National Park Ser vice • U.S. Department of the Interior
i 

General Management Plan / Environmental Assessment 

MONTEZUMA CASTLE NATIONAL MONUMENT 

AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Yavapai County, Arizona 

January 2010 

As the responsible agency, the National Park Service prepared this general management plan 

to establish the direction of management of Montezuma Castle National Monument and Tuzigoot National Monument for the next 15 to 20 years. The general management plan provides comprehensive, integrated guidance for preserving cultural resources, perpetuating 

natural systems, providing opportunities for visitor enjoyment and understanding, and establishing the organizational mechanism to accomplish the plan. 

The previous general management plan for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments was completed in 1975. Since then, much has changed, including visitor use patterns, land uses in the Verde Valley outside the monuments, and area populations. These 

changes affect how visitors access and use the national monuments, the facilities needed to 

support those uses, management of resources, and how the National Park Service manages 

its operations. Therefore, a new plan is needed to allow the monuments to achieve desired 

conditions that implement goals of the National Park Service and the public for management 

and preservation of cultural and natural resources. 

The environmental assessment that was prepared to determine the impacts of the general 

management plan considered three alternatives: 

• Alternative A, the no-action alternative; 

• Alternative B, which is the National Park Service preferred alternative and emphasizes 

opportunities to connect the monuments, including Montezuma Well (a detached unit of 

Montezuma Castle National Monument), with improved regional orientation to the 

Verde Valley; and 

• Alternative C, which emphasizes self-discovery of the monuments’ resources. 

The environmental assessment was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act to provide the decision-making framework that 1) analyzes a reasonable range 

of alternatives to meet objectives of the proposal, 2) evaluates potential issues and impacts to 

the monuments’ resources and values, and 3) identifies mitigation measures to lessen the degree or extent of these impacts. Resource topics included in this document because impacts 

may be greater than minor include cultural resources, natural resources, visitor use and experience, socioeconomics, and monument operations. Other resource topics were dismissed 

because the plan would result in negligible or minor effects. No major effects are anticipated 

as a result of this plan. Public scoping was conducted to assist with the development of this 

document, and comments received during scoping are to a great extent reflected in the content of this document and were considered in the development of the action alternatives. 

U.S. Department of the Interior ● National Park Service 
ii 

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

If you wish to comment on the environmental assessment, you may post comments online at 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/moca. 

You may mail comments to 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments 

General Management Plan 

National Park Service 

Denver Service Center 

Attn: Cynthia Nelson 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, CO 80225 

You may also hand deliver comments to Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monument Headquarters, 527 South Main Street, Camp Verde, Arizona. 

This environmental assessment will be on public review for 30 days. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your 

comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so.
iii 

SUMMARY 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR A 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The purpose of this general management 

plan is to establish a clear vision for the 

direction of management of Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

for the next 15 to 20 years. The general 

management plan will provide comprehensive and integrated guidance for preserving cultural resources, perpetuating 

natural systems, providing opportunities 

for visitor enjoyment and understanding, 

and establishing the organizational mechanism to accomplish the plan. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

was established in 1906 under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Since then, Congress passed legislation in 1937, 1959, 

1978, and 2003 expanding the boundary of 

the monument to better protect the natural and cultural resources adjacent to the 

cliff dwellings. 

Montezuma Well was added as a detached 

unit of Montezuma Castle National Monument by an Act of Congress in 1943. 

Congress expanded the boundary of the 

well site in 1959 to protect resources adjacent to the well and for administrative 

purposes. 

Tuzigoot National Monument was established by presidential proclamation on 

July 25, 1939, to protect the prehistoric 

structures. The boundary was expanded 

by an Act of Congress in 1965 and again in 

1978. Additional lands were conveyed 

through a land exchange in 2005. 

The last comprehensive planning effort 

(general management plan) for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments was completed in 1975. 

Since then, much has changed, including 

patterns and types of visitor use, land uses 

in the Verde Valley outside the monuments, and area populations. These 

changes affect how visitors access and use 

the national monuments, the facilities 

needed to support those uses, management of resources, and how the National 

Park Service (NPS) manages its operations. Therefore, a new plan is needed to: 

• Set forth the basic management philosophy or vision for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

and provide strategies for achieving 

identified management objectives 

(“desired future conditions”). 

• Clearly define resource conditions 

and visitor use and experience to be 

achieved in the monuments. 

• Identify the kinds of resource protection, management, use, and development that will be appropriate in 

achieving and maintaining those conditions. 

• Identify future partnerships and collaborative planning efforts that would 

facilitate the realization of the monuments’ goals. 

• Provide a framework for the monuments’ managers to use to make decisions about protecting Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments’ resources, provide quality visitor use and experience, manage visitor 

use, and determine the kinds of facilities, if any, to develop in and near the 

monuments. 
iv 

• Ensure that the basic foundation for 

decision-making has been developed 

in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the NPS leadership after an adequate analysis of 

the benefits, impacts, and economic 

costs of alternative courses of action. 

• Investigate the potential for boundary 

modifications. 

ALTERNATIVES AND 

THEIR IMPACTS 

This General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment presents three alternatives for management of Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

They include: 

• Alternative A, the no-action alternative (continue current management); 

• Alternative B, the National Park Service preferred alternative, which emphasizes opportunities to connect the 

three sites with improved regional 

orientation to the Verde Valley; and 

• Alternative C, which emphasizes selfdiscovery of the monuments’ resources. 

The alternatives, which are based on the 

monuments’ mission, purpose, and significance, present different ways to manage 

resources and visitor use and improve facilities and infrastructure. Additional actions and alternatives were considered but 

were dismissed for the reasons described 

in chapter 2. 

Alternative A: The No-Action 

Alternative (Continue Current 

Management) 

This alternative would continue current 

management direction and trends at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. It provides a baseline for comparison in evaluating the changes and impacts of the action alternatives. 

Natural resources would be protected by 

being in the monuments. Existing operations and visitor facilities would remain in 

place. Opportunities for close contact between visitors and the natural and cultural 

resources at the sites would continue to be 

limited. The interpretive emphasis would 

continue to focus on the three primary 

sites within the monuments, with little 

connection among the sites in terms of 

interpretation. 

At Montezuma Castle, resource activities 

would continue to focus on stabilizing the 

primary site, with intensive preservation 

treatment and regular cyclic maintenance. 

Visitor opportunities would continue to 

focus on viewing the Castle and visiting 

the visitor center. Existing administration 

facilities would remain the same. 

At Montezuma Well, resource activities 

would continue to focus on monitoring 

water quantity. Visitor opportunities 

would continue to focus on viewing Montezuma Well and visiting the well outlet. 

The picnic area would continue to be a 

major draw for local visitation. 

At Tuzigoot, resource activities would 

continue to focus on stabilizing the primary site, with intensive preservation treatment and regular cyclic maintenance. Visitor opportunities would continue to focus 

on exploring the pueblo and visiting the 

visitor center/museum. 

Although the no-action alternative may 

not meet all goals set forth for this general 

management plan, it serves as the baseline 

against which the action alternatives are 

evaluated. The important impacts of continuing existing management conditions 

and trends would include the following. 

• Ongoing management actions would 

continue to allow current hydrological 

conditions to persist in Tavasci Marsh 

in Tuzigoot National Monument, 

which would have a long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impact on wetland functions and habitat. 

• Informal access to the Verde River at 

Tuzigoot National Monument would 
Summary 

v 

continue, representing a long-term, 

minor, adverse effect on wildlife. 

• Change in the Tavasci Marsh habitat 

exposure could have a long-term effect on flycatcher habitat and the Yuma clapper rail, but would result in a 

“not likely to adversely affect” determination. 

• Alternative A would result in continuing minor, beneficial impacts resulting 

from the continued opportunities to 

view the monuments’ prime cultural 

resources. However, minor, adverse 

impacts from crowding and congestion during peak-use time periods 

would continue. 

• The lack of adequate interpretive and 

education facilities for regular and diverse programming would continue to 

have a minor, adverse impact to visitors. 

• Long-term, minor, adverse effects on 

monument operations would continue 

because of congestion and crowding 

in Montezuma Castle National Monument; very limited opportunities at 

Montezuma Well for site orientation 

and interpretation; facilities which 

limit the monument’s ability to provide consistent and diverse interpretive programming; and the lack of efficient distribution of staff among the 

three sites and the headquarters and 

maintenance buildings, which are outside the monuments. 

• Actions at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments would result in minor benefits and would have 

no adverse effect on archeological resources, prehistoric and historic structures and buildings, cultural landscapes, and ethnographic resources of 

the monuments. 

Alternative B, Preferred 

The main emphasis of this alternative is to 

connect the three sites with improved regional orientation to the Verde Valley 

area. Visitors would be introduced to all 

three sites and their related interpretive 

themes through coordinated messaging 

among the three sites. Visitors would travel to the sites to learn firsthand about 

elements of the prehistoric and historic 

stories associated with human settlement 

of the Verde Valley. 

The National Park Service would increase 

resource stabilization and monitoring efforts. Partnerships would improve orientation at the sites and other opportunities 

in the Verde Valley. More of the monuments’ cultural and natural resources 

would be available for visitors to explore 

via trails. The National Park Service would 

acquire 16 acres of privately owned land 

riparian and bluff land within Montezuma 

Well and most of the privately owned 

lands within Tuzigoot’s legislated boundaries except for the land owned by Freeport 

McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc., which 

contain mine tailings; this land would be 

removed from the legislated boundary. 

The mine tailings do not contain resources 

related to the purpose and significance of 

the monument, are highly disturbed by 

mining activity, and are contaminated by 

hazardous substances. The monument is 

particularly interested in acquiring the 

relatively intact acreage on the bench 

northwest of the ruins, which has archeological sites. 

At Montezuma Castle, the existing facilities for visitor services would remain 

much as today. Some natural-surface trails 

with interpretive signs may be sited across 

the creek to provide views to the castle. A 

corridor along Montezuma Castle Road 

would accommodate regional trail activities for horseback riding, hiking, and 

mountain biking. The equipment shed 

(determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places on July 

13, 1994) would be rehabilitated and adaptively reused. 

At Montezuma Well, the existing facilities 

leading to and around the well would remain much as today. The amount of inter-
SUMMARY

vi 

pretation and interaction with resources 

associated with the long history of prehistoric and historic farming in the area 

would increase. The area just south and 

west of the picnic area would include natural surface trails improved on existing 

formal and informal trail routes. An addition to the visitor contact station (shade 

ramada) would be constructed in the 

parking lot near the well. 

At Tuzigoot, the areas east, north, and 

south of the pueblo would provide natural 

surface trails along the marsh and riparian 

area. Through collaboration with partners, these trails may link with trails in 

Dead Horse Ranch State Park and Coconino National Forest. The existing visitor 

facilities would remain much as today. 

There would be increased cultural demonstrations in and around the pueblo. 

Access would be provided via trails to the 

river. Active marsh restoration and management activities would begin at the Tavasci Marsh. A boardwalk would be constructed through the marsh. If assessment 

determines that there would be no conflict 

with preservation of significant cultural 

resources, this would be constructed 

along an existing old road alignment. A 

modest workspace and storage building 

with emergency visitor services would be 

constructed near the residential area. 

The important impacts of implementing 

alternative B would include the following. 

• Active marsh restoration activities at 

Tuzigoot National Monument would 

have a negligible to minor, long-term, 

beneficial effect on wetland habitat 

functions at Tavasci Marsh. 

• Trail development would have negligible to minor, short-term, adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

• The boardwalk at Tavasci Marsh in 

Tuzigoot National Monument would 

have long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts on wildlife species. 

• Marsh restoration and ongoing ditch 

maintenance activities at Tuzigoot National Monument would have longterm, negligible to minor benefits on 

flycatcher foraging habitat and on rail 

habitat. 

• Moderate to major, beneficial effects 

would result from connecting the 

three sites and from the increased diversity in opportunities to view and 

learn about the monuments’ prime 

cultural resources. 

• Providing more trail opportunities and 

cultural programs would make visits 

to each site more exciting, interesting, 

and inviting for repeat visitation. 

• Long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial effects on monument operations 

would result from increased and improved space for monument operations and from improved capability to 

manage visitors and resources. There 

would be long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts due to the addition of facilities 

that would require increased operations and maintenance. 

• Actions at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments would result in minor benefits and would have 

no adverse effect on archeological resources, prehistoric and historic structures and buildings, cultural landscapes, and ethnographic resources of 

the monuments. 

Alternative C 

The main emphasis of this alternative is to 

provide increased opportunities for visitors to self-discover the beauty and wonder of the natural and cultural resources 

of the monuments. Resources would still 

receive the highest level of protection, and 

visitors could interact with and explore a 

wider range of the resources found in the 

monuments. 

Protection of natural resources would be 

reduced compared to alternative B because of the larger development footprint 
Summary 

vii 

in this alternative. More of the monuments’ cultural and natural resources 

would be available for visitors to explore 

via trails. Visitor stays would increase at 

each of the three sites. The National Park 

Service would acquire most of the privately owned lands within the legislated 

boundaries except for the mine tailings at 

Tuzigoot, which would be removed from 

the legislated boundary. The mine tailings 

do not contain resources related to the 

purpose and significance of the monument, are highly disturbed by mining activity, and are contaminated by hazardous 

substances. 

At Montezuma Castle, the existing visitor 

facilities would remain much as today. A 

new headquarters would be located at the 

beginning of the entrance road to the monument. Access over the creek via a new 

bridge and some picnic facilities on the 

south bank of the creek would be provided. In addition, self-guided, designated 

trails would follow the river corridor. To 

provide better views of the river valley, a 

small number of private vehicles would be 

allowed access to the plateau above the 

cliff dwelling. A corridor along Montezuma Castle Road would accommodate regional trail activities for horseback riding, 

hiking, and mountain biking. 

At Montezuma Well, the existing visitor 

facilities would remain much as today. A 

new visitor center is proposed at the entrance of the road to Montezuma Well. 

Designated natural-surface trails would be 

improved along existing disturbed alignments to and along the riparian area of 

Wet Beaver Creek, and a natural-surface, 

designated trail would be located near the 

prehistoric ditch that extends from Montezuma Well and along Wet Beaver Creek. 

A trail would also extend from the visitor 

center to Montezuma Well, following the 

road. The pit house along the entrance 

road would be accessible with a trail. 

At Tuzigoot, most of the monument 

would be zoned to provide naturalsurface trails. If assessment determines 

that there would be no conflict with preservation of significant cultural resources, 

mountain bicycling opportunities may also be provided on old roadbeds in the 

area. The existing visitor facilities would 

remain much as today. The monuments 

would cooperate with the Arizona State 

Parks on the Verde River Greenway Management Plan proposal for a small parking 

area and launch for small boats on stateowned land on the east side of the monument entrance road. 

The important impacts of implementing 

alternative C would include the following. 

• Construction of a new headquarters 

and access and parking on the plateau 

at Montezuma Castle National Monument would have long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on vegetation and soils. 

• At Tuzigoot, the adverse impacts of 

trail development on vegetation and 

soils would be negligible to minor. 

• The long-term, adverse impacts of an 

extended trail and boardwalk at Tuzigoot on wildlife and their habitat 

would be local and negligible to minor. 

• Marsh restoration and ongoing ditch 

maintenance activities at Tuzigoot National Monument would have longterm, negligible to minor benefits on 

flycatcher foraging habitat and on rail 

habitat. 

• Moderate beneficial effects would result from the increased diversity in 

opportunities to view and learn about 

the monuments’ prime cultural resources. 

• Providing more trail opportunities and 

cultural programs would make visits 

to each site more exciting, interesting, 

and inviting for repeat visitation. 

• Long-term, moderate to major, beneficial effects on Montezuma Castle 

National Monument operations 

would result from increased and im-
SUMMARY

viii 

proved space for monument operations, and improved capability to 

manage visitors and resources. There 

would be long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts due the addition of facilities 

that would require increased operations and maintenance. 

• Actions at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments would result in minor benefits and would have 

no adverse effect on archeological resources, prehistoric and historic structures and buildings, cultural landscapes, and ethnographic resources of 

the monuments. 

• A new visitor center at Montezuma 

Well would improve visitor orientation and interpretation services and 

contribute to better visitor understanding and appreciation of the resources of the monuments and the region, and would result in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on visitors. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After the distribution of the general management plan and environmental assessment, there will be a 30-day public review 

and comment period, after which the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments 

from other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, businesses, and individuals regarding the plan. The National Park Service expects that it will then be able to 

prepare a finding of no significant impact 

documenting the NPS selection of an alternative for implementation. After the 

finding has been approved by the regional 

director, the plan can be implemented. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

The approval of this plan does not guarantee that the funding needed to implement 

the plan will be forthcoming. The implementation of the approved plan will depend on future funding, and it could also 

be affected by factors such as changes in 

NPS staffing, visitor use patterns, and unanticipated environmental changes. Full 

implementation could be many years in 

the future. Once the General Management 

Plan has been approved, additional feasibility studies and more detailed planning, 

environmental documentation, and consultations would be completed, as appropriate, before certain actions in the selected alternative can be carried out. 

Future program and implementation 

plans, describing specific actions that 

managers intend to undertake and accomplish in the monument, will tier from 

the desired conditions and long-term 

goals set forth in this general management 

plan. 
ix 

CONTENTS 

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for the Plan

Introduction 3

A Guide to This Document 3

Brief Description of the Monuments 4

Montezuma Castle National Monument 4

Tuzigoot National Monument 6

Purpose of the Plan 10

Need for the Plan 11

Establishment and Administration of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National 

Monuments 11

Montezuma Castle National Monument 11

Tuzigoot National Monument 15

Guidance for the Planning Effort 17

Mission Statement 17

Purpose and Significance 17

Purpose 17

Significance 17

Fundamental Resources and Values 18

Cultural Connectivity 18

Structures and Related Resources and Values 19

Natural Features 19

Other Important Resources and Values 19

Objectives 20

Cultural and Natural Resources 20

Visitor Use and Experience 20

Monument Operations 20

Partnerships 20

Primary Interpretive Themes 20

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 21

Servicewide Mandates and Policies 21

Guiding Management Principles and Strategies 22

Manage and Protect Cultural Resources 22

Manage and Protect Natural Resources 24

External Influences - Private and Public Partners, Owners of Adjacent Land, 

and Government Agencies 28

Ensure Sustainability by Employing User (Carrying) Capacity 28

Provide Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 29

Implementing the Approved Plan 30

Relationship to Other Planning Efforts 31

Plans of Federal Agencies 31

U.S. Forest Service Plans 31

Park Museum Collection Storage Plan 31
CONTENTS

CONTENTS (Continued) 

x 

State of Arizona Plans 31

Plans by Others 31

Verde River Greenway Management Plan 31

Sinaguan Circle Tour 32

Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc. Mine Tailings Project 32

Yavapai-Apache Nation Native American Visitor Center 32

Montezuma Castle Highway Regional Multi-Use Trail 32

Soda Springs Ranch Development 32

Expansion of the Yavapai- Apache Casino Resort 32

Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan 32

Planning Issues and Opportunities 33

Issues and Opportunities 33

Issues not Addressed in the General Management Plan 35

Vanishing Treasures 35

Fire Management 35

Impact Topics: Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 36

Impact Topics to Be Considered 36

Cultural Resources 36

Natural Resources 36

Visitor Use and Experience 37

Socioeconomics 37

Monument Operations 37

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 37

Cultural Resources 37

Natural Resources 38

Transportation 39

Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Concerns 39

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 39

Indian Trust Resources 39

Natural Sounds 40

Lightscape Management 40

Environmental Justice 41

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative 

Introduction 45

Management Zones and Alternatives 45

Formulation of the Alternatives 46

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 46

Management Zones 47

Alternative A: No-Action Alternative 51

Concept and General Management Strategies 51

Boundary Adjustments, Land Purchases, and Easements 52

Alternative B (Preferred) 56

Concept and General Management Strategies 56

Conditions and Actions Common to All Three Sites 56
Contents 

CONTENTS (Continued) 

xi 

Management Zones and Related Actions at Each Site 57

Montezuma Castle 57

Montezuma Well 58

Tuzigoot 58

Boundary Adjustments, Land Purchases, and Easements 59

Alternative C 64

Concept and General Management Strategies 64

Conditions and Actions Common to All Three Sites 64

Management Zones and Related Actions at Each Site 65

Montezuma Castle 65

Montezuma Well 66

Tuzigoot 66

Boundary Adjustments, Land Purchases, and Easements 67

Cost Estimates 71

Development of Cost Estimates 71

Initial One-Time Costs 71

NPS Facilities Model 71

Summary of Comparative Costs 71

User Capacity 73

Park Operations Zone 73

Interpretive Historic Zone 73

Interaction and Discovery Zone 74

Resources and Research Zone 75

Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives 76

Cultural Resources 76

Natural Resources 77

Air Quality 77

Nonnative and Exotic Species 77

Natural Sounds 78

Soils 78

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 78

Vegetation 78

Water Resources 79

Wildlife 79

Wetlands 79

Visitor Safety and Experiences 79

Hazardous Materials 80

Scenic Resources 80

Socioeconomics 80

Sustainable Design and Aesthetics 80

Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 81

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 82

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Evaluation 84

Montezuma Castle 84

Castle Site 84

Well Site 84

Tuzigoot 84

Summaries 85
CONTENTS

CONTENTS (Continued) 

xii 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

Introduction 103

Cultural Resources 104

Overview of Verde Valley Cultural History 105

Introduction 105

Prehistoric Period 105

Historic Period (about AD 1500 to Present) 106

Cultural Resources in the National Monuments 107

Archeological Resources 107

Montezuma Castle National Monument 108

Tuzigoot National Monument 109

Ethnographic Resources 111

Cultural Affiliation Study 111

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Inventory 

Information 112

Prehistoric and Historic Structures and Buildings 113

List of Classified Structures 113

Cultural Landscapes 114

Montezuma Castle National Monument 115

Tuzigoot National Monument 115

Properties Listed in the National Register of Historic Places 115

Montezuma Castle National Monument 115

Tuzigoot National Monument 117

Properties Determined Eligible for Listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places 118

Other Structures of Potential Historic Significance 118

Montezuma Castle Visitor Center 118

Back Cabin and Smokehouse 118

Natural Resources 119

Floodplains 119

Wetlands 120

Soils and Vegetation 120

Montezuma Castle National Monument 120

Tuzigoot National Monument 121

Wildlife 122

Threatened and Endangered Species 122

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 123

Yuma Clapper Rail 124

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 124

Visitor Use and Experience 126

Visitor Use Characteristics for All Three Sites 126

Visitor Safety at All Three Sites 131

Montezuma Castle National Monument 131

Visitor Experience and Recreational Opportunities 131

Orientation, Information, and Interpretation 134

Access for Disabled Visitors 134
Contents 

CONTENTS (Continued) 

xiii 

Montezuma Well 134

Visitor Experience and Recreational Opportunities 134

Orientation, Information, and Interpretation 135

Access for Disabled Visitors 136

Tuzigoot National Monument 136

Visitor Experience and Recreational Opportunities 136

Orientation, Information, and Interpretation 137

Access for Disabled Visitors 138

Regional Recreational Opportunities 138

Monument Operations 141

Socioeconomics 144

Regional Economy 145

Employment 146

Labor Force Participation 147

Unemployment 147

Personal Income 147

Commuting 149

Poverty 149

Population and Demographics 149

Population 149

Age and Average Household Size 149

Race and Hispanic Origin 149

Migration 150

Projected Long-term Population Growth 150

Housing 150

Adjacent Land Use 151

Economic Contributions of the National Monuments to the Local Economy 151

Visitor Spending 151

Monument Operations 153

Total Economic Contributions 155

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Introduction 159

Cumulative Impact Analysis 159

Impairment of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments Resources 

160

Unacceptable Impacts 160

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 162

Cultural Resources 162

Cultural Resources Listed, or Eligible to Be Listed, in the National Register of 

Historic Places 162

Ethnographic Resources 163

Natural Resources 164

Floodplains 164

Soils 165

Vegetation 165

Wetlands 165

Wildlife 166

Threatened and Endangered Species and Special Status Species 166
CONTENTS

CONTENTS (Continued) 

xiv 

Visitor Use and Experience 167

Monument Operations 168

Socioeconomics 169

Impacts of Implementing Alternative A (No-Action) 170

Cultural Resources 170

Archeological Resources 170

Prehistoric and Historic Structures and Buildings 173

Cultural Landscapes 176

Ethnographic Resources and Traditional Cultural Properties 180

Natural Resources 182

Floodplains 182

Soils and Vegetation 183

Wetlands 184

Wildlife 185

Threatened and Endangered Species 186

Visitor Use and Experience 188

Visitor Experiences of Monument Resources 188

Access to Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 189

Visitor Safety 190

Cumulative Effects 190

Conclusion 191

Monument Operations 191

Montezuma Castle National Monument 191

Tuzigoot National Monument 191

All Sites 191

Cumulative Effects 192

Conclusion 192

Socioeconomics 193

Cumulative Effects 194

Conclusion 194

Impairment Conclusion For Alternative A 194

Impacts of Implementing Alternative B (Preferred) 196

Cultural Resources 196

Archeological Resources 196

Prehistoric and Historic Structures and Buildings 197

Cultural Landscapes 197

Ethnographic Resources and Traditional Cultural Properties 198

Natural Resources 199

Floodplains 199

Soils and Vegetation 201

Wetlands 204

Wildlife 205

Threatened and Endangered Species 207

Visitor Use and Experience 210

Visitor Experiences of Monument Resources 210

Access to Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 212

Visitor Safety 212

Cumulative Effects 212

Conclusion 213
Contents 

CONTENTS (Continued) 

xv 

Monument Operations 214

Montezuma Well 214

Tuzigoot National Monument 214

All Sites 214

Cumulative Effects 215

Conclusion 215

Socioeconomics 215

All Sites 215

Montezuma Castle National Monument 215

Montezuma Well 216

Tuzigoot National Monument 216

Cumulative Effects 216

Conclusion 216

Impairment Conclusion For Alternative B 216

Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 217

Cultural Resources 217

Archeological Resources 217

Prehistoric and Historic Structures and Buildings 218

Cultural Landscapes 218

Ethnographic Resources and Traditional Cultural Properties 219

Natural Resources 220

Floodplains 220

Soils and Vegetation 222

Wetlands 227

Wildlife 228

Threatened and Endangered Species 229

Visitor Use and Experience 232

Visitor Experiences of Monument Resources 232

Access to Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 233

Visitor Safety 234

Cumulative Effects 234

Conclusion 235

Monument Operations 235

Montezuma Castle National Monument 235

Montezuma Well 236

Tuzigoot National Monument 236

All Sites 236

Cumulative Effects 237

Conclusion 237

Socioeconomics 237

Montezuma Castle National Monument 237

Montezuma Well 238

Tuzigoot National Monument 238

All Sites 238

Cumulative Effects 238

Conclusion 239

Impairment Conclusion For Alternative C 239
CONTENTS

CONTENTS (Continued) 

xvi 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

History of Public Involvement 243

Public and Agency Development 243

Public Meetings and Newsletters 243

Section 7 Consultation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 244

Arizona State Agency Consultation 244

Section 106 Consultation (Arizona State Historic Preservation Office) 244

Consultation with Native Americans 245

County and Local Government Consultation 246

List of Preparers 247

Core Planning Team 247

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments 247

Denver Service Center 247

Consultants 248

Parsons 248

National Park Service, Southern Arizona Office 248

Western Archeological and Conservation Center 248

Western National Parks Association 248

e2M (Engineering Environmental Management) 248

List of Recipients 249

Federal Agencies 249

U.S. Senators and Representatives 249

State Agencies 249

State Officials 249

Native American Tribes Traditionally Associated with the National Monuments 249

Local and Regional Government Agencies 249

Organizations and Businesses 250

References 

Bibliography 253

Index 257

Appendix A: Legal Mandates 261

Enabling Legislation 261

Antiquities Act of 1906 and Presidential Proclamation 696, December 8, 1906, 

Establishing Montezuma Castle National Monument 261

Presidential Proclamation 2344, July 25, 1939, Establishing Tuzigoot National 

Monument 266

Laws and Policies Guiding Management of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National 

Monuments 269

Fish and Wildlife 270

Threatened and Endangered Species 270

Wetlands 271

Water Resources 271

Cultural Resources 272

Coastal Zone and Floodplains 273

Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 275

Appendix C: Threatened and Endangered Species 301
Contents 

CONTENTS (Continued) 

xvii 

MAPS 

Vicinity – Arizona 5

Montezuma Castle Site – Parcel Map 7

Montezuma Well Site – Parcel Map 8

Tuzigoot National Monument – Parcel Map 9

Alternative A – No Action, Montezuma Castle National Monument, Castle Site 53

Alternative A – No Action, Montezuma Castle National Monument, Well Site 54

Alternative A – No Action, Tuzigoot National Monument 55

Alternative B – Castle Site, Montezuma Castle National Monument 61

Alternative B – Well Site, Montezuma Castle National Monument 62

Alternative B – Tuzigoot National Monument 63

Alternative C – Castle Site, Montezuma Castle National Monument 68

Alternative C – Well Site, Montezuma Castle National Monument 69

Alternative C – Tuzigoot National Monument 70

FIGURES 

1: Montezuma Castle National Monument Annual Visitation, 1940-2007 127

2: Montezuma Well Annual Visitation, 1992-2007 127

3: Tuzigoot National Monument Annual Visitation, 1940-2007 128

4: Visitation by Month at Montezuma Castle National Monument, 2002-2007 129

5: Visitation by Month at Montezuma Well, 2002-2007 129

6: Visitation by Month at Tuzigoot National Monument, 2002-2007 130

7: Percentages of Visitors Seeing One or More Sites 132

8: Top Five States of Residence for Visitors 132

9: Full-Time and Part-Time Employment, Yavapai County, 2002 147

10: Population Forecasts to 2030, Coconino and Yavapai Counties 150
CONTENTS

CONTENTS (Continued) 

xviii 

TABLES 

1: Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments 

Management Zones 48

2: Cost Summary for Each Alternative 72

3: Environmentally Preferred Alternative Analysis 83

4: Summary of the Alternatives 86

5: How the Alternatives Meet the Objectives 90

6: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives 93

7: Endangered, Candidate, and Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur at 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments 124

8: Regional Parks, Monuments, and Recreational Areas 140

9: Full-Time Equivalent Employees for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National 

Monuments 142

10: Number of Establishments, by Industrial Sector and Community, 2003 146

11: Average Annual Unemployment Rates 147

12: Personal Income among Verde Valley Households, 1999 148

13: Annual Visitor Spending in the Verde Valley by Visitors to Montezuma Castle and 

Tuzigoot National Monuments 152

14: Direct Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending in the Verde Valley, 2003 154

15: Direct Economic Impacts in the Verde Valley of the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot 

National Monuments Operations, Fiscal Year 2004 154

16: Total Economic Impacts In the Verde Valley of the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot 

National Monuments, 2003 154

 
CHAPTER 1:

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

3 

INTRODUCTION 

This General Management Plan and Environmental Assessment presents and analyzes alternative future directions for the 

management and use of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

The two monuments, approximately 20 

miles apart, are managed together. Within 

this plan, alternative B is preferred by the 

National Park Service (NPS). The potential environmental impacts of the alternatives have been identified and assessed. 

General management plans establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and 

framework for long-term (15 to 20 years) 

decision-making and problem solving in 

units of the national park system. 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation 

plans are intended to be accomplished 

over time. Budget restrictions, requirements for additional data or regulatory 

compliance, and competing NPS priorities 

prevent immediate implementation of 

many actions. Major or particularly costly 

actions could be implemented 10 or more 

years into the future. The approval of this 

plan does not guarantee that the funding 

for proposed actions will be forthcoming. 

The implementation of the approved plan, 

no matter which alternative is selected, 

will depend on future NPS funding levels 

and servicewide priorities. 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This document contains the general management plan and an environmental assessment that discloses the impacts associated with each of the alternatives. It conforms with: 

• The Council on Environmental Quality’s (1978) implementing regulations 

for the National Environmental Policy 

Act; 

• NPS planning guidelines in chapter 2 

of Management Policies 2006 (NPS 

2006); 

• Director’s Order 12 on conservation 

planning, environmental impact analysis, and decision-making (NPS 2001); 

• Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 United States 

Code 470 et seq.); 

• Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations,

section 800, Protection of Historic 

Properties; and 

• Cultural resource management guidelines in chapter 5 of Management Policies 2006 and Director's Order 28 and 

its associated guidelines. 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need sets the 

framework for the entire document. It describes why the plan is being prepared and 

what needs it must address. It gives guidance for the alternatives that are being 

considered, which are based on the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments’ legislated missions, their purposes, the significance of their resources, 

special mandates and administrative 

commitments, and servicewide mandates 

and policies. 

This chapter also details the planning opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts that served as the 

basis for developing the alternatives presented in chapter 2. It presents the fundamental resources and values that guide 

planning and decision making, the guiding 

management principles that shape the 

monuments’ management, and the relationship to other plans that could affect 

implementation of this general management plan. This chapter concludes with 

the scope of the environmental impact 

analysis, including the identification of the 

impact topics that were analyzed in detail. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the 

Preferred Alternative, begins by describing the management prescriptions that will 

be used to manage Montezuma Castle and 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

4 

Tuzigoot national monuments in the future. Alternative A describes the continuation of current management and trends in 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments. Alternative B (preferred) and 

alternative C, collectively called the action 

alternatives, provide other approaches for 

managing the monuments. 

Mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate the impacts of some proposed actions 

are described. A discussion is also provided of the alternatives considered by the 

National Park Service and dismissed from 

further analysis. The chapter concludes 

with summary tables of the three alternative actions and the environmental consequences of implementing those alternative 

actions. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment describes the areas and resources that would 

be affected by implementing actions under 

the alternatives. These include cultural 

resources, natural resources, visitor use 

and experience, and socioeconomics. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences analyzes the impacts of implementing the alternatives on the impact 

topics that were identified in chapter 1. 

Methods used for assessing the impacts in 

terms of the intensity, type, and duration 

of impacts are outlined at the beginning of 

the chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination describes the history of public and 

agency coordination during the planning 

effort and lists agencies and organizations 

that will receive copies of this document. 

The references at the end include the bibliography, index, and appendixes with 

supporting information for the document. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION 

OF THE MONUMENTS 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

(including Montezuma Well) and 

Tuzigoot National Monument are NPS 

units in central Arizona. The monuments 

are within a 30-minute drive of each other 

and are managed collectively under a 

single administrative organization. The 

Vicinity - Arizona map shows the 

locations of these NPS units. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

Montezuma Castle National Monument is 

approximately 3 miles east of I-17 exit 289. 

The National Monument has a visitor center, a bookstore, and a museum that include exhibits and artifacts depicting the 

lifestyle, history, and culture of the Sinaguan Indians, who built Montezuma Castle. The Castle itself is not open to the 

public, but a trail below the Castle offers 

many panoramic viewpoints. The monument also contains restrooms, a picnic 

area, and a parking facility for cars and 

recreational vehicles. Several administrative buildings housing ranger operations 

are south of the parking facility. Montezuma Well, about 4 miles east of I-17 exit 

293, contains a picnic area, restrooms, hiking trails, a visitor contact station, bulletin 

boards displaying visitor information, a 

small parking area, and several administrative buildings east of the Back ranch area. 
Montezuma Castle 

National Monument

Montezuma Well

Tuzigoot National Monument

Jerome

17

17 9

26 0

Grand Canyon

National Park

Wupatki 

National Monument

Walnut Canyon 

National Monument

Sunset Crater Volcano

National Monument

Tonto National Monument

Tonto National Forest

Coconino National Forest

Kaibab National Forest

Apache-Sitgreaves National Fores

Kaibab 

National Forest

Prescott 

National Forest

Prescott 

National Forest

Phoenix

Mesa

Scottsdale Glendale

Peoria

Flagstaff

Surprise

New River

Prescott

Goodyear

Kingman

Payson

Avondale

Winslow

Fountain Hills

Paulden

Camp Verde

Holbroo

Chino Valley

Cornville

Sedona

Cottonwood

Clarkdale

Peach Springs

aS tl R.

Verde R.

Havasu Cr.

Colorado R.

L ake Mead

40

17

10

60

180

89

93

160

93

60

89

180

89

288

87

188

101

88

264

96

377

72

64

101

260

87

0 20 40 10 Miles

Vicinity - Arizona

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monument

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC - 309 - 20027 - May 2009

Interstate

US and St

State and 

Background data source: ESRI StreetMap North America
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

6 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

was established in 1906 by Presidential 

proclamation under the authority of the 

Antiquities Act. This proclamation and 

other legal mandates relating to the 

monuments are provided in appendix A. 

The monument preserves a prehistoric 

structure known as Montezuma Castle, 

which is a 20-room, five-story cliff 

dwelling of the prehistoric Sinagua 

culture. It is one of the best-preserved cliff 

dwellings in America. The legislation 

states it “is of the greatest ethnological 

value and scientific interest” (Presidential 

Proclamation No. 696, December 8, 1906, 

34 Stat. 3265). Subsequent boundary 

changes are as follows: 

• In February 1937, 360 acres of land 

adjacent to the monument were added, with a subsequent addition of 90 

acres, as “required for the proper care, 

management, and protection of the 

said prehistoric ruins and ancient cliff 

dwellings” (Presidential Proclamation 

No. 2226, February 23, 1937, 50 Stat. 

1817). 

• In 1959, the boundaries were again 

enlarged by 42 acres “in order to facilitate the administration and protection” of the monument by an Act of 

Congress (June 23, 1959, 73 Stat. 108). 

• Another boundary change came in 

1978 with an Act of Congress to incorporate the adjacent fossil mammal 

tracks and exclude an area used as 

right-of-way for the freeway (Public 

Law 95-625, November 10, 1978, 92 

Stat. 3473). 

• The boundary was adjusted in December 19, 2003 to further protect the 

riparian areas of Beaver Creek (Public 

Law 108-190), increasing the monument area by 157 acres. 

Montezuma Well was added in 1943 as a 

260-acre detached unit of Montezuma 

Castle National Monument through an 

Act of Congress (October 19, 1943, 57 

Stat. 572). It preserves an unusual example 

of a spring-fed, large, limestone sink, plus 

ruins and sites of prehistoric Hohokam 

and Sinagua periods and historic Apache 

sites. In 1959, 17 acres were authorized by 

an Act of Congress (June 23, 1959, 73 Stat. 

108) “to facilitate the administration and 

protection” of the monument. This land 

has not been acquired and remains in 

private ownership. 

Today, Montezuma Castle National 

Monument contains 1,004 acres within its 

boundary. This includes the 727-acre 

Castle site and the 277-acre Well site. 

Land ownership and key features within 

these sites are shown in the following 

maps: 

• Montezuma Castle Site – Parcel Map; 

and 

• Montezuma Well Site – Parcel Map. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

Tuzigoot National Monument is approximately 20 miles northwest of I-17 exit 287 

(Arizona Highway 260), near the town of 

Clarkdale, Arizona. Tuzigoot contains a 

visitor center and museum with a collection of Sinaguan artifacts, a nature trail, 

restrooms, an administrative building, and 

a parking facility. 

Tuzigoot National Monument was 

established by Presidential proclamation 

No. 2344 on July 25, 1939. This 

proclamation and other legal mandates 

relating to the monuments are provided in 

appendix A. 
Tract Register

Montezuma Castle Site - Parcel Map

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC - 309 - 20022 - May 2009

Tract Boundary: National Park Service, Land Resources Division (10/3/2007)

Data Sources:

Coconino 

National 

Forest

Coconino 

National Forest

Coconino 

National Forest

Visitor Center

01-108

01-113

01-107

01-110

01-109

01-102

01-111

01-101

17

Montezuma Castle

8

9

17

16

0 0.125 0.25

Miles

Interstate Tract Boundary

State & County Hwy

Local or Rural Road

Section Boundary

Quarter-quarter Section Boundary

Federal

Private

Authorized/Legislated Boundary

Montezuma Castle National Monument

Tract Owner Date Status NPS Interest Held Acreage

01-101 National Park Service July 1973 Federal Fee Simple 2.17

01-102 National Park Service August 1973 Federal Fee Simple 40

01-107 National Park Service February 1937 Federal Fee Simple 360

01-108 National Park Service December 1906 Federal Fee Simple 161.41

01-109 National Park Service February 1937 Federal Fee Simple 90

01-110 National Park Service April 1940 Federal Fee Simple 114.15

01-111 National Park Service July 1979 Federal Fee Simple 14.84

01-113 National Park Service December 2007 Federal Fee Simple 157
Tract Register

Montezuma Well Site - Parcel Map

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC - 309 - 20023 - May 2009

Tract Boundary: National Park Service, Land Resources Division (10/3/2007)

Data Sources:

01-105

01-104

01-103

31

36

0 0.125 0.25

Miles

Interstate Tract Boundary

State & County Hwy

Local or Rural Road

Section Boundary

Quarter-quarter Section Boundary

Federal

Private

Authorized/Legislated Boundary

Tract Owner Date Status NPS Interest Held Acreage

01-103 Private Ownership Private Not Aquired 16.83

01-104 National Park Service April 1947 Federal Fee Simple 77.74

01-105 National Park Service April 1947 Federal Fee Simple 183.6 T15 N; R5E T15 N; R6E

Well

Montezuma Castle National Monument
Coconino

National 

Forest

Pecks Lake

Clarkdale

Visitor Center

01-104

01-108

01-104

01-101

01-105

01-102

01-107

01-103

01-106

Broadway

21 22

16 15

20

17

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

State & County Highway

Local or Rural Road

Quarter- quarter Section Boundary

Section Boundary

Federal, Fee

Federal, Less Than FeeRight of Way

Private

Authorized/Legislated

Park Boundary

T14N; R3E

Tract Register

Tuzigoot National Monument - Parcel Map

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC - 309 - 20024 - May 2009

Tract Boundary: National Park Service, Land Resources Division (10/3/2007)

Data Sources:

Tract Owner Date Status NPS Interest Held Acreage

01-101 National Park Service May 1939 Federal Fee Simple (Quite Claim from School 

District No. 39, Yavapai County) 42.67

01-102 National Park Service December 1965 Federal Right-of-Way 9.35

01-103 National Park Service January 1966 Federal Right-of-Way 5.76

01-104 Phelps Dodge Corporation Private Not Aquired 383.43

01-105 State Park Board State Not Aquired 35.08

01-106 State Park Board State Not Aquired 3.92

01-107 State Park Board State Not Aquired 7.93

01-108 National Park Service 2006 Federal Fee Simple (Donation from Phelps Dodge 

Corporation) 323.75
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

10 

The establishing Presidential 

proclamation states that “certain 

Government-owned lands [43 acres] in 

the state of Arizona have situated thereon 

historic and prehistoric structures and 

other objects of historic or scientific 

interest, and ... it would be in the public 

interest to reserve such lands as a national 

monument to be known as Tuzigoot 

National Monument.” The Tuzigoot 

National Monument – Parcel Map shows 

land ownership and key features. 

A 15-acre donation easement was added 

to Tuzigoot National Monument in 

December 1965 for the entrance road. The 

Approach Roads Act of January 31, 1931, 

was the vesting power for this addition. 

Public Law 95-625 (November 1978) 

expanded the boundary of Tuzigoot 

National Monument by approximately 

791 acres. The legislation established an 

acquisition ceiling of $1,350,000 and 

authorized the acquisition of lands within 

the boundary through purchase, donation, 

or exchange of other lands administered 

by the Secretary of the Interior in Arizona. 

In December 2005, 324 acres within the 

expanded boundary were acquired 

through a land exchange with Phelps 

Dodge Corporation (now Freeport 

McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc.) as mitigation for a mining project. The exchange proposal was made by Phelps 

Dodge in 1994 and finalized in 2005 when 

the Bureau of Land Management completed the National Environmental Policy 

Act process on the mining project. This 

exchange results in the National Park Service controlling approximately 382 acres 

of the 791 acres that are within the authorized boundary of the monument. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The approved general management plan 

will be the basic document for managing 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments for the next 15 to 20 years. 

The purposes of this general management 

plan are as follows: 

• Set forth the basic management philosophy or vision for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

and provide strategies for achieving 

identified management objectives 

(“desired future conditions”). 

• Clearly define resource conditions 

and visitor use and experience to be 

achieved in the monuments. 

• Identify the kinds of resource protection, management, use, and development that will be appropriate in 

achieving and maintaining those conditions. 

• Identify future partnerships and collaborative planning efforts that would 

facilitate the realization of the monuments’ goals. 

• Investigate the potential for boundary 

modifications, establishing the foundation for a subsequent boundary adjustment study. 

• Provide a framework for the monuments’ managers to use when making 

decisions to protect Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments’ 

resources, provide quality visitor use 

and experience, manage visitor use, 

and determine the kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop in and near the monuments. 

• Ensure that the basic foundation for 

decision-making has been developed 

in consultation with interested stakeholders and adopted by the NPS leadership after an adequate analysis of 

the benefits, impacts, and economic 

costs of alternative courses of action. 

Laws that established the National Park 

Service as an agency and that govern its 

management provide the fundamental direction for the administration of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments (and other units and programs of 

the National Park Service). This general 

management plan builds on these laws and 

on the legislation that established Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national mo-
Introduction 

11 

numents to provide a vision for the monuments’ future. The “Guidance for the 

Planning Effort” provided later in this 

chapter presents the topics that are important to understanding the management 

direction at the monuments. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

A general management plan is needed to 

meet the requirements of the National 

Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 and NPS 

policy, which mandate development of a 

general management plan for each unit in 

the national park system. 

This general management plan for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments is needed because the last comprehensive planning effort for these national monuments was completed in 1975. 

Since this time, the population of the 

Verde Valley has increased substantially 

and continues to grow. This growth has 

resulted in changes in land use near the 

monuments. Visitation to the monuments 

also has increased over the past 30 years, 

although some declines have occurred 

within the past decade. Each of these 

changes has major implications for visitor 

expectations, how visitors access and use 

the monuments, facilities needed to support visitor uses, how resources are managed and protected, and how the National Park Service conducts its operations. 

This general management plan represents 

a commitment by the National Park Service to the public on how the monuments 

will be used and managed. As such, it is 

intended to confirm the mission, purpose, 

and significance of Montezuma Castle and 

Tuzigoot national monuments. 

The general management planning 

process is used to determine the best mix 

of resource protection and visitor use 

beyond what is prescribed by law and policy. This mix is based on the purpose for 

and significance of the monuments, the 

range of public expectations and concerns, and the natural and cultural resources in the monuments. The process 

also considers the impacts of the alternatives on the natural, cultural, and socioeconomic conditions; on visitor use and 

experience; and on long-term economics 

and costs. 

The plan defines desired conditions that 

implement the goals of the National Park 

Service and the public with regard to natural and cultural resource management and 

protection and visitor use and experience. 

It also defines facilities that are appropriate within each management prescription. 

In the alternatives, the plan will determine 

the areas to which resource protection 

and desired visitor use conditions should 

be applied to achieve the management 

goals of the monuments. It also serves as 

the basis for later, more detailed implementation plans, which will tier from the 

general management plan. 

ESTABLISHMENT AND 

ADMINISTRATION OF 

MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND 

TUZIGOOT NATIONAL 

MONUMENTS 

Increasing Euro-American use of the 

Verde Valley led to disturbance or destruction of many archeological resources 

during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Early settlers often robbed ruins for 

stone, built over ruins, and reused prehistoric canals. The first building constructed 

in the original farming community in the 

valley was constructed in a Sinagua ruin. 

Later, ranchers, tourists, and others obtained relics and artifacts for private collections from the ruins and burial sites. 

Montezuma Castle 

National Monument 

The name of Montezuma Castle came 

from early settlers who marveled at the 

structure and mistakenly thought that it 

was Aztec in origin. During the late 19th 

century, investigators explored and studied Montezuma Castle. Their published 

findings drew increasing public attention 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

12 

to the ruins. In 1875, William C. Manning 

published an article in Harper’s New 

Monthly Magazine that described Montezuma Castle, though not by name. Ladders 

leading to the ruins were already in place, 

and Manning noted 10 to 12 inches of “bat 

lime” on room floors from which he and 

his companions removed pot sherds. 

From 1884 to 1886, Dr. Edgar A. Mearns, 

an army surgeon stationed at Fort Verde, 

was the first Euro-American to conduct 

serious study of the ruins. He collected 

artifacts at the site and apparently placed 

some objects in the collections of the 

American Museum of Natural History in 

New York. In an 1890 article in The Popular Science Monthly, Mearns published a 

description of the Castle, including 

ground plans and descriptions of some 

rooms and features. 

In 1897, the Arizona Antiquarian Association raised $150 from private sources to 

undertake the first repair and stabilization 

of some of the ruins’ walls under the leadership of Dr. Joshua Miller of Prescott, 

the association’s first president. Although 

no settlers occupied the land, many 

people visited the Castle during the late 

1890s and early 1900s, and traffic through 

the ruins left its mark. 

In 1888, William B. Back moved with his 

family on to what would later become 

known as the Montezuma Well property, 

irrigating crops by using the lime-coated 

prehistoric ditches built by the Sinagua. 

Back built structures on the property, including the family home, a log smokehouse, and a blacksmith shop and a pig 

pen in an alcove. Back’s homestead entry 

was patented on July 18, 1907, and by 1910 

he was operating Montezuma Well as a 

tourist attraction. After Back died in 1929, 

William Back Jr. moved to the Montezuma 

Well property with his wife, and constructed a stone museum to house the 

numerous artifacts that the family had 

taken from ruins surrounding Montezuma 

Well. 

Establishment and Boundary Changes.

By Presidential Proclamation 696 [34 Stat. 

3265], President Theodore Roosevelt established Montezuma Castle as a national 

monument on December 8, 1906, as authorized under the Antiquities Act of June 

8, 1906. The proclamation stated that the 

Castle, one of the best-preserved prehistoric cliff dwellings in the United States, 

was “of the greatest ethnological value and 

scientific interest.” 

On February 23, 1937, Presidential Proclamation 2226 (50 Stat. 1817) added 360 

acres of government land to the original 

160-acre national monument as “required 

for the proper care, management, and 

protection of the said prehistoric ruins 

and ancient cliff dwellings.” 

An Act of Congress (57 Stat. 572) on October 19, 1943, authorized purchase of the 

180-acre Well site, 4.5 miles northeast of 

the Castle along the banks of Wet Beaver 

Creek (a tributary to Beaver Creek). The 

purpose of this action was to preserve an 

unusual example of a spring-fed, large, 

natural limestone sink as well as ruins and 

sites associated with the Hohokam and 

Sinagua cultures and historic Apache sites. 

The legislation established Montezuma 

Well as a detached unit of the Montezuma 

Castle National Monument and included 

the transfer of 77.74 additional acres from 

Coconino National Forest to the monument to facilitate administration of the 

Montezuma Well site. However, funds for 

the purchase of the Montezuma Well 

property were not appropriated until passage of the Interior Appropriation Bill for 

Fiscal Year 1947. On March 3, 1947, the 

property passed into federal ownership. 

On June 23, 1959 (73 Stat. 108), 17 acres 

were added to the Montezuma Well site 

and 42 acres were added to the Castle site 

to “facilitate the administration and protection” of the monument. 

A land exchange between Coconino National Forest and the National Park Service on November 10, 1978 (Public Law 

95-625; 92 Stat. 3473), resulted in a net 
Introduction 

13 

increase of approximately 18 acres of land 

to the national monument. This included 

about 13 acres that contained the fossilized footprints of Pliocene mammals, including mammoth, three-toed tapir, cat, 

and camel. Approximately 5 acres were 

deleted for use as a right-of-way for Interstate Highway 17. 

On December 19, 2003, Public Law 108-

190 expanded the national monument’s 

boundaries by adding 157 acres of adjacent land to protect important riparian 

values along Beaver Creek and to preserve 

the scenic backdrop for the national monument. 

National Park Service Administration.

In its early years, the monument was subject to inconsistent supervision, inadequate management, unanswered requests 

for better funding, and continued damage 

to the its prehistoric ruins. However, during this time, some improvements were 

made by Martin L. Jackson, a local settler 

who resided on his family’s homestead 

several miles from the Castle. Jackson 

contracted with the National Park Service 

to construct a lower trail, which led from 

the campground at the base of the Castle 

to the Castle itself; an upper trail, connecting the top of the cliff and the Castle; and a 

drainage ditch on the cliff above the Castle. In addition, Jackson improved the two 

rough roads that provided access to the 

monument from the nearby highway. 

In 1921, Jackson was appointed by the National Park Service as the national monument’s first part-time custodian. Frank 

Pinkley, who would serve as superintendent of the southwestern national monuments from 1923 to 1939, agreed to oversee Jackson’s supervision of the site, including semiannual trips to the national 

monument to assist with larger ruins repair and stabilization projects. 

During 1923 to 1925, the two men, along 

with a hired crew, repaired and replastered the front wall of the lower twothirds of the Castle, strengthened the “addition” section, stabilized parts of the cliff 

ledges, repaired damaged wall and floor 

sections throughout the structure, restored doorways and lintels, rebuilt portions of the roof, and cleaned out the interiors of the front room. They also removed the disfiguring corrugated iron 

roof installed by the Arizona Antiquarian 

Association in 1897, and scrubbed off 

hundreds of names written on the Castle’s 

walls. 

During 1926 to 1927, Martin Jackson and 

his son Earl (who would be hired as a seasonal ranger in 1928 and later was the first 

full-time employee of Montezuma Castle 

National Monument) constructed the first 

ranger cabin and dug the first well at the 

national monument. The Jacksons also 

built a new campground and picnic area 

and set up a display in the cabin for artifacts recovered during their annual cleaning and repair projects of the ruins. In 

September 1928, Martin Jackson became 

the full-time custodian of the monument, 

and he continued in that position until 

1937. The Jacksons built a new structure, 

and fashioned the east end of the building 

below their residence into a concession 

shop. Beginning in the 1930s, the National 

Park Service began hiring seasonal rangers 

to help with the growing numbers of 

summer visitors to the national monument. 

Earl Jackson received graduate training at 

the University of Arizona and later become an NPS archeologist and replaced 

his father as full-time custodian of the national monument. From 1937 to 1943, Earl 

Jackson conducted an archeological survey of the middle Verde River drainage 

area for his master’s thesis. In 1933 and 

1934, Earl, along with Sallie Pierce Van 

Valkenburgh, excavated Castle A in the 

national monument using Civil Works 

Administration funding. Recovered remains included intact vessels, pottery 

sherds, stone tools, textiles, and grinding 

slabs. Food remains included corncobs 

and husks, plant stems, seeds, beans, and 

deer and antelope bones. Artifacts of 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

14 

wood, bone, horn, leather, shell, and turquoise were found, as were 28 burials. 

Using funds and labor provided by New 

Deal public works agencies, the National 

Park Service implemented major improvements at Montezuma Castle during 

the Great Depression, transforming it into 

a “first-rate monument.” New facilities 

were constructed to accommodate the 

ever-increasing number of visitors, a variety of interpretive and educational programs were developed, and preservation 

activities, including expanded ruins stabilization and repair projects, ensured protection of the monument’s cultural resources. Projects at the national monument during 1933 and 1934 included: 

• A new parking lot that left clear the 

“sacred area” in front of the Castle. 

• A rubble revetment to protect the enlarged picnic grounds and Sycamore 

Trail from frequent Beaver Creek 

flooding. 

• A cleared space for a new 

campground. 

• Reconstruction and repair of the entrance road. 

• A flagstone trail connecting a light 

plant engine and a 2000-watt generator to the museum and ranger’s residence. 

• A rustic stone garage and shed for storage of a government car and monument supplies. 

• A septic tank and sewer line. 

• An interpretive trail passing in front of 

the Castle cliff and Castle A ruins. 

• Installation of a telephone box. 

In 1939, two new rustic Pueblo-style 

adobe (with stucco coating) residences 

were constructed to provide living quarters for the families of the custodian and 

ranger, and the former custodian’s residence was converted into needed office 

and museum space. The next few years 

saw the completion of other projects, including a new campground and picnic 

area along Beaver Creek, a boundary fence 

to keep stray cattle out of the monument, 

a new electrical system, a raised section of 

revetment wall along Beaver Creek, and an 

improved entrance road and new roads 

connecting the campground and residence areas. 

After World War II, existing buildings on 

the Montezuma Well site were repaired 

and modernized. The former Back cabin 

was rehabilitated, two guest houses were 

adapted for storage space and a car stall, 

the stone museum building was rehabilitated for new exhibits, a new well and 

pump were developed to provide domestic water, and tillable land was leased to 

the Montezuma Dairy Company for production of forage crops. Other structures 

in the Montezuma Well site, including a 

shed, barn, chicken coop, and privy, were 

torn down. 

The cliff dwelling ruins were closed to the 

public in 1951, but increasing numbers of 

visitors continued to make it one of the 

most-visited prehistoric southwestern 

ruins in the United States. Thus, the National Park Service made extensive improvements to the national monument 

facilities from 1957 to 1960 as part of its 

Mission 66 program. These projects included: 

• Construction of a visitor center, including space for administrative offices and museum exhibits. 

• Construction of a three-unit apartment complex adjacent to the two rustic adobe residential structures. 

• Improvement and enlargement of the 

monument’s water, sewer, and electrical systems. 

• Development of a new well and storage tank. 

• Improvement and development of 

new roads and trails, an enlarged 

parking area, and new landscaping. 
Introduction 

15 

• Construction of two new residences at 

the Montezuma Well site. 

