. The 

proposed campground and learning zone 

around Heiser Spring would likely cause 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

natural systems within the monument. 

The impacts to sensitive species/unique 

habitats and to wetlands/riparian 

habitats would be more severe and are 

discussed in the appropriate sections 

below. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects on natural systems 

and processes of continuing public 

visitation to and NPS administration of 

Wupatki National Monument are difficult 

to estimate and primarily depend on 

visitation levels. The impacts to the 

regional ecosystem would likely be 

similar to those expected under the NoAction Alternative. The primary 

difference would likely result from the 

significant change to visitor access and 

circulation in the western half of the 

monument. The combined campground 

and Extended Learning Zone around 

Heiser Spring would interfere with NPS 

efforts to restore riparian habitat and a 

water source for wildlife at the spring. 

The proposed restriction on vehicle access 

could increase the long-term integrity of 

the grassland ecosystem, but the 

proposed enlarged visitor access zone 

around the Citadel-Lomaki area might 

offset this benefit. More restricted 

driving access might also result in 

reduced incidental visitation and 

associated impacts. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 1 would have an overall longterm, moderate beneficial impact on the 

natural systems and processes of Wupatki 

National Monument. This would 

primarily be attributed to the key actions 

to expand the boundary by 60%, close 

the monument to through traffic, 

abandon and restore some of the 

existing entrance road, and manage 

visitor access to the western half of the 

monument. The NPS would manage for 

the continued recovery of natural systems 

from historic land uses, control nonnative 

species when feasible, and restore 

disturbed areas and other natural 

processes, such as fire, to the ecosystem. 

Inherent biodiversity would remain 

relatively intact. 

158 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

The overall infrastructure and visitor 

access area would occupy less than 5% of 

the total landscape within the enlarged 

monument area. The construction of 

major new public access and support 

facilities would not occur, and related 

impacts to natural systems would be 

avoided. The Wukoki Pueblo access road 

and trail would be locally rerouted, but 

impacts would be mitigated through 

restoration of the old access road and 

parking lot. 

Alternative 1 proposes an increase in 

extended learning activities around the 

existing archeological interpretive areas 

and new educational accommodations at 

the abandoned employee residence area 

near Heiser Spring. In addition, 

occasional backcountry use would be 

formalized within the Guided Adventure 

Zone. Accordingly, the area receiving 

visitor use would nearly double. This 

could result in long-term, negligible to 

minor adverse impacts to soils, 

vegetation, and intermittent drainages 

within both the Extended Learning Zone 

and the Guided Adventure Zone. 

Increased human presence within the 

Extended Learning Zone and the Guided 

Adventure Zone could have long-term, 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

wildlife. The actual level of impacts is 

difficult to predict and would depend 

upon the timing, frequency, and group 

size of guided activities. 

The presence of Wupatki as a 

recreational area might contribute to 

community growth around Flagstaff, and 

thus to cumulative effects upon regional 

natural systems, but these impacts are 

believed to be negligible and 

considerably offset by the value of the 

monument as a long-term resource 

conservation area. In addition to these 

impacts, there would be other, less 

severe impacts 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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 2, the impacts from 

the proposed boundary expansion, 

increased coordination with the U.S. 

Forest Service, restoration of natural 

systems from historic land use impacts, 

fire management, and efforts to control 

nonnative species would likely be the 

same as those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

Under Alternative 2, FR545 would remain 

open to 24-hour, 2-way traffic. Driving 

access to the interpretive archeological 

areas would remain unchanged, and the 

impacts of the paved road system on 

natural systems and processes would 

likely be the same as those expected 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts of visitor use at the four 

existing archeological interpretive areas 

and the Doney Mountain picnic area 

would likely be the same as under the 

No-Action Alternative. 

The existing backcountry closure area 

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Protection Zone. Unauthorized 

access would be prohibited, and impacts 

159
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

to the Resource Preservation Zone would 

be the same as those identified for the 

No-Action Alternative. 

The NPS would retain existing housing, 

maintenance shops, and utilities for the 

same purposes, and the impacts from 

these operations would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

NPS visitor service operations in the 

existing visitor center would cease, 

except for continued use of the existing 

parking lot to access the Wupatki Pueblo. 

The building would be retained for use 

by the cooperating association bookstore 

and/or be converted to offices and 

research/storage space. This change in 

facility function would likely result in the 

same impacts to natural systems as 

identified under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Under Alternative 2, Wupatki National 

Monument would be increased to 

approximately 59,400 acres. More than 

20,000 acres would be acquired through 

willing landowner donation. In addition, 

approximately 4,000 acres would be 

acquired through administrative transfer 

of U.S. Forest Service lands along the 

monument's southern boundary, 

including FR545 and FR150 access from 

the Coconino National Forest to the 

western half of the monument. The land 

acquisition would be required for the 

NPS to close FR150 and manage 

unauthorized access to the western half 

of the monument. This would allow NPS 

to address concerns about continued 

FR150 access to the southern monument 

boundary and incidental poaching, 

woodcutting, off-road-vehicle use, and 

unauthorized recreational access within 

the closed area of the monument. The 

proposed northern and southern 

boundary expansions would allow the 

removal of fence segments near the 

current monument boundary, which 

would significantly decrease 

fragmentation of the native grassland 

and improve wildlife habitat conditions. 

These actions would have a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact to soils, 

vegetation, intermittent drainage 

systems, and wildlife within the 

monument. 

The estimated overall infrastructure and 

visitor access area would be less than 2% 

of the total landscape within the 

enlarged monument boundary, largely as 

a result of eliminating the Guided 

Adventure Zone and reducing the 

Extended Learning Zone. NPS operations 

would change considerably. A new visitor 

orientation station and exhibit would be 

built at the north entrance from US89. 

The development of new facilities would 

result in the removal of as much as 3 

acres of vegetation, and long-term 

disturbance within this area to soils, 

wildlife habitat, and intermittent 

drainage system. Increased adverse 

impacts to most wildlife from traffic at 

the new facility would likely be 

negligible, because the numbers and 

timing of traffic is expected to be the 

same as in the No-Action Alternative, and 

because animals in the vicinity are 

already habituated to heavy highway 

traffic noise on US89. The proposed new 

facility would serve to ensure that visitors 

are fully oriented about appropriate 

behavior before they encounter sensitive 

resources within the monument. This 

would most likely offset many of the 

local impacts of constructing the facility. 

Park staff that were previously dedicated 

to the visitor center operation would 

instead be stationed at the four 

archeological interpretive areas and the 

Doney Mountain picnic area to provide 

on-site interpretation. These areas would 

likely need minimal support facilities 

(e.g., backcountry toilets, shelters, picnic 

tables), which would require the removal 

of small areas of vegetation and longterm local disturbance to soils, wildlife 

habitat, and intermittent drainage. 

160 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

However, it is likely that the sites needed 

for ancillary facilities are already 

experiencing similar impacts from visitor 

use, and the resulting overall impact 

would be considered negligible. 

Under Alternative 2, a 24-mile scenic loop 

of existing primitive roads would be used 

for one-way, escorted four-wheel-drive 

and/or mountain bike tours across the 

Crack-in-Rock area and northern 

expansion lands. The loop would be 

maintained in primitive condition and 

gated at FR545. Viewpoints and sites of 

historic interest would be visited much 

more frequently than at present, and the 

scenic loop corridor would likely need 

minimal support facilities (e.g., 

backcountry toilets, picnic shelters). The 

actual level of impacts to natural systems 

and processes is difficult to predict and 

would depend on the timing, frequency, 

and group size of guided activities. Road 

maintenance, especially at drainage 

crossings, would be needed more 

frequently, resulting in increased 

roadside disturbance and associated 

localized impacts to roadside vegetation 

and drainage patterns. The proposed 

change in visitor use would significantly 

increase road-related impacts within the 

grassland area, including habitat 

fragmentation, noise, and human 

disturbance to wildlife, animal 

movement interference, and road 

mortality. Increased use of the scenic 

loop for guided tours would also increase 

the potential for nonnative plant 

dispersal along the road corridor. The 

proposed road changes under Alternative 

2 would result in long-term, negligible to 

locally minor impacts to soils, 

intermittent drainage patterns, and 

vegetation. However, there would be 

more pronounced, long-term, moderate 

adverse impacts within the grassland 

ecosystem and wildlife populations in the 

western portion of the monument. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

maintained in its current condition and 

opened to park visitors. The increased 

vehicle traffic would result in increased 

noise and wildlife disturbance, animal 

movement interference, and road 

mortality within the eastern half of the 

monument. New impacts to soils, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat might 

result along the road corridor as more 

visitors stop to explore the area on foot. 

Overall, the continued maintenance of 

the Black Falls Crossing Road would have 

negligible impacts to soils, vegetation, 

and intermittent drainage systems, but 

the change in the use of the road would 

cause long-term, minor adverse impacts 

to wildlife. 

Visitor services would be provided either 

at the new north entrance station or at 

the existing front country sites, instead of 

at the current visitor center. The on-site 

presence of NPS staff within the 

Extended Learning Zone would have a 

long-term, minor beneficial impact by 

promoting appropriate visitor behavior. 

The current practice of occasional guided 

visitor tours to sites in the backcountry 

would be eliminated. This would result in 

long-term, minor beneficial impacts to 

natural resources by confining visitor 

impacts to the Extended Learning Zone. 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would only be 

visited on short, guided hikes during the 

scenic driving or mountain bike tours. 

The actual level of impacts is difficult to 

predict and would depend on the timing, 

frequency, and group size. Increased 

visitor numbers would increase localized 

soil compaction, vegetation trampling, 

unplanned trail establishment between 

popular archaeological sites, accelerated 

erosion and disruption of intermittent 

drainage systems, increased noise and 

disturbance to wildlife, and increased 

nonnative plant cover. Under Alternative 

2, the proposed guided access to Crackin-Rock Pueblo during driving tours along 

161
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the primitive scenic loop would result in 

long-term, minor adverse impacts to 

natural systems and processes within the 

monument. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects of continuing 

public visitation to and NPS 

administration of Wupatki National 

Monument on natural systems and 

processes are difficult to estimate. The 

impacts to the regional ecosystem are 

likely to be similar to those expected 

under the No-Action Alternative. Impacts 

within the Extended Learning Zone are 

likely similar to those identified for the 

No-Action Alternative. The primary 

difference would likely result from the 

significant change to visitor access and 

circulation in the monument. Establishing 

a scenic primitive loop for driving tours 

through the Crack-in-Rock area and 

expansion lands could decrease the longterm integrity of the grassland 

ecosystem, particularly with respect to 

conserving wildlife populations within 

the western half of the monument. The 

cumulative effects primarily depend on 

the visitation levels and the timing and 

frequency of group tours along the loop. 

Proposed visitor use of the Black Falls 

Crossing Road might also result in 

increased cumulative effects along the 

road corridor through the eastern side of 

the monument. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 2 would have an overall longterm, minor beneficial impact on the 

natural systems and processes of Wupatki 

National Monument. This could primarily 

be attributed to the key actions to 

expand the boundary by 60% and restrict 

visitor access to the Extended Learning 

Zone and guided backcountry tours. The 

NPS would manage for the continued 

recovery of natural systems from historic 

land uses, control nonnative species 

when feasible, and restore disturbed 

areas and other natural processes, such as 

fire, to the ecosystem. Inherent 

biodiversity would remain relatively 

intact. 

Under Alternative 2, the overall 

infrastructure and visitor access area 

would occupy less than 2% of the total 

landscape within the enlarged 

monument area. Visitor services would 

be mostly confined to a new orientation 

station at the north entrance to the 

monument and small Extended Learning 

Zones around the existing archeological 

interpretive areas. The impacts from 

proposed changes to visitor access would 

result in negligible impacts within the 

Extended Learning Zone, and long-term, 

minor beneficial impacts to areas that 

receive occasional visitor use under 

existing conditions. New support facilities 

would be constructed at the north 

entrance and the Extended Learning 

Zone, but related adverse impacts to 

natural systems would be very localized, 

minor, and offset because the new 

facilities would promote appropriate 

visitor behavior. 

Under Alternative 2, a 24-mile primitive 

scenic loop would be established through 

the Crack-in-Rock and northern 

expansion lands. In addition, visitor use 

would be allowed along the Black Falls 

Crossing Road. The actual level of 

impacts of these actions is difficult to 

predict and would depend on the timing 

of road traffic and the size of guided 

groups. The proposed road changes 

under Alternative 2 would likely result in 

long-term, negligible to locally minor 

impacts to soils, intermittent drainage 

patterns, vegetation, and increased noise 

and disturbance to wildlife. In addition, 

there would be more pronounced, longterm, moderate adverse impacts within 

the grassland ecosystem and wildlife 

populations in the western portion of the 

monument. 

162 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

The presence of Wupatki as a 

recreational area might contribute to 

community growth around Flagstaff, and 

thus to cumulative effects on regional 

natural systems, but these impacts are 

believed to be negligible and would be 

considerably offset by the value of the 

monument as a long-term resource 

conservation area. In addition to these 

impacts, there would be other, less 

severe impacts 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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 3 

(Preferred): Preserve 

Sensitive Park Resources 

While Diversifying The Range 

Of Visitor Experiences 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 3, the impacts from 

the proposed boundary expansion, 

increased coordination with the U.S. 

Forest Service, restoration of natural 

systems from historic land use impacts, 

fire management, and efforts to control 

nonnative species would likely be the 

same as those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 2-

way traffic. Vehicle access to the 

interpretive archeological areas would 

remain unchanged, and the impacts of 

the paved road system upon natural 

systems and processes would likely be the 

same as under the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts from continued 

administrative use and maintenance of 

the Black Falls Crossing Road and the 

Crack-in-Rock Road would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

Impacts from NPS operation and 

maintenance of the existing visitor 

center, employee housing, offices, shops, 

parking lots, and utilities would remain 

highly concentrated at the same 

locations, and would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

The existing backcountry closure area 

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Protection Zone. Unauthorized 

access would be prohibited, and impacts 

to the Resource Preservation Zone would 

be the same as under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Under Alternative 3, Wupatki National 

Monument would be increased to 

approximately 55,400 acres. Visitor access 

would be slightly modified from the NoAction Alternative, primarily by the 

formal designation of the Extended 

Learning, Guided Adventure, and 

Resource Preservation Zones. The existing 

visitor center would remain open, and a 

new visitor contact station would be 

constructed at the north entrance. Visitor 

services and access would primarily be 

concentrated at the new entrance 

station, existing visitor center, or 

extended learning areas. The parking lots 

near the extended learning areas would 

be closed at night. Two new trails would 

be established-one into the grasslands 

near Lomaki, and a second linking 

Wupatki and Wukoki Pueblos. The 

overall infrastructure and visitor access 

area would occupy less than 4% of the 

total landscape within the enlarged 

monument boundary. 

The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

163
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

visitor center. The road would be 

shortened by at least 1/4 mile, a new 

parking area would be built farther from 

the site, and the access trail would be 

lengthened accordingly. The road 

realignment would require the 

construction of approximately 1/4 mile of 

new road and parking lot, which would 

impact an estimated 45,000 square feet 

of native vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

This would be offset by the 

abandonment and restoration of a 

slightly longer reach of the former access 

road and the resulting beneficial impacts 

from being able to close the road at 

night. Increasing access via a second 

pedestrian trail would increase off-trail 

impacts along the proposed trail corridor, 

including localized vegetation trampling, 

soils compaction, unplanned trail 

development, drainage pattern 

interference, wildlife disturbance, and 

nonnative plant establishment. These 

impacts would be somewhat offset by 

the reduced use of motor vehicles, which 

would reduce noise and road 

maintenance, and associated adverse 

impacts to small animal populations and 

roadside vegetation. 

Within the proposed boundary expansion 

area to the north, an existing ranch road 

that approaches the Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

area from the western mesa above the 

Doney Anticline would be maintained in 

its existing condition for administrative 

purposes. The impacts from occasional 

administrative use would be expected to 

be less than those resulting from ranch 

operations and would be considered 

negligible. 

A new visitor contact station and wayside 

orientation exhibit would be constructed 

near the north entrance from US89. The 

development of new facilities would 

result in the removal of as much as 3 

acres of vegetation and long-term 

disturbance within this area to soils, 

wildlife habitat, and intermittent 

drainage system. Increased adverse 

impacts to most wildlife at the new 

facility would likely be the same as 

expected under the No-Action 

Alternative, because the numbers and 

timing of traffic would be the same, the 

grassland is already highly fragmented 

here by US89, and wildlife in the vicinity 

is already habituated to heavy highway 

traffic noise. The proposed the new 

facility would serve to ensure that visitors 

are fully oriented about appropriate 

behavior before they encounter sensitive 

resources within the monument. This 

would most likely offset many of the 

local impacts of constructing the facility. 

Visitor access around the existing 

archeological interpretive sites would be 

increased within the proposed Extended 

Learning Zone, including a substantial 

increase at the Lomaki-Citadel area. The 

larger Extended Learning Zone would 

add to existing impacts from visitor use 

activities, potentially resulting in new 

trail segments between popular 

archaeological features and increased soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, 

localized erosion, spread of nonnative 

plants, and noise and disturbance to 

wildlife. The proposed change in visitor 

access within the Extended Learning 

Zone would result in negligible to longterm, minor adverse impacts to soils, 

intermittent drainage patterns, and 

vegetation. The enlarged Extended 

Learning Zone around the CitadelLomaki area would lie within the 

geographic center of the native grassland 

within Wupatki. Depending on the level 

of visitor use, the proposed change in 

visitor access around the Citadel-Lomaki 

area would increase the level of 

grassland habitat fragmentation and 

frequency of human disturbance of 

grassland-dependent wildlife. This would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on the integrity of the 

grassland system. 

164 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

Occasional guided hikes would continue 

into a Guided Adventure Zone, including 

overnight trips to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

The number of tours would likely 

increase within this area, potentially 

resulting in new trail segments between 

popular archeological features and 

increased soil compaction, vegetation 

trampling, localized erosion, spread of 

nonnative plants, and noise and 

disturbance to wildlife. The desert 

environment along the base of the 

Doney Anticline is sensitive to repeated 

disturbance, and increased use could 

worsen soils, drainage, vegetation, and 

wildlife conditions, particularly around 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo and other popular 

cultural sites. Depending on the level of 

visitor use, the proposed change in visitor 

access within the Guided Adventure Zone 

would likely result in long-term, minor 

adverse impacts upon natural systems 

and processes within the monument. 

A 1/2-mile-long trail would be 

established into the grassland ecosystem. 

This would add to impacts from current 

visitor use activities, potentially resulting 

in new trail segments between popular 

archeological features and increased soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, 

localized erosion, spread of nonnative 

plants, and noise and disturbance to 

wildlife. The proposed trail would result 

in negligible to long-term, minor adverse 

impacts to soils, intermittent drainage 

patterns, and vegetation. However, the 

trail area would increase human presence 

within the geographic center of the 

native grassland within Wupatki. 

Depending upon the level of visitor use, 

the trail would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate adverse effect on the 

integrity of the native grassland at 

Wupatki. 

A second new trail would be established 

between Wukoki and Wupatki Pueblos. 

The trail would be approximately 2 miles 

long within the eastern half of Wupatki. 

11/2 miles of the trail would traverse the 

Deadman Wash drainage through an 

area dominated by sandstone and shale 

bedrock and open Colorado Plateau 

desert vegetation. The trail would add to 

existing impacts from visitor use 

activities, potentially resulting in new 

unplanned trail segments between 

popular features and increased soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, 

localized erosion, spread of nonnative 

plants, and noise and disturbance to 

wildlife. The proposed trail would result 

in negligible to long-term, minor adverse 

impacts to soils, intermittent drainage 

patterns, vegetation, and wildlife. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects of continuing 

public visitation to and NPS 

administration of Wupatki National 

Monument on natural systems and 

processes are difficult to estimate. The 

impacts to the regional ecosystem would 

likely be similar to those identified for 

the No-Action Alternative. The 

cumulative effects on the natural systems 

and processes within the monument 

would primarily depend on visitation 

numbers and the timing and frequency 

of visits within the Extended Learning 

Zone, Guided Adventure Zone, and trail 

system. Alternative 3 proposes changes 

that would allow visitor access to a larger 

area within the Extended Learning Zone 

and a potential increase in visitor 

numbers within the Guided Adventure 

Zone. In addition, two new trails are 

proposed-a grassland trail near Lomaki 

Pueblo, and a second between the 

Wupatki and Wukoki Pueblos. The 

increased area of visitor access would 

likely result in increased localized impacts 

to natural processes, including potential 

moderate adverse impacts to native 

grassland in the western half of Wupatki. 

165
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 3 would have an overall longterm, moderate beneficial impact on the 

natural systems and processes of Wupatki 

National Monument. This would 

primarily be attributed to the key actions 

to expand the boundary by 60% and 

formally restricting visitor access to the 

Extended Learning Zone, Guided 

Adventure Zone, and trail system. The 

NPS would manage for the continued 

recovery of natural systems from historic 

land uses, control nonnative species 

when feasible, and restore disturbed 

areas and other natural processes, such as 

fire, to the ecosystem. Inherent 

biodiversity would remain relatively 

intact. 

The overall infrastructure and visitor 

access area would occupy less than 5% of 

the total landscape within the enlarged 

monument area. Except for a relatively 

small visitor orientation station at the 

north entrance to Wupatki, construction 

of major new public access and support 

facilities would not occur, and related 

impacts to natural systems would be 

avoided. The Wukoki Pueblo access road 

and trail would be locally rerouted, but 

impacts would be mitigated through 

restoration of the old access road and 

parking lot. 

Alternative 3 proposes an increase in 

extended learning activities around the 

existing archeological interpretive areas, 

an increase in occasional backcountry 

within the Guided Adventure Zone, and 

two new trails. Accordingly, the area 

receiving visitor use would increase by 

approximately 50%. Depending on the 

level of visitation, this could result in 

localized, long-term, negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to soils, vegetation, 

intermittent drainages, and wildlife 

within the Extended Learning Zone, 

Guided Adventure Zone, and along both 

new trails. Increased human presence in a 

larger area around the Citadel and 

Lomaki Pueblos and along the new 

grassland trail would have long-term, 

minor to moderate adverse impacts to 

native grassland integrity and wildlife in 

the western half of Wupatki. 

The presence of Wupatki as a 

recreational area might contribute to 

community growth around Flagstaff, and 

thus to cumulative effects on regional 

natural systems, but these impacts are 

believed to be negligible and would be 

considerably offset by the value of the 

monument as a long-term resource 

conservation area. In addition to these 

impacts, there would be other, less 

severe impacts 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 Wupatki 

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 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 4, the impacts from 

the proposed boundary expansion, 

increased coordination with the U.S. 

Forest Service, restoration of natural 

systems from historic land-use impacts, 

fire management, and efforts to control 

nonnative species would be the same as 

for the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts of paved road access, 24-

hour, 2-way traffic, and motor noise 

166 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

between the eastern entrance and the 

visitor center would be the same as with 

the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts of visitor-use at the four 

existing archaeological interpretive areas 

and the Doney Mountain picnic area 

would be the same as for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

The impacts from continued 

administrative use and maintenance of 

the Crack-in-Rock Road would be the 

same as under the No-Action Alternative. 

The existing backcountry closure area 

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Protection Zone. Unauthorized 

access would be prohibited, and impacts 

to the Resource Preservation Zone would 

be the same as those identified for the 

No-Action Alternative. 

Under Alternative 4, Wupatki National 

Monument would be increased to an 

estimated 59,680 acres. More than 20,000 

acres would be acquired through willing 

landowner donation. In addition, 

approximately 4,000 acres would be 

acquired through administrative transfer 

of U.S. Forest Service lands along the 

monument's southern boundary, 

including FR545 and FR150 access from 

the Coconino National Forest to the 

western half of the monument. The land 

acquisition would be required for the 

NPS to implement the proposed road 

system changes, but would also allow the 

closure of FR150 and management of 

unauthorized access to the western half 

of the monument. This would allow NPS 

to address concerns about continued 

FR150 access to the southern monument 

boundary and incidental poaching, 

woodcutting, off-road-vehicle use, and 

unauthorized recreational access within 

the closed area of the monument. The 

proposed northern and southern 

boundary expansions would allow the 

removal of fence segments near the 

current monument boundary, which 

would significantly decrease 

fragmentation of the native grassland 

and improve wildlife habitat conditions. 

These actions would have a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact to soils, 

vegetation, intermittent drainage 

systems, and wildlife within the 

monument. 

Most of the monument would remain 

undeveloped and closed to the public to 

protect sensitive cultural resources. 

Visitor access and NPS support facilities 

would be significantly modified. The 

overall infrastructure and visitor access 

area would be effectively reduced to less 

than 2% of the total landscape within 

the enlarged monument area. 

Visitors would enter Wupatki only via 

FR545 at the existing south entrance 

(from Sunset Crater Volcano National 

Monument). Approximately 13 miles of 

FR545 (65% of the existing paved road) 

would be converted to one-way traffic 

westward from the Wupatki visitor 

center to an exit at the north boundary 

at US89. The one-way section would be 

gated at night, virtually eliminating 

nighttime traffic within the western half 

of the monument. Most small wildlife 

species within the monument are 

predominantly active at night, including 

amphibians, reptiles, rodents, and other 

small mammals. The proposed changes in 

use of FR545 would reduce existing 

grassland habitat fragmentation and 

significantly reduce wildlife disturbance, 

movement interference, and mortality 

within the western half of the 

monument. This would result in a longterm, moderate beneficial impact to 

wildlife and the integrity of the grassland 

ecosystem within the monument. The 

overall impacts of the proposed road 

changes would be negligible for soils, 

intermittent drainage patterns, and 

vegetation. 

Within the proposed boundary expansion 

area to the north, an existing ranch road 

167
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

that approaches the Crack-in-Rock Pueblo 

area from the western mesa above the 

Doney Anticline would be maintained in 

its existing condition for administrative 

purposes. The impacts from occasional 

administrative use are expected to be less 

than those resulting from ranch 

operations and are considered negligible. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

closed and restored to natural vegetation 

and wildlife habitat conditions. The road 

closure would eliminate much of the 

traffic noise and wildlife disturbance, 

movement interference, and mortality 

within the eastern half of the 

monument. The road closure would 

eliminate the need for road maintenance 

and local impacts to soils, vegetation, 

intermittent drainages, and the potential 

for nonnative plant dispersal along the 

road corridor. The road closure would 

result in long-term, minor beneficial 

impacts to soils, intermittent drainage 

systems, vegetation, and wildlife within 

the monument. 

The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center. The road would be 

shortened by at least 1/4 mile, a new 

parking area would be built farther from 

the site, and the access trail would be 

lengthened accordingly. The road 

realignment would require the 

construction of approximately 1/4 mile of 

new road and parking lot, which would 

impact an estimated 45,000 square feet 

of native vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

This would be offset by the 

abandonment and restoration of a 

slightly longer reach of the former access 

road, and the resulting beneficial impacts 

from being able to close the road at 

night. Increasing access via a pedestrian 

trail would increase off-trail impacts 

along the proposed trail corridor, 

including localized vegetation trampling, 

soils compaction, unplanned trail 

development, drainage pattern 

interference, wildlife disturbance, and 

nonnative plant establishment. These 

impacts would be somewhat offset by 

the reduced use of motor vehicles, which 

would reduce noise and road 

maintenance, and associated adverse 

impacts to small animal populations and 

roadside vegetation. 

One historic structure and the historic 

portion of the visitor center would be 

retained as a residence and ranger 

station. The remainder of the visitor 

center and most of the existing housing, 

maintenance, and administrative facilities 

at Wupatki would be removed and the 

areas would be restored to natural 

vegetation and wildlife habitat 

conditions. Removal of the structures 

would result in some short-term, minor 

adverse impacts to soils and vegetation, 

but would eventually result in long-term, 

minor beneficial impacts to natural 

system and processes. 

Existing NPS presence likely deters 

resource violations, such as illegal 

woodcutting, poaching, off-road travel, 

and unauthorized access to the closed 

area. The reduction in NPS personnel 

stationed at Wupatki would also add to 

the time required to respond to reported 

resource violations. This would have a 

long-term, minor adverse impact to 

natural systems and processes. 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would be visited 

only on short, guided hikes during 

guided driving tours. The actual level of 

impacts is difficult to predict and would 

depend on the timing, frequency, and 

group size. Increased visitor numbers 

would increase localized soil compaction, 

vegetation trampling, unplanned trail 

establishment between popular 

archeological sites, accelerated erosion 

and disruption of intermittent drainage 

systems, increased noise and disturbance 

to wildlife, and increased nonnative 

plant cover. The proposed guided access 

to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would likely 

168 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

result in long-term, minor adverse 

impacts to natural systems and processes 

within the monument. 

A new trail would be established 

between Wukoki and Wupatki Pueblos. 

The trail would be approximately 2 miles 

long within the eastern half of Wupatki. 

11/2 miles of the trail would traverse the 

Deadman Wash drainage through an 

area dominated by sandstone and shale 

bedrock and open Colorado Plateau 

desert vegetation. The trail would add to 

existing impacts from visitor use 

activities, potentially resulting in new 

unplanned trail segments between 

popular features and increased soil 

compaction, vegetation trampling, 

localized erosion, spread of nonnative 

plants, and noise and disturbance to 

wildlife. The proposed trail would result 

in negligible to long-term, minor adverse 

impacts to natural systems and processes 

within the monument. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Under Alternative 4, the cumulative 

effects of continuing public visitation and 

NPS administration at Wupatki National 

Monument on natural systems and 

processes are difficult to estimate and 

primarily depend on visitation levels. The 

impacts to the regional ecosystem would 

likely be similar to those expected under 

the No-Action Alternative. The primary 

difference would likely result from the 

significant change to visitor access and 

circulation in the western half of the 

monument. Both casual daytime and all 

nighttime traffic through Wupatki would 

be eliminated. The proposed restriction 

on vehicle access within the western half 

of the monument would increase the 

long-term integrity of the grassland 

ecosystem. The closure of the Black Falls 

Crossing Road would also eliminate most 

road-related adverse impacts to the 

eastern half of the monument. Reduced 

NPS personnel presence might offset this 

benefit. More restricted driving access 

might also result in reduced incidental 

visitation and associated impacts. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 4 would have an overall longterm, moderate beneficial impact on the 

natural systems and processes of Wupatki 

National Monument, especially with 

regard to maintaining the integrity of 

the natural grassland within the western 

half of the monument. This would 

primarily be attributed to the key actions 

to expand the boundary by 60%, close 

the monument to casual daytime and all 

nighttime through traffic, abandon the 

Black Falls Crossing Road and restore 

natural conditions within the disturbed 

area, remove most NPS buildings and 

restore natural conditions within the 

disturbed area, restrict visitor access to 

the existing archeological interpretive 

areas, and eliminate occasional visitor use 

impacts along the Crack-in-Rock hiking 

route. The NPS would manage for the 

continued recovery of natural systems 

from historic land uses, control nonnative 

species when feasible, and restore 

disturbed areas and other natural 

processes, such as fire, to the ecosystem. 

Inherent biodiversity would remain 

relatively intact. 

The overall infrastructure and visitor 

access area would occupy less than 2% of 

the total landscape within the enlarged 

monument area. The construction of 

major new public access and support 

facilities would not occur, and related 

impacts to natural systems would be 

avoided. The Wukoki Pueblo access road 

and trail would be locally rerouted, but 

impacts would be mitigated through 

restoration of the old access road and 

parking lot. The proposed new trail 

between Wupatki and Wukoki Pueblos 

would result in long-term, negligible to 

minor adverse impacts to soils, 

intermittent drainage patterns, 

vegetation, and wildlife. 

169
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The presence of Wupatki as a 

recreational area might contribute to 

community growth around Flagstaff, and 

thus to cumulative effects upon regional 

natural systems, but these impacts are 

believed to be negligible and would be 

considerably offset by the value of the 

monument as a long-term resource 

conservation area. In addition to these 

impacts, there would be other, less 

severe impacts 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 Wupatki 

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 alternatives, localized 

areas of vegetation and wildlife habitat 

would be permanently removed to build 

trails, campsites, and/or new visitor 

facilities. 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 access infrastructure, 

visitor support facilities, and/or NPS 

administrative facilities. Proposed 

removal of facilities would have shortterm impacts to soils, vegetation, 

intermittent drainage systems, and 

wildlife habitat, after which long-term 

natural ecological function would be 

restored within the formerly disturbed 

areas. Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, 

visitors would be provided access to more 

of Wupatki National Monument, 

resulting in potential long-term local 

disturbance and loss of soils and 

vegetation and disruption of wildlife 

populations. Under Alternative 2, the 

integrity of the grassland ecosystem and 

key wildlife habitat would be degraded 

in order to provide visitors more 

convenient driving access. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Historical land use and occasional visitor 

use have occurred within the backcountry 

area for many years and have had 

unknown impacts to natural systems and 

processes. Under all the alternatives, the 

road system would interfere to varying 

degrees with the local movement or 

migration of many animal species and 

result in the incidental injury or mortality 

of mammals, birds, reptiles, and 

amphibians. Construction activities under 

all of the action alternatives would 

locally disturb soils, drainage patterns, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat and 

potentially increase the area dominated 

by nonnative, invasive plant species. 