A shelter was constructed over and 

around the pit house excavated by Dale 

Breternitz, curator of anthropology at the 

University of Northern Arizona, along the 

Montezuma Well site entrance road in 

1958. In 1960, seven of the nine rooms in 

the Swallet Cave ruin, inside the Montezuma Well rim, were excavated by monument archeologist Edmund J. Ladd. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

Early investigators in the Verde Valley 

probably knew of the Tuzigoot ruins, but 

they were not officially recorded until 

1933. In that year, the Archaeological 

Committee of the Yavapai County Chamber of Commerce at Prescott sought to 

provide prehistoric materials for display at 

the Smoki Museum in Prescott, and chose 

Tuzigoot as a promising site for excavation. 

In 1933 and 1934, the site was excavated 

and partially stabilized by Louis R. Caywood and Edward Spicer under the guidance of Dr. Byron Cummings of the University of Arizona using funds provided by 

the Federal Emergency Relief and Civil 

Works Administrations. The project resulted in the nearly complete excavation 

of the pueblo, including 86 ground floor 

rooms, three refuse areas, and 411 burials 

(429 individuals). In 1934, Caywood and 

Spicer reburied nearly all of the Tuzigoot 

skeletal remains in the slope below the 

prehistoric pueblo close to the original 

cemetery. Less than 10% of the osteological remains were placed in archeological 

storage. 

Caywood and Spicer named the pueblo 

“Tuzigoot,” the Tonto Apache name for 

Peck’s Lake that means “crooked water.” 

After the excavation, four rooms in the 

Group 4 room block were reconstructed, 

but were later dismantled to their postexcavation condition. Caywood and Spicer also apparently directed the excavation 

of portions of the Tuzigoot Extension 

Ruin on the ridge across the Verde River 

south of Tuzigoot and the Hatalacva 

Pueblo west of Tuzigoot, but records of 

these activities, other than a few photographs, have not been found. 

In 1935 and 1936, the Works Progress 

Administration (WPA) provided funding 

for construction of a rustic stone Pueblostyle museum building adjacent to the 

ruins to house and exhibit the artifacts 

recovered during the excavation. A stone 

veneer storage tool house, pump house, 

and retaining wall built of local river rock 

were constructed as support facilities. 

At the time, the museum building was on 

land owned by the Phelps Dodge Corporation (now Freeport McMoRan Copper 

and Gold, Inc.). The corporation deeded 

the land to School District 29, which in 

turn transferred the land to the federal 

government. 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt on July 

25, 1939, via Presidential Proclamation 

No. 2344, established Tuzigoot National 

Monument to preserve “historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of 

historic or scientific interest.” The monument initially included about 43 acres and 

was set aside to preserve the pueblo, “one 

of the largest in the area.” The museum, 

which is one of the few original national 

monument visitor centers still in use in the 

southwestern United States, was included 

in the parcel and was originally staffed by 

a custodian furnished by the Phelps 

Dodge Corporation. 

Expansion of the national monument occurred in December 1965 when a 15.1-

acre donation easement was added to 

provide a right-of-way for construction of 

a new approach road. 

While cultural resource preservation was 

the primary impetus for establishing Tuzigoot National Monument, the importance 

of preserving the natural setting of the 

monument also was recognized. To 

achieve that objective, Public Law 95-625 

(November 10, 1978) expanded the boundaries of the national monument to in-
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

16 

clude approximately 791 additional acres 

and authorized the acquisition of lands 

within the expanded boundary through 

purchase, donation, or exchange of other 

lands in Arizona administered by the Secretary of the Interior. 

In December 2005, the National Park Service acquired more than 40% of the area 

within the expanded boundary through a 

land exchange with Phelps Dodge Corporation. In an action that involved these 

two entities and the Bureau of Land Management, 324 acres within the expanded 

boundary were transferred to NPS ownership as part of the mitigation for a mining 

project at another location. 

Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, 

Inc. continues to own about 375 acres 

within the expanded boundary of Tuzigoot National Monument. The National 

Park Service will continue to work cooperatively with Freeport McMoRan. to 

maintain the resources that caused Congress to include the land in the monument 

boundary. 

A tract of 47 acres within the 1978 boundary expansion is owned by the state of 

Arizona and managed by Arizona State 

Parks. This parcel includes Verde River 

frontage and is part of the Verde River 

Greenway, a unit of Dead Horse Ranch 

State Park. 

Stabilization has been ongoing at the Tuzigoot Pueblo since the national monument was established. This work has consisted mostly of maintenance and small 

stabilization jobs carried out by monument staff, but it also included four major 

stabilization projects between 1940 and 

the late 1960s. Stabilization work resulted 

in repairs throughout the pueblo and also 

uncovered an occasional undisturbed 

burial or pot cache, indicating that undisturbed deposits still remain. 

During the Mission 66 program, the National Park Service constructed a modern 

triplex residence at the national monument to provide employee housing. 
17 

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 

MISSION STATEMENT 

The mission of the National Park Service 

is to preserve, protect, and interpret the 

structures, objects, and other remnants of 

the prehistoric cultures at Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments, 

and to perpetuate the cultural and natural 

landscapes associated with those cultures. 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE 

Purpose statements reaffirm the reasons 

for which the monuments were set aside 

as units of the national park system and 

provide the foundation for management 

and use of the monuments. The statements are based on the monuments’ legislation and legislative history and on NPS 

policies. 

Purpose 

The purposes of Montezuma Castle and 

Tuzigoot national monuments are to: 

• Preserve and manage prehistoric and 

historic structures and their related resources within Montezuma Castle, 

Montezuma Well, and Tuzigoot. 

• Protect and manage ecological 

processes and conditions related to 

the mix of desert and riparian habitats 

to maintain sustainable cultural and 

natural landscapes. 

• Promote stewardship through education and interpretation of continuing 

cultural adaptations to a desert environment. 

• Provide opportunities for the exploration of appropriate ethnological and 

scientific interests. 

Significance 

Significance statements build on the monument’s purpose and clearly state why, 

within a national context, the monument’s 

resources and values are important 

enough to warrant the designation as a 

national park unit. These statements identify the resources and values central to 

managing the area and express the importance of the area to our natural and cultural heritage. 

The primary significance of Montezuma 

Castle National Monument and Tuzigoot 

National Monument is summarized as follows: 

• Montezuma Castle is the largest, most 

accessible, and best-preserved Sinaguan cliff dwelling in the Southwest. 

• Tuzigoot is one of the largest known 

pueblos of Sinaguan origin and serves 

as a benchmark of the Tuzigoot Phase 

of the archeological record. 

• The excavation, restoration, and development of Tuzigoot illustrate Depression-era (Civilian Works Administration, Works Project Administration, 

and Civilian Conservation Corps)

pioneering archeological efforts in the 

Southwest and were instrumental in 

the preservation and accessibility of 

this and other national monuments. 

• The monuments’ archeological collections constitute one of the largest artifact assemblages, including trade ware, 

of the Southern Sinagua culture of the 

Verde Valley. 

• Montezuma Well is a unique, springfed, limestone sink connected to remnants of an extensive prehistoric irrigation system via a natural outlet. 

• Because of its unique environment, 

Montezuma Well has substantial 

scientific value and contains species 

not found in any other waters in the 

world. 

• The monuments preserve a mixture of 

riparian and desert landscapes that 

sustains a diverse ecological system. 

This system supports life on a local, 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

18 

national, and global scale by providing 

migratory routes and important habitat. 

• The monuments represent a continuum of land use from pre-Columbian 

cultures through the present and have 

enormous learning potential about the 

relationship between humans and 

their environment. 

• The natural and cultural resources 

within the monuments are significant 

to native tribes, as evidenced by oral 

histories, the archeological record, 

and continuing practices and beliefs. 

To this day, eight tribes maintain an 

affiliation with the monuments. 

• Montezuma Castle was among the 

first four national monuments created 

through the Antiquities Act of 1906, 

affording the first federal protection 

of archeological resources. 

FUNDAMENTAL 

RESOURCES AND VALUES 

Fundamental resources and values are 

monument’s attributes – its features, systems, processes, experiences, stories, 

scenes, sounds, smells, opportunities for 

visitor enjoyment, or others – that are critical to achieving the monument’s purpose 

and to maintaining its significance. Other 

important resources and values are the 

other monument attributes that are important but not related to the monument’s 

purpose and significance. This section describes the fundamental resources and 

values and other important resources and 

values of the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. The fundamental resources and values warrant primary 

consideration during planning and management or are important to monument 

management and planning. 

The fundamental resources and values are 

grouped into three categories: cultural 

connectivity, structures and related resources and values, and natural features. 

Cultural Connectivity 

This category lists the fundamental resources and values that support an understanding of the monuments’ role within 

larger geographic networks of exploration, settlement, resource development, 

and trade from prehistoric time to today. 

The fundamental resources and values in 

this category also support an understanding of continuing cultural adaptation to 

the desert environment. 

• The vistas at the monuments that allow visitors to experience and understand the line-of-sight relationships 

among the prehistoric pueblos that 

were regularly spaced, approximately 

1.8 miles apart, along the major drainages of the Verde Valley. The vistas 

make it possible to see the following 

pueblos: Sacred Mountain (Well), 

Thoeny (Well), the Salt Mine Pueblo 

(Castle), Bridgeport Pueblo (Tuzigoot), the Tuzigoot Extension (Tuzigoot), and Hatalacva (Tuzigoot). 

• The connection of structures within 

the monuments boundaries that reveal 

patterns in prehistoric land use and 

the related opportunity to contrast the 

similarities and differences in land use 

to man’s relationship with the environment from prehistoric to modern 

times. 

• The resources and opportunities to 

understand the role of the Verde Valley as a major trading hub and an exporter of argillite, salt, and copper derivatives. 

• The stories, oral histories, and resources revealing the role of the Verde 

River, Montezuma Well, Tavasci 

Marsh, Beaver Creek, and Wet Beaver 

Creek in prehistoric and historic 

trade, travel, exploration, and settlement of the area. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

19 

Structures and Related 

Resources and Values 

This category lists the fundamental resources and values that support preservation and understanding of the prehistoric 

and historic structures and related resources and values of the monuments. 

Montezuma Castle. The prehistoric Sinagua structures and related resources of the 

Castle, including four cliff dwellings and 

five rockshelters on the limestone face of 

the north bank of Beaver Creek, three 

agricultural sites evidenced by small stone 

structures in the floodplain of Beaver 

Creek, one or two room masonry structures, a bedrock mortar site southeast of 

the Castle in the inner channel of Beaver 

Creek, and two lithic scatter sites above 

the Castle and between the Castle’s access 

road and Highway 17. 

The high degree of architectural integrity 

of the Castle cliff dwelling including the 

boulder/adobe-and-cobble masonry 

building construction, viga-and-latilla roof 

construction, and the three-sided alcove 

niche carved into the limestone cliffs sheltering the cliff dwelling. 

Montezuma Well. The prehistoric Hohokam and Sinagua and historic Apache 

structures and related resources, including 

22 rockshelters sites within the inside rim 

of Montezuma Well and the limestone 

cliffs overlooking arable land or prehistoric irrigation ditches, two pueblos sites on 

the south rim of Montezuma Well, several 

one or two room masonry structures, agricultural features including well-preserved 

segments of a prehistoric irrigation canal 

system, artifact scatters, a burial ground, 

and a prehistoric cobble concentration at 

the edge of a cliff overlooking the irrigation canal. 

Tuzigoot. The prehistoric Sinagua structures and archeological evidence used to 

understand the sociopolitical organization 

of this large cluster settlement, including 

Tuzigoot Pueblo on the crest of Tuzigoot 

Hill and the site of a two-to-five-room 

masonry structure on the eastern slope of 

Tuzigoot Hill. 

Natural Features 

This category lists the fundamental resources and values that support protection 

and understanding of the significant natural features and ecological processes of the 

monuments. 

• The unique hydrology and geology of 

the monuments, including the springfed, large, limestone sink of Montezuma Well; the spring-fed Tavasci 

Marsh draining onto the fields below; 

the limestone formations of the monuments; Beaver Creek; Wet Beaver 

Creek; and the Verde River. 

• Special species at Montezuma Well, 

including Kinosternon sonoriense (Sonoran mud turtle), Hyalella montezuma (Amphipod), and Erpobdella montezuma (leech). 

• The ecological processes and conditions related to the integration of dessert and riparian landscapes. 

Other Important Resources and Values 

The monuments also have the following 

noteworthy resources and values that are 

less than “fundamental, but that remain 

important. 

For cultural connectivity, these include 

partnerships with tribes, adjacent land 

owners, and local private and public agencies. 

Additional, important structures and related resources and values include the 

structures (museum and offices, storage 

tool house, pump house, and retaining 

wall) and pioneering archeological technologies developed at Tuzigoot by the 

Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps. They also include structures and site features associated with 19th century homesteading 

activities, including the Back cabin, the 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

20 

smokehouse structure, and irrigation 

ditch. 

Additional, important natural features include: 

• The function of the Verde River, 

Beaver Creek, and Wet Beaver Creek 

as wildlife corridors and habitat for 

birds and mammals; 

• Mesquite bosques found at the Montezuma Well and Tuzigoot sites; 

• The night sky vistas at the Montezuma 

Well and Castle sites; and 

• Open space for recreation at Montezuma Well. 

OBJECTIVES 

Objectives are the specific, measurable 

goals that Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments will use to manage and preserve their resources. 

Cultural and Natural Resources 

Implement resource management activities to improve resource conditions and 

protect the fundamental resources and 

values of the monuments. 

Provide monument facilities and use them 

in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on cultural and natural resources. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Provide improved connections between 

the three sites including information, 

orientation, and wayfinding. 

Provide interpretive and education opportunities that improve visitor understanding and appreciation of the purpose, significance, and fundamental resources and 

values of the monuments. 

Monument Operations 

Improve efficiency and effectiveness in all 

divisions and functions of monument operations. 

Partnerships 

Establish and maintain partnerships to 

improve visitor orientation to the sites and 

other opportunities adjacent to the monuments and elsewhere in the Verde Valley. 

Establish and maintain effective partnerships and collaborative planning efforts 

that facilitate the realization of the monuments’ goals. 

PRIMARY 

INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

Primary interpretive themes are the key 

ideas through which the monuments’ resource values are conveyed to the public. 

They connect monuments’ resources and 

values to the purpose and significance, 

providing the building blocks on which 

the interpretive program is based. The 

primary interpretive themes for Montezuma Castle National Monument and Tuzigoot National Monument are the following: 

• Land use patterns and human settlement of the Verde Valley illustrate the 

continuum of occupation in the 

Southwest and demonstrate how contemporary cultures are linked to, and 

identify with, this place. 

• Riparian areas of the Verde Valley 

support a diversity of plants and animals and serve an important role in 

scientific discovery and species survival as habitat is lost to development 

worldwide. 

• Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments serve as benchmarks of pioneering archeological efforts in the Southwest and demonstrate evolving scientific inquiry, methods, and interpretations that help us 

understand past human experiences 

and how they inform the present. 

• The experiences of people in the 

Verde Valley demonstrate how, 

through migration, travel, and trade 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

21 

along natural corridors, cultures influence and affect one another. 

• The preservation and interpretation of 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments illustrate the National Park Service mission of protecting exemplary sites that contribute to 

our national identity while providing 

authentic places and experiences for 

people to connect to their heritage. 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates and administrative 

commitments refer to monument-specific 

requirements. These formal agreements 

are often established concurrently with 

the creation of a unit of the national park 

system. These include the following: 

• The Beaver Creek Road crosses 

through the Montezuma Well site of 

Montezuma Castle. This road is on 

federal land but is maintained by Yavapai County. The National Park Service and the county work collaboratively to ensure that this road is maintained for public transit. 

• The National Park Service has a partnership with Western National Parks 

Association to manage the sales of interpretation-related merchandise, 

such as books, at the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot visitor centers. This 

partnership is governed by the laws of 

the state of Arizona and NPS policy. 

The sale of merchandise provides a 

service to visitors and provides funds 

for management of the monuments. 

SERVICEWIDE 

MANDATES AND POLICIES 

To understand the implications of an alternative, it is necessary to combine the 

alternative’s management actions with 

servicewide mandates and policies. This 

section identifies actions at Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

that are needed to comply with federal 

laws and NPS policies. 

Many management directives are specified 

in laws and policies guiding the National 

Park Service and, therefore, are not subject to alternative approaches. For example, there are laws about managing environmental quality (such as air quality, 

threatened and endangered species, and 

wetlands), laws governing the preservation of cultural resources (such as the National Historic Preservation Act), and laws 

about providing public services (such as 

barrier-free access). A general management plan is not needed to decide, for example, that it is appropriate to protect endangered species, control exotic species, 

protect archeological sites, conserve artifacts, and provide access to people with 

impaired mobility. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 United States 

Code, section 1) provides the fundamental 

management direction for all units of the 

National Park Service. In this act, the National Park Service is charged to 

Promote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national 

parks, monuments, and reservations...by such means and measure 

as conform to the fundamental purpose of said parks, monuments and 

reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life 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. 

The National Park System General Authorities Act (16 United States Code, section 1a-1 et seq.) affirms that while all national park system units “though distinct 

in character, are united through their inter-related purposes and resources into 

one national park system as cumulative 

expressions of a single national heritage.” 

The act makes it clear that the NPS Organic Act and other protective mandates ap-
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

22 

ply equally to all units of the system. Further, it states that NPS management of 

park units “shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for 

which these various areas have been established.” 

The NPS Organic Act and the General Authorities Act prohibit any impairment of 

monument resources. Therefore, chapter 

4 of this general management plan includes determinations of whether the actions associated with the alternatives 

would result in impairment of the resources that collectively compose the monuments’ “scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life therein.” 

Unless an activity is required by statute, 

the National Park Service cannot allow 

visitor uses in the monuments that would 

involve or result in any of the following, 

which are listed in section 8.2 of Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006): 

• Be inconsistent with a park’s purposes 

or values. 

• Impede the attainment of a park’s desired conditions for natural and cultural resources as identified through 

the park’s planning process. 

• Create an unsafe or unhealthy environment for visitors or employees. 

• Diminish opportunities for current or 

future generations to enjoy, learn 

about, or be inspired by park resources or values. 

• Unreasonably interfere with 

- park programs or activities, 

- an appropriate use, 

- the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape 

maintained in wilderness and natural, 

historic, or commemorative locations 

within the park, or 

- NPS concessioner or contractor 

operations or services. 

The National Park Service has established 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in the 

guidance manual, Management Policies 

2006 (NPS 2006). All of the alternatives 

considered in this general management 

plan, including the no-action alternative,

incorporate and comply with the provisions of these mandates and policies. 

GUIDING MANAGEMENT 

PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES 

Guiding management principles and strategies shape the ways that monument staff 

manage the fundamental resources and 

values, within the limitations imposed by 

servicewide and special mandates, to preserve the monuments’ significance, fulfill 

the monuments’ purpose, and achieve the 

monuments’ mission. These principles 

and strategies would guide management 

under all three alternatives described in 

this document. 

Some of these principles and strategies 

describe approaches that the monuments 

are currently taking; others are not currently being implemented but are consistent with NPS policy and are not controversial. As appropriate, the National Park 

Service would provide National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic 

Preservation Act compliance documentation for the implementation of actions under these principles and strategies and of 

actions taken under the selected alternative. 

Manage and Protect 

Cultural Resources 

The protection of cultural resources is essential for understanding the past, present, 

and future relationship of people with the 

area. Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments are part of the NPS Vanishing Treasures Initiative, which provides emergency measures to protect 

structures in imminent danger, evaluates 

structures to determine treatment priority, 

and trains a younger workforce in the 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

23 

craft skills needed for archeological preservation. The strategies identified below 

will enable the National Park Service to 

preserve unimpaired the monuments’ cultural resources while encouraging visitors 

and employees to understand and appreciate their value. 

Archeological, Historic Structures, Cultural Landscapes, and Ethnographic 

Resources. The strategies for managing 

these resources will be as follows: 

• Continue to survey and document or 

inventory cultural resources in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and other applicable 

regulations and policies. 

• Gather field data regarding archeological resources to develop a more accurate predictive model of prehistoric 

site distribution and address related 

research questions. 

• Continue to evaluate all identified resources to determine their eligibility 

for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

• Use avoidance techniques and other 

measures to prevent impacts on 

known significant sites from visitors 

and project-related disturbances. 

• Continue to support research and 

consultation to increase the understanding of all cultural resources. 

• Consistent with Director’s Order 75A, 

continue to consult with and seek to 

improve working relations with federally recognized tribes and the state historic preservation officer on surveys, 

studies, excavations, and actions that 

potentially could affect cultural resources. 

• Continue the preservation and stabilization of prehistoric and historic 

structures when necessary. 

Museum and Archival Collections. The 

strategies for managing museum and archival collections will be as follows:

• Continue to maintain a diverse museum collection according to NPS policies. While the collection will continue to contain primarily archeological 

artifacts and archival documents, 

managers should look for opportunities to expand holdings of ethnographic, historic biological, paleontological, and geological specimens. 

• Continue to improve the conditions of 

artifact and specimen exhibits and storage according to NPS museum standards. 

• Maintain and continue to expand opportunities for researchers to use the 

artifacts, specimens, and archival materials in the museum collection. 

Relationships with Native Americans. 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

the monuments have long occupied a 

prominent position for Native Americans 

in the Verde Valley. NPS staff members 

will work to ensure that traditional Native 

American ties to the monuments are recognized and will strive to maintain positive, productive government-togovernment relationships with tribes that 

are culturally associated with the monuments. The viewpoints and needs of tribes 

will continue to be respected, and issues 

that arise will be promptly addressed. Native American values will be considered in 

the management and operation of the 

monuments. To enhance its relationship 

with the tribes, the National Park Service 

will carry out the following strategies and 

actions: 

• Consult regularly and maintain government-to-government relations 

with federally recognized tribes that 

have traditional ties to resources within the monuments to ensure productive, collaborative working relationships. 

• Continue to identify and deepen the 

understanding of the significance of 

the monuments’ resources and landscapes to Native American people 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

24 

through cooperative research and 

sharing. 

• Once they have been identified, protect and preserve the sites, resources, 

landscapes, and structures of significance to the federally recognized tribes 

as required under federal laws and 

Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006). 

• Encourage the participation of tribes 

in protecting the monuments’ natural 

and cultural resources of interest and 

concern to them. 

• Involve tribes in the monuments’ interpretation program to promote accuracy of information about Native 

American cultural values and enhance 

public appreciation of those values. 

• Support the continuation of traditional Native American activities in the 

monuments to the extent allowed by 

applicable laws and regulations. 

• Continue to consult and collaborate 

with tribes concerning issues and proposed actions that might affect Native 

Americans. 

Manage and Protect 

Natural Resources 

The protection, study, and management of 

the monuments’ natural resources and 

processes are essential for achieving the 

monuments’ purposes and mission goals. 

The following principles and strategies 

will help the National Park Service retain 

the ecological integrity of Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments, 

including natural resources and processes. 

These actions will help ensure that the 

monuments’ natural features are unimpaired; the areas continue to be dynamic, 

biologically diverse environments; and the 

monuments are recognized and valued as 

an outstanding example of resource stewardship, conservation, education, and 

public use. 

Inventory and Monitoring. Knowing the 

condition of natural resources in a national park unit is fundamental to the National 

Park Service’s ability to protect and manage that unit. Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments are confronted with increasingly complex and 

challenging issues, and the National Park 

Service needs scientifically credible data 

to make management decisions. Inventories involve compiling existing information and collecting new information. Inventories contribute to the accurate 

statement of the condition of the monuments’ resources, especially the natural or 

unimpaired state. 

A long-term ecosystem monitoring program is necessary to enable managers to: 

• Make better informed decisions; 

• Provide early warning of changing 

conditions in time to develop and implement effective mitigating measures; 

• Persuade individuals and other agencies to make decisions benefiting the 

monuments; 

• Satisfy certain legal mandates; 

• Provide reference data for relatively 

pristine sites for comparison with 

areas outside the monuments; and 

• Evaluate the effectiveness of management actions and obtain more accurate assessments of progress towards 

management goals. 

Using monitoring information will increase confidence in managers’ decisions 

and improve their ability to manage natural resources. 

Strategies for inventorying and monitoring include the following: 

• Continue to develop inventories and 

long-term monitoring programs to 

address the status and health of the resources. Identify key indicators of resource or ecosystem conditions and 

monitor them over the long term to 

record changes in ecosystem health. 

• Conduct inventories to identify vertebrate and invertebrate animal species, 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

25 

vascular and nonvascular plant species, and air, water, and geologic resources in the monuments. 

• Continue to participate in the Sonoran 

Desert Inventory and Monitoring 

Network. Work with partners and collaborators to inventory resources and 

monitor vital components of the ecosystem. This will make it possible to 

better assess the condition of monuments’ resources and trends and to 

develop databases, data analyses, and 

retrieval tools so that the usefulness of 

natural resource information can be 

improved. 

Air Quality. Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments are designated 

class II areas under the Clean Air Act. The 

National Park Service has a responsibility 

to protect air quality under both the 1916 

Organic Act and the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, the National Park Service will seek 

to achieve the best possible air quality in 

the monuments to (1) preserve natural 

resources and systems; (2) preserve cultural resources; and (3) sustain visitor enjoyment, human health, and scenic vistas. 

Vegetation, visibility, water quality, wildlife, historic and pre-historic structures 

and objects, cultural landscapes, and most 

other elements of the monuments’ environment are sensitive to air pollution. The 

National Park Service will actively promote and pursue measures to protect resource from the adverse impacts of air 

pollution. 

The National Park Service will use the following strategies to address air quality in 

the monuments: 

• Eliminate or reduce emissions associated with administrative and recreational use of the monuments. 

• Continue to participate in regional air 

quality planning and research, and the 

implementation of air quality standards. 

• Protect the monuments’ noteworthy 

night sky and scenic vistas as natural 

and cultural resources as an inspiration for visitor enjoyment. 

Natural Sounds. Visitors have the opportunity in portions of the monuments to 

experience natural sounds, and the experience of reverence for cultural resources 

and other experiential qualities of a cultural monument are sensitive to intrusions 

of human-caused noise. It is important to 

protect the natural soundscape for wildlife 

species as well. A natural, intact 

soundscape is important for animal communication, territory establishment, 

courtship and mating, nurturing young, 

and effective use of habitat. The sounds of 

modern society are generally confined to 

the developed areas in the monuments. 

Guiding principles and strategies will include protecting the monuments’ natural 

sounds as a contribution to visitor enjoyment and protecting natural sounds for 

the benefit of wildlife. 

Fire Management. Prescribed and wildland fire will be used as a tool to meet resource management objectives. The following strategies will ensure that wildland 

fire will be used effectively to protect resources:

• Develop and maintain a current fire 

management plan for the monuments. 

• Cooperate with adjacent communities, 

groups, state and federal agencies, and 

tribes to manage fire in the monuments and the region. 

• Use fire as appropriate to maintain 

and restore native plant species and 

control nonnative plant species. 

Geologic Features. Montezuma Castle 

and Tuzigoot national monuments contain unique landforms. The National Park 

Service will implement the following policies and strategies to ensure that the geologic features are not substantially degraded and the scenic views remain unimpaired: 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

26 

• Inventory, map, and monitor geologic 

features to assess their condition. 

• Allow natural geologic processes to 

proceed unimpeded. Intervention in 

natural geologic processes will be 

permitted only when directed by Congress, when necessary in emergencies 

that threaten human life and property, 

or when there is no other way to protect cultural resources or critical monument facilities. 

• Develop interpretive and educational 

programs to educate visitors and the 

public about geology. 

• Actively seek to understand and preserve soil resources and prevent to the 

extent possible its removal or contamination. 

• Monitor high-impact visitor use areas 

and take actions to reduce impacts on 

geologic resources. 

Paleontological Resources. Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

contain paleontological resources. The 

following strategies will be implemented 

to better understand and protect these 

resources:

• Expand inventorying and monitoring 

to ensure that these nonrenewable resources are not lost. 

• Manage and study paleontological resources in their geologic context, 

which provides information about the 

ancient environment. 

• Partner with federal, state, and local 

agencies and with academic institutions to conduct paleontological research. 

• Manage fossils collected in accordance with the monuments’ collection 

management plan. 

Threatened or Endangered Species. The 

Endangered Species Act mandates that 

agencies, including the National Park Service, promote the conservation of all federally listed threatened or endangered 

species and their critical habitats within 

the monuments’ boundaries. Several special-status species, including those that are 

listed at the federal or state levels, are 

known to exist in and around the monuments and to use habitats in the monuments. The following actions will be taken 

to protect special-status species: 

• Continue to work with the United 

States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and Arizona Game and Fish 

to ensure that the National Park Service’s actions help special status species to recover. If any state- or federally listed or proposed threatened or 

endangered species are found in areas 

that would be affected by construction, visitor use, or restoration activities proposed under any of the alternatives in this plan, the National Park 

Service will consult with the above 

agencies and will then try to avoid or 

mitigate any potential adverse impacts. 

• Cooperate with the above agencies to 

inventory, monitor, protect, and perpetuate the natural distribution and 

abundance of all special-status species 

and their essential habitats in Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments. These species and their 

habitats will be specifically considered 

in ongoing planning and management 

activities. 

Vegetation. Whenever possible, natural 

processes will be relied on to maintain native plants and plant communities. Communities will include the diverse species, 

genetic variability, plant associations, and 

successional stages representing an ecologically functioning system. The following actions will be taken to manage the 

monuments’ vegetation:

• Inventory plant communities to determine the species present and monitor communities to identify changes in 

their condition. Continue to inventory 

rare plants. 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

27 

• Continue efforts to control invasive 

plants in the monuments. Continue to 

work with other federal, state, and local agencies and with private landowners to prevent the spread of invasive plant species across monument 

boundaries. 

• Restore extirpated native species 

where suitable habitat exists and restoration is compatible with social, political, and ecological conditions. 

Wildlife and Fish. The following policies 

and strategies will ensure that native wildlife and fishes are protected: 

• Determine the condition of native 

wildlife and fish through baseline inventories and use long-term monitoring to identify and evaluate changes. 

• Perpetuate the native animal life as 

part of the natural ecosystem. Emphasize minimizing human impacts on 

native animals and minimizing human 

influence on naturally occurring fluctuations of animal populations. Rely 

on ecological processes to control 

populations of native species to the 

greatest extent practical. 

• Ensure the preservation of populations and habitats of migratory species, such as birds, that use the monuments. Cooperate with others to enhance the preservation of the populations and habitats of migratory species 

outside the monuments. 

• Develop educational programs to inform visitors and the general public 

about wildlife issues and concerns. 

• Manage populations of invasive animal species whenever such species 

threaten monument resources or public health and when control is prudent 

and feasible. 

• Restore extirpated native species 

where suitable habitat exists and restoration is compatible with social, political, and ecological conditions. 

Ecosystem Management. To achieve desired future conditions for monument resources, a regional perspective must be 

considered, and it must be recognized that 

actions taken on lands outside the monuments directly and indirectly affect the 

monuments. Many of the threats to monument resources, such as invasive species 

and water pollution, come from outside 

the boundaries. Therefore, an ecosystem 

approach is required to understand and 

manage the monuments’ natural resources, and must be based on an understanding of the health and condition of the 

ecosystem. 

Cooperation, coordination, and partnerships with agencies and neighbors are crucial to meet or maintain the desired future 

conditions for the monuments. This approach to ecosystem management may 

involve many parties and could include 

cooperative arrangements with federal 

and state agencies, tribes, or private landowners to address trans-boundary issues. 

The following strategies will allow the National Park Service to lead in resource 

stewardship and the conservation of ecosystem values within and outside the monuments. They also will allow the National 

Park Service to maintain good relations 

with owners of adjacent property, surrounding communities, and private and 

public groups that affect and are affected 

by the monuments. The strategies involve 

active involvement of monument staff 

members to resolve external issues and 

ensure that the monuments’ values are not 

compromised: 

• Continue to seek agreements with the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Arizona 

State Parks, Arizona Game and Fish, 

Native American tribes, and other 

owners of adjacent property to protect 

and enhance the ecosystem. 

• Work cooperatively to manage nonnative species in the region. 

• Continue to partner with the research 

community to further the knowledge 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

28 

of ecosystem processes that affect the 

monuments. 

• Continue to work with partners to 

protect species of concern and reintroduce extirpated native species 

when practical. 

External Influences - Private and Public 

Partners, Owners of Adjacent Land, and 

Government Agencies 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments are part of a greater area and 

that actions in the monuments affect the 

social, political, ecological, and historical 

condition of the surrounding environment 

and society. The management of the monuments influences local economies 

through tourism expenditures and the 

goods and services the National Park Service purchases to support operations. To 

ensure that the National Park Service continues to have good relations with area 

landowners and communities, and to ensure that the monuments are managed actively to resolve external issues and concerns, the following strategies will be implemented: 

• Continue to establish partnerships 

with public and private organizations 

to achieve the purposes and missions 

of the monuments. Seek partnerships 

for resource protection, research, 

education, visitor enjoyment, visitor 

access, and management. 

• Foster a spirit of cooperation with 

neighbors and encourage compatible 

uses of adjacent lands by keeping landowners, land managers, tribes, local 

governments, and the public informed 

about monument management activities. Consult periodically with landowners and communities that affect 

or potentially are affected by the monuments’ visitors and management actions. 

• Work closely with local, state, and 

federal agencies and tribal governments. In particular, to meet mutual 

management needs, maintain a close 

working relationship with the federally recognized tribes, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arizona State Parks, Arizona Game 

and Fish, and owners of adjacent private land. 

Ensure Sustainability by Employing 

User (Carrying) Capacity 

General management plans must identify 

and implement commitments for user capacities for all areas of the monument. The 

National Park Service defines user capacity as the type and level of visitor use that 

can be accommodated while sustaining 

the quality of a monument’s resources and 

visitor opportunities consistent with the 

purposes of the monument. It is not necessarily a set of numbers or limits, but rather a process involving monitoring, evaluation, actions (managing visitor use), and 

adjustments to ensure monument values 

are protected. 

The premise behind this process is that 

with any use of public lands comes some 

level of impact that must be accepted. 

Therefore, the National Park Service has 

the responsibility to decide what level of 

impact is acceptable and what actions are 

needed to keep impacts within acceptable 

limits. Instead of solely tracking and controlling user numbers, the monument staff 

manages the levels, types, behaviors, and 

patterns of visitor use and other public 

uses as needed to manage the condition of 

the resources and quality of the visitor experience. Monitoring user capacity helps 

test the effectiveness of management actions and provides a basis for informed 

adaptive management of public use. 

The described desired conditions related 

to resource protection, visitor experiences, and general levels of development 

form the foundation for user capacity decisions. Specific indicators and standards 

will be monitored to confirm that the desired conditions are achieved or maintained. Actions that could be implemented 

if the standards are exceeded are included 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

29 

in either the general management plan or 

subsequent action plans. An indicator is 

used to track desired conditions to determine whether they are being met. A standard is basically the minimum acceptable 

desired condition. 

User capacity decision-making, which 

continues indefinitely, involves monitoring the indicators, determining whether 

standards are met, and taking management actions to minimize impacts when 

needed. At Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments, managers initially will monitor facility-wide use levels 

and patterns. At the Castle, where 

crowded conditions that could affect sustainability occasionally occur, managers 

will apply more specific monitoring and 

focused management to achieve desired 

conditions. Adjustments in the type of 

monitoring at specific sites and throughout the monuments will be made as 

needed. Additional information on ensuring sustainability is provided in the “User 

Capacity” section in chapter 2. 

Provide Orientation, 

Interpretation, and Education 

A variety of methods are used to orient 

visitors at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments, provide information about the monuments, and interpret the monuments’ resources. The National Park Service will continue to pursue 

strategies to ensure that information is 

available so that visitors can plan a rewarding visit to the monuments. Increasing outreach and educational programs 

will help connect diverse audiences to the 

monuments’ resources, build a local and 

national constituency, and gain public 

support for protecting the monuments’ 

resources. Continuing to provide interpretation opportunities will build emotional, 

intellectual, and recreational ties with the 

monuments and their cultural and natural 

heritage. 

The strategies for managing orientation, 

interpretation, and education will be as 

follows: 

• Continue to emphasize providing effective information, orientation, and 

interpretive services. Use appropriate 

techniques and technologies to increase the visibility of the National 

Park Service and its programs and to 

make people aware of issues facing 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

• Ensure that interpretive and education 

programs include key resource issues, 

management priorities, public safety, 

and demonstrate standards for interpretive competencies identified and 

outlined by the NPS Interpretive Development Program. 

• Enhance cooperative efforts and partnerships with local communities, public and private agencies, organizations, 

stakeholders, and land managers in 

the region so that visitors can better 

learn about the abundance, variety, 

and availability of the region’s cultural, 

recreational, and interpretive opportunities. This will orient visitors about 

what to do and which attractions to 

see. 

• Provide visitors with the tools and information they need for selfmanagement and how to enjoy the 

monuments in a safe, low-impact 

manner. 

• Strengthen partnerships with state 

parks, national parks, educational institutions, and other organizations to 

enrich interpretive and educational 

opportunities regionally and nationally. 

• Ensure accessibility of opportunities 

for visitors to form their own intellectual and emotional connections to resource meaning for as many audiences 

as practical and possible by providing 

a variety of both personal and nonpersonal interpretive services. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

30 

IMPLEMENTING 

THE APPROVED PLAN 

Implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval 

of this general management plan does not 

indicate that the funding needed to implement all of its provisions will be immediately available. Full implementation of 

the approved plan could be many years in 

the future. 

Other factors will also affect the implementation of the approved plan. Once the 

general management plan has been approved, feasibility studies and more detailed planning and appropriate environmental documentation may be required 

before proposed actions can be carried 

out. These more detailed plans would tier 

off this plan; describing specific actions 

that managers intend to take to achieve 

desired conditions and long-term goals. 

Some of these implementation plans are 

prepared for the monuments in response 

to NPS policies. 
31 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS 

Possible interactions between the alternatives and county, state, tribal, or federal 

land use plans and policies must be considered. 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments are in Yavapai County, Arizona. Properties surrounding the monuments include federal lands managed by 

the U.S. Forest Service, lands administered by Arizona State Parks, and private 

lands. 

PLANS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES 

U.S. Forest Service Plans 

Near the monuments are the Coconino 

and Prescott National Forests, both of 

which have forest plans. The Prescott National Forest Plan was released in November 1986 and the Coconino National Forest Plan is currently being updated, and 

the National Park Service is a partner in 

the process. These plans provide longterm management direction for the forests’ resource conditions, recreation opportunities, and levels of development and 

services. 

Both forest plans include opportunities 

for hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, 

bicycling, camping, picnicking, boating, 

and fishing that may be appreciated by all 

visitors to the region. In addition, the Coconino National Forest has trail opportunities that connect with the boundary of 

Tuzigoot National Monument; this general management plan explores trail linkages. The conservation of these forest lands 

protects the scenic viewsheds around the 

monuments. 

Park Museum Collection Storage Plan 

This collection storage plan presents a 

comprehensive, cost-effective, and longterm solution to the current and future 

challenges that the National Park Service 

faces with regard to museum management, maximizing protection of the collections with minimal cost, and recognizing and responding to park access issues. 

The first goal of the plan is to achieve sustainable and maintainable preservation of 

the collections (NPS 2007). 

STATE OF ARIZONA PLANS 

The expansion of recreational facilities 

and visitor opportunities at Dead Horse 

Ranch State Park may affect Tuzigoot National Monument because of its nearby 

location and the potential to draw more 

visitors to the monument. 

PLANS BY OTHERS 

Verde River Greenway 

Management Plan 

The Verde River Greenway, along a segment of the nearly 180-mile-long Verde 

River, crosses into Tuzigoot’s legislated 

boundary. The Greenway encompasses 

nearly 480 acres and is 6 miles long (Arizona State Parks, 2004). The Verde River 

Greenway Management Plan (Arizona 

State Parks, 1992) calls for Tuzigoot National Monument to be integrated into the 

Verde River Greenway through use of 

specialized signs and the expansion of interpretation via an interpretive corridor 

that would link sites, such as Tavasci 

Marsh and Tuzigoot National Monument. 

Discussions between the National Park 

Service and the Verde River Greenway 

coordinator have been initiated and formal integration into the Greenway is expected in 2008. The Verde River Greenway 

Management Plan also suggests new trail 

opportunities that would connect the 

sites. In chapter 3 of this general management plan, the “Visitor Use and Experience” section provides more information on the Verde River Greenway Management Plan. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

32 

Sinaguan Circle Tour 

The Sinaguan Circle Tour was conceived 

by a Coconino National Forest archeologist, and is supported by the Sedona Verde 

Valley Tourism Council. The tour would 

involve a partnership among the National 

Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Arizona 

State Parks, Arizona Conservancy, and 

local organizations. The potential tour 

route would enhance opportunities for 

visitors to understand the regional cultural 

context of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. The route 

would include the monuments, and would 

provide opportunities for visitors to experience and learn more about the area’s 

pre-historic and historic cultures. The circle tour has the potential to increase visitation to the monuments. 

Freeport McMoRan Copper 

and Gold, Inc. Mine Tailings Project 

This project provided restoration and revegetation for the mine tailings owned by 

Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, 

Inc. (formerly Phelps Dodge Corporation) 

that are within the legislated boundary of 

Tuzigoot National Monument. The restoration and revegetation plan resulted in a 

more natural view and vegetation community adjacent to the monument. 

Yavapai-Apache Nation Native 

American Visitor Center 

This proposed center would enhance 

education in the region and perhaps add 

to the potential list of cultural sites that 

would draw visitors to the region. The 

project could involve an exchange of lands 

between the U.S. Forest Service and the 

Yavapai-Apache along Interstate 17. 

Montezuma Castle Highway 

Regional Multi-Use Trail 

This project has potential to increase the 

number of visitors to the area. Increased 

tourism could affect resources such as 

wildlife or threatened and endangered 

species that cross management boundaries. 

Soda Springs Ranch Development 

Owners of this nearby historic ranch have 

repaired ranch structures for private use 

and are attempting to trade acreage to the 

U.S. Forest Service or Arizona Game and 

Fish Department. 

Expansion of the YavapaiApache Casino Resort 

This proposal, near the intersection of Interstate Highway 17 and the Montezuma 

Castle National Monument entrance road, 

could increase visitation to the region. 

Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan 

The plan covers 714 square miles and focuses on transportation, land use, open 

space, housing, and land management. It 

also identifies water issues and economics 

as key long-term solutions. The plan involves collaboration among the cities and 

towns, Yavapai Apache Nation, federal, 

state, county, and local governments, and 

individuals. 
33 

PLANNING ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The general public, NPS staff, and other 

agencies and organizations identified issues and concerns during scoping (early 

information gathering) for this general 

management plan. Consultation and correspondence relating to scoping and other 

elements of environmental assessment 

preparation are provided in appendix B. 

An issue is an opportunity, conflict, or 

problem regarding the use or management 

of public lands. Comments were solicited 

at public workshops, in meetings with 

agencies and tribes, through planning 

newsletters, and on the monuments’ Internet sites. 

The National Park Service contracted 

with Arizona State University to conduct a 

social science research project to gather 

information about visitors to the monuments. The project involved surveying 

adult visitors to gather data on visitation 

patterns, length of stay, activity participation, demographics, and perceptions of 

visitor experiences. The information from 

the study was used in the development of 

the plan alternatives. 

Comments received during scoping demonstrated that there is much that the public likes about the national monuments 

with regard to their management, use, and 

facilities. The issues and concerns generally involve determining appropriate visitor 

uses and identifying the types and levels of 

facilities, services, and activities while remaining compatible with desired resource 

conditions. The general management plan

alternatives provide strategies for addressing the issues within the context of the 

monuments’ purpose and significance. 

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

This general management plan will help 

the monuments determine the best mix of 

resource protection and visitor use 

beyond what is prescribed by law and policy to preserve the monuments’ cultural 

and natural resources while encouraging 

visitors and employees to understand and 

appreciate their value. The following issues and opportunities were identified for 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments: 

• The plan needs to evaluate whether 

additional opportunities exist to expand the stories being told at the monuments to link the prehistoric cultures with contemporary people and 

whether to expand the areas available 

within the monuments for visitors to 

explore. 

• The plan needs to evaluate how the 

visitors should interact with the resources of the monuments, including 

the variety and locations of monument 

resources that are accessible to visitors 

and the means of accessing resources. 

• The plan needs to evaluate the character and level of development within 

the monuments and whether to expand existing facilities or construct 

additional facilities at the monuments 

to accommodate visitors and monument operations. 

• The monuments’ existing headquarters and maintenance facilities are outside the monument boundaries. There 

are two distinct General Services Administration leases on the headquarters and maintenance facilities. The 

plan should examine how best to accommodate these monument management functions. 

• The monuments are a small portion of 

the Verde Valley. The National Park 

Service needs to work in partnerships 

with the other land management entities, local communities, tribes, and organizations within the Verde Valley on 

resource management and visitor use 

issues and opportunities. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

34 

• There are lands within the existing 

legislated boundaries that have not 

been acquired. Some of these contain 

significant resources that, if acquired, 

would protect additional resources associated with the monuments’ purpose. This plan will provide guidance 

for managing these lands if they are 

acquired. A boundary adjustment 

study is under consideration but is 

beyond the scope of this general management plan. 

• The boundary of Tuzigoot National 

Monument contains approximately 

300 acres of mine tailings and other 

land disturbed by mining activities. 

The mine tailings do not contain resources related to the purpose and 

significance of the monument, are recontoured and revegetated but highly 

disturbed by mining activity, and are 

contaminated by hazardous substances. The plan will evaluate whether the monument boundary should be 

adjusted to eliminate these tailings 

areas, while retaining remaining suitable lands. 

• Tavasci Marsh, acquired in 2006, is in 

a degraded condition and actions to 

restore the marsh are underway. The 

long-term objectives for restoration 

need to be supported within the management framework of the plan. 

• Visitation at the monuments has generally increased since the 1940s, peaking at 1.2 million visitors in the mid 

1990s. Although visitation has declined since the early 1990s, leveling 

off at about 605,000 visitors annually 

during the past three years, the population of the surrounding region is 

growing rapidly, and development of 

tourism in the area is expected to continue. Already, for its size, Montezuma 

Castle is among the most heavily visited areas in the southwest. Of the 

360 visited NPS units, Montezuma 

Castle ranked 100th for visitation in 

2007 and Tuzigoot ranked 218; these 

rankings have remained relatively stable in recent years. Annual visits to 

Montezuma Well have averaged approximately 190,000 over the past 

decade. The present visitor contact 

station is small, outdated, and limited 

in its ability to serve visitors. Expanded visitor contact could improve 

Montezuma Well’s ability to interpret 

early regional land use. Each unit is 

readily accessible from Camp Verde, 

and travel time is approximately 10 

minutes to Montezuma Castle (5 

miles), 20 minutes to Montezuma Well 

(13.1 miles), and 40 minutes to Tuzigoot (19.6 miles). Montezuma Castle 

in less than five minutes or approximately one mile from Exit 289 on Interstate Highway 17. 

• Currently, there is limited general 

orientation to all three sites, resulting 

in a lack of connectedness of the sites 

and their stories. If visitor interaction 

with monument resources increases, 

cultural and natural resources could 

experience additional effects. 

• This plan analyzes developing new 

onsite administrative and storage 

space because the current General 

Services Administration lease with the 

Yavapai Apache reservation for maintenance space is expiring. Construction of workspace and storage at the 

three sites would improve monument 

operations because it is more efficient 

to provide workspace and store 

equipment within the units that use 

them most frequently rather than in 

one central area. 

• The National Park Service is considering whether to acquire private land 

holdings within the monument boundaries, including land owned by Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, 

Inc. (except for the mine tailings at 

Tuzigoot, which the monument does 

not wish to acquire), or working with 

Freeport McMoRan and other entities 
Planning Issues and Opportunities 

35 

to protect the land for public use rather than development. 

• The population of and land uses within the Verde Valley are changing. During the life of the general management 

plan, these changes could have an effect on visitation and resource conditions of the monuments. 

ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN THE 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Not all of the issues raised by the public 

are included in this general management 

plan. Some of the issues raised by the public were not considered because they: 

• Were not feasible; 

• Are already prescribed by law, regulation, or policy (see the “Servicewide 

Mandates and Policies” section); 

• Would be in violation of laws, regulations, or policies; or 

• Were at a level that was too detailed 

for a general management plan and are 

more appropriately addressed in subsequent planning documents. 

General comments that were received 

from the public that fell under one or 

more of the categories included: 

• Managing use of lands or resources 

outside of the monument boundaries; 

• Managing the restoration of the Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, 

Inc. mine tailings; and 

• Administration of the monuments by 

entities other than the National Park 

Service. 

Following are two additional issues and 

the reasons for excluding them from this 

general management plan. 

Vanishing Treasures 

Under the guidance of Sec. 106 and 110 of 

the National historic Preservation Act of 

1966, the Vanishing Treasures Initiative 

will continue under any of the alternatives 

being considered. The initiative seeks to 

eliminate cultural resource loss by addressing emergency project needs. It focuses on replacement of an aging workforce that often has unique craft skills, and 

seeks to move, over the long-term, from a 

posture of dealing with emergency 

projects and urgent personnel loss to become a proactive program. NPS staff 

members will continue to stabilize structures in the monuments in accordance 

with established priorities. Additional 

guidance from the general management 

plan is not needed to implement this program. 

Fire Management 

The management of fire within the monuments will continue to follow the existing fire management plan. The National 

Park Service will continue to work with 

other federal and state agencies to manage 

fire. 
36 

IMPACT TOPICS: RESOURCES AND VALUES 

AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS 

Impact topics allow comparison of the 

environmental consequences of implementing each alternative. Impact topics 

were identified based on federal laws and 

other legal requirements, NPS subjectmatter expertise and knowledge of limited 

or easily impacted resources, NPS policies, and issues or concerns expressed by 

other agencies or members of the public 

during scoping. A brief rationale for the 

selection of each impact topic is given below, and justifications are provided for 

dismissing other impact topics from further 

consideration. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

TO BE CONSIDERED 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resource subtopics include archeological resources, prehistoric and historic structures and buildings, cultural 

landscapes, and ethnographic resources, 

sacred sites, and traditional cultural properties. Each of these topics has the potential to be affected by components of the 

no-action and action alternatives. 

Archeological Resources. Potential new 

facilities and current and increased visitor 

use have the possibility to affect archeological resources. 

Prehistoric and Historic Structures and 

Building. Public accessibility provided for 

and managed by the alternatives could 

affect prehistoric and historic structures 

and buildings. 

Cultural Landscapes. Although no formal cultural landscape inventory work has 

been conducted at the monuments, some 

known and potential cultural landscape 

resources have been identified and the 

alternatives could affect these resources. 

Ethnographic Resources and Traditional Cultural Properties. Although 

there are no identified ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties 

in the monuments, the alternatives would 

be expected to have beneficial impacts on 

resources if any were identified and documented pursuant to ongoing consultation and research. 

Natural Resources 

Floodplains. The proposed actions have 

the potential to affect floodplains along 

Wet Beaver Creek, Beaver Creek, and the 

Verde River. 

Soils. The action alternatives would include both short- and long-term disturbance of soil in the monuments. The disturbance would be associated with trail 

construction and improvements or proposed development. 

Vegetation. As described for soils, the 

development of trails and other actions 

associated with the alternatives have the 

potential to affect vegetation at the monuments. 

Wetlands. Tavasci Marsh contains important wetland habitats and contributes to 

water quality, flood control, and wildlife 

support functions. Elements of the alternatives have the potential to affect the 

marsh. 

Wildlife. The potential increase in visitation and the interactive nature of some 

elements of the alternatives has the potential to affect wildlife and their habitat at 

the monuments. 

Threatened or Endangered Species. 

There are listed species that rely on the 

habitats at the monuments that could be 

affected by proposed management ac-
Impact Topics: Resources and Values at 

Stake in the Planning Process 

37 

tions. Additionally, the proposed actions 

have the potential to affect designated 

critical habitat. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

A major component of each of the action 

alternatives is an increase in the interaction between visitors and the resources at 

the monuments. These actions have the 

potential to increase the number and the 

activities of monument visitors and to 

change their effects on resources at the 

sites. 

Socioeconomics 

The alternatives have the potential to 

change the number of and activities of 

monument visitors, which could affect 

socioeconomics at the monuments and in 

the surrounding area. 

Monument Operations 

Monument operations would be affected 

by the actions proposed under the action 

alternatives. 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

The following impact topics that commonly are considered during the planning 

process were not relevant to the development of this general management plan for 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments. They were dismissed either 

because implementing the alternatives 

would have negligible effects on the impact topic or resource, or because the resource does not occur in the monuments. 

Cultural Resources 

Museum Collections. Museum collections were dismissed because none of the 

alternatives considered in this plan affect 

the monuments’ collections. 

The Montezuma Castle National Monument museum collections primarily include archeological artifacts, objects, and 

materials recovered from excavating the 

monument’s ruins. The collections also 

contain thousands of documents of archival materials. In addition, there are a 

small number of other types of objects, 

including ethnographic, historic, biologic, 

paleontologic, and geologic specimens. 

The collections are either retained on site 

(an estimated 60% of the cataloged collections, primarily archives but also archeology and ethnology) or stored and curated 

at the Museum Collections Repository, 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center in Tucson, as designated by the 

Park Museum Collection Storage Plan prepared by the NPS Museum Management 

Program. 

Montezuma Castle has not conducted an 

archival survey to determine the extent of 

the museum archives (NPS 2008a). Items 

from the monument’s natural history collection may be transferred from the Western Archeological and Conservation Center to the Northern Arizona Facility following its construction (NPS 2007). 

Dedicated curatorial work and research 

spaces for the acquisition, accession, 

preparation, and study of museum collections are needed (NPS 2008a). An ethnographic report (as discussed in the ethnographic resources section of chapter 3) 

prepared in 1994 focused on the national 

monument’s cultural affiliations and the 

items and collections that are related to 

the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 

The Tuzigoot National Monument museum collections include archeological 

materials that were recovered from the 

excavation of the Tuzigoot Pueblo ruins. 

The Tuzigoot collections constitute the 

largest artifact assemblage for the Tuzigoot Phase. Most items were excavated 

during the 1930s as part of a variety of 

federally funded projects. About 7% of the 

collection, including pottery, basketry, 

and jewelry, are on exhibit in the monument museum. The remaining 93% are 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

38 

stored and curated at the Museum Collections Repository, Western Archeological 

and Conservation Center, as designated 

by the Park Museum Collection Storage 

Plan. In addition to archeological objects, 

the collections include a small number of 

other types of objects, including ethnographic, historic, geologic, and biological 

specimens, plus thousands of documents 

of archival materials. 

Tuzigoot has not conducted an archival 

survey to determine the extent of the museum archives (NPS 2008b). Items from 

the monument’s natural history collection 

may be transferred from the Western Archeological and Conservation Center to the 

Northern Arizona Facility following its 

construction (NPS 2007). 

Dedicated curatorial work and research 

spaces for the acquisition, accession, 

preparation, and study of museum collections are needed (NPS 2008b). An ethnographic report (as discussed in the ethnographic resources section of chapter 3) 

was prepared in 1994 that focused on the 

national monument’s cultural affiliations 

and the items and collections that are related to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

Natural Resources 

Air Quality. Air quality in the monuments 

meets national ambient air quality standards for specified pollutants. Although 

actions proposed in this plan could result 

in short-term, negligible effects related to 

dust and emissions associated with construction and road improvements, no 

long-term change in air quality associated 

with these actions would be expected. 

Geologic Hazards. There are no specific 

geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, 

volcanoes, or landslides, at the monuments. Although there is a potential for 

cliffs and other areas to collapse as part of 

the natural erosion process, none of the 

actions analyzed in this plan would affect 

these natural processes. 

Prime and/or Unique Farmland. The 

Farmland Protection Policy Act (PL 97-

98) (1981) was passed to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute 

to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural 

uses, and to ensure that federal programs 

are administered in a manner that, to the 

extent practicable, is compatible with 

state, unit of local government, and private programs and policies to protect 

farmland. Farmland includes prime or 

unique land, or land of statewide or local 

importance for the production of food, 

feed, fiber, forage, or oilseed crops, as determined by the state or local government. 

The National Park Service consulted with 

the Department of Agriculture’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, the 

agency responsible for implementation of 

the policy. The Natural Resource Conservation Service advised that there are no 

prime farmlands within the monuments. 

Water Resources. Water resources at 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments include Wet Beaver Creek, 

Beaver Creek, the Verde River, Montezuma Well, the outflow ditch from Montezuma Well, and Shea Spring (flows into 

Tavasci Marsh). Groundwater is vital to 

the wetland systems, springs, surface 

fluvial systems, and monument operational needs (potable water supply). The regional aquifer that support these cultural 

features and natural systems includes the 

alluvium of the Verde River, Verde Formation, Coconino Sandstone, Supai Formation, Naco Formation, Redwall Limestone, Martin Formation, and Tapeats 

Sandstone. These geologic units are hydrologically connected, so regional external influences could impact monument 

groundwater resources and systems dependent on those groundwater resources. 

Although actions associated with the alternatives and other plans and projects 

(for example, trail and boardwalk construction, invasive vegetation control, habitat restoration) have some potential to 
Impact Topics: Resources and Values at 

Stake in the Planning Process 

39 

affect water resources, the adverse impacts would be short-term and negligible 

at most. Sedimentation and increased turbidity would be the primary concerns and 

these potential effects would be offset 

with implementation of best management 

practices and mitigation measures to protect water quality. As a result, water resources were not retained for full evaluation in the environmental assessment. 

The effects of regional external influences 

on groundwater resources are evaluated in 

the cumulative impacts analysis. 

Paleontological Resources. Although 

there are paleontological resources at the 

monuments, none of the alternatives 

would have any adverse effects on these 

resources. Public access to paleontological 

resources, currently restricted, would not 

change. As a result, paleontological resources were not retained for full evaluation in the environmental assessment. 

Transportation 

The transportation infrastructure would 

not change appreciably within the monuments with implementation of any of the 

alternatives in this document. There are 

no proposals for primary or secondary 

road construction in this plan that would 

increase the extent of the transportation 

system in the vicinity of the national monuments. 

Conflicts with Land Use 

Plans, Policies, or Concerns 

Plans and policies associated with lands 

adjacent to the monuments were reviewed. It was determined that alternatives for management of the monuments 

would not affect these lands, or the policies and plans of other jurisdictions. Improvement of connections to Verde River 

Greenway, Dead Horse Ranch State Park, 

and Coconino National Forest are consistent with current plans and management 

directions, and the effects of the alternatives are considered under visitor use and 

experience. Changes in Verde Valley population and land use are considered in the 

Verde Valley Regional Land Use Plan. The 

alternatives do not conflict with this plan, 

and the effects of socioeconomic changes 

in the valley are considered in the Socioeconomics section. 

Energy Requirements and 

Conservation Potential 

The alternative presented in this plan 

would result in negligible changes in energy consumption compared to current 

conditions. The National Park Service 

would continue to pursue sustainable 

practices whenever possible in all decisions regarding national monument operations, facilities management, and development. Whenever possible, the National 

Park Service would use energy conservation technologies and renewable energy 

sources. 

Indian Trust Resources 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any 

anticipated impacts to Indian trust resources from a proposed project or action 

by the 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. 

There are no Indian trust resources at 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments. The lands within the monuments are not held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of Indians based on their status as Indians. 

Therefore, the project would have negligible effects on Indian trust resources. Further, such negligible impacts would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts; the 

proposed actions are consistent with sec-
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

40 

tion 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Because these effects are minor or less in 

degree and would not result in any unacceptable impacts, this topic has been dismissed from further analysis in this document. 

Natural Sounds 

In accordance with Management Policies 

2006 (NPS 2006), an important part of the 

NPS mission is the preservation of natural 

soundscapes associated within national 

park system units. Natural soundscapes 

exist in the absence of human-caused 

sound. 

No monument-specific sound measurements were made to determine natural 

ambient sound levels in the monuments 

for this plan. The natural soundscape includes sounds produced by such sources 

as wind, thunder, insects, bird and animal 

calls, falling rocks, and creeks. Noise levels vary between day and night in the 

monuments. Because human activity 

mostly occurs during the day, noise levels 

in the monuments are higher than at night. 

Night provides greater opportunity to experience the natural sounds with less human influence. 

The primary human-made sounds present 

in the monuments are noises associated 

with vehicles and monument operations. 

Engines are a major source of humancaused sound in the monuments. These 

include automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, 

aircraft, and generators. Other common 

sources of human-caused sound include 

electronic devices such as radios, human 

vocalizations, and vehicle tires on roads. 

Human-caused sound is typically highest 

in the spring and fall, corresponding with 

highest monument visitation during these 

periods. 

Hauling material, operating equipment, 

and conducting other construction activities associated with the alternatives would 

result in human-caused sounds. However, 

all construction activity would occur in 

the developed area of the monuments, 

where the natural ambient soundscape is 

affected by other noise and where opportunities for visitors to experience natural 

sound environments already are limited. 

Sounds associated with construction 

would be temporary, occurring only during the construction activity, and would 

negligibly impact visitor enjoyment of the 

monuments. 

Although new facilities and increased 

access would occur in already developed 

zones, they would potentially alter the 

sound footprint and have the potential to 

create longer lasting effects. For example, 

a new visitor center would result in increased vehicle noise, visitor noise, and 

buildings operations noise. While these 

noise sources may occur in more developed areas, they would also have the potential to impact nearby “Interaction and 

Discovery” and “Resources and Research” 

zones as a result of increased visitation in 

these areas. 

Within the alternatives considered in this 

document, proposed new facilities would 

be in areas where roads, highways, or other monument infrastructure currently exists. Changes in visitor numbers would be 

associated largely with trends in regional 

population and tourism. Adverse impacts 

on natural sounds resulting from proposed new infrastructure would be expected to be audible only up to short distances from the noise source, at low levels, 

and therefore no more than negligible to 

minor. New trails outside of the existing 

developed areas would be upgraded surfaces on existing road traces and additional human-caused noise associated with 

foot-travel would be audible only in local 

areas, at low levels, and therefore not result in greater than negligible adverse impacts to natural sounds. 

Lightscape Management 

In accordance with Management Policies 

2006 (NPS 2006), the National Park Service strives to preserve natural ambient 

lightscapes, which are natural resources 

and values that exist in the absence of hu-
Impact Topics: Resources and Values at 

Stake in the Planning Process 

41 

man-caused light. The monuments strive 

to limit the use of artificial outdoor lighting to that which is necessary for basic 

safety requirements, ensure that all outdoor lighting is shielded to the maximum 

extent possible, and keep light on the intended subject and out of the night sky. 

The proposed actions would not affect the 

existing exterior lighting at the monuments. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires federal 

agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of federal 

programs and policies on minority and 

low-income populations and ensure that 

these programs and policies do not discriminate against people (including populations) because of race, color, or national 

origin. None of the actions proposed in 

this general management plan would have 

disproportionate or adverse impacts on 

minorities or economically disadvantaged 

populations. 

CHAPTER 2:

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING 

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

45 

INTRODUCTION 

Many aspects of the desired condition of 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

(the Castle Site and Well site) and Tuzigoot National Monument are defined in 

the establishing legislation, the national 

monuments’ purpose and significance 

statements, and the servicewide mandates 

and policies described earlier. Within 

these parameters, the National Park Service solicited input from the public, NPS 

staff, other government agencies, tribal 

officials, and other organizations regarding issues and desired conditions for the 

national monuments. Planning team 

members gathered information about existing visitor use and the condition of the 

national monuments’ facilities and resources. They considered which areas of 

the national monuments attract visitors, 

and which areas have sensitive resources. 

Using this information, the planning team 

developed four management zones and 

alternatives to reflect the range of ideas 

proposed by NPS staff and the public. 

This chapter describes the management 

zones and the alternatives for managing 

the national monuments for the next 15 to 

20 years. It includes tables at the end of 

the chapter that summarize the key differences between the alternatives and the 

impacts that are expected from implementing each alternative. The summary of 

impacts table is based on the analysis in 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. 

This chapter also describes mitigation 

measures that would be used to lessen or 

avoid impacts, the future studies that 

would be needed, and the environmentally preferred alternative. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

AND ALTERNATIVES 

Management zones and alternatives are 

the building blocks for developing an approved plan for managing a national park 

system unit. All management zones and 

alternatives are developed within the 

scope of the unit’s purpose, significance, 

mandates, and legislation. 

Management zones are descriptions of 

desired conditions for monument resources and visitor experiences in different areas of the monuments. The management zones identify the widest range of 

potential appropriate resource conditions, 

visitor experiences, and facilities for the 

monuments that fall within the scope of 

the monuments’ purpose, significance, 

and special mandates. Four management 

zones, described in table 1, have been 

identified for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

Each of the alternatives has a management 

concept and a description of how different areas of the national monuments 

would be managed (management zones 

and related actions). The concept for each 

alternative is then presented by the placement of each management zone type on 

the map of the monument. For example, 

management zones for Montezuma Castle 

and Tuzigoot national monuments include 

“interpretive historic” and “resources and 

research.” An alternative that stressed 

maintaining an undeveloped and natural 

condition would have comparatively more 

of the land presented as resources and research zone than an alternative that emphasized education and interpretation and 

that had a large area within the interpretive historic zone. 

This general management plan and environmental assessment presents three alternatives, including the NPS’ preferred 

alternative, for future management of 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments. Alternative A, the “noaction” alternative that presents a continuation of existing management direction, 

is included as a baseline for comparing the 

consequences of implementing each “action” alternative. These action alternatives 

are alternative B (preferred) and alternative C. These action alternatives present 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

46 

different ways to manage resources and 

visitor use and to improve facilities and 

infrastructure at the national monuments. 

The two action alternatives embody the 

range of what the public and the National 

Park Service want to see accomplished 

with natural resource conditions, cultural 

resource conditions, and visitor use and 

experience at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. The configurations for each alternative were developed by overlaying the management zones 

on a map of the monuments. 

The National Park Service would continue 

to follow existing agreements and servicewide mandates, laws, and policies regardless of the alternatives considered in 

this plan. These mandates and policies 

were described in chapter 1. 

FORMULATION OF 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions, visitor uses, and experiences 

or opportunities should be at the national 

monuments rather than on details of how

these conditions, uses, and experiences 

should be achieved. Thus, the alternatives 

do not include many details on resource 

or visitor use management. 

More detailed plans or studies will be required before most conditions proposed 

in the selected alternative are achieved. 

The implementation of the selected alternative also will depend on future funding 

and environmental compliance. This plan 

does not guarantee that that money will be 

forthcoming. The plan establishes a vision 

of the future that will guide day-to-day 

and year-to-year management of the national monuments, but full implementation could take many years. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The development of the preferred alternative involved evaluating the alternatives 

with the use of an objective analysis 

process called “choosing by advantages.” 

Through this process, the planning team 

identified and compared the relative advantages of each alternative according to 

the following factors: 

• Provide opportunities for quality visitor experiences; 

• Protect cultural resources; 

• Preserve natural resources; and 

• Improve NPS operational efficiency. 

This comparison helped the planning 

team determine the elements of the alternatives that would be most advantageous 

to monument resources and the public. 

The costs of implementing the alternatives 

were also considered. For cost estimating, 

general assumptions were made regarding 

the amounts and sizes of development or 

restoration. These assumptions were then 

carried across all alternatives so that comparable costs were considered. 

The relationships between the advantages 

and costs of each alternative were established in the choosing by advantages analysis. This information was used to evaluate 

the attributes of the initial alternatives and 

identify the preferred alternative. This alternative gives the National Park Service 

the greatest benefits for each factor listed 

above for the most reasonable cost. 
47 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones define specific resource conditions and visitor experiences 

to be achieved and maintained in specified 

areas of the national monuments under 

each action alternative. Each zone includes the types of activities and facilities 

that are appropriate in that management 

zone. The management zones were developed as part of this planning effort and, 

therefore, are not applied or mapped for 

the no-action alternative. 

In formulating the alternatives, the management zones were placed in different 

locations or configurations on a map of 

the monuments according to the intent 

(concept) of each alternative. That is, the 

alternatives represent different ways to 

apply the management zones to the national monuments. 

Table 1 presents the management zones 

for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. Resource conditions, 

visitor experiences, and appropriate activities and facilities are described in the 

table for each management zone. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

48 

TABLE 1: MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENTS MANAGEMENT ZONES

Feature Park 

Operations 

Interpretive 

Historic 

Interaction 

and Discovery 

Resources 

and Research 

Zone 

concept 

Operations are 

emphasized with 

substantial levels 

of resource modification and little 

or no visitor use. 

Formal, structured 

education and visitor 

services are emphasized with high use 

and resources in good 

condition. 

Self exploration and 

interactive education 

are emphasized with 

moderate use and 

resources in good 

condition. 

Resource protection 

and research are emphasized with limited 

use and resources in 

improving or pristine 

condition. 

Natural 

resource 

condition 

Natural resources 

may be modified 

for NPS operational needs. 

Natural resources may 

be manipulated in 

small areas to minimize impacts relating to 

visitor use. 

Natural resources may 

be manipulated to 

include features to tell 

the history of the area. 

Management is limited 

to moving toward selfsustaining communities and ecological 

systems of native 

plants and animals. 

Cultural 

resource 

condition 

Properties eligible 

for or listed in the 

National Register 

of Historic Places 

or that fit the 

Archeological 

Resources Preservation Act definition of archeological resources are 

preserved. Additions or modifications are allowed 

only if they do 

not adversely 

affect resource 

integrity. 

Stabilization and intensive preservation 

maintenance of all 

resource fabric associated with the National Register-eligible 

or -listed properties or 

that fit the Archeological Resources Preservation Act definition 

of archeological resources is a high management priority. 

Some modifications to 

cultural resources to 

support visitor activities may be appropriate. 

Stabilization and intensive preservation 

maintenance of all 

resource fabric associated with National 

Register-eligible or -

listed properties or 

that fit the Archeological Resources Preservation Act definition 

of archeological resources is a high management priority. 

Archeological sites and 

other cultural resources that are eligible for or listed in the 

National Register or 

that fit the Archeological Resources Preservation Act definition 

of archeological resources are managed 

for their protection 

and research. 

Hydrologic 

processes 

Natural hydrologic processes are 

likely to be disturbed to protect 

infrastructure, but 

mitigation is used 

to minimize offsite impacts. 

Natural hydrologic 

processes and water 

features may be stabilized to control erosion 

and deposition to protect cultural sites and 

landscapes. 

Natural hydrologic 

processes and water 

features are an important component of the 

historic scene and, to 

the extent practical, 

are managed to reflect 

period conditions. 

Natural hydrologic 

processes are primarily 

undisturbed except for 

management needed 

to repair past damage 

or protect cultural 

resources. 

Natural sights 

and sounds 

Natural sights and 

sounds may be 

compromised by 

the presence of 

vehicles and high 

levels of human 

activity. 

A moderate noise level 

often occurs, including 

noise from vehicles 

and voices. Humanrelated sights predominate. Natural conditions are less important to the visitor experience than in other 

zones. 

Natural sounds and 

scenic quality are important to the visitor 

experience and or 

protection of wildlife. 

Periodic, low-intensity 

noise comes from 

vehicles and human 

voices. Natural sights 

predominate. 

Natural sounds and 

scenic quality are important. Natural 

sounds and sights 

predominate. Intrusions are rare, of low 

intensity, and mainly 

from outside the zone 

(such as vehicle noise). 
Table 1: Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments Management Zones 

49 

TABLE 1: MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENTS MANAGEMENT ZONES 

(CONTINUED)

Feature Park 

Operations 

Interpretive 

Historic 

Interaction 

and Discovery 

Resources 

and Research 

Tolerance 

for impacts 

from human 

use 

Area has a high 

tolerance for resource impacts. 

Area has a moderate tolerance relating to development and visitor use. Area has a low tolerance relating to development and visitor 

use. 

Area has a very low 

tolerance to development and visitor use. 

Resource protection 

takes precedence. 

Visitor 

experience 

Visitor access is 

restricted. 

Amenities and services are 

available to welcome and 

orient visitors to the monuments and to support 

day-use activities. Visitors 

have a formal, structured, 

educational experience. 

Most time spent in this 

zone is on a hardened, 

designated route with 

numerous interpretive 

messages highlighting 

monument themes. 

Visitors experience 

resources and education opportunities that 

represent time periods 

from the Sinaguan 

culture to the 1860s. 

Contact with cultural 

and natural resources 

provides opportunities 

for visitor learning, 

mostly through selfdiscovery and exploration. Some structured 

learning aids may be 

provided, such as 

trails, signs, and programs. 

Access by visitors is 

highly regulated because of the sensitivity 

of resources. Guided 

walks may provide 

limited access and an 

in-depth learning opportunity. 

Interpretation, 

education, 

and 

orientation 

These activities do 

not occur in this 

zone. 

Formal, structured opportunities are greatest in this 

area and could include 

guided programs and 

contact with roving interpreters. Opportunities for 

all ages and abilities to 

learn about monument 

resources are a high priority. All monument themes 

are introduced. 

Opportunities primarily 

are self-directed with 

signs and brochures. 

Cultural demonstrations linking prehistoric to contemporary 

cultures could occur. 

To the extent permissible under section 

5.3.5.2.4 of Management Policies 2006, recreated land use 

scenes, such as prehistoric or historic farming, could be provided 

to illustrate the historic 

landscape. 

Primarily, these areas 

would be interpreted 

indirectly in other 

areas of the monuments. 

Use levels, 

density, and 

encounters 

Visitor use does 

not occur in this 

zone. 

High levels of activity predominate with a very high 

probability of encounters 

with other visitors and 

NPS staff. Group activities 

are handled effectively. 

Moderate levels of 

activity occur in this 

zone with a moderate 

probability of encountering other visitors 

and NPS staff. 

Except for a limited 

number of guided 

walks, this zone has 

very low levels of visitor use, low visitor 

density, and few encounters with others. 

Appropriate 

activities 

Visitor activities do 

not occur in this 

zone. 

Activities include walking, 

natural and cultural resource observation, 

guided walks, picnicking, 

and photography. Special 

events could be allowed 

with a permit. 

Activities include resource education, 

interpretive walks, 

natural and cultural 

resource observation, 

and sightseeing. 

Activities include 

guided, interpretive 

hikes; photography; 

resource observation, 

and research. 

Level of 

challenge, 

Visitor activities do 

not occur in this 

This zone provides a low 

level of challenge and 

This zone provides a 

moderate level of chalA moderate to high time commitment is 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50 

TABLE 1: MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENTS MANAGEMENT ZONES 

(CONTINUED)

Feature Park 

Operations 

Interpretive 

Historic 

Interaction 

and Discovery 

Resources 

and Research 

adventure, 

and time 

commitment 

zone. adventure. A short time 

commitment is needed to 

experience this zone. 

lenge and adventure, 

and requires a moderate time commitment. 

needed to access and 

experience this zone. 

Challenge and adventure are not appropriate uses. 

Degree and 

character of 

development 

This zone has concentrated areas of 

intensive development to support 

monument operations. 

This zone has concentrated areas of intensive 

development. Noncontributing elements are apparent, but are carefully 

designed and placed to 

complement the character 

of adjacent zones. 

This zone has moderate levels of development. The character 

is less formal than the 

Interpretive Historic 

zone. 

No development for 

visitor use occurs in 

this zone. 

Types of 

facilities 

Monument administration facilities in 

this zone include 

headquarters, 

maintenance areas, 

housing, and other 

facilities necessary 

for the management of the monuments. 

This zone includes visitor 

centers, fee stations, comfort stations, picnic areas, 

roads, parking lots, paved 

or hardened trails, 

benches, wayside exhibits, 

kiosks, and education 

facilities. Commercial 

visitor service and facilities 

could be based in this 

area. Regulatory and interpretive signs are common. 

Facilities in this zone 

include interpretive 

signs and naturalsurface trails that reflect historic conditions as much as possible. Other facilities, 

such as farm plots, 

represent periods of 

significance. 

Improvements that 

facilitate interpretation 

and safety are small 

and blend with the 

environment. 

This zone does not 

have any development 

for visitor use. 

Visitor 

management 

Visitor activities do 

not occur in this 

zone. 

Physical controls, such as 

fencing and barriers, and 

providing tools for visitor 

self-management, such as 

prohibiting climbing, restrict visitor access and 

accommodate high use 

while protect resources. 

Providing tools for 

visitor selfmanagement, such as 

prohibiting climbing, 

ensure resource protection while accommodating moderate 

use. 

Regulatory controls on 

visitor access, such as 

allowing only guided 

trips or access for approved research, results in low use and 

ensures resource protection. 

Thresholds 

for triggering visitor 

management 

actions 

Visitor activities do 

not occur in this 

zone. 

Thresholds are low for 

safety issues, moderate 

for resource protection, 

and moderate for visitor 

experience. 

Thresholds are moderate for safety issues, 

low for resource protection, and low for 

visitor experience. 

Thresholds are moderate for safety issues, 

low for resource protection, and high for 

visitor experience. 
51 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

This alternative continues current management direction and trends at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. It provides a baseline for comparison in evaluating the changes and impacts of the action alternatives. The National Park Service would continue to 

manage the monuments as it has in the 

past. The last comprehensive planning 

effort for the national monuments was 

completed in 1975. At that time, management zones such as those developed and 

applied to alternatives B and C in this 

document were not used. Management 

direction for resource protection and visitor use would continue to be provided, as 

appropriate, by the specific direction provided in the 1975 plan, and managers 

would continue to follow the special mandates and administrative commitments 

and the servicewide mandates and policies 

that were described in “Guidance for the 

Planning Effort” in chapter 1, as staffing 

and budget allow. 

The locations of facilities are shown on 

three maps, titled: 

• Alternative A – No Action, Montezuma Castle National Monument, Castle 

Site; 

• Alternative A – No Action, Montezuma Castle National Monument, Well 

Site; and 

• Alternative A – No Action, Tuzigoot 

National Monument. 

The emphasis under this alternative would 

be to continue the current management of 

the monuments. Specifically: 

• For the most part, existing operations 

and visitor facilities would remain as 

they are today. 

• Most of the areas accessible to visitors 

would continue to have hardened facilities with physical and regulatory 

barriers to manage visitor use. 

• There would continue to be limited 

opportunities for close contact between visitors and the natural and cultural resources at the sites. 

• Water quantity monitoring at Montezuma Well and in Wet Beaver Creek 

and the Verde River would continue. 

• Much of the monuments’ lands would 

be off-limits to visitors to protect their 

sensitive cultural resources. 

The interpretive emphasis would continue 

to focus on the three primary sites (Montezuma Castle, Montezuma Well, and Tuzigoot Pueblo) within the monuments. 

The current low level of connection between the sites in terms of interpretation 

and activities would continue. 

Interpretation would continue to occur at 

the monuments’ visitor centers, through 

roving interpreters, and with some offsite 

programs. There would continue to be 

limited opportunities for group programs 

and/or cultural demonstrations. 

Resource activities would continue to focus on stabilizing the primary sites. The 

principal archeological resources, such as 

the Tuzigoot Pueblo and Montezuma Castle, would receive intensive preservation 

treatment and regular cyclic maintenance. 

Other archeological resources would be 

stabilized pursuant to consultation under 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. However, despite improved 

techniques, more highly skilled labor, and 

specialized training, the lack of adequate 

funding and personnel has barely enabled 

staff to keep up with necessary routine 

stabilization work, much less long-term, 

cyclic work that should be performed in a 

timely manner to prevent further deterioration. 

Natural resources would be protected by 

virtue of being in the monuments. How-
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

52 

ever, management of these resources 

would be constrained by the lack of staff 

and funding. Hydrologic resources, such 

as Beaver Creek, would continue to be 

managed in some areas to control erosion 

and deposition and to protect cultural 

sites and landscapes. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS, LAND 

PURCHASES, AND EASEMENTS 

The no-action alternative would not include any boundary adjustments, land 

purchases or easements. 



56 

ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED)

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

The main emphasis of this alternative is to 

connect the three sites with improved regional orientation to the Verde Valley. 

Visitors would be introduced to all three 

sites and their related interpretive themes 

through coordinated messaging among 

the three sites. Visitors would travel to the 

sites to learn about the prehistoric and 

historic stories associated with human settlement of the Verde Valley. 

• The Castle would highlight the architecture of the structure and offer the 

perspective of life in a cliff dwelling. 

This alternative would provide spectacular views from below the Castle 

along Beaver Creek. 

• Montezuma Well would highlight the 

prehistoric and historic farming activities that were possible in the area because of the presence of water. 

• Tuzigoot Pueblo would highlight the 

perspective of daily life in a hilltop 

pueblo, providing demonstrations and 

programs associated with the socioeconomic activities of the area. 

• Partnerships would be developed and 

enhanced with Verde Valley organizations, land owners, and government 

agencies to ensure awareness of the 

significance of the monuments and the 

important role that regional activities 

and land uses can play in the protection of monument resources. 

Managers would continue to follow the 

special mandates and administrative 

commitments and the servicewide mandates and policies that were described in 

"Guidance for the Planning Effort" in 

chapter 1. 

CONDITIONS AND ACTIONS 

COMMON TO ALL THREE SITES 

Features of alternative B that would apply 

at Montezuma Castle, Montezuma Well, 

and Tuzigoot include the following. 

• Resource management activities 

would be increased through expansion of the monuments’ resource stabilization program and active participation in the NPS inventory and 

monitoring program. 

• Formal interpretive and education 

opportunities would be expanded. 

• Orientation to the sites and other opportunities in the Verde Valley would 

be improved through partnerships 

that focus on coordinated wayfinding, 

marketing, increased information dissemination, and pre-trip planning services. Visitors would learn about prehistoric and historic human settlements in the Verde Valley and how 

each of the monument sites and other 

sites in the region provides opportunities to experience these stories first 

hand. 

• At each site, interpretation through 

signs, programs, and cultural demonstrations would highlight the major 

themes. 

• The National Park Service would acquire most of the privately owned 

lands within the legislated boundaries 

through trade or purchase from willing sellers, except for the mine tailings 

at Tuzigoot, which would be removed 

from the legislated boundary. The 

mine tailings do not contain resources 

related to the purpose and significance 

of the monument, are highly disturbed 

by mining activity, and are contaminated by hazardous substances. The 

monument is particularly interested in 

acquiring the relatively intact acreage 
Alternative B: (Preferred) 

57 

on the bench northwest of the ruins, 

which has archeological sites. 

• Operational efficiency would be improved through the development of 

workspace and storage among the 

three sites to replace offsite workspace 

and storage lost with the expiration of 

the General Services Administration 

lease with the Yavapai Apache tribe 

for the current maintenance facility. 

(The administrative headquarters under a different General Services Administration lease from that of the 

maintenance facility would remain in 

Camp Verde. 

• Where possible, new facilities, such as 

trails, would be constructed in already 

disturbed areas or on existing pathways, social trails, or management use 

trails. Trails would be clearly marked 

and would avoid archeological sites. 

Disturbance to sensitive areas, such as 

archeological sites or habitat for 

threatened or endangered species, 

would also be avoided whenever possible or mitigated. (See the section “Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives.”) 

MANAGEMENT ZONES AND 

RELATED ACTIONS AT EACH SITE 

Management at each site and within each 

zone is described below. The application 

of management zones is presented on 

three maps: 

• Alternative B – Castle Site, Montezuma Castle National Monument; 

• Alternative B – Well Site, Montezuma 

Castle National Monument; and 

• Alternative B, Tuzigoot National Monument. 

Montezuma Castle 

Most of the Castle site would be in the resources and research zone. This zone 

would emphasize resource protection and 

research, and the predominance of natural 

sounds, with limited visitor use. Visitors 

would not be permitted in areas within 

this zone unless they were participating in 

an NPS-led activity. 

The existing facilities for visitor services, 

such as the entrance road, parking lot, 

visitor center, and loop walk near the Castle, would be zoned interpretive historic 

and remain much as today. A small area at 

the junction of the monument entrance 

road and service road to the sewage lagoons would be zoned interpretive historic to support the potential addition of 

parking and/or a bus drop-off area. 

Through guided walks at Montezuma 

Castle, visitors would have opportunities 

to view the cliff dwelling from new vantage points and to interact with (but not 

cross) the river. These opportunities may 

provide visitors with a better perspective 

of the architecture of the dwelling and 

what it may have been like to live in a cliff 

dwelling during prehistoric times. This 

alternative also would increase the diversity of activities and settings that visitors 

may explore. 

A portion of the river corridor just south 

of the Castle would be zoned as interaction and discovery. This would allow 

some natural-surface trails with interpretive signs and spectacular views from the 

river valley to the Castle. The increased 

opportunities for self-discovery of the river would provide a better understanding 

of the importance of riparian and water 

resources to the history of the Sinagua. It 

may also foster an improved visitor understanding of the continued need to protect 

riparian resources in the Southwest and 

throughout the nation. 

A corridor along Montezuma Castle Road 

and Beaver Creek Estates Road would be 

zoned interaction and discovery. This area 

would accommodate regional trail activities for horseback riding, hiking, and 

mountain biking. 

Staff housing, the road to the sewage lagoons, the sewage lagoons, and the road to 

the water tanks would be in the park operations zone. This zone would allow man-
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

58 

agement activities to support the monument’s continued operations, and visitor 

use would not be permitted in these areas. 

A new operations facility would be built in 

the administration, housing, and warehouse area. The historic maintenance 

building (determined eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places on 

July 13, 1994) would be rehabilitated and 

adaptively reused. The new facility would 

replace work space and storage space lost 

with the expiration of the GSA lease with 

the Yavapai Apache reservation n Camp 

Verde, supporting the functions of all 

three sites, particularly the Castle. 

Montezuma Well 

Most of the Montezuma Well site would 

be zoned resources and research. This 

zone would emphasize resource protection and research, and the predominance 

of natural sounds, with limited visitor use. 

Visitors would not be permitted in areas 

within this zone unless they were participating in an NPS-led activity. 

The existing roads, two parking lots at 

Montezuma Well and picnic area, and 

trails leading to and around Montezuma 

Well would be zoned interpretive historic. 

All would remain much as today. 

This alternative would increase the interpretation and interaction regarding the 

unique resource of Montezuma Well and 

its long history of affecting Native American and Euro-American farming in the 

area. Similar to changes at the Castle, this 

alternative also would provide more diverse activities and settings for visitors to 

explore. 

Visitors would be encouraged to visit the 

resources associated with historic farming 

that are adjacent to the picnic area. 

The area just south and west of the picnic 

area would be zoned interaction and discovery. It would provide natural-surface 

trails improved on existing formal and informal trail routes for visitors to hike and 

explore the land that was used for historic 

farming activities. Visitors would be able 

to view the interaction of human history 

on the natural systems. They also would 

be able to find quiet places to enjoy the 

sights and sounds of the riparian system of 

Wet Beaver Creek, including excellent 

opportunities for bird watching. 

Visitors would be able to drive to the 

parking lot at Montezuma Well and visit 

the well as they do today. A shade ramada 

would be constructed on the visitor contact station in the existing footprint of the 

parking lot near Montezuma Well. The 

facility would contain interpretive panels 

and shaded space for interaction with NPS 

staff and volunteers. 

The current housing and maintenance 

area east of the Back cabin would be 

zoned park operations. Management activities in this zone would support the 

monument’s continued operations, and 

visitor use would not be permitted. 

A modest workspace and storage building 

would be constructed near the residential 

area to replace leased space in Camp 

Verde. Because of Montezuma Well’s remote location, this building would include 

basic emergency services for visitors. 

Tuzigoot 

Most of the monument would be zoned 

for interaction and discovery. This would 

include the areas east, north, and south of 

the pueblo, which would provide visitors 

with opportunities to travel along the riparian area on natural-surface trails. 

Through collaboration with partners, 

these trails may link with trails in Dead 

Horse Ranch State Park and the Coconino 

National Forest. 

The area north of the tailings and south of 

Peck’s Lake would be zoned resources 

and research. This zone would emphasize 

resource protection and research, and the 

predominance of natural sounds, with limited visitor use. Visitors would not be 

permitted in areas within this zone unless 

they were participating in an NPS-led activity. 
Alternative B: (Preferred) 

59 

The existing entrance road, parking lot, 

visitor center, trails leading to and through 

the pueblo, and trail to the overlook at 

Tavasci Marsh would be zoned interpretive historic. All would remain much as 

today. 

This alternative would provide increased 

opportunities for visitors to learn about 

the activities associated with daily life in a 

hilltop pueblo and its association with 

nearby communities, including river 

communities and other hilltop pueblos. 

To support this objective, increased opportunities for cultural demonstrations, 

including craftsmanship and social activities, would be provided in and around the 

pueblo. 

The area south of the pueblo that was 

zoned interpretive historic would provide 

access via trails to the river. Interpretive 

signs and programs in this area would focus on prehistoric trade activities and 

farming that would have been associated 

with life in the pueblo. 

Active wetland restoration and management activities would begin at the newly 

acquired Tavasci Marsh on the northeast 

side of the pueblo. Restoration activities 

would focus on maintaining existing hydrologic functions by reducing the influence of Peck’s Lake and restoring native 

vegetation. A boardwalk would be constructed across the marsh, providing 

access to the marsh and the trail systems 

of adjacent public lands. If assessment determines that there would be no conflict 

with preservation of significant cultural 

resources, the boardwalk would be constructed along an existing old road alignment to avoid new resource disturbance. 

The National Park Service would allow 

access from the main entrance road so 

that Arizona State Parks can implement 

the Verde River Greenway Management 

Plan proposal to build a small parking area 

and a launch facility for small boats. These 

features would be on state-owned land on 

the east side of the monument entrance 

road. 

The current housing and maintenance 

area north of the pueblo would be zoned 

park operations. Management activities in 

this zone would support the monument’s 

continued operations, and visitor use 

would not be permitted in these areas. A 

modest workspace and storage building 

would be constructed near the residential 

area to replace space lost with the expiration of the leased work space in Camp 

Verde, tailored specifically for the functions and operations of Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Because of the monument’s 

remote location, this building would include basic emergency services for visitors. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS, LAND 

PURCHASES, AND EASEMENTS 

The boundary of Tuzigoot National Monument was expanded by Congress in 

1978. However, until 2005, when it received 324 acres in a land exchange, the 

National Park Service did not own any of 

the land in the boundary expansion. 

Approximately 467 additional acres are 

currently owned by Freeport McMoRan 

Copper and Gold, Inc. mining corporation. These lands are part of the viewshed 

from primary monument resources. About 

300 acres are highly disturbed from mining, reclamation, and development activities by Freeport McMoRan. 

The Freeport McMoRan land on the 

bench to the northwest of the ruins is relatively undisturbed and contains archeological sites. 

Because the mine tailings area does not 

contain resources related to the purpose 

and significance of the monument, is highly disturbed by mining activity, and is contaminated by hazardous substances, it 

would be removed from Tuzigoot National Monument’s legislated boundary. 

The National Park Service would look to 

acquiring the other land suitable within 

the monument boundary, including that 

owned by Freeport McMoRan Copper 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 

and Gold, Inc. (minus the tailings), or 

work cooperatively with Freeport 

McMoRan and other entities to protect 

the land for public use consistent with the 

general management plan zoning intent 

until such time as the lands are acquired 

by the National Park Service. 
LEGEND 2000 Feet 1000 0 1000

Alternative B - Castle Site

Montezuma Castle National Monument

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

DSC 309 20017 August 2008

NORTH

Watertank

Main

Castle Trail

Castle

Sewage Lagoons Designated Trails

Overflow

Parking

Visitor

Center

Admin.

Overflow

Parking

Coconino National Forest

Coconino National Forest

Coconino

National

Forest

Beaver

Creek

Estates

Inte st r ate 17

Management Zones

Interpretive HistoricInteraction and DiscoveryPark OperationsResources and ResearchMontezuma Castle


64 

ALTERNATIVE C

CONCEPT AND GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

The main emphasis of this alternative is to 

provide increased opportunities for visitors to self-discover the beauty and wonder of the natural and cultural resources 

of the monuments. In this alternative, resources would still receive the highest level of protection, but visitors could interact 

with and explore a wider range of the resources found in the monuments. Visitor 

contact facilities would be located at each 

of the three sites. 

In this alternative the monuments would 

be considered as part of the region’s public land resources. The National Park Service would emphasize partnerships with 

surrounding public lands agencies to provide connections to recreational and educational opportunities off site. 

CONDITIONS AND ACTIONS 

COMMON TO ALL THREE SITES 

Features of alternative C that would apply 

at Montezuma Castle, Montezuma Well, 

and Tuzigoot include the following. 

• Protection of cultural resources would 

not change from the no-action alternative. 

• Greater emphasis would be placed on 

visitor services and administrative facilities than in alternative B. These 

may be expanded in select areas such 

as a new headquarters at the Castle to 

replace administrative space in Camp 

Verde a new visitor center at Montezuma Well and new trails at all three 

sites. This would result in a slightly 

larger development footprint. 

• More of the monuments’ cultural and 

natural resources would be available 

for visitors to explore via trails. This 

would allow more personal contact 

with resources, such as guided walks 

along the river that would allow visitors to view the cliff dwellings at the 

Castle. Trails would be on disturbed 

lands or on existing pathways, social 

trails, or management use trails; would 

be clearly marked; and would avoid 

archeological sites. 

• Trail connection opportunities with 

surrounding public lands would be 

explored with partners to increase 

recreation and education activities. 

• Visitors could learn about the cultural 

resources of the monuments and 

could participate in other recreational 

and educational opportunities such as 

nature hikes along the water, photography, bird watching, picnicking, and 

group educational programs. 

• The National Park Service would acquire most of the privately owned 

lands within the legislated boundaries 

through trade or purchase from willing sellers, except for the mine tailings 

at Tuzigoot, which would be removed 

from the legislated boundary. The 

mine tailings do not contain resources 

related to the purpose and significance 

of the monument, are highly disturbed 

by mining activity, and are contaminated by hazardous substances. The 

monument is particularly interested in 

acquiring the relatively intact acreage 

on the bench northwest of the ruins, 

which has archeological sites. 

• Where possible, new facilities such as 

trails would be constructed in already 

disturbed areas. Disturbance to sensitive areas such as archeological sites 

and habitats for threatened or endangered species would also be avoided 

or mitigated whenever possible. (See 

the section “Mitigation Measures 

Common to All Action Alternatives.”) 

• Partnerships would be developed and 

enhanced with Verde Valley organizations, land owners, and government 

agencies to ensure awareness of the 
Alternative C 

65 

significance of the monuments and the 

important role that regional activities 

and land uses can play in the protection of monument resources. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES AND 

RELATED ACTIONS AT EACH SITE 

Management at each site and within each 

zone is described below. The application 

of management zones is presented on 

three maps: 

• Alternative C – Castle Site, Montezuma Castle National Monument; 

• Alternative C – Well Site, Montezuma 

Castle National Monument; and 

• Alternative C, Tuzigoot National Monument. 

Montezuma Castle 

Most of the Castle site would be in the resources and research zone. This zone 

would emphasize resource protection and 

research, and the predominance of natural 

sounds, with limited visitor use. Visitors 

would not be permitted in areas within 

this zone unless they were participating in 

an NPS-led activity. 

The existing facilities for visitor services, 

such as the entrance road, parking lot, and 

loop walk near the Castle, would be zoned 

interpretive historic and remain much as 

today. A small area at the junction of the 

monument entrance road and service road 

to the sewage lagoons would be zoned interpretive historic to support the potential 

addition of parking and/or a bus drop-off 

area. 

A new headquarters building would be 

constructed at the beginning of the entrance road to the monument. This facility 

would allow administrative activities to 

move on site, closer to visitor service activities. 

This alternative would provide expanded 

opportunities to explore the riparian areas 

along Beaver Creek, allowing visitors to 

see and better understand the important 

connection between humans and the water. To meet this objective, the area south 

of the Castle loop trail would be zoned 

interpretive historic, providing access to 

the creek and to new picnic facilities on its 

south bank. From this picnic location, visitors would be close to the water and have 

views across the river to the Castle. A new 

bridge crossing the creek would be constructed to be resistant to flood waters. 

The river corridor would be zoned interaction and discovery, providing selfguided, designated trails along the river 

with some interpretation. 

To provide better views of the river valley 

and its proximity to the cliff dwelling, 

access to the plateau above the cliff dwelling would be provided for a small number 

of private vehicles at one time. The road to 

the water tanks and a small area near the 

water tanks would be zoned interpretive 

historic to provide vehicle access and 

parking. The area around the road and 

parking would be zoned interaction and 

discovery, and natural-surface trails and 

interpretive signs would be provided. 

The pit house along the entrance road 

would be zoned resources and research, 

with a small adjacent visitor access trail 

and interpretive signs. 

A corridor along Montezuma Castle Road 

and Beaver Creek Estates Road would be 

zoned interaction and discovery. This area 

would accommodate regional trail activities for horseback riding, hiking, and 

mountain biking. 

Staff housing, the road to the sewage lagoons, and the sewage lagoons would be 

zoned park operations. If the increased 

diversity and amount of activities proposed in this alternative increases visitation levels and lengths of stay, the amount 

of area zoned park operations may increase to meet visitor management needs. 

This zone would allow management activities to support the monument’s continued operations, and visitor use would not 

be permitted in these areas. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

A new operations facility would be built in 

the administration, housing, and warehouse area (determined eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places 

on July 13, 1994) would be rehabilitated 

and adaptively reused. The new facility 

would replace work space and storage 

space lost with the expiration of the General Services Administration lease with the 

Yavapai Apache reservation supporting 

the functions of all three sites, particularly 

the Castle. 

Montezuma Well 

Most of the Montezuma Well site would 

be zoned resources and research. This 

zone would emphasize resource protection and research, and the predominance 

of natural sounds, with limited visitor use. 

Visitors would not be permitted in areas 

within this zone unless they were participating in an NPS-led activity. 

The existing roads, two parking lots at 

Montezuma Well and picnic area, and 

trails leading to and around Montezuma 

Well would be zoned interpretive historic. 

All would remain much as today. 

To increase visitor opportunities, a new 

visitor center would be constructed at the 

entrance of the road to Montezuma Well. 

The purpose of the visitor center would be 

to serve as a focal point for visitor contact, 

to better distribute visitation within the 

monument, and to provide broader visitor 

orientation within the Verde Valley. Interpretation would focus on early regional 

land use patterns and migratory routes. It 

would include exhibit space, restrooms, 

and staff office space. This would increase 

visitor orientation and interpretation services on site and would provide a better 

introduction and understanding of the 

resources and regional context of the 

Montezuma Well site. The visitor center 

would be no more than 4,000 square feet. 

It would include parking, an upgraded 

access road, and development of a new 

water supply. 

This alternative would expand opportunities for visitors to connect with the natural 

environment by providing additional 

trails. Some would be located to emphasize the long history of humans’ connection 

to water in the area. Visitors could explore 

these trails for recreation, nature observation, and interpretation. 

• The area in the southwest corner of 

the Montezuma Well site would be 

zoned interaction and discovery to allow designated natural-surface trails 

to and along the riparian area of Wet 

Beaver Creek. 

• A natural-surface, designated trail 

would be located near the prehistoric 

ditch that extends from Montezuma 

Well and along Wet Beaver Creek. 

This trail would also follow the rim 

along the north side of Montezuma 

Well. 

• A trail would extend from the visitor 

center to Montezuma Well, following 

the road. 

The areas around facilities that would be 

zoned as Resources and Research would 

be protected from visitor impacts through 

signing, interpretive and educational information, and through appropriate facility designs that would discourage visitor 

access to areas of sensitive resources. 

The current housing and maintenance 

area east of the Back cabin would be 

zoned park operations. Management activities in this zone would support the 

monument’s continued operations, and 

visitor use would not be permitted. 

Tuzigoot 

Most of the monument would be zoned 

interaction and discovery. Visitors would 

find expanded opportunities to explore 

additional areas of the monument. In 

these areas, natural-surface trails may be 

designated. If assessment determines that 

there would be no conflict with preservation of significant cultural resources, 

mountain bicycling opportunities may al-
Alternative C 

67 

so be provided on old roadbeds in the 

area. Trail connections with neighboring 

federal and state lands would be explored. 

To accomplish this objective, partnerships 

with Dead Horse Ranch State Park, the 

Verde River Greenway, and Coconino 

National Forest would be expanded. 

The existing entrance road, parking lot, 

visitor center, trails leading to and through 

the pueblo, and trail to the overlook at 

Tavasci Marsh would be zoned interpretive historic. All would remain much as 

today. A boardwalk would be constructed 

across the marsh, providing access to the 

marsh and the trail systems of adjacent 

public lands. If assessment determines that 

there would be no conflict with preservation of significant cultural resources, the 

boardwalk would be constructed along an 

existing old road alignment to avoid new 

resource disturbance. 

Most of the area directly around the road, 

parking lot, pueblo, and administrative 

facilities would be zoned resources and 

research. This would emphasize resource 

protection and research, with limited visitor use. Visitors would not be permitted in 

these areas unless participating in an NPSled activity. 

The National Park Service would cooperate with Arizona State Parks on implementing the Verde River Greenway Management Plan proposal to build a small 

parking area and a launch facility for small 

boats. These features would be on stateowned land on the east side of the monument entrance road. 

The current housing and maintenance 

area north of the pueblo would be zoned 

park operations. Management activities in 

this zone would support the monument’s 

continued operations, and visitor use 

would not be permitted in these areas. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS, LAND 

PURCHASES, AND EASEMENTS 

As described in alternative B, the mine 

tailings area would be removed from Tuzigoot National Monument’s legislated 

boundary. 

The National Park Service would look to 

acquiring the land within the monument 

boundary, including that owned by the 

Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, 

Inc. (minus the tailings), or work cooperatively with Freeport McMoRan and other 

entities to protect the land for public use 

consistent with the general management 

plan zoning intent until such time as the 

lands are acquired by the National Park 

Service.



71 

COST ESTIMATES 

DEVELOPMENT 

OF COST ESTIMATES 

Class C cost estimates were developed to 

help determine which alternative gives the 

National Park Service the greatest benefits 

for the most reasonable cost. These are 

not to be used for budgetary purposes or 

implementation funding requests. 

The cost estimates for all of the alternatives contain the same elements and were 

developed with the same general assumptions to allow consistency and comparability among alternatives. 

Initial One-Time Costs 

One-time costs included the following: 

• New development (including NPS infrastructure costs); 

• Major rehabilitation or restoration of 

existing facilities; 

• Interpretive media, such as audiovisual materials, exhibits, waysides, and 

publication; and 

• Resource management and visitor service costs, such as resource and visitor 

inventories, implementation planning, 

and compliance. 

NPS Facilities Model 

The National Park Service has developed 

a model for estimating the costs of several 

types of facilities, such as visitor centers 

and maintenance facilities, based on factors unique to each national park system 

unit. This model was used in estimating 

the square footage of facilities to be constructed. 

SUMMARY OF 

COMPARATIVE COSTS 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

this is a long-term plan, and in the framework of the plan, monument managers 

would take incremental steps to reach 

monument management goals and objectives. Although some of the actions can be 

accomplished with little or no funding, 

some actions would require more detailed 

implementation plans, site-specific compliance, and additional funds. 

The cost figures shown here and throughout the plan are intended only to provide 

an estimate of the relative costs of alternatives. NPS and industry cost estimating 

guidelines were used to develop the costs 

(in 2008 dollars) to the extent possible, but 

the estimates should not be used for budgeting purposes. Specific costs will be determined in subsequent, more detailed 

planning and design exercises, and considering the design of facilities, identification of detailed resource protection needs, 

and changing visitor expectations. Actual 

costs to the National Park Service will vary 

depending on if and when the actions are 

implemented, and on contributions by 

partners and volunteers. 

The implementation of the approved plan, 

no matter which alternative is selected, 

will depend on future NPS funding levels 

and servicewide priorities, and on partnership funds, time, and effort. The approval of a general management plan does 

not guarantee that funding and staffing 

needed to implement the plan will be 

forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

plan could be many years in the future. 

Table 2 presents the cost summaries for 

the alternatives. A detailed list of cost elements for each alternative is presented in 

appendix C. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

72 

TABLE 2: COST SUMMARY FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE

Alternative A: 

No-Action 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Annual operating costs (ONPS) a/ $1,454,000 

No additional staff. 

$1,802,000 

Additional staff. b

1 GS9 ranger - community outreach 

1 GS9 ranger - interpretation 

2 WG7 maintenance mechanics 

1 GS11 biologist 

$1,802,000 

Additional staff. b

1 GS9 ranger - community 

outreach 

1 GS9 ranger - interpretation 

2 WG7 maintenance mechanics 

1 GS11 biologist 

Currently planned costs (one-time 

costs) c

$1,034,000 $1,034,000 $1,034,000 

Montezuma Castle - Castle Unit 

Expand parking lot (25 cars) $0 $65,000 $0 

Expand parking lot ( 35 cars) $0 $0 $90,000 

Construct park headquarters $0 $0 $1,500,000 

Rehabilitate historic 

maintenance building $0 $200,000 $200,000 

Designated trails $0 $50,000 $150,000 

Relocate picnic area $0 $0 $200,000 

Construct vehicle 

access/parking on plateau $0 $0 $323,000 

Operations Facility $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 

Montezuma Castle - Well Unit 

Construct visitor ramada $0 $250,000 $0 

Construct visitor center c

$0 0 $6,500,000 

Designated trails $0 $50,000 $150,000 

Construct modest work space and 

storage building $0 $490,000 $0 

Tuzigoot 

Designated trails $0 $150,000 $200,000 

Construct marsh boardwalk (1000') $0 $270,000 $270,000 

Construct modest work space and 

storage building $0 $490,000 $0 

Restore and rehabilitate 

Tavasci Marsh $0 $953,000 $0 

Total Costs d 

$2,488,000 $6,804,000 $13,419,000 

Total one-time costs e

$1,034,000 $5,002,000 $11,617,000 

Facility costs $0 $3,015,000 $10,583,000 

Non-facility costs $0 $953,000 $0 

a/ The base year for all estimates is 2007. Annual operating costs are the total costs per year for maintenance and operations associated with each alternative, 

including utilities, supplies, staff salaries and benefits, leasing, and other materials. Cost and staffing estimates assume that the alternative is fully implemented as described in the narrative. 

b/ The total number of full-time equivalents (FTE) is the number of person-years of staff required to maintain the assets of the monuments in good level, 

provide acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and generally support the monuments’ operations. The FTE number indicated ONPS-funded NPS staff 

only, not volunteer positions or positions funded by partners. FTE salaries and benefits are included in the annual operating costs. 

c/ The visitor center would be no more than 4,000 square feet. It would include parking, an upgraded access road, and development of a new water supply. 

d/ Total costs are the sum of facility costs, non-facility costs and annual operating cost. 

e/ Total one-time cost are sum of facility costs and non-facility costs. 
73 

USER CAPACITY 

This section includes potential indicators, 

standards, and potential management actions for each management zone that 

would be implemented as needed during 

the life of this plan. The recommended 

indicators and standards help translate the 

broader descriptions of desired conditions, which are qualitative in nature, into 

something measurable. The potential indicators have been suggested for monitoring 

key aspects of visitor experiences and resources at the monuments. As indicators 

are identified in the future, standards that 

represent the points where visitor experience and resource conditions become 

unacceptable in each zone would be defined based on management goals. 

Existing facilities generally provide good 

visitor opportunities, protect monument 

resources, and, based on projected trends, 

will continue to function well. However, 

high volumes of use in the peak season can 

cause crowding in the visitor center at 

Montezuma Castle and along the main 

trail to the Castle viewing area. If use increases, or the patterns or timing of use 

changes, crowding may get worse. 

Because of the occasional problems of 

crowded conditions at the Castle, the indicator for “number of people per hour” is 

being developed for this general management plan. This indicator and standard 

will ensure that staff take appropriate action to disperse use throughout the monument or during the day or season to mitigate crowded conditions, as needed. 

The monument staff is already monitoring 

bus arrivals. In the future it may be appropriate to actively disperse bus use 

throughout the day by requiring buses to 

arrive and depart at defined times and reduce use during the mid-day, peak hours. 

The increases in trail opportunities and 

educational programming in the action 

alternatives should improve visitor opportunities and may disperse use away from 

current high-use areas. 

The monument staff will continue monitoring use levels and patterns. If these 

change significantly in any of the zones, 

the staff will initiate more systematic monitoring of user capacity indicators to ensure protection of desired conditions. 

The potential indicators include, but are 

not limited to the topics of vandalism, 

looting, or theft of resources; crowding at 

attraction points; litter; user-created trails; 

human-caused noise; and introduction of 

invasive plants. Before new areas of the 

monuments in the interaction and discovery zone are opened to visitors, the staff 

will select key indicators to monitor like 

those proposed in the zone description. 

Since use patterns have not been established in these areas, it is important for the 

monument staff to monitor conditions to 

ensure that new use in these areas does 

not have unexpected or unintended consequences. 

The selection of any indicators and standards for monitoring or for implementation of any management actions that affect 

use would comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other laws, 

regulations, and policies as needed. The 

National Park Service would also inform 

the public of progress and proposed revisions to indicators and standards through 

regular reporting on the user capacity 

program. 

PARK OPERATIONS ZONE 

No indicators are identified for user capacity because public use is not generally 

permitted in this zone. 

INTERPRETIVE HISTORIC ZONE 

This zone includes high levels of development and physical controls on visitor 

movement, which should substantially 

control visitor use impacts. Use levels and 

patterns would be continually monitored 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

74 

in this zone to identify trends based on 

data collected at the entrance gate, on traffic counters, and through regular observations by monument staff. 

The indicator and standard for the number of people per hour for entry to Montezuma Castle would be implemented. 

The indicator, related monitoring, and 

management actions are below. Monument staff are developing the standard for 

this indicator. 

The indicator will be the number of 

people per hour entering the monument. 

Other indicators that may be considered 

in this zone for future monitoring at any of 

the popular sites in the monuments might 

include: 

• The number of people at a given time 

at other major points of attraction, 

such as the Castle’s visitor center, the 

rim overlooks at Montezuma Well, or 

inside or on top of the Tuzigoot Pueblo; 

• Litter along main pathways; 

• Vegetation trampling in high use areas, 

such as the Montezuma Well picnic 

area; and 

• The condition of archeological resources close to public use, such as the 

walls of the Tuzigoot Pueblo or the 

walls of the dwelling structures at 

Montezuma Well. 

Monument staff will periodically monitor 

the indicator using methods that may include traffic counters, cash-register receipts, and observations at select times 

throughout the day during both peak and 

off-peak season. 

If monitoring indicates that the indicator 

is approaching the standard, future management actions could include any or all 

of the following: 

• Implement voluntary redistribution of 

visitor use throughout the day, week, 

or season. For example, this could include visitor education to alert visitors 

to less busy times of the day, week, or 

season to plan their trips; and the use 

of intelligent transportation system 

(ITS) signs in town that indicate that 

the Castle is full to encourage visitors 

to delay their arrival. 

• Require mandatory redistribution of 

visitor use during peak times. Under 

this approach, visitor reservations may 

be required to visit the Castle during 

peak hours of peak days, or tour bus 

operators may be required to manage 

the arrival of their vehicles to off-peak 

times, days, or months. 

• Restrict visitor use. This could include 

actions such as the closure of the parking lot and/or loop trail during peak 

hours of peak-season days. 

Other potential management actions to 

address changes in conditions could include expanding education and orientation messages, restoring disturbed sites, 

redirecting use to less busy areas, regulating visitor use (for example, reducing 

parking capacity), and increasing physical 

controls on use, such as installing fencing 

or other barriers. 

INTERACTION AND 

DISCOVERY ZONE 

This zone includes low levels of development and physical controls on visitor 

movement. Use levels and patterns will be 

monitored to identify trends in use 

through data collected as part of regular 

monument staff patrols. Other indicators 

that may be considered in this zone for 

future monitoring might include usercreated trails, litter, human-caused noise, 

looting and vandalism of archeological 

sites near designated trails, and invasive 

plants. The range of potential management actions to address changes in conditions could include expanding education 

(particularly “leave no trace” messages); 

restoring disturbed sites; restricting use 

through actions such as a permit system, 

closure of areas, or guided only trips; and 

increasing enforcement patrols. 
User Capacity 

75 

RESOURCES AND 

RESEARCH ZONE 

This zone would have low levels of use, all 

of which would be managed on guided 

tours, so no indicators of user capacity are 

proposed. However, monument staff 

would monitor for vandalism, looting, or 

theft of archeological resources. 
76 

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Congress charged the National Park Service with managing the lands under its 

stewardship “in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of future generations” 

(NPS Organic Act, 16 United States Code, 

section 1). As a result, the National Park 

Service routinely evaluates and implements mitigation whenever conditions 

occur that could adversely affect the sustainability of national park system resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the action alternatives protects unimpaired the 

natural and cultural resources and the 

quality of the visitor experience, a consistent set of mitigation measures would be 

applied to actions proposed in this plan. 

The following mitigation measures and 

best management practices would avoid, 

minimize, or offset potential impacts from 

implementation of the alternatives. These 

measures would apply to all alternatives. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Park Service would preserve 

and protect, to the greatest extent possible, resources that reflect human occupation of the monuments. Specific mitigation 

measures include the following: 

• Subject projects to site-specific planning and compliance. Make efforts to 

avoid adverse impacts through use of 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation and by using screening 

and/or sensitive design that would be 

compatible with historic resources. If 

adverse impacts could not be avoided, 

mitigate those impacts through a consultation process with all interested 

parties. 

• Inventory all unsurveyed areas in the 

monuments for archeological, historical, and ethnographic resources and 

for cultural and ethnographic landscapes. Conduct archeological surveys 

in unsurveyed areas where development would occur to determine the 

extent and significance of archeological resources in the areas. 

• Document cultural and ethnographic 

landscapes in the monuments and 

identify treatments to ensure their 

preservation. 

• Conduct additional background research, resource inventory, and National Register of Historic Places evaluation where information about the 

location and significance of cultural 

resources is lacking, including development of a multiple property historic 

context for national register eligibility 

for archeology in the Verde Valley. Incorporate results of these efforts into 

site-specific planning and compliance 

documents. 

• Should archeological resources be discovered during any construction, stop 

work in that location until the resources are properly recorded by the 

National Park Service and evaluated 

under the Archeological Resources 

Protection Act and the eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic 

Places. Because stopping construction 

can be expensive, preconstruction resource inventories and assessments 

will be conducted to minimize the 

probability of work stoppage. If, in 

consultation with the Arizona state 

historic preservation officer, the resources are determined eligible for 

listing, implement appropriate measures either to avoid further resource 

impacts or to mitigate the loss or disturbance of the resources. 

• Avoid or mitigate impacts on ethnographic resources. Mitigation could 

include identification of and assistance in accessing alternative resource 

gathering areas, continuing to provide 
Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives 

77 

access to traditional use and spiritual 

areas, and screening new development 

from traditional use areas. 

• Conduct additional background research, resource inventory, and National Register of Historic Places evaluation where information about the 

location and significance of cultural 

resources is lacking. Incorporate the 

results of these efforts into sitespecific planning and compliance 

documents. 

• Mitigation measures include documentation according to standards of 

the Historic American Buildings Survey / Historic American Engineering 

Record (HABS/HAER) as defined in 

the Re-engineering Proposal (October 

1, 1997). The level of this documentation, which includes photography, 

archeological data recovery, and/or a 

narrative history, would depend on 

significance (national, state, or local) 

and individual attributes (such as an 

individually significant structure or 

individual elements of a cultural landscape) and be determined in consultation with the state historic preservation officer. When demolition of a historic structure is proposed, architectural elements and objects may be salvaged for reuse in rehabilitating similar structures, or they may be added to 

the monuments’ museum collections. 