Visitor-use around the proposed 

interpretive areas 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 2 would nearly 

double the amount of road access within 

the western half of the monument, 

170 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

fragmenting the grassland ecosystem and 

disrupting key wildlife habitat. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, 

AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

Methodology 

This section is intended to augment the 

impact analysis for natural systems and 

processes, above, by analyzing specific 

impacts of the proposed management 

alternatives upon federally listed 

threatened and endangered species and 

other "species of concern." The Arizona 

Heritage Database (Arizona Game and 

Fish Department 2001) was consulted via 

the Internet to generate a list of 

threatened and endangered species, and 

"species of concern" for Coconino 

County, Arizona. This list was compared 

with the inventory of natural resources 

within Wupatki completed by Bateman 

(1976, 1979), which remains the best 

available documentation of the 

monument's flora and fauna. A survey 

for special status plants at Wupatki was 

recently completed (Huisinga et al. 2000). 

In addition, unique or rare habitats were 

identified within the monument through 

the scoping process and available 

scientific literature. 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 based on 

available research describing a given 

species biology, ecology, and recent 

monitoring data from the region 

surrounding Wupatki. The results of past 

studies of visitor- and land-use impacts to 

regional ecosystems were also utilized 

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 Wupatki 

National Monument. 

Minor: An action that would affect a few 

individuals of sensitive species or have 

very localized impacts upon their habitat 

within Wupatki National Monument. The 

change would require considerable 

scientific effort to measure and have 

barely perceptible consequences to the 

species or habitat function. 

Moderate: An action that would cause 

measurable affects on: (1) a relatively 

moderate number of individuals within a 

sensitive species population, (2) the 

existing dynamics between multiple 

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

breeding habitat), or (3) a relatively large 

habitat area or important habitat 

attributes within Wupatki 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 Wupatki 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. 

171
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Effects of the No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Currently, no federally listed threatened 

or endangered plant or animal species 

are known to occur in Wupatki National 

Monument. 

There are five plant "species of concern" 

for which there are historic or recent 

records within Wupatki-Errazurizia 

rotunda, Pediocactus simpsonii, Phacelia 

serrata, Phacelia welshii, and 

Psorothamnus thompsoniae var. whitingi. 

Errazurizia rotunda was historically 

documented on sandstone outcrops in 

the eastern portion of the monument. 

Pediocactus simpsonii was historically 

documented within grassland and open 

juniper woodland habitat in the western 

portion of the monument. Phacelia 

serrata is endemic to the deep cinder 

soils in the San Francisco Volcanic Field 

and occurs at the margin of the regional 

volcanic deposits along the southern 

boundary of Wupatki. Phacelia welshii 

was historically documented on red shale 

outcrops within the eastern half of the 

monument. Psorothamnus thompsoniae 

var. whitingi is locally abundant in one 

area near the Little Colorado River in the 

eastern half of the monument. 

Another three species of concern are not 

known from Wupatki, but have been 

documented in similar habitats within 

northwestern Arizona, including: 

Cymopterus megacephalus, Pediocactus 

peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae, and 

Puccinella parishii. Cymopterus 

megacephalus is endemic to the Little 

Colorado River basin on shale outcrops of 

the Moenkopi Formation and on gravel 

terraces along the Little Colorado River. 

Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae 

occurs on limestone benches and in 

Colorado Plateau grassland and shrubsteppe vegetation. Puccinella parishii 

grows in saline wetlands around seeps, 

springs, and intermittent streams. 

In addition to the "species of concern," 

three plant species at Wupatki-Amsonia 

peeblesii, Phragmites communis, and 

Poliomintha incana-are considered to be 

increasingly threatened by overcollection for traditional uses by 

American Indians. Amsonia peeblesii is 

endemic to the Little Colorado River 

basin. There are localized populations in 

a variety of habitats within Wupatki. 

Poliomintha incana is widespread and 

common in sandy desert habitats 

throughout the Southwestern United 

States. The species is locally abundant 

within Wupatki. Phragmites communis 

occurs at only one location in the 

monument and could easily be 

eliminated by over-collection. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

proposed boundary expansion would 

increase the area within Wupatki 

National Monument by 60%. The existing 

visitor access and NPS support 

infrastructure occupies less than 3% of 

the total landscape within the enlarged 

monument area. Currently, there are no 

proposed developments that would 

result in vegetation or ground 

disturbance near sensitive species 

habitats. Developing and maintaining 

roads and trails creates site disturbances 

that favor the establishment of and serve 

as rapid dispersal corridors for invasive, 

nonnative plants. Invasive plants are 

extremely competitive for available 

resources and may replace native plants 

and thereby disrupt natural plant 

population dynamics. Site-specific surveys 

are required prior to any ground- or 

vegetation-disturbing activity to ensure 

that sensitive species are not impacted. 

Existing roads, archeological interpretive 

areas, and NPS support facilities are 

located in proximity to known locations 

and/or known habitats for many of the 

172 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

sensitive plants. Current visitor activity 

near developed areas likely results in 

localized off-trail vegetation trampling. 

Most of the monument remains closed to 

general visitor access in order to protect 

sensitive cultural features. The 

backcountry closure also effectively 

protects most sensitive plant habitats 

from disturbance. Occasional, dispersed 

hiking within the closed area occurs 

during guided hikes, resource monitoring 

studies, scientific research, educational 

activities, other special uses, and 

unauthorized hiking. The demand for 

traditionally used species may be 

increasing, resulting in increased threats 

of plants being collected within the 

monument, especially where access is 

convenient. 

Vegetation within the monument was 

impacted by livestock grazing for more 

than a century until 1989 and will 

continue to recover from former 

ranching activities. Continued field 

studies are needed to routinely assess the 

distribution and status of sensitive species 

and to ensure they are not impacted by 

current visitor use, NPS operations, or 

traditional-use activities. Under the NoAction Alternative, occasional incidental 

trampling of vegetation during off-trail 

activities would continue to occur. For 

these reasons, the No-Action Alternative 

would likely have long-term, negligible 

to minor adverse impacts on plant 

"species of concern." 

Three animal "species of concern" are 

known to occur within the monument, 

including Wupatki pocket mouse 

(Perognathus amplus cineris), spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum), and Townsend's 

big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). 

An additional two bird "species of 

concern," the ferruginous hawk (Buteo 

regalis) and burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularea ssp. hypugaea) are known 

from similar habitats near the 

monument. Although not formally listed 

as "species of concern," pronghorn 

antelope (Antilocapra americana) and 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 

populations within Wupatki were 

identified as environmental issues during 

the public and agency scoping process. 

The Wupatki pocket mouse is 

documented in areas with cinder cover 

along the margin of the San Francisco 

Volcanic Field near the southern 

boundary of the monument. Very little is 

known about the distribution or status of 

the subspecies, but it is presumed that it 

would be impacted by development and 

land use activities in similar ways as other 

small wildlife. At Wupatki, this includes 

noise disturbance and documented 

mortality of a few individuals per year 

along the entrance road (Persons 2001). 

However, the species is likely prolific as 

similar rodent species are, and the loss of 

a few animals per year to vehicle traffic 

on the entrance road likely has no longterm adverse consequence for the 

population. The species is predominantly 

nocturnal, so impacts from existing 

daytime visitor use are likely negligible. 

Spotted bats and Townsend's big-eared 

bat occur in the cave-like karst features 

and fractured rock faces within the 

central portion of the monument. Most 

available habitat is within the closed 

backcountry area, but some karst 

features are near popular visitor use 

areas, where they have been impacted 

from prior NPS attempts to block 

entrances as a public safety precaution. 

None of the features were completely 

sealed, so bats are still able to use them. 

The NPS is currently planning to restore 

the historically impacted entrances. Most 

karst habitats are located within the 

closed area. Bats are predominantly 

nocturnal, so impacts from existing 

daytime visitor-use around the 

archaeological interpretive areas are 

likely negligible. However, occasional 

unauthorized entry into karst features 

173
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

likely occurs, resulting in short-term, 

minor impacts to sensitive bat species. 

There is one documented death of 

Townsend's big-eared bat along the 

entrance road (Persons 2001). 

The ferruginous hawk is known to 

inhabit and breed in open grassland and 

shrub-steppe habitats surrounding 

Wupatki. It is not known to occur within 

the monument, but favorable habitat 

conditions exist. Field surveys are needed 

to assess the distribution and status of 

this species. Ferruginous hawks are 

solitary animals and are likely disturbed 

by facility development and visitor use 

activities. The existing access road and 

traffic through Wupatki might cause 

noise disturbance and very rare injury or 

mortality. Current levels of visitor use, 

particularly within the Lomaki area, 

might disturb with the species within the 

monument. 

The burrowing owl inhabits prairie dog 

towns. Although some burrowing 

mammal communities occur within the 

monument, the presence of burrowing 

owls has not been confirmed. Field 

surveys are needed to assess the 

distribution and status of this species. 

Burrowing owls have uncommon 

behavior in that they may be active by 

day. They are much less disturbed by 

human presence than other animal 

species of concern. Existing visitor use 

areas are not in proximity to any 

extensive burrowing mammal 

communities, and current visitor use 

probably has a negligible impact on the 

species. The species is likely impacted by 

facility development in similar ways as 

other grassland-dependent wildlife are. 

The existing access road and traffic 

through Wupatki might cause noise 

disturbance and very rare injury or 

mortality. 

A small pronghorn antelope herd exists 

at Wupatki and has declined along with 

the regional population during the last 

few decades (Bright and Van Riper III 

2000). Under presettlement conditions, 

pronghorn ranged well beyond the 

boundary of the monument, but the 

species is increasingly affected by 

regional habitat fragmentation through 

road development and range fencing. 

Pronghorn primarily range throughout 

most of the grassland within the western 

half of Wupatki. The species seasonally 

uses desert shrub habitat in the eastern 

half of the monument and will move 

through open juniper woodland areas in 

search of water. The boundary fence 

confined the herd within Wupatki during 

heavy snows in the mid-1970s and was 

blamed for a number of pronghorn 

deaths. Perennial water sources are 

scarce, and the animals must move back 

and forth to water on adjacent lands. 

Grassland habitat is also being lost as 

juniper woodland takes over in the 

absence of fire. The NPS is cooperating 

with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, Arizona Department of 

Transportation, neighboring ranch 

owners, and the U.S. Forest Service to 

improve the condition for the local herd. 

Recent boundary fence modifications 

should allow the animals to move 

between neighboring lands. The 

proposed boundary expansion would 

almost double the available grassland 

habitat within the monument and could 

add reliable surface water sources. 

Interior fences would be promptly 

removed within the expanded 

monument area. Existing visitor access 

roads within the monument are relatively 

narrow and not fenced and probably do 

not interfere significantly with local 

movements. However, pronghorn are 

likely disturbed by traffic noise, and 

animals are infrequently killed by 

automobiles. Pronghorn perceive humans 

as predators and are very sensitive to 

human presence, even at relatively long 

distances. Current visitor use is not 

centered within grassland habitat, but 

174 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

use of the Citadel-Lomaki area likely 

results in some disturbance to pronghorn. 

The NPS is developing a fire management 

plan for Wupatki with the primary 

objective of managing woodland 

encroachment into the grassland. Under 

the No-Action Alternative, the existing 

access road and ongoing juniper 

woodland expansion would have longterm, moderate adverse impacts. The 

boundary fence and visitor use would 

have long-term, minor adverse impacts. 

Golden eagles have historically nested 

within Wupatki, though no nesting pairs 

were discovered during recent surveys 

(Britten 1999, Drost 2000). The best 

nesting habitat, as evidenced by old 

nests, is in the Citadel Sink, Doney 

Mountain, and Doney Monocline areas. 

Golden eagles are known to be sensitive 

to human presence, but less sensitive to 

moving automobiles. If disturbed by 

sudden, loud noise or rapid movements, 

adult birds may fail to use a nest site or 

temporarily abandon their eggs or chicks, 

exposing them to undue cold 

temperatures and/or predators. Some 

biologists recommend establishing 

between a 1/4- and 2-mile diameter 

buffer zone around nests. Existing access 

road traffic and visitor use, especially at 

the Citadel Pueblo, may interfere with 

breeding eagles. Accordingly, the NPS 

recently decided to close the Citadel 

Pueblo to visitors during the breeding 

season. Because biologists suspect there is 

only one viable golden eagle breeding 

territory within Wupatki, continued 

human disturbance of nesting sites likely 

results in long-term, moderate to major 

impacts within the monument. 

In addition to sensitive species, a number 

of unique or rare habitats were 

identified within the monument through 

the scoping process and by using 

available scientific literature. These 

include grasslands, karst features, the 

cinder alluvial fan east of Woodhouse 

Mesa, Antelope Canyon in the Doney 

Monocline, and riparian areas. Impacts to 

riparian areas are analyzed separately in 

the Wetlands, Floodplains, and Riparian 

Habitat section below. The proposed 

acquisition of more than 20,000 acres to 

the north of the monument would nearly 

double the available grassland habitat 

within the monument. The expansion 

would also allow the eventual removal of 

grazing livestock from the newly added 

area, closure of primitive roads, and 

removal of interior fences (including the 

segment along the current monument 

boundary). These actions would 

significantly enhance the long-term 

integrity of the native grassland 

ecosystem, reduce habitat 

fragmentation, and have long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts to 

grassland-dependent species within the 

monument. 

The cave-like karst features within the 

monument provide habitat for sensitive 

bat species and may also provide unique 

habitat for other rare species, especially 

invertebrates. Preliminary surveys and 

biological inventory efforts have just 

begun. Cave environments are easily 

disrupted by human presence, and karst 

features within the monument are closed 

to visitors. However, occasional 

unauthorized visitation likely occurs, 

which could impact the fauna and affect 

temperature, airflow, and humidity. The 

introduction of trash, lint, skin dander, 

mold, or microbes has been shown to 

have significant cumulative effects on 

cave resources. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, occasional unauthorized 

access would likely continue to occur, 

resulting in long-term, minor impacts to 

karst resources. 

The alluvial fan of vegetated cinder 

dunes to the east of Woodhouse Mesa 

was identified by Bateman (1976) as a 

unique habitat. The cinder dune fan 

harbors two sensitive plant species175
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Phacelia serrata and Amsonia 

peeblesiana. The Wupatki pocket mouse 

also occurs here. Most of this habitat lies 

within the backcountry closure area. The 

cinder dune fan is bisected by the eastern 

entrance road. The New Heiser employee 

housing and maintenance shops are also 

found within this habitat. Currently, no 

new visitor access or NPS support facilities 

are proposed within the cinder dunes. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

continued NPS operations and occasional 

backcountry hiking would likely result in 

long-term, negligible to minor impacts to 

this unique habitat. 

The Doney Monocline, including 

Antelope Canyon, was also identified by 

Bateman (1976) as unique habitat. The 

massive, limestone faces of the 

monocline harbor several plant species 

not found elsewhere (e.g., Echinocactus 

polycephalus, Petrophytum caespitosum) 

and contribute to the overall biodiversity 

within the monument. The area also 

includes cliff faces, which provide 

suitable habitat for bats and nesting 

habitat for golden eagles and other 

raptors. Most of the monocline lies 

within the closed backcountry area. 

However, the established hiking route to 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo follows along the 

base of the Doney Monocline and near 

the mouth of Antelope Canyon. 

Dispersed hiking is encouraged instead of 

hiking on a developed trail, but hikers 

are narrowly confined by rugged terrain 

in certain reaches, and short trail 

segments are evident. Some visitor use 

impacts are locally evident around the 

Crack-in-Rock area, including unplanned 

trails, localized vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, accelerated erosion, and 

patches of nonnative Russian thistle 

(Salsola kali). Although these impacts are 

very localized, they illustrate how 

sensitive the desert environment can be 

to low levels of human activity. Under 

the No-Action Alternative, continued 

occasional guided use along the Crack-inRock hiking route would likely result in 

long-term, negligible to minor impacts to 

this unique habitat. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area used in the 

consideration of cumulative effects 

includes the western portion of the Little 

Colorado River watershed and is 

bounded on the south by the Mogollon 

Plateau and Clear Creek, the Little 

Colorado River and Painted Desert on the 

east, and the San Francisco Peaks and 

Coconino Plateau on the west. 

The cumulative effects of continuing 

public visitation to and NPS 

administration of Wupatki 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 impacts 

over which the NPS has very little control. 

Others are sensitive because the have 

very small or specific habitats that could 

be completely impacted by small 

management decisions. At Wupatki, the 

NPS cooperates when a regional species 

management framework is needed to 

sustain a widespread species. The 

narrowly distributed species are well 

protected within Wupatki by the 

backcountry closure. The primary adverse 

cumulative effects would likely result 

from increased visitation and road traffic, 

especially for sensitive wildlife species. 

Cattle grazing in the geographic area is 

widespread and has been ongoing for 

more than a hundred years. This has 

caused a general degradation in 

grasslands in the area and has had a 

moderate impact on several sensitive 

plant species, by reducing species 

diversity, introducing exotic species, and 

trampling. Grazing was stopped in the 

monument in 1989, and the grasslands, 

and likely some rare plant populations, 

are still recovering. The exclusion of 

176 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

livestock from the monument would 

have a long-term, minor to moderate 

beneficial impact on sensitive plant 

species within the region. The impacts 

would be similar for plant species that 

are increasingly threatened by overcollection for American Indian traditional 

uses. 

Current visitor use at the Citadel site and 

parking area likely has a moderate 

impact to golden eagles that might use 

the Citadel sink as a nesting area. A 

significant increase in visitor use during 

the breeding season would likely have 

major adverse cumulative effects to this 

breeding pair. The cumulative impact to 

the regional golden eagle population 

would likely be long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

CONCLUSION 

No threatened or endangered species are 

known to occur within Wupatki National 

Monument. Vegetation and wildlife 

habitat within the monument will 

continue to recover from former 

ranching activities. There are 11 sensitive 

plant and 7 sensitive animal species that 

are either known to occur within 

Wupatki or within similar habitats nearby 

the monument. Continued field studies 

are needed to routinely assess the 

distribution and status of sensitive species 

and to ensure that they are not impacted 

by current visitor use, NPS operations, 

and traditional use activities. 

The backcountry closure also effectively 

protects most sensitive plant habitats 

from disturbance. Existing roads, 

archeological interpretive areas, and NPS 

support facilities are located in proximity 

to known locations and/or known 

habitats of sensitive plants. Current 

visitor activity near developed areas likely 

results in localized off-trail vegetation 

trampling. The demand for traditionally 

used species may be increasing, resulting 

in increased threats of plants being 

collected within the monument, 

especially where access is convenient. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

occasional incidental trampling of 

vegetation during off-trail activities likely 

have long-term, negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on plant "species of 

concern." 

Current visitor use and NPS operations at 

Wupatki likely have long-term, negligible 

to minor adverse impacts to the Wupatki 

pocket mouse, Townsend's big-eared bat, 

and spotted bat. 

A small pronghorn antelope herd exists 

at Wupatki, and it has declined along 

with the regional population during the 

last few decades. The NPS is cooperating 

with other agencies and landowners to 

improve conditions, including modifying 

fences to allow animals to move between 

surrounding lands. The proposed 

boundary expansion would almost 

double grassland habitat. Pronghorn are 

likely disturbed by traffic noise along the 

access road. Current visitor use is not 

centered within grassland habitat, but 

use of the Citadel-Lomaki area likely 

results in some disturbance. The NPS is 

developing a fire management plan with 

the primary objective of improving 

grassland habitat. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, the existing access road and 

ongoing juniper woodland expansion 

have long-term, moderate adverse 

impacts. The boundary fence and visitor 

use have long-term, minor adverse 

impacts. 

Golden eagles have historically nested 

within Wupatki. Access road traffic and 

visitor use, especially at the Citadel 

Pueblo, may interfere with breeding 

eagles. Accordingly, the NPS recently 

decided to close the Citadel Pueblo to 

visitors during the breeding season. 

Because biologists suspect there is only 

one viable golden eagle breeding 

territory within Wupatki, continued 

human disturbance of nesting sites likely 

177
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

results in long-term, moderate to major 

impacts within the monument. 

A number of unique habitats exist within 

the monument, including grasslands, 

karst features, the cinder alluvial fan east 

of Woodhouse Mesa, Antelope Canyon in 

the Doney Monocline, and riparian areas. 

Impacts to riparian areas are analyzed 

separately in the Wetlands, Floodplains, 

and Riparian Habitat section below. Most 

of the unique habitats are located within 

the closed backcountry area, which 

protects them from most impacts. The 

proposed boundary expansion would 

nearly double grassland habitat and have 

long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts 

to grassland-dependent species. Existing 

visitor use and NPS operations have 

minor impacts upon karst features and 

negligible to minor impacts upon the 

cinder alluvial fan and the Doney 

Monocline. 

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 

Wupatki 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: 

Limit Motorized Sightseeing 

And Focus On Extended 

Learning 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The existing closed backcountry area 

would be formally recognized as a 

Resource Preservation Zone, and 

unauthorized access would be 

prohibited. Visitor-use and NPS 

operations impacts to sensitive species 

and unique habitats within the Resource 

Preservation Zone would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts from the proposed boundary 

expansion on grasslands and NPS 

cooperative efforts to manage 

pronghorn would likely be the same as 

those identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

The impacts upon sensitive species and 

unique habitats from use and 

maintenance of FR545 between the east 

entrance and the visitor center/Wupatki 

area, the Crack-in-Rock Road, and Black 

Falls Crossing Road would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative 

The impacts upon sensitive species and 

unique habitats from visitor activities at 

the visitor center and Wupatki Pueblo 

would be the same as under the NoAction Alternative. 

Impacts upon sensitive species and 

unique habitats from NPS operation and 

maintenance of the existing visitor 

center, employee housing, offices, shops, 

parking lots, and utilities would remain 

highly concentrated at the same locations 

and would be the same as those 

identified for the No-Action Alternative. 

The proposed changes in the road system 

would eliminate most traffic through the 

western half of the monument. This 

would have long-term, moderate 

beneficial impacts to pronghorn within 

178 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

the monument by significantly reducing 

grassland habitat fragmentation, traffic 

noise, mortality, movement interference, 

and human disturbance along the park 

road. 

The new campground near Heiser Spring 

would be developed within an 

abandoned employee housing area. The 

spring and housing area has been heavily 

impacted by historic ranching and NPS 

use, and building the campground would 

avoid direct impacts to sensitive plant 

and animal populations or habitat. 

However, establishing the campground 

and increasing visitor use within an 

Extended Learning Zone around Heiser 

Spring would deter NPS efforts to restore 

the spring as a source of water for 

wildlife, including pronghorn. The spring 

is one of only two perennial surface 

water sources within the monument. 

Limited overnight visitor use around the 

campground and sustained visitor use 

within the Extended Learning Zone 

would result in localized secondary 

impacts beyond the historically 

developed area, including noise and 

disturbance to pronghorn. The actual 

amount of disturbance is difficult to 

quantify and would depend on the 

timing, frequency, and size of visitor 

groups. The proposed campground and 

learning zone around Heiser Spring 

would likely cause long-term, moderate 

adverse impacts to the pronghorn 

population within the monument. The 

impacts to wetlands/riparian habitats are 

discussed in the appropriate section 

below. 

Under Alternative 1, the proposed 

realignment of the Wukoki access road 

and extension of the access trail would 

likely disturb known populations of 

Amsonia peeblesii and Poliomintha 

incana. The realignment also could 

potentially disturb Phacelia welshii and 

Cymopterus megacephalus. Surveys 

would be conducted prior to planning 

the realignment route, and populations 

of sensitive plants would be avoided if 

discovered. Habitat for the Wupatki 

pocket mouse could also be impacted, 

but this would be offset by the 

restoration of the old access route. 

Extending the access trail would likely 

result in increased off-trail vegetation 

trampling within the Wukoki area, 

disturbance to known populations of 

Amsonia peeblesii, and would have the 

potential to disturb Phacelia welshii and 

Cymopterus megacephalus. These actions 

would likely have negligible to longterm, minor adverse impacts to sensitive 

plants, and short-term, minor adverse 

impacts to the Wupatki pocket mouse. 

Under Alternative 1, the proposed large 

Extended Learning Zone around the 

Citadel-Lomaki area would increase 

human presence and disturbance to 

grassland habitat and several sensitive 

species. Off-trail hiking within this area 

could result in increased trampling of 

sensitive plants, including Amsonia 

peeblesii, Pediocactus simpsonii, and/or 

Pediocactus peeblesianus var. 

fickeiseniae. Increased visitor activity in 

this area might disrupt golden eagle 

nesting, which could have both shortand long-term moderate to major 

impacts to the only viable breeding 

territory within the monument. These 

impacts could largely be avoided by 

continued closure of the Citadel Pueblo 

area during the nesting season (February 

through June). The expanded visitor-use 

area also includes significant karst 

features and habitat for both the spotted 

bat and Townsend's big-eared bat. Offtrail roaming within the area could 

increase impacts to these unique habitats 

and bat populations. If visitor numbers, 

visitation access patterns, and the timing 

of guided visits is appropriately managed 

by the NPS, this alternative would result 

in long-term negligible to minor impacts 

to most sensitive species and unique 

habitats. 

179
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

An increase in the level of dispersed 

hiking within the proposed Guided 

Adventure Zone, especially around Crackin-Rock Pueblo, would result in increased 

impacts to sensitive plant species. 

Amsonia peeblesii, Errazurizia rotunda, 

Cymopterus megacephalus, Phacelia 

welshii, and/or Pediocactus peeblesianus 

var. fickeiseniae could be adversely 

impacted by increased off-trail hiking 

and vegetation trampling. The Doney 

Monocline, along the west side of the 

Guided Adventure Zone, provides unique 

habitat for a number of plant species, 

bats, and nesting sites for raptors. 

Unmanaged visitors could easily stray 

onto the lower slopes of the monocline 

or into Antelope Canyon out of curiosity, 

and nesting raptors could be disturbed by 

visitor-use during breeding season. Bats 

are largely nocturnal, and daytime 

visitor-use within the Guided Adventure 

Zone would likely not disturb them. 

Depending on NPS management of 

visitor numbers, visitation access patterns, 

and the timing of guided visits, this 

alternative could result in long-term 

negligible to minor impacts to sensitive 

species and unique habitats. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 1 

are likely to be similar to those identified 

for the No-Action Alternative for most 

sensitive species and unique habitats 

within the monument. This alternative 

would have pronounced beneficial 

impacts to the integrity of grasslands and 

pronghorn because of the proposed road 

system and visitor access changes within 

the western half of the monument. 

However, this effect might be somewhat 

offset by the combined new campground 

and Extended Learning Zone around 

Heiser Spring, which would deter NPS 

efforts to restore the spring as a source 

of water for pronghorn. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 1 would cause no adverse 

impacts to threatened and endangered 

species at Wupatki National Monument. 

Most of the monument would remain 

closed to general visitor access, and the 

impacts for many sensitive species and 

unique habitats would likely be similar to 

those identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. The proposed changes in the 

road system would eliminate most traffic 

through the western half of the 

monument, which would have long-term, 

moderate beneficial impacts to 

pronghorn. Development of a 

campground and establishing an 

Extended Learning Zone around Heiser 

Spring would deter NPS efforts to restore 

the spring as a source of drinking water 

for wildlife, which would have a longterm, moderate adverse impact to 

pronghorn within the monument. Minor 

impacts could result from local 

realignment of the Wukoki Pueblo access 

road and extension of the trail. The 

larger Extended Learning Zone around 

the Citadel-Lomaki area would increase 

human presence and disturbance to 

grassland habitat, karst features, and 

several sensitive species. An increase in 

the level of dispersed hiking with the 

proposed Guided Adventure Zone, 

especially around Crack-in-Rock Pueblo, 

would result in increased impacts to 

habitat for several sensitive plant species. 

If visitor numbers, access patterns, and 

the timing of guided visits are 

appropriately managed by the NPS, this 

alternative would result in long-term 

negligible to minor impacts to most 

sensitive species and unique habitats. 

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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

180 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 2, the existing 

backcountry closure area would be 

formally recognized as a Resource 

Preservation Zone, and unauthorized 

access would be prohibited. Visitor use 

and NPS operations impacts to sensitive 

species and unique habitats within the 

Resource Preservation Zone would be the 

same as those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

The impacts from the proposed boundary 

expansion on grasslands and NPS 

cooperative efforts to manage 

pronghorn would likely be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 2-

way traffic. Vehicle access to the 

interpretive archeological areas would 

remain unchanged, and the impacts of 

the paved road system upon sensitive 

animal species would likely be the same 

as identified for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

The impacts of visitor use on sensitive 

plant and animal populations near the 

four existing archaeological interpretive 

areas and the Doney Mountain picnic 

area would likely be the same as those 

identified for the No-Action Alternative. 

The NPS would retain existing housing, 

maintenance shops, and utilities for the 

same purposes, and the impacts from 

these operations would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

NPS visitor service operations in the 

existing visitor center would cease, 

except for continued use of the existing 

parking lot to access the Wupatki Pueblo. 

The building would be retained for use 

by the cooperating association bookstore 

and/or be converted to offices and 

research/storage space. This change in 

facility function would likely have the 

same impacts to sensitive plant and 

animal populations as under the NoAction Alternative. 

Under Alternative 2, a 24-mile scenic loop 

of existing primitive roads would be used 

for one-way, escorted four-wheel-drive 

and/or mountain bike tours across the 

Crack-in-Rock area and northern 

expansion lands. The Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo and new viewpoints and sites of 

historic interest would be visited much 

more frequently than they are at present. 

The proposed development of scenic 

viewpoints, support facilities, and 

increased visitor use along the scenic loop 

would promote local off-trail hiking, 

which could have minor adverse impacts 

to sensitive plant populations, including 

Amsonia peeblesii, Pediocactus simpsonii, 

and/or Pediocactus peeblesianus var. 

fickeiseniae. Field surveys for sensitive 

plant species would be required to avoid 

the plants when siting visitor use areas 

and support facility locations in order to 

mitigate potential impacts. 

The proposed change in visitor access 

would significantly increase road-related 

impacts and habitat fragmentation 

within the grassland area. Increased 

vehicle use, traffic noise, and human 

presence along the new scenic loop 

corridor would likely disturb the 

pronghorn population and interfere with 

movement throughout both the 

grassland and Doney Monocline areas. 

Anticipated disturbances include more 

frequent human-induced flight response, 

181
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

which physically stresses the animals, 

disrupts foraging, disrupts breeding 

behavior, and causes adults to 

temporarily abandon fawns, which 

results in increased coyote predation on 

fawns. A proposed scenic viewpoint from 

the top of the Doney Monocline could 

impact golden eagle nest sites and have 

moderate to major impacts during 

golden eagle breeding season. This 

impact could be mitigated by carefully 

selecting the scenic viewpoint location or 

avoiding use of the site during golden 

eagle breeding season. The actual level 

of impacts to sensitive animal species 

from the proposed new road corridor 

would depend on the timing, frequency, 

and group size of guided activities, but 

could result in long-term, minor to 

moderate impacts to pronghorn, and the 

potential for long-term, moderate or 

short-term, major adverse impacts to 

golden eagles. 

Under Alternative 2, Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo would only be visited on short, 

guided hikes during the scenic driving or 

mountain bike tours. This would 

eliminate existing impacts from dispersed 

hiking access along the base of the 

Doney Monocline, including the potential 

trampling of Amsonia peeblesii, 

Errazurizia rotunda, Cymopterus 

megacephalus, Phacelia welshii, and/or 

Pediocactus peeblesianus var. 

fickeiseniae. This would reduce potential 

human disturbance to pronghorn and 

golden eagle near the hiking corridor. 

The proposed construction of a new 

visitor orientation station at the north 

entrance near US89 could have negligible 

to long-term, minor impact to sensitive 

plant species, including Pediocactus 

simpsonii, and/or Pediocactus 

peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae. 

Preliminary surveys for these plants 

would be required in order to determine 

if they would be impacted by the new 

contact station. A local area of habitat 

for the Wupatki pocket mouse and 

pronghorn would be destroyed. Off-trail 

visitor use near the new facility would 

result in local vegetation trampling and 

potential impacts to sensitive plants. 

Radiotelemetry tracking of pronghorn 

has shown that they often congregate 

along the US89 right-of-way fence, and 

their movement and foraging patterns 

would be disrupted by increased human 

presence. The new visitor orientation 

station would have long-term, moderate 

adverse impacts to pronghorn antelope. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

maintained in its current condition and 

opened to park visitors. Visitors would 

likely stop to explore the roadside area 

on foot, potentially trampling sensitive 

plants adjacent to the road corridor. 

Increased traffic could increase road 

mortality and have long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to the Wupatki pocket 

mouse. 

The current practice of occasional guided 

visitor "discovery hikes" within the closed 

backcountry area be would be 

eliminated, which would result in longterm, minor beneficial impacts to 

numerous sensitive plants and animals, 

by confining visitor impacts to the 

Extended Learning Zone and road 

corridors. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 2 

are likely to be similar to those identified 

under the No-Action Alternative for most 

sensitive species and unique habitats 

within the monument. The alternative 

would have pronounced adverse impacts 

to the integrity of grasslands and 

pronghorn because of the proposed road 

system and visitor access changes within 

the western half of the monument. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 2 would cause no adverse 

impacts to threatened and endangered 

182 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

species at Wupatki National Monument. 

Most of the monument would remain 

closed to general visitor access, and the 

impacts for many sensitive species and 

unique habitats would likely be similar to 

those identified under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Alternative 2 would significantly increase 

the road system and vehicle access within 

the monument, which would have longterm, moderate adverse impacts to 

pronghorn and increase disturbance to 

sensitive plant habitats. The proposed 

construction of a new visitor orientation 

station at the north entrance near US89 

would permanently impact a local area 

of habitat for the Wupatki pocket mouse 

and pronghorn. Pronghorn often 

congregate along the US89 right-of-way 

fence, and their movement and foraging 

patterns would be moderately disrupted 

by increased human presence. 

The proposed Extended Learning Zone 

around the Citadel-Lomaki area would 

increase human presence and potential 

disturbance to grassland habitat, karst 

features, several sensitive plant species, 

Townsend's big-eared bat, spotted bat, 

pronghorn, and golden eagle. The Black 

Falls Crossing Road would be opened to 

park visitors, resulting in increased road 

mortality of Wupatki pocket mouse and 

trampling of rare plant habitats adjacent 

to the road corridor. The elimination of 

occasional guided visitor "discovery 

hikes" and dispersed hiking access to 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would benefit a 

large area of sensitive plant habitat. If 

visitor numbers, access patterns, and the 

timing of guided visits are appropriately 

managed by the NPS, this alternative 

would result in long-term negligible to 

minor impacts to most sensitive species 

and unique habitats, except perhaps for 

pronghorn. 

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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 3 

(Preferred): Preserve 

Sensitive Park Resources 

While Diversifying The Range 

Of Visitor Experiences 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 3, the existing 

backcountry closure area would be 

formally recognized as a Resource 

Preservation Zone, and unauthorized 

access would be prohibited. Visitor use 

and NPS operations impacts to sensitive 

species and unique habitats within the 

Resource Preservation Zone would be the 

same as those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

The impacts from the proposed boundary 

expansion on grasslands and NPS 

cooperative efforts to manage 

pronghorn would likely be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. An 

existing primitive ranch road, within the 

boundary expansion, that approaches the 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo area from the 

western mesa above the Doney 

Monocline would be maintained in its 

existing condition for administrative 

purposes. The impacts from occasional 

administrative use are expected to be less 

than those resulting from ranch 

operations and are considered negligible. 

FR545 would remain open to 24-hour, 2-

way traffic. Vehicle access to the 

interpretive archeological areas would 

remain unchanged, and the impacts of 

183
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the paved road system upon sensitive 

animal species would likely be the same 

as identified under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

The impacts of visitor use on sensitive 

plant and animal populations near the 

four existing archeological interpretive 

areas and the Doney Mountain picnic 

area would likely be the same as those 

identified for the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts on sensitive species and 

unique habitats from continued 

administrative use and maintenance of 

the Black Falls Crossing Road and the 

Crack-in-Rock Road would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

The NPS would retain existing housing, 

maintenance shops, and utilities for the 

same purposes, and the impacts from 

these operations would be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. 

The proposed construction of a new 

visitor orientation station at the north 

entrance near US89 could have negligible 

to long-term, minor impact to sensitive 

plant species, including Pediocactus 

simpsonii, and/or Pediocactus 

peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae. 

Preliminary surveys for these species 

would be required in order to determine 

if they would be impacted by the new 

contact station. A local area of habitat 

for the Wupatki pocket mouse and 

pronghorn would be destroyed. Off-trail 

visitor use near the new facility would 

result in local vegetation trampling and 

potential impacts to sensitive plants. 

Radiotelemetry tracking of pronghorn 

has shown that they often congregate 

along the US89 right-of-way fence, and 

their movement and foraging patterns 

would be disrupted by increased human 

presence. The new visitor orientation 

station would have long-term, moderate 

adverse impacts to pronghorn antelope. 

Under Alternative 3, the proposed 

realignment of the Wukoki access road 

and extension of the access trail could 

disturb known populations of Amsonia 

peeblesii and Poliomintha incana. The 

realignment also could potentially 

disturb Phacelia welshii and Cymopterus 

megacephalus. Surveys would be 

conducted prior to planning the 

realignment route, and populations of 

sensitive plants would be avoided if 

discovered. Habitat for the Wupatki 

pocket mouse could also be impacted, 

but this would be offset by the 

restoration of the old access route. 

Extending the access trail would likely 

result in increased off-trail vegetation 

trampling within the Wukoki area and 

disturbance to known populations of 

Amsonia peeblesii and would have the 

potential to disturb Phacelia welshii and 

Cymopterus megacephalus. These actions 

would likely have negligible to longterm, minor adverse impacts to sensitive 

plants, and short-term, minor adverse 

impacts to the Wupatki pocket mouse. 

Under Alternative 3, the learning zone 

around the Citadel-Lomaki area would 

be larger than the current visitor use 

area. The larger area of visitor activity 

could disturb grassland habitat and result 

in incidental trampling of Amsonia 

peeblesii, Pediocactus simpsonii, and/or 

Pediocactus peeblesianus var. 

fickeiseniae. Increased visitor activity in 

this area might continue to disrupt 

golden eagle nesting, which could have 

both short- and long-term moderate to 

major impacts to the only viable 

breeding territory within the monument. 

These impacts could largely be avoided 

by continued closure of the Citadel 

Pueblo area during the nesting season 

(February through June). The expanded 

visitor use area is near karst features and 

habitat for both the spotted bat and 

Townsend's big-eared bat. Off-trail 

roaming within the area could increase 

impacts to these unique habitats and bat 

populations. These potential visitor use 

impacts could be offset by increased on184 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

site NPS staff presence and enhanced 

visitor guidance. This alternative would 

likely result in long-term negligible to 

minor impacts to most sensitive species 

and unique habitats. 

An increase in the level of dispersed 

hiking within the proposed Guided 

Adventure Zone, especially around Crackin-Rock Pueblo, would result in increased 

impacts to sensitive plant habitats. 

Amsonia peeblesii, Errazurizia rotunda, 

Cymopterus megacephalus, Phacelia 

welshii, and/or Pediocactus peeblesianus 

var. fickeiseniae could be adversely 

impacted by increased off-trail hiking 

and vegetation trampling. The Doney 

Monocline, along the west side of the 

Guided Adventure Zone, provides unique 

habitat for a number of plant species and 

bats, and provides nesting sites for 

raptors. Without guidance, visitors could 

easily stray onto the lower slopes of the 

monocline or into Antelope Canyon out 

of curiosity, and nesting raptors could be 

disturbed by visitor use during breeding 

season. Bats are largely nocturnal, and 

daytime visitor use within the Guided 

Adventure Zone would likely not disturb 

them. Depending upon NPS management 

of visitor numbers, visitation access 

patterns, and the timing of guided visits, 

this alternative could result in long-term 

negligible to minor impacts to sensitive 

species and unique habitats. 

A 1/2-mile trail would be established into 

the grassland ecosystem near Lomaki. 

The trail would be established by linking 

existing unplanned trails in the area, 

which would negate most adverse 

impacts to sensitive plants. Some off-trail 

use and vegetation trampling is 

anticipated, which would result in 

negligible to minor impacts to sensitive 

plant species. Increased human presence 

within the area could result in increased 

disturbance and have minor to moderate 

adverse impacts upon the pronghorn 

herd within Wupatki. 

A second new trail would be established 

between Wupatki and Wukoki Pueblos. 

The proposed trail route is in proximity 

to known populations of Amsonia 

peeblesii and Poliomintha incana, and 

suitable habitat for Phacelia welshii and 

Cymopterus megacephalus. Impacts 

would be minimized by establishing the 

trail along the bottom of Deadman Wash 

and an abandoned roadbed. The area 

would be surveyed for the existence of 

sensitive plant and animal species prior 

to trail designation. Some off-trail use 

and vegetation trampling is anticipated, 

which would result in negligible to minor 

impacts to sensitive plant species. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 

are likely to be similar to those identified 

for the No-Action Alternative for most 

sensitive species and unique habitats 

within the monument. The alternative 

would provide for an increased area of 

visitor use around the Citadel-Lomaki 

area, a new trail into the grassland area, 

and a new orientation facility at the 

north entrance to the monument. These 

proposed actions together would slightly 

increase cumulative adverse impacts to 

the integrity of grasslands and 

pronghorn. The alternative would also 

provide for higher visitor use levels 

within the Guided Adventure Zone and 

two new trails. These proposed actions 

together would increase the level of offtrail access and incidental vegetation 

trampling within suitable habitats for 

several sensitive plant species. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 3 would cause no adverse 

impacts to threatened and endangered 

species at Wupatki National Monument. 

Most of the monument would remain 

closed to general visitor access, and the 

impacts for many sensitive species and 

unique habitats would likely be similar to 

185
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

those identified under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

The proposed construction of a new 

visitor orientation station at the north 

entrance near US89 would permanently 

impact a local area of habitat for the 

Wupatki pocket mouse and pronghorn. 

Pronghorn often congregate along the 

US89 right-of-way fence, and their 

movement and foraging patterns would 

be moderately disrupted by increased 

human presence. The proposed learning 

zone around the Citadel-Lomaki area 

would increase human presence and 

potential disturbance to grassland 

habitat, karst features, several sensitive 

plant species, Townsend's big-eared bat, 

spotted bat, pronghorn, and golden 

eagle. The a new orientation facility 

combined with increased visitor access 

within the western half of the monument 

would slightly increase cumulative 

adverse impacts to the integrity of 

grasslands and have long-term, minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on the 

pronghorn herd within Wupatki. 

Minor impacts could result from local 

realignment of the Wukoki Pueblo access 

road and extension of the trail. An 

increase in the level of dispersed hiking 

with the proposed Guided Adventure 

Zone, and the establishment of two new 

trails would increase off-trail vegetation 

trampling and have negligible to longterm, minor impacts to suitable habitat 

for several sensitive plant species. 

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 Wupatki 

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 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 4, the existing 

backcountry closure area would be 

formally recognized as a Resource 

Preservation Zone, and unauthorized 

access would be prohibited. Visitor use 

and NPS operations impacts to sensitive 

species and unique habitats within the 

Resource Preservation Zone would be the 

same as under the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts from the proposed boundary 

expansion on grasslands and NPS 

cooperative efforts to manage 

pronghorn would likely be the same as 

under the No-Action Alternative. An 

existing primitive ranch road within the 

boundary expansion that approaches the 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo area from the 

western mesa above the Doney 

Monocline would be maintained in 

existing condition for administrative 

purposes. The impacts from occasional 

administrative use are expected to be less 

than those resulting from ranch 

operations and are considered negligible. 

The incidental impacts of visitor use at 

the four existing archaeological 

interpretive areas and the Doney 

Mountain picnic area to surrounding 

sensitive plant species and their habitats, 

karst features, Townsend's big-eared bat, 

spotted bat, golden eagle, and 

pronghorn would be the same as under 

the No-Action Alternative. 

Under Alternative 4, approximately 13 

miles of FR545 would be converted to 

one-way traffic westward from the visitor 

center to an exit at the north boundary 

at US89. The one-way section would be 

186 
THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

gated at night, virtually eliminating 

nighttime traffic and casual visitor use 

within the western half of the 

monument. The proposed changes to 

FR545 access would reduce existing 

grassland habitat fragmentation and 

have a long-term, moderate beneficial 

impact to the pronghorn herd in 

Wupatki. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

closed and restored to natural vegetation 

and wildlife habitat conditions. This 

would provide a negligible increase in 

suitable habitat for a number of sensitive 

plant species known to occur within the 

eastern half of the monument. 

Abandonment of the road would 

eliminate potential off-road driving and 

incidental hiking impacts to sensitive 

plants adjacent to the road corridor. The 

elimination of vehicle use would 

decrease road mortality and have longterm, minor beneficial impacts to the 

Wupatki pocket mouse. 

The removal of most of the visitor center, 

most housing, and all maintenance and 

administrative facilities at Wupatki 

would provide a negligible increase in 

suitable habitat for a number of sensitive 

plant species known to occur within the 

eastern half of the monument. The 

resulting reduction in NPS personnel 

stationed at Wupatki would delay 

responses to reported resource violations, 

which could result in long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to sensitive species and 

unique habitats. 

Under Alternative 4, the proposed 

realignment of the Wukoki access road 

and extension of the access trail could 

disturb known populations of Amsonia 

peeblesii and Poliomintha incana. The 

realignment also could potentially 

disturb Phacelia welshii and Cymopterus 

megacephalus. Surveys would be 

conducted prior to planning the 

realignment route, and populations of 

sensitive plants would be avoided if 

discovered. Habitat for the Wupatki 

pocket mouse could also be impacted, 

but this would be offset by the 

restoration of the old access route. 

Extending the access trail would likely 

result in increased off-trail vegetation 

trampling within the Wukoki area, 

disturbance to known populations of 

Amsonia peeblesii, the potential to 

disturb Phacelia welshii and Cymopterus 

megacephalus. These actions would likely 

have negligible to long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to sensitive plants, and 

short-term, minor adverse impacts to the 

Wupatki pocket mouse. 

The Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would only be 

visited on short, guided hikes during 

scenic driving tours. This would eliminate 

existing impacts from dispersed hiking 

access along the base of the Doney 

Monocline, including the potential 

trampling of Amsonia peeblesii, 

Errazurizia rotunda, Cymopterus 

megacephalus, Phacelia welshii, and/or 

Pediocactus peeblesianus var. 

fickeiseniae. This would also reduce 

potential human disturbance to 

pronghorn and golden eagles near the 

hiking corridor. 

A new trail would be established 

between Wukoki and Wupatki Pueblos. 

The proposed trail is within proximity to 

known populations of Amsonia peeblesii 

and Poliomintha incana and suitable 

habitat for Phacelia welshii and 

Cymopterus megacephalus. Impacts 

would be minimized by establishing the 

trail along the bottom of Deadman Wash 

and an abandoned roadbed. The area 

would be surveyed for the existence of 

sensitive plant and animal species prior 

to trail designation. Some off-trail use 

and vegetation trampling is anticipated, 

which would result in negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to sensitive plant species. 

187
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 4 

are likely to be similar to those identified 

for the No-Action Alternative for most 

sensitive species and unique habitats 

within the monument. The alternative 

would have pronounced beneficial 

impacts to the integrity of grasslands and 

pronghorn because of the proposed road 

system and visitor access changes within 

the western half of the monument. The 

reduction in NPS personnel stationed at 

Wupatki would delay responses to 

reported resource violations, which could 

result in increased adverse impacts to 

sensitive species and unique habitats. 

CONCLUSION 

Alternative 4 would cause no adverse 

impacts to threatened and endangered 

species at Wupatki National Monument. 

Most of the monument would remain 

closed to general visitor access, and the 

impacts for many sensitive species and 

unique habitats would likely be similar to 

those identified under the No-Action 

Alternative. The proposed changes in the 

road system would eliminate nighttime 

traffic through the western half of the 

monument, which would have long-term, 

moderate beneficial impacts to 

pronghorn. Minor impacts could result 

from local realignment of the Wukoki 

Pueblo access road and extension of the 

trail. Abandonment of the Black Falls 

Crossing Road would eliminate potential 

off-road driving and incidental hiking 

impacts to sensitive plants adjacent to 

the road corridor. Eliminating vehicle use 

would decrease road mortality and have 

long-term, minor beneficial impacts to 

the Wupatki pocket mouse. Eliminating 

occasional guided visitor "discovery 

hikes" and dispersed hiking access to 

Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would benefit a 

large area of sensitive plant habitat. 

The removal of most of the visitor center, 

most housing, and all maintenance and 

administrative facilities at Wupatki 

would provide a negligible increase in 

suitable habitat for a number of sensitive 

plant species known to occur within the 

eastern half of the monument. The 

resulting reduction in NPS personnel 

stationed at Wupatki would delay 

responses to reported resource violations, 

which could result in long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to sensitive species and 

unique habitats. 

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 Wupatki 

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 of 

irretrievable commitments of threatened 

or endangered species. Under the various 

alternatives, localized areas of sensitive 

plant and animal habitat would be 

permanently removed to build trails, 

campsites, and/or new visitor facilities. 

Accommodating increased visitation 

levels would increase the amount of 

human disturbance to pronghorn and 

golden eagles, which could potentially 

disrupt their population numbers within 

the monument. 

Loss In Long-Term 

Availability Or Productivity 

Of The Resource To Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, visitors 

would be provided access to more of 

188 
WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

Wupatki National Monument, resulting 

in potential long-term local disturbance 

of sensitive plant habitats and disruption 

of sensitive wildlife populations, 

particularly pronghorn and golden 

eagles. Under Alternative 2, the integrity 

of the pronghorn herd and its primary 

grassland habitat within Wupatki would 

be degraded in order to provide visitors 

more convenient driving access. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Historical land use and occasional visitor 

use have occurred within the backcountry 

area for many years and have had 

unknown impacts to sensitive species and 

their respective habitats. Under all the 

alternatives, the road system would 

interfere to varying degrees with the 

local movement or migration of sensitive 

animal species and would rarely result in 

incidental injury or mortality. 

Construction activities under all of the 

action alternatives would locally disturb 

sensitive plant and animal species 

habitats and potentially increase the area 

dominated by nonnative, invasive plant 

species. Visitor use around the proposed 

interpretive areas would likely result in 

local vegetation trampling and impacts 

to rare plants and increased disturbance 

to sensitive wildlife species, particularly 

pronghorn and golden eagles. 

Alternative 2 would nearly double the 

amount of road access within the 

western half of the monument, 

fragmenting the grassland ecosystem and 

disrupting the pronghorn herd. 

WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, 

AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

Methodology 

Available information on water resources 

for Wupatki was reviewed. This included 

information on the perennial springs in 

the monument, primarily from the 

investigations of Christensen (1982), 

Cinnamon (1984), and McCormack (1989). 

Little information is available on the 

hydrology and water quality for the 

reach of the Little Colorado River or the 

intermittent drainages through the 

monument. The potential impacts of 

each alternative on wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian areas were 

evaluated by comparing their locations to 

proposed visitor access and support 

facilities, and to the anticipated visitor 

uses and administrative activities within 

the various management zones. 

Predictions about short- and long-term 

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, in 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. 

189
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Major: An action that would have drastic 

and permanent consequences for an 

existing wetland area or floodplain 

function that 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 The No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Wetland, floodplain, and riparian 

resources at Wupatki are restricted to the 

Little Colorado River banks and two 

perennial springs-Peshlaki Spring and 

Heiser Spring. Approximately 11/2 to 2 

miles of the Little Colorado River flow 

along the monument's eastern boundary. 

The river serves as the boundary between 

the monument and the Navajo 

Reservation. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, the proposed boundary 

expansion would more than double the 

area of river floodplain, including a few 

remnant cottonwood groves. Because of 

the highly unpredictable climate within 

the watershed, flows are intermittent 

and highly variable. The stream may 

cease flowing for 3 months at a time 

during an average year. The river 

watershed is dominated by gypsiferous 

sedimentary rock formations, and 

livestock ranching is the predominant 

land use. Although water quality data is 

not available for the Wupatki reach, 

flows are high in sediment and 

suspended solids and water quality are 

expected to be very saline and poor. 

Wetlands that meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service jurisdictional criteria under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are 

probably restricted to the scoured cobble 

and stone riverbed, which is almost 

devoid of vegetation and likely does not 

support many fish or waterfowl. 

The Little Colorado River floodplain is 

dominated by nonnative tamarisk 

thickets. Local Navajo residents continue 

to graze livestock on both banks 

upstream and downstream from the 

monument. The NPS is prevented from 

fencing the sizeable riparian area within 

the monument because intense flooding 

would soon destroy any fence structures 

near the riverbed. A few areas where 

large tributary washes meet the Little 

Colorado River, such as Deadman Wash, 

may be far enough removed from 

flooding that they can be effectively 

fenced and restored to native riparian 

vegetation. Currently, the only human 

development within the floodplain at 

Wupatki is the Black Falls Crossing. Local 

Navajo residents cross the river at this 

location year-round, except during high 

water. Continual use and maintenance 

has caused ruts, erosion, and gradual 

widening of the crossing, which locally 

influences hydrology and sediment 

movement for less than 100 feet 

downstream within the river channel. 

The Black Falls Dam lies approximately 

1/8 mile upstream from the crossing 

(Westheimer 1988). The dam silted in 

several years ago and now holds only a 

small amount of water. The riverbed 

crossing and dam have locally altered this 

reach of the Little Colorado River 

floodplain. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

reach of the Little Colorado River within 

Wupatki National Monument would 

remain within the backcountry area that 

is closed to general visitor access. There 

would be no visitor use or NPS operations 

impacts to wetlands, floodplains, or 

riparian resources along the river. The 

continued use of the Black Falls Crossing 

would likely have negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to existing wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian habitat along 

the river. Continued livestock grazing 

along the Little Colorado River would 

likely have long-term, minor adverse 

190 
WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

impacts to existing wetlands, floodplains, 

and riparian resources within the 

monument. The NPS is considering 

tamarisk removal and native riparian 

vegetation restoration above the 100-

year floodplain at large tributary 

confluences, such as Deadman Wash. If 

successful, this action could have longterm, moderate beneficial impacts to 

riparian vegetation and wildlife, 

particularly birds, within the monument. 

There are three natural springs within 

Wupatki National Monument: Peshlaki, 

Heiser, and Wupatki. All of them were 

used prehistorically and heavily modified 

historically by Navajo occupants, 

ranchers, and/or the NPS. The springs are 

likely the most severely impacted natural 

resources within the monument. Spring 

flows issue from a local, perched aquifer 

within the interbedded sandstone and 

shale of the Moenkopi Formation. Water 

flow at all three is believed to have 

steadily diminished during the 20th 

century-Wupatki Spring ceased flowing 

during the 1950s (possibly as a result of 

NPS efforts to stimulate its flow). The 

actual reasons for this are not known, 

but it is likely a combined result of longterm weather and vegetation change 

within the recharge area. The aquifer is 

recharged within the area of 

heavilyfractured surface basalts from 

Woodhouse Mesa southward of the 

monument boundary at least five miles 

to the Strawberry Crater area. Most of 

the recharge area is managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service. The NPS is participating in 

the local planning process for the 

Coconino National Forest to address 

concerns that land use and vegetation 

condition within the recharge area may 

adversely affect spring flows. 

Heiser Spring has documented reliable 

flow and reported good quality water. 

Two spring-boxes are installed in the 

spring, and water is piped approximately 

11/4 miles away to a Navajo property 

inholding for domestic livestock use. No 

surface water is available to wildlife at 

the spring site. Except for a stressed 

willow and cottonwood tree, there is no 

riparian vegetation. The NPS is planning 

to eventually restore Heiser Spring, 

including removing containment and 

diversion structures, restoring original 

contours, and planting riparian 

vegetation. 

Peshlaki Spring is the only remaining 

perennial spring with available surface 

water for wildlife within the monument. 

The spring has little to no measurable 

surface flow and water quality is usually 

described as good. There is a historic 

spring-box and animal trough system. 

Otherwise, surface water is typically 

available only if a shallow basin is dug 

and maintained. A few cottonwood trees 

grow around the base of the spring. In 

the soil saturation zone above the spring, 

Phragmites communis grows over 

approximately 750 square feet. This is the 

only obligate wetland plant species 

recorded within Wupatki. Although 

extremely limited in area, Peshlaki Spring 

may meet jurisdictional wetland criteria. 

Five major intermittent drainage systems 

traverse the eastern half of the 

monument-Citadel Wash, Antelope 

Wash, Doney Mountain Wash, Deadman 

Wash, and Kana-a Wash. Except for their 

respective confluences with the Little 

Colorado River, none would be 

considered riparian habitat. The dry 

washes are subject to infrequent, but 

intense flash flooding. Except for a few 

primitive road crossings, there are no NPS 

facilities within the intermittent drainage 

floodplains. Continued NPS management 

under the No-Action Alternative would 

have negligible impacts to intermittent 

drainage floodplains. 

There are a few human-made earthen 

stock tank impoundments within the 

monument, which are left over from 

former ranching operations. These 

191
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

continue to function as sources of 

drinking water for wildlife and seasonally 

harbor some aquatic insects and common 

amphibian species. Several abandoned 

gravel and cinder quarries also seasonally 

hold water, which is used by wildlife, 

including pronghorn. The NPS is planning 

to selectively restore natural conditions 

at some of the abandoned materials 

quarries, which would have negligible 

impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian resources within the monument. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area used in the 

consideration of cumulative effects 

includes the western portion of the Little 

Colorado River watershed and is 

bounded on the south by the Mogollon 

Plateau and Clear Creek, the Little 

Colorado River and Painted Desert on the 

east, and the San Francisco Peaks and 

Coconino Plateau on the west. 

The primary wetland, floodplain, and 

riparian area in Wupatki National 

Monument is the Little Colorado River. 

Cumulative effects to the river are largely 

the result of land management within 

the river watershed, which the NPS has 

little ability to control. More than a 

century of heavy livestock grazing within 

the watershed and manipulation of the 

river system by impoundments has 

severely affected the hydrology, water 

quality, aquatic fauna, and riparian 

vegetation along the entire river. NPS 

management along the river is hampered 

by local Navajo livestock grazing-there is 

no feasible method to prevent livestock 

from reaching riparian areas within the 

monument without encroaching upon 

sovereign tribal reservation lands on the 

opposite bank. This results in cumulative 

long-term moderate adverse impacts to 

riparian vegetation and wildlife, 

particularly birds, within the monument. 

Some of these impacts may be offset by 

NPS proposals to control tamarisk and 

restore native riparian vegetation at 

major tributary confluences along the 

river. Continued use of the Black Falls 

Crossing would not likely cause any 

cumulative effects to existing wetlands, 

floodplains, or riparian resources at the 

crossing site. 

All three of the natural springs in 

Wupatki National Monument have been 

severely impacted by historic ranching 

and NPS operations. Water flow at all 

three is believed to have steadily 

diminished during the 20th centuryWupatki Spring ceased flowing during 

the 1950s (possibly as a result of NPS 

efforts to stimulate its flow). The actual 

reasons for this are not known, but it is 

likely a combined result of long-term 

weather and vegetation change within 

the recharge area. The aquifer is 

recharged southward of the monument 

boundary on lands managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service. The NPS is participating in 

the local planning process for the 

Coconino National Forest to address land 

uses and vegetation conditions that may 

adversely affect spring flows. The 

proposed restoration of natural 

conditions to Heiser Spring should have a 

moderate beneficial impact to wildlife, 

particularly pronghorn. 

CONCLUSION 

Historic and continuing land use within 

the Little Colorado River basin and 

manipulation of the Little Colorado River 

through impoundments have severely 

impacted wetland, floodplain, and 

riparian resources within Wupatki 

National Monument. Under the NoAction Alternative, the reach of the Little 

Colorado River within the monument 

would remain within the backcountry 

area that is closed to general visitor 

access. The Black Falls Crossing Road 

would continue to be used as an NPS 

administrative road and by local Navajo 

residents. Livestock would continue to 

graze on both riverbanks within the 100-

year floodplain through the monument 

192 
WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

because no fence structure would survive 

floods of this magnitude. The NPS is 

considering tamarisk removal and native 

riparian vegetation restoration above the 

100-year floodplain at large tributary 

confluences, such as Deadman Wash. The 

No-Action Alternative would likely have 

negligible to minor impacts to existing 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

resources along the Little Colorado River. 

Historic ranching and NPS management 

actions have severely impacted the only 

three springs within the monument. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

Peshlaki Spring and Heiser Spring would 

remain within the backcountry area that 

is closed to general visitor access. There 

would be no visitor use or NPS operations 

impacts to the springs. Short-term 

continued diversion and livestock use of 

Heiser Spring would not change existing 

wetland or riparian habitat conditions. 

The NPS proposal to eventually restore 

early historic conditions at Heiser Spring 

would have long-term, moderate 

beneficial impacts to wetland and 

riparian resources within the monument. 

Water flow at the springs is believed to 

have steadily diminished during the 20th 

century, likely from combined long-term 

weather and vegetation change within 

the recharge area. The NPS would 

coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service to 

address potential impacts to the recharge 

area in the Coconino National Forest. 

In addition, 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 Wupatki 

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: 

Limit Motorized Sightseeing 

And Focus On Extended 

Learning 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Alternative 1 would provide for increased 

level of dispersed hiking within the 

Guided Adventure Zone, including 

overnight hikes to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

Increased visitor use would likely have 

negligible impacts to intermittent 

drainage floodplains along the hiking 

route. 

The new campground near Heiser Spring 

would be developed within an 

abandoned employee housing area. The 

spring and housing area has been heavily 

impacted by historic ranching and NPS 

use, and building the campground would 

avoid direct impacts to wetlands and 

riparian habitat. In addition to the 

campground and limited overnight visitor 

use, increased visitor use within the area 

Extended Learning Zone around Heiser 

Spring would interfere with NPS efforts 

to restore native riparian vegetation and 

surface flow to the spring. The spring is 

one of only two perennial surface water 

sources within the monument. Limited 

overnight visitor use around the 

campground and sustained visitor use 

within the Extended Learning Zone 

would result in localized secondary 

impacts to the spring, such as vegetation 

trampling or introduction of nonnative 

species. The actual amount of 

disturbance is difficult to quantify, and 

would depend upon the timing, 

frequency, and size of visitor groups. The 

proposed campground and learning zone 

around Heiser Spring would likely cause 

long-term, moderate adverse impacts to 

193
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

wetlands and riparian habitat within the 

monument. 

The remaining actions proposed under 

Alternative 1 would have the same 

impacts as those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area used in the 

consideration of cumulative effects 

includes the western portion of the Little 

Colorado River watershed and is 

bounded in the south by the Mogollon 

Plateau and Clear Creek, the Little 

Colorado River and Painted Desert on the 

east and the San Francisco Peaks and 

Coconino Plateau on the west. 

The combined new campground and 

Extended Learning Zone would likely 

deter NPS efforts to restore Heiser 

Spring, resulting in cumulative effects to 

wetlands and riparian habitats within the 

monument. Cumulative effects from the 

remaining actions would likely be the 

same as under the No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

The impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian habitats would be the same as 

identified for the No-Action Alternative, 

except increased visitor activity around 

Heiser Spring would potentially deter 

NPS efforts to restore wetlands and 

riparian habitat at the spring. 

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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Alternative 2 proposes to increase the 

level of vehicle access to Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo via the existing primitive road. 

This would likely result in increased 

impacts where the road crosses the 

floodplains of intermittent drainages, 

including Antelope and Citadel washes. 

Anticipated impacts include increased 

rutting of drainage channel banks and 

bank and wash bottoms. 

Under Alternative 2, the Black Falls 

Crossing Road would also be opened to 

visitors. This could result in an increased 

number of vehicles crossing at the Little 

Colorado River, which would have a 

negligible to long-term, minor adverse 

term impacts on the river floodplain. 

The remaining actions proposed under 

Alternative 2 would have the same 

impacts as under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects upon wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian habitats would 

be the same as those described for the 

No-Action Alternative, with the following 

exception: 

Increased vehicle-use across and through 

reaches of intermittent drainage systems 

within Wupatki could lead to the 

establishment of multiple ruts and 

crossings, resulting in slight cumulative 

effects to floodplains within the 

monument. 

CONCLUSION 

Except for the impacts of increased 

vehicle use on intermittent drainage 

194 
WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS, AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

channels and floodplains, the impacts to 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

habitats would be the same as under 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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 3 

(Preferred): Preserve 

Sensitive Park Resources 

While Diversifying The Range 

Of Visitor Experiences 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Alternative 3 would provide for increased 

levels of dispersed hiking within the 

Guided Adventure Zone, including 

overnight hikes to Crack-in-Rock Pueblo. 