In addition, the historical alteration of 

the human environment and reasons 

for that alteration would be interpreted to monument visitors. 

• Wherever possible, locate projects and 

facilities in previously disturbed or existing developed areas. Design facilities to avoid known or suspected archeological resources. 

• Whenever possible, modify project 

design features to avoid effects on cultural resources. New developments 

would be relatively limited and would 

be located on sites that blend with cultural landscapes and are not adjacent 

to ethnographic resources. If necessary, use vegetative screening to minimize impacts on cultural landscapes 

and ethnographic resources. 

• Encourage visitors through interpretive programs to respect, and leave 

undisturbed, tribal offerings and archeological resources. 

• Strictly adhere to NPS standards and 

guidelines on the display and care of 

artifacts. This would include artifacts 

used in exhibits in the visitor center. 

Irreplaceable items would be kept 

above the 500-year floodplain. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Air Quality 

Mitigation measures to minimize, avoid, 

and offset adverse effects to air quality 

could include implementation of a dust 

abatement program for any construction. 

Standard dust abatement measures could 

include the following elements: 

• Water or otherwise stabilize soils. 

• Cover haul trucks. 

• Employ speed limits on unpaved 

roads. 

• Minimize vegetation clearing. 

• Revegetate after construction. 

Nonnative and Exotic Species 

Implement a noxious weed abatement 

program. Standard measures could include the following elements: 

• Ensure that construction-related 

equipment arrives on site free of mud 

or seed-bearing material. 

• Certify all seed and straw material as 

weed-free. 

• Identify areas of noxious weeds prior 

to construction. 

• Treat noxious weeds or noxious weed 

topsoil before construction by me-
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78 

thods such as topsoil segregation, storage, or herbicide treatment. 

• Revegetate with appropriate native 

species. 

Natural Sounds 

Standard noise abatement measures that 

would be implemented during construction to mitigate impacts to natural 

soundscapes could include the following 

elements: 

• Schedule work to minimize impacts 

on nearby noise-sensitive uses. 

• Use the best available noise control 

techniques wherever feasible. 

• Use hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools when feasible. 

• Locate stationary noise sources as far 

from sensitive uses as possible. 

• Site and design facilities to minimize 

objectionable noise. 

Soils 

Mitigation measures to minimize, avoid, 

and offset adverse effects to soils could 

include the following elements: 

• Build new facilities on soils suitable 

for development. 

• Minimize soil erosion by limiting the 

time that soil is left exposed and by 

applying other erosion control measures, such as erosion matting, silt fencing, and sedimentation basins in construction areas to reduce erosion, surface scouring, and discharge to water 

bodies. 

• Once work is completed, revegetate 

construction areas with native plants 

in a timely manner. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of Concern 

Mitigation actions would occur during 

normal monument operations as well as 

before, during, and after construction to 

minimize immediate and long-term impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. These actions would vary by specific project and area. Many of the measures listed below for vegetation and wildlife also would benefit rare, threatened, 

and endangered species by helping to preserve habitat. Mitigation actions specific 

to rare, threatened, and endangered species would include the following: 

• Conduct surveys for rare, threatened, 

and endangered species as warranted. 

• Design and site facilities and actions to 

avoid adverse effects on rare, threatened, and endangered species. If 

avoidance is infeasible, minimize and 

compensate adverse effects on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species as 

appropriate and in consultation with 

the appropriate resource agencies. 

• Develop and implement restoration 

and/or monitoring plans as warranted. 

Plans should include methods for implementation, performance standards, 

monitoring criteria, and adaptive 

management techniques. 

• Implement measures to reduce adverse effects of nonnative plants and 

wildlife on rare, threatened, and endangered species. 

• Manage visitor use and access in rare, 

threatened, or endangered species’ 

habitats to avoid, offset, and minimize 

potential adverse effects to the habitats or species. This could include trail 

or area closures, temporary or seasonal restrictions, or rerouting of visitor 

access. 

Vegetation 

Mitigation measures to minimize, avoid, 

and offset adverse effects to vegetation 

could include the following: 

• Monitor areas used by visitors, such as 

trails, for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Use public education, revegetation of disturbed areas with native plants, erosion control measures, 
Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives 

79 

and barriers to control potential impacts on plants from trail erosion or 

the creation of social trails. 

• Designate river access and crossing 

points, and use barriers and closures 

to prevent trampling and loss of vegetation in other riparian areas. 

• Develop revegetation plans for disturbed areas, including construction 

sites, and require the use of native species. Revegetation plans should specify 

such features as seed and plant 

sources, seed and plant mixes, and soil 

preparation. Use salvaged vegetation 

to the extent possible. 

Water Resources 

To prevent water pollution during construction, mitigation would include the 

following: 

• Use erosion control measures. 

• Minimize discharge to water bodies. 

• Regularly inspect construction 

equipment for leaks of petroleum and 

other chemicals. 

During ongoing operation of the monuments, it may be appropriate to build runoff filtration or sedimentation systems to 

minimize water pollution from larger 

parking areas. 

Wildlife 

Mitigation measures to minimize, offset, 

or avoid adverse effects on wildlife could 

include the following: 

• Employ techniques to reduce impacts 

on wildlife, including visitor education 

programs, restrictions on visitor activities, and monument ranger patrols. 

• Implement a natural resource protection program. Standard measures 

would include construction scheduling, biological monitoring, erosion 

and sediment control, use of fencing 

or other means to protect sensitive resources adjacent to construction, removal of all food-related items or rubbish, topsoil salvage, and revegetation. 

This could include specific construction monitoring by resource specialists 

as well as treatment and reporting 

procedures. 

• Manage visitor use and access to avoid 

particularly sensitive wildlife habitats, 

such as nesting or foraging areas, or 

times when wildlife may be more susceptible to disturbance, such as breeding or nesting seasons. 

Wetlands 

To avoid adverse effects on wetlands, the 

National Park Service would do the following: 

• Delineate wetlands and apply protection measures during construction. 

Wetlands would be delineated by 

qualified NPS staff or certified wetland specialists and clearly marked before construction work. 

• Design and install boardwalks for interpretive purposes and to minimize 

impacts to vegetation and wildlife. 

• Perform construction activities cautiously to prevent damage caused by 

equipment, erosion, and siltation. 

• Actively work to remove nonnative 

plants/animals and restore natural water flows. 

VISITOR SAFETY 

AND EXPERIENCES 

Visitor safety, use, and experience would 

be protected and enhanced with the following: 

• Implement measures to reduce adverse effects of construction on visitor 

safety and experience. 

• Continue directional signs and education programs to promote understanding among visitors. 

• Implement adaptive visitor use management, as outlined in the user capac-
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

80 

ity section of this plan, when resource 

and visitor experience conditions 

trend toward or violate a user capacity 

standard. 

• Employ management strategies such 

as visitor education, site management, 

visitor use regulations, rationing or 

reallocation of visitor use, and enforcement. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Mitigation measures to minimize, offset, 

or avoid potential exposure to or adverse 

effects from hazardous materials would 

include the following: 

• Implement a spill prevention and pollution control program for hazardous 

materials. 

• Employ best management practices 

for hazardous materials storage and 

handling, and for spill containment, 

cleanup, and reporting. 

• Limit refueling and other activities 

involving hazardous materials to upland or non-sensitive sites. 

SCENIC RESOURCES 

Mitigation measures are designed to minimize visual intrusions. These include the 

following: 

• Where appropriate, use facilities such 

as boardwalks and fences to route 

people away from sensitive natural 

and cultural resources while still permitting access to important viewpoints. 

• Design, site, and construct facilities to 

avoid or minimize adverse effects on 

natural and cultural resources and visual intrusion into the natural viewshed 

and/or landscape. 

• Provide vegetative screening where 

appropriate. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

During the future planning and implementation of the approved management 

plan for the monuments, the National 

Park Service would work with local communities and county governments to further identify potential impacts and mitigation measures that would best serve the 

interests and concerns of both the National Park Service and the local communities. Partnerships would be pursued to 

improve the quality and diversity of community amenities and services. 

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 

AND AESTHETICS 

Projects would avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

Development projects, such as buildings, 

utilities, roads, bridges, and trails, or reconstruction projects, such as road improvements, building rehabilitation, and 

utility upgrades, would be designed to 

work in harmony with the surroundings, 

particularly in historic districts. Projects 

would reduce, minimize, or eliminate air 

and water non-point-source pollution. 

Projects would be sustainable whenever 

practicable, by recycling and reusing materials, minimizing materials, minimizing 

energy consumption during the construction, and minimizing energy consumption 

throughout the lifespan of the project. 
81 

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 

After this general management plan for 

the monuments is completed and approved, other more detailed studies and 

plans would be needed to implement specific actions. As required, additional environmental compliance (National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and other relevant laws 

and policies), and public involvement 

would be conducted, as articulated in Director’s Order 75A: Civic Engagement and 

Public Involvement. Additional studies 

would include, but would not be limited 

to, the following: 

• Boundary adjustments at Tuzigoot 

National Monument to remove the 

mine tailings. 

• Comprehensive ethnographic overviews and assessments (including ethnobotanical studies) at both national 

monuments. 

• Historic resource studies at both national monuments. 

• Cultural landscape inventories at both 

monuments to identify specific strategies and determine priorities for the 

management and protection of these 

resources. 

• Comprehensive interpretive plan that 

outlines specific interpretive programming and services at both monuments (currently underway). 

• Restoration plan for Tavasci Marsh to 

outline strategies for returning it to a 

more naturally functioning and stable 

condition. 

• Implementation plans, and sitespecific compliance, if necessary, for 

specific actions within this general 

management plan, such as increased 

parking at Montezuma Castle and a 

visitor contact station at Montezuma 

Well. 

• Site-specific compliance for proposed 

actions that could impact floodplains 

or wetlands or their associated values 

in all three sites of the monument. 

Compliance could include statements 

of findings for actions not exempt under Director’s Order 77-1: Wetlands 

Management or Director’s Order 77-2: 

Floodplain Management. 

• Tuzigoot administrative history. 

• Boundary surveys after land acquisitions then upgrade and post boundary 

fence. 

• Native plants restoration and interpretative trails development at Montezuma Well National Monument. 
82 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferred alternative 

is the alternative that will best promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed in section 101(b) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It is 

determined by applying the criteria in the 

National Environmental Policy Act, 

guided by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (1978) implementing regulations. 

In the National Park Service, this accomplished by (1) disclosing how each alternative meets the criteria set forth in section 

101(b), as listed in table 3, and (2) presenting any inconsistencies between the alternatives analyzed and other environmental 

laws and policies, as described in section 

2.7.E of Director’s Order 12 (NPS 2001). 

When evaluated using the section 101 criteria (see table 3), the preferred alternative 

would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and 

would best protect, preserve, and enhance 

historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

All three alternatives would protect resources for future generations by preserving and interpreting the fundamental resources of the monuments. Furthermore, 

the alternatives would provide opportunities to view and appreciate the monuments’ unique resources in culturally 

pleasing surroundings. All three also 

would strive to mitigate resource impacts 

from visitor use and surrounding land uses 

to the greatest extent possible. All alternatives meet these criteria to some degree, 

although the success in meeting these criteria would vary among the alternatives. 

The preferred alternative surpasses the 

other alternatives in realizing the full 

range of the section 101 environmental 

policy goals. Alternative B would provide 

the highest levels of resource protection 

while increasing the diversity of visitor 

opportunities, including the opportunity 

for self-exploration of the site’s resources. 

Alternative B would provide increased 

levels of connections and partnerships 

with surrounding public lands, making a 

more seamless connection between the 

monuments’ resources and regional resources. 

The no-action alternative provides fewer 

opportunities to experience the monuments’ resources than does the preferred 

alternative. The preferred alternative 

would increase appropriate opportunities 

to explore and learn about the monuments’ unique resources, increasing the 

knowledge and benefit to the public. 

Thus, the no-action alternative does not 

meet as well the following national environmental policy goals: 

• Attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses of the environment without degradation. 

• Preserve important natural aspects 

and maintain an environment that 

supports diversity and variety of individual choice. 

• Achieve a balance between population 

and resource use. 

Alternative C provides additional visitor 

use opportunities and access to Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments as well as increased levels of 

connections and partnerships with surrounding public lands, making a more 

seamless connection between the monuments’ resources and regional resources. 

However, there would be a higher potential for impacts on archeological resources 

because this alternative would provide 

more opportunities for unsupervised 

access to currently closed areas of the 

monuments. It also presents greater 

threats to public health and safety than the 

preferred alternative. Access to the area 

above Montezuma Castle could expose 

visitors to dangers from falling. In addition, access to a large area of Beaver Creek 

in Montezuma Castle could lead to visitors unfamiliar with desert environments 

to get lost and/or experience heat exhaus-
Environmentally Preferred Alternative 

83 

tion. Thus, alternative C does not meet the 

following policy goals as well as the preferred alternative: 

• Attain the widest range of beneficial 

uses without resource degradation 

and risk to health or safety. 

• Preserve important cultural aspects. 

TABLE 3: ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Criterion 

Alternatives 

A B C 

Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations. 

2 a/ 2 2 

Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings. 

2 2 2 

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences. 1 2 1 

Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage 

and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of individual choices. 

1 2 1 

Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

1 2 2 

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. 2 2 2 

Total points 9 12 10 

a/ A rating of 1 indicates that the alternative somewhat meets the criteria. A rating of 2 indicates that the alternative fully

meets the intent of the criteria. There were no “low” ratings because elements that were not environmentally sound 

were eliminated from consideration. 
84 

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED 

BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION 

MONTEZUMA CASTLE 

Castle Site 

Additional hiking trails were considered in 

the Castle site in areas that ultimately were 

zoned in resource and research. These 

hiking trails were dismissed from further 

consideration because these areas are undesirable for hiking (hot and dry) and because of concerns regarding protection of 

resources, particularly archeological sites. 

Well Site 

Constructing a full visitor center at or near 

the current contact station at the existing 

parking lot was considered. This was dismissed because of the presence of sensitive resources (grave sites) in this area. Alternative C considers constructing the visitor center at a different location. 

Also considered was construction of a 

paved trail that would comply with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements 

and would provide access for people with 

impaired mobility to the area along the 

ditch that flows from Montezuma Well to 

the west. This was dismissed because of 

the impacts on the cultural and natural 

resources that would be required to construct this type of trail. 

TUZIGOOT 

Construction of an amphitheater was considered in the creosote flat west of the 

administrative area. This was dismissed 

because the locations that would be suitable for this type of facility were far removed from the main visitor attractions 

(the pueblo and the visitor center). Also, 

through partnering with Arizona State 

Parks, this type of facility already is available at Dead Horse Ranch State Park. 
Summaries 

85 

SUMMARIES 

NPS guidance in Director’s Order #12 and 

Handbook: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making (NPS 2001) requires that environmental assessments include several 

summaries that will facilitate reader understanding. The important features of 

each alternative are summarized in table 4. 

Detailed descriptions of the features of 

each alternative were provided earlier in 

this section. 

The guidance in Director’s Order #12 and 

Handbook also requires a summary presenting the degree to which each alternative meets the stated purpose, need, and 

objectives. This information is provided in 

table 5. 

Another summary should present “the 

impacts of each alternative, including a 

determination of potential improvement 

to park resources.” Table 6 provides a 

brief summary of the effects of each of the 

alternatives on the impact topics retained 

for analysis. More detailed information 

supporting table 6 on the effects of the 

alternatives is provided in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. 

A summary of how each alternative would 

achieve the requirements of section 101(b) 

of the National Environmental Policy Act 

was included in the text and table 3 under 

the heading “Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative.” 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

86 

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Concept This alternative would continue current 

management direction and trends at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. It provides a baseline for comparison in evaluating the changes and impacts of the action alternatives. 

The main emphasis of this alternative is to connect the three sites with improved regional orientation to the Verde Valley area. Visitors would be introduced to all three sites and their related interpretive themes through coordinated messaging among the three sites. Visitors would travel to the sites to learn firsthand about elements of the prehistoric and historic stories associated with human settlement of the Verde Valley. 

The main emphasis of this alternative is to provide increased opportunities for visitors to self-discover the beauty and wonder of the natural and cultural resources of the monuments. Resources would still receive the highest level of protection, and visitors could interact with and explore a wider range of the resources found in the monuments. 

Conditions common to all three sites 

Natural resources would be protected by being in the monuments. However, management of these resources would be limited by the lack of staff and funding. Existing operations and visitor facilities would remain in place. Most of the areas accessible to visitors would continue to have hardened facilities with physical and regulatory barriers to manage visitor use. Opportunities for close contact between visitors and the natural and cultural resources at the sites would continue to be limited. The interpretive emphasis would continue to focus on the three primary sites within the monuments, with little connection among the sites in terms of interpretation. Visitor stays at each site would remain short, and visitors would probably not visit more than one site. 

The National Park Service would increase resource stabilization and monitoring efforts. Partnerships would improve orientation at the sites and other opportunities in the Verde Valley. More of the monuments’ cultural and natural resources would be available for visitors to explore via trails. Visitor stays would increase slightly at each site. The National Park Service would acquire most of the lands within the legislated boundaries except for the mine tailings at Tuzigoot, which would be removed from the legislated boundary. 

Greater emphasis would be placed on visitor and administrative services and facilities compared to alternative B because of a larger development footprint in this alternative. More of the monuments’ cultural and natural resources would be available for visitors to explore via trails. Visitor stays would increase at each of the three sites. The National Park Service would acquire most of the lands within the legislated boundaries except for the mine tailings at Tuzigoot, which would be removed from the legislated boundary. 
Table 4: Summary of the Alternatives 

87 

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Montezuma Castle Resource activities would continue to focus 

on stabilizing the primary site, with intensive preservation treatment and regular cyclic maintenance. Other archeological resources would be stabilized or allowed to molder pursuant to section 106 consultation. To protect cultural sites and landscapes, Beaver Creek would continue to be managed in some areas to control erosion and deposition. Visitor access to the creek would remain limited. Visitor opportunities would continue to focus on viewing the Castle and visiting the visitor center. A picnic area would continue to be available next to the visitor center. Visitor stays would continue to be short (30 minutes to one hour). Existing administration facilities would remain the same. 

Most of the monument would be zoned Resources and Research. The existing facilities for visitor services would be zoned Interpretive Historic and would remain much as today. Additional parking may be added at the junction of the monument entrance road and the service road to the sewage lagoons. Some natural-surface trails with interpretive signs may be sited across the river to provide views to the Castle. A corridor along Montezuma Castle Road and Beaver Creek Estates Road would accommodate regional trail activities for horseback riding, hiking, and mountain biking. The equipment shed (determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places on July 13, 1994) would be rehabilitated and adaptively reused. A new workspace and storage building would be built near the equipment shed to support the maintenance functions of all three sites. The equipment shed would also be rehabilitated and adaptively reused. 

Most of the monument would be zoned Resources and Research. The existing visitor facilities would be zoned Interpretive Historic and would remain much as today. Additional parking may be added at the junction of the monument entrance road and the service road to the sewage lagoons. A new headquarters would be located at the beginning of the entrance road to the monument, replacing the current headquarters after its lease expires. Access over the creek and some picnic facilities on the south bank of the creek would be provided. A new bridge would be resistant to flood waters. In addition, self-guided, designated trails would be provided along the river corridor. To provide better views of the river valley, a small number of private vehicles would be allowed access to the plateau above the cliff dwelling. A corridor along Montezuma Castle Road and Beaver Creek Estates Road would accommodate regional trail activities for horseback riding, hiking, and mountain biking. If the increased diversity and amount of activities proposed in this alternative increases the visitation levels and lengths of stay, the amount of area zoned Park Operations may be increased to meet visitor management needs. A modest workspace and storage building would be built near the equipment 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

88 

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

shed to support the maintenance functions of all three sites. The equipment shed would also be rehabilitated and adaptively reused. 

Montezuma Well Resource activities would continue to focus 

on monitoring water quality and providing short-term visitor experiences at Montezuma Well, with emphasis on the picnic area. Other archeological resources would be stabilized or allowed to molder pursuant to section 106 consultation. Visitor opportunities would continue to focus on viewing Montezuma Well and visiting the well outlet. The picnic area would continue to be a major draw for local visitation. Visitor stays would be relatively short unless visitors use the picnic area. Existing administration facilities would remain the same. 

Most of the monument would be zoned resources and research. The existing facilities leading to and around Montezuma Well would be zoned interpretive historic and remain much as today. The amount of interpretation and interaction with resources associated with the long history of prehistoric and historic farming in the area would increase. The area just south and west of the picnic area would include natural-surface trails improved along existing formal and informal routes. An addition to the visitor contact station (shade ramada) is proposed in the existing footprint of the parking lot near Montezuma Well. 

Most of the monument would be zoned Resources and Research. The existing visitor facilities would be zoned Interpretive Historic and remain much as today. A new visitor center is proposed at the entrance of the road to Montezuma Well to increase visitor orientation and interpretation services on site. Designated natural-surface trails would be developed to and along the riparian area of Wet Beaver Creek. In addition, a natural-surface, designated trail would be located near the prehistoric ditch that extends from Montezuma Well and along Beaver Creek. This trail would also follow the rim along the north side of Montezuma Well. A trail would also extend from the visitor center to the well, following the road. 

Tuzigoot Resource activities would continue to focus 

on stabilizing the primary site, with intensive preservation treatment and regular cyclic maintenance. Other archeological resources would be stabilized or allowed to molder pursuant to section 106 consultation. Visitor opportunities would continue to focus on exploring the pueblo and visiting the visitor center/museum. Visitor stays would continue to be short (less than an hour). Existing administration facilities would remain the same. 

Most of the monument would be zoned Interaction and Discovery. The areas east, north, and south of the pueblo would be zoned Interaction and Discovery, providing naturalsurface trails along the riparian area. Through collaboration with partners, these trails may link with trails in Dead Horse Ranch State Park and Coconino National Forest. The area between the tailings and Peck’s Lake would be zoned Resources and Research. The existing visitor facilities would be zoned Interpretive Historic and would remain much as today. There would be increased cultural demonstrations in and around the pueblo. In addition, 

Most of the monument would be zoned Interaction and Discovery. In these areas, natural-surface trails may be designated. If assessment determines that there would be no conflict with preservation of significant cultural resources, mountain bicycling opportunities may also be provided on old road beds in the area. Trail connections via partnerships with neighboring federal and state lands would be explored. The existing visitor facilities would be zoned Interpretive Historic and would remain much as today. The pit house along the entrance road would be zoned 
Table 4: Summary of the Alternatives 

89 

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

access would be provided via trails to the river. Active marsh restoration and management activities would begin at the newly acquired Tavasci Marsh. If assessment determines that there would be no conflict with preservation of significant cultural resources, a boardwalk 

would be constructed across the marsh along an existing old road alignment. The monuments will cooperate with the Arizona State Parks on the Verde River Greenway Management Plan proposal for a small parking area and launch for small boats on stateowned land on the east side of the monument entrance road. An additional workspace and storage facility would be constructed near the existing maintenance area to provide onsite administrative space for the functions and operations of Tuzigoot, replacing the offsite workspace and storage lost with the expiration of the General Services Administration lease with the Yavapai Apache reservation. 

Resources and Research with a small visitor access trail and interpretive signs adjacent. If assessment determines that there would be no conflict with preservation of significant cultural resources, a 

boardwalk would be constructed across the Tavasci Marsh along an existing old road alignment. Most of the area directly around the road, parking lot, pueblo, and administrative facilities would be zoned Resources and Research. The monuments will cooperate with the Arizona State Parks on the Verde River Greenway Management Plan proposal for a small parking area and launch for small boats on state-owned land on the east side of the monument entrance road. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

90 

TABLE 5: HOW THE ALTERNATIVES MEET THE OBJECTIVES 

Objective Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Cultural and natural resourcesImplement resource management activities to improve resource conditions and protect the fundamental resources and values of the monuments. 

The objective would be met to a large degree. Natural resources would be protected by being in the monuments. However, management of these resources would be limited by the lack of staff and funding. Resource activities would continue to focus on stabilizing the primary sites, with intensive preservation treatment and regular cyclic maintenance. Other archeological resources would be stabilized or allowed to molder pursuant to section 106 consultation. 

The objective would be fully met. Resource management activities would be increased through expansion of the monuments’ resource stabilization program and active participation in the NPS inventory and monitoring program. The National Park Service would acquire most of the lands within the legislated boundaries except for the mine tailings at Tuzigoot, which would be removed from the legislated boundary. Active marsh restoration and management activities would begin at the newly acquired Tavasci Marsh. Effective partnerships and collaborative planning efforts would be established and maintained that would facilitate the realization of the monuments’ goals. 

The objective would be met to a large degree. Resource management activities would be increased, and the National Park Service would acquire most of the lands within the legislated boundaries except for the mine tailings at Tuzigoot, which would be removed from the legislated boundary. 

Provide monument facilities and use them in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on cultural and natural resources. 

The objective would be fully met. There would be no change in the monuments’ facilities. 

The objective would be fully met. Where possible, new facilities such as trails would be constructed in already disturbed areas. Disturbance to sensitive areas such as archeological sites and habitats for threatened or endangered species would also be avoided or mitigated. Trails and the marsh boardwalk would be constructed along existing old road alignments. 

The objective would be met to a large degree. Alternative C would result in a larger development footprint. Where possible, new facilities such as trails would be constructed in already disturbed areas. Disturbance to sensitive areas such as archeological sites and habitats for threatened or endangered species would also be avoided or mitigated. Trails and the marsh boardwalk would be constructed along existing old road alignments. 
Table 5: How the Alternatives Meet the Objectives 

91 

TABLE 5: HOW THE ALTERNATIVES MEET THE OBJECTIVES (CONTINUED)

Objective Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Visitor use and experienceProvide improved connections between the three sites including information, orientation, and way finding. 

The objective would not be met. The interpretive emphasis would continue to focus on the three primary sites within the monuments, with little connection among the sites in terms of interpretation. 

The objective would be fully met. Orientation to the sites and other opportunities in the Verde Valley would be improved through partnerships that focus on coordinated way 

finding, marketing, increased information dissemination, and pre-trip planning services. 

The objective would be fully met. The monuments would be considered as part of the region’s public land resources. The National Park Service would emphasize partnerships with surrounding public lands agencies to provide connections to recreational and educational opportunities off site. A new visitor center would be constructed at the entrance of the road to Montezuma Well. Trail connections via partnerships with neighboring federal and state lands would be explored. 

Provide interpretive and education opportunities that improve visitor understanding and appreciation of the purpose, significance, and fundamental resources and values of the monuments. 

The objective would not be met. Opportunities for close contact between visitors and the natural and cultural resources at the sites would continue to be limited. Visitor opportunities would continue to focus on viewing the Castle and visiting the visitor center. Visitor opportunities would continue to focus on viewing Montezuma Well and visiting the well outlet. Visitor opportunities would continue to focus on exploring the pueblo and visiting the visitor center/museum. 

The objective would be fully met. More of the monuments’ cultural and natural resources would be available for visitors to explore via trails. Some additional natural-surface trails with interpretive signs would be developed. The amount of interpretation and interaction with resources associated with the long history of prehistoric and historic farming in the area would be increased. Cultural demonstrations in and around the pueblo would be increased. In addition, access would be provided via trails to the river. 

The objective would be fully met. The greatest amount of the monuments’ cultural and natural resources would be available for visitors to explore via trails, new view points, creek access and crossing. A new headquarters would be located at the beginning of the entrance road to the Castle site. A new visitor center would be constructed at the entrance of the road to Montezuma Well. 

Monument operationsImprove efficiency and effectiveness in all diviThe objective would not be met. Existing operations and visitor facilities The objective would be met. Improvements to monument operations would The objective would be met. Improvements to monument operations would 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92 

TABLE 5: HOW THE ALTERNATIVES MEET THE OBJECTIVES (CONTINUED)

Objective Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

sions and functions of monument operations. 

would remain in placeExisting administration facilities would remain the same. 

result from increased and improved space for monument operations, and improved capability to manage visitors and resources. 

result from increased and improved space for monument operations, and improved capability to manage visitors and resources. A modest workspace and storage building, new headquarters, and new visitor center would be built. 

Partnerships Establish and maintain partnerships to improve visitor orientation to the sites and other opportunities adjacent to the monuments and elsewhere in the Verde Valley. 

The objective would not be met. Partnerships opportunities would continue to be limited and form on an ad hoc basis. 

The objective would be met. Partnerships would be developed and enhanced with Verde Valley organizations, land owners, and government agencies. Partnerships would improve orientation at the sites and other opportunities in the Verde Valley. The corridor along Montezuma Castle Road and Beaver Creek Estates Road would accommodate regional trail activities. Through collaboration with partners, trails would link with trails in Dead Horse Ranch State Park and Coconino National Forest. 

The objective would be met. Partnerships would be developed and enhanced with Verde Valley organizations, land owners, and government agencies. A corridor along Montezuma Castle Road and Beaver Creek Estates Road would accommodate regional trail activities for horseback riding, hiking, and mountain biking. 

Establish and maintain effective partnerships and collaborative planning efforts that facilitate the realization of the monuments’ goals. 

The objective would not be met. Partnerships opportunities would continue to be limited and form on an ad hoc basis. 

The objective would be met. The monuments would cooperate with the Arizona State Parks on the Verde River Greenway Management Plan proposal for a small parking area and launch for small boats. 

The objective would be met. The monuments would be considered as part of the region’s public land resources. The National Park Service would emphasize partnerships with surrounding public lands agencies to provide connections to recreational and educational opportunities off site. The monuments would cooperate with the Arizona State Parks on the Verde River Greenway Management Plan proposal for a small parking area and small boat launch. 
Table 6: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives 

93 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Impact Topic Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Archeological resources 

Actions would have no adverse effect on archeological resources. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. The beneficial impacts would constitute a small component of cumulative impacts. There would be no impairment of archeological resources. 

Actions would have no adverse effect on archeological resources, and expanded interpretation and education could improve visitor stewardship. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. There would be no impairment of archeological resources. 

Actions would have no adverse effect on archeological resources, and expanded interpretation and education could improve visitor stewardship. Implementation of alternative C would generally have the same cumulative effects on archeological resources as those described for alternative B. There would be no impairment of archeological resources. 

Prehistoric and historic structures and buildings 

Actions would have no adverse effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. There would be no impairment of prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. 

Actions would have no adverse effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. There would be no impairment of prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. 

Actions would have no adverse effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. Implementation of alternative C would generally have the same cumulative effects on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings as those described for alternative B. There would be no impairment of prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. 

Cultural landscapes Actions would have no adverse effect on cultural landscape resources. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. There 

would be no impairment of cultural landscapes. 

Actions would have no adverse effect on cultural landscape resources. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. There would be no impairment of cultural landscapes. 

Actions would have no adverse effect on cultural landscape resources. The cumulative effects would be beneficial and the contribution would be small. There would be no impairment of cultural landscapes. There would be no impairment of cultural landscapes. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

94 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Impact Topic Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Ethnographic resources and traditional cultural properties Actions would have no adverse effect on tradi- tional cultural properties or on ethnographic resources. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to 

these effects would be small. There would be no impairment of ethnographic resources and traditional cultural properties. 

Actions would have no adverse effect on traditional cultural properties or on ethnographic resources. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. There would be no impairment of ethnographic resources and traditional cultural properties. 

Actions would have no adverse effect on traditional cultural properties or on ethnographic resources. Cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution would be small. There would be no impairment of ethnographic resources and traditional cultural properties. 

Floodplains Alternative A would result in negligible, longterm, adverse impacts on floodplains. There 

would be no cumulative impacts at Montezuma Castle National Monument and negligible, adverse, cumulative impacts to floodplains at Tuzigoot National Monument. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with floodplains. 

At both monuments, the short- and long-term impacts of trails on erosion and water flow patterns in the floodplain would be negligible. At Tuzigoot, there would be beneficial cumulative impacts as a result of reduced social trailing. Construction and use of a boardwalk at Tavasci Marsh would have long-term, adverse negligible impacts on water flow and erosion in the marsh. Alternative B would have no cumulative impacts on floodplains at Montezuma Castle National Monument and negligible to minor, adverse, cumulative effect on floodplains at Tuzigoot National Monument. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with floodplains. 

Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts from trails on floodplains would occur at Montezuma Castle. Shortand long-term, negligible, adverse impacts would occur at Tuzigoot National Monument. Construction and use of a boardwalk at Tavasci Marsh would have long-term, adverse, negligible impacts on and erosion. There would be no cumulative impacts under alternative C at Montezuma Castle National Monument, and negligible, adverse, cumulative impacts at Tuzigoot National Monument. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with floodplains. 

Soils Alternative A would not involve actions that 

disturb soils, increase erosion potential, or decrease soil productivity in either national monument; impacts would be negligible, adverse, and long-term. Negligible, long-term, adverse cumulative impacts on the soils would occur at Tuzigoot National Monument by increasing the potential for soil erosion resulting from the proposed greenway trail. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with soil. 

Short- and long-term, adverse impacts on soils from trails would be negligible at both monuments. The long-term adverse impacts on soil erosion from the expansion of the visitor contact station at the Castle would be negligible. Soil disturbance from boardwalk construction at Tavasci Marsh would be negligible, shortand long-term, and adverse. Cumulative impacts from alternative B and the proposed 

greenway trail and other plans would result in negligible, long-term, adverse cumulative impacts in both monuments. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with soil. 

The riparian area trail at Montezuma Castle would have long-term, adverse, negligible to minor effects. The new visitor center near the Back cabin would have localized, long-term, adverse, minor impacts. There would be no cumulative impacts on soils at Montezuma Castle. Construction of the Tavasci Marsh boardwalk would result in short-and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on soils. The cumulative impacts on soils at Tuzigoot would be negligible, long-term, and adverse. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with soil. 
Table 6: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives 

95 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Impact Topic Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Vegetation Efforts to manage and control nonnative and 

exotic plant species continue to have longterm, minor, beneficial impacts on the native vegetation in both monuments. This alternative would result in no cumulative effects on vegetation at Montezuma Castle National Monument and negligible, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on vegetation at Tuzigoot National Monument by increasing the potential for trampling resulting from the proposed greenway trail. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with vegetation. 

Trail construction and use would have negligible, short- and long-term, adverse impact on vegetation, including abundance and distribution, in both monuments. During facility construction Montezuma Castle National Monument, short- and long-term negligible impacts could occur on the periphery of the expansion area. The short- and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation as a result of constructing the boardwalk at Tuzigoot National Monument would be negligible. The long-term, adverse impacts of an increase in nonnative and exotic vegetation would be negligible to minor. The impacts of alternative B on vegetation in combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail, increased visitation to the monuments, and other plans would result in negligible, long-term, adverse cumulative impacts in both monuments. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with vegetation. 

The short-and long-term adverse impacts from trail development on native vegetation, including abundance and distribution, at Montezuma Castle would be negligible. The long-term adverse impacts of trail designation on abundance and distribution of native vegetation would be negligible. The long-term adverse impact to the vegetation would be minor to moderate following development of new trails at Montezuma Well. Construction of the new visitor center near the Back cabin at Montezuma Well would have a short-term, negligible, adverse, impact and long-term negligible beneficial impact on the surrounding vegetation because the landscape has already been disturbed and the dominant plant species are nonnative and exotic grasses. Construction of a new headquarters and access and parking on the plateau at Montezuma Castle National Monument would have longterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts. There would be no contribution to cumulative impacts under alternative C on vegetation at Montezuma Castle National Monument. At Tuzigoot, the short-term adverse impacts of trail development on vegetation at Tuzigoot would be negligible. The longterm adverse impacts of the trail on the understory vegetation would be negligible to minor. The long-term adverse impacts of an increase in nonnative and exotic vegetation along the trails would be negligible to minor. The short-and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation during Tavasci Marsh boardwalk construction would be negligible. The impacts of alternative C 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

96 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Impact Topic Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

on soils in combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail at Tuzigoot National Monument would result in negligible, long-term, adverse cumulative impacts to vegetation. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with vegetation. 

Wetlands Alternative A would have no new actions contributing to adverse impacts on wetland functions or wetland habitat values, resulting in 

long-term negligible to minor impacts. Ongoing management actions would continue to allow silt to accumulate in Tavasci Marsh in Tuzigoot 

National Monument, which would have a longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impact on wetland functions and habitat. Increased visitation or development associated with the Verde River Greenway Management Plan would have local, negligible, adverse, cumulative impacts on wetlands. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with wetlands. 

There would be no actions at Montezuma Castle National Monument that would affect wetlands under alternative B. Active marsh restoration activities at Tuzigoot National Monument would have a negligible to minor, long-term, beneficial effect on wetland habitat functions at Tavasci Marsh, although construction of new trails and a boardwalk would have negligible to minor, short- and long-term adverse impacts on the marsh wetlands. The contribution of alternative B toward adverse cumulative impacts on wetlands would be negligible. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with wetlands. 

There would be no actions at Montezuma Castle National Monument that would affect wetlands under alternative C. At Tavasci Marsh construction of new trails and a boardwalk would have negligible to minor short- and long-term adverse impacts on the marsh wetlands. The cumulative impacts of alternative C are the same as those described for alternative B. There would be no impairment of monument resources or values associated with wetlands. 

Wildlife There are no new actions proposed under alternative A that would have an adverse impact 

on wildlife or wildlife habitat in the monuments, resulting in negligible short- and longterm adverse impacts. Informal access to the Verde River at Tuzigoot National Monument would continue, representing a long-term, minor, adverse effect on wildlife. The adverse impacts on wildlife of erosion caused by social trailing would be local and negligible in the long term. There would be no cumulative impacts at Montezuma Castle National Monument. Alternative A would result in short-term, negligible to minor, adverse, cumulative impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat at Tuzigoot National Monument as a result of trail development along 

Trail development would have negligible to minor, short-term, adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat at Montezuma Castle National Monument and negligible, short-term, adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat at Tuzigoot National Monument. Use of the trails would result in negligible, short-term, adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat at both monuments. The short-term adverse impacts on wildlife from construction of the boardwalk at Tavasci Marsh in Tuzigoot National Monument would be negligible to minor. The long-term adverse impacts would be negligible to minor for wildlife species that are especially sensitive to disturbance and negligible for adaptable species. The long-term adverse impacts resulting from disturbance of 

The long-term adverse impacts to sensitive wildlife from the longer riparian trail at Montezuma Castle would be minor. The new trail at Montezuma Well would have short-term, negligible to minor adverse impacts on wildlife, primarily as a result of construction effects; the long-term adverse impacts of the trail would be negligible. Cumulative impacts on wildlife at Montezuma Castle would be negligible. The long-term adverse impacts of an extended trail and boardwalk at Tuzigoot on wildlife and their habitat would be shortand long-term, local, and negligible to minor. The impacts of alternative C in combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail would result in negligible to 
Table 6: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives 

97 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Impact Topic Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

the Verde River. The long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat would be negligible to minor and result from the potential for ongoing disturbance of wildlife throughout the year by visitors. There would be no impairment of wildlife or wildlife habitat in the monuments. 

contaminated sediment in the marsh would be negligible to minor depending on the level of exposure to the contaminated sediment. Cumulative long-term, adverse impacts under alternative B on wildlife or wildlife habitat would be negligible at Montezuma Castle National Monument and negligible to minor at Tuzigoot National Monument. There would be no impairment of wildlife or wildlife habitat in the monuments. 

minor, long-term adverse cumulative impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. There would be no impairment of wildlife or wildlife habitat in the monuments. 

Threatened and endangered species 

There would be no effects on southwestern willow flycatcher habitat or individual flycatchers foraging at Montezuma Castle National Monument. Long-term, ongoing management actions at Montezuma Castle could benefit flycatcher habitat, so adverse effects would be unlikely. Change in the Tavasci Marsh habitat at Tuzigoot National Monument could have a long-term effect on flycatcher habitat, but the presence of substantial suitable habitat in the area would result in a “not likely to adversely affect” determination. Potential cumulative effects would not be substantial or widespread enough to be considered adverse. Changes in Tavasci Marsh during migration could affect, but would not likely adversely affect, the Yuma clapper rail. There would be no cumulative effects on the Yuma clapper rail. There would be no effects on the habitat or population of the yellow-billed cuckoo in either national monument. There would be no cumulative effects on the yellow-billed cuckoo. There would be no impairment of these threatened and endangered species in the monuments. 

Actions taken under alternative B at Montezuma Castle would affect southwestern flycatcher habitat, but the effects would not likely be adverse. Marsh restoration and ongoing ditch maintenance activities at Tuzigoot National Monument would have long-term, negligible to minor benefits on flycatcher foraging habitat. Visitors could potentially affect flycatcher habitat, but the effects would not likely be adverse. Cumulative effects at both monuments would not likely be adverse because of mitigation measures and adaptive management strategies. Development of the boardwalk at Tavasci Marsh would have a negligible effect on habitat in the marsh, with potential to affect the Yuma clapper rail. However, mitigation measures would offset the effects, so they would not be adverse. In the long term, marsh restoration would provide a negligible to minor benefit on rail habitat. There would be no cumulative effects on clapper rails or their habitat under this alternative at Montezuma Castle, and potential cumulative effects at Tuzigoot would not be adverse. There are no proposed actions under this alternative that would affect the yellow-billed cuckoo habitat at Montezuma Castle National Monument. Trail development and use at Tuzigoot National Monument could have a negligible 

Effects on the southwestern willow flycatcher would be similar to those described for alternative B. The potential for effects is slightly greater than alternative B, but impacts would not be adverse. Yuma clapper rail - alternative C would have effects similar to those described for alternative B. The potential for effects is slightly greater than alternative B, but impacts would not be adverse. Yellow-billed cuckoo - alternative C would have effects similar to those described for alternative B. There would be no impairment of these threatened and endangered species in the monuments. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

98 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Impact Topic Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

effect on the yellow-billed cuckoo, but the effects are is unlikely to be adverse. Cumulative effects associated with increased visitation and interaction with the habitats used by the yellow-billed cuckoo would be negligible at either of the monuments. There would be no impairment of these threatened and endangered species in the monuments. 

Visitor use and experience 

Alternative A would result in continuing minor beneficial impacts resulting from the continued opportunities to view the monuments’ prime cultural resources. However, minor adverse impacts from crowding and congestion at peak times in the parking lot, main loop trail and visitor center at Montezuma Castle would continue during peak times and may get worse with increasing visitation. In addition, the lack of adequate interpretive and education facilities for regular and diverse programming will continue to be a minor adverse impact to visitors. Cumulative effects for aspects of visitor experience could be either beneficial or adverse and range from negligible to major. 

Moderate to major, beneficial effects would result from the increased diversity in opportunities to view and learn about the monuments’ prime cultural resources. Connecting the three sites in the monuments via a central orientation facility in the Verde Valley would increase exposure of visitors to all three sites and provide a better understanding of each site’s unique role in settlement of the Verde Valley. Providing more trail opportunities and cultural programs would make visits to each site more exciting, interesting, and inviting for repeat visitation. Cumulative effects on visitor use and experience would be beneficial and moderate to major. Alternative B would contribute to moderate to major cumulative benefits. 

Increased beneficial impacts would result from the increased diversity in opportunities to view and learn about the monuments’ prime cultural resources. Connecting the three sites in the monuments via a central visitor center and orientation facility in the Verde Valley would increase exposure of visitors to all three sites and provide a better understanding of each site’s unique role in settlement of the Verde Valley. Scenic quality at the Well would be improved by removing the visitor contact station. Further, providing more trail opportunities and cultural programs would make visits to each site more exciting, interesting and inviting for repeat visitation. Alternative C would contribute substantially to moderate to major cumulative benefits at the monuments. 

Socioeconomics The effects of the no-action alternative on socioeconomic conditions in the Verde Valley 

would be long-term, beneficial, and negligible. Cumulative effects would be long-term, minor, and beneficial, except that land use changes could result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts to groundwater resources connected to Montezuma Well. 

The effects of alternative B on socioeconomic conditions in the Verde Valley would be shortterm, beneficial, and minor. Cumulative effects would be short and long-term, minor, and beneficial, except that land use changes could result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to groundwater resources connected to Montezuma Well. 

Socioeconomics effects in the region would be negligible to minor, short- and longterm, and beneficial. Most cumulative impacts would be short- and long-term, minor, and beneficial. Cumulative land use changes could result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to groundwater connected to Montezuma Well. 
Table 6: Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives 

99 

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED) 

Impact Topic Alternative A – No-Action Alternative B – Preferred Alternative C 

Monument operations 

Alternative A would result in long-term, minor, adverse effects on monument operations. The congestion and crowding in the Montezuma Castle National Monument; very limited opportunities at Montezuma Well for site orientation and interpretation; facilities which limit the monument’s ability to provide consistent and diverse interpretive programming; and the distribution of staff between three sites, including headquarters and maintenance, which are outside of the monuments. Cumulative effects would be long-term, minor, and adverse. 

Implementation of alternative B would result in long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial effects on monument operations because of increased and improved space for monument operations, and improved capability to manage visitors and resources. There would be longterm, minor, adverse impacts due the addition of facilities that would require increased operations and maintenance. Alternative B would contribute long-term, minor beneficial effects on monument operations, resulting in cumulative negligible to minor benefits for monument operations. 

Alternative C would result in long-term, moderate to major, beneficial effects on Montezuma Castle National Monument operations because of increased and improved space for monument operations, and improved capability to manage visitors and resources. There would be negligible beneficial impacts to Tuzigoot National Monument operations. There would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts because of the addition of facilities that would require increased operations and maintenance. Alternative C would contribute longterm, minor beneficial effects on monument operations, resulting in cumulative negligible to minor benefits for monument operations. 

CHAPTER 3:

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

103 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the existing environment of Montezuma Castle National 

Monument and Tuzigoot National Monument and the surrounding region. It 

focuses on the monument resources, uses, 

facilities, and socioeconomic characteristics that may be affected if any of the alternatives are implemented. Some features, such as floodplains and endangered 

species, are discussed because they provide context or must be considered in an 

environmental assessment. 

There are many sources of information on 

the natural, cultural, and human environment of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot 

national monuments. These include the 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

and Tuzigoot National Monument home 

page at http://www.nps.gov/TUZI and 

bibliography located on the Internet at 

http://www1.nature.nps.gov/nrbib/index.

htm. 
104 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended, requires that federal 

agencies consider the effects to cultural 

resources when proceeding with any undertaking. The agency must demonstrate 

an effort to eliminate, minimize, and/or 

mitigate any adverse effects to historic or 

prehistoric properties. The National Historic Preservation Act recognizes five 

property types: districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, and objects. As called for in the 

act, these categories are used in the National Register of Historic Places, the 

preeminent reference for properties worthy of preservation in the United States. 

To focus attention on management requirements within these property types, 

Management Policies 2006 categorizes cultural resources as archeological resources, 

cultural landscapes, structures, museum 

objects, and ethnographic resources (traditional cultural properties). (As discussed 

in chapter 1, museum objects have been 

dismissed as an impact topic for this general management plan). 

Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline (NPS 1998) provides definitions for archeological resources, cultural landscapes, structures, 

and ethnographic resources (traditional 

cultural properties): 

Archeological resources are the 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 and have 

the potential to describe and explain human behavior. Archeological features are 

typically buried but may extend above 

ground or lie submerged under water; 

they are commonly associated with prehistoric peoples – resources that predate 

the beginning of written records – but may 

be products of more contemporary society – resources that postdate EuroAmericans. 

Cultural landscapes are settings people 

have created in the natural world and reveal fundamental ties between people and 

the land. Landscapes – geographic areas 

that exhibit evidence of human habitation 

and intertwined patterns of things both 

natural and constructed – constitute special places that are expressions of human 

manipulation and adaptation of the land. 

There are four general types of cultural 

landscapes (not mutually exclusive): historic site, historic designed landscape, historic vernacular, and ethnographic. 

Structures are constructed works, usually 

immovable by nature or design, consciously created to serve some human activity. They are material assemblies that 

extend the limits of human capability and 

constitute elaborations of human productive ability and artistic sensitivity. Structures – prehistoric and historic – include 

buildings, roads, vessels, fences, and other 

assemblies of historical, aesthetic, or 

scientific importance. 

Ethnographic resources are expressions of 

human culture and the basis of continuity 

of cultural systems. A cultural system encompasses both the tangible and intangible and includes traditional arts and native 

languages, religious beliefs, and subsistence activities. Ethnographic resources 

can include sites, structures, objects, landscapes, or natural features that are assigned traditional legendary, religious, 

subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a traditionally associated group. Traditional cultural properties are ethnographic resources eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. 
Cultural Resources 

105 

OVERVIEW OF VERDE VALLEY 

CULTURAL HISTORY 

Introduction 

This overview provides a brief history of 

the Verde Valley and its inhabitants. An 

understanding of this history serves to set 

the framework for a more in-depth understanding of the National Park Service’s 

mission to preserve, protect, and interpret 

the structures, objects, and other remnants of prehistoric cultures at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

Prehistoric Period 

The Verde Valley is one of the most fertile 

river valleys in Arizona. Located between 

two of the major prehistoric population 

centers, the area was a natural contact 

zone between various prehistoric peoples 

and is rich with evidence of the prehistory 

of Arizona. The cultural resources of the 

Verde Valley are reflected in the adaptive 

strategies used by a variety of cultural 

groups that have successfully inhabited 

this lush environment for more than 

12,000 years. 

Paleoindian Period (ca. 9000 to 5500 

BC). The Paleoindian Period, although 

poorly documented throughout the Verde 

River Valley and adjacent areas, 

represents the first documented evidence 

of early man in the Verde Valley. Populations during this period often used biggame-hunting to exploit now-extinct fauna in a grasslands environment over a 

wide area of present-day North and South 

America during the late Pleistocene Era. 

These people were nomadic, traveling in 

seasonal rounds, hunting large game such 

as mammoth, horse, bison, and camel, and 

gathering wild foods such as grasses and 

seeds. 

Archaic Period (ca. 5500 BC to AD 200). 

Scattered evidence indicates that by approximately 5500 BC, the Verde Valley 

was inhabited by hunter-gatherers who 

differed from the preceding Paleoindian 

groups by their use of ground stone tools 

and different styles of projectile points. 

While hunting and gathering continued as 

a way of life for some time into the Ceramic Period’s Squaw Peak Phase, a shift to 

agriculture and settled village life was underway. Late in this period, intrusive ceramics appear, indicating contact with the 

Kayenta Anasazi to the north and the Hohokam (Pima for “those who have gone”) 

to the south. At the time of this contact, or 

soon thereafter, the first definite signs of 

agriculture appeared. 

Ceramic Period: Squaw Peak Phase (ca. 

AD 200 to 700). The Verde Valley is part 

of what has been defined as the northern 

Hohokam periphery, which portrays the 

Hohokam regional system as consisting of 

a core area centered on the Salt River – 

Gila Basin along with a series of peripheral 

areas in the mountainous uplands and 

secondary river valleys that surround the 

basin. The core area is the origin of the 

Hohokam tradition and the center of its 

development, while the peripheries 

represent either territorial expansion or 

the effect of contact with the Hohokam on 

indigenous populations (Breternitz 1960, 

Fish and Fish 1977). 

Ceramic Period: Hackberry Phase (ca. 

AD 700 to 800) and Cloverleaf Phase 

(ca. AD 800 to 900). By AD 700 to 900, 

generally including the Hackberry and 

Cloverleaf phases, a Hohokam influence 

expanding out of the Phoenix Basin into 

the Verde Valley and adjacent areas became obvious. Both small and large archeological sites dating to this period have 

been identified in the Middle Verde Valley, with upland villages tending to be 

small and compact, while villages along 

the river were larger and more open. 

Ceramic Period: Camp Verde Phase (ca. 

AD 900 to 1125). The Camp Verde Phase 

represents the last and best known of the 

Hohokam phases in the Verde Valley. Settlement patterns and site layout corresponded to the previous phase in the Middle Verde with the addition of public ar-
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

106 

chitecture consisting of adobe-capped 

mounds, ball courts, and possibly communal structures. Mounds and ball courts 

appear to both be associated with larger 

sites, and communal structures, defined 

on the basis of their large size, appear at 

sites of any size. 

Ceramic Period: Honanki Phase (ca. AD 

1125 to 1300) – Tuzigoot Phase (ca. AD 

1300 to 1400/1450). Because the traits 

that characterize the Honanki and Tuzigoot phases are closely related, with the 

Tuzigoot Phase representing the culmination of the Honanki, the two phases are 

often considered together as the HonankiTuzigoot Phase. These phases span the 

transition from floodplain pit house villages to pueblos and cliff dwellings in the 

Verde Valley (Wells and Anderson 1988). 

Honanki Phase (ca. AD 1125 to 1300). 

Some time around AD 1100 to 1125, 

changes occurred in the Verde Valley that 

resulted in archeological sites and assemblages that varied from earlier times. It has 

been postulated that the changes resulted 

from a migration of Sinagua (Spanish for 

“without water”) groups. The Honanki 

Phase witnessed population increases and 

consolidation with sites clustering to form 

communities in the Verde Valley, particularly around good farmlands and water 

sources. 

Tuzigoot Phase (ca. AD 1300 to 

1400/1450). The consolidation of population into fewer but larger sites culminated 

in the Tuzigoot Phase, the last currently 

recognized expression of the Southern 

Sinagua. The dispersed population of the 

Verde Valley that occupied smaller pueblos during the Honanki Phase consolidated into about 50 major pueblos – some 

surrounded by smaller satellite pueblos of 

up to six rooms, extensive farming areas, 

and field houses – to define substantial 

communities. Well-known sites such as 

Tuzigoot, Montezuma Castle, Montezuma 

Well, Sacred Mountain, and the Clear 

Creek Ruin are characteristic of this period, although some of these sites may 

date from as early as ca. AD 1200. 

Some time around AD 1425, the Verde 

Valley appears to have been abandoned by 

the Sinagua – a trend seen in many other 

cultural centers in the Southwest. Causes 

that have been suggested for this abandonment include drought, water-logging 

of the soil, disease, warfare, invasion, and 

dissolution of trade networks. 

Historic Period 

(about AD 1500 to Present) 

Yavapai and Apache. Shortly after abandonment of the Verde Valley by the Sinagua, groups of foragers and hunters reappeared. By AD 1250, the Yavapai occupied 

the valley, and the Tonto Apache inhabited the mountains to the east. Thus, the 

Verde Valley lies within the known territory of the Tonto Apache and Northeastern Yavapai Indians. Although the Yavapai are an upland Yuman group and the 

Apache are a southern Athabascanspeaking group, both trace their origins to 

the Montezuma Well area in present-day 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

The Yavapai are considered the principal 

group inhabiting the region, with secondary occupation by displaced Apache prior 

to the 1860s (Basso 1996; Gifford 1936; 

Goodwin 1942; Schroeder 1960). 

Euroamericans. The Spanish began exploring the present-day southwestern 

United States during the 1530s and entered Arizona during the 1540s. In 1583, a 

Spanish expedition led by Antonio de Espejo traversed the Middle Verde Valley 

with Hopi guides en route to the copper 

mines near present-day Jerome. While in 

that vicinity, the Spanish explorers found 

a group of Yavapai mining and trading 

green and blue pigments. In 1598, another 

Spanish mining expedition, led by Marcos 

Farfan de los Godos, visited the mines 

near Jerome with Hopi guides, and in 1604 

Don Juan de Onate crossed the Verde 

River en route to the Colorado River. Although these Euroamerican parties spent 

little time in the valley, expedition mem-
Cultural Resources 

107 

bers wrote descriptions of the area’s inhabitants as well as their cultural and economic systems. 

The first significant Euroamerican intrusion into central Arizona occurred in 

1826, when Ewing Young (of the James 

Ohio Pattie party) traveled up the Verde 

River. Three years later, Young returned 

with 40 men to trap furs along the Salt and 

Verde rivers. The Verde Valley was visited 

by a succession of Euroamerican explorers, trappers, mountain men, governmentsponsored railroad surveyors, and prospectors until the 1860s. Although local 

Native American tribes were encountered 

by the early Euroamericans, they were left 

relatively undisturbed. However, this occasional contact marked the beginning of 

the decline of the traditional way of life of 

the Yavapai and Apache. 

Euroamerican pioneers did not begin to 

settle in the Verde Valley until the early 

1860s. Passage of the Homestead Act in 

1862, discovery of gold, silver, and copper 

along Big Bug Creek and near Prescott in 

1863, and subsequent establishment of the 

new Arizona territorial capital at Prescott 

led to Euroamerican settlement in the fertile Verde Valley to provide foodstuffs and 

supplies for the mines as well as Prescott 

and Fort Whipple, an army post near the 

territorial capital. 

Yavapai-Apache/Euroamerican Conflict. The influx of Euroamerican settlers 

led to increasing conflicts with the Yavapai and Apache. These conflicts culminated in the forced march of nearly 180 

miles to the San Carlos Reservation (east 

of present-day Globe, Arizona) over 

rough terrain and through difficult winter 

conditions – a bitter trek that resulted in 

the death of nearly 100 Native Americans. 

By 1878, more than 5,000 Native Americans, including Western Apache, and Yavapai, had been relocated to the San Carlos Reservation. 

Although they took up farming and ranching to support themselves at the San Carlos Reservation, many Yavapai and 

Apache longed for their homelands, and 

after petitioning government officials for 

permission to leave San Carlos, numerous 

families returned to the Verde Valley during the late 1890s and early 1900s. Those 

who returned to the valley found that the 

region had been greatly altered during 

their absence as Euroamerican homesteaders had claimed some of the best lands 

in the valley. Thus, the returning Yavapai 

and Apache were forced to make their 

new homes in desolate camps. During the 

early 20th century, the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) became concerned about the 

condition of the Yavapai and Apache living in the Verde Valley and attempted to 

improve their situation. 