Increased visitor use would likely have 

negligible impacts to intermittent 

drainage floodplains along the hiking 

route. 

A new, self-guided trail would be 

established between Wupatki and 

Wukoki Pueblos, which would follow 

along the channel bottom of Deadman 

Wash. Significant unguided visitor use of 

the trail is anticipated, which would 

cause long-term, minor adverse impacts 

to the wash from trampling and local 

disruption of the open channel. 

The remaining actions proposed under 

Alternative 3 would have the same 

impacts as are identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects upon wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian habitats would 

be the same as under the No-Action 

Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Except for the impacts of increased visitor 

use on intermittent drainage channels 

and floodplains, the impacts to wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian habitats would 

be the same as under 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 Wupatki 

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 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under Alternative 4, the Black Falls 

Crossing Road would be abandoned and 

restored to natural vegetation and 

wildlife habitat. This would render the 

crossing on the Little Colorado River 

obsolete. As much as 300 square feet of 

the river channel that is currently 

impacted by vehicles crossing the river 

would be allowed to naturally recover, 

resulting in a negligible to long-term, 

minor beneficial impact on wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian habitat. This 

benefit might be offset because the NPS 

could no longer access the river area with 

195
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

vehicles, and a nearby area of Deadman 

Wash proposed for tamarisk control 

projects would become more expensive 

and require more time to accomplish. 

Alternative 4 proposes to increase the 

level of vehicle access to Crack-in-Rock 

Pueblo via the existing primitive road. 

This would likely result in long-term, 

minor adverse impacts where the road 

crosses the floodplains of intermittent 

drainages, including Antelope and 

Citadel washes. Anticipated impacts 

include increased rutting of drainage 

channel banks and bank and wash 

bottoms. 

A new, self-guided trail would be 

established between Wupatki and 

Wukoki Pueblos, which would follow 

along the channel bottom of Deadman 

Wash. Significant unguided visitor use of 

the trail is anticipated, which would 

cause long-term, minor adverse impacts 

to the wash from trampling and local 

disruption of the open channel. 

The remaining actions proposed under 

Alternative 4 would have the same 

impacts as those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The cumulative effects upon wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian habitats would 

be the same as those identified for the 

No-Action Alternative, with the following 

exceptions: 

The abandonment and restoration of the 

Black Falls Crossing Road would render 

the Black Falls Crossing obsolete, which 

would have a beneficial cumulative 

impact on wetlands, floodplains, and 

riparian habitat along the Little Colorado 

River. 

Increased vehicle use across and through 

reaches of intermittent drainage systems 

along the Crack-in-Rock Road could lead 

to the establishment of multiple ruts, 

tracks, and crossings, resulting in slight 

cumulative effects to floodplains within 

the monument. 

CONCLUSION 

Under Alternative 4, the Black Falls 

Crossing Road would be abandoned, 

rendering the Little Colorado River 

crossing obsolete and having a negligible 

to long-term, minor beneficial impact to 

wetlands, floodplains, and riparian 

habitat along the river. This benefit 

might be offset because proposed NPS 

tamarisk control projects nearby at the 

Deadman Wash confluence would 

become more expensive and require 

more time to accomplish. Increased 

vehicle use along the primitive Crack-inRock Road would likely result in longterm, minor adverse impacts where the 

road crosses the floodplains of 

intermittent drainages, including 

Antelope and Citadel washes. Visitor use 

upon the proposed Wupatki-Wukoki trail 

would have a negligible to long-term, 

minor adverse impact to approximately 

one mile of the intermittent floodplain 

within Deadman Wash. Most of the 

remaining impacts to wetlands, 

floodplains, and riparian habitats 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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

196 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

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 proposed management 

alternatives, there would be no 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments 

of wetlands, floodplains, or riparian 

habitats. 

Loss In Long-Term 

Availability Or Productivity 

Of The Resource To Achieve 

Short-Term Gain 

Under the various management 

alternatives, no long-term loss of 

availability or productivity of wetlands, 

floodplains, or riparian habitats is 

proposed to achieve short-term gain. 

Under all of the alternatives except for 

Alternative 1, riparian resource 

conditions, especially at the two 

remaining perennial springs at Wupatki, 

would be maintained or improved over 

the long term. Under Alternative 1, the 

NPS would still attempt to restore Heiser 

Spring, but these efforts might be 

deterred in order to accommodate more 

convenient visitor activities within the 

monument. 

Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts 

Historic and current land use within the 

Little Colorado River Basin has severely 

degraded riparian resources along the 

river. Historic ranching and NPS 

operations have severely impacted the 

only three perennial springs within 

Wupatki National Monument. The 

various proposed management 

alternatives would result in no major 

impacts to wetlands, floodplains, or 

riparian habitats in Wupatki National 

Monument. None of the alternatives 

would result in the loss of jurisdictional 

wetlands or any impairment of 

floodplain function. Under the various 

management alternatives, proposed road 

system and visitor access changes would 

have negligible to locally minor impacts 

upon intermittent drainage channels and 

floodplains. Local Navajo residents would 

continue to use the Black Falls Crossing 

Road under all the alternatives except 

Alternative 4. Alternatives 2 and 4 would 

increase the level of vehicle use along the 

primitive Crack-in-Rock Road, which 

could result in multiple sets of ruts and 

crossings in the main dry wash 

floodplains. Under all of the alternatives, 

riparian resource conditions, especially at 

the two remaining perennial springs at 

Wupatki, would be maintained or 

improved over the long term. 

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; access to 

information provided by collections 

(ability to see the "real thing") and to a 

minimally altered environment; and the 

ability of the public to understand park 

resources and the regional context of the 

park. Also considered were the ability to 

exercise personal freedom during a park 

visit, the provision of traditional 

employee/visitor experiences 

(interpretation through personal services 

and access to favorite sites), and the 

ability to participate in traditional 

recreational activities (biking, climbing, 

hiking, etc.). 

Methodology 

Visitor surveys and personal observation 

of visitation patterns combined with 

197
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

assessment of what is available to visitors 

under current management were used to 

estimate the effects of the actions in the 

various alternatives. The impact on the 

ability of the visitor to experience a full 

range of park resources was analyzed by 

examining resources identified in the 

park significance statement. 

Negligible: The impact is barely 

detectable, and/or will affect few visitors. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but 

detectable, and/or will affect some 

visitors. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and/or will affect many visitors. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or will affect 

the majority of visitors. 

Effects Of The No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Access to Park Resources by the 

General Public and by Visitors 

with Disabilities 

Under current management visitors enter 

Wupatki primarily from the south, after 

visiting Sunset Crater Volcano National 

Monument, although approximately 20% 

come from the north via US89 and 

receive little park orientation prior to 

entering. Four developed visitor use 

areas containing seven "hardened" 

archeological sites are open to the public, 

as well as the Doney Mountain picnic 

area, located on USFS lands. These sites 

are reached by short trails from parking 

lots along the paved park road. Periodic 

guided hiking trips are offered into the 

park backcountry that afford an 

opportunity to visit archeological sites 

that have had less treatment or 

development. 

Accessibility for visitors with physical 

challenges is limited. A portion of the 

Wupatki Pueblo trail is accessible, as is 

the visitor center. The rest rooms are not 

up to standard. 

There are no long hiking opportunities 

available in the park; bicyclists are the 

primary recreation users in the 

monument, and both organized and 

personal bicycle trips occur on a regular 

basis. Other recreational activities, such 

as rock-climbing or cross-country 

exploration, are not offered. Many 

recreational activities are available on 

nearby USFS lands. 

Crowding is not a serious issue at this 

time. People who visit at any time other 

than peak hours during spring and 

summer months can have uncrowded 

experiences. 

The activities that occur at Wupatki are 

representative of what has been allowed 

for many years of management, with the 

exception of the late 1980s to mid-1990s, 

when unguided backcountry access was 

allowed by permit. 

The scenic loop drive is integral to most 

visits and lends itself to inclusion with 

other travel plans. 

The impact is long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Access to Information Provided 

by Collections (Ability to See the 

"Real Thing") and to a Minimally 

Altered Environment 

A few artifacts are on display at the 

visitor center at Wupatki. Some have 

been removed from the visitor center 

because of cultural sensitivity or 

inadequate curatorial protection. Exhibit 

rehabilitation will provide the 

opportunity to increase the number of 

artifacts on display. 

Although there have been alterations to 

the environment by the NPS, ranchers, 

198 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

and others, the overall sense is that of a 

relatively pristine landscape. Views of 

geologic features and scenic vistas are 

available from the roads and trails. Few 

unnatural sounds intrude upon the area. 

Night skies are spectacular, but viewing is 

limited since the park trails are closed 

informally at sunset. A few visitors 

undoubtedly enjoy the skies as they 

travel through the park at night. 

The impact is long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Ability of the Public to 

Understand Park Resources and 

the Regional Context of the Park 

The public facilities offer an opportunity 

to gain an overview of the cultural 

resources, with little attempt to 

encourage extensive visits of long 

duration. Non-personal service 

interpretation is accomplished through a 

variety of media, including wayside 

exhibits, site bulletins, and museum 

displays. Recent media explain the 

regional connections of Wupatki to other 

areas, but the older visitor center exhibits 

are lacking in this area. Replacement of 

outdated or insensitive exhibits is 

planned. Personal service interpretation 

is available at the visitor center and 

periodically on the trails. 

School group visits are common, but 

generally are of short duration. 

The impact is long term, moderate and 

beneficial. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area being considered 

for cumulative effects for this alternative 

includes the Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff Area, 

and the most adjacent portions of the 

Coconino National Forest and the 

Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands 

(CPNRL). 

The limitation of vehicle access into 

portions of the USFS lands to the south as 

part of the FLEA planning process would 

potentially limit the range of visitor 

experiences, having a minor, long-term, 

adverse effect. 

Increased tourism and growth of local 

communities, as well as the development 

of Roden Crater and the expansion of 

US89 will increase traffic and could result 

in more people looking for a side trip. 

Decisions at Grand Canyon that limit 

access by personal vehicle could increase 

the demand for that type of access at 

Wupatki. The combination of these 

factors along with this alternative could 

be major, adverse, and long term. 

CONCLUSION 

The No-Action Alternative encourages 

visits to Wupatki as part of an itinerary 

rather than a destination. The average 

stay by most visitors is relatively short 

and undermines their opportunity to 

experience a full range of resources and 

in-depth learning. The ability to drive the 

loop road through the two monuments 

and to experience the diversity of 

environment is highly valued. 

The overall effect of the No-Action 

Alternative on access to park resources by 

the general public and by visitors with 

disabilities would be moderate and long 

term, with both beneficial and adverse 

elements as discussed. 

The ability to see the real thing and the 

ability to experience a minimally altered 

environment would be changed 

moderately, with the preservation of the 

opportunity to make a loop drive and to 

visit a relatively complete visitor center 

exhibit. The ability to understand park 

resources and the regional context of the 

parks would be moderately beneficial, 

for the same reasons. 

Most of the primary park resources are 

represented through the current 

199
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

developed visitor use areas and the park 

visitor center. Special activities such as 

guided discovery hikes that allow access 

into the backcountry are not at a 

frequency level to allow most visitors the 

opportunity to take advantage of them, 

but the demand is relatively small. The 

primary method of conveying 

information is through non-personal 

service interpretation and contacts at the 

visitor center, which is open 364 days per 

year. Recreational opportunities are 

limited on NPS lands but are available on 

nearby USFS lands. 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 Wupatki 

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: 

Limit Motorized Sightseeing 

And Focus On Extended 

Learning 

In this alternative, a slightly greater 

number and variety of sites would be 

open to visitors, with major changes in 

how visitors reach them. Fewer views of 

the grasslands would be available, but 

there would be more opportunity for 

intimate experiences with the natural 

resources throughout the park. Fewer 

people in some areas would mean 

natural soundscapes would be enhanced 

in those places, but this could result in 

some degradation in other more 

crowded locations. None of the park 

would be available for self-guided 

experiences outside of Wupatki and 

Wukoki Pueblos, making it difficult, if 

not impossible to experience solitude in 

the monument. A primitive campground 

would be added to accommodate visitors 

who would stay overnight in the park as 

part of specific educational activities. A 

park residence would be converted for 

use as an educational center to facilitate 

in-depth learning. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Access to Park Resources by the 

General Public and by Visitors 

with Disabilities 

FR545 will be open only to the Wupatki 

Visitor center. Access to Lomaki and 

Citadel areas will be via guided tours. FR 

150 will be closed to eliminate 

unregulated entry to the west end of the 

park. The Wukoki spur road will be 

realigned to meet FR545 north of the 

visitor center and the parking lot will be 

pulled back and the trail lengthened at 

that site. Ranger-led hikes will be taken 

into the Guided Adventure Zone, 

including the Crack-in-Rock area allowing 

visitors to view a variety of resources 

along the way. 

This alternative will cause changes in the 

ways that visitors experience Wupatki. 

The alternative offers access to additional 

archeological sites and in-depth learning 

opportunities for visitors who are willing 

to devote additional time to participate 

in structured educational/interpretive 

activities (such as guided tours, guided 

backcountry hikes, workshops, and 

seminars). For these visitors, benefits 

would be moderate to major and long 

term. 

In contrast, visitors with limited time or 

interest would have access to only two 

archeological sites (as opposed to four 

areas with seven sites currently). They 

might attend short interpretive 

200 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

programs, but probably not the longer 

guided excursions beyond the visitor 

center. Under this alternative, the 

motorized sightseeing experience along 

the loop road beyond the visitor center 

would no longer be available. For these 

visitors, impacts would be moderate, 

adverse, and long term. Over time, 

visitors meeting this description would 

probably decrease, and impacts would 

decrease accordingly. 

Visitors with disabilities would be 

affected in much the same way as they 

are under the No-Action Alternative. 

Visitors with disabilities could accompany 

the guided tours along the roadway to 

Lomaki and Citadel but would have little 

ability to use the trails. The trail access to 

Wukoki would be accessible to the base 

of the site but not to the pueblo itself. 

Visitors with disabilities would likely 

benefit by the greater opportunity for 

personal service interpretation, which is 

relatively more accessible than media. 

The proposed campground would have 

accessible campsites, and the proposed 

education center would also be 

accessible. 

The impact would be minor, long term, 

and beneficial. 

Current conditions allow for relatively 

dispersed visitation of the Lomaki and 

Citadel areas. Guided access would put 

higher concentrations of visitors on the 

sites at the same time in order to 

accommodate scheduled trips. There 

could be more crowded conditions at 

Wupatki and Wukoki if greater numbers 

of visitors decide to limit their visits to 

these sites only. This would be a longterm, moderate, and adverse effect. 

Those who stay in the primitive 

campground would have an excellent 

opportunity to enjoy uncrowded 

experiences. The number of people doing 

this would be relatively small. The effect 

would be minor, beneficial, and long 

term. 

An unknown in this alternative is how 

the restricted access to the north 

entrance will affect visitors' decisions 

regarding whether to visit the park at all. 

The loss of opportunity to explore the 

Lomaki and Citadel areas without a 

guide and to make a loop trip will be a 

major, long-term, adverse impact. 

The main impact to recreation would be 

the loss of bicyclists' ability to use the 

road for unguided riding experiences. 

This would affect a relatively small 

population and would be a minor 

adverse affect of long-term duration. 

The traditional activities of how 

employees interact with visitors at these 

sites would change drastically and would 

be a moderate impact, short term, with 

both beneficial and adverse aspects. It 

would be short term because employee 

turnover is such that within a few years 

there would be no employees who had 

participated in the earlier method of 

handling access, hence no "memory" of 

tradition. 

Access to Information Provided 

by Collections (Ability to See the 

"Real Thing") and to a Minimally 

Altered Environment 

New exhibits at the visitor center would 

likely include more artifacts on display as 

described in the No-Action Alternative. 

The elimination or reduction of auto 

traffic through much of the park would 

likely increase wildlife sightings during 

the ranger-led excursions along FR545 

and the Black Falls Crossing Road with a 

moderate long-term benefit. 

Long vistas would be visible to visitors 

from the roads to Wupatki and Wukoki 

and on ranger-led excursions. The 

experience of observing natural and 

cultural resources along the Black Falls 

Crossing Road and the opportunity to see 

201
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

species associated with a desert riparian 

area would no longer be available to 

park visitors wishing to explore the area 

on their own, but could be offered as 

part of a ranger-led activity. 

The changes proposed for the road access 

to Wukoki would produce a quieter, less 

impacted setting for the Wukoki site. 

This would increase visitors' ability to 

experience natural soundscapes and view 

Wukoki in a more natural setting 

(increasing the opportunity to experience 

a minimally altered environment in terms 

of the setting for this archeological site). 

Cars would be eliminated for much of the 

length of FR545 and the Black Falls 

Crossing Road, except on guided 

sightseeing trips. The effect on those 

visitors able to spend longer periods of 

time in the park would be long term, 

beneficial, and moderate. 

For the short-term visitor who does not 

participate in the extended learning 

activities, the effect would be long term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

Enabling visitors to experience a night at 

Wupatki (at the primitive campground) 

could help them to better understand the 

physical and environmental conditions 

under which the prehistoric people lived. 

There would be increased opportunity to 

view nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife. 

Visitors would also be given the 

opportunity to experience the nighttime 

quiet if they were part of an activity that 

involved an overnight stay. 

The presence of the campground would 

make astronomy programs possible, and 

archeoastronomy could be discussed. 

Because of the relatively small number of 

visitors likely to take advantage of this 

opportunity, the effect would be a minor 

beneficial long-term one. 

Ability of the Public to 

Understand Park Resources and 

the Regional Context of the Park 

Guided road access to the Lomaki and 

Citadel areas would allow an increased 

level of personal services interpretation 

and a more in-depth experience than 

does the current unguided access. Those 

visitors who are able to participate would 

have a far greater opportunity to gain an 

understanding of the significance of the 

park's resources. The addition of guided 

tours and educational activities will result 

in a moderate long-term, beneficial 

impact for those visitors able to take part 

in the longer-term activities. 

As in the No-Action Alternative, visitor 

center displays would be expanded and 

improved to include more interpretation 

and examples of the park's resources and 

all major park themes. A new 

educational center would have 

interpretive media that would greatly 

enhance visitors' ability to understand 

most park resources and would be 

geared to visitors interested in more indepth learning experiences. The displays 

would include more artifacts and handson and interactive exhibits than under 

the No-Action Alternative. The themes 

addressed would include reference to the 

regional context of the park. The overall 

effect would be especially beneficial to 

school groups. The effect would be long 

term, moderate, and beneficial. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area being considered 

for cumulative effects for this alternative 

includes the Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff Area, 

and the adjacent portions of the 

Coconino National Forest and the 

Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands 

(CPNRL). 

This alternative would make Wupatki a 

destination rather than part of an 

202 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

itinerary and would lengthen the stay of 

the average visitor to enhance their 

opportunity to experience a full range of 

resources. This would be accomplished 

through major changes in the 

transportation alternatives. 

The inclusion of new lands to the north 

within the monument would open up 

new opportunities for visitors to 

experience a full range of resources. The 

effect would be long term, beneficial, 

and moderate. 

The limitation of vehicle access into 

portions of the USFS lands to the south 

would potentially limit the range of 

experiences. The effect would be minor, 

long term, and adverse. 

Increased tourism and growth of local 

communities as well as the development 

of Roden Crater could be at odds with 

the limitation of the drive-through 

experience. The expansion of US89 will 

increase traffic along the west end of 

Wupatki and could result in more people 

looking for a side trip. 

Decisions at Grand Canyon that would 

limit access by personal vehicle could 

increase the demand for that type of 

access at Wupatki. These factors in 

combination with this alternative could 

have major, adverse, and long-term 

effects. 

NPS efforts to make Wupatki a 

destination park and provide greater 

opportunity to experience a greater 

range of resources could be contrary to 

some actions being taken by other 

entities and supported by the actions of 

others. An alternative that would likely 

reduce the number of visitors could face 

opposition from tourism and 

transportation interests. The sum of 

these actions would still have a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial effect on 

visitors' ability to experience park 

resources. 

CONCLUSION 

The overall effect of Alternative 1 on 

access to park resources by the general 

public and for visitors with disabilities 

would be moderate. It would have both 

beneficial and adverse elements, as 

previously discussed. 

The ability to understand park resources 

and the regional context of the parks 

would be affected moderately in a 

beneficial way. 

This alternative would change the way 

visitors encounter park resources. 

Elimination of the drive-through 

experience would have a significant 

impact on regional visitors. The 

experience would be more educational 

for those visitors who take advantage of 

the opportunity. 

The emphasis on Wupatki as a 

destination park, with most experiences 

occurring under the guidance of a park 

staff member, would assist visitors in 

gaining a greater understanding of the 

significance of the park. 

There would be a greater opportunity to 

experience natural soundscapes. More 

kinds of ecological resources would be 

open to the public within the monument 

than under the No-Action Alternative. 

203
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Because guided tours are more timeconsuming, fewer visitors would be likely 

to access areas that would be available 

only on guided tours. 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 Wupatki 

National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the park 

or to opportunities for enjoyment of the 

park; or (3) identified as a goal in 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park's resources or 

values. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

In this alternative a greater number of 

archeological sites would be open to 

visitors. There would be fewer 

opportunities for intimate experiences 

with the natural resources throughout 

the park, because most resources would 

be experienced by vehicle. Natural quiet 

would be degraded, as motorized access 

increases. The drive-through experience 

available under existing conditions would 

continue, and visitors would be able to 

get a cursory look at the park, if they so 

desired. A more in-depth experience 

would be available for those who chose 

to attend ranger programs and read 

waysides and other interpretive media. 

None of the park would be available for 

self-guided experiences outside of the 

four front-country areas containing seven 

archeological sites and the Doney 

Mountain picnic area, making it difficult 

if not impossible to experience solitude 

in the monument. Monument boundary 

expansions in the Crack-in-Rock area 

would allow better access for guided 

motorized tips, thereby increasing the 

availability of this resource to park 

visitors. The existing visitor center would 

be closed, and the staff would be 

redistributed to the archeological sites 

that would be open to visitation. A small 

visitor contact station would be 

constructed at the north entrance to 

orient visitors as they arrive. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Access to Park Resources by the 

General Public and by Visitors 

with Disabilities 

FR545 access would remain open 24 

hours a day with 2-way traffic and 

nighttime closures at the front-country 

visitor use areas. Access to the Crack-inRock area would be through guided 

motorized trips and short hikes. More 

visitors would be able to visit the sites 

along the Crack-in-Rock Road loop. 

Visitors would no longer be allowed to 

visit the Crack-in-Rock area via guided 

overnight hikes. 

Discovery hikes into the park backcountry 

would no longer be offered. There would 

be no change in the way that visitors 

access the four archeological areas 

containing seven archeological sites, or 

Doney Mountain picnic area, with the 

exception of Wukoki, which would have 

a longer trail access after relocation of 

the parking lot away from the site. 

The overall effect on the majority of 

visitors would be moderate, long term, 

and beneficial. 

Motorized trips to Crack-in-Rock would 

allow people with mobility impairments 

to view at least some of the sites from 

their vehicles. Access to other sites would 

not change. The effect would be long 

204 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

term and minor, and there would be 

both beneficial and adverse effects. 

Under this alternative, visitors would no 

longer be able to experience many of the 

pueblo sites that would be characterized 

as minimally altered via discovery hikes. 

Crack-in-Rock would remain available via 

motorized tours and would enhance 

some visitors' ability to see a minimally 

altered site. 

Since the trips would be motorized, 

visitors would be exposed to the sights 

and sounds of vehicular traffic until the 

excursion stopped. Then the experience 

would be one of viewing pueblos in a 

relatively pristine natural setting with 

long vistas. The likelihood of viewing 

wildlife would be high. Noise pollution 

(once the vehicles have stopped) would 

be minimal. Some of the sense of 

discovery experienced on the traditional 

Crack-in-Rock hikes would be lost, and 

sites encountered along the hiking route 

would not be available on the motorized 

route. 

The overall effect would be minor (owing 

to the relatively small number of visitors 

affected) and long term, and there would 

be both adverse and beneficial effects. 

There would be no change from the NoAction Alternative regarding recreational 

opportunities. 

Access to Information Provided 

by Collections (Ability to See the 

"Real Thing") and to a Minimally 

Altered Environment 

Much less physical evidence in the form 

of artifacts on display would be available 

for visitors to experience with the loss of 

visitor center/museum facilities. 

Little of the evidence from Navajos, 

ranchers, and CCC is present in the sites 

that would be open to the public. Visitors 

with disabilities, who might be best 

accommodated in a museum setting, 

would have fewer items available for 

viewing. 

An increase in the number of overnight 

excursions to Crack-in-Rock could 

enhance night sky viewing. 

Only those visitors who attended ranger 

programs would be likely to get detailed 

comparisons of the artifacts left by the 

separate cultures of Wupatki. 

The overall effect on visitors would be 

moderate, long term, and adverse. 

Ability of the Public to 

Understand Park Resources and 

the Regional Context of the Park 

The construction of a small visitor contact 

station at the north entrance to the park 

would allow the approximately 20% of 

visitors who enter from that direction to 

gain a brief introduction to park 

resources as they enter the park. The 

major park themes could be addressed, 

and park rules and regulations would be 

provided. Visitors would have a greater 

opportunity to understand the park 

resources. Visitors entering from the 

south would receive orientation from the 

Sunset Crater Volcano visitor center. The 

benefit would be moderate and long 

term. 

Visitors would not have as great an 

opportunity to understand and 

experience the elements of the stories 

and resources of Wupatki that are 

typically interpreted in museum displays. 

The closure of the visitor center would 

have moderate, long-term, adverse 

consequences for many that learn 

regional context and other themes from 

exhibits and other media. 

Closure of the visitor center would allow 

the park to more fully staff the pueblo 

sites along FR545 and to provide more 

ranger-led activities. Increased personal 

interpretation would enable visitors to 

learn about the resources on-site. This 

would likely lead to a greater 

205
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

understanding of the significance of the 

resources visible at these sites. This would 

in part offset the loss of the museum 

experience. 

The closure of the visitor center and 

redistribution of employees would 

represent a major departure from the 

way that visitors have enjoyed the park 

and how employees have divided their 

duties. Operation of the 

orientation/contact station at the north 

entrance would also be a change. 

Although there could eventually be 

beneficial elements, the effect on 

traditional experiences for current 

employees would likely be viewed as 

moderate, adverse, and short term. In the 

long term, employee turnover would be 

such that the new approach would no 

longer be in conflict with tradition. 

These activities would not reach as many 

visitors as current conditions. The effect 

for visitors who take advantage of the 

long-term opportunities would be 

moderate, long term, and beneficial. For 

those who do not, it would be moderate, 

long term, and adverse. 

Because discovery hikes tend to be small 

groups that are led to seldom-visited 

sections of the park, they provide a 

particularly effective setting for visitors 

who wish to learn more about the park. 

This opportunity would no longer exist 

under this alternative, constituting a 

minor adverse impact on park visitors, 

because the number of people who 

attend discovery hikes other than the 

Crack-in-Rock tours is small under 

existing conditions. 

New waysides along the Black Falls 

Crossing Road would interpret Navajo 

history and would provide a minor, longterm benefit. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area being considered 

for cumulative effects for this alternative 

includes the Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff Area, 

and the adjacent portions of the 

Coconino National Forest and Coconino 

Plateau Natural Reserve Lands (CPNRL). 

This alternative emphasizes motorized 

sightseeing and shifts educational 

emphasis away from a centralized facility 

and disperses it to various sites within the 

park. It would also likely provide a 

greater degree of protection of 

archeological sites through NPS presence. 

The inclusion of new lands within the 

monument to the north (Coconino 

Plateau Natural Preserve Lands) would 

open up new opportunities to experience 

a full range of resources, which would be 

a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect. 

Closure of roads on USFS lands could 

increase the demand for motorized 

sightseeing on the monument. This effect 

would be minor, long term, and adverse. 

An increased number of outfitter guides 

could be interested in providing 

motorized access to Crack-in-Rock, which 

would have a minor, beneficial, longterm effect on visitor experience. 

Improvements to US89, development of 

Roden Crater, promotion of the 

monuments by the city of Flagstaff, and 

general population increases could bring 

more visitors to the area who are 

interested in side trips and motorized 

sightseeing. Restriction of private vehicle 

traffic at Grand Canyon could increase 

the demand for alternative motorized 

sightseeing experiences in the 

monument. This would have a moderate, 

adverse, long-term effect. 

The emphasis of this alternative to make 

motorized sightseeing available to 

visitors would seem to be compatible 

with many other projects that are in 

progress. However, the expected increase 

in motorized traffic could easily put such 

values as natural quiet, minimally altered 

environment, and ability for visitors to 

206 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

understand the park's significance at risk 

through overcrowding. The closure of the 

visitor center and relocation of staff to 

the sites would result in significantly less 

visitor contact, although all visitors would 

receive some interaction with the NPS at 

either the Sunset Crater Volcano visitor 

center or the new contact station at the 

north entrance of Wupatki. 

CONCLUSION 

Visitors would have an opportunity to 

experience more variety of resources onsite within park boundaries in this 

alternative compared with the No-Action 

Alternative. More restrictive uses of lands 

previously under other jurisdictions 

would decrease the ability of visitors to 

experience resources related to park 

significance. Combined with more 

restrictions on visitation of public lands 

throughout the region, the impact to 

visitor experiences is one of decreased 

ability to view as much of the resources. 

Some new areas would be open to 

visitors on ranger-led programs. Through 

interpretation, these programs would 

allow access to more of the tangibles 

(grasslands, archeological sites) and 

intangibles (oral histories, contemporary 

tribal affiliations with the cultural and 

natural resources of the park, etc.) of the 

Wupatki landscape and cultures than in 

the No-Action Alternative. 

In combination with actions being taken 

outside of the park, an increase in 

visitation seems likely under this 

alternative. 

In addition to those mentioned, there 

would be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this alternative. 

Effects Of Alternative 3 

(Preferred): Preserve 

Sensitive Park Resources 

While Diversifying The Range 

Of Visitor Experiences. 

This alternative emphasizes 

diversification of visitor experience while 

preserving sensitive park resources. Land 

management objectives for areas outside 

of the monument would be accomplished 

through partnerships and cooperation. 

Motorized sightseeing would remain the 

same as under the No-Action Alternative, 

and FR545 would remain open 24 hours a 

day, although individual sites would be 

gated at night. Visitor orientation would 

occur both at a new contact station at 

the north entrance near US89 (to contact 

visitors before they interact with park 

resources) and at the existing visitor 

center. Guided hikes would continue, and 

new trails and media would be 

introduced. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Access to Park Resources by the 

General Public and by Visitors 

with Disabilities 

Access to most of the park resources 

would remain unchanged from existing 

conditions. New access would occur into 

the northern expansion (Coconino 

Plateau Natural Reserve Lands), via a trail 

from the Lomaki area, allowing visitors 

to experience a portion of the grasslands 

of the park. A trail from the visitor center 

to Wukoki Pueblo would also be added. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

open to administrative uses only (which 

will include local access to the Navajo 

reservation and the possibility of guided 

activities), and USFS lands to the south of 

the monument would still be open to the 

public under USFS ownership. A Guided 

Adventure Zone would allow guided 

hikes into undeveloped areas of the 

207
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

monument. On balance, the benefit 

would be long term and moderate. 

Accessibility would remain roughly the 

same as it is under the No-Action 

Alternative. The only changes from 

existing conditions relative to 

recreational opportunities would be the 

addition of two hiking opportunities. The 

benefit would be long term and 

moderate. 

Access to Information Provided 

by Collections (Ability to See the 

"Real Thing") and to a Minimally 

Altered Environment 

There would be no change from existing 

conditions relative to viewing of artifacts. 

The new trails into the Wupatki 

grasslands and the trail to Wukoki would 

open new opportunities for visitors to 

experience these resources. People would 

also be exposed to new vistas and have a 

somewhat greater ability to experience 

natural soundscapes. The impact would 

be long term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial. 

There would be no change from existing 

conditions relative to the viewing of 

night skies. 

Experiencing natural soundscapes would 

be slightly enhanced, because visitors 

would be able to access quiet areas of 

the park, away from sounds associated 

with the developed areas, on the new 

trails. This opportunity would be 

hindered by the closure of the Black Falls 

Crossing Road to public entry. This would 

not provide a benefit for visitors with 

mobility impairments. Overall impact 

would be minor, long term, and 

beneficial. 

Ability of the Public to 

Understand Park Resources and 

the Regional Context of the Park 

The construction of a contact station at 

the north entrance to Wupatki would be 

beneficial in contacting the 

approximately 20% of visitors entering 

through that entrance. 

The opening of a portion of the 

grassland area for visitation would 

provide visitors with new opportunities 

to see natural resources. Because this 

area is away from some of the more 

heavily traveled areas of the park, this 

might increase visitors' opportunities to 

see native flora and fauna. This would be 

a long-term, minor, beneficial change for 

visitors, depending on how many visitors 

walked the trail. 

There would be negligible change from 

existing conditions regarding traditional 

employee experiences. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area being considered 

for cumulative effects for this alternative 

includes the Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff Area, 

and the adjacent portions of the 

Coconino National Forest and the 

Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands 

(CPNRL). 

The availability of CPNRL would have 

limited impact in this alternative, because 

most of the land would not be available 

for visitor experience, at least in the short 

term. The short-term impact would be 

negligible. 

Increased traffic could be expected with 

the combination of road improvements 

on US89, general increases in tourism, 

promotion and new policies on USFS land 

and at Grand Canyon that could create 

new demand for access to the natural 

and cultural resources at Wupatki, and 

motorized sightseeing. 

The actions proposed in this alternative, 

in combination with identified external 

issues, would likely result in minor effects 

on visitors. The most likely effect would 

be increased visitation with greater ease 

of transportation and greater demand. 

208 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

Access to a wide variety of park resources 

under this alternative would not change 

significantly from that available under 

the No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Within the park boundaries, visitors 

would have access to all of the park 

resources that are available under 

existing conditions, with the exception of 

the Black Falls Crossing Road. Visitors 

would have added access to the new trail 

to Wukoki and the grasslands near 

Lomaki. 

With enhanced interpretation, visitors 

would gain a greater understanding of 

all park resources, including those on 

expanded lands, although many of the 

parks' resources would be off limits to 

visitation. The overall impact to visitors' 

experience of the park resources would 

be long term and beneficial, but minor. 

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 Wupatki 

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 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

This alternative would restructure the 

way that visitors enter and experience 

Wupatki. All visitors would enter through 

Sunset Crater Volcano and exit through 

Wupatki. Development, facilities, 

services, and orientation would be 

concentrated at Sunset Crater Volcano. 

As visitors move on toward Wupatki, they 

would be provided with fewer facilities 

and a more primitive experience and 

would find more pristine resource 

conditions with less development. Park 

boundaries would be expanded slightly 

to the south for better alignment with 

significant resources and, as in other 

alternatives, would be expanded to the 

north. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Access to Park Resources by the 

General Public and by Visitors 

with Disabilities 

Visitors would enter Wupatki via Sunset 

Crater Volcano. At the Wupatki visitor 

center location, they could either 

continue through Wupatki to the north 

entrance (one-way only) or return to 

Sunset Crater Volcano. Approximately 

20% of visitors currently enter via the 

north entrance and would be adversely 

affected by this alternative. Providing 

guided motorized trips to Crack-in-Rock 

would allow a greater number of visitors 

access to this minimally altered 

environment; however, the experience 

would not expose visitors to as many of 

these types of resources as the overnight 

hikes do, and it would introduce vehicles 

into the area. 

The closure of the Black Falls Crossing 

Road to visitation would eliminate it 

from visitor experience, meaning that 

significant parts of the Wupatki story 

(the history of Navajo use in the area, 

natural resources associated with a desert 

riparian and wash area) may not be seen 

by visitors. In this alternative the 

experience at Wupatki would be one of a 

very primitive setting, with few intrusions 

on the landscape. Visitors would have 

less opportunity to experience the full 

variety of resources within park 

209
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

boundaries in this alternative compared 

with the No-Action Alternative. The 

overall effect would be a major reduction 

in park resources available for visitation 

(the Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

closed, no museum facility at Wupatki 

would be available for display of park 

artifacts, and discovery hikes would be 

eliminated from various areas of the 

park). 

The impact would be adverse, moderate, 

and long term. 

Visiting Wukoki ruin would require a 

longer trail (accessible) to the site. 

Guided motorized tours to Crack-in-Rock 

would allow visitors with disabilities to 

reach the general area, but mobility 

impaired visitors would still not be able 

to reach the pueblo or petroglyphs. The 

loss of the visitor center would adversely 

affect visitors with disabilities, because 

they would no longer have access to 

information and resources that were 

provided there. The long-term adverse 

effects would be moderate. 

The addition of guided motorized access 

to Crack-in-Rock and the new hiking trail 

access from the visitor center to Wukoki 

would increase opportunities to 

experience scenic and recreational 

pursuits. They would also help frame the 

regional context by allowing visitors to 

experience resources firsthand. The loss 

of two-way unrestricted access on the 

park loop road (FR545) would be a loss of 

a sightseeing opportunity for some. The 

closure of the visitor center would 

adversely impact many visitors' ability to 

understand regional context. The closure 

of the Black Falls Crossing Road to the 

public would be a minor adverse impact. 

The overall impact of this alternative 

would be long term, adverse, and minor. 

One-way travel beyond the Wupatki 

visitor center would restrict the choices 

available for many visitors. A guided 

motorized tour of Crack-in-Rock could be 

viewed a less "free" experience to 

explore than the currently available 

overnight hikes. The overall effect would 

be moderate, long term, and adverse. 

Generally there would be no change 

from existing conditions relative to 

uncrowded visitor experiences, with some 

opportunity provided by the new Wukoki 

Trail. The overall effect would be minor, 

beneficial, and long term. 

The new hiking opportunity to Wukoki 

Ruin would provide a minor long-term 

recreation benefit. 

Access to Information Provided 

by Collections (Ability to See the 

"Real Thing") and to a Minimally 

Altered Environment 

No artifacts would be on display at 

Wupatki, because the visitor center 

would be closed in this alternative. Some 

artifacts could be on display at Sunset 

Crater Volcano, but the context would 

likely be lost on the visitor. The adverse 

impact would be long term and 

moderate. 

Greater numbers of visitors would be 

able to access the Crack-in-Rock area and 

experience a minimally altered 

environment; however, the experience 

would not be as intimate as the existing 

overnight hiking opportunities, because 

people would use motor vehicles rather 

than hiking to get there. 

Hiking trail access to Wukoki would allow 

interaction with a minimally altered 

environment in that area. The public 

would lose that opportunity along the 

Black Falls Crossing Road, because it 

would be closed to the public. The overall 

impact would be minor, with both 

adverse and beneficial long-term 

elements. 

Opportunity to experience the night sky 

from Crack-in-Rock Pueblo would be 

eliminated. The opportunity to 

experience natural soundscapes would 

210 
ABILITY TO EXPERIENCE PARK RESOURCES 

decrease, because there would be no 

discovery hikes led to the more remote 

areas of the park. Crack-in-Rock tours 

would be guided motorized trips (instead 

of hiking). The motorized trips would 

allow visitors to experience natural quiet 

once they reach their destination and 

exit the vehicles. The overall effect would 

be minor, with both beneficial and 

adverse effects. 

Ability of the Public to 

Understand Park Resources and 

the Regional Context of the Park 

The closure of the visitor center would 

impact visitors' ability to gain an 

overview and understand the park 

resources; however, this loss would be 

offset by the placement of more staff onsite at the archeological features and by 

the orientation at Sunset Crater Volcano. 

The visitor center at Sunset Crater 

Volcano would encompass major park 

themes for both monuments, and the 

one-way flow of traffic through Wupatki 

would mean that people would be 

oriented before visiting the park. The 

elimination of the Wupatki visitor center 

would result in more rangers available 

on-site to answer questions and lead 

programs, which would augment visitor 

understanding of both parks and the 

region. The overall long-term benefit 

would be moderate. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area being considered 

for cumulative effects for this alternative 

includes the Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments, the greater Flagstaff Area, 

and the adjacent portions of the 

Coconino National Forest and Coconino 

Plateau Natural Reserve Lands. The 

acquisition or ability to use these lands 

would have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial effect because more visitors 

would have the opportunity to see a 

greater number and type of resources. 

Closure of roads on USFS land through 

the FLEA planning process could increase 

demands on the park for motorized 

access. This alternative does not lend 

itself to the kind of experience that those 

users would be pursuing and would have 

a minor, long-term, adverse effect. 

Marketing of the parks and general 

increased demands for access by local 

populations could be contradictory to the 

restrictions of road access, as could the 

development of US89 into a four-lane 

divided highway and the resultant 

pressure for side trips from that highway. 

The policies at Grand Canyon that are 

restrictive of personal vehicle access could 

also increase demand for an unrestricted 

access at Wupatki. The result could be a 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact. 

The increased interest in outfitter guides 

could assist in providing motorized access 

to the Crack-in-Rock area. This would be 

a moderate, long-term, beneficial effect. 

The actions proposed in this alternative, 

in combination with actions that are 

likely to occur outside of the park, would 

have a long-term, moderate, and adverse 

effect on visitors' ability to experience 

park resources. 

CONCLUSION 

The elimination of access to the Black 

Falls Crossing Road would eliminate this 

area from visitor experience, meaning 

that significant parts of the Wupatki 

story (the history of Navajo use in the 

area, the ecology of the river and its 

environs) would be more difficult to 

comprehend. However, guided trips to 

Crack-in-Rock would add opportunities to 

see sites that have not been stabilized or 

previously developed for visitation. 

This alternative would cause a moderate 

adverse impact on visitors' ability to 

experience a full range of resources 

related to park significance. This would 

affect regional visitors as well. Because of 

211
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the more primitive setting for Wupatki, 

regional visitors might be apt to stop at 

the Sunset Crater Volcano visitor center 

only, and not venture into Wupatki. They 

would then miss out on the views and 

other park resources available. This 

would be a minor to moderate effect on 

regional visitors. 

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 Wupatki 

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 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

more recent media explain the regional 

connections of Wupatki to other areas, 

but the older exhibits are lacking in this 

area. There are no long hiking 

opportunities available in the park. Other 

recreational activities such as rockclimbing or cross-country exploration are 

not offered. Most visitor experiences are 

self-guided. There are no opportunities 

within the park for unguided 

backcountry access. 

Alternative 1 would change the way 

visitors encounter park resources. Many 

activities would be guided, resulting in a 

loss of personal freedom for visitors. 

Elimination of the drive-through 

experience would have a significant 

adverse impact on regional visitors. 

Because guided tours are more timeconsuming, fewer visitors would be likely 

to access areas that would be available 

only on guided tours. 

Under Alternative 2, the opportunity to 

experience natural soundscapes would 

decrease. More restrictive uses of those 

lands previously under state jurisdiction 

would decrease the ability of visitors to 

experience resources related to park 

significance within the boundary 

expansion. Combined with more 

restrictions on visitation of public lands 

throughout the region, the impact to 

visitor experiences would be one of 

decreased ability to view as much of the 

resources (in and outside of monument 

boundaries), compared with recent years. 

The closure of the visitor center would 

mean that fewer artifacts could be on 

display. Thus, only resources that could 

be seen on-site would be included in the 

visitors' experiences. Many kinds of 

artifacts would be excluded from the 

visitor experience. 

There would be no adverse effects on the 

ability to experience park resources 

under Alternative 3. 

Under Alternative 4, the elimination of 

access to the Black Falls Crossing Road 

would eliminate this area from visitor 

experience, meaning that significant 

parts of the Wupatki story (the history of 

Navajo use in the area, the ecology of 

the river and its environs) would be more 

212 
PARK NEIGHBORS

difficult to comprehend. This alternative 

would cause a moderate to major 

adverse impact on visitors' ability to 

experience a full range of resources 

related to park significance. This would 

affect regional visitors as well. Because of 

the more primitive setting for Wupatki, 

regional visitors might be apt to stop at 

the Sunset Crater Volcano visitor center 

only, and not venture into Wupatki. They 

would then miss out on the views and 

other park resources available. This 

would be a minor to moderate effect on 

regional visitors. 

PARK NEIGHBORS; LOCAL, 

STATE, AND TRIBAL LAND 

MANAGEMENT PLANS; AND 

LAND/RESOURCE MANAGING 

AGENCIES 

Methodology 

Concerns covered by this section include 

effects on neighbors' access and 

emergency response, economic 

contribution of the park to local 

economies, access to culturally sensitive 

areas by traditional users, traditional 

land uses external to the boundary, and 

possible conflicts between the proposed 

action and local, state, or Indian tribal 

land use plans, policies, or controls. Levels 

of intensity of impacts on park neighbors 

are as follows. 

Negligible: The impact is barely 

detectable and/or will affect few 

neighbors. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but 

detectable, and/or will affect a minority 

of neighbors. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and/or will affect many neighbors. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or will affect 

the majority of neighbors. 

Effects Of The No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

Most impacts resulting from this 

alternative would be of a positive nature 

to National Park Service (NPS) neighbors, 

American Indian tribes, and other land 

and resource managers. The monument 

is open 24 hours a day. Access within the 

monument from FR545 to the Coconino 

Plateau Natural Reserve Lands (CPNRL) 

(CO-Bar Ranch) north of the monument, 

the Navajo Reservation east of the 

monument, and Forest Service lands 

south of the monument are unrestricted. 

Keeping the road open has major, longterm benefits to forest users, to the 

residents living between the two 

monuments, and to those traveling to 

the Navajo Reservation via FR545. 

Shared projects with the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department are focused on 

preserving wildlife and habitat, and 

result in minor, adverse long-tem impact 

to that agency in terms of wildlife 

management workloads, but beneficial, 

minor, long-term impacts relative to their 

mission in sustaining healthy wildlife 

populations. 

The alternative accommodates American 

Indian access to traditional cultural 

resources within the monument, 

resulting in major, long-term, beneficial, 

impacts to those users. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service have major, long-term beneficial 

impacts in terms of joint law 

enforcement, resource management and 

protection, and visitor services. The NPS is 

available to respond to wildfire situations 

in the immediate area pending the 

availability of Forest Service personnel, 

resulting in moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts to that agency. 

The Forest Service is involved in a major 

planning effort for a large area adjacent 

213
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

to or surrounding the Flagstaff National 

Monuments. This plan, the Flagstaff Lake 

Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) is 

addressing several topics, including 

recreational opportunities, access, roads, 

off-highway vehicles, trails, forest health, 

camping, group uses, special events, 

outfitter/guides, , and commercial uses. 

The National Park Service is a participant 

in this planning activity and will 

represent concerns that arise from 

proposals that affect areas near the 

monuments. The National Park Service 

review and recommendations of the FLEA 

could result in minor, short-term impacts 

to Forest Service administrative and 

writing workloads. National Park Service 

input would be directed at resource 

preservation, land and resource uses, and 

appropriate visitor uses and recreational 

activities that do not result in adverse 

impacts to the monuments. Such input 

could result in moderate, long-term 

impacts to the Forest Service relative to 

FLEA elements that could address 

protection of park resources, vistas, and 

natural sounds. 

Occasionally, visitors are directed to U.S. 

Forest Service areas to pursue 

recreational activities not allowed in the 

monument but provided for on nearby 

locations. This could result in minor, 

short-term adverse impacts to Forest 

Service workloads in terms of visitor use 

management activities. 

Cooperative relationships with the CPNRL 

(north of the monument) result in major, 

long-term benefits through shared 

resource management activities involving 

cultural and natural resources inventory 

and preservation. Impacts to the CPNRL 

from boundary expansion to the north 

would be the loss of approximately 31 

sections of land removed from cattle 

grazing. However, the president of 

CPNRL is entirely supportive of this 

monument expansion. The impact would 

be moderate, long term, and adverse, 

but supported by the landowner. 

With expansion, the existing use of state 

lands would change. CPNRL currently 

holds grazing permits from the state. If 

acquired by the NPS, approximately ten 

sections would be taken out of the state 

grazing permit lands. This would have a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact 

resulting from the loss of state grazing 

revenues. The issue of acquiring state 

land would present many challenges and 

would probably be dependent on the 

ability of the federal government to 

secure funding to complete a direct 

purchase. 

Monument protection employees 

occasionally monitor rock art panels 

across the Little Colorado River and on 

the Navajo Reservation, resulting in a 

major, long-term beneficial impact to the 

Navajo Nation in terms of resource 

preservation. 

There could be occasional visitor traffic 

that enters the CPNRL, or crosses the 

Little Colorado River and onto the Navajo 

Reservation. This traffic could cause 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts in the 

form of traffic and perhaps unwanted 

visitors into these properties. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered in this 

alternative includes the City of Flagstaff 

on the south, the CPNRL on the north, 

US89 on the west, the Little Colorado 

River at Wupatki, the eastern limits of 

the Cinder Hills Off Highway Vehicle 

Recreation Area at Sunset Crater 

Volcano, and the lands generally 

enclosed by these landmarks. 

Activities taken by the state in widening 

US89 also affect Forest Service activities 

in the area. Increasing population in 

Alpine Ranchos will increase pressure on 

the Forest Service for demand for 

recreational and woodcutting 

214 
PARK NEIGHBORS

opportunities for these nearby residents. 

Expansion of the City of Flagstaff will 

also increase the demand for recreational 

opportunities. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service would continue to produce major, 

long-term, beneficial impacts in law 

enforcement, resource management, 

wildfire management, protection, and 

visitor services. Parallel planning by the 

NPS and the Forest Service, and the 

involvement of each agency in the 

other's planning efforts will have minor, 

short-term, adverse impacts to the Forest 

Service workloads resulting from their 

participation in NPS planning, and their 

accommodation of NPS participation in 

their planning. 

Although this alternative accommodates 

American Indian access to park resources, 

increases in visitor numbers and activities 

could have a minor, long-term, adverse 

impact on tribal members because of 

increased contacts with others when 

accessing traditional use areas. 

The combined effects of the proposed 

actions by all land and resource 

management agencies result in moderate 

impacts to one another and to park 

neighbors. The contribution to these 

impacts resulting from proposed NPS 

actions would be minor. 

CONCLUSION 

Within existing conditions, the 

management actions of the NPS provide 

beneficial impacts to other agencies, 

neighbors, and American Indian tribes. 

The existing conditions result in only 

minor impacts to the workloads of others 

in terms of additional administrative 

tasks, interpretive planning, agreement 

reviews, and joint planning efforts. In 

addition to those mentioned, there 

would be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this alternative. 

Effects Of Alternative 1: 

Limited Motorized 

Sightseeing And Focus On 

Extended Learning 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Actions proposed in this alternative that 

have the potential to adversely affect 

park neighbors and other resource and 

land managing agencies include closing 

the north access to the monument and 

restricting FR545 west of the visitor 

center to administrative and rangerguided visitor activities; restricting Black 

Falls Crossing Road to administrative use 

and access to the Navajo Reservation by 

Navajo residents; construction of a 

primitive campground, providing visitor 

orientation and educational programs 

through partners and/or concession 

operations; and expansion of the 

monument boundaries. 

Cooperative efforts with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department would be the 

same as in the No-Action Alternative. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The implications of the FLEA planning 

process would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

Visitors would be occasionally directed to 

Forest Service areas, as they are under 

the No-Action Alternative. 

Cooperative relationships with the CPNRL 

would be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Monument protection employees would 

occasionally monitor rock art panels 

across the Little Colorado River, as in the 

No-Action Alternative. 

There could be occasional visitor traffic 

that crosses the Little Colorado River and 

onto the Navajo Reservation as in the NoAction Alternative. 

215
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The closure of FR545 west of the visitor 

center would have a moderate, longterm, adverse effect on the residents 

living on the CPNRL north of the park 

and families and individuals that live 

across the Little Colorado River on the 

Navajo Reservation. This closure would 

require these residents to access US89 via 

Sunset Crater or Cameron-a drive that 

would, at minimum, add about 20-30 

miles to their commute. 

Because FR545 would be terminated at 

the visitor center, there would be an 

increase in the number of visitor vehicles 

entering and exiting the park from the 

south. This increase of traffic flow would 

result in minor to moderate, long-term 

adverse impacts on the individuals and 

families living in the Alpine Ranchos 

area. Increases in traffic would result in 

an increase in congestion and commute 

times and could potentially increase the 

rate of accidents. 

Closure of FR545 would present an 

inconvenience to land managing 

agencies attempting to access land 

adjacent to the park. This would be a 

minor, short-term adverse impact, 

because efforts would be made to 

accommodate and facilitate 

administrative access across monument 

lands by land managing agencies. 

Closure of FR545 would present an 

inconvenience to American Indian tribes 

attempting to gain unrestricted access to 

traditional use areas and sacred sites. The 

impact of this action is considered to be 

moderate but would be mitigated by 

making every effort possible to 

accommodate and facilitate all 

authorized access. Access to traditional 

use areas and sacred sites could be 

accommodated through a permit system 

(formal or informal) that creates the least 

inconvenience to the affiliated tribes, 

while ensuring resource protection, and 

allows the National Park Service to 

provide them with adequate privacy. 

The restriction of Black Falls Crossing 

Road to administrative uses would have 

an adverse, but negligible, effect on the 

residents living across the Little Colorado 

River on the Navajo Reservation. This 

action would require that the NPS 

familiarize the local residents on the 

modified use of the road and the 

appropriate accessing procedures. There 

are a number of non-Navajo residents 

that occasionally use the road as a 

shortcut to US89. The actual number is 

unknown, but believed to be very low. 

There would be a moderate, long-term, 

adverse impact to these individuals losing 

access to that road. 

The closure of this road would have a 

negligible, long-term, adverse impact on 

all land managing agencies, as efforts 

would be made to accommodate and 

facilitate administrative access along this 

road for legitimate purpose by those 

agencies. 

This alternative would improve facilities 

and the interpretive features necessary to 

provide increased information regarding 

the park story and could result in 

moderate, short-term, beneficial 

economic impacts to local vendors and 

contractors during any construction. 

The proposed boundary expansion would 

convert Forest Service, state, and private 

lands to NPS ownership. On Forest Service 

land, the boundary expansion would 

have a moderate, short-term effect on 

their administrative workload, resulting 

from redirected uses to other parts of the 

forest, and would eliminate a number of 

traditional forest uses such as hunting, 

woodcutting, and camping in the lands 

that would be acquired. Boundary 

expansion into forest lands could result in 

the eventual removal of livestock 

grazing. Grazing in the recent past has 

been minimal, with sheep being the 

primary stock using the area. The 

Gannon Ranch, immediately south of the 

monument, has been allowed to graze a 

216 
PARK NEIGHBORS

very few head of cattle in this area. There 

would be negligible, long-term adverse 

impact to that rancher in the loss of 

grazing area. The Navajo Nation holds 

the grazing permit for most of the forest 

land; however, the Navajo Nation has not 

grazed stock on the land for more than 

ten years. The expansion would be a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact to the 

Navajo Nation, resulting from the loss of 

about seven sections of grazing land. 

Impacts to the CPNRL would be the loss 

of approximately 31 sections of land 

removed from cattle grazing. However, 

the president of CPNRL is entirely 

supportive of this monument expansion. 

The impact to the ranch would be 

moderate and long term (permanent). 

CPNRL currently holds grazing permits 

from the state for approximately 10 

sections. Monument expansion would 

have a moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact to the state grazing revenues. The 

issue of acquiring state land would 

present many challenges and would 

probably be dependent upon the ability 

of the federal government to secure 

funding to complete a direct purchase. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered in this 

alternative is the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The effects of Forest Service planning 

(FLEA) and NPS involvement in that 

planning would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The effects of widening US89, increasing 

population in Alpine Ranchos, and 

expansion of the City of Flagstaff would 

be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The closure of FR545 and boundary 

expansion would cause minor to 

moderate, short-term adverse impacts to 

the Forest Service, resulting from more 

remote access to USFS lands, and 

administrative workloads in redirecting 

and managing uses in other areas of the 

forest. The loss of grazing lands to 

monument expansion could result in a 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact to 

the USFS because of the loss of grazing 

permit revenues. 

Closing the west end of FR545 as an 

entrance and exit to the park could have 

a major, long-term, adverse impact on 

neighbors who would normally use that 

road for access to and from the north 

and would increase the time and 

commuting distances for neighbors 

traveling to adjacent Forest Service lands, 

the Navajo Reservation, sections of the 

neighboring ranches, and Alpine Ranchos 

residences that are normally accessed 

from the north. 

Closing the north entrance to the 

monument would create additional twoway traffic on FR545, resulting in 

moderate, long-term impacts to 

neighbors in terms of traffic congestion, 

longer commutes, and increased costs of 

commuting and some trips would be 

significantly longer when access to US89 

is only through Sunset Crater. 

Boundary expansion would have 

negligible, short-term, adverse impacts 

on the Gannon Ranch, resulting from the 

loss of grazing land. 

Boundary expansion would have minor, 

but long-term, adverse impacts on the 

Navajo Nation resulting from the loss of 

about seven sections of grazing land now 

available on Forest Service lands. 

Boundary expansion would have 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts to 

the CPNRL through the loss of 

approximately 31 sections of grazing 

land; however, CPNRL is entirely 

supportive of expansion. 

217
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Any increases in visitor numbers and 

activities could have a moderate, longterm, adverse impact on American Indian 

tribes because of increased contacts with 

others when accessing traditional use 

areas. 

The closure of FR545 could also result in 

minor, long-term, adverse impacts to 

American Indian groups by rerouting 

access to traditional use areas. 

The combined effects of the proposed 

actions by all land and resource 

management agencies would result in 

moderate impacts to one another and to 

park neighbors. The contribution to these 

impacts resulting from proposed NPS 

actions would be a moderate component, 

primarily resulting from the boundary 

expansion and partial closure of FR545. 

CONCLUSION 

Cooperative management and protection 

efforts with the Forest Service, the 

Navajo Nation, and the CPNRL would 

continue to produce major, long-term 

beneficial impacts in law enforcement, 

resource management, wildfire 

management, protection, and visitor 

services. 

Closure of FR545 west of the visitor 

center as an entrance and exit to the 

park could have a moderate, long-term, 

adverse impact on neighbors, other land 

and resource managers, and residents of 

the Navajo Nation, who would normally 

use that road for access to and from the 

north. 

Increased congestion and contact with 

others could have a moderate, long-term 

impact on American Indian tribes seeking 

traditional cultural uses. 

In addition to those mentioned, there 

would be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this alternative. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

In this alternative a new visitor contact 

station would be constructed at the 

intersection of US89 and FR545, the 

park's existing north entrance. The Black 

Falls Crossing Road would see directed 

interpretive use, including construction 

of new interpretive wayside exhibits. 

Orientation and interpretive programs 

would be performed by partners, 

affiliated tribes, organizations, and 

institutions, rather than by park staff; 

and park boundaries would be expanded 

to accommodate administrative needs 

and to ensure that natural and cultural 

resources contributing to the purpose 

and significance of the park are 

contained within park boundaries. 

Cooperative efforts with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department would be the 

same as in the No-Action Alternative. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The implications of the FLEA planning 

process would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

Visitors would be occasionally directed to 

Forest Service areas, as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Cooperative relationships with the CPNRL 

would be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Monument protection employees would 

occasionally monitor rock art panels 

across the Little Colorado River as in the 

No-Action Alternative. 

218 
PARK NEIGHBORS

There could be occasional visitor traffic 

that enters the CPNRL or crosses the Little 

Colorado River and onto the Navajo 

Reservation as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Park neighbors using the north entrance, 

and needing fee waivers, would be 

required to stop and identify themselves 

to the staff during hours when the 

contact station is in operation. This 

would result in a minor, long-term, 

adverse impact. The new contact station 

at the north entrance could have a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial effect on 

all park neighbors, especially those 

residents living along US89, as it would 

provide another point of contact during 

emergencies. 

The new contact station could provide 

orientation information to area visitors, 

thus providing moderate, long-term, 

beneficial impacts to the Forest Service 

and other land and resource managers. 

Motorized sightseeing tours into the 

Crack-in-Rock area could result in 

increased congestion, dust, and noise, 

resulting in moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts to employees living and working 

on the CPNRL. 

Interpretive uses of the Black Falls 

Crossing Road would broaden the visitor 

experience, but the potential exists for 

increasing conflict between park visitors 

and local residents. This would include 

vehicle congestion, increased levels of 

dust negatively impacting views, and 

exposure of neighboring Navajo 

Reservation residents to moderate, longterm, adverse impacts from increased 

sights and sounds of vehicle traffic. 

Having other organizations or agencies 

provide some interpretive services for the 

NPS could free up some staff time to be 

devoted to other park resource 

management and visitor services needs. 

Programs provided by other agencies and 

organizations could result in major, longterm, beneficial impacts in the form of 

monetary profits from services provided. 

The effects of the proposed boundary 

expansion would be the same as in 

Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered is the 

same as in the No-Action Alternative. 

The effects of Forest Service planning 

(FLEA) and NPS involvement in that 

planning would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The effects of widening US89, increasing 

population in Alpine Ranchos, and 

expanding the City of Flagstaff would be 

the same as in the No-Action Alternative. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service and other land and resource 

managers would be the same as in the 

No-Action Alternative. 

Boundary expansion would have the 

same effect as in Alternative 1. 

Concession- or partner-conducted 

interpretive activities could be done for a 

fee. This would have the potential for 

major, long-term, beneficial impacts to 

cooperators in terms of monetary gains. 

Motorized sightseeing tours could have 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on 

CPNRL workers and residents resulting 

from dust, noise, and congestion. 

Any increases in visitor numbers and 

activities would have the same effects as 

in the No-Action Alternative. 

The combined effects of the proposed 

actions by all land and resource 

management agencies would result in 

moderate impacts to one another, and to 

park neighbors. The contribution to these 

impacts resulting from proposed NPS 

actions would be a moderate component, 

primarily resulting from the boundary 

expansion and "for fee" activities. 

219
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CONCLUSION 

Cooperative management and protection 

efforts with the Forest Service, the 

Navajo Nation, and with the CPNRL 

would continue to produce major, longterm, beneficial impacts in law 

enforcement, resource management, 

wildfire management, protection, and 

visitor services. 

For-fee interpretive programs conducted 

by partners or concessionaires could have 

major, long-term, beneficial impacts from 

profits gained. 

Increased congestion and contact with 

others could have a moderate, long-term 

adverse impact on American Indian tribes 

seeking traditional cultural uses. 

In addition to those mentioned, there 

would be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this alternative. 

Effects Of Alternative 3 

(Preferred): Preserve 

Sensitive Park Resources 

While Diversifying The Range 

Of Visitor Experiences 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under this alternative a new visitor 

contact station would be constructed at 

the intersection of US89 and FR545, the 

park's existing north entrance; Black Falls 

Crossing Road would be restricted to 

administrative use only; park boundaries 

would be expanded to accommodate 

administrative needs and to ensure that 

natural and cultural resources 

contributing to the purpose and 

significance of the park are contained 

within park boundaries. Changes to the 

Black Falls Crossing Road would have 

negligible impact on Navajo Reservation 

traffic. The NPS would work out a system 

(signing, gates, etc.) that would allow the 

tribe to use the road. 

Cooperative efforts with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department would be the 

same as in the No-Action Alternative. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The implications of the FLEA planning 

process would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

Visitors would be occasionally directed to 

Forest Service areas, as they are in the 

No-Action Alternative. 

Cooperative relationships with the CPNRL 

would be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Monument protection employees would 

occasionally monitor rock art panels 

across the Little Colorado River as in the 

No-Action Alternative. 

There could be occasional visitor traffic 

that enters the CPNRL or crosses the Little 

Colorado River and onto the Navajo 

Reservation as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

The new visitor contact station would 

provide orientation information to area 

visitors, thus providing moderate, longterm, beneficial impacts to the Forest 

Service and other land and resource 

managers. This facility at the north 

entrance could have a moderate, longterm beneficial effect on all park 

neighbors, especially those residents 

living along US89, as it would provide 

another point of contact during 

emergencies. 

The restriction of Black Falls Crossing 

Road to administrative uses would be the 

same as in Alternative 1. 

Cooperative relationships with the CPNRL 

would be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

No boundary expansion to the south into 

the Coconino National Forest is proposed 

in this alternative. Future resource 

220 
PARK NEIGHBORS

preservation and user activities would be 

determined through the Flagstaff Lake 

Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA) being 

conducted by the Forest Service. The 

National Park Service is participating in 

that analysis. The outcome will provide 

the management direction for large area 

of the forest, including the area adjacent 

to Wupatki National Monument. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered in this 

alternative is the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The effects of Forest Service planning 

(FLEA) and NPS involvement in that 

planning would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The effects of widening US89, increasing 

population in Alpine Ranchos, and 

expansion of the City of Flagstaff would 

be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service and other land and resource 

managers would be the same as in the 

No-Action Alternative. 

Boundary expansion would have 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts to 

the CPNRL through the loss of 

approximately 31 sections of grazing 

land; however, CPNRL is entirely 

supportive of expansion. 

Any increases in visitor numbers and 

activities could have a moderate, longterm, adverse impact on American Indian 

tribes because of increased contacts with 

others when accessing traditional use 

areas. 