Middle Verde Valley – Late 19th Century to the Present. With the cessation of 

hostilities, Euroamerican mining and 

farming operations prospered in the 

Verde Valley. By 1890, the civilian population of the Verde Valley exceeded 700, 

and by the turn of the 20th century, mining activity and cattle raising in the valley 

had expanded rapidly. The Verde Valley 

towns that best survived the economic 

changes of the post-World War II years 

were those that became prime ranching 

and farming centers, and by 1960 some 

10,000 acres of valley lands were irrigated. 

Although ranching and farming operations and some small-scale mining activities made up the principal economic activities in the valley through the 1960s, the 

recreation and tourism industries would 

soon become the region’s dominant economic base. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE 

NATIONAL MONUMENTS 

Archeological Resources 

The National Park Service’s Western Archeological and Conservation Center 

(WACC) in Tucson, Arizona, has prepared 

an updated comprehensive archeological 

overview and assessment for Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

(Powers et al. 2008). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

108 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

National Park Service archeologists associated with the Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center conducted an archeological inventory survey of Montezuma Castle National Monument during 

April and May 1988. The survey, which 

covered 100% of the land within the national monument’s boundaries, provided 

the opportunity to systematically record 

the monument’s archeological sites in detailed fashion, determine site boundaries, 

record new sites, and resolve problems 

with old site records. Of the 70 sites recorded in 1988, 30 were new site inventory 

additions. Only three sites and two secondary site loci previously recorded were 

not relocated, and three of the 70 sites 

recorded were outside the Castle site but 

within sight of the NPS boundary fence. In 

addition, the survey recorded 30 isolated 

finds (Wells and Anderson 1988). 

The archeological sites within the monument are considered to be the bestdocumented cluster in the Middle Verde 

Valley and are thus significant to an understanding of the valley’s prehistoric development. Monument resources are 

available to interpret the growth of pit 

house villages, the transformation to masonry pueblos, development and expansion of pueblo community and irrigation 

systems, broad interregional trading networks, and abandonment of the valley by 

prehistoric peoples. Montezuma Castle 

was part of an estimated 100-room community that constituted an important 

component of the system of villages and 

population centers in the Verde Valley 

during the Honanki and Tuzigoot phases. 

The cliff faces with caves and overhangs in 

the soft limestone constituted another attraction to early inhabitants of the lands in 

both sites of the national monument. 

Rockshelters provided efficient sites for 

occupation. It has been asserted that defense was one of the reasons cliff dwellings and pueblos were constructed on 

high ridges during the Tuzigoot Phase. 

This explanation does not seem to apply 

to shelter sites along the irrigation canal 

and along the creek at the Montezuma 

Well site. The rockshelter sites with masonry walls, which constitute a cross between cliff dwellings and pueblos, are built 

along cliff faces that do not afford much of 

a view because of dense riparian vegetation. Even if the brush was cleared, such 

sites would be more of a trap than a defensible stronghold. 

Site Descriptions. The aforementioned 

archeological study identified 14 site 

types, 12 of which are considered to contribute to the archeological district’s significance for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places. The 12 contributing site 

types at the national monument include 

cliff dwellings, rockshelters with or without masonry rooms, pueblos, sites with 

one masonry structure, sites with two masonry structures, artifact scatters, agricultural features, a burial ground, prehistoric 

cobble concentrations, bedrock mortars, 

and lithic scatters. 

Site Conditions. The condition of the 

archeological sites at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument is generally good. Of 

the 63 prehistoric sites, seven have been 

disturbed by looting or vandalism, two 

possibly vandalized, four disturbed by 

NPS construction, and five have been 

tested or excavated. Except for the excavated/interpreted pit house, which receives minor to moderate impacts as a result 

of unintentional vandalism, the prehistoric sites in the monument experience relatively few adverse impacts. 

Land-disturbing activities undertaken before establishment of the national monument are not well documented. Archeological sites were, however, impacted by a 

variety of human activities and natural 

causes prior to establishment of the national monument, and some of these impacts have continued to the present. These 

include borrowing building stone from 

rockshelters, using caves as ranch and settlement-related structures, looting and 
Cultural Resources 

109 

vandalism, road and utility line construction, erosion caused by natural forces and 

human exploration, excavations and removal of deposits by pioneers, explorers, 

and investigators, surface collection by 

investigators and looters, historic and 

continuing use of prehistoric irrigation 

canals, and graffiti. Sewage lagoon construction by the National Park Service also 

likely impacted some archeological sites. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

National Park Service archeologists associated with the Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center conducted an archeological inventory survey of Tuzigoot 

National Monument in March 1986. The 

survey’s project area covered some 512 

acres, including 100% of the federally 

owned land within the boundaries of the 

national monument as well as most of privately owned lands within its authorized 

boundaries. The survey provided the opportunity to systematically locate, record, 

and evaluate all archeologically significant 

cultural resources within the boundary of 

the project area (Tagg 1986). 

The archeological survey of the monument and adjacent lands recorded eight 

archeological sites and 21 isolated finds, 

including two sites and two isolated finds 

within the federally owned lands of Tuzigoot National Monument. 

Site Descriptions. The two archeological 

sites within the federally owned lands at 

Tuzigoot National Monument include 

Tuzigoot Pueblo and a two- to five-room 

masonry room structure: 

TUZI 86A-1. Tuzigoot Pueblo (estimated 

dates of occupation are ca. AD 1140 to 

1400) is the principal prehistoric structure 

in the national monument and the type 

site for the Tuzigoot Phase of the Southern Sinagua tradition. Tuzigoot is situated 

on a crest (known as Tuzigoot Hill) at the 

east end of a Holocene terrace along the 

north bank of the Verde River about 120 

feet above the floodplain. This terrace, 

formed by an oxbow diversion of the river, likely provided arable farmland for the 

pueblo’s prehistoric inhabitants. The hill, 

sparsely vegetated by plains and desert 

grassland plants, overlooks the river approximately 110 yards to the south and is 

surrounded by flat, lower terraces adjacent to the river. Prior to excavation of the 

site by Caywood and Spicer in 1933 and 

1934, the pueblo site had been actively 

looted. Since the excavation, most of the 

pueblo has been rebuilt and stabilized. A 

paved trail encircles the main roomblock, 

and an old road cut runs below the easternmost roomblock. 

The Tuzigoot Pueblo is a medium-sized 

pueblo with 77 ground-floor rooms and 

15 possible second-story rooms in one 

main roomblock and four smaller contiguous roomblocks. The second-story 

rooms are in the central portion of the 

main, and largest, roomblock. The pueblo 

was constructed of native river boulders 

(basalt, sandstone, and limestone, as well 

as irregular blocks of limestone from outcrops on Tuzigoot Hill) and adobe mortar. 

The main pueblo area, built in terrace-like 

fashion to conform to the contours of the 

hill, is approximately 165 yards long and 

33 yards wide on a north/south axis. A 

plaza area lies between the main roomblock and northern block of rooms. 

Caywood and Spicer also excavated 411 

burials holding the remains of 429 individuals during 1933 and 1934. Nearly all of 

the excavated burials were reburied in the 

slope below the prehistoric pueblo close 

to the original cemetery in 1934. A vast 

amount of artifacts was recovered during 

the excavation of the site, including flaked 

and ground stone, ceramics, bone, shell, 

and some perishable items such as basketry, textiles, and wood. 

TUZI 86A-2. The site is in a flattened area 

on the east slope of Tuzigoot Hill, about 

22 yards below the crest. The site overlooks Tavasci Marsh some 330 yards 

northeast of the Tuzigoot Pueblo and the 

flat terrace and floodplain of the Verde 

River to the east. This site is a 9.9-yard by 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

110 

3.3-yard concentration of basalt and limestone boulders that represents from 

two to five masonry rooms. 

TUZI 86A-3. This is a moderate scatter of 

artifacts in a 38.3-yard by 36.1-yard area. 

The artifacts consist mainly of stone debris and ceramics. 

TUZI 86A-4. The site lies on the southern 

tip of a ridge finger extending off the high 

mesa bordering the Tavasci Marsh and 

consists of a structure with two (possibly 

three) contiguous masonry rooms. The 

main structure is rectangular with a remaining wall extending from the southeast 

corner of the structure that may be another room or a ramada. The walls are drylaid basalt and limestone boulders and 

blocks that stand three courses high in 

places. Large boulders and limestone outcrops have been incorporated into the 

structure. Relatively dense wall fall surrounds the roomblock. The second pile of 

rock rubble is in a clear area between rock 

outcrops, and may e another room. A very 

light scatter of artifacts is in and around 

the rooms, but trash lies downslope to the 

south and west. Artifacts include flaked 

stone debris, ceramics, and four pieces of 

shell. 

TUZI 86A-5. The site lies on the western 

tip of a ridge finger extending off the high 

mesa which borders the Tavasci Marsh. 

The roomblock has several rooms on the 

flat tip of the ridge, but most of the rooms 

are off the northwestern slope. 

The site is constructed of local limestone 

and basalt boulders and blocks, and some 

portions of walls are still three courses 

high. Substantial wall fall indicates that the 

wall were higher. Many room corners are 

visible, and several upright slabs distinguish one room, but individual room size 

is difficult to determine in the rubble. The 

roomblock has been built on a slope and 

appears terraced to conform to the contours. A moderate scatter of flaked stone, 

ceramics, and one metate fragment were 

seen among the rooms. 

Other Sites. The other six archeological 

sites recorded during the survey, as well as 

the nearby sites at Hatalacva and the Tuzigoot Extension Ruin, were cobble masonry surface structures, including oneroom field houses, two-to-five-room 

structures, small pueblos with from 10 to 

30 rooms, and large pueblos of approximately 100 rooms. Associated artifact 

scatters are moderate to heavy. 

Isolated Finds. Twenty-one isolated finds 

were recorded in the archeological survey, 

two of which were in the federally owned 

lands of the national monument. All of 

these sites date to the Tuzigoot Phase or 

later. 

Site Dates, Camp Verde Phase. Artifacts 

plus the lack of aboveground masonry architecture at one archeological site outside 

the federally owned lands of the national 

monument suggest a Camp Verde Phase, 

or perhaps earlier, occupation. Because of 

its location high on a mesa away from the 

bottomlands, the site may be a specializeduse site for hunting and gathering rather 

than a farmstead site. 

Site Dates, Honanki and Tuzigoot Phases. The remainder of the sites recorded 

during the archeological survey can be 

placed in the Honanki and Tuzigoot phases. Excavation results from the three pueblos – Tuzigoot, Hatalacva, and Tuzigoot 

Extension Ruin – indicate early as well as 

later occupation periods. The early occupation began in the Honanki Phase, with 

the later, and major, occupation occurring 

in the Tuzigoot Phase; at Tuzigoot, approximately eight rooms were occupied in 

the Honanki Phase and approximately 92 

in the Tuzigoot Phase. Based on survey 

results alone, the remaining small sites 

could not be dated with more certainty 

other than to place them generally within 

the two phases, since many of the ceramic 

types and architectural styles were common to both phases. 

The results of the Tuzigoot archeological 

survey indicate a series of small sites sur-
Cultural Resources 

111 

rounding the Tuzigoot Pueblo that appear 

to be contemporaneous. Although it is unclear whether these sites were abandoned 

upon completion of the large pueblo at 

Tuzigoot or if occupation at these sites 

continued, excavation at Tuzigoot and the 

Tuzigoot Extension Ruin both show early 

and later occupations, thus making it appear likely that many of the smaller sites 

were occupied simultaneously and were 

related to the larger pueblos as components of internally diversified communities. 

Site Conditions. The condition of the 

archeological sites at Tuzigoot National 

Monument, like those at Montezuma Castle, is generally good. However, archeological sites within the current boundaries 

of the national monument and its adjacent 

lands, like those at Montezuma Castle, 

were impacted by a variety of human activities and natural causes prior to establishment of the monument, and some of 

these impacts have continued to the 

present. These activities include farming, 

grazing, mining, camping, hiking, hunting, 

looting and vandalism, poaching, and offroad driving. Archeological sites have also 

been impacted by erosion resulting from 

natural forces and human exploration; 

excavations and removal of deposits by 

pioneers, explorers, and investigators; and 

surface collection by investigators and 

looters. 

Increasing development on lands surrounding the monument continues to result in direct and indirect impacts to archeological sites, and development in the 

valley has resulted in visual intrusions to 

the monument’s cultural and natural setting. Adverse impacts to these resources 

are caused by farming, feral animals, 

woodcutting, highway and road construction, residential development and associated infrastructure, water demands, and 

pesticide and fertilizer use draining into 

water resources. 

Arizona’s growing popularity for permanent and seasonal residence has resulted 

in increased visitation to the national monument and a corresponding decrease in 

the capacity of the limited staff to protect 

the archeological resources. Thus, human 

impacts include littering, trespassing (after 

hours entry and entry into closed areas), 

looting and vandalism, illegal hunting, and 

other unauthorized consumptive uses. 

Social trails and related erosion, caused by 

visitors leaving established trails, have impacted archeological resources. Stream 

channel alteration – down cutting or deposition of the channel, flooding, or 

change of flow regime – resulting from 

gravel mining, diversion, vegetation 

changes, or other human manipulation 

could result in adverse impacts on archeological sites in the Tuzigoot vicinity in future years. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Comprehensive ethnographic overviews 

and assessments (including ethnobotanical studies) for Montezuma Castle and 

Tuzigoot national monuments have not 

been prepared to date. Thus, no ethnographic resources, sacred sites, or traditional cultural properties (ethnographic 

resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places) have been 

identified in the national monuments. 

However currently, for compliance purposes, Montezuma Well itself is treated as 

a traditional cultural property. These studies are necessary to identify traditional 

uses of national monument lands by affiliated Native American groups and to 

identify and define cultural and natural 

features that are significant to the ethnic 

heritage and cultural affiliation of such 

groups. 

Cultural Affiliation Study 

Under the provisions of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990 

(Public Law 101-601), all federal government agencies and federally funded museums and institutions whose archeological collections include human remains and 

associated funerary objects are required to 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

112 

engage in consultation with lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Native 

American tribes and organizations. In 

1994, the National Park Service’s Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center 

contracted with the Bureau of Applied 

Research in Anthropology at the University of Arizona to identify cultural affiliation 

at National Park Service units in Arizona, 

including Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. Based on archeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric research and oral history, the report 

identified three groups as being potentially affiliated with the two national monuments’ inventory of human remains and 

associated funerary objects: Yavapai, Hopi, and Northern Piman. The report also 

identified the following Native American 

tribes as having cultural affiliation with the 

two national monuments: 

• Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Camp 

Verde Yavapai-Apache Tribe, and 

Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian Community, all of which have 

had a long relational history with the 

Verde Valley. 

• Ethnic Hopi, who currently visit Montezuma Castle and Montezuma Well 

to conduct rituals; the Castle structure 

holds supernatural significance for 

ethnic Hopis. 

• Gila River and the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, whose 

community speakers inhabited the 

Middle Verde River Valley in 1583 

and typically view the valley as a 

commodity exchange route. 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act Inventory Information 

Pursuant to the cultural affiliation study, 

the Western Archeological and Conservation Center prepared preliminary Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act inventory information regarding the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot 

national monuments’ museum collections. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. The “Preliminary Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

Inventory Information” regarding the museum collections at Montezuma Castle 

attributes the human remains and associated funerary objects in the collections 

primarily to the Southern Sinagua Honanki-Tuzigoot Phase, although some items 

could not be dated. According to the affiliation study, the monument inventory includes: 

• A minimum of 121 individuals (112 

inhumations and nine fragmentary 

remains) primarily from Montezuma 

Castle, Castle A, Swallet Cave, Montezuma Well, and other sites in the vicinity of Montezuma Castle. A few remains are from unknown locations. 

• Associated funerary objects include 

shell and stone beads, pendants, and 

bracelets; ceramic bowls, a miniature 

jar, and sherds; fiber padding, matting, 

and textiles; a cradleboard; an atlatl 

dart and a flake; a bow and arrows; 

and soil samples. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. The preliminary Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act inventory information regarding the museum collections at Tuzigoot National Monument 

attributes the human remains and associated funerary objects in the collections 

from the Tuzigoot, Tuzigoot Extension 

Ruin, and Hatalacva pueblos primarily to 

the Southern Sinagua Honanki-Tuzigoot 

Phase. An individual recovered from the 

Clarkdale Smelter site was attributed to 

the Southern Sinagua Camp Verde Phase, 

and an individual from Sedona could be 

Yavapai or Apache. Most of the other human remains are Native American, but 

their cultural context is not known. According to the affiliation study, the Tuzigoot inventory includes the following: 

• Fourteen individuals and seven fragmentary remains from Tuzigoot; one 

fragmentary remain from the Tuzigoot 

Extension Ruin; at least two individu-
Cultural Resources 

113 

als from Hatalacva; five individuals 

from four burials from the area along 

Sycamore Creek, about six miles 

north-northwest of Clarkdale; one individual from the area north of Clarkdale; one individual from the Clarkdale Smelter site; four fragmentary 

remains from several locations along 

the Verde River; one individual from 

the Will Steel property near Sedona; 

one fragmentary remain from Clear 

Creek; one burial and fragmentary 

remains from at least 34 individuals 

recovered from unknown locations. 

• Twenty-one associated funerary objects, including bowls, jars, a sherd, arrows, a quid, a sandal, a corncob, a 

bracelet, a bead, awls, and soil samples. 

PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC 

STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS 

Historic resource studies have not been 

prepared for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. Such studies 

are needed to provide a historic overview 

of both NPS units that would identify and 

evaluate their cultural resources within 

historic contexts and include completed/updated requisite National Register of Historic Places nomination forms 

and historic base maps. However, Josh 

Protas’ A Past Preserved in Stone: A History 

of Montezuma Castle National Monument, 

an administrative history published by the 

Western National Parks Association in 

2002, provides historic background material relating to the development and administration of Montezuma Castle. Historic structure preservation guides are also 

needed to guide long-term and cyclic 

maintenance efforts designed to preserve 

the prehistoric and historic structures in 

the monuments. 

List of Classified Structures 

The list of classified structures is a computerized, evaluated inventory of all prehistoric and historic structures and buildings 

having historical, architectural, or engineering significance in which the National 

Park Service has or plans to acquire any 

legal interest. Included are structures that 

individually meet the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places or are 

contributing resources of sites and districts that meet national register evaluation criteria. Also included are other structures – moved, reconstructed, and commemorative structures as well as structures achieving significance within the last 

50 years – that are managed as cultural resources because of management decisions 

that have been made pursuant to the planning process. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Although the list of classified structures for Montezuma Castle National 

Monument requires updating, 16 structures are currently listed. These include 

the following: 

• Castle A – AZ 0:5:95 (NA 6373) (Listed 

in the National Register of Historic 

Places on October 15, 1966). 

• Residence – MH5 (determined eligible 

for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places on July 13, 1994). 

• Residence – MH4 (determined eligible 

for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places on July 13, 1994). 

• Site NA 1271 (listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places on October 

15, 1966; rockshelter with one masonry room inside Montezuma Well). 

• Site NA 1272 A and B (listed in the National Register of Historic Places on 

October 15, 1966; rockshelter with 

two groupings of masonry rooms inside Montezuma Well). 

• Site NA 1273 (listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places on October 

15, 1966). 

• Montezuma Castle – Site NA 1278 

(listed in the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966; includes nearby sites and features 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

114 

MOCA 88A-65/NA 6384 and NA 

2223-24). 

• Swallet Cave – Site NA 4630 (listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966). 

• Site NA 5553 A and B (MOCA 88A-30) 

(listed in the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966; 

rockshelter consisting of two to three 

rooms on two levels]. 

• Equipment Shed (determined eligible 

for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places on July 13, 1994). 

• Prehistoric Irrigation Canals (listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966). 

• Historic Irrigation Ditch (listed in the 

National Register of Historic Places 

on October 15, 1966). 

• Civilian Conservation Corps Revetment Wall (determined eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places on July 13, 1994). 

• Site AZ 0:5:69 (NA 7280), a single masonry room. 

• Site AZ 0:5:75 (NA 4619), a series of 19 

cavates southwest of Castle A. 

• Site AZ 0:5:91 (NA 1274), an 11 room 

pueblo on the rim of the well. 

Stabilization, repair, and preservation 

projects have been carried out on the national monument’s prehistoric structures 

since the late 19th century, but preservation activities have improved with better 

techniques as a result of specialized training. Although current staff members have 

ruins stabilization skills and continue to 

conduct routine maintenance of these 

structures, the lack of adequate funding 

and personnel has barely enabled them to 

keep up with necessary routine stabilization work, much less long-term, cyclic 

work that should be performed in a timely 

manner to prevent further deterioration. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Five 

structures are currently listed in the List of 

Classified Structures for Tuzigoot National Monument, a list that should also be 

updated. These include the following: 

• Tuzigoot Pueblo (listed in the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966). 

• Museum and Headquarters Building 

(determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places 

on July 13, 1994). 

• Storage Tool House (determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places on July 13, 1994). 

• Pump House (determined eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic Places on July 13, 1994). 

• Retaining Wall (determined eligible 

for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places on July 13, 1994). 

Stabilization, repair, and preservation 

projects have been carried out on the national monument’s prehistoric structures 

since the 1930s, but preservation activities, 

like those at Montezuma Castle, have improved with better techniques, more highly skilled labor, and specialized training. 

Although current staff members have 

ruins stabilization skills and continue to 

conduct routine maintenance of these 

structures, the lack of adequate funding 

and personnel has barely enabled them to 

keep up with necessary routine stabilization work, much less long-term, cyclic 

work that should be performed in a timely 

manner to prevent further deterioration. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

According to Director’s Order 28: Cultural 

Resource Management Guideline, the National Park Service defines a cultural landscape as a geographic area, including both 

natural and cultural resources that are associated with a historic event, activity, or 

person. The National Park Service recognizes four cultural landscape categories: 

historic designed landscapes, historic ver-
Cultural Resources 

115 

nacular landscapes, historic sites, and ethnographic landscapes. In the broadest 

sense, a cultural landscape is a reflection 

of human adaptation and use of natural 

resources and is often expressed in the 

way land is organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use, systems of 

circulation, and the types of structures 

that are built. The character of a cultural 

landscape is defined both by physical materials, such as roads, buildings, walls, and 

vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural 

values and traditions. 

No formal cultural landscape inventory 

work has been conducted at Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

Although current archeological and historic structure inventories and studies include most of the national monuments’ 

identified landscape features, other elements of landscape patterns and systems 

should be included as cultural landscape 

resources. Examples include circulation 

patterns, vegetation patterns (both native 

and designed), historic vegetation associated with homesteading and the Civilian 

Conservation Corps era, relationships between development and natural systems, 

and spatial organization. It is standard 

NPS practice to treat landscapes that are 

considered potentially eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places 

as eligible. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

Some known and potential cultural landscape resources have been identified at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument at 

Level 0 (Park Reconnaissance Survey) of 

the cultural landscape inventory process. 

These include the following: 

• Sinaguan occupation remains / Montezuma Castle site cultural landscape 

resources, including agricultural fields. 

• Hohokam occupation remains / Montezuma Well site cultural landscape resources, including irrigation canals. 

• New Deal / Civilian Conservation 

Corps-era historic designed landscape 

resources, including rock walls, drainage ditches, and other structural 

elements, and historic vegetation in 

the Castle site (NPS development at 

Montezuma Castle). 

• Homesteading/ranching cultural landscape resources, including historic irrigation canals, agricultural fields, historic trees or other vegetation, and potentially the late 19th century smokehouse structure in the Montezuma 

Well site. 

The current cultural landscape inventory 

database for the monument lists two identified areas (“component landscapes”) in 

need of cultural landscape inventory: 

Montezuma Castle and Montezuma Well. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

Some known and potential cultural landscape resources have been identified at 

Level 0 of the cultural landscape inventory 

process at Tuzigoot National Monument. 

These include the following: 

• New Deal / Works Progress Administration historic designed landscape resources, including the Visitor Center / 

Administrative complex area and historic vegetation. 

• Sinaguan/Hohokam occupation remains cultural landscape resources. 

The current cultural landscape inventory 

database for the monument lists one identified area (“component landscape”) in 

need of cultural landscape inventory: Tuzigoot National Monument landscape. 

PROPERTIES LISTED IN THE 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF 

HISTORIC PLACES 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

was listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a district (District also 

known as Montezuma Castle and Montezuma Well) on October 15, 1966, pursuant 

to passage of the National Historic Pre-
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

116 

servation Act of 1966. An updated National Register of Historic Places Inventory – 

Nomination Form (prepared by personnel 

of the National Park Service’s Western 

Archeological Center) was approved by 

the Keeper of the National Register on 

November 20, 1978. On May 2, 1990, 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center personnel prepared an updated 

comprehensive draft National Register of 

Historic Places registration form for the 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

Archeological District that incorporated 

the findings of the latest archeological research by the Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center at the national monument (NPS 1990). 

According to the 1978 national register 

nomination form and the updated 1990 

draft national register registration form, 

the district and its 63 contributing archeological sites have, as a group, national significance. (An additional five sites were 

reviewed and determined not to contribute to the archeological significance of 

the district.) The district and its contributing sites are nationally significant under 

the following national register criteria: 

• A – property that is associated with 

events that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of 

American history. 

• C – property embodies the distinctive 

characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction or represents 

the work of a master, or possesses high 

artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components lack individual distinction. 

• D – property that has yielded, or is 

likely to yield, information important 

in prehistory or history. 

Criterion A. The district, along with its 

associated sites, is nationally significant 

because it contains archeological remains 

dating from the appearance of preceramic settlements in the Southwest until 

the protohistoric Apache occupation. The 

earliest structure known is a Squaw Peak 

Phase pit house, dating ca. AD 600. Following this in time is a Camp Verde pit 

house, which represents the first appearance of the Southern Sinagua culture, manifest in small hamlets of Hohokam-like 

pit houses along the Verde River. The 

primary archeological resources within 

the national monument are prehistoric 

Sinagua sites and features representing the 

broad pattern of community aggregation 

and interactive networks occurring 

throughout the Southwest from ca. AD 

900 to 1400. 

Preserved within the monument boundaries are 63 sites that include a significant 

sample of the Honanki-Tuzigoot Phase 

settlement system of the Middle Verde 

River. Montezuma Castle is important historically as a visitor attraction, having been 

first reported by Euroamericans in 1875, 

although undoubtedly first visited at a 

much earlier date. It is now one of the 

most heavily visited prehistoric sites in the 

United States and ranks with Mesa Verde 

National Park’s ruins as a symbol of prehistoric cultures in North America. 

Montezuma Castle is also significant for 

its association with the historic preservation movement of the United States. Because it was an early visitor attraction, its 

preservation became a matter of concern 

by the late 19th century. First stabilized in 

1897 by the Arizona Antiquarian Association, it was established as one of the country’s first national monuments in 1906. 

Along with Casa Grande, Mesa Verde, and 

similar nationally known prehistoric ruins, 

its presence in the American consciousness undoubtedly led to passage of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 and the early 20th 

century movement to preserve the remains of native cultures. 

Criterion C. The archeological district 

and its associated sites are nationally significant in the area of prehistoric architecture, representing a rare survival of Hohokam buildings embodying distinctive cha-
Cultural Resources 

117 

racteristics of a type, period, and method 

of construction. The district contains several sites representing distinctive characteristics of prehistoric Southwestern cultures. 

Although it has been the object of stabilization efforts, the Castle is in an excellent 

state of preservation. Almost all walls and 

roofs are original, thus preserving the 

original boulder/cobble-and-adobe masonry and viga-and-latilla roof construction 

found in the Verde Valley and elsewhere 

in the Southwest. Only floor features are 

missing, obscured by historic asphalt covering. Its excellent condition has permitted detailed architectural analysis, addressing building techniques, construction 

sequence, and room function. 

Criterion D. Excavation and survey at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

has yielded significant information contributing to knowledge of the late Archaic 

and Sinagua inhabitants of the Verde Valley. This information, integrated with the 

survey data from adjacent private lands 

and Coconino National Forest, constitute 

a database for research on prehistoric 

community organization, population 

change, diet, land use, and interaction 

with other areas. The Verde River has had 

very little controlled archeological excavation. All cultural deposits were removed 

from Montezuma Castle by the turn of the 

20th century, and the cliff dwelling has 

little potential for further study, other 

than re-examination of its architecture, 

historic graffiti, and perhaps C14 dates 

(there are no direct dates of the cliff dwelling). 

Past archeological studies of the monument have been important for the development of cultural frameworks for understanding Southwestern prehistory. In addition to providing information on a wide 

range of archeological problems and concerns, further studies in the monument 

may provide new information about architectural styles and techniques using the 

unique architectural remains of the monument, specifically Montezuma Castle 

and Castle A, as a source of study. Montezuma Well is a unique geographic feature 

that may have ethnic significance to the 

general Native American public as an interpretive exhibit. The value of these nonrenewable resources will undoubtedly be 

enhanced in the future as development on 

private land in the Verde Valley results in 

destruction of prehistoric sites. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

Tuzigoot National Monument Archeological District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 

1966. An updated National Register of 

Historic Places Inventory – Nomination 

Form (NPS 1987; prepared by Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center 

personnel) was approved by the Keeper of 

the National Register on October 23, 1987. 

According to the 1987 national register 

nomination form, the archeological district includes two sites associated with 

Southern Sinagua occupation – Tuzigoot 

Ruin/Pueblo (AZ N:4:1) and a site consisting of the remnants of a contemporaneous 

two-to-five-room masonry structure (AZ 

N:4:19) approximately 330 yards northeast of the Tuzigoot Ruin. 

Criterion C. The 1987 national register 

nomination form states that the archeological district and its associated sites are 

nationally significant under national register criterion C in the area of prehistoric 

architecture. The sites associated with the 

district represent a rare survival of Southern Sinagua structures embodying distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and 

method of construction. 

Criterion D. The archeological district is 

also significant under criterion D because 

it has yielded, and is likely to yield, further 

information important in Southwestern 

and Verde Valley prehistory. The district 

is the type site for the Tuzigoot Phase of 

the Southern Sinagua, and the ceramics, 

artifacts, and burials excavated in 1933 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

118 

and 1934 remain the type assemblage of 

the Tuzigoot Phase. Previous excavation 

and examination, as well as future study of 

the district, have yielded, and are likely to 

yield, further information on prehistoric 

architecture, material culture, burials, subsistence and plant use, environment, settlement patterns, trade and external relationships, and dating. 

PROPERTIES DETERMINED 

ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN THE 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF 

HISTORIC PLACES 

On July 13, 1994, three structures and 

buildings at Montezuma Castle National 

Monument and four structures and buildings at Tuzigoot National Monument 

were determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places by the 

National Park Service, with concurrence 

by the Arizona state historic preservation 

officer. These structures included: 

• Montezuma Castle: two residences 

and the equipment shed. 

• Tuzigoot: museum and headquarters 

building, storage tool house, pump 

house, and retaining wall. 

These structures and buildings, built in the 

adobe and stone Pueblo-style of rustic architecture, were constructed during the 

1930s using funds provided by the Works 

Progress Administration and other New 

Deal public works agencies. The structures are locally significant under national 

register criterion C in the fields of architecture and landscape architecture because they constitute quality examples of 

environmental design and the National 

Park Service’s historically significant rustic 

architectural concept of constructing 

buildings and structures that reflect local 

styles, materials, and careful site location 

to lessen their impact on the landscape 

and ensure that they blend with their natural surroundings. 

OTHER STRUCTURES OF 

POTENTIAL HISTORIC 

SIGNIFICANCE 

Montezuma Castle Visitor Center 

The Montezuma Castle Visitor Center, 

constructed in 1960, was identified as a 

significant Mission 66 structure in an NPS 

study, Mission 66 Visitor Centers: The History of a Building Type, prepared in 2000. 

Though a modest, small structure, the visitor center building is important because of 

its designer, Cecil Doty, and for its architectural design. The structure is a component of the combined walkway, comfort 

station, and stone walls that together form 

a strong linear approach that lead national 

monument visitors to the Castle ruins. 

Back Cabin and Smokehouse 

In 1888, William B. Back moved with his 

family onto what would later become 

known as the Montezuma Well property 

at Montezuma Castle National Monument. Back irrigated crops by using the 

prehistoric ditches built by the Sinagua, 

constructed a number of buildings on the 

property (his homestead entry was patented on July 18, 1907), and opened 

Montezuma Well as a tourist attraction in 

1910. Two of the buildings, including the 

family home (now referred to as the Back 

cabin) and a log smokehouse, remain extant, although the latter is in deteriorated 

condition (Protas 2002). 
119 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Montezuma Castle, Montezuma Well, and 

Tuzigoot are all in the Verde Valley and 

the Upper Verde River Watershed. The 

Verde Valley is in central Arizona in the 

northeast portion of Yavapai County, 

about 100 miles north of Phoenix. Elevations in the Verde Valley range from 3,512 

feet at Clarkdale, to 3,300 feet at Cottonwood, to 3,133 feet at Camp Verde. The 

Verde Valley is at the junction of the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range 

physiographic provinces. The surrounding mountains, including Mingus Mountain, Woodchute Mountain, and the nearby Mogollon Rim, rise above the valley to 

an elevation of 7,500 feet or greater. 

The climate pattern is a distinct, bimodal 

climatic regime known as the Southwestern or Arizona climate pattern. This climate is characterized by summer precipitation from the North America monsoon 

and fall drought broken by wintertime Pacific frontal precipitation. Precipitation 

varies from year to year and has ranged 

from less than four to more than 22 inches 

per year. Winter precipitation is related to 

the eastward movement of middle latitude 

storms that form in the northern Pacific 

Ocean. These storms can produce major 

floods in the Verde Valley, particularly 

when rains fall on snowpack at higher elevations along Mongollon Rim. Summer 

storms are typically of short duration and 

locally intense. These storms may produce 

flash flooding. Although the three sites – 

Montezuma Castle, Montezuma Well, and 

Tuzigoot – are separated by up to 20 miles, 

they share a common watershed. 

The surrounding mountains and the 

Verde River itself contribute to the region's moderate temperatures throughout 

the year. The down-gradient flow of cool 

air off the surrounding highlands causes a 

30oF to 40oF decrease in nighttime temperatures. Temperatures during the winter 

months are typically 50oF to 60oF during 

the day, with evening temperatures falling 

to 20oF to 30oF. Summer daytime temperatures often reach 100oF, cooling during 

the evening to 50oF to 80oF (Arizona Department of Commerce [ADOC] 1989). 

FLOODPLAINS 

Floodplains are the alluvial lands adjacent 

to a river or drainage that periodically experience flooding. Floodplains include the 

floodway, floodway fringe, and those 

areas expected to encompass the 100- and 

500-year floods. According to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

definition, the floodway includes the 

channel of the river plus any additional 

land areas that must be kept free of encroachment to convey the 100-year 

floodwaters without substantial increases 

in flood heights. Encroachment such as 

artificial fill would reduce the floodcarrying capacity of the river, increase its 

flood heights, and increase the flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment 

itself (Averitt et al. 1990). Floodplains are 

an important consideration in any river 

corridor planning endeavor and are necessary to accommodate overflow during 

flooding. Portions of all three monument 

sites are within the 100-year floodplain as 

designated by FEMA (Bond pers. comm. 

2005). However all existing development 

in the three sites, including the wastewater 

lagoon at the Castle, is outside the designated 100-year floodplain. 

Beaver Creek, a perennial stream and tributary to the Verde River, flows in front of 

the cliff dwelling at Montezuma Castle 

and periodically floods, particularly following winter and monsoon rains. The 

creek flow has been modified by upstream 

withdrawals, and there are now periods 

when the creek is essentially dry except 

for remnant deep pools (Rowlands 1999). 

The vegetation in the riparian corridor 

along the creek, including cottonwoods, 

velvet mesquite, and willows, requires periodic flooding to stay healthy and regene-
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

120 

rate. Some species such as the southwest 

willow flycatcher prefer to nest in areas 

where periodic flooding occurs. Wet 

Beaver Creek, which flows through Montezuma Well, is also a perennial stream. 

The flow regime has also been modified 

by upstream withdrawals, but Wet Beaver 

Creek does not have a pronounced dry 

period. 

The Verde River, Arizona’s only wild and 

scenic river, flows through Prescott National Forest, Coconino National Forest, 

and along the boundary of Tuzigoot National Monument. The State of Arizona 

identified a six-mile stretch that includes 

the flow past the Tuzigoot boundary as a 

critical natural resource and designated it 

as the Verde River Greenway State Natural Area. The cottonwoods and shrubs 

along the banks support coyotes, raccoons, mule deer, beavers, and nearly 20 

threatened or endangered species, including river otter and lowland leopard frogs 

(Sedona Verde Valley Tourism Council 

2007). Additional threatened and endangered species include the spikedace (a native minnow), razorback sucker, Colorado 

pikeminnow, bald eagle, and southwestern willow flycatcher. Resident and migratory birds abound throughout the river 

(Forest Service 2002). 

WETLANDS 

Tavasci Marsh in Tuzigoot National Monument is the largest wetland within the 

three monument sites. The hydrology of 

the marsh wetland is sustained by two 

sources, one is natural and the other is artificial. Several permanent springs along 

the northeast edge of the marsh, including 

Shea Spring, are the natural water sources. 

The marsh also receives water from Peck’s 

Lake which is located up gradient from 

the Tavasci Marsh. Peck’s Lake is filled 

with natural spring water and water from 

Verde River. The river water is funneled 

from the river through Brewers tunnel into Peck’s Lake, which contributes most of 

the lake volume. Peck’s Lake discharges 

water into the marsh through a culvert 

that flows under an old road and into an 

outflow channel called the Tavasci Ditch. 

The ditch was originally constructed to 

divert the flow around an agricultural field 

and the water was occasionally withdrawn 

from the ditch to irrigate the field. Over 

time, in the past 60 years, the ditch has 

been breached in several locations and all 

of the diverted water flows into what was 

once the agricultural field but is now the 

Tavasci Marsh. 

The portion of the Tavasci Marsh area 

that is naturally sustained by spring water 

measures approximately 20 acres. The 

area that is artificially sustained by diverted river flow is approximately 40 

acres. The entire existing Tavasci Marsh 

area is approximately 60 acres. 

Typically, sedges and grasses cover the 

upper, drier portion of the marsh, and 

dense stands of cattails occupy the lower, 

wetter sections of the marsh. The marsh 

provides habitat for wildlife species, including rare species. The sediment in the 

Tavasci Marsh contains high concentrations of heavy metals, and is infested with 

nonnative vegetation such as Russian olive 

and tamarisk. 

SOILS AND VEGETATION 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

Soils are broadly classified into two types: 

the riverine bottomland soils that are 

dominated by stream deposits and the 

upland rocky calcareous soils (Soil Conservation Service [SCS] and USFS 1972). 

The Retriever soil series is dominant and 

characterized by limestone outcrops and 

limestone-derived soils on upland mesas, 

ridges, and side-slopes. The dominant vegetation community is scrub-shrub, including creosote bush (Larrea divaricata

ssp. tridentate), mariola (Parthenium incanum), localized stands of perennial 

grasses, and often scattered one-seed and 

Utah juniper (Juniperus monosperma, J. 

osteosperma) and crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha) (Rowlands 1999). 
Natural Resources 

121 

The river corridor soils at Montezuma 

Castle National Monument are primarily 

alluvial in nature, classed as riverwash and 

as terrace deposits. The Riverwash soils 

are primarily stratified sand, silt, and clay, 

with scattered deposits of gravel, cobbles, 

stones, and boulders. The terrace deposits 

border the wide channel of the river and 

may be 5 to 10 feet high. These deposits 

consist of a mixture of unconsolidated but 

finely stratified clay, silt, sand, and gravel. 

Both the riverwash and terrace deposits 

are very permeable and form a good aquifer (Lehner 1958). 

The primary vegetation is riparian woodland / gallery forest, with by riparian trees 

such as the Arizona sycamore (Platanus 

wrightii) and Arizona ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica ssp. velutina) and understory 

species such as the Gooding willow (Salix 

gooddingii) as well as grasses and flowering plants (Rowlands 1999). The vegetation is dominated by the velvet mesquite 

(Prosopis velutina). 

Historically, the riparian areas were important for agricultural purposes, including grazing. The agricultural practices 

have caused soil compaction and altered 

the vegetation. The high number of nonnative and exotic species in the riparian 

area is related to these historic activities. 

At Montezuma Well, the dominant soil 

type is the Guest soil series, characterized 

by bottomland, clayey soil derived from 

flood-borne, fine sediment deposits (SCS 

and USFS 1972). These soils support velvet mesquite and cat claw acacia (Acacia 

greggii) and tobosa (Hilaria mutica). The 

second most common soil type is the Riverwash soil. 

The gallery riparian forest alongside Wet 

Beaver Creek at Montezuma Well supports Arizona sycamore and Arizona ash 

vegetation and the Fremont cottonwood 

(Populus fremontii), a species not found at 

the Castle, and a dense carpet of smooth 

brome (Bromus inermis), an exotic perennial grass. Exotic grasses are also found in 

great numbers in other areas of the monument, including the old pasture lands 

along the historic ditch and near the picnic grounds. Velvet mesquite is spreading 

into the pasture near the picnic area since 

active grazing was ceased in that area of 

the monument. Several soils within the 

Retriever association underlie the former 

pasture lands (Rowlands 1999). 

The soils and vegetation in the bottom 

land / riparian areas of Montezuma Castle 

National Monument and the former pasture lands at Montezuma Well have been 

severely disturbed; the native plant communities and soils have been removed or 

displaced from their natural states. The 

disturbance has occurred primarily as a 

result of agricultural activities. This is reflected in the high number of nonnative 

introduced and exotic species present at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument, 

especially the Mediterranean annual 

grasses. Although Beaver Creek still maintains a natural flow regime, the amount of 

water flowing through the creek has 

changed as a result of upstream water 

withdrawals. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

At Tuzigoot National Monument the 

floodplain is quite broad, the Verde River 

is wider and more meandering, and the 

stream bottom composition contains 

more gravel and cobble that form large 

bars at low flows (NPS 1992). Retriever 

soils are present in all areas of the monument except Tavasci Marsh. The upland 

vegetation is dominated by velvet mesquite, creosote bush, crucifixion thorn, 

tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis), and yucca 

(Yucca spp.). Vegetation in the riparian 

area is dominated by tree species, primarily cottonwood, willows (Salix spp.), desert 

willow (Chilopsis linearis), and Arizona 

sycamore. Peck's Lake and Tavasci Marsh 

possess emergent vegetation such as cattails and bulrush (Scirpus spp.), which 

grow along the edges of the water bodies 

and may extend several yards from the 

edge of the shore into the water. Numerous small, semi-aquatic plants typically 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

122 

form understories within the marsh communities along the banks of the Verde 

River (Minckley and Brown 1982). 

WILDLIFE 

This section addresses species found at 

both Montezuma Castle National Monument and Tuzigoot National Monument. 

The riparian and upland environments in 

the monuments support a wide variety of 

wildlife. Terrestrial species include birds, 

large and small mammals, reptiles, rodents, and insects. Aquatic species include 

fish, amphibians, and insects. 

Approximately 50 species of mammals are 

known to live in the monuments. These 

include the desert cottontail (Sylvilagus 

audubonii), ground squirrels (Sciuridae

family), elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), grey fox (Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Felis rufus), 

coyote (Canis latrans), and rarely a mountain lion (Felis concolor). In the uplands, 

the hot climate and lack of water favors 

smaller mammals that have an easier time 

finding shelter and require less food and 

water. Reptiles found at the monuments 

include anurans, turtles, spiny lizards, collared lizards, and diamondback rattlesnakes. Because of the high carbon dioxide 

levels in the water, no fish live in Montezuma Well. At least five endemic species 

live only in Montezuma Well: a diatom, a 

springtail, a water scorpion, an amphipod, 

and a leech -- the most endemic species in 

any spring in the Southwestern United 

States. 

Other water sources in the monuments 

support a variety of native species of trout 

and sucker and nonnative fish species, including carp, bass, and catfish. 

The most conspicuous wildlife species in 

the monument are the birds. Many breeding species are found in the riparian areas. 

The uplands also provide breeding, post 

breeding, migrating, and wintering habitat 

for avian species. During the breeding season, the black-throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) are very common. 

Because a variety of habitat types are 

present in the monuments, even the most 

predominant species in a given year account for no more than 12% of the species 

observed. There are 49 avian breeding 

species in the monuments; this high number reflects the topographic and habitat 

variability in the monuments as well as the 

presence of the riparian area. Approximately 75% of the avian breeding species 

are migrants and leave the monuments 

during the fall and winter. 

The proposed alternatives include actions 

that could impact wildlife habitat in the 

monument. These actions include the designated trails in all three sites, the boardwalk at Tuzigoot National Monument, 

and the overlook at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Except for the overlook, birds are most likely to be affected 

by the proposed actions. Development of 

the overlook could affect small mammals. 

THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

This section addresses species that are 

listed on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species List or are afforded protection by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Although special-status species 

could potentially occur in Yavapai County, Arizona, informal consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated 

that only three listed species would be potentially affected by actions at Montezuma 

Castle or Tuzigoot national monuments. 

The species not fully evaluated in the environmental assessment are not expected to 

occur at the monuments or if they could 

be transitory (for example, the bald eagle), 

there would be no effect on the species. 

Table 7 lists the three species that were 

fully evaluated; appendix D presents all 

the listed species with potential to occur in 

Yavapai County, Arizona. 
Natural Resources 

123 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

The southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is one of five 

subspecies of the willow flycatcher. A neotropical migrant, the flycatcher breeds in 

the southwestern United States and winters in Mexico, Central America, and extreme northern South America. The flycatchers are found in riparian ecosystems 

within the 100-year floodplain or in a 

flood-prone area. This species uses riparian habitat for feeding, sheltering, and 

cover while breeding and migrating. Flycatchers prefer to nest in dense patches of 

willow (Salix spp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), box elder (Acer negundo), and Baccharis spp. Flycatchers are 

also known to nest in nonnative vegetation such as tamarisk. In almost all cases, 

water that is still or slowly moving or saturated soils are present at or near the 

breeding site (USFWS 2002). Nests are 

open cup structures typically placed in the 

fork of a branch from 6.5 to 23 feet above 

ground (USFWS 2002). 

Riparian areas are dynamic, and the size 

and location of flycatcher habitat changes 

over time in response to natural disturbances and regeneration events such as 

flood, fire, and drought (USFWS 2004). As 

a result, habitat may become unsuitable 

for breeding through maturation or disturbance but could remain suitable for 

migration or foraging. It is not uncommon 

for patches that have been disturbed to 

cycle back into suitability for breeding. 

(USFWS 2004). About 90% of the flycatcher’s traditional habitat has been lost 

or modified such that it no longer provides suitable habitat. 

The southwestern willow flycatcher 

breeds early in the season. The flycatcher 

does not breed in any of the monument 

sites but forages at both Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

The flycatcher typically arrives in the region in late May to early June and stay 

through August. Flycatchers are not 

known to use the habitats at Montezuma 

Well. This species prefers relatively dense 

vegetation to reduce predation both from 

mammals such as coyotes, foxes, and 

cowbirds. The flycatcher is shy and easily 

disturbed. Management considerations 

for the flycatcher include how to reduce 

potential disturbance from visitors that 

approach suitable habitats. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher has been designated 

along the Verde River. The flycatcher 

does not currently nest in the riparian area 

at Montezuma Castle National Monument, but it does forage in the monument. 

The riparian vegetation at Montezuma 

Castle National Monument is not ideal for 

nesting because it is primarily gallery forest, although there are some patches of 

preferred vegetation along Beaver Creek. 

Although the riparian habitat is dynamic, 

it is unlikely that the habitat will improve 

because typically the alluvial deposits 

along Beaver Creek have a heavy bed load 

as opposed to the fine sediments preferred 

by willows and other plant species that the 

flycatcher prefers for nesting. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

124 

TABLE 7: ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES WITH THE 

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENTS 

Common Name Scientific Name Status a/

Critical 

Habitat 

Present? 

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, AWSC Yes 

Yuma clapper rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis FE, AWSC No 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FC, AWSC No 

a/ Status: FE = federal endangered; FC = federal candidate; AWSC = Arizona wildlife of special concern. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Critical 

habitat for the flycatcher has been designated on the Verde River just outside the 

monument boundary south of the access 

road. A breeding pair of the flycatchers 

has been documented in this area. The 

river channel south of the access road is 

frequently disturbed during ditch maintenance activities. As a result, there are 

finer sediments in the channel that supports patches of vegetation that the flycatcher prefers for nesting. The flycatcher 

uses the nearby Tavasci Marsh for foraging. 

Yuma Clapper Rail 

Habitat for the Yuma clapper rail (Rallus 

longirostris yumanensis) in Arizona includes 

a variety of marsh types dominated by 

emergent plants, including cattail (Typha 

domingensis), bullwhip bulrush (Juncus 

californicus), and sedges (Cyperaceae

family). Rail habitat requires a wet substrate, such as a mudflat, sandbar, or 

slough bottom with moderate- to highdensity vegetation adjacent to shorelines. 

The only suitable habitat for the Yuma 

clapper rail at the monuments is in Tavasci 

Marsh near Tuzigoot National Monument. The Yuma clapper rail is known to 

forage in the monument but has not been 

documented nesting in the marsh. It is 

likely that the Yuma clapper rail uses the 

marsh during migration. Sedges and 

grasses in Tavasci Marsh typically cover 

the higher-elevation, drier portion of the 

marsh while dense stands of cattails occupy the lower-elevation, wetter sections of 

the marsh. The preferred habitat for the 

rail is in the wetter sections of the marsh. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

The western distinct population segment 

of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus) is a candidate for federal listing, but listing actions are precluded by 

higher-priority listings (Federal Register 71 

FR 53755). This species is considered 

Wildlife of Special Concern by the state of 

Arizona (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2007). The yellow-billed cuckoo is a 

riparian obligate species. Suitable habitat 

for this species in the western United 

States is limited to narrow, and often 

widely separated, riparian cottonwoodwillow galleries. Because it nests relatively 

late in the season when water levels are 

lower, the cuckoo prefers the relatively 

humid environment of the gallery forest. 

The population in Arizona is probably the 

largest remaining cuckoo population in 

states west of the Rocky Mountains, but 

cuckoo numbers in 1999 were substantially less than some previous estimates for 

Arizona as a result of habitat loss and degradation. One hundred sixty-eight yellow-billed cuckoo pairs and 80 single 

birds were identified in Arizona in 1999, 

based on preliminary results from a statewide survey which covered 265 miles of 

river and creek bottoms. Losses of riparian habitats from historic levels have been 

substantial in Arizona. Despite this, the 

cuckoo is still found in all counties in Arizona. Unlike the southwestern willow flycatcher, these birds are relatively secretive, 
Natural Resources 

125 

nest high in the canopy, and are more difficult to disturb. 

The loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

of riparian habitat have been identified as 

the primary factors causing yellow-billed 

cuckoo declines in the western United 

States. There is potentially suitable nesting 

and foraging habitat in Montezuma Castle 

National Monument and near Tuzigoot 

National Monument along Beaver Creek 

and the Verde River. 
126 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

The planning team identified visitor experience as an important issue that could be 

appreciably affected under the alternatives. The Organic Act and Management 

Policies 2006 direct the National Park Service to provide visitor enjoyment opportunities that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the resources found in the 

monuments. Several aspects of visitation 

and enjoyment were evaluated, including 

visitor use characteristics, visitor experience and recreational opportunities, 

orientation information and interpretation, and access for disabled visitors. 

To provide the sociological data necessary 

to support management planning, Dave 

White and Randy Virden from Arizona 

State University conducted a visitor study 

(White and Virden 2004). The study, referred to as the 2003-2004 visitor study, 

was conducted in two phases, October to 

November 2003 and March to May 2004, 

to capture information from different visitor use seasons. The study collected information about visitor use levels, demographic characteristics, management preferences, and perceptions of natural, social, and managerial conditions. A goal 

was to support the identification of additional opportunities to enhance visitors’ 

understandings, education, and appreciation of the monuments, and to improve 

interpretive programs and services. Data 

was collected from current adult visitors 

at Montezuma Castle, Montezuma Well, 

and Tuzigoot through onsite and mail survey questionnaires. Three versions of each 

instrument (onsite and mail) were produced, with identical questions on each 

version, but customized so that the instrument cover and questions specified 

the site where the visitor was contacted. 

VISITOR USE CHARACTERISTICS 

FOR ALL THREE SITES 

Visitation at Montezuma Castle is shown 

in figure 1. Visitation was quite low during 

World War II, but then climbed steadily, 

peaking at about a million visitors in 1996. 

A decline then occurred, but for the past 

six years, visitation has been relatively stable at more than 600,000 visitors annually. 

Despite its small size, Montezuma Castle is 

among the most heavily visited national 

park units in the southwest, is one of the 

most visited prehistoric southwestern 

ruins, and is the best-known Sinaguan site. 

Visitation is facilitated by the monument’s 

location along the primary Grand Canyon 

tour route, its convenient access from Interstate 17, its proximity to the Phoenix 

metropolitan area, and the widely known, 

well-preserved condition of the Castle. 

Montezuma Well visitation is shown in 

figure 2. This site typically records about 

25% to 30% of the Castle visitation. The 

visit to Montezuma Well can be a side trip 

for visitors to the Castle and other public 

lands in the region. However, the shaded, 

scenic picnic area at Montezuma Well attracts a relatively high amount of return, 

local visitation. As a result, the 2003-2004 

visitor study indicated that about only 

about 40% of Phoenix-area residents visiting Montezuma Well also had visited 

Montezuma Castle. 

Tuzigoot visitation is shown in figure 3. 

Visitation peaks occurred around 1970 

and again in the early 1990s, when almost 

140,000 people visited the site each year. 

Since then, numbers have stabilized at 

about 115, 000 visitors annually. The distance of this national monument from major, regional travel routes results in visitation numbers that are lower than those of 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

127 

FIGURE 1: MONTEZUMA CASTLE NATIONAL MONUMENT ANNUAL VISITATION, 1940-2007 

Source: National Park Service, 2004 

FIGURE 2: MONTEZUMA WELL ANNUAL VISITATION, 1992-2007 

 Source: National Park Service, 2004 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

128 

FIGURE 3: TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENT ANNUAL VISITATION, 1940-2007 

Source: National Park Service, 2004 

While annual visitation numbers at all 

three monument units are relatively stable, 

all have lower visitor numbers than occurred in the early 1990s. While the socioeconomics section in chapter 3 discusses possible contributing factors, there 

is no clear consensus as to the cause of this 

decline. A similar decline is occurring in 

many national parks around the country. 

Based on the surrounding region’s population growth, it is likely that visitation will 

increase over the next 15 to 20 years. The 

towns and cities in the Verde Valley are 

expected to grow substantially in the next 

two decades. Visitation is expected to increase because of the continuing population growth and the development of tourism services in this area (Verde River Corridor Project Steering Committee 1991). 

Visitation by month for the six years from 

2002 through 2007 is shown in figure 4 for 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

Similar data are provided for Montezuma 

Well in figure 5 and for Tuzigoot National 

Monument in figure 6. The figures show 

that peak visitation for all three monument units occurs in March, with a 

second, smaller peak in October. During 

the hottest summer months, visitation declines to levels similar to those occurring 

in February and November. December 

and January are the months with the lowest visitation. 

Regional use is more evident on weekends 

and holidays. Heaviest use occurs during 

mid-morning to early afternoon, coinciding with tour bus schedules and the travel 

time from the major destination or departure points of Phoenix and the Grand 

Canyon. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

129 

FIGURE 4: VISITATION BY MONTH AT MONTEZUMA CASTLE NATIONAL MONUMENT, 2002-2007

FIGURE 5: VISITATION BY MONTH AT MONTEZUMA WELL, 2002-2007
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

130 

FIGURE 6: VISITATION BY MONTH AT TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENT, 2002-2007

The 2003-2004 visitor study identified 

other visitor characteristics that are important to understanding and planning for 

visitor use for all three areas. Highlights of 

relevant data on general visitor characteristics and use at all three sites follow. 

• Respondents included slightly more 

women than men. 

• Average age of respondents ranged 

from 48 to 51 years at the monuments. 

• For more than nine of ten visitors, the 

NPS site where the visitor was contacted was one of multiple destinations away from home. 

• About two thirds were traveling in 

groups of two to three people; groups 

of more than five were uncommon. 

• A fifth of visitors were traveling with 

children under 16 years. 

• Nearly all visitors (99.2%) stayed less 

than three hours at the monuments. 

• About 40% of visitors were making 

their first trip to the monuments. 

• About 11% had an individual with a 

disability, with the most common type 

noted as “mobility.” 

• Most visitors also visit other communities in the region, including Sedona, 

Phoenix, Flagstaff, the Grand Canyon, 

and Jerome. 

• The most frequently visited areas for 

overnight visits included Sedona, 

Phoenix, Flagstaff, the Grand Canyon, 

Cottonwood, and Camp Verde. 

Figure 7 shown the percentages of visitors 

who went to one site, two sites, or all three 

sites. As shown in the figure, visits to 

Montezuma Castle only, and visits to all 

three sites, each accounted for about 25 

percent of visitors. Visitors were least likely to visit Montezuma well only (about 4 

percent) or a combination of Tuzigoot 

National Monument and Montezuma 

Well (about 1 percent. Tuzigoot National 

Monument only, the combination of 

Montezuma Castle and Montezuma Well, 

and the combination of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments 

each was represented by 12% to 15% of 

visitors. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

131 

Weekday versus weekend visits also are 

shown in figure 7. Weekend visitors were 

slightly more likely than weekday visitors 

to visit Montezuma Castle only, experience Montezuma Castle and Montezuma Well on the same visit, or visit all three 

sites. In contrast, weekday visitors were 

more likely to visit Tuzigoot National 

Monument only, or to experience Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot on the same 

visit. However, differences between 

weekday and weekend visits varied by just 

a few percentage points. 