The new visitor contact station could 

result in moderate, long-term, beneficial 

impacts to Forest Service and other 

resource managers by providing 

orientation to area visitors and serving as 

an emergency contact facility. 

The combined effects of the proposed 

actions by all land and resource 

management agencies would result in 

major impacts to one another, and to 

park neighbors. The contribution to these 

impacts resulting from proposed NPS 

actions would be a moderate component, 

primarily resulting from the boundary 

expansion and closure of Black Falls 

Crossing Road. 

CONCLUSION 

Cooperative management and protection 

efforts with the Forest Service, the 

Navajo Nation, and the CPNRL would 

continue to produce moderate, longterm beneficial impacts in law 

enforcement, resource management, 

wildfire management, protection, and 

visitor services. 

Increased congestion and contact with 

others could have a moderate, long-term 

adverse impact on American Indian tribes 

seeking traditional cultural uses. 

In addition to those mentioned, there 

would be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this alternative. 

Effects Of Alternative 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under this alternative, FR545 from the 

visitor center to the north entrance at the 

junction with US89, would become oneway and be closed to use at night; Black 

Falls Crossing Road would be open for 

administrative use only; park boundaries 

would be expanded to accommodate 

administrative needs and to ensure that 

natural and cultural resources 

contributing to the purpose and 

significance of the park are included 

within park boundaries. 

221
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cooperative efforts with the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department would be the 

same as in the No-Action Alternative. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

The implications of the FLEA planning 

process would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

Visitors would be occasionally directed to 

Forest Service areas as they are under the 

No-Action Alternative. 

Cooperative relationships with the CPNRL 

would be the same as in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Monument protection employees would 

occasionally monitor rock art panels 

across the Little Colorado River, as they 

do under the No-Action Alternative. 

Conversion of FR545 to one-way would 

have a moderate, long-term, adverse 

impact on the residents living on the 

CPNRL north of the park, some residents 

living in Alpine Ranchos, and families and 

individuals that live across the Little 

Colorado River on the Navajo 

Reservation. This closure would limit the 

ability of these residents to get to their 

property from US89 through Wupatki 

National Monument. These residents 

would have to drive either through 

Sunset Crater Volcano National 

Monument or through Cameron, which 

would add a minimum of 20-30 miles to 

their commute. 

Because FR545 would become one-way at 

the visitor center, there would be an 

increase in the number of visitor vehicles 

entering and exiting the park from the 

south. This increase of traffic flow would 

result in a minor to moderate, long-term, 

adverse impact on the individuals and 

families living in the Alpine Ranchos 

area. Increases in traffic would result in 

an increase in traffic congestion and add 

to their commute times. 

The conversion of this road to one-way 

would have a moderate, long-term, 

adverse impact on adjacent land 

managing agencies. This action would 

prevent users from entering or exiting 

the Forest Service land south of the park 

via FR545. Users would have to travel a 

few miles (up to five) over unimproved 

roads to access traditional use areas. 

There would be an increase in use of 

adjacent forest road and trails that 

would require a higher investment by 

USFS in maintenance and resource 

protection. 

Conversion of FR545 to one-way would 

present an inconvenience to American 

Indian tribes attempting to gain 

unrestricted access to traditional use 

areas and sacred sites. This would be a 

moderate, long-term, adverse impact. 

The closure of Black Falls Crossing Road 

would have a major, long-term, adverse 

impact on the residents living across the 

Little Colorado River on the Navajo 

Reservation by removing this access point 

to and from the Navajo Reservation. The 

road closure might decrease collection of 

traditionally used plants that are 

becoming increasingly rare outside the 

monument. There are a number of 

nonlocal residents that occasionally use 

the road as a shortcut to US89. The actual 

number is unknown, but it is believed to 

be very low. These individuals would 

experience the same long-term, adverse 

impact by loss of this access. 

The closure of this road would have a 

minor, long-term, adverse impact on all 

land managing agencies resulting from 

loss of this access to the Navajo 

Reservation. 

The proposed boundary expansion would 

be the same as in Alternative 1. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The geographic area considered in this 

alternative includes the City of Flagstaff 

222 
PARK NEIGHBORS

on the south, the CPNRL on the north, 

US89 on the west, the Little Colorado 

River at Wupatki, the eastern limits of 

the Cinder Hills Off Highway Vehicle 

Recreation Area at Sunset Crater 

Volcano, and the lands generally 

enclosed by these landmarks. 

The effects of Forest Service planning 

(FLEA) and NPS involvement in that 

planning would be the same as in the NoAction Alternative. 

Activities taken by the state in widening 

US89 also affect Forest Service activities 

in the area. Increasing population in 

Alpine Ranchos will increase pressure on 

Forest Service through demand for 

recreational opportunities for these 

nearby residents. Expansion of the city of 

Flagstaff will also increase recreational 

demand pressures. NPS actions, in 

combination with these other actions, 

would result in major short- and longterm effects to the Forest Service by 

requiring a substantial commitment of 

staff time to plan and implement new 

direction for the forest. 

Cooperative efforts with the Forest 

Service and other land and resource 

managers would continue to produce 

major, long-term, beneficial impacts in 

law enforcement, resource management, 

wildfire management, protection, and 

visitor services. 

Effects of boundary expansion would be 

the same as in Alternative 1. 

Any increases in visitor numbers and 

activities could have the same effects as 

in the No-Action Alternative. 

Converting FR545 to one-way could result 

in moderate, long-term, adverse impacts 

to American Indian groups by restricting 

or rerouting access to traditional use 

areas. 

Converting FR545 to one-way could have 

minor to moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts to neighbors and other land and 

resource managers by restricting or 

redirecting access to lands adjacent to 

the monument from US89. Access would 

be through Sunset Crater Volcano. 

The combined effects of the proposed 

actions by all land and resource 

management agencies would result in 

major impacts to one another, and to 

park neighbors. The contribution to these 

impacts resulting from proposed NPS 

actions would be a major component, 

primarily resulting from the boundary 

expansion and "for fee" activities. 

CONCLUSION 

Cooperative management and protection 

efforts with the Forest Service, the 

Navajo Nation, and the CPNRL would 

continue to produce major, long-term, 

benefits in law enforcement, resource 

management, wildfire management, 

protection, and visitor services. 

Conversion of FR545 to one-way would 

have a major, long-term, adverse impact 

on the residents living on the CPNRL 

north of the park, some residents living 

in Alpine Ranchos, and families and 

individuals that live across the Little 

Colorado River on the Navajo 

Reservation, because their access from 

US89 would be restricted and rerouted 

through Sunset Crater Volcano. 

Boundary expansion could have 

moderate, long-term, adverse impacts on 

access by American Indian tribes. 

Closure of the Black Falls Crossing Road 

and increased congestion and contact 

with others could have a moderate, longterm impact on American Indian tribes 

seeking traditional cultural uses. 

In addition to those mentioned, there 

would be other, less severe effects as a 

result of implementing this alternative. 

223
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

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, there 

could be occasional visitor traffic that 

enters the CPNRL or crosses the Little 

Colorado River and onto the Navajo 

Reservation. This traffic could cause 

minor, short-term, adverse impacts in the 

form of traffic and perhaps unwanted 

visitors into these properties. 

Under Alternative 1, closing FR545 as an 

entrance and exit to the park could have 

a moderate, long-term, adverse impact 

on neighbors, other land and resource 

managers, and residents of the Navajo 

Nation as well as on American Indian 

tribes and local ranchers who would 

normally use that road for access to and 

from the north. Boundary expansion 

could have moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts on access by American Indian 

Tribes. Increased congestion and contact 

with others could have a moderate, longterm impact on American Indian tribes 

seeking traditional cultural uses. 

Under Alternative 2, boundary expansion 

could have moderate, long-term, adverse 

impacts on access by American Indian 

tribes. Increased congestion and contact 

with others could have a moderate, longterm impact on American Indian tribes 

seeking traditional cultural uses. 

Under Alternative 3, increased 

congestion and contact with others could 

have a moderate, long-term impact on 

American Indian tribes seeking 

traditional cultural uses. 

In Alternative 4, conversion of FR545 to 

one-way would have a major, long-term, 

adverse impact on the residents living on 

the CPNRL north of the park, some 

residents living in Alpine Ranchos, and 

families and individuals that live across 

the Little Colorado River on the Navajo 

Reservation, because their access from 

US89 would be restricted and rerouted 

through Sunset Crater Volcano. Boundary 

expansion could have moderate, longterm, adverse impacts on access by 

American Indian tribes. Closure of the 

Black Falls Crossing Road and increased 

congestion and contact with others could 

have a moderate, long-term impact on 

American Indian tribes seeking 

traditional cultural uses. 

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 

224 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

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 telephones, 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 impacts to 

operational efficiency are as follows: 

Negligible: Changes would be so small 

that it would not be of any measurable 

or perceptible consequence. 

Minor: Changes would be small, and if 

measurable, the consequences would be 

small and localized. 

Moderate: Changes would be measurable 

and would have a consequence. 

Major: Changes would be measurable 

and would have substantial 

consequences. 

Effects Of The No-Action 

Alternative: Existing 

Conditions 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 

operational efficiency would continue in 

approximately the same manner as it 

currently exists. 

Partnerships with private landowners, 

the State of Arizona, and the USFS lands 

immediately adjacent to the south 

boundary of the park would have a 

minor to moderate effect on operational 

efficiency. This effect would be long term 

and beneficial. The USFS will be 

regulating use and access, including the 

closure of a number of nonessential 

roads, regulation of off-road driving, and 

the development of definable trail 

systems. The need for NPS patrols along 

the south boundary for resources 

protection and law enforcement 

purposes would continue. If the use of 

this area were to increase, there would 

also likely be a need to provide 24-hour 

emergency response. 

The proposed expansion of the 

monument to the north into Coconino 

Plateau Natural Reserve Lands would 

have an overall beneficial and long-term 

impact on operational efficiency. The 

changes to operational efficiency would 

be minor. Resources within the park 

would be afforded greater protection 

because of the addition of a land buffer 

managed in a manner that would be 

more consistent with NPS practices. There 

would be an increased ability to control 

and regulate use and access. With the 

addition of new lands there would be an 

increase in the number of acres and 

natural and cultural resources to protect 

and preserve. There would also be an 

increase in the number of administrative 

access roads that would require 

maintenance and patrol. Resources staff 

would need to direct their attention to a 

number of natural and cultural resources 

management concerns and issues, 

including the rehabilitation of an area 

that has been subject to cattle grazing 

for a number of years. The proposed 

expansion would include the addition of 

unimproved roads, fencing, and livestock 

225
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

water features that would require 

maintenance. 

The installation of new wayside and 

museum exhibits would have long-term 

impacts that would moderately change 

operational efficiency in a beneficial 

manner. Increased information presented 

to the visiting public would afford a 

higher level of awareness of the 

significance of the resources in the park 

and provide information regarding use 

and access restrictions. This in turn would 

increase the level of protection afforded 

park resources and reduce the need for 

law enforcement patrols. 

Increasing accessibility to facilities and 

natural and cultural features would have 

a negligible to minor impact on 

operational efficiency. The impact would 

be beneficial and long term. It would 

result in the development of the 

appropriate infrastructure that would 

make available certain areas of the park 

that are currently inaccessible to visitors 

that have 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. 

Under this alternative, a storage unit 

would be constructed at the New Heiser 

maintenance yard. The structure would 

replace the Quonset hut at the Old 

Heiser maintenance yard and would be 

built in a previously disturbed area. This 

action would have a long-term moderate 

impact on operational efficiency. The 

action would result in the removal of a 

dilapidated facility that poses a number 

of health and safety issues. It will result 

in the rehabilitation of an extensively 

disturbed area and allow it to be 

returned to a more nature condition and 

appearance. A new facility would be 

constructed that will allow the 

consolidation of material and equipment 

that is currently stored in a number of 

inappropriate and ineffective facilities, 

some of which are marginally functional. 

They are also stored in locations that are 

spread through the three Flagstaff Area 

National Monuments. 

Under this alternative, the springs in the 

vicinity of the Old Heiser maintenance 

area and the associated disturbed lands 

will be rehabilitated. This action will have 

a long-term, beneficial impact that would 

have a negligible effect on operation 

efficiency. It will result in the restoration 

of an extensively impacted area and will 

return a portion of the park to a 

condition that approximates what exited 

existed prior to the disturbance. 

Formalization of the backcountry closure 

is expected to have a minor, long-term 

beneficial effect on operational 

efficiency. There will be an initial shortterm minor impact due to the need to 

increase staff presence in order to 

effectively implement the change in use 

of the backcountry. Mostly this will 

consist of making contact with visitors 

who are unaware that they have entered 

an area that is closed to unguided access. 

This change in management is not likely 

affect a large number of the visiting 

public. This impact will be mitigated, as 

the public becomes familiar with the 

change in management of the 

backcountry. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 

park would continue to be accessed via 

US89 and FR545. This would have a 

negligible to minor, adverse impact on 

park operations. Visitors and staff would 

continue to be exposed to dangerous 

situations while entering or exiting FR545 

from US89. There is potential for this 

situation to increase, given the potential 

growth of the city of Flagstaff and the 

surrounding areas and the number of 

visitors that are likely to visit the 

226 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Flagstaff Area and the scenic destination 

points in the northern Arizona and Four 

Corners regions. 

There would be minor adverse impacts to 

park operations with the continued use 

of FR545. It is likely that there would be 

an increase in both visitor and commuter 

traffic resulting in a likely increase in the 

number of accidents. Maintenance needs 

would increase. Given current staffing 

and funding levels, any increase in the 

use of FR545 would likely result in a 

worsening of the condition of the 

roadway than currently exists 

The growth and development of the city 

of Flagstaff and the surrounding areas is 

likely to increase the use of USFS land 

immediately adjacent to the parks. This 

would have a minor to moderate, 

adverse impact on park operations. Given 

the current inability to physically close 

any of the roads in the park, an increase 

in use of the associated roads would 

increase the difficulties that already exist 

in protecting park resources. This includes 

the accessing of areas of the park that 

are closed to visitation and intentional 

and unintentional damage to 

archeological resources. There would be 

an increase on staff demands to 

accomplish patrols and to provide 24-

hour emergency response. 

It is unlikely that there would be an 

increase in the demand for use of roads 

that provide access to the Coconino 

Plateau Natural Reserve Lands. 

It is expected that use of the Black Falls 

Crossing Road by individuals and families 

residing on the reservation will increase 

due to population increases. This would 

have a minor to moderate, adverse 

impact on park operations. Increased use 

would result in increased need for 

maintenance and patrols. Increased 

traffic would increase the likelihood of 

accidents. This road is dirt and is within 

view of the Wupatki visitor center, and 

increased use would mean an increase in 

the amount of dust experienced at the 

visitor center. 

This No-Action Alternative would have a 

negligible, adverse impact on the 

remaining roadways within the park. 

Use of most of the roads would continue 

to be unregulated, which would continue 

to make protection of park resources 

difficult. Issues of unauthorized access 

into closed portions of the park and the 

impacts resulting from intentional and 

unintentional visitor damage to the 

park's archeological resources would be 

likely to increase. This would have a 

minor to moderate, adverse impact on 

operational efficiency. 

Park staff would continue to experience 

a long and sometimes difficult commute 

to conduct business in some of the other 

parks or in the city of Flagstaff. That 

same situation would exist for Flagstaff 

Area employees who need to conduct 

business in the park. This would have a 

negligible, adverse impact on operational 

efficiency. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, visitor 

use of the park would continue as it 

exists currently, which would have a 

negligible, adverse impact on park 

operations. Most visitor uses are 

concentrated at the Wupatki visitor 

center. There would continue to be an 

inability to provide immediate contact 

after visitors enter the park, and there 

would still be no staff present to provide 

orientation at any of the developed sites. 

Visitors to these developed areas would 

continue to be exposed to climatic 

extremes, poisonous wildlife, and uneven 

surfaces while gaining access into and 

around the interpreted features. 

Implementation of the No-Action 

Alternative would have a minor to 

moderate, adverse impact on the park's 

facilities. The existing visitor center 

would remain inadequate and obsolete. 

227
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Although some improvements would be 

made, it would still be in need of major 

upgrading and remodeling, including a 

number of changes that are required to 

ensure visitor and staff health and safety. 

The No-Action Alternative would not 

have an impact on the traditional user of 

the park. 

The No-Action Alternative would have a 

minor to moderate 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. 

Implementation of the No-Action 

Alternative would have a minor to 

moderate, 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 south side, the Coconino 

Plateau Natural Reserve Lands on the 

north, US89 on the west, and the Navajo 

Reservation just across from the Little 

Colorado River on the west. 

Growth and development of the City of 

Flagstaff and the outlying communities, 

including the Navajo Reservation, would 

have a minor to moderate, adverse effect 

on operational efficiency. The most 

significant effect would be an increase in 

visitation to the park, which would 

impact the ability of park staff to protect, 

preserve, and interpret park resource, 

and place great demand on existing 

facilities. Increased growth would also 

mean an increase in commuter traffic 

from the outlying communities. The 

result would be an increase in the need 

for law enforcement patrol and 

emergency response. Increased commuter 

traffic coupled with increased two-way 

traffic on FR545 would result in increased 

maintenance needs for the roadway and 

an increased potential for accidents. 

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 increase the 

difficulties that already exist in 

protecting park resources, including 

accessing 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 

adverse. Without improvement to the 

facilities or utilities, conditions would 

worsen. Many improvements are needed 

to protect visitor and staff health and 

safety. Current staff levels have achieved 

a certain level of efficiency; however, 

limitations do exist that inhibit the park's 

ability to provide adequate levels of 

resource protection and preservation, 

maintenance of existing facilities, and 

visitor services. In addition to those 

mentioned, there would be other, less 

severe effects as a result of implementing 

this alternative. 

228 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Effects Of Alternative 1: 

Limit Motorized Sightseeing 

And Focus On Extended 

Learning 

Impact Analysis 

The impacts of establishing partnerships 

with the USFS, the State of Arizona, and 

private landowners south of the 

monument would be the same as 

described in the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts of the proposed expansion 

of the boundaries of the monument into 

the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve 

Lands would be the same as described in 

the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts resulting from the 

installation of new wayside and museum 

exhibits would be the same as described 

in the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts resulting from increasing the 

park's ability to accommodate visitors 

with disabilities would be the same as 

described in the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts that would occur as a result 

of addressing health and safety issues 

would be the same as those described in 

the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts that would occur with the 

construction of a new storage facility at 

the New Heiser maintenance yard would 

be the same as described in the NoAction Alternative. 

The impacts that would occur as a result 

restoration of the landscape in the 

vicinity of Old Heiser would be the same 

as those described in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Since this alternative would completely 

change how the public would access the 

park, there would be no impacts with the 

formalization of the backcountry closure. 

The conversion of access within the park 

from 24-hour to day-use only would have 

a major, beneficial, long-term effect on 

operational efficiency. It would regulate 

access into the park and reduce the 

volume of traffic. Roadway maintenance 

requirements would be dramatically 

reduced, and the potential for accidents 

would be decreased, resulting in a 

corresponding decrease in the need for 

patrols and 24-hour emergency response. 

The regulation of access, including the 

realignment of the Wukoki Road and the 

closure of access into the park from a 

number of locations, should reduce the 

number of incidents of resource damage 

and loss. 

As a result of this change there would, 

however, be an estimated doubling of 

the volume of traffic using the segment 

of FR545 between Wupatki and Sunset 

Crater Volcano. Such use would have a 

moderate, adverse, long-term impact on 

operational efficiency. It would increase 

the need for law enforcement patrols 

and road maintenance. The potential for 

accidents would increase, and there 

would still be a need for 24-hour 

emergency response, however, the need 

should be reduced somewhat. The 

potential for a reduction in traffic on the 

road exists, because the park would no 

longer be a drive-through experience as 

part of a larger travel plan. 

Extensive funding and effort would be 

required to realign the Wukoki Road and 

modify the lower portion into an 

acceptable and aesthetically pleasing 

trail. Ground-disturbing activities would 

require staff time for consultation, 

clearance, and/or mitigation of impacts 

to natural and cultural resources. With 

the implementation of this action, there 

would be major short-term impacts to 

operational efficiency. Once the 

construction and rehabilitation is 

completed, this action would have a 

negligible to minor impact on 

operational efficiency. 

229
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Guided tours would be provided at 

Wupatki, Wukoki, Doney Mountain, 

Citadel, and Lomaki. This alternative 

would have a moderate impact on 

operational efficiency. The beneficial side 

of the effect is that it would reduce the 

need for patrols for resource protection 

purposes. It would, however, increase the 

need for interpretive staff in order to 

conduct the tours and provide the indepth learning experiences. During peak 

visitation days, there would be 

congestion at the visitor center and 

parking lot, which would have a minor 

impact on operational efficiency. This 

alternative would slightly increase 

maintenance needs, especially as related 

to the use of the visitor center's rest 

room facility. A greater demand would 

be placed on the wastewater system. It 

would also place greater demands on law 

enforcement and interpretive staff in 

terms of crowd control and ensuring 

protection of the resources in the visitor 

center. 

The existing visitor center and associated 

housing and the maintenance areas at 

the visitor center and at New Heiser 

would be retained and used as they are 

now. This would have a minor to 

moderate impact on operational 

efficiency. The existing visitor center 

would remain inadequate and obsolete, 

requiring major upgrading and 

remodeling to protect visitor and staff 

health and safety. During peak visitation 

days, there would be congestion at the 

visitor center, and the capacity of the 

parking lot would be reached. 

Because this alternative would require an 

increase in staff, there would be a 

necessary increase in the amount of 

office space and permanent and 

temporary housing requirements, which 

would have a moderate impact on park 

operations. The primary impact would be 

an increase in maintenance needs and 

use of the utility systems. Problems that 

currently exist with the electrical and 

telephone service, waste removal 

systems, and water supply would be 

exacerbated. 

The one significant change would be the 

conversion of one of the existing 

residences at New Heiser to an education 

facility. This would require extensive 

modification of the selected facility to 

accommodate this use. There would be a 

minor effect on park operations, 

including initial 

construction/rehabilitation costs, 

increased utility costs, and increased 

maintenance costs. 

A new primitive campground would be 

constructed at the Old Heiser 

maintenance area. This action would 

have a major, short-term, beneficial 

effect by cleaning up much of what 

remains of the old residential and 

maintenance facilities. Many of the 

existing health and safety issues would 

be eliminated; however, this action 

would have a moderate, long-term 

impact on park operations. There would 

be minor to moderate, short-term 

impacts as a resulted of the campground 

development and construction, including 

mitigation of impacts to natural and 

cultural resources, initial costs for 

construction, and long-term costs 

associated with maintenance 

requirements. Since this facility has the 

potential to be used on a 24-hour basis 

for most of the year, there would be 

increased costs for law enforcement and 

24-hour emergency response. 

This alternative would have a moderate 

impact on the staffing component of 

operational efficiency. Because of the 

reduction of unregulated access to the 

park, there would be a reduction in the 

need for law enforcement patrols. This 

would not mean that fewer staff 

members are needed, because there 

would be a need to increase law 

enforcement patrols along FR545 

230 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

between the park and Sunset Crater 

Volcano. In addition, law enforcement 

patrol and 24-hour emergency response 

would be needed because of the 

presence of the new campground. 

There would be increased maintenance 

needs with the increased use of 

residences and administrative facilities. 

New maintenance requirements would 

exist with the construction of the new 

campground. Because the number of 

archeological sites available for 

interpretation would increase, staff 

would be needed to address compliance 

and mitigation requirements. In addition, 

resource monitoring, routine 

housekeeping, and annual maintenance 

would be required. Administrative needs 

would be increased, including initiation 

and execution of personnel actions and 

purchasing and contracting for supplies, 

materials, and services. 

This proposal would also include a 

limited expansion of park boundaries to 

the south, which would have a moderate 

beneficial effect on park operations. The 

expansion would include within park 

boundaries all of FR545, immediately 

south of the park on the west end, 

eliminating any questions or concerns 

regarding jurisdiction. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects to operational 

efficiency under Alternative 1 would be 

similar to those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would have a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial effect on the 

operational efficiency of the park. It 

would dramatically change the use of the 

park from a drive-through experience to 

a destination park, which would result in 

a major increase in the management of 

unregulated use and access into the park, 

affording greater protection of park 

resources. The proposed actions would 

have a moderate impact on park 

operations, resulting in higher 

operational costs and an increase in the 

need for maintenance of the roadway 

segment between Wupatki and Sunset 

Crater Volcano, and a new primitive 

campground. Proposed limited boundary 

expansions coupled with changes in how 

adjacent land managers propose to 

manage their land would have a 

moderate beneficial impact on the park. 

The level of protection and preservation 

of park resources would be greatly 

increased. 

Effects Of Alternative 2: 

Emphasize Motorized 

Sightseeing And Resource 

Protection Through On-Site 

Education 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Many of the impacts identified in the NoAction Alternative (partnerships, 

installation of new waysides and museum 

exhibits, accessibility, construction of a 

new storage facility, habitat restoration, 

and backcountry closure) would be the 

same for this alternative. 

The impacts of the proposed expansion 

of the boundaries of the monument into 

the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve 

Lands would be the same as described in 

the No-Action Alternative, with the 

following exception: Coconino Plateau 

Natural Reserve Lands roads would be 

used to provide motorized tours to Crackin-Rock. This would have a moderate 

adverse impact on park operations. This 

would add a new road to the park's 

roadway inventory, and there would be 

associated maintenance needs because of 

the prescribed use of the road. 

With the implementation of the actions 

listed below, unguided visitor access 

would be reduced. There would still be a 

231
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

need for law enforcement patrols for 

resource protection purposes. The effect 

of these actions would have a negligible 

to minor impact on operational 

efficiency. 

The spur roads to all of the major 

interpretive sites (Lomaki/Box Canyon, 

Citadel/Nalakihu, Doney Mountain picnic 

area, Wukoki, and Wupatki Pueblo) 

would be gated at night to prevent 

access. This would require either the 

addition of staff or the modification of 

staff schedules to perform end-of-the-day 

patrol to escort visitors out of these areas 

so that the gates could be closed. The 

effect of these actions would have a 

minor, adverse impact on operational 

efficiency. 

Gates would be installed at each 

developed site and would be closed at 

any time staff were not on-site. Minimal 

support facilities would be installed at all 

day-use sites for on-site staff and visitors. 

This would have a minimum to negligible 

adverse impact on park operations. 

Extensive funding and effort would be 

required to realign the Wukoki Road and 

modify the lower portion into an 

acceptable and aesthetically pleasing 

trail. Ground disturbing activities would 

require staff time for consultation, 

clearance, and/or mitigation of impacts 

to natural and cultural resources. With 

the implementation of this action, there 

would be major short-term impacts to 

operational efficiency. Once the 

construction and rehabilitation is 

completed, this action would have a 

negligible to minor impact on 

operational efficiency. 

A new visitor contact station would be 

constructed at the north entrance for 

park orientation and fee collection. This 

facility would increase the need for both 

interpretive and fee collection staff. A 

new facility would result in a major 

impact to the visual scene at the north 

entrance, which would call for short-term 

requirements of staff in design, 

construction, and mitigation and longterm requirements for maintenance. This 

would be a moderate to major adverse 

impact on park operations. 

Visitors would receive orientation before 

encountering resources via the new 

contact station at the north entrance and 

at Sunset Crater Volcano. This would 

reduce the need for law enforcement 

patrol for protection purposes, which 

would have a negligible to moderate 

adverse impact on operational efficiency. 

Specific site interpretation would be 

provided by park staff, who would be 

present any time the interpreted sites 

were open to the public. This would have 

a moderate to major beneficial impact on 

operational efficiency by reducing the 

need for law enforcement patrols for 

resource protection purposes. 

Minimal support facilities, such as minor 

visitor contact stations and toilet facilities 

would be needed. Limited maintenance 

of these facilities would be required, 

including regular cleaning of the toilet 

facilities. This would have a minor to 

moderate impact on operational 

efficiency. 

The existing visitor center would be 

converted to administrative use and 

modified for improved curatorial 

storage/research space. This would have a 

major beneficial impact on operations, by 

reducing the operation needs of the 

visitor center, which would slightly 

reduce maintenance requirements. This 

change would not eliminate the need for 

staff, because they would be providing 

on-site services at the day-use locations. 

This would require increased commuting 

by staff in order to access the day-use 

locations, resulting in an increase in 

vehicle needs and costs. Park staff would 

be scattered in remote locations, 

requiring an expansion of 

232 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

communication systems. Closure of the 

visitor center/museum could have a major 

adverse impact on the park's cooperating 

association book sales. The modifications 

and improvements to this facility would 

eliminate most of its health and safety 

issues and dramatically improve 

operational efficiency. 

The rest of the existing facilities at the 

park, including housing and maintenance 

areas at the visitor center and at New 

Heiser developed area, would be 

retained and used as they are now. This 

would have a minor to moderate impact 

on operational efficiency. Because this 

alternative would require an increase in 

staff, there would be a necessary increase 

in the amount of office space and 

permanent and temporary housing 

requirements. This would have a 

negligible to minor impact on park 

operations. There would continue to be 

maintenance needs and use of the utility 

systems, although they would be 

somewhat reduced. The current problems 

with the electrical and telephone service, 

waste removal systems, and water supply 

would be exacerbated by the increase in 

staffing numbers. The existing facilities 

and associated features at Old Heiser 

would be removed, including all of the 

associated safety and health issues. 

The existing road to Crack-in-Rock would 

be maintained for escorted four-wheeldrive and/or mountain bike trips that 

would provide tours to Crack-in-Rock. 

This would have a minor to moderate 

impact on park operations. Some 

minimal road improvement would be 

needed and would require a higher level 

of maintenance than currently exists. 

Guided tours to Crack-in-Rock would 

require some minimal support facilities, 

including backcountry toilets and picnic 

tables. Limited maintenance of these 

facilities would be required, including 

regular cleaning of the toilet facilities. 

This would have a minor to moderate 

impact to operational efficiency. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

used for interpretive purposes, however, 

it would not be paved and would 

continued to be maintained as a vehicle 

dirt road. Some minimal road 

improvements would be needed and 

would require a higher level of 

maintenance than currently exists, which 

would have a negligible impact on 

operational efficiency. 

The actions of this alternative would 

have minor to moderate impacts on the 

staffing component of operational 

efficiency. 

Personnel and funding previously 

dedicated to the visitor center would be 

redirected to on-site interpretation at the 

existing five day-use areas. Additional 

staff could possibly be needed to operate 

the new visitor contact station at the 

north entrance. Maintenance staff would 

have an increased workload on roads and 

trails, including the maintenance and 

upkeep of minor interpretive facilities at 

the five day-use sites. 

This proposal would also include a 

limited expansion of park boundaries to 

the south, which would have a moderate 

beneficial effect on park operations. The 

expansion would include within park 

boundaries all of FR545, immediately 

south of the park on the west end, 

eliminating any questions or concerns 

regarding jurisdiction. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects to operational 

efficiency under Alternative 2 would be 

similar to those described for the NoAction Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would result in minor 

changes in operational efficiency. The 

most substantial change would be the 

233
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

modified use of the existing visitor center 

and the dispersal of park staff to day-use 

locations. There would be increased 

demands on the park infrastructure, 

including roads and facilities. Proposed 

boundary expansions coupled with how 

adjacent land managers propose to 

manage their land would have a 

moderate beneficial impact on 

operational efficiency. 

Effects Of Alternative 3 

(Preferred): Preserve 

Sensitive Park Resources 

While Diversifying The Range 

Of Visitor Experiences 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The impacts of establishing partnerships 

with the USFS, the State of Arizona, and 

private landowners south of the 

monument are the same as described in 

the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts of the proposed expansion 

of the boundaries of the monument into 

the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve 

Lands would be the same as described in 

the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts resulting from the 

installation of new wayside and museum 

exhibits would be the same as described 

in the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts resulting from increasing the 

park's ability to accommodate visitors 

with disabilities would be the same as 

described in the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts that would occur as a result 

of addressing health and safety issues 

would be the same as those described in 

the No-Action Alternative. 

The impacts that would occur with the 

construction of a new storage facility at 

the New Heiser maintenance yard would 

be the same as described in the NoAction Alternative. 

The impacts that would occur as a result 

restoration of the landscape in the 

vicinity of Old Heiser would be the same 

as those described for the No-Action 

Alternative. 

The impacts that would occur as a result 

of the backcountry closure would be the 

same as described in the No-Action 

Alternative. 

Many of the impacts identified in the NoAction Alternative for roads and access 

would continue; however, with the 

implementation of the actions listed 

below, some visitor access would be 

reduced. There would still exist a need 

for law enforcement patrols for resource 

protection purposes. Ranch roads within 

the expanded north boundary and the 

Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

maintained for administrative purposes. 

The effect of these actions would have a 

negligible to minor impact on 

operational efficiency. 

The spur roads to all of the major 

interpretive sites (Lomaki/Box Canyon, 

Citadel/Nalakihu, Doney Mountain picnic 

area, Wukoki, and Wupatki Pueblo) 

would be gated at night to prevent 

access. This would require either the 

addition of staff or the modification of 

staff schedules to perform end-of-the-day 

patrol to escort visitors out of these areas 

so that the gates could be closed. The 

effect of these actions would have a 

minor impact on operational efficiency. 

The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 just north of the 

visitor center. Extensive rehabilitation of 

the abandoned route would be required. 

Extensive funding and effort would be 

required to rehabilitate the road to 

modify it to an acceptable and 

aesthetically pleasing trail. Grounddisturbing activities for all construction 

and rehabilitation would require staff 

time for consultation, clearance, and/or 

mitigation of impacts to natural and 

234 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

cultural resources. With the 

implementation of these actions, there 

would be major short-term impacts to 

operational efficiency. Once construction 

and rehabilitation have been completed, 

this action would have a negligible to 

minor impact on operational efficiency. 

Visitors would receive orientation before 

encountering resources via the new 

contact station at the north entrance and 

at the Wupatki visitor center. This would 

reduce the need for law enforcement 

actions for resource protection purposes. 

This action would have a negligible to 

moderate impact on operational 

efficiency. Visitors would continue to 

have the opportunity to participate in 

guided hikes in the Wupatki area, which 

would have a negligible impact on 

operational efficiency. 

A new visitor contact station would be 

constructed at the north entrance for 

park orientation and fee collection, 

increasing the need for both interpretive 

and fee collection staff. Orientation of 

visitors accessing the park from the north 

would be enhanced, improving the visitor 

experience, potentially controlling visitor 

impacts, and improving resource 

protection. The new visitor center would 

result in short-term requirements of staff 

in design, construction, and mitigation, 

and long-term requirements for 

maintenance. These actions would have a 

moderate adverse impact on park 

operations. Once the construction has 

been completed this action would have a 

negligible to minor impact on 

operational efficiency. 

The existing visitor center and associated 

housing and maintenance areas at the 

visitor center and at the New Heiser 

developed area would be retained and 

used as they are now. This would have a 

minor to moderate impact on 

operational efficiency. The existing visitor 

center would remain inadequate and 

obsolete. Major upgrading and 

remodeling would be required to protect 

visitor and staff health and safety. 

Problems that currently exist with the 

electrical and telephone service, waste 

removal systems, and water supply would 

be exacerbated by the increase in 

numbers of staff. 

Under this alternative, new hiking trails 

would provide access to (1) the Antelope 

Prairie grassland near Lomaki Pueblo and 

(2) Wukoki Pueblo via Deadman Wash, 

increasing the need for resource 

preservation and maintenance. Increases 

in both staffing and funding would be 

needed. Ground disturbances associated 

with trail construction would require 

consultation, clearance and/or mitigation 

of impacts to cultural and natural 

resources, which would have a major 

short-term impact on operational 

efficiency. Once the trail construction has 

been completed, this action would have a 

minor to moderate impact on 

operational efficiency, which would 

include the need for trail maintenance, 

resource monitoring, and law 

enforcement patrols. 

Visitor access would not change 

dramatically from what currently exists. 

There would be increased access to 

previously unvisited archeological sites 

around Citadel/Nalakihu and Lomaki/Box 

Canyon. This would increase resource 

preservation requirements, including 

resource monitoring and implementation 

of prescribed preservation treatments, 

resulting in a minor to moderate impact 

on operational efficiency. 

235
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The actions of this alternative would 

have minor impacts on the staffing 

component of operational efficiency. 

Additional staff could be needed to 

operate the new visitor contact station at 

the north entrance. An increase in 

personnel would require a corresponding 

increase in office space and permanent 

and temporary housing. Maintenance 

staff would have increased workload on 

roads and trails, including the 

maintenance and upkeep of new trails at 

three locations. Administrative needs 

would be increased, including initiation 

and execution of personnel actions and 

purchasing and contracting for supplies, 

materials, and services. Resources staff 

would need to direct their attention to a 

number of natural and cultural resource 

management concerns, including the 

monitoring of change in resource 

condition and the mitigation and 

treatment of any resource damage in 

evidence. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects to operational 

efficiency under the preferred alternative 

would be similar to those described for 

the No-Action Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

Changes resulting from implementation 

of this alternative would have an overall 

beneficial impact on operational 

efficiency. There would be some shortterm moderate impacts as a result of the 

construction of the new visitor contact 

facility at the north entrance, new trails, 

and the realignment of the Wukoki spur 

road. Once this construction has been 

completed there would be a minimal to 

moderate impact to operational 

efficiency. Most impacts would be in the 

form of increased staff to operate the 

new contact station, perform 

maintenance on the facilities and trails, 

and see to increased resource 

preservation needs. The proposed 

changes in visitor use would significantly 

improve and diversify visitor experience; 

however, there would be increased 

resource protection and preservation 

needs. In addition to those mentioned, 

there would be other, less severe effects 

as a result of implementing this 

alternative. 

Effects Of Alternative 4: 

Emphasize Integrated Story 

Between The Parks And 

Minimize Development 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Many of the impacts identified in the NoAction Alternative (partnerships, 

boundary expansion, installation of new 

waysides and museum exhibits, 

accessibility, construction of a new 

storage facility, habitat restoration, and 

backcountry closure) would be the same 

for this alternative. 

The conversion of access within a major 

portion of the park from 24-hour to dayuse only would have a major, beneficial, 

long-term effect on operational 

efficiency. It would regulate access into 

the park and reduce the volume of 

traffic. Roadway maintenance 

requirements would be reduced, as 

would the potential for accidents. There 

should be a corresponding decrease in 

the need for patrols and 24-hour 

emergency response. The regulation of 

access and the closure of access into the 

park from a number of locations should 

reduce the number of incidents of 

resource damage and loss. 

As a result of this change, there would, 

however, be an increase in the volume of 

traffic using the segment of FR545 

between Wupatki and Sunset Crater 

Volcano. Such use would have a 

moderate, adverse, long-term impact on 

operational efficiency and would increase 

the need for law enforcement patrols 

and road maintenance. The potential for 

236 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

accidents would increase. There would 

still be a need for 24-hour emergency 

response; however, the need should be 

reduced somewhat. 

The park access road would have to be 

improved to accommodate the change of 

the road from two-way to one-way 

traffic. This action would have a 

moderate, long-term, beneficial impact 

on the efficiency of park operations. 

There would be short-term problems 

educating staff and prior visitors and 

users of the change. Accommodations 

would be needed to allow authorized 

park personnel to use the road as a twoway road in emergency situations. Park 

staff using the road would be required to 

return to the visitor center via US89 and 

FR545 through Sunset Crater Volcano, 

increasing driving distance by 

approximately 20 to 30 miles and 

requiring approximately another 30 to 40 

minutes. Increased vehicle costs would 

result. 

The Black Falls Crossing Road would be 

permanently closed and rehabilitated, 

having a major impact on operational 

efficiency. Extensive funding and effort 

would be required to rehabilitate the 

road. It would eliminate a major 

administrative road that provides access 

to the extreme eastern side of the park, 

which would seriously impact the park's 

ability to conduct law enforcement 

patrols for resource protection. 

Access to the park via FR787 and FR150 

would be eliminated, having a minor 

impact on operational efficiency. This 

action would eliminate the unregulated 

access that currently exists and would 

reduce the need for law enforcement 

patrol for resource protection purposes. 

The Wukoki spur road would be 

realigned to meet FR545 just north of the 

visitor center. Extensive rehabilitation of 

the abandoned route would be required. 

Extensive funding and effort would be 

required to rehabilitate the road to 

modify it to an acceptable and 

aesthetically pleasing trail. Grounddisturbing activities for all construction 

and rehabilitation would require staff 

time for consultation, clearance, and/or 

mitigation of impacts to natural and 

cultural resources. With the 

implementation of these actions, there 

would be major short-term impacts to 

operational efficiency. Once the 

construction and rehabilitation has been 

completed this action would have a 

negligible to minor impact on 

operational efficiency. 

Ranch roads within the expanded 

boundaries to the north would be 

maintained for administrative purposes. 

The effect of this action would have a 

negligible impact on operational 

efficiency, requiring an increase in 

maintenance and law enforcement 

patrols. 

The existing road to Crack-in-Rock would 

be maintained for escorted four-wheeldrive and/or mountain bike trips that 

would provide tours to Crack-in-Rock. 

This would have a minor to moderate 

impact on park operations. Road 

improvements would be needed and 

would require a higher level of 

maintenance than currently exists. 

Under this alternative, a new hiker trail 

would provide access to Wukoki Pueblo 

via Deadman Wash, requiring an increase 

in the need for resource preservation and 

maintenance. Increases in both staffing 

and funding would be needed. Ground 

disturbances associated with trail 

construction would require consultation, 

clearance, and/or mitigation of impacts 

to cultural and natural resources. 

Implementation of these actions would 

have a major short-term impact on 

operational efficiency. Once the trail 

construction has been completed, this 

action would have a minor to moderate 

impact on operational efficiency, which 

237
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would include the need for trail 

maintenance, resource monitoring, and 

law enforcement patrols. 

All existing housing, maintenance, and 

administrative facilities at Wupatki 

would be removed, except one historic 

structure and the historic portion of the 

visitor center, which would be retained as 

a residence and ranger station. Minimal 

facilities would be maintained at 

Wupatki Pueblo, including backcountry 

toilets, drinking fountains, and picnic 

tables. These actions would have a major 

effect on operational efficiency. The 

removal of all but a few of the visitor 

contact, residential, and maintenance 

facilities would significantly reduce 

maintenance and utility costs. Many of 

the existing staff and visitor health and 

safety issues would be eliminated. Many 

issues regarding the existing utilities 

would be eliminated or dramatically 

reduced. 

Under this alternative, staff would be 

housed and would work in locations that 

are a significant distance from the park, 

resulting in delayed response to 

emergencies. There would be a major, 

adverse impact on staff ability to respond 

to resource protection and visitor needs. 

There would be greater dependence on 

radio communication and increased 

vehicle costs, which would have a major 

adverse impact on park operations. 

A great deal of administrative effort 

would be involved in the removal of 

facilities and rehabilitation of the 

resulting disturbed lands, which would 

have a major short-term impact on 

operational efficiency. There would be 

long-term beneficial impacts to 

operational efficiency once these actions 

have been completed. There would be 

greatly reduced maintenance needs 

because there would be a significant 

reduction in the number of park facilities. 

This proposal would also include a 

limited expansion of park boundaries to 

the south, which would have a moderate 

beneficial effect on park operations. The 

expansion would include within park 

boundaries all of FR545, eliminating any 

questions or concerns regarding 

jurisdiction. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Cumulative effects to operational 

efficiency under the Alternative 4 would 

be similar to those identified for the NoAction Alternative. 

CONCLUSION 

This alternative would dramatically 

change how visitors and staff access the 

park, and it would substantially remove 

most of the facilities that support direct 

park operations. There would be a major, 

long-term benefit, resulting from more 

restricted access and the conversion of a 

major portion of the park from a drivethrough, 24-hour use, to day-use only. 

There would be a major adverse effect to 

operational efficiency with the removal 

of many of the existing support facilities 

and the removal of staff to more distant 

work locations. There would be a greater 

need for improved communication, and 

vehicle cost would increase. Park staff 

would spend a substantial amount of 

time commuting between various work 

locations. The long-term beneficial 

impacts would include a reduction in 

overall facility and utility costs. Removal 

of the facilities would positively affect 

the cultural landscapes and the park's 

natural resources. This alternative would 

dramatically reduce and streamline park 

operations, but would have a major 

adverse impact on the effectiveness of 

park operations. 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 

238 
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 Wupakti National Monument; (2) key 

to the natural or cultural integrity of the 

park or to the 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 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 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 

increased accidents. Maintenance needs 

would increase. Increased use of all roads 

leading to the park would increase the 

difficulties; that already exist in 

protecting park resources, including 

accessing of 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. Many improvements are 

needed to protect visitor and staff health 

and safety. Without improvement to the 

facilities or utilities, conditions would 

worsen. Current staff levels inhibit the 

park's ability to provide adequate levels 

of resource protection and preservation, 

maintenance of existing facilities, and 

visitor services. 

Only Alternative 4 would have adverse 

effects on park operations. There would 

be major, adverse effects to operational 

efficiency with the removal of many of 

the existing support facilities and the 

removal of on-site staff to more distant 

work locations. There would be a greater 

need for improved communication, and 

vehicle costs would increase. Park staff 

would spend a substantial amount of 

time commuting between various work 

locations. This alternative would 

dramatically reduce and streamline park 

operations but would have a major 

adverse impact on the effectiveness of 

park operations. 

239

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. 

AGENCYCONSULTATI0N 

A number of meetings were held with 

staff from the U.S. Forest Service and 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

These meetings were held to discuss 

impacts that the alternatives might have 

on adjacent recreational activities and 

impacts to wildlife and their movement 

corridors and to try to ensure that NPS 

planning would be in support/harmony 

with their agency planning efforts. 

Several of these conversations explored 

the possibility of joint or comanagement 

of resources and visitor uses. 

TRIBAL CONSULTATION 

In keeping with its mandates for tribal 

consultation, NPS consulted with many 

American Indian tribes throughout the 

planning process. Based on ethnographic 

research efforts and previous 

consultations conducted for the Flagstaff 

Area national monuments during the last 

several years, ten tribes were identified 

as having potential traditional 

associations with park lands and 

resources. They are the Havasupai Tribe, 

Hopi Tribe, Hualupai Tribe, Navajo 

Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, 

Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain 

Apache Tribe, Yavapai Apache Nation, 

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, and Zuni Tribe. 

All ten tribes were contacted by letter 

and telephone, inviting them to attend 

an introductory meeting in October 1997. 

Six of the ten tribes participated in the 

October meeting, and four participated 

in a December 1997 consultation 

meeting. As of February 1998 

participating tribes included Hopi, 

Hualupai, Navajo, White Mountain 

Apache, Yavapai Apache, YavapaiPrescott, and Zuni. 

At the first two consultation meetings 

the tribes discussed the purpose and 

significance statements and agreed on 

language for the final statements. They 

also discussed tribal involvement in 

identifying culturally significant and 

sensitive resources as well as plans for 

participation throughout the planning 

process. Early in 1998 the Hopi, Navajo, 

and Zuni Tribes agreed to conduct 

further NPS-sponsored research into 

tribal associations with park lands and 

241

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


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 

* Indicates response received on draft 

environmental impact statement 

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 


*Coconino NF, Supervisor’s Office


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, 

Region IX 

U.S. Postal Service 

Indian Tribes 

Havasupai Tribe 


*Hopi Tribe 


Cultural Preservation Office 


Water Rights Hydrologist 


Hualapai Tribe 


Navajo Nation 


Bodaway/Gap Chapter 


Cameron Chapter 


Leupp Chapter 


Tuba City Chapter 


Department of Agriculture 


Historic Preservation Department 


Forest Section 


Division of Economic Development 


Division of Natural Resources 


Lands Department 


Navajo Tribal Ranches 


Pueblo of Zuni 


Heritage Historic Preservation 


San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe 


242 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


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 

A&S 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 Ethnobotanical Research 

Association 

Arizona Riparian Council 

Arizona Rough Riders Four-Wheel Drive 

Club 

Arizona Snowbowl 

Arizona Snowmobile Association 

Arizona-Southern California Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation 

Arizona State Association of 4WD Clubs 

*Arizona Wilderness Coalition 

243

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


Arizona Wildlife Federation 

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 & 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 

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 

244 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


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 

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. 

245

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 

ON THE DRAFT PLAN 

The National Park Service received 16 

comments on the Wupatki National 

Monument Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement / Draft General Management 

Plan. One was from the Hopi Tribe, five 

were from federal and state agencies, 

three were from non-governmental 

organizations and seven comments were 

received from individuals 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

(1978) guidelines for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

require the National Park Service to 

respond to "substantive comments." A 

comment is substantive if it meets any of 

the following criteria from Director's 

Order 12, "Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis , and 

Decision-Making (NPS 2001). 

• It questions, with reasonable basis, 

the accuracy of information. 

• It questions, with reasonable basis, 

the adequacy of environmental 

analysis. 

• It presented reasonable alterantives 

other than those proposed in the 

plan, 

• It would cause changes or revisions in 

the preferred alternative. 

Most comments from individuals 

expressed opinions about the preferred 

alternative. Three individuals agreed 

with the preferred. Three additional 

commentors agreed generally with the 

preferred but disliked either the 

construction of a new visitor contact 

station near Highway 89, the 

realignment of the road to Wukoki ruin 

or both. One individual requested 

clarification on uses with in the 

monument. 

Comments from the Hopi Tribe expressed 

support for Alternative #4, Emphasis the 

Integrated Story Between the Parks and 

Mininize Development. 

Some of the letters received have ideas 

that were outside the scope of the 

general management plan/ 

environmental impact statement. The 

National Park Service values this input 

and, where applicable, it will be taken 

into account in future plans. However, 

no response is provided to such 

comments in the document. 

Photocopies of the letters from the 

agencies follow. Some letters requested 

minor changes to the document. These 

letters and the responses to them are 

provided. 

246 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


247

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


248 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


249

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


250 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


251

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


252 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


253

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


254 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

1. The language has been corrected. 

255

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


256 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


257

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


258 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


259

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


260 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


261

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


262 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


263

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


264 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 


2) Language has been changed. 

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

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

areas are considered in future studies. 

4) Language has been changed. 

5) Language has been changed. 

6) Language has been changed. 

7) Language has been changed. 

8) Language has been changed. 

265

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


266 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

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

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

This input will be taken into account in future plans 

267

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


268 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


269

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


270 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


271

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

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

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

been added for clarification. 

272 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


273

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


274 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


275

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


276 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


277

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 


11) Language has been added. 

12) No action required. Alternative #3, the preferred alternative does not proposed 

expansion to the south. 

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

implementation planning. 

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

opportunities to learn about resources. As stated on page 37, these areas would be 

managed "to ensure resource protection"and "...intimate interaction with resource 

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

implementation planning, methods/actions to avoid the possible impacts you mentioned 

will be evaluated. If effects are unavoidable, the recommended mitigation measures will 

be considered at that time. 

15) No action required. During implementation planning, methods/action to avoid the 

possible impacts you mentioned will be evaluated. If effects are unavoidable, the 

recommended mitigation measures will be considered at that time. 

16) No action required. The guided adventure zone is intended to appear pristine. As 

described on page 37, this area "would usually be untrailed and free from developments." 

Primitive trails are allowed" if deemed necessary for resource protection." The Crack-inRock road is for administrative use only and is an existing use. See above for the discuss of 

the Lomaki/Box Canyon area and visitor contact station. During implementation planning, 

methods/action to avoid the possible impacts will be evaluated. If effects are 

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

17) Language has been corrected. 

18) No action required. Preferred alternative is Alternative #3. 

278 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


279

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


19 

280 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


281

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

19) No action taken. As stated, the boundary expansion to the south of Wupatki was 

rejected in light of current planning efforts of the Coconino National Forest and their 

desire to work cooperatively with NPS in managing resources on those lands. Although 

the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service have different mission, both are tasked 

with protection of resources by legal mandates. Both agencies are guided by the National 

Historic Preservation Act, Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, the American Indian 

Religious Freedon Act, and the American Indian Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

We have no evidence that recreation, grazing, and other uses occuring on the USFS land 

are causing impacts outside of these legal mandates. 

282 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


283

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


284 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

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

285

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


286 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


287

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

21) No Action Required. The preferred alternative would retain two-way traffic on the 

loop road. Crack-in-the-Rock would be located in the Guided Adventure in which visitors 

would explore park resources as part of a guided group. [[need also to say why no sensory 

devices]] 

22) The appropriateness of vendor stands is an issues better addressed in a commercial 

services plan, not the general management plan. 

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

plan. 

288 

APPENDIXES/REFERENCES 

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION 


289

APPENDIXES/REFERENCES 


290 

APPENDIXES/REFERENCES 


291

APPENDIXES/REFERENCES 

APPENDIX B 

Table 5: Resource Attributes For Visitor Use, Wupatki NM 

Relative 

Commonness of 

Resource 

Resource 

Experience 

Opportunity 

Areas 

Size/Extent 

of 

Resource 

(%) 

In Park Out of 

Park 

Ability of 

Resource to 

Conceal Use 

Potential 

Interest of 

Resource 

to Visitor 

Ability of 

Resource to 

Withstand 

Use 

Relative 

Importance of 

Area to Purpose, 

Significance, and 

Interpretive 

Themes 

Painted Desert 2 2 4 3 Vista 5 2 1 Lower Colorado River Floodplain 

2 4 2 2 4 2 

Washes 5 4 4 3 2 3 Lava Flows 10 4 2 2 2 2 Wupatki Basin 30 4 4 4 1 4 Tilted Benches 5 2 3 5 1 4 Doney Cliffs 5 2 3 2 2 3 Canyons 2 4 5 2 2 2 Cinder Cones 1 5 1 2 1 1 Shallow Valley 5 4 3 4 1 4 Basalt Mesas 5 4 2 5 1 4 Cinder Dunes 2 4 2 2 1 1 Flat Grassland 25 5 1 2 2 5 Rolling Grassland 20 5 3 2 2 5 Juniper Woodland 

15 5 5 2 1 5 

1 - Unique 1 - Very Low 2 - Low 3 - Moderate 4 - High 5 - Very High2 - Rare 

1 3 3 4 2 1 2 1 

2 

3 2 4 4 4 

3 - Uncommon 4 - Common 5 - Abundant 

292 

AP

APPENDIX C: CHOOSING BY ADVANTAGES AND COSTS 

Alternative #1 Alternative #2 

Description Qty. Cost/Unit Net Cost Description Qty. Cost/UnNew Trail (to Wukoki) 

0.5 0 $26,500 New Visitor 

Orientation* 

1000 

Obliterate portion of road 

0.5 00 $77,500 New V.O. Exhibits 500 

New Road alignment (Wukoki) 

0.2 $873,000 $174,600 New Parking / 

Orientation (10 cars, 1 RV) 

10 $2

Parking (20 cars) (Wukoki) 

20 $44,000 RV's 1 $6

Adapt House 3000 $100 $300,000 Improve Existing Road 

(Crack-In-Rock) 

12.5 $240

New V.C. Exhibits 6000 $100 $600,000 Backcountry Sites 

(toilets/tables)* 

2 $10

New Wayside 20 $5,000 $100,000 Adapt Visitor Center 6000 Additional Staff 1.5 $50,000 $0 New Wayside 20 $5Primitive campgroundConvert road to primitive 

5 0 $50,000 

TOTAL 372,600 TOTAL 063,400 

$53,00 

$155,0

$2,200 

1000

$1, $ 4,

Note: All estimates in FY 2000 dollars. 
APPENDIXES/REFERENCES 


Alternative #3 \Alternative #4 

Description Qty. Cost/Unit Net Cost Description Qty. Cost/UnNew Visitor Orientation 

1000 $265 00 Obliterate/rehab Black 

Fall Crossing 

5.5 $155

New V.O. Exhibits 500 $100 0 Demolish housing, 

maintenance, and admin buildings 

5000 

New Parking / Orientation (10 cars, 1 RV) 

10 $2,200 0 Remove mission 66 

portion of V.C. 

2000 

RV's $6,400 $6,400 New V.C. Exhibits 1000 Adapt Visitor Center 3000 $100 $300,000 New Trail (Wukoki) 0.5 $53New Road alignment (Wukoki) 

0.2 00 $174,600 Obliterate portion of 

road 

0.5 $155

New V.C. Exhibits 6000 $100 $600,000 Parking (10 cars) 

(Wukoki) 

10 $2

New Wayside 20 $5,000 $100,000 New Road alignment 

(Wukoki) 

0.2 $873

New Trail (grasslands) 

1 $53,000 $53,000 New Trail (Wukoki) 2.8 $53

New Trail (Wukoki) 2.8 $53,000 $148,400 New Trail (Wukoki) 0.5 $53,000 $26,500 Obliterate portion of road 

0.5 $155,000 0 

Parking (10 Cars) 10 $2,200 0 

TOTAL 45,400 TOTAL 436,500 

$265,0 

$50,00 

$22,00 

1 

$873,0 

$77,50

$22,00

$1,8 $ 1,

Note: This alternative is to be combined wiAlternative #2 and its associated costs 

294 

AP

GLOSSARY 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP). An independent 

federal agency with statutory authority 

to review and comment on federal 

actions affecting properties listed in or 

eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

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

air often derived from quantitative 

measurements of the concentrations of 

specific injurious or contaminating 

substances. 

air quality class II areas. Regions in 

attainment areas where maintenance of 

existing good air quality is of high 

priority. Class II areas permit moderate 

deterioration of existing air quality. 

alternative. One of at least two 

proposed means of accomplishing 

planning objectives. 

archeological resource. Any material 

remains or physical evidence of past 

human life or activities that are of 

archeological interest, including the 

record of the effects of human activities 

on the environment. They are capable of 

revealing scientific or humanistic 

information through archeological 

research. 

backcountry. All nondeveloped areas 

within the park. Generally considered to 

be all areas beyond developed facilities 

and visitor use areas, (operational areas, 

campgrounds, picnic areas, visitor 

centers, visitor contact stations), 

developed interpretive areas (view 

points, wayside orientation exhibits, 

developed archeological resources with 

designated trails), and designated trails, 

trailheads, and roads. 

cultural landscape. A geographic area, 

including both cultural and natural 

resources and the wildlife or domestic 

animals therein, associated with a historic 

event, activity, or person or exhibiting 

other cultural or aesthetic values. 

cultural landscape inventory (CLI). The 

CLI is a computerized, evaluated inventory 

of all cultural landscapes in which NPS has 

or plans to acquire any legal interest. Its 

purpose is to identify cultural landscapes 

in the system and provide information on 

their location, historical development, 

character-defining features, and 

management. The CLI assists park 

managers in planning, programming, and 

recording treatment and management 

decisions. CLI forms, including maps, 

drawings, and photographs, are 

completed and maintained at the regional 

offices, with copies provided to the parks. 

cultural resources. An aspect of a 

cultural system that is valued by or 

significantly representative of a culture or 

that contains significant information 

about a culture. A cultural resource can 

be a tangible entity or a cultural practice. 

cumulative effects. The culmination of 

a proposed action when added to past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions; action can be taken by 

anyone and can occur inside or outside 

the park. 

ecosystem. A system made up of a 

community of animals, plants, and 

bacteria and its interrelated physical and 

chemical environment. 

endangered species. Any species that is 

in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range [16 USC 

§1532(6)]. 

environmental impact statement 

(EIS). Required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act to examine a 

range of federal actions and their 

297

GLOSSARY 


potential effects on the human 

environment. 

ethnographic landscape. Areas 

containing a variety of natural and 

cultural resources that associated people 

define as heritage resources. 

ethnographic resource. A site, 

structure, object, landscape, or natural 

resource feature assigned traditional 

legendary, religious, subsistence, or 

other significance in the cultural system 

of a group traditionally associated with 

it. 

floodplain. A plain along a river, 

formed from sediment deposited by 

floods. 

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

differential transfer case disperses 50/50 

front and rear displacement. Trucks, 

cars, buses, or sports utility vehicles with 

high clearance and the ability to 

operate off-pavement as well as on 

highways. 

front country. Areas within the park 

that contain development for visitor use 

and park operations. Generally 

considered to be all areas with 

developed facilities and visitor use 

areas, (operational areas, campgrounds, 

picnic areas, visitor centers, visitor 

contact stations), developed 

interpretive areas (view points, wayside 

orientation exhibits, 

developed/stabilized archeological 

resources with designated trails), and 

designated trailheads, trails, and roads. 

full-time equivalents (FTEs). Staff 

positions that include 40 hours of work 

per week all year. 

habitat. A specific set of physical 

conditions in a geographic area that 

surrounds a single species, a group of 

species, or a large community. In 

wildlife management, the major 

components of habitat are food, water, 

cover, and living space. 

integrity. The authenticity of a property's 

historic identity, evidenced by the survival 

of physical characteristics that existed 

during its historic or prehistoric period; 

the extent to which a property retains its 

historic appearance. 

interpretation. A communication 

process designed to reveal meanings and 

relationships of our cultural and natural 

heritage to the public through firsthand 

experiences with objects, artifacts, 

landscapes, or sites; facilitating a 

connection between the interests of the 

visitor and the meaning of the park by 

explaining the park’s purpose and 

significance; usually a single contact with 

a group or individual. 

mitigating measures. Constraints, 

requirements, or conditions imposed to 

reduce the significance of or eliminate an 

anticipated impact to environmental, 

socioeconomic, or other resource value 

from a proposed land use. 

National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). The comprehensive list of 

districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects of national, regional, state, and 

local significance in American history, 

architecture, archeology, engineering, and 

culture kept by NPS under authority of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 

natural soundscapes. The total 

ambient acoustic environment associated 

with a given environment (sonic 

environment) in an area such as a 

national park or the total ambient sound 

level for the park. In a national park 

setting, this soundscape is usually 

composed of both ambient sounds and a 

variety of human-made sounds. This sonic 

environment is an important resource of 

many parks; there can also be important 

relationships between how this 

environment is perceived and understood 

by individuals and society. 

riparian areas. Zones of transition from 

aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems, 

298 

GLOSSARY 


dependent on surface and/or subsurface 

water for existence and which manifest 

the influence of that water. 

scoping. Planning process that solicits 

people’s opinions on the value of a 

park, issues facing a park, and the 

future of a park. 

sensitive species. Those plant and 

animal species for which population 

viability is a concern. 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO). An official within each state 

appointed by the governor to 

administer the state historic 

preservation program and carry out 

certain responsibilities relating to 

federal undertakings within the state. 

threatened and endangered 

species. Any species of fish, wildlife, or 

plant that is listed as threatened or 

endangered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

traditional cultural property (TCP). A 

property associated with cultural 

practices or beliefs of a living community 

that are rooted in that community's 

history or are important in maintaining its 

cultural identity. Traditional cultural 

properties are ethnographic resources 

eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places. 

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

general and permanent laws of the 

United States. 

visitor use. Visitor use of a resource for 

inspiration, stimulation, solitude, 

relaxation, education, pleasure, or 

satisfaction. 

wetlands. Lands including swamps, 

marshes, bogs, and similar areas, such as 

wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, 

and natural ponds. 

wilderness area. An area officially 

designated as wilderness by Congress. 

Wilderness areas will be managed to 

preserve wilderness characteristics and 

shall be devoted to “the public purposes 

of recreation, scenic, scientific, 

educational, conservation, and historical 

use.” 

299


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

ANDERSON

1990 The Wupatki Archeological 


Inventory Survey Project: Final Report. 

National Park Service, Southwest Cultural 

Resources Center Professional Paper No. 

35, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

2001 Arizona Heritage Data 

Management System. 

ARNBERGER, L. 

1947 “Flowering Plants and Ferns of 

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

36. 

ASSOCIATION FOR BIODIVERSITY 

INFORMATION. 

2000 Natureserve: an online 

encyclopedia of live, Version 1.2. (website 

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

Arlington, Virginia. 

BALDWIN, ANNE R., AND J. MICHAEL 

BREMER 

1986 Walnut Canyon National 


Monument: An Archeological Survey. 

Western Archeological Center, National 

Park Service. Publications in 

Anthropology No. 39, Tucson, AZ. 

BATEMAN, GARY C. 

1979 “Natural Resource Survey and 

Analysis of Sunset Crater Volcano and 

Wupatki National Monuments, 

Preliminary Report (Phase III).” Prepared 

for the Office of Natural Resource 

Management Southwest Region, National 

Park Service. Ms on file Wupatki National 

Monument. 

1976 “Natural Resource Survey and 

Analysis of Sunset Crater Volcano and 

Wupatki National Monuments.” Ms. on 

File Wupatki National Monument. Report 

prepared by Northern Arizona University, 

Contract No. 950134. 

BENFER, J. A. 

1971 “The Petrology of the Eastern 

Phase of the Toroweap Formation, 

Walnut Canyon, Arizona.” Unpublished 

Masters Thesis. Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff. 

BILLS, DONALD J., MARGOT TRUINI, 

MARILYN E. FLYNN, HERBERT A. PIERCE, 

RUFUS D. CATCHINGS, AND MICHAEL J. 

RYMER 

2000 “Hydrogeology of the Regional 

Aquifer Near Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994–

97.” Water Investigations Report 00-4122, 

U.S. Geological Survey.

BOSTON, RICHARD L. 

1991 Black Falls Trading Post: Its 


Historical Significance. Northern Arizona 

University, Department of Anthropology, 

Flagstaff, AZ. 