Figure 8 shows the top five states of residence for visitors who responded to the 

visitor study. For all three monument 

units, more than 20% of visitors were Arizona residents, and for Montezuma Well, 

a third of all visitors were from Arizona. 

Californians made up more than 10% of 

visitors at all three sites. Residents from 

Washington, New York, and Illinois each 

represented from 3% to 5% of visitors. 

VISITOR SAFETY AT 

ALL THREE SITES 

The primary risks to visitor safety are participating in outdoor visitor activities in a 

desert environment. Visitors may also 

perceive risk to personal safety through 

contact with other visitors in a public setting. 

The safety risk associated with visiting the 

monuments is low. 

MONTEZUMA CASTLE 

NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Visitor Experience and 

Recreational Opportunities 

Most visitors to the Castle spend a short 

time in the monument. Visitors tend to 

enter through the visitor center, wander 

through the exhibits briefly, and exit on to 

the Castle trail. During peak hours, the 

Castle visitor center can be very busy, with 

much movement and noise. 

The walk to the Castle is short but stunning. As the visitor proceeds along the 

paved walk, the Castle slowly comes into 

view. A wide viewing area with seating is 

available at the base of the Castle. This 

area allows visitors time for reflection and 

contemplation. The visitors tend to be 

quiet and reverential when viewing the 

dwelling. The entire loop trail tends to be 

a contemplative and relaxed environment. 

However, during peak use times or during 

interpretive programs along the loop trail, 

the solitude and peacefulness associated 

with viewing the Castle may be interrupted for short periods of time. 

Continuing on the Castle loop trail leads 

visitors to another Sinaguan dwelling, Castle A. A viewing platform and small 

amount of seating is available at the base 

of this structure. The backside of the loop 

trail includes a spur trail to Beaver Creek. 

Visitors can view the creek from behind a 

rock wall. The creek allows quiet reflection, wildlife viewing, photography, and 

catching a cool breeze. Currently, there 

are no facilities to encourage visitors to 

stop and spend time in this area or bring 

them close to the water. Many people 

noted during public scoping that they particularly enjoy the serenity of the creek at 

the Castle as part of their visit to the monument. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

132 

FIGURE 7: PERCENTAGES OF VISITORS SEEING ONE OR MORE SITES

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

MOCA only MOWE only TUZI only MOCA &

MOWE

MOCA &

TUZI

TUZI &

MOWE

MOCA &

MOWE &

TUZI

Percent

Weekday

Weekend

Total

FIGURE 8: TOP FIVE STATES OF RESIDENCE FOR VISITORS 

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

AZ CA WA NY IL

Percent

MOCA

MOWE

TUZI

TOTAL
Visitor Use and Experience 

133 

During public scoping, several people 

noted concern over the level of development on trails and walkways at the monument. These individuals suggested that 

the trails should be kept as primitive as 

possible to reflect the rawness of the period of history, while meeting the needs of 

disabled visitors to the greatest degree 

possible. Further, several people commented on the lack of intimacy with the 

resources at the Castle because of physical 

barriers (for example, fencing) and restrictions (for example, signs to stay on trails). 

At the end of the loop trail, near the parking lot, is a shaded picnic area. Visitors can 

use this area before or after the visit to 

view the Castle. 

Access to the lands within the monument 

that surround the developed area is limited. Because of the sensitivity of archeological resources throughout the monument, visitor access to these areas has 

been highly restricted. There is currently 

no visitor access to the unusual fossil area 

consisting of mammal footprints dating to 

the Pliocene Epoch. A parking area was 

constructed at one point, but no trail or 

interpretive exhibit was developed to provide access. The area is currently closed to 

visitors. 

Recreation activities available to visitors 

include sightseeing, wildlife watching, 

walking, and picnicking. Guided ranger 

programs are available in addition to contact with roving interpreters. The most 

common activities for visitors to Montezuma Castle are walking along paved 

trails, taking photographs, visiting archeological sites, going to the visitor center, 

and shopping at the gift shop (White and 

Virden 2004). When asked to choose their 

primary activity, the most common responses were visiting archeological sites, 

walking along paved trails, and taking 

photographs. 

Learning about history, prehistoric cultures, and Native American traditions 

were important motivations for visiting 

the monument. Having an authentic experience and developing a connection with 

Native American cultures were also highly 

rated motives. When reflecting on the 

emotional aspects of their experiences, 

respondents felt impressed by the engineering achievements of the Sinaguan 

people and by the success of prehistoric 

cultures living in the desert. Respondents 

also felt pride at the preservation of the 

cultural resources and felt they had 

learned about human history in the Verde 

Valley. Most survey respondents were extremely satisfied (22%) or very satisfied 

(57%) with their visit (White and Virden 

2004). 

During the period of heavy use in the early 

to mid 1990s (up to 1 million visitors per 

year), the existing vehicle parking was often inadequate for the level of visitation, 

and some potential visitors were unable to 

park. Further, this level of visitation 

caused crowding of pedestrian traffic flow 

around the visitor center and along the 

loop trail at the Castle. Several public 

comments were also received during public scoping for the general management 

plan about the interference of the visitor 

experience from heavy tour bus visitation 

as a result of associated noise and smells. 

Visitors were asked to rank other topics of 

concern during the 2003-2004 visitor 

study. The study found that visitors were 

most concerned with the following social 

and environmental conditions at the Castle: theft of cultural artifacts, visual impact 

of the mine tailings at Tuzigoot, and poor 

water quality. Other social and environmental conditions of concern included 

collecting wood and rocks, defacing or 

destroying natural resources and loss of 

open space. Further, visitors were asked to 

evaluate the importance of and their satisfaction with certain programs and services 

at the Castle. Visitors ranked monument 

maintenance and friendliness of staff as 

two of the most important conditions. 

They did not identify any major deficiencies in any of the monument’s programs 

and services. Finally, visitors were asked 

to evaluate the importance of and their 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

134 

satisfaction with certain facilities at the 

Castle. The topics that visitor ranked as 

relatively important but with relatively low 

satisfaction might need some improvement, including cleanliness of restrooms, 

availability of drinking water, availability 

of parking, and educational exhibits at the 

visitor center (White and Virden 2004). 

Orientation, Information, 

and Interpretation 

Visitors receive most interpretative information in the visitor center and along the 

loop trail at the base of the Castle. Wayside exhibits interpret the cultural and 

natural resources found in the area. A diorama and audio program depicts the interior view of the cliff dwellings. Recently 

improved visitor center museum exhibits 

are informative and attractive, detailing 

the major interpretive themes of the monument. Currently, there are no facilities 

for group interpretation opportunities, 

and several public comments were received during the scoping phase suggesting that an amphitheater was needed at 

the Castle. Further, many public comments, especially in response to the openended questions on the 2003-2004 visitor 

study, requested more “hands-on” activities for interpretive demonstrations and 

programs. 

Visitors are most interested in the following new programs and services: scheduled 

ranger-led tours of archeological sites, nature trails, Native American cultural demonstrations, and living history presentations. The most highly rated topics for interpretive and educational programs were 

reasons for the successes and failures of 

human settlements in the desert, ties between past and present Native American 

cultures, Native American travel and trade 

routes in the area, link between prehistoric and modern human cultures, number 

and variety of cultural sites in the Verde 

Valley, and how water is the source of life 

in the desert (White and Virden 2004). 

Access for Disabled Visitors 

The monument has been improving accessibility for six years. About 10% of visitor 

groups contacted at the Castle during the 

2003-2004 visitor study included one or 

more individuals with a disability, with 

mobility being the most frequently mentioned. The monument is therefore concentrating on improving mobility accessibility first. The visitor center and the 

paved trail are accessible to wheelchairs. A 

portion of the Castle trail is too steep for 

wheelchairs and is marked with a sign. 

The picnic area is not accessible to wheelchairs. Funding in fiscal year 2009 will allow replacement of some sidewalk sections to meet accessibility standards. 

While many interpretative programs involve visual elements such as traditional 

craft demonstrations and Native American traditional dances, others include 

non-visual activities such as flute playing, 

touch tables, participation in traditional 

crafts, corn grinding, and agave fiber 

weaving. Renovations to the museum in 

2002 removed physical and height barriers. The museum has no audio program, 

so no devices are needed for the hearingimpaired visitors, who can see the displays 

and read the text. Large fonts with artifact- and graphics-exhibits assist the visually impaired, and rangers can read or 

describe exhibits to blind visitors. For 

those with mental disabilities, a hierarchy 

of exhibits from simple text and illustrations to complex drawings provides a 

wide array of information. 

MONTEZUMA WELL 

Visitor Experience and 

Recreational Opportunities 

The Well is reached via a paved trail featuring a series of modern wayside exhibits 

that offer cultural and natural resource 

information. Visiting Montezuma Well 

tends to be a quieter and slower-paced 

experience than visiting Montezuma Castle. Visitors tend to wander along the rim 

of Montezuma Well via the paved trail, 
Visitor Use and Experience 

135 

taking time to watch for wildlife and view 

the ruins along the well’s interior walls. 

The Well outlet is also accessible via a 

paved trail. A walk down to Montezuma 

Well rewards visitors with a quiet, shady 

spot for rest and contemplation. Beaver 

Creek is directly below the sitting area 

near the outlet, surrounding visitors with 

the sounds of slow running water. 

In addition to Montezuma Well and adjacent ruins, visitors to the site can still see 

traces of ancient, lime-encrusted irrigation 

ditches that extend from the well’s outlet, 

a remnant of past farming activity.

The picnic area at Montezuma Well is 

shady and lush, with several picnic tables 

and a large green space area. It is one of 

the most pleasant picnic areas in the valley 

and receives relatively high levels of use. 

Beaver Creek is near the picnic area, but 

currently no designated trail provides 

access to the water. During the public 

scoping period for the general management plan, the public expressed a desire 

for trail opportunities to the creek from 

the picnic area. 

Some informal trails are used by local residents to access the land around the developed area in Montezuma Well. These 

trails are not documented or designated. 

As the area around Montezuma Well continues to grow with residential development, demand for trail-based recreation 

opportunities may increase. 

Recreation activities available to visitors 

include sightseeing, wildlife watching, 

walking, and picnicking. Contact with roving interpreters is also possible during a 

visit. According to the 2003-2004 visitor 

study, the most common activities for visitors to Montezuma Well are walking along 

paved trails, taking photographs, and visiting archeological sites. When asked to 

choose their primary activity, the most 

common responses were walking along 

paved trails and visiting archeological 

sites. 

For respondents to the 2003-2004 visitor 

study, having an authentic experience of 

past cultures and learning about prehistoric cultures were important motivations for 

visiting the site. Learning about Native 

American traditions and developing 

knowledge of history were also important 

motivations. When reflecting on the emotional aspects of their experiences, respondents felt impressed with how prehistoric cultures thrived in the Verde Valley 

and they felt proud to see the preservation 

of archeological resources. Most survey 

respondents were extremely satisfied 

(25%) or very satisfied (56%) with their 

visit. 

Visitors were also asked to rank topics of 

concern. Visitors were most concerned 

with the following social and environmental conditions at Montezuma Well: theft of 

cultural artifacts and poor water quality. 

When asked to evaluate the importance of 

and their satisfaction with certain programs and services at Montezuma Well, 

visitors ranked monument maintenance 

and friendliness of staff as two of the most 

important conditions. They identified 

availability of information about monument activities as one service that might 

need some minor improvements. Finally, 

visitors were asked to evaluate the importance of and their satisfaction with certain 

facilities at Montezuma Well. The topics 

that visitor ranked as relatively important 

but with relatively low satisfaction might 

need some improvement, including availability of drinking water and archeological 

displays (White and Virden 2004). 

Orientation, Information, 

and Interpretation 

Interpretive and regulatory information is 

provided at the contact station at Montezuma Well. Currently, the contact station 

is a prefabricated concrete building placed 

in the late 1990s that has space for two or 

three staff. Visitors get information from 

the staff through a sliding window in the 

trailer. 

Personal services interpretation is handled 

by a roving interpreter who makes informal contacts with visitors. A series of way-
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

136 

side exhibits provide cultural and natural 

resource information on the way to Montezuma Well. Currently, there are no facilities for group interpretation opportunities, and several public comments received during the scoping phase of the 

general management plan suggested that 

an amphitheater was needed at Montezuma Well. Further, many public comments, 

especially in response to the open-ended 

questions on the 2003-2004 visitor study, 

requested more “hands on” activities for 

interpretive demonstrations and programs. 

Visitors to Montezuma Well are most interested in the following new programs 

and services: nature trails, trail access to 

streams, Native American cultural demonstrations, scheduled ranger-led tours of 

archeological sites, and living history 

presentations. The most highly rated topics for interpretive and educational programs were reasons for the successes and 

failures of human settlements in the 

desert, Native American travel and trade 

routes in the area, number and variety of 

cultural sites in the Verde Valley, ties between past and present Native American 

cultures, and rare species of plants and 

animals in the Verde Valley (White and 

Virden 2004). 

Access for Disabled Visitors 

Although the monument has been improving accessibility for six years, providing 

accessibility is challenging because of limited space for visitor orientation. The 

Well relies primarily on posters for interpretation; plans call for an expanded contact station to meet visitor needs, including accessibility. About 9% of visitor 

groups contacted at Montezuma Well 

during the 2003-2004 visitor study included one or more individuals with a disability, with mobility being the most frequently mentioned disability. Most of the 

paved trails are not accessible via wheelchair. Potential new routes, which would 

require archeological clearance and new 

construction, have been identified. 

TUZIGOOT 

NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Visitor Experience and 

Recreational Opportunities 

The approach road to Tuzigoot passes an 

extensive area of copper mine tailings. The 

tailings were covered and the area restored in 2007. Once visitors arrive at the 

monument, they enter the visitor center 

that displays an extensive collection of 

Sinaguan artifacts. Visitors leave the visitor center along a paved trail that ascends 

to the top of the pueblo at the top of the 

hill. 

The trip through the pueblo at Tuzigoot 

allows visitors to come into close contact 

with a major surface ruin. Continuing stabilization of the Tuzigoot ruins helps visitors understand the architectural style and 

the size of the rooms. During public scoping, several comments were received from 

visitors who felt Tuzigoot was particularly 

special due the intimacy of contact between visitors and the resources. 

Visitors can visit the top of the pueblo and 

have a 360 degree view of the surrounding 

region. 

The natural setting around the north and 

east sides of the pueblo highlights the 

integral part that the area’s natural resources played in the life of prehistoric 

and historic peoples. The early residents 

were attracted to the natural resource 

communities in the riparian and marsh 

areas and adjacent uplands. Experiencing 

the natural environment is crucial to experiencing the cultural setting of the hilltop 

pueblo. 

Currently, visitors can take the Tavasci 

Marsh Overlook trail to view Tavasci 

Marsh, one of the few freshwater marshes 

in Arizona. The marsh provides opportunities for wildlife viewing, recreation opportunities, and exploration of the Sinaguan culture. 

No designated trails link to the surrounding public lands such as Dead Horse 
Visitor Use and Experience 

137 

Ranch State Park, the Verde River Greenway, and Coconino National Forest. During the public scoping period, the public 

expressed a desire for additional trail connections to the monument from surrounding public lands. There is also limited visitor access to other areas within 

the monument’s legislated boundary, but 

most of this area is not owned by the National Park Service. Current access to 

these sites is determined by the existing 

property owners. 

Recreation activities available to visitors 

include exploring a major surface ruin, 

sightseeing, wildlife watching, and walking. Guided ranger programs are available 

in addition to contact with roving interpreters. The most common activities for 

visitors to Tuzigoot are walking along 

paved trails, taking photographs, visiting 

archeological sites, and going to the visitor 

center. When asked to choose their primary activity, the most common responses 

were visiting archeological sites and walking along paved trails (White and Virden 

2004). 

For respondents to the 2003-2004 visitor 

study, learning about Native American 

traditions, prehistoric cultures and history 

were important motivations for visiting 

the monument. Having an authentic experience of past cultures and experiencing a 

connection with Native American cultures 

were also important motivations. When 

reflecting on the emotional aspects of 

their experiences, respondents felt impressed with how prehistoric cultures 

thrived in the Verde Valley and the engineering achievements they made in those 

days. Respondents also felt pride to see 

the preservation of archeological resources. Most respondents were extremely satisfied (18%) or very satisfied (54%) 

with their visit. 

Visitors were also asked to rank topics of 

concern during the 2003-2004 visitor 

study. Visitors were most concerned with 

the following social and environmental 

conditions at Tuzigoot: theft of cultural 

artifacts, poor water quality, visual impact 

of the mine tailings at Tuzigoot, and loss 

of open space. Further, visitors were asked 

to evaluate the importance of and their 

satisfaction with certain programs and 

services at Tuzigoot. Visitors ranked monument maintenance and friendliness of 

staff as two of the most important conditions. Overall, visitors seem highly satisfied with programs and services at Tuzigoot. Finally, visitors were asked to evaluate the importance of and their satisfaction with certain facilities at Tuzigoot. The 

only topic that visitor ranked as relatively 

important but with relatively low satisfaction, which therefore might need some 

improvement, was the availability of 

drinking water. 

Orientation, Information, 

and Interpretation 

The visitor center is a small museum with 

many artifacts from the Sinaguan people 

on display. It is one of the few museums 

interpreting ancient Sinaguan culture in 

Arizona. During the public scoping period, several people noted that the museum at Tuzigoot should grow in size. Renovation of the museum’s exhibits will be 

completed in 2008. In addition to the museum, the trail loop through the pueblo 

includes wayside exhibits. 

The 2003-2004 visitor study indicated that 

visitors to Tuzigoot are most interested in 

the following new programs and services: 

Native American cultural demonstrations, 

nature trails, scheduled ranger-led tours 

of archeological sites, and living history 

presentations. The most highly rated topics for interpretive and educational programs were reasons for the successes and 

failures of human settlements in the 

desert, ties between past and present Native American cultures, Native American 

travel and trade routes in the area, number 

and variety of cultural sites in the Verde 

Valley, link between prehistoric and modern human cultures, and how water is the 

source of life in the desert. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

138 

Access for Disabled Visitors 

The monument has been improving accessibility for six years. About 13% of visitor 

groups contacted at Tuzigoot during the 

2003-2004 visitor study included one or 

more individuals with a disability, with 

mobility being the most frequently mentioned. The visitor center and the Tavasci 

Marsh Overlook trail are wheelchair accessible. Most trails are not accessible via 

wheelchair. Wheeled vehicles, such as 

wheelchairs and baby strollers, are not 

recommended on the trail through the 

pueblo. Potential new routes, which 

would require archeological clearance and 

new construction, have been identified. 

Planned renovations to the museum (now 

in the architectural and engineering design 

phase) will address existing accessibility 

issues. The museum has no audio program, so no devices are needed for hearing-impaired visitors, who can see the displays and read the text. Large fonts with 

artifact- and graphics-exhibits assist the 

visually impaired, and rangers can read or 

describe exhibits to blind visitors. For 

those with mental disabilities, a hierarchy 

of exhibits from simple text and illustrations to complex drawings provides a 

wide array of information. 

Regional Recreational Opportunities 

The Verde Valley, lying under the spectacular cliffs of the Mogollon Rim of Central 

Arizona, provides a wealth of opportunity 

to enjoy numerous cultural and natural 

resources from past to present. 

Near all of the monuments are Coconino, 

Prescott, and Kaibab National Forests, 

which offer extensive opportunities for 

hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, 

bicycling, camping, picnicking, boating, 

and fishing. 

Near Montezuma Castle and Montezuma 

Well are Red Rock State Park and Fort 

Verde State Historical Park. Red Rock 

State Park provides self-guided and ranger-led interpretive walks, video and slide 

programs on the natural resources in the 

valley, hiking trails, and picnic facilities. 

Visitation to the Red Rock was 66,442 in 

1995-1996 and 76,393 in 2000-2001, a 15% 

increase (Northern Arizona University 

2002). 

Fort Verde State Historical Park has the 

best preserved example of an Indian Wars 

period fort in Arizona. Three historic 

house museums are available to visitors, 

including the Commanding Officer’s 

Quarters, Bachelors' Quarters, and Doctor’s Quarters on Officer's row, all furnished in the 1880s period. The park has 

living history programs and picnic facilities. Visitation in 1995-96 was 31,181 and 

21,450 in 2000-2001, a 31.2% decrease in 

visitation (Northern Arizona University 

2002). 

Directly adjacent to Tuzigoot is Peck’s 

Lake, an old oxbow lake of the Verde River just north of Tavasci Marsh. It is closed 

to public use but provides a scenic backdrop for the monument. 

Also directly adjacent to Tuzigoot are 

Dead Horse Ranch State Park and the 

Verde River Greenway, managed as a special unit of Dead Horse Ranch State Park. 

Dead Horse Ranch State Park offers 

campgrounds, restrooms, showers, picnic 

sites, group use areas, fishing lagoons, river access, riverfront trails, and interpretive 

and environmental education programs. 

Visitation to the state park was 74, 503 in 

1995-1996 and 103,089 in 2000-2001, a 

38.4% increase in visitors (Northern Arizona University 2002). 

The Verde River Greenway, along a segment of the nearly 180-mile long Verde 

River, crosses into Tuzigoot’s legislated 

boundary. The Greenway encompasses 

nearly 480 acres and is six miles long (Arizona State Parks 2004). The Verde River 

Greenway Management Plan calls for Tuzigoot to be integrated in to the Verde 

River Greenway through use of specialized Verde River Greenway family of 

signs (Arizona State Parks 1992). The 

Verde River Greenway Management Plan 

also suggests that interpretation at the 
Visitor Use and Experience 

139 

monument should be expanded to explain 

how the Verde River riparian corridor 

supported the development of the settlement at Tuzigoot. The plan also calls for 

an interpretive corridor that would link 

sites such as Tavasci Marsh and Tuzigoot 

National Monument. It also proposes an 

agricultural exhibit that would provide an 

area for accurately representing the types 

and quantities of Native American crops, 

tools, irrigation, and agricultural practices. 

The view of the site from Tuzigoot would 

provide an opportunity to explain the significance of the river ecosystem and the 

relationship to the lands surrounding Tuzigoot. 

The plan suggests a 2-mile trail system that 

would include natural and cultural system 

interpretive viewpoints and signage to link 

the resources. A 10-foot-wide, granular 

stone surfaced trail for non-motorized use 

traversing the length of the greenway is 

recommended. Loop trails off the core 

trail would provide access to the river, 

picnic areas, or interpretive sites. 

Also close to Tuzigoot is Jerome State Historic Park, which showcases the Douglas 

Mansion, a landmark in Jerome since 

1916, when James S. Douglas built it on 

the hill just above his Little Daisy Mine. 

This former home is now a museum devoted to history of the Jerome area and the 

Douglas family. The museum features exhibits of photographs, artifacts, and minerals in addition to a video presentation 

and a three-dimensional model of the 

town with its underground mines. There 

are more displays outside along with a 

picnic area offering a beautiful panoramic 

view of the Verde Valley. Visitation in 

1995-1996 was 87,749 and 53,128 in 2000-

2001, a 39.5% decrease in visitation 

(Northern Arizona University 2002). 

A future opportunity for visitors to the 

Verde Valley area will be the Sinaguan 

Circle tour. As envisioned, the Sinaguan 

Circle effort would consist of a partnership, including the National Park Service, 

United States Forest Service, Arizona State 

Parks, Arizona Conservancy, and local 

organizations, to promote and encourage 

protection, preservation, interpretation, 

and linkage of significant Sinaguan sites in 

the Verde Valley via a coordinated automobile driving tour. Interpretive media 

and trails would be developed at significant sites along the tour route. 

Currently, several events draw people to 

the Verde Valley area. One of the most 

popular is the Verde River Days, an annual 

event sponsored by the local communities 

and businesses that features river-related 

activities, demonstrations, and exhibits for 

children and adults. NPS staff participates 

in the event, highlighting the resources of 

the monuments. 

Other parks, monuments, and recreation 

areas in the region are identified in table 8.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

140 

TABLE 8: REGIONAL PARKS, MONUMENTS, AND RECREATIONAL AREAS

Park or Recreation Area Mileage to Montezuma Castle 

Wupatki National Monument 89 miles north 

Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument 74 miles north 

Walnut Canyon National Monument: 55 miles north 

Grand Canyon National Park (South Rim) 135 miles northwest 

Grand Canyon National Park (North Rim) 181 miles northwest 

Petrified Forest National Park 123 miles east 

Beaver Creek Recreation Area 15 miles north 

Mingus Mountain Recreation Area 41 miles west 

Oak Creek Canyon Natural Area 39 miles north 
141 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

(including Montezuma Well) and Tuzigoot National Monument are NPS units in 

central Arizona. The monuments are within a 30-minute drive of each other. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument is 

approximately 3 miles east of I-17 exit 289. 

The Castle is not open to the public, but 

the trail runs below the Castle and offers 

many panoramic viewpoints. The Castle 

has a visitor center and a museum that include exhibits and artifacts depicting the 

lifestyle, history, and culture of the Sinaguan Indians who built Montezuma Castle. The visitor center also contains a 

bookstore operated by Western National 

Parks Association, a non-profit organization that partners with the National Park 

Service. 

This site also contains restrooms and a 

picnic area. A parking facility for approximately 65 cars and three oversized vehicles and recreational vehicles is near the 

visitor center. Additional infrastructure 

includes a water tank in the central portion of the monument and a sewage treatment facility on the south side of the monument. Several administrative buildings 

housing ranger operations are south of the 

parking facility. 

Rangers provide interpretive programs at 

the Castle twice each day, in late morning 

and early afternoon. The programs cover 

topics ranging from the history and culture of the Sinagua people to the geology 

and wildlife of the Verde Valley. A $5.00 

entrance fee is charged for adults 16 years 

of age and older. Children under 16 years 

of age are free. The entrance fee is good 

for seven days. The visitor center and 

parts of the trail are wheelchair accessible. 

Montezuma Well is approximately 4 miles 

east of I-17 exit 293. The Well contains a 

picnic area, restrooms, and hiking trails. A 

visitor contact station is also provided at 

Montezuma Well, consisting of a small 

prefabricated concrete building where 

information is provided through a sliding 

window. Bulletin boards at Montezuma 

Well inform and orient visitors. A parking 

facility near the visitor contact station accommodates approximately 10 cars. Several administrative buildings are east of 

the Back Ranch area. These serve ranger 

operations, maintenance, and monument 

housing. Rangers provide interpretive 

programs at Montezuma Well once each 

day. There is no fee to enter Montezuma 

Well. The trail to the well is not accessible 

for wheelchairs. 

Tuzigoot National Monument is approximately 20 miles northwest of I-17 exit 

287. Tuzigoot contains a visitor center and 

museum with one of the finest collections 

of Sinaguan artifacts. This site also contains a nature trail and restrooms but no 

picnic facilities. An administrative building 

is on the site. A parking facility accommodates approximately 40 cars and approximately six buses or recreational vehicles. 

A $5.00 entrance fee is charged for adults 

16 years of age and older. Children under 

16 years of age are free. The entrance fee is 

good for seven days. A combination Montezuma Castle / Tuzigoot pass is available 

for $8.00. The visitor center and museum 

are wheelchair accessible, but the trail to 

the 110-room pueblo is too steep for 

wheelchairs. The nature trail is also 

wheelchair accessible, but has some elevation gain. 

The monument occasionally hosts special 

programs or events. During 2007, the monument hosted two special events during 

the last week of April (National Park 

Week). One event was a presentation on 

stargazing in our national parks and the 

other event was a craft fair in association 

with Junior Ranger Day. Activities associated with these special events occurred 

at each of the monument sites. 

The NPS units are managed collectively 

under a single administrative organization. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

142 

Currently, the monument employs 24 full 

time equivalent employees. Fifteen are 

permanent, full-time employees and nine 

are temporary employees. Two permanent, full-time employees have been requested in the proposed budget but not 

yet approved or hired. Table 9 describes 

the current organization of the monuments’ staff. 

TABLE 9: FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES 

FOR MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT 

NATIONAL MONUMENTS

Division Permanent Temporary 

Administration 2 2 

Facilities 

management 

4 2 

Resource management 

3 a/ 3 

Visitor and 

resource 

protection 

7 a/ 2 

Total 15 9 

a/ A permanent employee has been requested, but not 

hired. 

The Administration Division includes the 

superintendent and support personnel, 

who are responsible for the operation of 

the monuments. The Administration Division is at monument headquarters in 

downtown Camp Verde, in a leased office 

building outside the monument boundaries. 

The Facilities Management Division includes the facility manager and maintenance workers, who are responsible for all 

maintenance activities at all monument 

sites. The Facilities Management Division 

is based on tribal-owned property approximately 2 miles from Montezuma Castle. 

The Resources Management Division includes a historical architect, who acts as 

division manager, and support personnel 

consisting of scientists and laborers. This 

division is responsible for protecting the 

historic and natural resources of the monuments. The Resources Management 

Division is based inside the monument at 

Tuzigoot. 

The Visitor and Resource Protection Division includes the chief ranger, a supervisory ranger, and rangers assigned to either 

law enforcement / resource protection or 

to interpretation. The supervisory ranger 

is responsible for interpretation, and the 

chief ranger is responsible for law enforcement and resource protection. Currently, about half of the rangers are assigned to interpretation and half are assigned to law enforcement / resource protection. The rangers are distributed between the monument sites, but the higher 

visitation at Montezuma Castle dictates an 

increased ranger presence there. 

The monuments also use volunteers, primarily for assistance with interpretation. 

Currently, the monuments have approximately 12 to 18 volunteers on duty at any 

one time. During 2007, the volunteers 

logged approximately 3,300 hours at the 

monuments. 

All sites of the monuments are open all 

days during the year except Christmas. 

The operating hours are from 8:00 AM to 

5:00 PM, with summer hours extended to 

6:00 PM between June and August. 

Other federal agencies and state universities regularly conduct research at the monuments. There are currently 18 research 

sites and 26 archeological sites at the monuments under study. Research includes 

such diverse topics as water resources, 

rattlesnakes, birds, turtles, and mountain 

lions. 

The base operating budget at Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

has been between $1.0 million to $1.2 million from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. 

An increase to $1.4 million was requested 

for the next fiscal year. This budget primarily funds employee salaries at the monuments. In addition, 80% of the fees collected at the monuments are returned to 

the monuments. In 2007, the approximately $986,000 returned to the monuments funded the fee collection program 
Monument Operations 

143 

as well as interpretive, maintenance, restoration, and preservation projects. While 

most of the base operating budget is used 

for salaries, the National Park Service 

spends approximately $206,000 annually 

for utilities, services and travel, rental and 

lease payments for the vehicle fleet, supplies, and small equipment items. In addition, the General Services Administration 

pays approximately $90,000 annually for 

offsite leases on headquarters offices and 

monument maintenance facilities. 
144 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments are in the northeastern corner 

of Yavapai County in central Arizona, in 

an area commonly known as the Verde 

Valley. 

Private lands in the valley are bordered to 

the north and east by the 1.8 million acre 

Coconino National Forest and to the 

south and west by the Verde Ranger District of the 1.2 million acre Prescott National Forest. The region hosts six designated wilderness areas. Together, the 

many aquatic and terrestrial habitats in the 

region support an abundant and rich 

range of avian, fish, vegetative, and terrestrial species. 

The Verde Valley offers outstanding scenic, historical, and cultural resources. 

Among these are red rock canyons and 

monolithic rock formations, the vestiges 

of the region’s mining history, and the 

area’s treasured Native American heritage 

and culture, extending from ancient times 

to the present. The Yavapai-Apache Reservation is in the Verde Valley, a portion 

of which is west of Montezuma Castle National Monument. For many years, the 

region’s resources were exported, either 

as commodities like the copper and gold 

produced in local mines or through pictures and the film-making industry. Building on the world-renowned reputation of 

Sedona, those and other resources are 

now important amenities attracting new 

residents and tourists. The Verde Valley is 

experiencing an extended period of new 

development and of population and economic growth. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

was established in 1906, predating the establishment of the National Park Service. 

Tuzigoot National Monument was established in 1939, and Montezuma Well was 

added as a detached site of Montezuma 

Castle National Monument in 1943. Prior 

to the advent of commercial air travel, the 

seasonal winter-migration of “snowbirds” 

to the south, and improved highway 

access, the area and these two NPS units 

were primarily regional attractions. Annual visitation at Tuzigoot National Monument did not exceed 25,000 until 1952. 

That same year, annual visitation first 

topped 50,000 at Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

Visitation continued to increase into the 

1990s, in part because of the improved 

highway accessibility afforded by the 

completion of I-17 through the region. 

Segments of that highway incorporated 

portions of previously existing U.S. highways and thus were carrying traffic in the 

late 1950s and through the 1960s. Construction of new segments of I-17 through 

the Verde Valley was completed in 1976, 

and the completed I-17 was opened to 

travel from end to end in November 1987. 

The construction and completion of I-17 

provided an important north-south link 

for commercial travel, enhanced access to 

Grand Canyon National Park, and factored into the growth and development of 

both the Prescott metropolitan area and 

the Verde Valley. Yavapai County’s population increased from 37,005 in 1970 to 

107,717 in 1990, a strong 5.5% compounded annual growth rate. 

Set against this dynamic backdrop, visitation at the monuments continued to 

climb, albeit at a modest pace, until the 

mid-1990s. Specific causes for the declines 

thereafter are not known, but likely contributing factors include the following: 

• Institution of entrance fees at the main 

site of the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments in 1996 

under the recreational fee demonstration program; 

• Opening and subsequent expansion of 

the Cliff Castle Casino at the primary 

interstate interchange (Middle Verde) 

accessing Montezuma Castle National 

Monument; 
Socioeconomics 

145 

• Development of an expanded range of 

convenience food and automotive services at both the Middle Verde and 

Camp Verde interchanges; 

• Expansion of the array of private 

recreation and other opportunities 

within the valley, which compete with 

the national monuments for visitor’s 

time and attention within a timeconstrained environment; 

• Indirect impacts linked to declining 

visitation at Grand Canyon National 

Park, for which I-17 serves as a major 

access route; and 

• Changing household demographics 

and other factors affecting people’s 

recreation and travel patterns. 

The convergence of these factors is affecting the established economic and social 

linkages between the three sites, the local 

economy and the gateway communities. 

REGIONAL ECONOMY 

Beginning with the settlement by the Hohokam, agriculture has been a part of the 

region’s economic history. Early agricultural production of crops was for subsistence, whereas livestock ranching became 

more predominant in contemporary 

times. Around the turn of the 20th century, copper and gold mining became a 

driving economic force in the region, 

spawning development of several communities in the region and the Verde Canyon Railroad. Active mining has largely 

disappeared from the valley, which is now 

well into the transition from a commodity-based economy to one based heavily on 

trade, consumer and professional services, 

and construction. 

Recreation and tourism provide a major 

source of economic stimulus to the regional economy. In addition to the two 

national monuments, other regional 

recreation and tourism attractions include 

the following: 

• Five state parks hosting 476,000 total 

visitors in 2003; 

• Coconino and Prescott National Forests offering numerous hiking and 

biking trails, off-highway vehicle use 

areas, campgrounds, and other 

recreation opportunities; 

• Cliff Castle Casino/Lodge, consistently rated as among the best casinos in 

Arizona, along with other traveleroriented development on the YavapaiApache reservation; 

• Verde Canyon Railroad/Excursion 

Train carrying 80,000 passengers annually; and 

• Page Springs State Fish Hatchery and 

numerous other public and private 

cultural and heritage sites. 

These opportunities combine to offer visitors the option to spend just a few hours 

or several weeks in the area. About 60% of 

visitors to Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot 

national monuments during 2003-2004 

reported spending at least one night in the 

area, with most reporting spending multiple nights (White and Virden 2004). 

A business profile of the Verde Valley reveals the strong dominance of trade and 

the services in the local economy as almost 

three of four establishments are in those 

broadly defined sectors. Moreover, there 

are more firms in trade and the combined 

total of industrial firms engaged in mining, 

construction, manufacturing, transportation, and utilities (table 10). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

146 

TABLE 10: NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS, BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR AND COMMUNITY, 2003 a/

Industrial Sector 

Camp 

Verde 

Clarkdale Cornville Cottonwood Sedona Elsewhere b/ Total 

Agriculture, forestry, 

and mining 

21 5 7 24 26 5 88 

Construction 74 15 31 123 183 24 450 

Manufacturing, 

transportation, and utilities 

47 24 11 99 171 18 370 

Wholesale and retail trade 107 24 26 257 498 60 972 

Financial, real estate, 

and other services 

199 55 47 579 1,079 68 2,027 

Public administration 19 4 0 19 15 4 61 

Nonclassified 6 6 7 21 48 4 92 

Totals 473 133 129 1,122 2,020 183 4,060 

a/ Source: Dun & Bradstreet, 2003. 

b/ Includes Jerome, Lake Montezuma, and Rimrock. 

Sedona, Cottonwood, and Camp Verde 

are the primary trade and service centers 

in the Verde Valley. Sedona has the 

strongest concentration of lodging, restaurants, art galleries, and other shops catering to tourists and seasonal residents, as 

well as banks and other financial and professional services. Cottonwood is home to 

the Verde Valley Medical Center, the 

area’s primary acute care facility, local offices of many state agencies, and numerous retail stores, service establishments, 

and construction trade/industrial supply 

firms catering largely to resident demands, 

although tourists are important for many 

restaurants, cafes, and other merchants. 

Camp Verde hosts highway-oriented trade 

and service establishments, many government offices, and essential retail stores for 

a growing resident population. Fort Verde 

State Historical Park is also in Camp 

Verde. 

Employment 

Yavapai County has experienced a sustained economic expansion for more than 

two decades. Total full-time and part-time 

employment increased from 25,295 in 

1982 to 74,441 in 2002, a net change of 

49,146 jobs and a 5.5% compounded annual growth rate. Moreover, the county 

recorded year-over-year increases in all 

but one year. 

Government was the single largest employment sector in 2002 with 10,744 employees (14.4% of the total), although that 

total was surpassed by the combined 

wholesale and retail sectors (11,629 employees; see figure 9). Health care, social 

services, and education play an important 

role in the local economy, with more than 

9,176 jobs in 2002. Accommodations and 

food services and the arts, entertainment, 

and recreation services sectors, with their 

strong links to tourism, supported 6,975 

and 1,477 jobs respectively. Driven by the 

strong economic and population expansion across the county, the finance, insurance, and real estate and construction sectors also account for large shares of the 

total employment, 7,127 jobs (9.4%) and 

7,955 jobs (10.7%) respectively. Manufacturers in Yavapai County provided 3,170 

jobs. 
Socioeconomics 

147 

FIGURE 9: FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT, YAVAPAI COUNTY, 2002 

Labor Force Participation 

Labor force participation among valley 

residents 16 years and older are lower 

than the statewide and national norms. 

Local labor force participation averages 

about 54.9% in the Verde Valley, ranging 

from 52.5% in Camp Verde to 72.2% in 

Jerome, compared to 61.1% for Arizona 

and 60.3% for the nation. The lower local 

rates reflect the relatively higher number 

of retired residents. 

Unemployment 

Unemployment rates in Yavapai County 

have historically been below the statewide 

average. That trend was maintained 

through the recessionary period of 2000 to 

2002, when unemployment rates increased, and more recently as unemployment has declined (table 11). Unemployment rates within the Verde Valley at the 

time of the 2000 census were comparable 

to the countywide average. Unemployment rates within the valley tended to be 

slightly higher in Cottonwood and Camp 

Verde than in other parts of the valley. 

TABLE 11: AVERAGE ANNUAL 

UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 

2004 

(Aug.) 

Yavapai 

County 

2.8% 3.0% 3.7% 3.3% 2.8% 

Arizona 4.0% 4.7% 6.2% 5.6% 4.9% 

Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Analysis, 2004. 

The below-average labor force participation rates and large number of retired residents are two factors that likely contribute to the favorable unemployment conditions in the local market. 

Personal Income 

Total personal income growth in Yavapai 

County has averaged 4.3% (compounded 

annual growth rate) since 1999, reaching 

$3.93 billion in 2002. Data from the 2000 

census indicate that one-third of the total 

accrues to Verde Valley residents. Just 

over half of the 2002 total income was derived from labor earnings, including a net 

inflow of more than $224 million earned 

by residents working outside the county, 

primarily individuals from the Prescott 

area commuting to work in the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. Dividends, interest, 

and rent added another $1.17 billion and 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

148 

$857 million in social security, private retirement, and other current transfer receipts. 

The single largest amount and share of 

earnings was paid by governments at all 

levels: $414.3 million or 21.6%. The construction, retail trade, and health care and 

social assistance industries each recorded 

earnings in excess of $200 million. Professional services, accommodation and food 

services, and manufacturing all had approximately $100 million in labor earnings. 

Per capita personal incomes among valley 

residents, shown in table 12, reflect the 

diverse range of economic, demographic, 

and life-stage characteristics, as well as 

differing community characteristics. 

Across the valley, per capita personal incomes are generally below the countywide 

and statewide norms. At $15,072, per capita income in Camp Verde was the lowest 

in the valley, and nearly 26% below the 

statewide average of $20,275. The highest 

per capita incomes were in Sedona 

($31,350) and nearby Big Park ($30,026), 

both considerably higher than the statewide average. Median household incomes 

across the valley reflected similar patterns 

(table 12). 

Income sources among residents indicate 

the influx of retired and semi-retired 

households into the valley in recent years. 

Except for households living in Jerome, 

relatively fewer households reported income from current employment than 

across the state or nation, with the corollary that relatively more households receive social security and retirement income. For instance, fewer than 60% of 

households in the Big Park census designated place had earnings from work compared to 78.7% of all households in Arizona and 80.5% of American households. 

Again, except for Jerome, more than 40% 

of local households received social security income, compared to 25.7% across the 

nation, and 22% to 30% of households 

received retirement income, compared to 

8.5% across the state. 

TABLE 12: PERSONAL INCOME AMONG VERDE VALLEY HOUSEHOLDS, 1999

Community 

Per 

Capita 

Income 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Share of Households with Income from: a/

Work 

Earnings 

Social 

Security 

Retirement 

Income 

Big Park CDP b/ $ 30,026 $ 38,477 59.5% 44.4% 30.4% 

Camp Verde $ 15,072 $ 31,868 71.4% 42.1% 29.0% 

Clarkdale $ 18,441 $ 34,911 66.2% 42.1% 28.7% 

Cottonwood $ 17,518 $ 35,075 64.9% 45.2% 22.8% 

Jerome $ 19,967 $ 27,857 83.8% 18.1% 8.1% 

Lake Montezuma CDP $ 17,043 $ 33,750 74.1% 37.2% 25.9% 

Sedona $ 31,350 $ 44,042 69.5% 42.9% 22.6% 

Yavapai County $ 19,727 $ 34,901 67.8% 40.1% 27.3% 

Arizona $ 20,275 $ 40,558 78.7% 27.1% 18.5% 

United States $ 17,518 $ 27,444 80.5% 25.7% 16.7% 

a/ Shares do not add to 100% because households can have multiple sources of income. 

b/ CDP is the abbreviation for census designated place, an unincorporated community that has many of the retail 

and service functions of a town. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Census 2000, 2002. 
Socioeconomics 

149 

Commuting 

Most of the valley’s residents who work 

do so within the valley. More than 1,700 

individuals, 7% of workers 16 years and 

older, worked at home. Another 42% of 

workers reported one-way commuting of 

less than 15 minutes, and 37% of workers 

had commuting times of between 15 and 

29 minutes. Nearly 4,100 resident workers 

reported doing so in another county. For 

some, this simply involved commuting 

from the western part of the Sedona to the 

eastern part or vice versa. In other cases, it 

involved commuting to the Phoenix or 

Flagstaff metropolitan areas, facilitated by 

I-17. 

Poverty 

Relatively fewer individuals are economically impoverished in the Verde Valley 

than elsewhere in Yavapai County, Arizona or the nation. In 1999, approximately 

6,650 individuals (11.2%) lived in poverty 

in the area. That compares to 13.9% of all 

Arizonans. However, poverty rates in 

Camp Verde and Cottonwood, communities that are also home to many Native 

Americans and other non-whites, recorded higher than average rates of poverty. 

Improving economic and housing conditions among its members, in part through 

use of the proceeds of the Cliff Casino, is 

one of the major goals for the YavapaiApache tribe. 

POPULATION AND 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Population 

About 59,200 year-round residents lived 

in the Verde Valley in 2000. This included 

55,900 inhabitants in Yavapai County and 

3,300 residents in and near Sedona in Coconino County. The total represents an 

increase of 19,854 residents or 51% over 

the 1990 population of 39,307. 

Population centers in the valley include 

the communities of Sedona (10,192), Cottonwood (9,197), Camp Verde (9,451), 

Clarkdale (3,422), and the unincorporated 

communities of Cottonwood/Verde Village (10,610), Big Park (5,245) and Lake 

Montezuma (3,344). The historic town of 

Jerome, once boasting a population of 

15,000, registered a population of 329. 

Another 16,600 residents lived in unincorporated areas of the valley, though 

some of those areas have since been annexed to a municipality. 

Age and Average Household Size 

Residents of the Verde Valley are generally older, with many households having no 

children. Across the Verde Valley, 17% of 

residents were under 15 years of age in 

1990, and nearly 23% were 65 and over. 

The comparable shares for Arizona were 

22.5% and 13%, respectively. The median 

ages of residents in the valley range from 

41.0 years in Cottonwood to 55.5 in the 

Big Park census designated place, with a 

median of about 45 years across the entire 

valley. By comparison, the median age of 

all Arizonans was 34.2 years in 1990. 

With relatively fewer children, the average 

household size in the valley is smaller than 

across the state and nation. The average 

household sizes range from 1.81 persons 

in Jerome to 2.52 persons in Camp Verde, 

with an overall average of about 2.32 persons. Statewide, the average household 

size was 2.64 individuals. 

Race and Hispanic Origin 

The racial composition among valley residents is predominately white (90%), compared to 77.9% white Arizona. Native 

Americans, mostly from the YavapaiApache Nation, whose reservation is near 

Camp Verde, account for 2.5% of local 

residents. Native Americans account for 

5.7% of the statewide population. Individuals of other single races or those reporting two or more races account for the 

remaining 7.5% of the local population. 

People of Hispanic or Latino origin 

represented 11.2% of the population, 

less than half the statewide value of 

25.3%. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

150 

Migration 

Another indication of the dynamic demographic and social changes in the Verde 

Valley is that in 2000, about a third of residents age 5 or older had moved there in or 

since 1995. Of those, about 40% had relocated from elsewhere in Arizona, 57% 

from other (mostly western) states, and 

3% had previously lived in a foreign country or one of the U.S. island territories. 

Projected Long-term 

Population Growth 

The Yavapai County General Plan (Yavapai County 2003) identifies two major 

growth areas, including the “Verde Valley 

Area,” which includes both monuments. 

Tourism is a major factor in the Verde 

Valley’s economy. 

The area’s recent, strong population 

growth is expected to continue. Population projections for Yavapai County include a 59% population increase between 

2000 and 2020, with a population of 

240,849 projected for 2020 (Arizona Department of Economic Security 1997). 

As shown in figure 10, the Arizona Department of Economic Security projects 

long-term growth of about 1.7% compounded annually in the region through 

2030, with Coconino County’s population 

approaching 190,000 by 2030, and Yavapai 

County’s population reaching 278,400 ( 

Arizona Department of Economic Security 1990). 

Strong growth is also expected in the 

Verde Valley, with a projected population 

of about 95,000 year-round residents in 

2030. Most growth will occur in the Yavapai County area because of limited land 

availability and development constraints 

around Sedona in Coconino County. 

Camp Verde and Sedona both have projected 2030 populations of about 16,500, 

with more than 35,000 residents around 

Cottonwood / Clarkdale / Verde Village. 

Housing 

There were 28,683 dwelling units in the 

Verde Valley at the time of 2000 census. 

Of those, 88% were occupied, and 3,360 

(12%) were vacant. Included in the latter 

category were nearly 1,500 units including 

second homes and timeshare units for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. 

FIGURE 10: POPULATION FORECASTS TO 2030, COCONINO AND YAVAPAI COUNTIES
Socioeconomics 

151 

Utilization characteristics of housing units 

are not available, but if as elsewhere in 

Arizona, they are most frequently used 

during the winter (that is, New Year’s to 

Easter). Their peak use would coincide 

with the peak visitation period for the national monuments. 

The Verde Valley is growing rapidly, and 

more than 5,500 dwelling units, about one 

in five of all homes in the valley, were built 

between 1995 and March 2000. Another 

1,331 homes were completed in the 15 

months immediately preceding the 2000 

census. Residential construction was particularly strong in Cottonwood, Sedona, 

and the Big Park area. 

Except for Sedona and the Big Park area, 

which respectively had median home values of $253,700 and $224,800 in 1999, 

housing was relatively affordable in the 

valley. Median values in Cottonwood 

($106,800), Camp Verde ($129,600), and 

Clarkdale ($132,100) all were within 10% 

of the statewide average of $121,300. 

The pace of new construction has continued, as the county and local municipalities 

have issued building permits for another 

4,500 units since 2000. The rapid pace of 

residential construction and the accompanying commercial and industrial development, although generally removed from 

the immediate vicinity of the three sites, is 

increasingly apparent along the primary 

highway access roads and routes to Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. The encroaching development is 

forever altering the sense of remoteness 

that visitors to these sites formerly experienced, along with the appreciation and 

understanding of their historical setting. 

Adjacent Land Use 

The Verde Valley is one of the fastest 

growing areas in Arizona. Historically, 

land uses in Yavapai County were largely 

ranching, agriculture and mining. During 

the past 30 years of rapid population 

growth, much of the ranching and agricultural uses have developed into expansions 

of municipalities. Residential development has also happened in many unincorporated portions of the county near established urbanizing areas where major infrastructure, such as county highways, enhance development. As population continues to grow throughout the Verde Valley, demand for additional housing units 

will continue, with population increases of 

up 60% forecasted. Increasing development on lands adjacent to and surrounding the monument continues to result in 

direct and indirect impacts on the monuments Adverse impacts to resources result 

from farming, feral animals, woodcutting, 

freeway construction, residential and subdivision construction, water demands, and 

pesticide and fertilizer drainage into water 

supplies. Development in the valley has 

resulted in visual intrusions on the monument’s cultural and natural setting. 

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS OF 

THE NATIONAL MONUMENTS TO 

THE LOCAL ECONOMY 

Visitors to Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments gain insights 

into the ancient Sinaguan culture that 

once thrived in the area. During their time 

in the area, they can also learn about the 

more recent and contemporary endeavors 

of the Yavapai-Apache and about the mining and agricultural industries. At the same 

time, their spending on consumer goods 

and services and local expenditures associated with the operations of the national 

monuments support employment, spawn 

personal and business income in the valley, and generate tax revenues that help 

support government and public services. 

The economic contributions of those linkages are addressed in this section. 

Visitor Spending 

Annual visitation to Montezuma Castle 

and Tuzigoot national monuments totaled 

752,240 in 2003. This year is used to provide consistency with the available visitor 

spending data. As documented in the visitor survey, many of the visitors saw two or 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

152 

all three of the sites during their stay. The 

typical visit was relatively short, such that 

many of the multiple visits likely occurred 

during the same day. Adjustments made to 

eliminate double counting when estimating the economic impacts, predicated on a 

visitor’s typical daily spending, reduced 

the total number of individual visitors to 

600,000. Accounting for the different user 

segments, for instance, day visitors versus 

those spending the night locally, results in 

149,729 visitor party-days. (Party-days are 

a measure of activity used to account for 

varying lengths of stays and differences in 

spending patterns among visitors. The 

conversion from visits to party-days is 

needed because expenditure data are typically collected and reported on “per day” 

or “per trip” basis, with lodging or other 

overnight accommodations one of the key 

spending categories.) 

Average spending per party-night is estimated at $96.85, yielding total estimated 

annual visitor spending associated with 

the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments of $14.50 million (table 

13). The bulk of the total, $8.05 million 

(55%), is by visitors staying overnight in 

area motels, bed and breakfasts, and other 

lodging accommodations. 

Non-local day users account for the 

second largest share of the spending, $2.79 

million (19%). 

Of the total spending, $11.78 million is 

captured within the region, with $2.72 

million leaving the region to cover the cost 

of goods sold. Receipts garnered by local 

motels, resorts, RV parks, and other overnight accommodations account for $4.48 

million (38%). Restaurants, bars, coffee 

shops, and other such establishments gain 

$3.33 million in annual sales attributed to 

monument visitors. Retail merchants realized $1.6 million, the Cliff Castle Casino 

$1.0 million, and other attractions and 

amusements $830,000 in annual receipts 

from visitors to Montezuma Castle and 

Tuzigoot national monuments. 

Locally captured visitor spending includes 

purchases of books, maps, CDs, DVDs, 

tapes, and other items sold by the Western 

National Parks Association at gift shops in 

the Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot visitor centers. Annual gross sales are about 

$570,000. About $35,000 of that total is 

transferred to the monument as a concession/lease fee for the space used by the 

retail operation (Fistler pers. comm. 2005). 

TABLE 13: ANNUAL VISITOR SPENDING IN THE VERDE VALLEY BY VISITORS TO

MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENTS

Category 

USER SEGMENT 

Local Day 

User 

Non-local 

Day User Motels 

Tour Bus 

Visitors Camp-Out 

Visiting 

Friends or 

Relatives 

Spending per party-night $41.39 $58.11 $179.12 $73.12 $93.87 $61.11 

Party nights 14,040 47,960 44,929 15,444 8,673 18,683

Total spending ($000s) $581.1 $2,786.9 $8,047.7 $1,129.3 $814.2 $1,141.7 

Total spending – all users ($1,000s) $14,500.9 

Segment share of total 4% 19% 55% 8% 6% 8% 

Source: Stynes et al. 2000 (Money Generation Model Version 2). 
Socioeconomics 

153 

The local visitor spending associated with 

the national monuments supports 291 jobs 

across the region, generating $3.97 million 

in annual personal income and $6.02 million in value added within the Verde Valley. Included in the above are eight jobs 

with the Western National Parks Association (Fistler pers. comm. 2005). The sums 

are in addition to the NPS jobs at the two 

units and those jobs supported indirectly 

by the payroll, operating expenses, and 

construction contracts issued by the units. 

The recirculation of money within the local economy as employees, merchants, 

property owners, and public sector employees purchase goods and service locally 

amplifies the magnitude of the direct economic stimulus generated by visitors. This 

“multiplier” effect results in additional job 

creation and income generation. The secondary effects of visitor spending include 

$3.84 million in direct sales, 51 jobs, $1.29 

million in personal income, and $2.38 million in value added (table 14). The multipliers range from 1.17 for jobs to 1.40 for 

direct sales. 

Part of the entrance fees collected by the 

National Park Service from visitors accrues directly to the Montezuma Castle 

and Tuzigoot national monuments. This 

amount is discussed below and, to avoid 

double counting, is excluded from the 

preceding estimates of the economic impact of visitor spending. 

Monument Operations 

The annual budget for NPS operations at 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments represents direct income to 

the Verde Valley economy. Spending of 

wage and salary income by NPS employees stimulates induced effects in the 

region, and spending by the National Park 

Service on utilities, supplies, and services 

support additional sales, jobs, and income. 

The effects of NPS operations are an addition to the effect of visitor spending associated with the national monuments. 

Fiscal year 2004 is the base year used for 

analyzing the monuments’ economic contribution, allowing correlation with the 

2004 visitor survey. Fiscal year 2007 operating budgets and staffing are presented in 

the Monument Operations section. 

In fiscal year 2004, NPS spending, including additional amounts for projects that 

were part of ongoing operations, was a 

little more than $1.4 million. 

NPS spending in fiscal year 2004 are estimated to have supported 38 jobs in the 

Verde Valley region, including full-time 

equivalent jobs at Montezuma Castle and 

Tuzigoot national monuments, and an additional 14 jobs generated by the spending 

of NPS employees and NPS direct local 

spending. NPS operations generated $1.5 

million of personal income in 2004, including $1.2 million in payroll, $867,000 in 

direct sales, and $1.8 million in value added, an amount that includes the $1.5 million in personal income just noted (table 

15). These amounts are all in addition to 

the effect of local visitor spending associated with the national monuments. 

The estimates of total economic impact in 

table 16 rely on assumptions about where 

NPS payroll is spent and where other NPS 

purchases are made. The assumptions 

come from the NPS’ Money Generation 

Model version two (Stynes et al. 2000). 

For regions generally comparable to the 

Verde Valley, the model assumes that the 

disposable share of household income is 

spent locally and that NPS purchases are 

mostly made outside the region with the 

exception of water service and some supplies and equipment. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

154 

TABLE 14: DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF VISITOR SPENDING IN THE VERDE VALLEY, 2003

CATEGORY 

ECONOMIC PARAMETER 

Direct Sales 

($1,000s) 

Local 

Jobs 

Personal Income 

($1,000s) 

Value Added 

($1,000s) 

Direct effects $11,775 291 $3,971 $6,023 

Secondary effects $3,837 51 $1,289 $2,377

Total impacts $15,612 342 $5,260 $8,400 

Multipliers (total/direct) 1.33 1.17 1.32 1.40 

Source: Stynes et al. 2000 (Money Generation Model Version 2). 