BRANDT, ELIZABETH A.

1997 Anthropological Literature Review 

and Annotated Bibliography for Sunset 

Crater Volcano and Wupatki National 

Monuments: Santa Fe, NM, National Park 

Service. 

BREMER, J. M. 

1988 “Settlement and Land Use in the 

Walnut Creek Drainage of North Central 

Arizona During the 12th and 13th

Centuries.” Unpublished Masters Thesis. 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

BRIAN, NANCY J. 

1992 Historical Review of Water Flow 


and Riparian Vegetation at Walnut 


Canyon National Monument, Arizona.


Technical Report/Cooperative National 

Park Resources Studies Unit. Number 44. 

National Park Service, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

1985 “Historical Review of Water Flow 

and Riparian Vegetation at Walnut 

Canyon National Monument, Arizona.” 

Ms. on file Walnut Canyon National 

Monument. Report to the National Park 

301
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Service, Southern Arizona Group, 

Phoenix, Arizona. 

BRIGHT, JILL L., AND CHARLES VAN RIPER 

III. 

Pronghorn Home Ranges, Habitat 


Selection and Distribution around Water 


Sources in Northern Arizona. Technical 

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

Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland 

Ecosystem Science Center, Biological 

Resources Division, Colorado Plateau Field 

Station. Flagstaff, Arizona. 

BRITTEN, MIKE 

1999 Trip Report for travel to Wupatki 

National Monument, 16–18 June 1999. 

Natural Resource Files, Headquarters 

Office, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

BROWN, GREGORY, AND CHRISTIAN E. 

DOWNUM 

1997 Archaeological Inventory Survey 

Of The Co-Bar Ranch. Northern Arizona 

University Archaeological Report No. 

1145. Report On File, Nau Department Of 

Anthropology, Flagstaff. 

CHRISTENSEN, PAUL K.

1982 Hydrogeology of Sunset Crater 


and Wupatki National Monuments. 

Unpublished master’s thesis. Northern 

Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

CINNAMON, STEVEN K. 

1984 “Spring and Seep Investigation of 

Wupatki National Monument.” 

Unpublished. Ms. on file, Flagstaff Area 

National Monuments’ Research Library, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

N.d. Potsherd Survey to Determine 

Impacts of Visitor Use and Grazing. 

Unpublished. Ms. on file, Flagstaff Area 

National Monuments’ Research Library, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

CITY OF FLAGSTAFF 

2001 Report on the Flagstaff Area 


Regional Land Use and Transportation 


Plan. City of Flagstaff Planning Division, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

1999 Flagstaff Area Regional Land Use 


and Transportation Plan. City of Flagstaff 

Planning Division, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

1998 Flagstaff Area Open Spaces and 


Greenways Plan. City of Flagstaff 

Planning Division, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

CLARK, R. N. 

1976 “Control of Vandalism in 

Recreation Areas—Fact, Fiction, or 

Folklore?” In Vandalism and Outdoor 

Recreation, USDA, U.S. Forest Service, 

General Technical Report PSW-17: 62–72. 

CLINE, PLATT 

1994 Mountain Town: Flagstaff’s First 

Century. Northland Publishing, Flagstaff. 

1976 They Came to the Mountain: The 

Story of Flagstaff’s Beginnings. Northern 

Arizona University with Northland Press, 

Flagstaff. 

CODER, CHRISTOPHER, ET AL. 

1995a 1994 Summary Report: Monitoring

of Archaeological Sites along the 

Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon 

National Park. Report on file, Grand 

Canyon National Park Science Center, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. 

1995b 1995 Summary Report: Monitoring

of Archaeological Sites along the 

Colorado River Corridor in Grand Canyon 

National Park. Report on file, Grand 

Canyon National Park Science Center, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona. 

COLTON, HAROLD S. 

1946 The Sinagua: A Summary of the 

Archaeology of the Region of Flagstaff, 

Arizona, Northern Arizona Society of 

Science and Art, Flagstaff, Arizona. 328 

pp. 

1936 “The Basaltic Cinder cones and 

Lava Flows of the San Francisco Mountain 

Volcanic Field.” Museum of Northern 

Arizona bulletin #10. 

302 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

DARTON, N. H. 

1910 “Geology of the Walnut Canyon 

Region.” U.S. Geological Survey, 

Washington, D.C. Bulletin #435. 

DAVIS, K. 

1985 “Fire History of Ponderosa Pine 

Forest of Walnut Canyon National 

Monument.” Report presented to Walnut 

Canyon National Monument, National 

Park Service, Arizona. Ms on file Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. 

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

1990“Fire History and Stand Structure of 

a Pinyon-Juniper Woodland.” At Walnut 

Canyon National Monument, Arizona. 

Report presented to Southern Arizona 

Group, National Park Service, Phoenix, 

Arizona. Ms on file Walnut Canyon 

National Monument. 

DOWNUM, CHRISTIAN, AND GEORGE 

GUMERMAN 

1998 “Archeological Investigations at 

Sunset Crater Volcano National 

Monument.” Report on file, Flagstaff 

Area National Monuments Headquarters 

Library, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

DOWNUM, CHRISTIAN, JENNIFER L. 

KUNDE, AND NANCY B. ANDREWS

1996 Monitoring the Health of Cultural 

Resources: A Case Study from Grand 

Canyon National Park. Paper presented at 

the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for 

American Archaeology, New Orleans, 

Louisiana. 

DROST, CHARLES 

2000 Golden Eagle Monitoring at 


Wupatki National Monument. Report to 

the National Park Service. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem 

Science Center, Biological Resources 

Division, Colorado Plateau Field Station. 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

EGGLER, W. A. 

1966 “Plant Succession on the Recent 

Volcano, Sunset Crater,” Plateau 38, no. 

4: 81–96. 

FAIRLEY, HELEN C. 

1998 “Preliminary Results and 

Management Implications of the Cultural 

Resource Monitoring Program in the 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments.” 

Report on file, Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments Administrative Headquarters, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

FAWCETT, WILLIAM B. 

1993 “Why Should It Matter if I Take 

Another Potsherd? The Impacts of 

Contemporary Artifact Collecting at 

Anasazi Villages.” Utah Archaeology 6: 

37–47. 

FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

1999 Ideas for Change, Flagstaff/Lake 

Mary Ecosystem Analysis, Coconino

National Forest. Peaks Ranger District, 

Coconino National Forest, Flagstaff, 

Arizona 

1993 Integrated Resource Management, 

the Road to Ecosystem Management, 

Fourth Edition. Southwestern Region, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

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

HUFFMAN, AND W. W. COVINGTON 

2000 “Response of Rare Endemic, 

Penstemon clutei, to Burning and 

Reduced below Ground Competition.” 

Abstract in Third Southwestern Rare and 

Endangered Plant Conference, September 

25–28, 2000, Northern Arizona University. 

Unpublished conference program and 

abstracts. 

GALE, FAY 

1985 “Monitoring Visitor Behavior at 

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

112–17. 

GRATER, R. 

1935 Walnut Canyon Bird List. Western 

Archaeological and Conservation Center 

Archives, National Park Service, Tucson, 

Arizona. 

303
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

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

1979 Vandalism of Cultural Resources: 

The Growing Threat to Our National 

Heritage. Cultural Resources Report No. 

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

Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

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

1998 National Parks and the American 

Public: A National Public Opinion Survey 

on the National Park System. National 

Parks and Conservation Association and 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

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

1969 “Walnut Canyon: An Example of 

Relationships Between Birds and Plant 

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

77. 

HOFFMEISTER, DONALD F. 

1986 Mammals of Arizona. University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson. 

HOLM, RICHARD F. 

1987 “Significance of Agglutinate 

Mounds on Lava Flows Associated with 

Monogenetic Cones: An Example at 

Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona.” 

Geological Society of America Bulletin 99. 

September 1987: 319–24. 

HOLM, RICHARD F., AND RICHARD B. 

MOORE 

1987 “Holocene Scoria Cone and Lava 

Flows at Sunset Crater, Northern 

Arizona.” In Geological Society of 


American Centennial Field Guide—Rocky 


Mountain Section, pp. 393–97. 

HUISINGA, KRISTIN, PHYLLIS HOGAN, 

KAREN WRIGHT, HELEN HAMILTON, AND 

SUSAN CROW 

2000 Special Status Plants of the 


Flagstaff Area National Monuments. Final 

Report to the National Park Service, 

Arizona Ethnobotanical Research 

Association.

JENKINS, P., F. REICHENBACHER, K.

JOHNSON, AND A. GONDOR 

1991 “Vegetation Inventory, 

Classification, and Monitoring at Walnut 

Canyon National Monument.” Study 

Report to the National Park Service. 

JOHNSON, CRAIG J. 

1999 Cultural Resource Management at 

Wupatki National Monument: Managing 

a Nonrenewable Resource. Northern 

Arizona University, Department of 

Anthropology, Master’s thesis, p. 73. 

JOHNSON, DARRYLL R., JUNE C. RUGH, 

MARK E. VANDE KAMP, AND THOMAS C. 

SWEARINGEN 

1994 “Minor Violations, Major Damage: 

A Survey of Noncompliant Visitor 

Behavior and Managerial Practices.” Park 


Science (Summer): 6–7. 

JOHNSON, DARRYLL R., AND MARK E. 

VANDE KAMP 

1996 “Extent and Control of Resource 

Damage Due to Noncompliant Visitor 

Behavior: A Case Study from the U.S. 

National Parks.” Natural Areas Journal


16(2): 134–41. 

JOYCE. J. F. 

1974 “A Taxonomic and Ecological 

Analysis of the Flora of Walnut Canyon, 

Arizona.” Unpublished master's thesis. 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

LEE, MARTHA E., AND DOUGLAS 

STEPHENS 

1995 Anasazi Cultural Parks Study: 


Assessment of Visitor Experiences at 


Three Cultural Parks. Colorado Plateau 

Research Station, Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Technical 

Report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-95/07. 

LEE, MARTY, AND LOCHEN TREADWELL 

1999 1998 Survey of Flagstaff 


Monument Visitors: Final Report. School 

of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

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

1978 “The Effects of Causal Surface 

Collection on Behavioral Interpretations 

304 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

of Archaeological Data.” In An Analytical 


Approach to Cultural Resource 


Management: The Little Colorado 


Planning Unit, edited by Fred Plog, pp 

83–90. Anthropological Research Paper 

No. 23, Arizona State University, Tempe. 

MACHLIS, GARY 

2000 Visitor Survey Card Project, 

University of Idaho Cooperative Park 

Studies Unit for the National Park Service, 

Moscow, Idaho. 

MAGILL, ARTHUR W. 

1992 Managed and Natural Landscapes: 


What Do People Like? Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, USDA, U.S. Forest 

Service, Albany, California. Research 

Paper PWS-RP-213. 

MCCLELLAND, L. F. 

1998 Building the National Parks: 

Historic Landscape Design and 

Construction. Johns Hopkins University 

Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 

MCCORMACK, DANIEL

1989 “The Geology of Wupatki National 

Monument, Northern Arizona.” Thesis, 

Geology Department, Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff. 

MENZEL, J. P. 

1996 “Historical Changes in Forest 

Structure in the Ponderosa Pine Type, 

Walnut Canyon Area, Northern Arizona.” 

Unpublished Masters Thesis, Northern 

Arizona University, Flagstaff. 

MOORE, RICK 

1994 Preserving Traces of the Past: 

Protecting the Colorado Plateau’s 

Archaeological Heritage. Grand Canyon 

Trust, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

MURDOCK, L. 

1994 “Analysis of Woodrat (Neotoma) 

Middens Found in Walnut Canyon, 

Coconino County, Arizona.” Unpublished 

master’s thesis, Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff. 

MUSEUM OF NORTHERN ARIZONA 

1929 “Sunset Crater and the Lava Beds.” 

Museum Notes of the Museum of 

Northern Arizona. Volume 2, number 4. 

October. Flagstaff, Arizona. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

2001 Draft NPS Species Flora and Fauna 

Database for Walnut Canyon National 

Monument, National Park Service Natural 

Resource Inventory and Monitoring 

Program, Colorado Plateau Cooperative 

Ecological Studies Unit, Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff. 

2000 Flagstaff Areas Strategic Plan, 

Wupatki, Sunset Crater Volcano, and 

Walnut Canyon National Monuments, 

FY2001–FY2005. Flagstaff Area Office, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

2000 Management Policies. 

Washington, D.C. 

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

npsmptoc.html. 

1998 “Planning for Interpretation and 

Visitor Experience.” Division of 

Interpretation, Harpers Ferry Center, 

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. 

1997 Director’s Order-28, Cultural 

Resources Management. Washington 

Office, Washington, D.C. 

1996 “Resources Management Plan.” 

On file. Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments Research Library, Flagstaff, 

Arizona. 

1994 “Draft Statement for 

Management, the Flagstaff Areas.” 

Wupatki, Sunset Crater Volcano, and 

Walnut Canyon National Monuments, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

1993 Visual Quality of Built 

Environments in National Parks. Denver 

Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

1990 Land Protection Plan, Walnut 

Canyon National Monument, Western 

Regional Office, San Francisco. 

1982a General Management/ 

Development Concept Plan, Wupatki and 

305
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Sunset Crater National Monuments. 

Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

1982b Finding of No Significant Impact, 

General Management/Development 

Concept Plan, Wupatki and Sunset Crater 

National Monuments. Intermountain 

Support Office-Denver, Denver, Colorado. 

1981 Proposal/Environmental 

Assessment, General Management 

Plan/Development Concept Plan, Wupatki 

and Sunset Crater National Monuments. 

Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

INTERIOR; FOREST SERVICE, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

1998 Executive Summary to Congress, 


Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, 


Progress Report to Congress, Volume I—


Overview and Summary. Washington, 

D.C. http://www.nps.gov/ 

pub_aff/feedemo/recfee.htm. 

NATIONS, J. DALE, AND RAYMOND L. 

EASTWOOD 

N.d. “Potential Environmental Impact 

of Future Surface Mining Operations on 

the Coconino National Forest.” On file. 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments’ 

Research Library, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

NICKENS, PAUL R. 

1991 “The Destruction of 

Archaeological Sites and Data.” In 

Protecting the Past, edited by George S. 

Smith and John E. Ehrenhard, pp. 73–81. 

CRC Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan 

NIELSEEN, A. E. 

1991 “Trampling the Archeological 

Record: An Experimental Study.” 

American Antiquity 56(3): 483–503. 

O’HARA, F. MICHAEL, AND CRAIG J. 

JOHNSON 

1997 Archeological Site Monitoring at 

Wupatki National Monument, Summer 

1997. Report on file, Flagstaff Area 

National Monuments Administrative 

Headquarters, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

PERSONS, TREVOR B. 

2001 Distribution, Activity, and Road 

Mortality of Amphibians and Reptiles at 

Wupatki National Monument, Arizona. 

Final Report to the National Park Service, 

USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem 

Science Center, Biological Resources 

Division, Colorado Plateau Field Station. 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

PHILLIPS, BARBARA G.

1990 Riparian Inventory of Walnut 


Canyon National Monument: Vegetation 


Map, Sampling Plots, Annotated 


Checklist. Tucson, Arizona: Southwest 

Parks and Monuments Association. 

PILLES, PETER J. 

1978 “The Field House and Sinagu 

Demography.” In Limited Activity and 


Occupatin Sites: A Collection of 


Conference Papers, edited by Albert E. 

Ward, pp. 119–34. Center for 

Anthropoliogical Studies, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. 

PILLES, PETER J. JR. 

1974 “Post Sunset Crater Eruption 

Developments in the Sinagua Culture: A 

Re-evaluation.” Paper presented at the 

39th Annual Meeting of the Society for 

American Archeology, Washington, D.C. 

ROGGENBUCK, JOSEPH W., CAROLYN J. 

WIDNER, AND DENNIS W. STRATTON 

1997 Reducing Theft of Petrified Wood 

at Petrified Forest National Park: A Final 

Research Report. On file, Petrified Forest 

National Park, Arizona. 160 pp. 

SALOMONSON, MICHAEL 

1973 “The Mammals of Walnut Canyon 

National Monument.” Ms on File 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 

Arizona. 

SCHON, K. 

2000 Saguaro National Park and Walnut 

Canyon National Monument 2000 Fire 

306 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Effects Report. Fire Effects Monitoring 

Program, Saguaro National Park. 

SCHURIG, RUDOLPH G. 

1971 “Soil Survey of Wupatki National 

Monument, Arizona.” In Soil Survey and 


Range Site and Condition Inventory.


Report prepared by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 

Ms on file Wupatki National Monument, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

SMILEY, TERAH L. 

1958 “The Geology and Dating of 

Sunset Crater, Flagstaff, Arizona.” In 

Guidebook of the Black Mesa Basin 

Northeastern Arizona, Ninth Field 

Conference. New Mexico Geological 

Society. 

SPANGLE, P.F. 

1953 “A Revised Checklist of the Flora 

of Walnut Canyon National Monument.” 

Plateau Vol. 26, pp. 86–88. 

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

1954 Birds of Walnut Canyon. 

Southwestern Monuments Association, 

Globe, Arizona. Western Archaeological 

and Conservation Center Archives,

National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona. 

SUTER, GLEN W., AND DANIEL S. JONES 

1981 Raptor Research. Vol. 15, pp. 12–

18. 

SWEARINGEN, THOMAS C., AND 

DARRYLL R. JOHNSON 

1994 “Keeping Visitors on the Right 

Track: Sign and Barrier Research at Mount 

Rainier.” Park Science (Fall): 17–19.

1995 “Visitors’ Responses to Uniformed

Park Employees.” Journal of Park and 


Recreation Administration 13(1): 73–85. 

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

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

1990 Fire Scar Dates from Walnut 

Canyon National Monument. Final Report 

to the National Park Service, Southern 

Arizona Group Office, Tucson, Arizona. 

THOMAS, KATHRYN 

In Preparation. Vegetation Map of 


Wupatki National Monument. National 

Park Service Inventory Monitoring

Program. USGS Forest and Rangeland 

Ecosystem Science Center, Biological 

Resources Division, Colorado Plateau Field 

Station. Flagstaff, Arizona. 

2001 Progress Report on Vegetation 

Mapping for the Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments. Memorandum from the U.S. 

Geological Survey, Colorado Plateau Field 

Station, Northern Arizona University, to 

the Division of Resources Management, 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments. 

THOMPSON, BEN H. 

1945 Report to Mr. Mr. Tillotson, 

Regional Direct, National Park Service, 

Region Three, Santa, New Mexico. Ms. On 

file, Wupatki National Monument, 

Flagstaff. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

1995 Secretary of the Interior’s 


Standards for the Treatment of Historic 


Properties. Washington, D.C. 

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

1993 Secretarial Order No. 3175, 

Departmental Responsibilities for Indian 

Trust Resources. Washington, D.C. 

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

1995 Recovery Plan for the Mexican 

Spotted Owl: Volume I. Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

2000 Hydrogeology of the Regional 

Aquifer Near Flagstaff, Arizona, 1994–97. 

Water Investigations Report 00-4122, U.S. 

Geological Survey. 

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

1987 Cultural Resources: Problems 

Protecting and Preserving Federal 

Archeological Resources. Government 

Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 

307
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

VANDE KAMP, MARK E., DARRYLL R. 

JOHNSON, AND THOMAS C. 

SWEARINGEN 

1994 “Preventing Visitor-Caused 

Damage to National Park Resources: 

What Do We Know? What Should Be 

Done?” Park Science (Summer): 8–10. 

VANDIVER, V. W. 

1936 Geological Report on Walnut 

Canyon, Arizona. Western Archaeological 

and Conservation Center Archives,

National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona. 

WETHERILL, M. 

1937 Birds Seen at Walnut Canyon 

National Monument. Western 

Archaeological and Conservation Center 

Archives, National Park Service, Tucson, 

Arizona. 

WESTHEIMER, DUFFIE 

1988 “Black Falls Trading Post: 1941–

1964.” Unpublished. Ms. on file, Flagstaff 

Area National Monuments’ Research 

Library, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

WILDESEN, LESLIE E. 

1982 “The Study of Impacts on 

Archaeological Sites.” In Advances in 


Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 

5, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 51–

96. Academic Press, New York. 

WOOD, CHARLES A., AND JURGEN KIENLE 

1990 Volcanoes of North America. 

Cambridge University Press, New York. 

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

1978 “A Survey of Disturbance Processes 

in Archaeological Site Formation.” In 

Advances in Archaeological Method and 

Theory Vol. 1, edited by Michael B. 

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

York. 

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

“Landscape Perception: Research, 

Application, and Theory.” Landscape 

Planning 9: 75–96. 

308 
LIST OF PREPARERS 

PREPARERS 

Anita Davis, Interpreter, Sunset Crater 

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

Wildlife Biology, M.S. Biology; 10 years 

NPS. Responsible for impact analysis 

sections on visitor use and experience. 

Jeri DeYoung, Archeologist, Flagstaff 

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

Archaeology, History, Botany, M.A. 

Anthropology (Historic Archaeology). 4 

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

Responsible for alternatives development 

and impact analysis on historic character 

of the built environment. 

Helen Fairley, Archeologist, Flagstaff 

Area Offices, National Park Service. B.A. 

Anthropology, M.A. Anthropology 

(Archeology). 5 seasons U.S. Forest 

Service, 3 years private consultant, 10 

years NPS. Responsible for alternatives 

development and impact analysis on 

long-term integrity of archeological 

resources. 

Sue Fischer, Former Interpreter, 

Wupatki NM, National Park Service, now 

at Grand Canyon NP. B.A. Geology; 20 

years NPS in interpretation and employee 

training and development. Responsible 

for alternatives development and 

alternatives descriptions for newsletter 

and draft document. 

Sam Henderson, Superintendent, 

Flagstaff Areas, National Park Service. B.S. 

Archeology, 32 years NPS, 26 years 

Superintendent—11 Casa Grande Ruins, 5 

Walnut Canyon, 10 Flagstaff Areas. 

Responsible for the overall management 

of the three Flagstaff Areas and impact 

analyses on park neighbors; local, state, 

and tribal land management; and 

land/resource managing agencies and 

operational efficiency. 

Marilyn Hof, Senior Planner, Denver 

Service Center, National Park Service. B.S. 

Recreational Resources, M.S. Recreational 

Resources; 2 years Bureau of Land 

Management, 20 years NPS. Responsible 

for management zones, alternatives 

development, and carrying capacity 

analysis. 

Lori Kinser, Visual Information 

Specialist, Intermountain Support OfficeDenver. 27 years NPS. Responsible for all 

graphics. 

Carol Kruse, Interpretive Specialist, 

Flagstaff Area National Monuments. B.S. 

Zoology; 30 years NPS park management 

and interpretation. Responsible for 

development of newsletters, impacts on 

ability to experience park resources, and 

description of alternatives. 

Todd Metzger, Chief Resources 

Management, Flagstaff Area Office, 

National Park Service. B.A. Anthropology; 

8 years private practice, 13 years NPS. 

Responsible for American Indian 

consultation, alternatives development, 

and impact analyses on park neighbors; 

local, state, and tribal land management; 

and land/resource managing agencies 

and operational efficiency. 

Steve Mitchelson, Former Natural 

Resource Specialist, Flagstaff Area 

National Monuments, now at the 

Intermountain Regional Office, National 

Park Service. B.S. Biology; M.S. Plant 

Ecology; 17 years NPS, 1 year Corps of 

Engineers. Responsible for alternatives 

development and natural resource impact 

analysis, including threatened and 

endangered species and sensitive species, 

long-term integrity of natural systems 

and processes; long-term integrity of 

geologic resources, and floodplains and 

wetlands. 

309
LIST OF PREPARERS 

Alexa Roberts, Anthropologist, 

Intermountain Support Office-Santa Fe, 

National Park Service. Ph.D. 

Anthropology, 5 years private sector, 8 

years Navajo Nation, 5 years NPS. 

Responsible for alternatives development, 

American Indian consultation, and impact 

analysis on long-term integrity of 

ethnographic resources. 

Nicole Tancreto, Cartographic 

Technician, Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments, National Park Service. B.S. 

Ecology and Systematic Biology; 6 years 

NPS. Contributed to natural resource 

impact analysis, including threatened and 

endangered species and sensitive species, 

long-term integrity of natural systems 

and processes, and floodplains and 

wetlands 

Christine Turk, Regional Environmental 

Quality Officer, Intermountain Support 

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

Biological Sciences, 22 years NPS, 5 years 

U DE College of Marine Studies. 

Responsible for purpose and need, 

environmental consequences, 

consultation/coordination, references, 

and appendixes. 

Terri Urbanowski, Landscape Architect, 

Denver Service Center, National Park 

Service. B.S. Landscape Horticulture, 

M.L.A. Landscape Architecture, 15 years 

NPS, 3 years private practice. Job Captain, 

responsible for alternatives, management 

zones, costs, responses to comments, and 

graphics coordination. 

Kim Watson, Chief Ranger. Responsible 

for alternatives development, impact 

analyses on park neighbors; local, state, 

and tribal land management, and 

land/resource managing agencies; ability 

to experience park resources; and 

operational efficiency. 

Paul Whitefield, Natural Resource 

Specialist, Flagstaff Area National 

Monuments. B.S. Biology. 5 years 

Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute, 11 

years NPS, including 2 seasons Guadalupe 

Mountains, 5 years Big Thicket, 4 years 

Chaco Culture, 6 months Flagstaff 

Monuments. Responsible for revising all 

sections pertaining to natural 

systems/processes, 

threatened/endangered/sensitive species, 

and wetlands/floodplains/riparian 

resources. 

CONTRIBUTORS 

National Park Service, 

Flagstaff Area Offices 

John Bland, Protection Ranger, Sunset 

Crater Volcano NM 

Mary Blasing, District Ranger, Wupatki 

NM 

Tom Ferrell, Former District Ranger, 

Walnut Canyon NM 

Bill Hudson, Former District Ranger, 

Wupatki NM, now District Ranger, Sunset 

Crater Volcano NM 

Judi Irons, NPS/USFS Interpreter 

SuZan Pearce, Former Interpretive 

Ranger, Sunset Crater Volcano NM 

Al Remley, Archeologist, Flagstaff Area 

Monuments 

Nancy Schultz, Administrative Officer, 

Flagstaff Area Monuments 

Michael Stuckey, Former District Ranger, 

Sunset Crater Volcano NM 

Richard Sullivan, Former Chief of 

Maintenance, Flagstaff Area Monuments 

Michael Schneegas, Facility Manager, 

Flagstaff Area Monuments 

310 
LIST OF PREPARERS 

National Park Service, 

Intermountain Support 

Office-Denver 

Kenneth Bennett, Historical Architect, 

Volunteer-in-Parks 

Christine Maylath, Environmental 

Protection Assistant/Planning Tech 

National Park Service 

Ken Mabery, Former Management 

Assistant, El Malpais NM 

U.S. Forest Service, Coconino 

National Forest 

Alvin Brown, Flagstaff Lake Mary 

Ecosystem, Peaks/Mormon Lake Ranger 

District 

Linda Farnsworth, Archeologist, Peaks 

Ranger District 

Kath Farr, Supervisor’s Office 

Allen Madril, Archeologist, 

Peaks/Mormon Lake Ranger District 

Sandra Nagiller, Wildlife Biologist, Peaks 

Ranger District 

John Nelson, Recreation and Wildlife 

Staff Office, Peaks/Mormon Lake Ranger 

District 

Peter Pilles, Forest Archeologist, 

Supervisor’s Office 

311

INDEX 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 23, 

100, 103, 116, 171, 174, 213, 215, 218, 

220, 222, 241, 314 

Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Officer, 7 

Babbitt Ranches, 109, 244 

Black Falls Crossing Road, vi, vii, 45, 47, 

48, 49, 61, 71, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 84, 

115, 117, 121, 124, 129, 138, 139, 141, 

143, 152, 155, 156, 161, 162, 163, 168, 

169, 178, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 192, 

194, 195, 196, 197, 201, 202, 206, 207, 

208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 215, 216, 218, 

219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 227, 233, 

234, 237 

Bonito Park, 53 

boundary expansion, iii, iv, vi, 2, 38, 39, 

41, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 60, 75, 77, 81, 83, 

84, 98, 104, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 

134, 136, 141, 151, 155, 159, 163, 164, 

166, 167, 172, 174, 177, 178, 181, 183, 

186, 190, 212, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 

220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 236 

Bureau of Land Management, 17, 40, 105, 

309 

camping, 35, 36, 44, 53, 119, 146, 214, 216 

carrying capacity, 18, 19, 154, 309 

City of Flagstaff, 12, 20, 108, 111, 214, 

215, 217, 219, 221, 222, 228, 243, 302 

Coconino National Forest, 3, 20, 51, 52, 

79, 88, 106, 108, 109, 110, 156, 160, 

167, 191, 192, 193, 199, 202, 206, 208, 

211, 220, 303, 306, 311 

Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve Lands, 

ii, 20, 38, 40, 41, 50, 71, 109, 120, 150, 

199, 202, 206, 207, 208, 211, 213, 225, 

227, 228, 229, 231, 234, 244 

cultural resources, iii, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 

15, 21, 26, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 50, 

51, 54, 57, 60, 61, 62, 71, 83, 92, 93, 

106, 107, 116, 123, 129, 133, 134, 146, 

156, 167, 199, 201, 208, 213, 218, 220, 

221, 225, 229, 230, 232, 235, 237, 297, 

298 

decision points, 23, 24, 34 

Doney Park, 243, 244 

endangered, 5, 13, 14, 26, 29, 33, 34, 57, 

77, 94, 98, 99, 100, 171, 172, 176, 177, 

180, 182, 185, 188, 297, 299, 309, 310 

fire, 10, 13, 14, 15, 43, 75, 95, 96, 98, 99, 

103, 112, 119, 151, 152, 155, 158, 159, 

162, 163, 166, 169, 174, 177 

Flagstaff Lake Mary Ecosystem, ii, 41, 109, 

214, 221, 241, 311 

Forest Service, 12, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 33, 

38, 39, 40, 49, 51, 54, 59, 79, 88, 95, 98, 

99, 105, 107, 108, 109, 115, 117, 120, 

151, 155, 156, 159, 160, 163, 166, 167, 

174, 191, 192, 193, 213, 214, 215, 216, 

217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 241, 

242, 243, 302, 304, 305, 309, 311 

FR545, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, 5, 39, 40, 42, 43, 

44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 

61, 71, 75, 80, 83, 84, 97, 107, 109, 110, 

111, 112, 115, 117, 121, 122, 124, 126, 

128, 130, 136, 138, 139, 140, 143, 152, 

155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 167, 

168, 178, 181, 183, 186, 200, 201, 202, 

204, 205, 207, 210, 213, 215, 216, 217, 

218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 

228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 236, 237, 

238 

Grand Canyon NP, 242, 309 

guided activities, ii, 24, 42, 43, 83, 159, 

161, 182, 207 

Havasupai, 23, 90, 241, 242 

Hopi, 3, 12, 23, 30, 90, 92, 93, 95, 107, 

109, 143, 241, 242, 246, 268, 269, 270, 

271, 272 

Hualapai, 242 

management prescriptions, 24 

natural soundscapes, iii, 16, 26, 80, 106, 

200, 202, 203, 208, 210, 212, 298 

313

LIST OF PREPARERS 


Navajo, iii, 3, 12, 23, 30, 45, 47, 53, 54, 60, 

61, 71, 80, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 99, 

104, 105, 109, 112, 115, 135, 138, 141, 

143, 151, 190, 191, 192, 197, 206, 207, 

209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 

218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 228, 

241, 242, 310 

noise, iv, 2, 16, 17, 75, 97, 102, 152, 153, 

156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 

166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175, 177, 

179, 181, 219 

off-road vehicles, 119 

rights-of-way, 22, 95 

riparian, ii, iii, 13, 14, 28, 42, 57, 79, 94, 

95, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 117, 

150, 151, 153, 154, 158, 175, 178, 179, 

189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 

197, 202, 209, 298, 310 

San Juan Paiute, 23 

telecommunications, 22, 38 

threatened, 13, 14, 15, 26, 29, 33, 57, 77, 

94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 171, 172, 176, 177, 

180, 182, 185, 188, 299, 309, 310 

Tonto Apache, 23, 241, 243 

trip fact sheets, 23, 24 

U.S. Geological Survey, 20, 108, 110, 301, 

302, 303, 307 

visitor center, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, 2, 24, 25, 28, 

38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 

53, 61, 71, 74, 79, 81, 83, 84, 91, 92, 94, 

97, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112, 113, 118, 

121, 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 

132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 

143, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 

163, 164, 167, 168, 178, 181, 186, 187, 

188, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205, 

206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 

216, 218, 221, 222, 227, 230, 232, 233, 

234, 235, 237, 238 

314 

NPS D-53a