TABLE 15: DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN THE VERDE VALLEY OF THE MONTEZUMA 

CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENTS OPERATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2004

CATEGORY 

ECONOMIC PARAMETER 

Direct Sales 

($1,000s) Local Jobs 

Personal 

Income ($1,000s) 

Value 

Added ($1,000s) 

Direct Effects $26 a/ 24 $1,238 $1,238 

Secondary Effects $842 b/ 14 $308 $521

Total Impacts $868 38 $1,546 $1,759 

Multipliers (Total/Direct) NA c/ 1.58 1.25 1.41 

Notes: 

a/ Estimated local purchases by the National Park Service for utilities, supplies, and services. 

b/ Includes the induced and indirect effects of monument purchases and employee spending of income. 

c/ NA = not applicable. A multiplier for direct sales was not calculated because the amounts in this column are not consistent 

with those in the other three columns of the table because the direct effect of employee spending has not been estimated 

explicitly. 

Source: Stynes et al. 2000 (Money Generation Model Version 2). 

TABLE 16: TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN THE VERDE VALLEY OF THE

MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENTS, 2003

CATEGORY 

ECONOMIC PARAMETER 

Direct Sales 

($1,000s) Local Jobs 

Personal Income 

($1,000s) 

Value Added 

($1,000s) 

Visitor spending $15,612 342 $5,260 $8,400 

NPS monument operations $867 38 $1,546 $1,759

Total impacts $16,480 380 $6,806 $10,159 

Source: Stynes et al. 2000 (Money Generation Model Version 2). 
Socioeconomics 

155 

Visitor entrance fees were excluded from 

the analysis of visitor spending impacts. 

However, 80% of this type of revenue is 

returned to the local NPS unit under the 

National Park Service’s Recreation Fee 

Demonstration Fund program to fund resource protection, enhancement, and capital facility projects. The program has 

yielded about $720,000 a year (80% of 

$900,000) for Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot. A portion of these funds has been 

used to offset the cost of collections, with 

the remainder dedicated to financing 

completed, ongoing or planned capital 

improvement and resource restoration 

projects at the two units. 

Total Economic Contributions 

The total economic contribution of Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments is 380 jobs, nearly $16.5 million 

in sales, $6.8 million in personal income, 

and almost $10.2 million in value added 

(table 16). 

This is a small but valuable contribution to 

the regional economy. The 380 jobs generated by the combination of visitors and 

NPS employment and spending are about 

0.5% of total employment in Yavapai 

County and a larger percentage of total 

employment in the Verde Valley. Similarly, $6.8 million in personal income is about 

0.2% of total personal income in Yavapai 

County and is a larger share of total personal income in the Verde Valley. Note 

that a percentage share for the Verde Valley cannot be quantified because employment and personal income data are not 

available for the local region. 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments also contribute to total sales 

and value added in Yavapai County. The 

shares contributed by the monuments 

would be small in comparison to totals for 

Yavapai County. Again, the percentage 

share contributed by the monuments to 

total sales and value added in the county 

and in the local region cannot be quantified from the available economic information. 

CHAPTER 4:

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

159 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) requires that environmental documents discuss the environmental impacts 

of a proposed federal action, feasible alternatives to that action, and any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be 

avoided if a proposed action is implemented. In this case, the proposed federal 

action would be the adoption of a general 

management plan for Montezuma Castle 

and Tuzigoot National Monuments. The 

following portion of this document analyzes the environmental impacts of implementing the three alternatives on cultural resources, natural resources, the visitor experience, monument operations, 

and socioeconomics. The analysis is the 

basis for comparing the beneficial and adverse effects of implementing the alternatives. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature 

of the actions described in the alternatives, 

the impacts of these actions are analyzed 

in general, qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental assessment should be considered a programmatic analysis. If and 

when site-specific developments or other 

actions are proposed for implementation 

subsequent to this general management 

plan, appropriate detailed environmental 

and cultural compliance documentation 

will be prepared in accord with the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act requirements. 

This chapter begins with a description of 

the methods and assumptions used for 

each topic. Impact analysis discussions are 

organized by alternative and then by impact topic under each alternative. 

Each alternative discussion also describes 

cumulative impacts and presents a conclusion. At the end of each alternative is a 

brief discussion of unavoidable adverse 

impacts, irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources, the relationship of short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and energy requirements and conservation potential. The impacts of each alternative are 

briefly summarized in table 6, at the end of 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 describes a cumulative 

impact as follows: 

• Cumulative impacts are incremental 

impacts of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency (federal or nonfederal) or 

person undertakes such other action. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

Other projects, plans, and actions within 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments, as well as local and regional 

projects, plans, and actions with potential 

to combine with the effects of the alternatives were identified to determine potential cumulative impacts. Projects were 

identified by discussions with the monuments, federal land managers, and representatives of county and town governments. Potential projects identified as cumulative actions included any planning or 

development activity that was currently 

being implemented or would be implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future. Impacts of past actions were also 

considered in the analysis. 

These actions are evaluated with the impacts of each alternative to determine 

whether they have any cumulative effects 

on a particular natural, cultural, or socioeconomic resource or visitor use. Because 

most of these cumulative actions are in the 

early planning stages, the qualitative evaluation of cumulative impacts was 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

160 

based on a general description of the 

project. See Chapter 1, Relationship to 

Other Planning Effort, for a description of 

the plans and actions considered in the 

analysis of the alternatives. 

IMPAIRMENT OF MONTEZUMA 

CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT 

NATIONAL MONUMENTS 

RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental consequences of implementing the 

preferred and other alternatives, Management Policies 2006 requires analysis of 

potential effects to determine whether or 

not proposed actions would impair monument resources and values (sections 

1.4.2, 1.4.4, and 1.4.5). 

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 monument resources 

and values. NPS managers must always 

seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the 

greatest degree practicable, adverse impacts on monument resources and values. 

However, the laws do give the National 

Park Service the management discretion 

to allow impacts on monument resources 

and values when necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the monument, 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 a monument, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the National Park Service must 

leave 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 NPS manager, would harm 

the integrity of monument resources and 

values, including the opportunities that 

otherwise would be present for the enjoyment of those resources or values 

(Management Policies 2006, section 1.4.5). 

An impact on any monument resource or 

value may constitute an impairment. An 

impact would be more likely to constitute 

an impairment to the extent that it affects 

a resource or value whose conservation is: 

• Necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of the monument; 

• Key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the monument or to opportunities 

for enjoyment of the monument; or 

• Identified as a goal in the monument’s 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Impairment may result from NPS actions 

in managing the monument, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating 

in the monument. A determination on impairment is made in the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter in the conclusion 

section for each required impact topic related to the monument’s resources and 

values. 

In analyzing impairments in the National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis for this 

project, the National Park Service takes 

into account the fact that if impairment 

were likely to occur, such impacts would 

be considered to be major or significant 

under the Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations. This is because the 

context and intensity of the impact would 

be sufficient to render what would normally be a minor or moderate impact to be 

major or significant. An evaluation of impairment is not required for some impact 

topics, including visitor experience (unless 

the impact is resource based), transportation, NPS operations, or socioeconomics. 

UNACCEPTABLE IMPACTS 

The impact threshold at which impairment occurs is not always readily apparent. Therefore, the National Park Service 

will apply a standard that offers greater 
Introduction 

161 

assurance that impairment will not occur 

by avoiding impacts that it determines to 

be unacceptable. These impacts fall short 

of impairment but are still not acceptable 

within a particular park’s environment. 

Park managers must evaluate existing or 

proposed uses and determine whether the 

associated impacts on monument resources and values are acceptable. 

Virtually every form of human activity that 

takes place within a park has some degree 

of effect on park resources or values, but 

that does not mean that the impact is unacceptable or that a particular use must be 

disallowed. Therefore, for these policies, 

unacceptable impacts are impacts that, 

individually or cumulatively, would 

• Be inconsistent with a park’s purposes 

or values or 

• Impede the attainment of a park’s desired future conditions for natural and 

cultural resources as identified 

through the park’s planning process or 

• Create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees or 

• Diminish opportunities for current or 

future generations to enjoy, learn 

about, or be inspired by park resources or values or 

• Unreasonably interfere with 

- Park programs or activities or 

- An appropriate use or 

- The atmosphere of peace and 

tranquility, or the natural 

soundscape maintained in wilderness and natural, historic, or 

commemorative locations within 

the park, or 

- NPS concessioner or contractor 

operations or services. 

In accordance with Management Policies 

2006, park managers must not allow uses 

that would cause unacceptable impacts to 

park resources. To determine if unacceptable impact could occur to the resources 

and values of Montezuma Castle National 

Monument or Tuzigoot National Monument, the impacts of proposed actions in 

this general management plan and environmental assessment were evaluated 

based on the above criteria. A determination on unacceptable impacts is made in 

the Conclusion section for each of the resource topics carried forward in this chapter. 
162 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analysis and the conclusions in this chapter 

largely on the review of existing literature 

and studies, information provided by experts in the National Park Service and 

other agencies, and monument staff insights and professional judgment. The 

team’s method of analyzing impacts is further explained below. It is important to 

remember that all the impacts have been 

assessed assuming that mitigating measures have been implemented to minimize 

or avoid impacts. If the mitigating measures described in Chapter 2: Alternatives 

Including the Preferred Alternative are 

not applied, the potential for resource impacts and the magnitude of those impacts 

would increase. 

Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making presents an approach for 

identifying the duration (short- or longterm), type (adverse or beneficial), and 

intensity or magnitude (negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major) of the impact(s), and 

that approach has been used in this document. Where duration is not noted in the 

impact analysis, it is considered long-term. 

Direct and indirect effects caused by an 

action were considered in the analysis. 

Direct effects are caused by an action and 

occur at the same time and place as the 

action. Indirect effects are caused by the 

action and occur later in time or farther 

removed from the place, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

The impact analyses for the no-action alternative compare resource conditions in 

the year 2021 to existing conditions in 

2006, assuming continuation of current 

management direction. The impact analysis for the action alternatives (the preferred alternative and alternative C) compares the action alternatives in the year 

2021 to the no-action alternative in the 

year 2021. Said differently, the impacts of 

the action alternatives describe the difference between implementing the no-action 

alternative and implementing the action 

alternatives. To understand a complete 

“picture” of the impacts of implementing 

any of the action alternatives, the reader 

must also take into consideration the impacts that would occur under the noaction alternative. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural Resources Listed, or 

Eligible to Be Listed, in the 

National Register of Historic Places 

Potential impacts on cultural resources 

(archeological resources, prehistoric or 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, 

and traditional cultural properties) either 

listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places were 

identified and evaluated in accordance 

with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s regulations implementing 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800, Protection of 

Historic Properties) by: 

• Determining the area of potential effects; 

• Identifying national-register-listed or 

eligible cultural resources in the area 

of potential effects; 

• Applying the criteria of adverse effect 

to affected resources; and 

• Considering ways to avoid, minimize 

or mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, 

a determination of no historic properties 

affected, adverse effect, or no adverse effect

must be made for affected cultural resources that are listed in, or eligible for 

listing in, the National Register of Historic 

Places. A determination of no historic 

properties affected means that either no 

historic properties are present or historic 

properties are present but the undertaking 

will have no effect on them (36 Code of 
Methods and Assumptions 

for Analyzing Impacts 

163 

Federal Regulations 800.4 [d][1]). An adverse effect occurs whenever an impact 

alters, directly or indirectly, any characteristic of a cultural resource that qualifies it 

for inclusion in the national register (for 

example, diminishing the integrity (or the 

extent to which a resource retains its historic appearance) of its location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

or association). Adverse effects also include reasonably foreseeable effects 

caused by the alternatives that would occur later in time, be farther removed in 

distance, or be cumulative (36 Code of 

Federal Regulations 800.5 [a] [1]). A determination of no adverse effect means 

there is an effect, but it would not meet 

the criteria of an adverse effect (that is, 

diminish the characteristics of the cultural 

resource that qualify it for inclusion in the 

national register [36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.5 (b)]). 

The criteria for characterizing the severity 

or intensity of impacts to archeological 

resources, prehistoric and historic structures and buildings, cultural landscapes, 

and traditional cultural properties that are 

listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places are the 

section 106 determinations of effect: no 

historic properties affected, adverse effect, 

or no adverse effect. A section 106 determination of effect is included in the conclusion section for each analysis of impacts to national register-listed or -eligible 

cultural resources. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Ethnographic resources that are not traditional cultural properties are not subject 

to section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Potential impacts to 

ethnographic resources that are not traditional cultural resources are described in 

terms of context (Are the effects sitespecific, local, or regional?), duration (Are 

the effects short-term [that is, lasting up to 

5 years], long-term [that is, lasting 5 to 20 

years], or permanent?) and intensity (Is 

the degree or severity of effects negligible, 

minor, moderate, or major?). The definitions of impact intensity for ethnographic 

resources follow: 

• Negligible. Impact(s) would be barely 

perceptible and would alter neither resource conditions, such as traditional 

access or site preservation, nor the relationship between the resource and 

the affiliated group’s body of practices 

and beliefs. 

• Minor. Adverse impact(s) would be 

slight but noticeable but would appreciably alter neither resource conditions, such as traditional access or site 

preservation, nor the relationship between the resource and the affiliated 

group’s body of practices and beliefs. 

Beneficial impact(s) would allow access 

to and/or accommodate a group’s traditional practices or beliefs. 

• Moderate. Adverse impact(s) would be 

apparent and would alter resource 

conditions. Something would interfere 

with traditional access, site preservation, or the relationship between the 

resource and the affiliated group’s 

practices and beliefs, even though the 

group’s practices and beliefs would 

survive. 

Beneficial impact(s) would facilitate 

traditional access and/or accommodate a group’s practices or beliefs. 

• Major. Adverse impact(s) would alter 

resource conditions. Something would 

block or greatly affect traditional 

access, site preservation, or the relationship between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of practices 

and beliefs, to the extent that the survival of a group’s practices and/or beliefs would be jeopardized.

Beneficial impact(s) would encourage 

traditional access and/or accommodate a group’s practices or beliefs.
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

164 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Analysis of natural resources was based on 

research, knowledge of monument resources, and the best professional judgment of planners, biologists, hydrologists, 

and botanists who have experience with 

similar types of projects. Information on 

the monuments’ natural resources was 

gathered from several sources, including 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and specific resource inventories for wetlands, 

wildlife, water quality, fisheries, and amphibians. As appropriate, additional 

sources of data are identified under respective topic headings. 

Where possible, map locations of sensitive 

resources were compared with the locations of proposed developments and modifications. Predictions about short-term 

and long-term site impacts were based on 

previous studies of visitor and facilities 

development impacts on natural resources. The analysis also considered sociological studies comparing the deterrent 

effects of signs versus ranger presence for 

reducing visitor impacts on sites. 

Generally, for natural resources analysis, 

duration of impacts are considered shortterm if the effects are likely to last one year 

or less and long-term if the potential impact would last for greater than one year. 

The determination of impacts for natural 

resources also considered whether an action would have a beneficial or an adverse 

effect. Typically, beneficial effects would 

include those that improve the condition 

of a resource or enhance the environment 

around that resource such that its wellbeing was enhanced. Conversely, adverse 

effects on natural resources would damage conditions necessary for the resource 

to exist or function or would degrade the 

environment needed to support the resource being analyzed. 

The impact definitions assume that mitigation measures are considered prior to finalizing the analyses. For this document, 

the planning team generally and qualitatively evaluated the impact intensity for 

natural resources, as follows: 

• Negligible. Impacts would be at the 

lowest levels of detection and would 

have no appreciable effect on resources, values, or processes. 

• Minor. Impacts would be perceptible 

but slight and localized. If mitigation 

were needed to offset any adverse effects, it would be relatively simple to 

implement and would likely be successful. 

• Moderate. Impacts would be readily 

apparent and widespread, and would 

result in a noticeable change to resources, values or processes. Mitigating measures would probably be necessary to offset adverse effects and 

would likely be successful. 

• Major. Impacts would be readily apparent and widespread, and would result in a substantial alternative or loss 

of resources, values, or processes. Mitigating measures to offset adverse effects would be necessary and extensive, and their success could not be 

guaranteed. 

Specific impact threshold definitions were 

developed and used to categorize the potential effects of the natural resource impact topics. 

Floodplains 

The impact assessment for floodplains is 

focused on natural river processes and 

flooding potential and frequency. Director’s Order 77-2, Floodplain Management 

(NPS 2003) and the extent of alteration to 

natural river processes were used to define 

the intensity of impacts. 

• Negligible. Impacts would occur outside the regulatory floodplain as defined by the Floodplain Management 

Guideline (100-year or 500-year floodplain, depending on the type of action), or no measurable or perceptible 

change in natural river processes or 

aquatic habitat would occur. 
Methods and Assumptions 

for Analyzing Impacts 

165 

• Minor. Actions within the regulatory 

floodplain would potentially change 

river processes or aquatic habitat in a 

limited way or in a localized area. 

• Moderate. Actions within the regulatory floodplain would change river 

processes or aquatic habitat in a substantial way or in a large area. 

• Major. An action would permanently 

change a floodplain or significantly affect natural river processes or aquatic 

habitat. 

Soils 

The following impact intensities were 

used to evaluate the potential impacts on 

soils: 

• Negligible. The impact on soils would 

not be measurable. Any effects on 

productivity or erosion potential 

would be slight or imperceptible. 

• Minor. The action would change a 

soil’s profile in a relatively small area, 

but it would not appreciably increase 

the potential for changes to soils in the 

surrounding area. 

• Moderate. The action would change 

quantity or would alter the topsoil, biological productivity, or the potential 

for erosion to remove small quantities 

of additional soil. Changes to localized 

ecological processes would occur but 

be of limited extent. 

• Major. The action would change the 

potential for erosion or would alter 

topsoil and biological productivity in a 

relatively large area. Significant ecological processes would be altered, 

and landscape-level changes would be 

expected. 

Vegetation 

Information on site-specific areas, such as 

the plateau above the cliff dwelling at 

Montezuma Castle or the riparian areas in 

each monument, were gleaned from general documents such as the monuments’ 

resource management plan and sitespecific surveys. The following impact intensities were used to evaluate the potential impacts on vegetation: 

• Negligible. The impact on vegetation 

(individual plants and/or communities) would not be measurable. The 

abundance or distribution of individuals would not be affected or would be 

slightly affected. Ecological processes 

and biological productivity would not 

be affected. 

• Minor. The action would not necessarily decrease or increase the area’s 

biological productivity. An action 

would affect the abundance or distribution of individual plants in a localized area but would not affect the viability of local or regional populations 

or communities. 

• Moderate. The action would change 

biological productivity in a small area. 

An action would affect a local population sufficiently to change plant abundance or distribution, but it would not 

affect the viability of the regional population or communities. Changes to 

ecological processes would be of limited extent. 

• Major. The action would change biological productivity in a relatively large 

area. The action would affect a regional or local population of a species sufficiently to change abundance or distribution to the extent that the population or communities would not be 

likely to return to its/their former level 

(adverse), or would return to a sustainable level (beneficial). Important 

ecological processes would be altered. 

Wetlands 

Wetland impacts were qualitatively assessed by evaluating the potential impacts 

on wetland characteristics and functions 

including habitat. The impacts can be expressed in terms of the potential for wet-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

166 

land size or integrity, connectivity with 

other water sources and its ability to provide habitat. 

• Negligible. No measurable or perceptible changes in wetland integrity, 

connectivity to other water sources, or 

functions related to habitat would occur. 

• Minor. The impact would be measurable or perceptible but slight. A small 

change in integrity or continuity could 

occur. However, the viability of the 

wetland resource would not be affected. 

• Moderate. The impact would be sufficient to cause a measurable change in 

the size, integrity, or continuity of the 

wetland or would result in a small but 

permanent change in wetland acreage. 

Moderate impacts would also include 

measurable changes in habitat integrity. 

• Major. The action would result in a 

measurable change in all three parameters (integrity, connectivity, or ability to provide habitat) and would be 

substantial and highly noticeable. 

Wildlife 

Impacts on wildlife are directly related to 

impacts on habitat. The evaluation considered whether actions would be likely to 

displace or disturb some or all individuals 

of a species in the monuments or would 

result in changes to habitat conditions 

needed for the viability of local or regional 

wildlife populations. Impacts associated 

with wildlife might include any change in 

roosting or foraging areas, food supply, 

protective cover, or the distribution or 

abundance of species. 

• Negligible. The impact would not be 

measurable on individuals, and the local populations would not be affected. 

• Minor. The action would affect the 

abundance or distribution of individuals in a small, localized area but would 

not affect the viability of local or regional populations. 

• Moderate. The action would affect a 

local population sufficiently to change 

a species’ abundance or distribution 

but would not affect the viability of 

the regional population. 

• Major. The action would affect a regional or local population of a species 

sufficiently to change its abundance or 

distribution to the extent that the 

population would not be likely to return to its former level.

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Special Status Species 

Through coordination with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, federally 

listed species and wildlife of special concern (state-listed species) were identified 

that were generally in or near the monument. Monument staff then collected 

more specific information, such as the absence or presence of each species within 

the monument boundaries. For special 

status species, including federally listed 

species, the following impact intensities 

were used. These definitions are consistent with the language used to determine 

effects on threatened and endangered 

species under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

• Negligible (No Effect). No listed species of concern or designated critical 

habitats are present; or if present, 

there would not be any measurable or 

perceptible consequences to protected 

individuals, populations, or critical 

habitat. Effects on special status species would be discountable. Negligible 

effect equates with a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service “no effect” determination. 

• Minor (May Affect, Likely / Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect). The alternative would affect an individual(s) 

of a listed species or its designated 

critical habitat, but the change would 
Methods and Assumptions 

for Analyzing Impacts 

167 

be small. Minor effect would equate 

with a "may affect" determination in 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service terms 

and would be accompanied by a 

statement of "likely..." or "not likely 

to adversely affect" the species. 

• Moderate (May Affect, Likely / Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect). An individual or population of a listed species, or its designated critical habitat, 

would be noticeably affected. The effect would have some long-term consequence to the individual, population, or habitat. Moderate effect 

would equate with a "may affect" determination in U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service terms and would be accompanied by a statement of "likely..." or 

"not likely to adversely affect" the 

species. 

• Major (May Affect, Likely/or Not 

Likely/ to Adversely Affect). A population of a listed species or its designated critical habitat would be noticeably affected. The alternative could 

change the vitality of the population 

such that it could affect the continued 

existence of the listed species within 

or outside the monument. Major, adverse effect equates with a “may affect/likely to adversely affect species / 

adversely modify critical habitat” determination in U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service section 7 terms and in some 

cases could “jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species or the integrity 

of critical habitat.” Major, beneficial 

effect equates with a “may affect / not 

likely to adversely affect” determination. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

This impact analysis considers aspects of 

visitor use and experience at Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments, 

including the effects on visitors’ ability to 

experience the monuments’ primary resources and their natural and cultural settings (including vistas, natural sounds and 

smells, and wildlife); visitor access to the 

monument; the freedom to experience the 

resources at one’s own pace, opportunities for recreational activities, and opportunities for people with disabilities. The 

analysis is based on how visitor use and 

experiences would change with the way 

management zones were applied in the 

alternatives. The analysis is primarily qualitative rather than quantitative, based on 

the conceptual nature of the alternatives. 

Impacts on visitor use and experience 

were determined considering the best 

available information regarding visitor use 

and experience. Information on visitor use 

and visitor opinions was taken primarily 

from a survey of visitors conducted in two 

phases from October to November 2003 

and March to May 2004 (White and Virden, 2004). This information was supplemented by data gathered during this planning process, including opinions from 

monument visitors and neighbors and information provided by monument staff. 

Primarily, visitors expressed interest in 

learning more about the monuments’ natural and cultural resources, including opportunities for more hands-on activities 

and self exploration of the monuments. 

Interest was also expressed regarding regional recreation linkages to other nearby 

public lands. 

Impacts were evaluated comparatively 

between alternatives, using the no-action 

alternative as a baseline for comparison 

with each action alternative. 

For this analysis, a short-term impact 

would last less than one year and would 

affect only one season’s use by visitors. A 

long-term impact would last more than 

one year and would be more permanent in 

nature. Impact intensities and types for 

visitor experience impact topics have been 

defined as follows: 

• Negligible. Visitors would likely be 

unaware of any effects associated with 

implementation of the alternative. Visitor health and safety would not be af-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

168 

fected, or effects would not be appreciable or measurable. 

• Minor. Changes in visitor use and/or 

experience would be slight but detectable, would affect few visitors, and 

would not appreciably limit or enhance experiences identified as fundamental to the monuments’ purpose 

and significance. Effects on visitor 

health and safety would be detectable 

but would not produce an appreciable 

change. 

• Moderate. Some characteristics of 

visitor use and/or experience would 

change, and many visitors would likely 

be aware of the effects associated with 

implementation of the alternative; 

some changes to experiences identified as fundamental to the monuments’ purpose and significance 

would be apparent. The effects would 

be readily apparent, and would result 

in noticeable changes in visitor health 

and safety. Changes in rates or severity 

of injury could be measured. 

• Major. Multiple characteristics of visitor experience would change, including experiences identified as fundamental to monument purpose and significance; most visitors would be 

aware of the effects associated with 

implementation of the alternative. The 

effects would be readily apparent, 

would result in substantial changes in 

visitor health and safety, and could 

lead to visitor mortality. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS 

This impact analysis considers aspects of 

monument operations at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments, including the effects of each alternative on 

the number of staff required to conduct 

operations under each alternative, modifications to monument operating procedures, additional monument facilities required to implement an alternative, the 

relative cost and effort to maintain additional facilities, modifications to visitor 

accessibility, and changes to interpretive 

programs and facilities. The analysis is 

based on the changes in monument operations that would result from the modifications in management zones between the 

alternatives. The analysis is primarily qualitative rather than quantitative because of 

the conceptual nature of the alternatives. 

For this analysis, a short-term impact 

would last less than one year. A long-term 

impact would last more than one year. 

Impact intensities and types of impacts for 

the monument operations impact topic 

were defined as follows: 

Impacts were evaluated comparatively 

between alternatives, using the no-action 

alternative as a baseline for comparison 

with each action alternative: 

• Negligible. Monument operations 

would not be affected, or the effect 

would be at or below the lower levels 

of detection and would not have an 

appreciable effect on monument operations. 

• Minor. The effect on monument operations would be detectable, but 

would be of a magnitude that would 

not have an appreciable effect on monument operations. If mitigation were 

needed to offset adverse effects, it 

would be relatively simple and successful. 

• Moderate. The effect on monument 

operations would be readily apparent, 

and would result in a substantial 

change in monument operations in a 

manner noticeable to staff and the 

public. Mitigation measures would 

probably be necessary to offset adverse effects and would likely be successful. 

• Major. Effects on monument operations would be readily apparent, 

would result in a substantial change in 

monument operations in a manner noticeable to staff and the public, and 

would be markedly different from existing operations. Mitigation measures 
Methods and Assumptions 

for Analyzing Impacts 

169 

to offset adverse effects would be 

needed, extensive, and their success 

could not be guaranteed. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

This impact analysis considers socioeconomics in the region surrounding Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments, including the effects of each alternative on the population of the area 

and the regional economy, including employment in the area. The analysis is based 

on the changes in regional socioeconomic 

conditions that would result from the 

modifications in management zones between the alternatives. The analysis is 

primarily qualitative rather than quantitative, based on the conceptual nature of the 

alternatives. 

Impacts were evaluated comparatively 

between alternatives, using the no-action 

alternative as a baseline for comparison 

with each action alternative. For this analysis, a short-term impact would last less 

than one year. A long-term impact would 

last more than one year. Impact intensities 

and types for socioeconomic impact topics have been defined as follows: 

• Negligible. No effects would occur or 

the effects to socioeconomic conditions would be below the level of detection. 

• Minor. The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions would be detectable. Any 

effects would be small, and if mitigation were needed to offset potential 

adverse effects, it would be simple and 

successful.

• Moderate. The effects on socioeconomic conditions would be readily 

apparent. Any effects would result in 

changes to socioeconomic conditions 

on a local scale. If mitigation is needed 

to offset potential adverse effects, it 

could be extensive, but would likely be 

successful.

• Major. The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent 

and would cause substantial changes 

to socioeconomic conditions in the 

region. Mitigation measures to offset 

potential adverse effects would be extensive, and their success could not be 

guaranteed. 
170 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE A (NO-ACTION) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Under alternative A, archeological 

resources would continue to be surveyed, 

inventoried, and evaluated under National 

Register of Historic Places criteria of evaluation to determine their eligibility for 

listing in the national register as NPS staffing and funding permit. All grounddisturbing activities would be preceded by 

site-specific archeological surveys and, 

where appropriate, subsurface testing to 

determine the existence of archeological 

resources and how best to preserve them. 

Known archeological resources would be 

avoided whenever possible. Although ongoing and expanded archeological site 

monitoring programs would be initiated 

and efforts would be undertaken to minimize or mitigate potential impacts from 

human activities and natural causes, an 

unknown number of archeological sites in 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

would likely continue to be impacted by 

such activities and processes. 

Although the condition of archeological 

resources at the national monument 

would continue to be generally good under alternative A, some sites would likely 

continue to be disturbed by looting and 

vandalism, erosion caused by natural 

processes, continuing use of historic and 

prehistoric canals, and graffiti. With the 

exception of the excavated/interpreted pit 

house in the Montezuma Well site, which 

continues to be periodically impacted as a 

result of inadvertent visitor use, the prehistoric archeological sites in the monument would continue to experience relatively few significant adverse impacts. 

The Verde Valley is one of the fastest 

growing areas in Arizona. Increasing development on lands adjacent to and surrounding the monument would continue 

to result in some minor adverse impacts to 

archeological resources in and near the 

monument as a result of farming; feral animals; woodcutting; freeway, residential, 

and subdivision construction; water demands; and pesticide and fertilizer drainage into water supplies. 

Anticipated increases in monument visitation and visitor access could be expected 

to result in increasing amounts of intentional and inadvertent disturbance to archeological resources by visitors. However, 

the National Park Service would continue 

its efforts to reduce the impacts of human 

activities on archeological resources by 

keeping much of the monument’s lands 

off-limits to visitors, through law enforcement activities, and by educating the 

general public about resource significance 

and values as funds and personnel permit. 

Thus, implementation of this alternative 

would generally be expected to contribute 

to potential beneficial effects on archeological resources in the national monument. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Under 

alternative A, archeological resources at 

Tuzigoot National Monument, like those 

at Montezuma Castle, would continue to 

be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated 

under National Register of Historic Places 

criteria of evaluation to determine their 

eligibility for listing in the national register 

as NPS staffing and funding permit. All 

ground-disturbing activities would be preceded by site-specific archeological surveys and, where appropriate, subsurface 

testing to determine the existence of archeological resources and how best to preserve them. Known archeological resources would be avoided whenever possible. Although ongoing and expanded archeological site monitoring programs 

would be initiated and efforts would be 

undertaken to minimize or mitigate potential impacts from human activities and 

natural causes, an unknown number of 

archeological sites in Tuzigoot National 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

171 

Monument would likely continue to be 

impacted by such activities and processes. 

Although the condition of archeological 

resources in the national monument 

would continue to be generally good and 

prehistoric archeological sites in the monument would continue to experience relatively few significant impacts under alternative A, a few archeological sites 

would likely continue to be disturbed by 

looting and vandalism, erosion caused by 

natural processes, and graffiti. 

Increasing development on lands in the 

vicinity of the monument would continue 

to result in impacts on archeological resources in and near the monument from 

farming, feral animals, woodcutting, 

highway and road construction, residential development and associated infrastructure, water demands, and pesticide 

and fertilizer use draining into water resources. 

Arizona’s growing popularity for permanent and seasonal residence has resulted 

in increased visitation to the national monument and a corresponding decrease in 

the capacity of the limited staff to protect 

the monument’s archeological resources. 

Thus, current human impacts, such as littering, trespassing (after-hours entry and 

entry into closed areas), looting and vandalism, intentional pilfering, illegal hunting, rising levels of unintentional disturbance, and other unauthorized consumptive uses, would be expected to continue 

to a limited degree. Social trails and related erosion caused by visitors leaving 

established trails would continue to impact archeological resources. Stream 

channel alteration – down cutting or deposition of the channel, flooding, or 

change of flow regime – resulting from 

mining, diversion, vegetation changes, or 

other human manipulation could result in 

adverse impacts on archeological sites in 

and near the monument during future 

years. However, continuing NPS efforts to 

reduce the impacts of human activities on 

the national monument’s archeological 

resources would continue to depend on 

keeping much of the monument’s lands 

off-limits to visitors, on law enforcement 

activities, and on educating the public 

about resource significance and values as 

funds and personnel permit. Thus, implementation of this alternative would generally be expected to contribute to potential 

beneficial effects on archeological resources in the national monument. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Prior to establishment of the national monument, an unknown number of archeological resources 

on lands within and surrounding the 

present-day monument were adversely 

impacted by human activities and natural 

causes, some of which have continued to 

the present and would likely continue to a 

minor degree if alternative A were implemented. These include borrowing building stone from rockshelters; using caves 

for ranch and settlement-related operations; looting and vandalism; road and 

utility line construction; erosion caused by 

natural forces and human exploration; 

excavations, removal of deposits; surface 

collection by explorers, pioneers, investigators, and looters; historic and continuing use of prehistoric irrigation canals; and 

graffiti. Current and ongoing NPS activities, such as expanded archeological site 

monitoring programs and continuing efforts to minimize or mitigate impacts on 

archeological resources from human activities and natural causes, would be expected to have beneficial effects on the 

national monument’s archeological resources. 

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable planning endeavors and development 

projects, such as expansion and development of a regional trails system and Yavapai-Apache expansion of the casino resort 

at the nearby intersection of Interstate 17 

and the monument entrance road, could 

potentially contribute to some negligible 

effects on archeological resources on 

lands outside, but near, the Castle site. A 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

172 

pending exchange of lands along Interstate 17 between the Yavapai-Apache and 

the U.S. Forest Service could potentially 

contribute to some negligible effects on 

archeological resources near the Castle 

site because tribal authorities are considering construction of a cultural center on 

the land that they would obtain in the 

proposed exchange. Possible development 

of the historic Soda Springs Ranch for recreational and/or resort purposes could 

also have some negligible impacts on archeological resources on lands bordering 

the Montezuma Well site. However, the 

effects of these aforementioned activities 

on archeological resources on lands bordering the national monument would generally be at or below the lower levels of 

detection and thus would be almost impossible to measure. 

Actions under this alternative, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in 

the national monument and surrounding 

area, would generally be expected to contribute to cumulative beneficial effects on 

any cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. The beneficial impacts on archeological resources associated with the 

no-action alternative, however, would 

constitute a relatively small component of 

any cumulative impact. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Prior to establishment of the 

national monument, an unknown number 

of archeological sites on lands within and 

surrounding the present-day monument 

were adversely impacted by human activities and natural causes, some of which 

have continued to the present and would 

likely continue to a minor degree if alternative A were implemented. These include 

farming; grazing; mining; camping; hiking 

and exploration; hunting; looting and 

vandalism; poaching; off-road driving; excavations and removal of deposits by pioneers, explorers, and investigators; and 

surface collection by investigators and 

looters. Current and ongoing NPS activities, such as expanded archeological site 

monitoring programs and continuing efforts to minimize or mitigate impacts on 

archeological resources from human activities and natural causes, would be expected to have beneficial effects on the 

national monument’s archeological resources. 

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable planning endeavors and development 

projects, such as expanded development 

in Dead Horse Ranch State Park and development associated with the Verde River Greenway Management Plan, could 

potentially contribute to some negligible 

effects on archeological resources on 

lands outside, but near, Tuzigoot National 

Monument. However, the effects of these 

aforementioned activities on archeological 

resources on lands bordering or near the 

national monument would be at or below 

the lower levels of detection and thus 

would be almost impossible to measure. 

Actions under this alternative, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in 

the national monument and surrounding 

area, would generally be expected to contribute to cumulative beneficial effects on 

any cumulative impact on archeological 

resources. The beneficial impacts on archeological resources associated with the 

no-action alternative, however, would 

constitute a relatively small component of 

any cumulative impact. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on archeological resources in the national monument. The 

cumulative effects would be beneficial; 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

173 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values associated with archeological resources. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would have no adverse 

effect on archeological resources in the 

national monument. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be 

small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values associated with archeological resources. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Prehistoric and Historic 

Structures and Buildings 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Under alternative A, prehistoric 

and historic structures and buildings in 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

would continue to be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated under National Register of Historic Places criteria of evaluation 

to determine their eligibility for listing in 

the national register as NPS staffing and 

funding permit. Prehistoric and historic 

structures and buildings listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the national 

register would continue to be managed to 

preserve their documented values in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1992b) and to support NPS activities or visitor use. 

Public inaccessibility to Montezuma Castle and some other prehistoric structures, 

such as rockshelters inside Montezuma 

Well, would continue to provide protection for those structures. However, historic fabric in the national monument’s prehistoric and historic structures and buildings would continue to be impacted by 

erosion and deterioration as a result of 

climatic conditions and other natural 

processes. The location of some prehistoric structures, such as Castle A and Swallet 

Cave, in or near high public use areas, 

along with anticipated increases in visitation levels, would potentially continue to 

result in loss of some historic fabric as a 

result of inadvertent visitor use, graffiti, 

and looting and vandalism. Continuing 

use of prehistoric and historic irrigation 

canals and ditches for agricultural operations, as well as continuing use of the 

1930s-era residences and equipment shed, 

the early 20th century Back cabin, and the 

Mission 66-era visitor center for monument residential, administrative, maintenance, and interpretive operations and programs would also potentially result in the 

loss of some historic fabric to those structures and buildings. Periodic high water 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

174 

and flooding would potentially result in 

the loss of historic fabric from the Civilian 

Conservation Corps Revetment Wall. 

However, these impacts would be minimized to the extent possible by continued 

law enforcement activities and public education efforts as well as intensive preservation treatment, regular cyclic maintenance, and stabilization of the monument’s 

principal prehistoric and historic structures and buildings as NPS funding and 

personnel permit. Thus, implementation 

of this alternative would potentially contribute to beneficial effects on prehistoric 

and historic structures and buildings in 

the national monument. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. As described for Montezuma Castle National 

Monument, under alternative A prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in 

Tuzigoot National Monument would continue to be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated under National Register of Historic 

Places criteria of evaluation to determine 

their eligibility for listing in the national 

register as NPS staffing and funding permit. Prehistoric and historic structures 

and buildings listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the national register 

would continue to be managed to preserve 

their documented values in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS 1992b) and to support NPS activities or visitor use. 

Public accessibility to the Tuzigoot Pueblo, along with anticipated visitation increases, would continue to result in potential loss of some of the structure’s historic 

fabric as a result of inadvertent and unintentional resource disturbance, graffiti, 

trespassing (after hours entry and entry 

into closed areas), social trailing and related erosion caused by visitors leaving 

established trails, and looting and vandalism. Historic fabric in the pueblo would 

also be potentially impacted by erosion 

and deterioration resulting from climatic 

conditions and other natural processes. 

Continuing use of the 1930s-era museum 

and headquarters building, storage tool 

house, pump house, and associated retaining wall for monument administrative, 

maintenance, and museum / visitor center 

functions would also potentially result in 

the loss of some historic fabric to those 

structures and buildings. However, these 

impacts would be minimized to the extent 

possible by continued law enforcement 

activities and public education efforts as 

well as intensive preservation treatment, 

regular cyclic maintenance, and stabilization of the monument’s principal prehistoric and historic structures and buildings 

as NPS funding and personnel permit. 

Thus, implementation of this alternative 

would potentially contribute to beneficial 

effects on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in the national monument. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Prior to establishment of the national monument, prehistoric and historic structures and buildings 

on lands within and surrounding the 

present-day monument were adversely 

impacted by a variety of human activities 

and natural causes, some of which have 

continued to the present and would likely 

continue to a minor degree if alternative A 

were implemented. These include borrowing building stone from rockshelters; 

using caves for ranch and settlementrelated operations; looting and vandalism; 

erosion caused by natural forces and human exploration; excavations; removal of 

deposits; surface collection by explorers, 

pioneers, investigators, and looters; historic and continuing use of prehistoric 

irrigation canals; and graffiti. Stabilization 

and repair projects have been carried out 

on the national monument’s prehistoric 

structures since the late 19th century that 

have had negligible to minor, adverse impacts on prehistoric fabric, but over the 

years, preservation activities have improved as specialized training has resulted 

in the use of better techniques. 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

175 

Current and ongoing NPS activities, such 

as continued law enforcement activities, 

public education efforts, intensive preservation treatment, and regular cyclic maintenance, would be expected to have beneficial effects on the national monument’s 

prehistoric and historic structures and 

buildings. 

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable planning endeavors and development 

projects, such as expansion and development of a regional trails system, YavapaiApache expansion of the casino resort at 

the nearby intersection of Interstate 17 

and the monument entrance road, and 

possible development of the historic Soda 

Springs Ranch for recreational and/or 

resort purposes, could have negligible impacts on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in the national monument because these developments would 

be expected to increase visitation to the 

national monument. However, the effects 

on the monument’s prehistoric and historic structures and buildings from the 

aforementioned activities and developments on lands bordering or in the vicinity 

of the national monument would be at or 

below the lower levels of detection and 

thus would be almost impossible to measure. 

Actions under this alternative, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in 

the national monument and surrounding 

area, would generally be expected to contribute to cumulative beneficial effects to 

any cumulative impact on prehistoric and 

historic structures and buildings. The 

beneficial impacts to such resources associated with the no-action alternative, 

however, would constitute a relatively 

small component of any cumulative impact. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Prior to establishment of the 

national monument, prehistoric and historic structures and buildings on lands 

within and surrounding the present-day 

monument were adversely impacted by 

human activities and natural causes, some 

of which have continued to the present 

and would likely continue to a minor degree if alternative A were implemented. 

These include farming; grazing; mining; 

camping; hiking; hunting; looting and 

vandalism; poaching; off-road driving; 

erosion caused by natural forces and human exploration; excavations and removal 

of deposits by pioneers, explorers, and 

investigators; and surface collection by 

investigators and looters. Stabilization and 

repair projects have been carried out on 

the national monument’s prehistoric 

structures since the late 19th century that 

have had negligible to minor, adverse impacts on prehistoric fabric, but over the 

years, preservation activities have improved as specialized training has resulted 

in the use of better techniques. 

Current and ongoing NPS activities, such 

as continued law enforcement activities, 

public education efforts, intensive preservation treatment, and regular cyclic maintenance, would be expected to have beneficial effects on the national monument’s 

prehistoric and historic structures and 

buildings. 

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable planning endeavors and development 

projects, such as development of Dead 

Horse Ranch State Park development and 

implementation of development proposals 

in the Verde River Greenway Management Plan, could have negligible impacts 

on prehistoric and historic structures and 

buildings in the national monument because they would be expected to increase 

visitation to the national monument. 

However, the effects on the monument’s 

prehistoric and historic structures and 

buildings from the aforementioned planning endeavors and developments would 

be at or below the lower levels of detection and thus would be almost impossible 

to measure. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176 

Actions under this alternative, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in 

the national monument and surrounding 

area, would generally be expected to contribute to cumulative beneficial effects on 

any cumulative impact on prehistoric and 

historic structures and buildings. The 

beneficial impacts on such resources associated with the no-action alternative, 

however, would constitute a relatively 

small component of any cumulative impact. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in the national 

monument. The cumulative effects would 

be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values associated with prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. 

Implementation of this alternative would 

not result in any unacceptable impacts and 

is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would have no adverse 

effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in the national monument. The cumulative effects would be 

beneficial; this alternative’s contribution 

to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values associated with prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. 

Implementation of this alternative would 

not result in any unacceptable impacts and 

is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Under alternative A, cultural landscapes in Montezuma Castle National 

Monument would continue to be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated under 

National Register of Historic Places criteria of evaluation to determine their eligibility for listing in the national register as 

NPS staffing and funding permit. Although no formal cultural landscape inventory work has been conducted at the 

national monument, the following known 

and potential cultural landscape resources 

have been identified at the reconnaissance 

survey level of the cultural landscape inventory process: 

• Sinaguan occupation remains / Montezuma Castle site cultural landscape 

resources, including agricultural fields; 

• Hohokam occupation remains / Montezuma Well site cultural landscape resources, including irrigation canals; 

• New Deal / Civilian Conservation 

Corps-era historic designed landscape 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

177 

resources, including rock walls, drainage ditches, and other structural 

elements, and historic vegetation in 

the Castle site (NPS development at 

Montezuma Castle); and 

• Homesteading/ranching cultural landscape resources, including historic irrigation canals, agricultural fields, historic trees or other vegetation, and potentially the late 19th century smokehouse structure in the Montezuma 

Well site. 

Pending the results of further survey, inventory, and evaluation, the National Park 

Service, within the parameters of budget 

and personnel constraints, would (1) treat 

cultural landscape resources that are considered potentially eligible for listing in the 

national register as eligible and (2) recommend listing of the national monument’s significant cultural landscapes in 

the national register. The National Park 

Service would implement resource management policies that preserve the culturally significant character defining patterns and features and natural resource 

values of the listed, or determined eligible, 

landscapes in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (NPS 1992b). 

Although the National Park Service would 

seek to implement the aforementioned 

policies and procedures to protect and 

preserve cultural landscape resources in 

the national monument, the potential for 

some negligible to minor, adverse impacts 

on cultural landscape features as a result 

of human activities and natural processes 

would likely continue to a slight degree. 

These activities and processes could include looting and vandalism, graffiti, erosion resulting from natural causes and inadvertent visitor use, illegal collection by 

looters, and continuing use of prehistoric 

and historic irrigation canals for agricultural operations. Anticipated increases in 

visitation levels and visitor access to the 

national monument could be expected to 

result in increasing amounts of intentional 

and inadvertent disturbance of cultural 

landscape resources. However, the National Park Service would continue efforts 

to reduce the impacts on cultural landscape resources through law enforcement 

activities, public education about the importance and value of such resources, and 

implementation of the Secretary’s Standards (NPS 1992b). Thus, implementation 

of this alternative would potentially contribute to beneficial effects on cultural 

landscape resources in the national monument. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Under 

alternative A, cultural landscapes in Tuzigoot National Monument would continue 

to be surveyed, inventoried, and evaluated 

under National Register of Historic Places 

criteria of evaluation to determine their 

eligibility for listing in the national register 

as NPS staffing and funding permit. Although no formal cultural landscape inventory work has been conducted at the 

national monument, the following known 

and potential cultural landscape resources 

have been identified at level 0 (park reconnaissance survey) of the cultural landscape inventory process: 

• Sinaguan/Hohokam occupation remains cultural landscape resources; 

and 

• New Deal / Works Progress Administration historic designed landscape resources, including the Visitor Center / 

Administrative complex area and historic vegetation. 

As described for Montezuma Castle National Monument, pending the results of 

further survey, inventory, and evaluation, 

the National Park Service, within the parameters of budget and personnel constraints, would (1) treat Tuzigoot National 

Monument cultural landscape resources 

that are considered potentially eligible for 

listing in the national register as eligible 

and (2) recommend listing of the monu-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

178 

ment’s significant cultural landscapes in 

the national register. The National Park 

Service would implement resource management policies that preserve the culturally significant character defining patterns and features and natural resource 

values of the listed, or determined eligible, 

landscapes in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties With 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes (NPS 1992b). 

Although the National Park Service would 

seek to implement the aforementioned 

policies and procedures to protect and 

preserve cultural landscape resources in 

the national monument, the potential for 

some negligible to minor, adverse impacts 

on cultural landscape features as a result 

of human activities and natural processes 

would likely continue to a slight degree. 

These activities and processes could include looting and vandalism; littering; 

graffiti; trespassing (after hours entry and 

entry into closed areas); erosion resulting 

from natural causes, inadvertent visitor 

use, and social trails; and intentional pilfering and illegal collection by looters. Anticipated increases in numbers of visitors 

and visitor access to the national monument could be expected to result in increasing amounts of intentional and inadvertent resource disturbance of cultural 

landscape resources. However, the National Park Service would continue efforts 

to reduce the impacts on such resources 

through law enforcement activities, public 

education about the importance and value 

of such resources, and implementation of 

the Secretary’s Standards (NPS 1992b). 

Thus, implementation of this alternative 

would potentially contribute to beneficial 

effects on cultural landscape resources in 

the national monument. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Prior to establishment of the national monument, cultural 

landscape resources on lands within and 

surrounding the present-day monument 

were adversely impacted by human activities and natural causes, some of which 

have continued to the present and would 

likely continue to a minor degree if alternative A were implemented. These include 

borrowing building stone from rockshelters; looting and vandalism; excavations, 

removal of deposits, surface collection by 

explorers, pioneers, investigators, and looters; historic and continuing use of prehistoric irrigation canals; and graffiti. 

Current and ongoing NPS activities, such 

as survey, inventory, evaluation, and preservation of identified culturally significant character defining patterns and features and natural resource values of listed, 

or determined eligible, landscapes in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, would be expected to 

have beneficial effects on the national 

monument’s cultural landscape resources 

and result in no adverse effect to the monument’s cultural landscape resources. 

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable planning endeavors and development 

projects, such as expansion and development of a regional trails system, YavapaiApache expansion of the casino resort at 

the nearby intersection of Interstate 17 

and the monument entrance road, and 

possible development of the historic Soda 

Springs Ranch for recreational and/or 

resort purposes, could have negligible impacts on the monument’s cultural landscape resources because they would be 

expected to increase visitation to the national monument. However, the effects on 

the monument’s cultural landscape resources from the aforementioned activities and developments would be at or below the lower levels of detection, and thus 

would be almost impossible to measure. 

Actions under this alternative, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in 

the national monument and surrounding 

area, would generally be expected to contribute to cumulative beneficial effects on 

any cumulative impact on cultural land-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

179 

scape resources. The beneficial impacts on 

such resources associated with the noaction alternative, however, would constitute a relatively small component of any 

cumulative impact. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Prior to establishment of the 

national monument, cultural landscape 

resources on lands within and surrounding the present-day monument were adversely impacted by human activities and 

natural causes, some of which have continued to the present and would likely 

continue to a minor degree if alternative A 

were implemented. These include looting 

and vandalism; littering; graffiti; trespassing (after hours entry and entry into 

closed areas); erosion resulting from natural causes, inadvertent visitor use, and social trails; and intentional pilfering and 

illegal collection by looters. 

Current and ongoing NPS activities, such 

as survey, inventory, evaluation, and preservation of identified culturally significant character-defining patterns and features and natural resource values of listed, 

or determined eligible, landscapes in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, would be expected to 

have beneficial effects on the national 

monument’s cultural landscape resources. 

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable planning endeavors and development 

projects, such as development of Dead 

Horse Ranch State Park and implementation of development proposals in the 

Verde River Greenway Management Plan, 

could have negligible impacts on the monument’s cultural landscape resources 

because they would be expected to increase visitation to the national monument. However, the effects on the monument’s cultural landscape resources from 

the aforementioned planning endeavors 

and developments would be at or below 

the lower levels of detection and thus 

would be almost impossible to measure. 

Viewshed restoration and revegetation 

efforts associated with the Freeport 

McMoRan Tailings Project would be expected to have minor, beneficial impacts 

on the visible cultural landscape on lands 

outside the national monument. 

Actions under this alternative, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future undertakings in 

the national monument and surrounding 

area, would generally be expected to contribute to cumulative beneficial effects on 

any cumulative impact on cultural landscape resources. The beneficial impacts on 

such resources associated with the noaction alternative, however, would constitute a relatively small component of any 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on cultural landscape resources in the national monument. The 

cumulative effects would be beneficial; 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Implementation of this alternative would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with 

section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 

2006. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

180 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would have no adverse 

effect on cultural landscape resources. The 

cumulative effects would beneficial; this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Implementation of this alternative would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with 

section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 

2006. 

Ethnographic Resources and 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. A comprehensive ethnographic 

overview and assessment (including an 

ethnobotanical study) for Montezuma 

Castle National Monument has not been 

prepared. Thus, no ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties 

have been identified and documented at 

the national monument. However, Montezuma Well is treated as eligible for consideration as a traditional cultural property. 

Under alternative A, the National Park 

Service would continue to consult with 

concerned Native American tribes to learn 

about sites or resources of cultural or religious significance in the national monument and to develop strategies for protecting and preserving sites or resources 

that might be identified as well as providing access to areas of traditional cultural 

and religious importance. The National 

Park Service would also continue to consult with concerned Native American tribes before taking actions that might affect 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act issues and traditional 

cultural properties; encourage archeologists, anthropologists, and researchers to 

consult with the Native American tribes 

regarding areas of interest that could be 

included in research efforts; and promote 

ethnographic involvement in excavations 

and anthropological research. 

Although there are no identified ethnographic resources or traditional cultural 

properties in the national monument at 

present, implementation of this alternative 

would be expected to have beneficial impacts on such resources if any were identified and documented pursuant to ongoing 

consultation and research. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. As described for Montezuma Castle National 

Monument, a comprehensive ethnographic overview and assessment (including an 

ethnobotanical study) of Tuzigoot National Monument has not been prepared. 

Thus, no ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties have been identified and documented at Tuzigoot National Monument. 

Under alternative A, the National Park 

Service would continue to conduct consultations with concerned Native American tribes regarding ethnographic sites 

and resources and Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

issues as described under Montezuma 

Castle National Monument. 

Although there are no identified ethnographic resources or traditional cultural 

properties in the national monument at 

present, implementation of this alternative 

would be expected to have beneficial impacts on such resources if any were identi-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

181 

fied and documented pursuant to ongoing 

consultation and research. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Under alternative 

A, there would be no cumulative effects on 

ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties in Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable planning endeavors and development 

projects, such as implementation of the 

Sinaguan Circle Tour, would be expected 

to contribute to cumulative beneficial effects on any cumulative impact on ethnographic resources and traditional cultural 

properties that might be identified and 

documented in the national monument 

and surrounding area pursuant to ongoing 

consultation and research. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Under alternative A, there 

would be no cumulative effects on ethnographic resources or traditional cultural 

properties in Tuzigoot National Monument. 

Current, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable planning endeavors and development 

projects, such as implementation of the 

Sinaguan Circle Tour, would be expected 

to contribute to cumulative beneficial effects to any cumulative impact on ethnographic resources and traditional cultural 

properties that might be identified and 

documented in the national monument 

and surrounding area pursuant to ongoing 

consultation and research. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on traditional cultural 

properties in the national monument. 

There would also be no impacts on ethnographic resources. The cumulative effects 

would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values associated with ethnographic resources or traditional cultural 

properties. Implementation of this alternative would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 

1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would affect no historic 

properties in the national monument. 

There would also be no impacts on ethnographic resources. The cumulative effects 

would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monument, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties landscapes. Implementation of this alternative would not result in 

any unacceptable impacts and is consis-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

182 

tent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Floodplains 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. None of the alternative A actions at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

would disturb the riparian area, limit the 

ability of the floodplain to convey floodwaters within the river corridor, or contribute to the height of a flood along Beaver Creek. The creek would continue to 

periodically flood. The existing gabion 

would continue to be maintained to protect the cliff dwelling site. Maintenance 

activities, including erosion control measures, would continue to protect the gabion. These actions would have a negligible, long-term, adverse impact on the 

floodplain. 

None of the actions proposed at Montezuma Well under alternative A would limit 

the ability of the floodplain to convey 

floodwaters within the river corridor or 

contribute to the height of a flood along 

Wet Beaver Creek. An improved trail 

would continue to provide visitors an opportunity to walk a short distance along 

the banks of Wet Beaver Creek. The trail is 

an impervious surface, and it would continue to have a negligible, local, adverse 

impact on water flow during floods. These 

impacts are unlikely to result in measurable changes to the natural river processes 

and would be negligible in the long term. 

Management actions to maintain the trail 

would continue and could include some 

erosion control measures as necessary. 

Erosion control measures would reduce 

adverse impacts from increased turbidity 

in the water column. The impacts would 

be local and long-term, and would have a 

continuing, negligible, adverse effect on 

river processes in the floodplain. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. None of 

the alternative A actions at Tuzigoot National Monument would limit the ability 

of the floodplain to convey floodwaters 

within the river corridor or contribute to 

the height of a flood along the Verde River 

or in Tavasci Marsh. The Verde River 

flows along the boundary of the monument. The access road for the monument 

would remain in its current location 

across the Verde River. There would continue to be no formal access to the Verde 

River or to Tavasci Marsh from within the 

monument. Social trails along the Verde 

River could contribute to erosion during 

high water. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions outside Montezuma Castle National Monument that would contribute 

to the height of a flood along the creek or 

adversely impact the ability of the floodplain to convey floodwaters within the 

river corridor. Similarly, no actions could 

adversely impact aquatic habitat in the 

creek. Consequently, there would be no 

cumulative impacts on floodplains under 

alternative A at Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan (Arizona State Parks 2004) proposed the development of a 10-foot wide, granular 

stone surfaced trail for non-motorized 

used along the length of the greenway, 

including lands within the legislative 

boundary of the monument. The trail 

would not add any impervious surface to 

the floodplain and thus would not contribute to the height of a flood along the river or adversely impact the ability of the 

floodplain to convey floodwaters within 

the river corridor. The presence of a formalized trail could reduce the number of 

social trails along the creek. This trail 

would reduce the erosion potential along 

the entire corridor, providing a long-term 

benefit for aquatic habitats. Alternative A 

would result in negligible, adverse, cumulative impacts to the height of a flood 

along the creek and would not adversely 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

183 

impact the ability of the floodplain to convey floodwaters within the river corridor. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would result in 

negligible, long-term, adverse impacts on 

floodplains in Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. Maintenance 

activities that reduce erosion would have a 

local, negligible, long-term, adverse impact on river processes at Montezuma 

Castle National Monument, although reduced erosion would represent a negligible to minor benefit to the floodplain. 

There would be no cumulative impacts 

under alternative A at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Alternative A would 

result in negligible, adverse, cumulative 

impacts to floodplains at Tuzigoot National Monument. These effects would 

not constitute an impairment of resources 

or values associated with floodplains at 

either monument. Implementation of this 

alternative would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with 

section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 

2006. 

Soils and Vegetation 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. There are no new actions proposed 

under alternative A that would disturb 

soils, increase the erosion potential, or 

decrease soil productivity at Montezuma 

Castle National Monument. Because the 

existing trails are hardened, there would 

be no new impacts on soil from use of 

these trails. Ongoing management actions 

to control erosion along the trail would 

continue. The long-term, adverse impacts 

of these actions on soils in the monument 

would be negligible. Under this alternative, no new actions are proposed that 

would change the abundance and distribution of individual plants or communities at the monument or change ecological 

processes or biological productivity. Efforts to manage and control nonnative and 

exotic plant species would continue to 

have long-term, minor, beneficial impacts 

on the native vegetation in the monument. 

Ongoing management actions (for example, maintenance) would have local impacts on native vegetation at the monument. These actions would include but 

not be limited to trimming trees and 

shrubs near the existing trail from the visitor center to the Castle. The long-term, 

adverse impacts of these actions on the 

native vegetation at the monument would 

be negligible. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. There 

are no new actions proposed under this 

alternative that would disturb soils, increase the erosion potential, or decrease 

soil productivity at Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Because the existing trails are 

hardened, there would be no new impacts 

on soil from use of these trails. Ongoing 

management actions to control erosion 

along the trail would continue. The longterm, adverse impacts of these actions on 

soils in the monument would be negligible. Under this alternative, there are no 

new actions proposed that would change 

the abundance and distribution of individual plants or communities at Tuzigoot. 

There would be no change to ecological 

processes or biological productivity at the 

monument. Efforts to manage and control 

nonnative and exotic plant species would 

continue. These efforts would have longterm, minor, beneficial impacts on the native vegetation at Tuzigoot. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions 

outside Montezuma Castle National Monument that would affect soils or vegetation at the monument. Consequently, 

there would be no cumulative impacts under alternative A at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument on soils or vegetation. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan proposed the development of a 10-foot wide, 

granular stone surfaced trail for nonmotorized used along the length of the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

184 

greenway, including lands within the legislative boundary of the monument (Arizona State Parks 2004). Development of the 

trail would have a local impact on the soils 

and vegetation, including an increase in 

erosion potential and the removal of some 

vegetation. The erosion potential could be 

reduced during trail development by using 

best management practices that could include the installation of silt fencing. The 

short-term impacts of the trail development would be adverse but negligible. 

Trail maintenance activities, including 

best management practices, would help to 

minimize the potential for erosion along 

the trail. The long-term, adverse impacts 

of the trail on soil erosion would be negligible. 

The impacts of alternative A on soils in 

combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail would result in negligible, long-term, adverse cumulative impacts on soils. Although some vegetation 

would be removed, the impacts would be 

local and not likely to change the abundance and distribution of individual plants 

or communities. If nonnative or exotic 

species are present, management actions 

may be necessary to control the spread of 

these species once the ground has been 

disturbed to minimize any adverse impacts 

on native plants from trail development. 

The long-term, adverse impacts from 

nonnative and exotic species would be 

negligible. The impacts of alternative A in 

combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail would result in negligible, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts to vegetation. 

Conclusion. There are no new actions 

proposed under alternative A that would 

disturb soils, increase the erosion potential, or decrease soil productivity in either 

Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Ongoing management actions 

to control erosion along the existing trails 

would continue. The long-term, adverse 

impacts of these actions on soils in the 

monument would be negligible. Efforts to 

manage and control nonnative and exotic 

plant species would continue at both monuments, as would trimming certain native 

trees and shrubs at Montezuma Castle. 

These efforts would continue to have both 

beneficial and adverse, long-term, negligible impact on the native vegetation in 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

and beneficial, long-term, negligible impact in Tuzigoot National Monument. 

This alternative would result in negligible, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on 

the soils and vegetation at Tuzigoot National Monument by increasing the potential for soil erosion or vegetation trampling resulting from the proposed greenway trail. The long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts from nonnative and exotic 

species would be negligible. These effects 

would not be sufficient to constitute an 

impairment of soil or vegetation resources 

or values at Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot national monuments. Implementation of this alternative would not result in 

any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

Wetlands 

Under this alternative, current management actions would continue, and there 

would be no effects on wetlands at Montezuma Castle National Monument, resulting in a continuation of the existing, 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts. Additionally, no new actions 

would be taken to restore or maintain the 

natural hydrologic functions in the Tavasci Marsh at Tuzigoot National Monument. This would allow the marsh to silt in 

over time and result in the loss of wildlife 

habitat in Tuzigoot National Monument. 

The long-term, adverse impact on wetlands and their natural hydrologic functions and wildlife habitat values in Tavasci 

Marsh would continue to be minor to 

moderate. 

Cumulative Impacts. The Verde River 

Greenway Management Plan could devel-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

185 

op trails and other infrastructure (for example, a boat ramp and parking lot) near 

Tavasci Marsh at Tuzigoot National Monument. These actions could create additional visitor opportunities that, with increased use, could affect wetlands. However, the adverse effects of increased visitation or development associated with the 

Verde River Greenway Management Plan 

would likely be local and negligible, and 

the contribution toward adverse, cumulative impacts on wetlands would also be 

negligible. 

Conclusion. There are no new actions 

proposed under alternative A that would 

have adverse impacts on wetland functions or wetland habitat values at Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot national monuments, resulting in long-term, negligible to 

minor impacts. Ongoing management actions would continue to allow silt to accumulate in Tavasci Marsh, which would 

have a long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impact on wetland functions and 

habitat. Increased visitation or development associated with the Verde River 

Greenway Management Plan would have 

local, negligible, adverse, cumulative impacts on wetlands. The impacts of alternative A would not be sufficient to constitute 

an impairment of wetland resources or 

values at Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot 

national monuments. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Wildlife 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. At the Castle, visitors would continue to have opportunities to walk near 

the cliff dwelling and above Beaver Creek 

on the existing hardened trail. No new 

actions would be proposed under this alternative that would disturb wildlife or 

adversely impact wildlife habitat at the 

Castle. 

Visitors would continue to visit Montezuma Well and Wet Beaver Creek on the 

existing hardened trail. The picnic area 

would continue to be accessible, but there 

would be no formal access to the former 

pasture lands. No new actions would be 

proposed under this alternative that 

would disturb wildlife or adversely impact 

wildlife habitat at Montezuma Well. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Visitors 

would continue to have formal access to 

the dwelling, but there would be no formal 

access to the marsh, river, or riparian area 

from within the monument. No new actions would be proposed under this alternative that would disturb wildlife or adversely impact wildlife habitat at Tuzigoot. 

Informal access to the Verde River would 

continue from the road into the monument. The informal access could disturb 

wildlife, particularly birds nesting or foraging in the riparian area. This would 

represent a long-term, minor, adverse effect on wildlife. Social trailing by visitors 

along the Verde River and the potential 

for erosion would continue. Erosionborne sediment could have an adverse impact on aquatic habitat for some aquatic 

species, but assuming no increased turbidity over current levels, the adverse impacts 

would be local and negligible in the long 

term. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions 

outside the Montezuma Castle National 

Monument that would adversely impact 

wildlife or wildlife habitats. Consequently, 

there would be no cumulative impacts under alternative A on wildlife or wildlife 

habitat. At Tuzigoot National Monument, 

the Verde River Greenway Master Plan 

proposed the development of a 10-foot 

wide, granular stone surfaced trail for non 

motorized used along the length of the 

greenway, including lands within the legislative boundary of the monument (Arizona State Parks 2004). Development of the 

trail would have local effects on wildlife 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

186 

habitat within the monument along the 

Verde River. These impacts would include 

disturbance that could limit foraging activity or adversely impact nesting. 

These impacts could be reduced by timing 

trail development to minimize the impact 

on breeding activity. The long-term impacts of the trail development would be 

adverse and negligible to minor but would 

be unlikely to affect the distribution of 

individuals in a local area and would not 

have an impact on viability of the regional 

population. The impacts of alternative A 

in combination with the impacts of the 

proposed greenway trail would result in 

negligible to minor, cumulative, longterm, adverse effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Conclusion. There are no new actions 

proposed under alternative A that would 

have adverse impacts on wildlife or wildlife habitat in the monuments. Formal 

access within the monuments would continue to limit impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. However, informal access to 

the Verde River at Tuzigoot National Monument would continue from the road 

into the monument, representing a longterm, minor, adverse effect on wildlife. 

Assuming no increased turbidity over current levels, the adverse impacts on wildlife 

of erosion caused by social trailing would 

be local and negligible in the long term. 

There would be no cumulative impacts 

under alternative A at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Alternative A would 

result in a short-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse, cumulative impacts on wildlife 

and wildlife habitat at Tuzigoot National 

Monument as a result of trail development 

along the Verde River. The long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on wildlife and 

wildlife habitat would be negligible to minor and result from the potential for ongoing disturbance of wildlife throughout 

the year by visitors. The effects of alternative A would not constitute an impairment 

of wildlife or wildlife habitat resources or 

values. Implementation of this alternative 

would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 

of Management Policies 2006. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Management actions at Montezuma Castle National Monument would continue to focus 

on maintaining habitat in the monument 

to support flycatcher breeding activities 

along the Verde River. There would be no 

effects on flycatcher habitat or individual 

flycatchers foraging at the monument under this alternative. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, management actions at Tavasci Marsh would 

be minimal, and over time the marsh could 

silt in. This could change the riparian habitat in the marsh such that it is no longer 

suitable for flycatcher foraging; however, 

this would only have an effect on a limited 

area. Change in the marsh habitat could 

have a long-term effect on flycatcher habitat in the monument, but the presence of 

substantial suitable habitat in the area 

would result in a “not likely to adversely 

affect” determination. 

Cumulative Impacts. There is a documented nesting site for southwestern willow flycatcher just outside the monument 

boundaries in the riparian area of the 

Verde River. Ditch maintenance activities 

in the area help maintain the conditions 

that the flycatcher favors when nesting. 

The ongoing ditch maintenance activities 

would have a long-term, beneficial effect 

on flycatcher habitat, so alternative A 

would not likely adversely affect the 

southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Visitors would continue to have informal 

access to the Verde River from the bridge 

on the access road to the monument, but 

no formal access would be provided. Although the flycatcher is known to be shy, 

current visitation levels have not discouraged the flycatcher from nesting near the 

bridge. In the long term, the informal 

access to the Verde River could affect, but 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

187 

is not likely to adversely affect, flycatcher 

nesting activity in this location. 

As described above, the Verde River 

Greenway Master Plan (Arizona State 

Parks 2004) would affect lands within Tuzigoot National Monument. In addition, a 

small parking lot and boat launch is proposed on state land on the east side of the 

monument entrance road. This development would be outside the monument 

boundary but would require modifications to the existing roadway. The proposed location of the boat launch is within 

the designated critical habitat for the flycatcher, and vegetation in the vicinity has 

been used for nesting. Increased activity 

could disturb the flycatcher and discourage continued use of the area for nesting. 

The National Park Service would work 

with Arizona State Parks to minimize the 

adverse impacts associated with the multiuse trail. For example, the effects of the 

boat launch could be reduced by shifting 

visitor activity on the river away from the 

patch of vegetation that serves as nesting 

habitat. In addition, any trail development 

should avoid creating new or longer edges 

along a nesting patch that could make the 

nests more vulnerable to predation. The 

proposed trail could have long-term effects on the nesting habitat for the flycatcher along the Verde River, but these 

effects are unlikely to be adverse. The 

long-term effects of alternative A in combination with the effects of the other actions described above could cumulatively 

affect flycatcher habitat, although the resulting effects would not likely be adverse. 

Conclusion. There would be no effects on 

flycatcher habitat or individual flycatchers 

foraging at Montezuma Castle National 

Monument under this alternative. Longterm, ongoing management actions could 

benefit flycatcher habitat; thus, the effects 

would not likely be adverse. 

Change in the Tavasci Marsh habitat at 

Tuzigoot National Monument could have 

a long-term effect on flycatcher habitat in 

the monument, but the presence of substantial suitable habitat in the area would 

result in a “not likely to adversely affect” 

determination. 

Outside the boundaries at Tuzigoot National Monument, the ongoing ditch 

maintenance activities could have a longterm benefit on flycatcher habitat. Informal access to the Verde River could affect, 

but is not likely to adversely affect, flycatcher nesting activity in this location. 

The proposed Verde River Greenway trail 

could affect flycatcher nesting habitat 

along the Verde River, but these effects 

are unlikely to be adverse. The long-term 

effects of alternative A in combination 

with the effects of the other actions described above could affect the flycatcher 

habitat, resulting in potential long-term, 

cumulative effects, although these effects 

are not substantial or widespread enough 

to be considered adverse. 

Yuma Clapper Rail. No marsh restoration activities would be undertaken to 

maintain natural hydrologic functions in 

Tavasci Marsh at Tuzigoot National Monument. As described for the southwestern willow flycatcher, this could change 

some marsh habitat, but the changes 

would be unlikely to affect individuals or 

the viability of the clapper rail population. 

Under this alternative, the clapper rail 

would continue be exposed to low levels 

of selenium in the water column and potentially higher levels of selenium through 

its food supply. Long-term exposure to 

selenium could affect reproductive success of the clapper rail in the future; however, the clapper rail is not a resident of 

the Tavasci Marsh, and exposure to selenium while migrating through the marsh 

could affect but is not likely to adversely 

affect reproductive success of the clapper 

rail. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or proposed actions that would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

188 

affect the Yuma clapper rail or its habitat 

at Tavasci Marsh. 

Conclusion. Under the no-action alternative, Tavasci Marsh could silt in over time. 

Changes in rail habitat in Tavasci Marsh 

would be unlikely to affect individuals or 

the viability of the clapper rail population. 

Clapper rails migrating through the marsh 

would be exposed to selenium while at the 

marsh, which could affect, but is unlikely 

to adversely affect, reproductive success 

for these individuals or the population as a 

whole. There would be no cumulative effects on clapper rails or their habitat under 

this alternative. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Current management actions would not have an effect 

on the gallery forest habitat used by yellow-billed cuckoo for nesting and forage 

at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or proposed actions that would 

contribute to cumulative effects on the 

yellow-billed cuckoo or its habitat at either of the monuments. 

Conclusion. There would be no effects on 

the habitat or population of yellow-billed 

cuckoo at Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot 

national monuments. There would be no 

cumulative effects on the yellow-billed 

cuckoo associated with alternative A. 

Alternative A would not constitute an impairment of resources or values associated 

with threatened and endangered species at 

Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of this alternative would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 

1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Visitor Experiences 

of Monument Resources 

Visitor experiences of the monuments’ 

resources would continue to be positive 

but relatively short, with little variety. Visitors would continue to have access to 

high-quality viewing opportunities of each 

of the monuments’ primary archeological 

resources, which is considered the most 

important element of most visitors’ experiences; therefore, continuing to provide 

these opportunities would result in a continued long-term, major, beneficial effect 

for visitors. 

At Montezuma Castle, the concentration 

of visitors on a short, paved trail to view 

the castle would continue to result in 

times of congestion and crowding as use 

levels remained stable or increased over 

the long term, resulting in a long-term, 

minor, adverse impact. 

During peak season at Montezuma Castle, 

congestion in the parking lot from too 

many cars and buses and the related impacts of noise and smell from a large number of vehicles would continue to have a 

long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitors’ experiences. 

Visitors would continue to have minimal 

interaction with the Castle’s natural and 

cultural resources because of physical barriers (for example, fencing) and restrictions (for example, signs to stay on paved 

trails). Several people commented on the 

lack of intimacy with resources at the Castle because of high levels of development 

and lack of access to much of the monument’s land base, particularly Beaver 

Creek. For these visitors who would be 

interested in more self exploration opportunities, especially access to Beaver Creek 

and the associated riparian area, this will 

continue to be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact. 

Montezuma Well would continue to offer 

opportunities for quiet and solitude in 

natural and cultural settings, including the 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

189 

outlet of the well, the trails around the 

well, and the monument’s picnic area. 

These experiences are very important to 

many Montezuma Well visitors. Continuing to have these opportunities available 

would result in an ongoing long-term, major benefit for visitors seeking these kinds 

of experiences. 

At Tuzigoot, the opportunity to come in 

close contact with a major surface ruin is 

highly valued by most visitors. Continuing 

to provide this opportunity would result 

in a continued long-term, major, beneficial effect on visitor experiences. 

The viewshed of Tuzigoot’s surrounding 

cultural landscape is partially interrupted 

by the mine tailings. During the 2003-2004 

visitor study, one of the most highly 

ranked concerns for visitors to all three 

sites was the visual impact of the mine tailings at Tuzigoot (White and Virden 2004). 

This interruption of the viewshed will 

continue to be a long-term, major, adverse 

impact on the visitor experience. Another 

concern of current visitors is the lack of 

trail connections to the nearby state park, 

which limits visitors’ opportunities to experience both public lands, contributing 

to a long-term, minor, adverse impact. 

Access to Orientation, 

Interpretation, and Education 

Currently, there is limited general orientation to all three sites, resulting in a lack of 

connectedness of the sites and their stories. This lack of connectedness limits visitors’ knowledge of Sinaguan history, since 

each site plays a unique role in telling the 

story. In addition, the lack of orientation 

limits the likelihood that visitors will visit 

more than one or two of the sites. This 

lack of general orientation will continue to 

be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact 

on visitors’ opportunities for orientation 

and interpretation of Sinaguan history. 

Because of limited staff and site opportunities, there are few opportunities for 

“hands-on” interpretive activities at any of 

the sites. The public has expressed interest 

in more interpretive programming and 

demonstrations, especially by modern-day 

affiliated tribes. For visitors interested in 

these types of interpretive opportunities, 

this will continue to be a long-term, moderate, adverse impact. 

At Montezuma Castle, congestion in the 

visitor center is a problem at times because 

of the small space and high visitation during peak season. Visitors are unable to easily view exhibits and visit the bookstore, 

resulting in a long-term, minor, adverse 

impact on opportunities for orientation 

and interpretation. In addition, there are 

no facilities for group interpretation opportunities, which limits the monument’s 

ability to provide consistent and diverse 

interpretive programming. Primarily, interpretation is provided via waysides and a 

roving interpreter. For visitors seeking 

more consistent and diverse programs, 

this will remain a long-term, moderate, 

adverse impact. 

At Montezuma Well, there are very limited opportunities for site orientation 

and interpretation. The visitor contact 

station is a small prefabricated concrete 

building with room for only two or three 

staff. Visitors access information from 

monument staff through a sliding window 

in the mobile trailer. In addition, there is 

no space for personal services and programs, which limits the monument’s ability to provide consistent and diverse interpretive programming. Interpretation is 

primarily provided via waysides and a roving interpreter. 

The limited orientation and education 

available at the site will continue to result 

in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact 

on visitors. 

There is some confusion over the way visitors arrive at the site that results from 

poor signage and facility layout. This confusion leads most visitors to only visit the 

well and not take advantage of the picnic 

area, which offers quiet and shade. This 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

190 

will continue to result in a long-term, minor, adverse impact on visitors. 

At Tuzigoot, there are no facilities for 

group interpretation opportunities, which 

limits the monument’s ability to provide 

consistent and diverse interpretive programming. Interpretation is primarily provided via waysides and a roving interpreter. For visitors seeking more consistent 

and diverse programs, this will remain a 

long-term, moderate, adverse impact. 

Visitor Safety 

Safety information will continue to be 

available, although occasional crowding at 

Montezuma Castle’s visitor center and the 

limited orientation facilities at Montezuma Well would continue to make it difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding of safety factors, leading to a longterm, minor, adverse impact. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on the visitor 

experience. 

At Montezuma Castle, the proposed Yavapai-Apache Nation Native American 

Cultural Center will likely have long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on interpretation and education opportunities related 

to the cultural history of the region. Currently, the Castle visitor center has updated and modern exhibits, but the space 

and amount of exhibits are limited. The 

cultural center would complement and 

enhance the opportunities provided at the 

Castle. However, the cultural center will 

likely attract visitors to the area and may 

increase visitation to the Castle, which 

may contribute to the already crowded 

conditions that occur in the parking area, 

visitor center, and along the loop trail. Because the no-action alternative would not 

alleviate current crowded conditions, visitation resulting from the attractions at the 

cultural center could increase this adverse 

impact at the Castle. 

The regional, multi-use trail proposed 

along Montezuma Castle Highway would 

have a beneficial impact on recreation opportunities. However, the no-action alternative would not provide the connection 

of the regional trail through the monument, which would result in a long-term, 

adverse, cumulative impact to this proposed recreation opportunity. 

At Montezuma Well, surrounding residential development projects could lead 

to increased visitation to Montezuma Well 

that may impact the contemplative settings at the outlet, along the trails, and in 

the picnic area. Also, these developments 

may have a negative impact on the scenic 

viewsheds around Montezuma Well. The 

no-action alternative has no proposals 

that would mitigate these potential adverse impacts. 

At Tuzigoot, the camping and reservoir 

improvements at Dead Horse Ranch State 

Park would increase the desirability of the 

state park for day and overnight use, leading to a potential increase in demand for 

trail connections between Tuzigoot and 

the state park. This increase in demand 

would contribute to the existing, longterm, adverse impacts resulting from the 

lack of trail connections between the monument and the park. 

The proposed recreation opportunities 

that would be part of the Verde River 

Greenway, which runs along the southern 

boundary of Tuzigoot, would enhance 

recreation opportunities for Tuzigoot visitors. However, the no-action alternative 

would not contribute to the beneficial impacts of the Verde River Greenway. 

The restoration of the mine tailings by 

Freeport McMoRan, particularly the covering of the tailings with topsoil to promote vegetation growth, would likely have 

a major, beneficial, cumulative impact on 

visitor experiences at Tuzigoot by improving the scenic viewshed. 

The proposed Sinaguan Circle Tour could 

enhance the interpretive opportunities at 

all three sites by connecting all of the Si-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

191 

naguan sites in the region via an interpretive, self-guided tour with associated resource materials. The no-action alternative would not enhance or substantially 

contribute to this beneficial cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would result in continuing 

minor, beneficial impacts resulting from 

the continued opportunities to view the 

monuments’ prime cultural resources. 

However, minor, adverse impacts from 

crowding and congestion at peak times in 

the parking lot, main loop trail, and visitor 

center at Montezuma Castle would continue during peak times and may get worse 

with increasing visitation. In addition, the 

lack of adequate interpretive and education facilities for regular and diverse programming would continue to have a minor, adverse impact on visitors. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS 

Alternative A consists of a continuation of 

current management conditions. There 

would be no new facilities provided at any 

of the sites, nor would existing monument 

operations be changed substantially.

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

The congestion and crowding in Montezuma Castle National Monument would 

continue because of limited space and 

large crowds. Areas currently experiencing congestion during the peak tourist season at Montezuma Castle include the visitor center, the trail to the Montezuma 

Castle, and the visitor parking lot. This 

results in visitors waiting for information, 

resource impacts adjacent to the trail, and 

parking in improper areas. Based on the 

assumption that crowded conditions 

would increase in the future, alternative A 

would result in long-term, minor, adverse 

effects on monument operations at Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

There are very limited opportunities at 

Montezuma Well for site orientation and 

interpretation. The visitor contact station 

is a small prefabricated concrete building 

with room for only two to three staff. Visitors access information from monument 

staff through a sliding window in the mobile trailer. In addition, there is no space 

for personal services and programs, which 

limits the monument’s ability to provide 

consistent and diverse interpretive programming. Interpretation is primarily provided via wayside exhibits and a roving 

interpreter. The signage and facility layout 

is confusing to some visitors, resulting in 

visitors only visiting the well and missing 

the picnic area, which offers shade and 

quiet. Alternative A would result in longterm, minor, adverse effects on monument 

operations at Montezuma Well. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

Although a visitor center is located at Tuzigoot, there are no facilities for group interpretation opportunities, which limits 

the monument’s ability to provide consistent and diverse interpretive programming. Interpretation is primarily provided 

via wayside exhibits and a roving interpreter. Alternative A would result in longterm, minor, adverse effects on monument 

operations at Tuzigoot National Monument. 

All Sites 

The limited staff is spread over three sites 

and an offsite headquarters. Travel time is 

approximately 30 minutes between Tuzigoot and Montezuma Castle or Montezuma Well. It is difficult to quickly respond to needs or demands in another site 

under these conditions. There would continue to be limited opportunities for close 

contact between visitors and natural and 

cultural features of the monument. Because of limited staff and site opportunities, there are few opportunities for 

“hands-on” interpretive activities at any of 

the sites. The public has expressed interest 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

192 

in more interpretive programming and 

demonstrations, especially by modern-day 

affiliated tribes. The sites would remain 

autonomous with limited connectivity. 

There would be limited interpretation for 

a particular site beyond the boundaries of 

that site. There would be limited offsite 

programs and limited opportunities for 

group programs and/or cultural demonstrations. 

Resource-related activities would continue to focus on stabilizing the primary sites. 

Many areas in each of the sites would remain off-limits to visitors to protect sensitive cultural resources. The principal archeological resources, such as the Tuzigoot 

Pueblo and Montezuma Castle, would receive intensive preservation treatment and 

regular cyclic maintenance. Other archeological resources would be stabilized or 

allowed to molder pursuant to section 106 

consultation. Natural resource management activities would continue to be limited by a lack of staff and funding. Overall, the implementation of alternative A 

would result in long-term, minor, adverse 

effects on monument operations throughout the monuments. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on monument 

operations. The proposed YavapaiApache Nation Native American Cultural 

Center would complement and enhance 

the opportunities already provided at 

Montezuma Castle. Currently, the Montezuma Castle visitor center has updated 

and modern exhibits, but the space and 

number of exhibits are limited. However, 

the cultural center would attract visitors to 

the region and may increase visitation to 

Montezuma Castle, which would result in 

long-term, minor, adverse conditions on 

monument operations, based on the current crowded conditions that occur in the 

parking area, visitor center, and along the 

loop trail. 

The expansion of the casino-resort operated by the Yavapai-Apache tribe near the 

Montezuma Castle entrance road could 

increase visitation at Montezuma Castle, 

and possibly the other sites. This would 

result in long-term, minor, adverse effects 

on monument operations. 

The possible development of the Soda 

Springs Ranch, expansion of recreational 

opportunities at Dead Horse Ranch State 

Park, and development associated with 

the Verde River Greenway Management 

Plan could also attract additional visitors, 

who could also visit the monuments. At 

Montezuma Well, surrounding residential 

development projects could lead to increased visitation that may affect monument operations by increasing crowding. 

The proposed Sinaguan Circle Tour could 

enhance the interpretive opportunities at 

all three sites by connecting all of the Sinaguan sites in the region via an interpretive, self-guided tour with associated resource materials. This could increase visitation at all of the sites, which could create 

a long-term, adverse effect on monument 

operations because of the increased visitation. Expansion of the parking area at 

Montezuma Castle would reduce parking 

problems at that site but would increase 

maintenance responsibilities of the monument. The effects of alternative A in 

combination with the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would result in long-term, minor, 

adverse, cumulative effects on monument 

operations. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would result in long-term, 

minor, adverse effects on monument operations. The congestion and crowding in 

the Montezuma Castle National Monument, very limited opportunities at Montezuma Well for site orientation and interpretation, facilities that limit the monument’s ability to provide consistent and 

diverse interpretive programming, and 

distribution of staff between three sites 

and offsite headquarters and maintenance 

facilities would continue. The effects of 

alternative A in combination with the ef-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

193 

fects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would result 

in long-term, minor, adverse, cumulative 

effects on monument operations. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

Alternative A consists of a continuation of 

current management conditions and actions. At all sites, there would not be any 

new facilities or changes to management 

strategies that would result in additional 

visitation to the monuments. No construction activity would occur at the monuments that would result in additional construction expenditures in the region. 

There would be no changes at the monuments that would result in additional monument employment. 

The monuments would continue to rent 

office space for the headquarters in Camp 

Verde and space for maintenance facilities 

on tribal lands, which contributes a small 

amount of money to the regional economy. The staff live in the region and spend 

money in the region, which benefits the 

economy. The monuments also spend 

money in the region for supplies. Alternative A would result in a negligible, longterm, beneficial effect on socioeconomics 

in the region. 

Under the no-action alternative, modest 

growth in annual recreation visitation is 

foreseeable, based on regional population 

growth and the continued popularity of 

Sedona as a tourism destination. However, 

the fundamental visitor experience would 

remain largely unchanged. Consequently, 

long-term annual visitation under the NoAction is assumed to average about 

800,000 visitors. Annual visitation may 

vary based on influences such as fuel prices (high prices lead to decreased visitation) or a highway detour redirecting 

more traffic by one or both sites (increasing visitation). 

The area’s recent population growth is 

expected to continue under the no-action 

alternative. This alternative would not alter the population growth forecast for the 

Verde Valley or for surrounding areas in 

Yavapai and Coconino counties. 

Changes in annual visitation to the national monuments would be accompanied by 

corresponding effects on visitor spending 

in the regional economy, affecting local 

retail, lodging, eating and drinking, and 

other service establishments. Local governments would also experience impacts 

on local sales tax receipts. A sustained and 

consistent trend of increasing visitation 

could also result in impacts on local employment as establishments add staff in 

response to the changes in spending. 

Assuming future visitation reflects the local/non-local visitor mix, dayuse/overnight stays, and typical spending 

profiles characterizing current visitors, 

annual visitor spending would increase by 

about $900,000 annually with the increase 

to 800,000 annual visitors. The added 

spending would support 18 new jobs and 

$252,000 in annual personal income in the 

Verde Valley. These impacts would be 

long-term. Impacts of comparable magnitudes, but in the opposite direction (that 

is, a reduction of 18 jobs) would result 

should a comparable reduction in spending occur, such as that which might accompany a short-term decline in visitation. Increases of the magnitudes outlined 

above would not fundamentally alter the 

structure or functioning of the regional 

economy. 

Implementation of the no-action alternative would result in the estimated expenditure of $1.03 million in capital improvement spending over the life of the general 

management plan. Temporary job and income impacts could be associated with 

some improvement projects at the national monuments paid for using fee demo 

funding. In many instances, the projects 

would be completed by the maintenance 

staff at the national monuments, with fee 

demo funding used primarily to purchase 

supplies, construction materials, and 

equipment. Contractors would be hired to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

194 

complete other projects. In either case, 

completion of the projects anticipated under the no-action alternative support the 

established base of contractors, construction supply firms, and associated firms in 

the Verde Valley, but would likely result in 

little new hiring or alteration of the structure or functioning of the economy. 

No changes in NPS staffing or other operations are expected under the no-action 

alternative. Consequently, there would be 

no long-term economic impacts associated with alternative A. 

The no-action alternative would not affect 

other social and economic conditions in 

the Verde Valley. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on socioeconomics. The expansion of the casinoresort operated by the Yavapai-Apache 

tribe near the Montezuma Castle entrance 

road and the proposed Yavapai-Apache 

Nation Native American Cultural Center 

would attract tourists and visitors, who 

would spend money in the region for food 

and lodging. The possible development 

and expansion of recreational opportunities at Soda Springs Ranch and Dead 

Horse Ranch State Park, and development 

associated with the Verde River Greenway 

Management Plan, could attract additional visitors, who would spend additional 

money on food and lodging. The proposed Sinaguan Circle Tour could attract 

additional visitors who would spend money on food and lodging. The Freeport 

McMoRan Tailing Project could lead to 

additional regional spending, which could 

help boost the regional economy. 

The residential development projects and 

other land uses surrounding monuments 

could lead to additional population in the 

area, which could also lead to additional 

jobs and additional spending, which 

would boost the regional economy. As 

population continues to grow, increasing 

development on lands adjacent to and surrounding the monuments could result in 

impacts on surface and groundwater resources that could result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse, cumulative effects. The discharge of groundwater from 

Shea Spring and Montezuma Well may be 

affected by groundwater withdrawals in 

specific areas around two water sources. 

These have not yet been definitively determined. NPS has initiated two studies to 

determine the vulnerability of the two water sources to groundwater withdrawals. 

Changing land uses and population 

growth could affect water use and Verde 

River water-right adjudication. 

There are some water quality issues at Tuzigoot related to external influences. The 

Tavasci Marsh is supported by two 

sources of hydrologic input. One source is 

Shea Spring and other small seeps. The 

Verde River, via Pecks Lake, provides the 

other source of water. Peck’s Lake was 

placed on the Water Quality Limited List 

(303d List) in 1998 for violations in the 

state’s dissolved oxygen and pH standards. Peck’s Lake water quality conditions may have been influenced by a golf 

course adjacent to the lake and a dairy just 

below the lake outlet. Phelps Dodge Corporation owns the land around Peck’s 

Lake and has plans to develop approximately 550 acres, including a golf course, 

residential housing, and commercial infrastructure. 

Conclusion 

The effects of the no-action alternative on 

socioeconomic conditions in the Verde 

Valley would be long-term and beneficial, 

but negligible. 

IMPAIRMENT CONCLUSION 

FOR ALTERNATIVE A 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or oppor-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative A (No-Action) 

195 

tunities for enjoyment of the national monuments, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 
196 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE B (PREFERRED) 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Implementation of alternative B 

would generally have the same impacts on 

archeological resources in Montezuma 

Castle National Monument as those described under alternative A. Where possible, new facilities, such as trails, would be 

constructed in already disturbed areas, 

and all ground-disturbing activities would 

be preceded by site-specific archeological 

surveys. However, actions under this alternative, such as placing the river corridor just south of the castle and the corridor along Montezuma Castle and Beaver 

Creek Estates Roads in the Interaction 

and Discovery zone to accommodate natural surface trails, interpretive signage, 

and regional trail activities (for example, 

horseback riding, hiking, and mountain 

biking), could result in some additional 

negligible impacts to archeological resources from inadvertent visitor use or 

looting and vandalism. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on archeological resources in Tuzigoot National Monument as those described under alternative A. Where possible, new facilities, such 

as trails, parking facilities, and boat 

launches, would be constructed in already 

disturbed areas, and all ground-disturbing 

activities would be preceded by sitespecific archeological surveys. However, 

actions under this alternative, such as 

placing areas to the east, north, and south 

of the Pueblo in the Interaction and Discovery zone to accommodate natural surface trails and regional trail connections, 

and construction of a proposed small 

parking area and boat launch on the east 

side of the entrance road at the Verde River, could result in some additional negligible impacts to archeological resources 

from inadvertent visitor use or looting and 

vandalism. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Implementation of 

alternative B would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on archeological 

resources as those listed under alternative 

A, although expanded interpretation and 

education could improve visitor stewardship. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of alternative B would generally have the same cumulative effects on archeological resources as those listed under alternative A, 

although expanded interpretation and 

education could improve visitor stewardship. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on archeological resources in the national monument. The 

cumulative effects would be beneficial; 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with archeological resources. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions un-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

197 

der this alternative would have no adverse 

effect on archeological resources in the 

national monument. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be 

small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with archeological resources. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Prehistoric and Historic Structures and 

Buildings 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Implementation of this alternative 

would generally have the same impacts on 

prehistoric and historic structures and 

buildings in the national monument as 

those described under alternative A. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on prehistoric 

and historic structures and buildings in 

the national monument as those described 

under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Implementation of 

alternative B would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on prehistoric 

and historic structures and buildings as 

those listed under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of alternative B would generally have the same cumulative effects on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings as those listed 

under alternative A. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in the national monument. The cumulative effects 

would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would have no adverse 

effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in the national monument. The cumulative effects would be 

beneficial; this alternative’s contribution 

to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Implementation of alternative B 

would generally have the same impacts on 

cultural landscape resources in the national monument as those described under alternative A. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of alternative B would generally 

have the same impacts on cultural land-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

198 

scape resources in the national monument 

as those described under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Implementation of 

alternative B would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on cultural landscape resources as those listed under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of alternative B would generally have the same cumulative effects on cultural landscape resources as those listed under alternative A. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on cultural landscape 

resources in the national monument. The 

cumulative effects would be beneficial; 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would have no adverse 

effect on cultural landscape resources in 

the national monument. The cumulative 

effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would 

be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Ethnographic Resources and 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Alternative B would generally have 

the same impacts on ethnographic resources and traditional cultural properties 

in the national monument as those described under alternative A. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of alternative B would generally 

have the same impacts on ethnographic 

resources and traditional cultural properties in the national monument as those 

described under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Implementation of 

alternative B would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on ethnographic 

resources and traditional cultural properties as those described under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of alternative B would generally have the same cumulative effects on ethnographic resources and traditional cultural properties 

as those described under alternative A. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would affect 

no historic properties in the monument. 

There would also be no impacts on ethnographic resources. The cumulative effects 

would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values asso-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

199 

ciated with ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties. Implementation of this alternative would not result in 

any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006.

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would affect no historic 

properties in the national monument. 

There would also be no impacts on ethnographic resources. The cumulative effects 

would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties. Implementation of this alternative would not result in 

any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Floodplains 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Under the preferred alternative, 

there would be greater impacts than for 

alternative A on the floodplain. Visitors 

would have the opportunity to explore the 

riparian area on the side of Beaver Creek 

opposite from Montezuma Castle. Visitors 

would be able to cross Beaver Creek during dry periods. This crossing would not 

be available during periods of normal to 

high flow in the creek. A route across the 

creek would be marked, but there would 

be no modification to the riverbed that 

would alter the water flow in the creek or 

increase erosion. There would also be no 

change in the water-carrying capacity of 

the floodplain, nor would alternative B 

raise the height of flood waters. The potential long-term, adverse impacts on the 

floodplain as a result of the designated 

route across the creek would be negligible. 

Under this alternative, an unimproved 

trail would be designated south of the cliff 

dwelling. Design of the trail would require 

some selective removal of tree limbs or 

brushy material to mark the trail. The understory of the riparian area is primarily 

nonnative grasses. The understory vegetation would not be removed from the trail, 

so there would be no increase in the area 

not covered by vegetation. Potential adverse impacts could be reduced by designing the trail to avoid areas where the understory vegetation is sparse or more susceptible to disturbance and to avoid areas 

of uneven or unstable terrain. Because no 

understory vegetation would be removed 

for the trail, the potential for short-term, 

adverse impacts on water flow through the 

riparian area would be negligible. 

There could be some adverse impact to 

understory vegetation from visitor use of 

the trail. Potential impacts include a decrease in the amount of understory vegetation along the trail, which could change 

water flow through the area, causing local 

scouring along the trail and increased erosion. The understory vegetation is quite 

hardy and adapted to disturbance. Visitor 

use would be local and not continuous, 

thereby reducing the potential impacts to 

the understory. Visitor use levels are anticipated to be modest, so some vegetation 

loss could occur here, but only during the 

dry season. The vegetation would be expected to recover in the wet season when 

the trail is closed. Consequently, any loss 

in vegetation would be local and temporary. The long-term, adverse impacts from 

a potential increase in erosion associated 

with a decrease in vegetative cover would 

be negligible. The long-term impacts of 

the trail on erosion and water flow patterns in the floodplain would also be negligible. 

The preferred alternative does not include 

any additional management actions in the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

200 

floodplains of Wet Beaver Creek at Montezuma Well. There would be no short- or 

long-term impacts on the floodplain at the 

well from actions proposed in this alternative. The impacts of alternative B on the 

floodplain processes at Wet Beaver Creek 

would continue to be adverse but negligible in the long term (same as alternative 

A). 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Actions 

proposed under this alternative include of 

improvement of trails along the riparian 

area near the Verde River and Tavasci 

Marsh, providing visitors the opportunity 

to experience both these resources. Trail 

improvement would require some selective removal of tree limbs or brushy material to mark the trail. The understory 

vegetation would not be removed and, as 

now, ground vegetation would be mowed 

along existing alignments, so there would 

be no increase in erosion potential in the 

floodplain. Potential adverse impacts 

could be reduced by designing the trail to 

avoid areas where the understory vegetation is sparse or more susceptible to disturbance and to avoid areas of uneven or 

unstable terrain. Because trail design 

would not involve clearing vegetation, the 

short-term, adverse impacts of the trails 

on the erosion potential in the floodplain 

or the capability of the floodplain to convey flood waters would be negligible. 

The impacts of visitor use of the trail on 

the Tuzigoot National Monument floodplain would be similar to those described 

at Montezuma Castle National Monument. The short- and long-term adverse 

impacts on erosion potential in the floodplain would be negligible. 

A boardwalk into the Tavasci Marsh 

would provide visitors an opportunity to 

experience the marsh as well as to provide 

education and interpretation of the marsh 

resource under this alternative. The 

boardwalk would extend into the marsh 

on pilings and, if assessment determines 

that there would be no conflict with preservation of significant cultural resources, 

would be aligned along an old road bed. 

The pilings would be spaced such that 

they would not act as a barrier to water 

flow in the marsh nor would they change 

existing flow patterns. The construction 

and use of the boardwalk would not increase erosion in the floodplain or decrease the capability of the floodplain to 

convey flood waters. The potential for 

short- and long-term adverse impacts 

from development of a boardwalk in the 

marsh on water flow, erosion, or the capacity of the floodplain to convey flood 

waters would be negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions outside Montezuma Castle National Monument that would contribute 

to the height of a flood along the creek or 

adversely impact the ability of the floodplain to convey floodwaters within the 

river corridor. Consequently, there would 

be no cumulative impacts on floodplains 

under alternative B at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan, as 

described under alternative A, would not 

add any impervious surface to the floodplain. This action would not contribute to 

the height of a flood along the river or adversely impact the ability of the floodplain 

to convey floodwaters within the river 

corridor. The presence of a formalized 

trail could reduce the number of social 

trails along the creek. This trail would reduce the erosion potential along the entire 

corridor, providing a long-term benefit. 

The trail proposed along the riparian area 

at Tuzigoot National Monument could 

link to the trail proposed in the Verde 

River Greenway Master Plan. Visitor use 

could increase along the trail in the monument once the trails are connected. Increased use of the trail in the monument 

could result in greater potential for erosion along the trail because of vegetation 

loss. Vegetation loss could be reduced 

through best management practices dur-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

201 

ing trail maintenance, thus decreasing the 

erosion potential. The long-term, adverse, 

cumulative impact of the linked trails on 

erosion resulting from vegetation loss 

would be negligible to minor. There 

would also be beneficial, cumulative impacts as a result of reduced social trailing. 

Overall, alternative B would have a negligible to minor, adverse, cumulative effect 

on floodplains at Tuzigoot National Monument. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would not contribute to the height of a flood along the 

creek or adversely impact the ability of the 

floodplain to convey floodwaters within 

the river corridor for all three sites of the 

monument. Visitor use of trails could increase the potential for erosion because of 

the associated loss of vegetative cover. 

The long-term, adverse, cumulative impact of a new trail system on erosion resulting from vegetation loss would be negligible to minor. 

Construction and use of a boardwalk at 

Tavasci Marsh in Tuzigoot National Monument would have long-term, adverse, 

negligible impacts on water flow and erosion in the marsh. There would be no cumulative impacts under alternative B at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, alternative B would have a negligible to minor, 

adverse, cumulative effect on floodplains. 

These effects would not constitute an impairment of floodplain resources or values. Implementation of this alternative 

would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 

of Management Policies 2006. 

Soils and Vegetation 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Under this alternative, an existing 

trail would be improved within the riparian area across Beaver Creek from Montezuma Castle. The vegetation in the riparian area is characterized by scattered 

trees and shrubs with a dense understory 

of grasses and flowering plants. Trail improvement would require some selective 

removal of tree limbs or brushy material to 

mark the trail. These actions would have a 

negligible, short-term, adverse impact on 

the distribution or abundance of vegetation in the riparian area. There could be 

some adverse impacts to the understory 

vegetation from visitor use of the trail. 

However, because the understory vegetation is dense and composed of hardy species, the long-term, adverse impacts on 

vegetation from use of the trail would be 

negligible. The Riverwash soils that underlie the riparian area were compacted as a 

result of agricultural uses, particularly 

grazing. Use of the trail is unlikely to have 

any additional adverse impacts on soil 

productivity because the existing vegetative cover would remain in place. With the 

vegetation in place, it is unlikely that the 

Riverwash soil would be further compacted during low-intensity, seasonal use 

of the trail. The long-term, adverse impacts on soils from the trail would be negligible. 

While it is unlikely that the trail would 

substantially alter the abundance and distribution of plant species in the riparian 

area, additional long-term measures to 

control the nonnative and exotic species 

would be necessary to maintain a diverse 

plant community and the desirability of 

the habitat for wildlife. Disturbances 

caused by visitor use of the trail could encourage growth of nonnative and exotic 

species and over time could reduce the 

abundance and distribution of native species along the trail. In the short term, adverse impacts to native vegetation could 

be reduced by designing a route that minimizes disturbances that could encourage 

the growth of nonnative and exotic species to the extent practicable. The shortterm, adverse impacts of the trail on the 

abundance and distribution of native vegetation would be negligible. Ongoing trail 

maintenance and management of the 

nonnative and exotic species would re-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

202 

duce the long-term, adverse impacts of the 

trail on native plants. The long-term, adverse impacts of the trail designation on 

abundance and distribution of native vegetation would be negligible. 

There would be a designated trail into the 

area that was formerly used as pasture 

land southwest of the picnic area at Montezuma Well. The soil type in the former 

pasture is unlikely to limit trail designation. Nonnative and exotic species are 

dominant in the old pasture, and the National Park Service has not undertaken an 

effort to return this area to native vegetation. Therefore, trail construction activities would have a negligible effect on native plants. 

The current visitor contact station would 

be expanded and would include a shaded 

area with interpretive materials about 

Montezuma Well, and new work space 

and storage would be constructed under 

this alternative. The expansion of facilities 

would occur into areas that have already 

been disturbed and/or are currently covered by asphalt. There would be no additional loss of soil productivity under this 

alternative. There could be an increase in 

erosion potential if the existing asphalt 

surface is modified during the expansion 

activities. The erosion potential could be 

mitigated through best management practices such that the short-term adverse impact is negligible. Once development activities are completed, the long-term erosion potential associated with the expanded facilities would be comparable to 

existing conditions. The long-term, adverse impacts on soil erosion from the expansion of facilities would be negligible. 

There would be no additional impacts on 

vegetation at the monument from the 

proposed expansion of the visitor contact 

station. The proposed development activities would occur in an area that is already 

covered by an impervious surface. During 

construction, some minimal impacts could 

occur to vegetation on the periphery of 

the expansion area. These impacts would 

be short-term, adverse, and negligible. 

Any long-term, adverse impacts to vegetation would be negligible. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Under 

this alternative, there would be designated 

trails around Tavasci Marsh and through 

the Verde River riparian area. Trail development would require some selective removal of tree limbs or brushy material to 

mark the trail, but the understory vegetation would not be removed. The shortterm, adverse impacts of trail development 

on vegetation at Tuzigoot National Monument would be negligible because any 

change in the distribution or abundance of 

individual plants or communities would 

not be measurable. Similarly, because no 

clearing would occur, the short-term, adverse impacts on soil from increased erosion would be negligible. 

The understory vegetation would be subject to disturbance from visitor use; the 

disturbance is expected to be year round 

but modest and local. Visitor use could 

reduce the amount of understory vegetation on the trail, which would increase the 

potential for soil erosion along the trail. 

The trail design could reduce potential 

adverse impacts on vegetation and soil by 

avoiding areas where the understory vegetation is sparse or more susceptible to disturbance and by avoiding areas of uneven 

or unstable terrain. Best management 

practices during trail maintenance could 

reduce losses to the understory vegetation 

and decrease soil erosion. The long-term 

impacts of the trail on the understory vegetation would be negligible, as would the 

long-term, adverse impacts of soil erosion. 

Trail use by visitors, even with best management practices, disturbs the vegetation 

and encourages the growth of nonnative 

and exotic species. Over time, these species could change the abundance and distribution of native species, resulting in 

changes to biological productivity in the 

monument. There are ongoing management actions to control nonnative and exotic species within the monument. The 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

203 

long-term, adverse impacts of an increase 

in nonnative and exotic vegetation would 

be negligible to minor. 

A boardwalk into the Tavasci Marsh is 

proposed to provide visitors an opportunity to experience the marsh as well as to 

provide education and interpretation of 

the marsh resource. Soils would be disturbed during boardwalk construction, 

but the erosion potential would not increase and soil productivity would not be 

affected. Soil productivity would be impacted, but the effects would be local. The 

short- and long-term impact on soils 

would be adverse but negligible. 

Impacts to marsh vegetation could be reduced during boardwalk construction by 

avoiding vegetation to the extent practicable. The short- and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation as a result of constructing the boardwalk would be negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. Increasing trends in 

visitor use and development associated 

with alternative B and other plans and 

projects would contribute negligible, longterm, adverse, cumulative effects on soils 

and vegetation. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan, as 

described previously, would have local 

impacts on soils and vegetation. These 

impacts would include an increase in erosion potential and the removal of some 

vegetation. The erosion potential could be 

reduced during trail development using 

best management practices that could include but not be limited to soil fencing. 

The short-term impacts of the trail development would be adverse but negligible. 

Trail maintenance activities, including the 

use of best management practices, would 

minimize the potential for erosion along 

the trail. The long-term, adverse impacts 

of the trail on soil erosion would be negligible. The impacts of alternative B on 

soils in combination with the impacts of 

the proposed greenway trail would result 

in negligible, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on soils. 

Although some vegetation would be removed, the impacts would be local and 

not likely to change the abundance and 

distribution of individual plants or communities. Therefore, the long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation from trail development would be negligible. If nonnative or exotic species are present, management actions may be necessary to control the spread of these species once the 

ground has been disturbed to minimize 

any adverse impacts on native plants from 

trail development. The long-term, adverse 

impacts from nonnative and exotic species 

would be negligible. The impacts of alternative B in combination with the impacts 

of the proposed greenway trail would result in negligible, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on vegetation. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. The long-term, adverse 

impacts on soils from the trail would be 

negligible. Trail improvement would have 

a negligible, short-term, adverse impact on 

the distribution or abundance of vegetation in the riparian area. 

The long-term, adverse impacts on soil 

erosion from the expansion of facilities 

would be negligible. During construction, 

some minimal impacts could occur to vegetation on the periphery of the expansion 

area. These impacts would be short-term, 

adverse, and negligible. Any long-term, 

adverse impacts on vegetation would be 

negligible. 

Increasing trends in visitor use and development associated with alternative B and 

other plans and projects would contribute 

negligible, long-term, adverse, cumulative 

effects on soils and vegetation. 

Alternative B would not constitute an impairment of resources or values associated 

with soil or vegetation at Montezuma Castle National Monument. Implementation 

of this alternative would not result in any 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

204 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. The short-term, adverse impacts of 

trail development on vegetation at Tuzigoot National Monument would be negligible because any change the distribution 

or abundance of individual plants or 

communities would not be measurable. 

Similarly, because no clearing would occur, the short-term adverse impacts on 

soil from increased erosion would be negligible. The long-term, adverse impacts of 

an increase in nonnative and exotic vegetation would be negligible to minor. 

Soils would be disturbed during boardwalk construction, but the erosion potential would not increase, and soil productivity would not be affected. Soil productivity would be impacted, but the effects 

would be local. The short- and long-term 

impacts on soils would be adverse but 

negligible. The short- and long-term adverse impacts on vegetation as a result of 

constructing the boardwalk would be negligible. 

The impacts of alternative B on soils and 

vegetation, in combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail and 

increased visitation, would result in negligible, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on soils and vegetation. 

Alternative B would not constitute an impairment of resources or values associated 

with soil or vegetation at Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of this 

alternative would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with 

section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 

2006. 

Wetlands 

There would be no actions at Montezuma 

Castle National Monument that would 

affect wetlands under alternative B. 

Alternative B would include active marsh 

restoration activities to maintain existing 

hydrologic functions in Tavasci Marsh at 

Tuzigoot National Monument. This 

would have a negligible to minor, longterm, beneficial effect on wetland habitat 

functions. Because no vegetation would be 

removed and there would be no change in 

volume and density of vegetation, the potential increase in sedimentation from soil 

erosion would be slight, and the shortterm impacts from trail development on 

the marsh would be negligible. Over time, 

if vegetation is lost, the trails could increase sedimentation in the marsh. The 

impacts from such sedimentation could be 

mitigated using best management practices during long-term maintenance. The 

long-term impacts of the increased sedimentation on the marsh would be negligible. 

A boardwalk into the Tavasci Marsh is 

proposed to provide visitors an opportunity to experience the marsh and to provide education and interpretation of the 

marsh resource. The boardwalk could 

have both short- and long-term impacts 

on habitat in the marsh. During construction, the potential adverse impacts on the 

marsh include wetland habitat disturbance. If assessment determines that there 

would be no conflict with preservation of 

significant cultural resources, the impacts 

from habitat disturbance could be reduced by siting the boardwalk along an 

existing road bed and where there is the 

least impact on areas used by species that 

frequent the marsh and to avoid shading 

the surrounding vegetation. With mitigation, the short- and long-term impacts on 

the marsh wetlands would be minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions 

outside Montezuma Castle National Monument that would adversely impact wetland functions or habitat there. 

The Verde River Greenway Management 

Plan could develop trails and other infrastructure (for example, a boat ramp and 

parking lot), near Tavasci Marsh at Tuzigoot National Monument. These actions 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

205 

would create additional visitor opportunities that, with increased use, could affect 

wetlands. However, the adverse effects of 

increased visitation or development associated with the Verde River Greenway 

Management Plan would likely be local 

and negligible, and the contribution of 

alternative B toward adverse, cumulative 

impacts on wetlands would also be negligible. 

Conclusion. There would be no actions at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

that would affect wetlands under alternative B. 

Active marsh restoration activities would 

have a negligible to minor, long-term, 

beneficial effect on wetland habitat functions at Tavasci Marsh. Trail improvements around the marsh could increase 

sedimentation in the marsh. The longterm impacts of the increased sedimentation on the marsh would be negligible because of the abundance of grass coverage. 

Construction of the boardwalk could impact wetland habitat quality in the marsh. 

With mitigation, the short- and long-term 

impacts on the marsh wetlands would be 

negligible to minor. There would be no 

cumulative impacts on wetlands of alternative B at Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot 

national monuments under this alternative. 

The impacts of alternative B would not 

constitute an impairment of wetland resources or values at Montezuma Castle or 

Tuzigoot national monuments. Implementation of this alternative would not result 

in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

Wildlife 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. There would be designated trails 

within the riparian area across Beaver 

Creek from the cliff dwelling. The trail 

would only be accessible during low flow 

on Beaver Creek; typically between midsummer and early winter. Wildlife breeding activities occur during the spring and 

summer, and foraging activity occurs year 

round. 

Development of the trail could disturb 

some wildlife species and increase the potential for predation on species nesting in 

the riparian area by increasing predator 

access. The short-term, adverse impacts of 

trail development could be minimized by 

timing trail work to avoid high concentrations of wildlife in the riparian area to the 

extent practicable. The trail could also be 

designed to take advantage of naturally 

occurring open spaces and to avoid dense 

patches in the vegetation, thus minimizing 

alterations. These actions can minimize 

the creation of additional open spaces that 

could allow increased predation. Trail development would have a negligible to minor impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Some species would still be disturbed in 

the long term by visitors in the riparian 

area. The trail would be confined to a relatively small area, and the number of visitors on the trail is expected to be modest. 

Species would have ample undisturbed 

habitat remaining in the monument. 

Therefore, the long-term, adverse impacts 

of trail use on wildlife and their habitat 

would be negligible. 

At Montezuma Well, a trail is proposed 

into the former pasture. Currently, the 

vegetation in the pasture is nonnative and 

exotic grasses with an increasing number 

of velvet mesquite. The primary residents 

of the old pasture are small mammals, 

some reptiles, and birds that over-winter 

at the monument. The designated trail 

would have the greatest impact on smaller 

mammals and reptiles. The trail route 

could be chosen to avoid any obvious 

ground dwellings as well as potential habitat for birds; the short-term impact of trail 

development would be negligible. Although some individuals could be impacted by the trail, the long-term, adverse 

impact would be negligible because it 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

206 

would not reduce the abundance or distribution of any species within the pasture. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. A 

boardwalk into Tavasci Marsh would be 

developed under this alternative. The 

boardwalk has the potential to disturb habitat for water birds and other species. 

The adverse impacts on wildlife could be 

minimized by choosing a location, such as 

along the existing old road bed (if assessment determines that there would be no 

conflict with preservation of significant 

cultural resources), with the least impact 

on habitat and by timing construction to 

minimize impacts on breeding and rearing. The short-term, adverse impacts on 

wildlife from construction of the boardwalk would be negligible to minor. Some 

species could be disturbed by the boardwalk and the presence of visitors. The adverse impacts on these species would be 

minimized by assuring that sufficient suitable habitat remains for these species 

within the marsh away from the boardwalk. The long-term, adverse impacts on 

wildlife species that are especially sensitive 

to disturbance would be negligible to minor, while for the more common adaptable species, the effects would be negligible. 

Boardwalk construction activities would 

increase the amount of contaminated sediment in the water column. The contaminants can accumulate in the tissues of 

the wildlife that live in the marsh. Over 

time, wildlife exposed to these contaminants can have reduced reproductive success. To limit the amount of contaminated 

sediment in the water column, the construction of the boardwalk could be timed 

such that the water level is relatively low. 

Sediment fences could be installed to keep 

the disturbed sediment from spreading 

over a wider area. The long-term, adverse 

impacts on the habitat characteristics of 

the marsh would be negligible to minor, 

depending on the level of exposure to the 

contaminated sediment. 

Although the presence of visitors could 

disturb some species, the trail would be 

designated along the edge of the riparian 

area, rather than through it; thus, the trail 

would be unlikely to increase opportunities for predators. The trail would be confined to a relatively small area, and the 

number of visitors on the trail is expected 

to be modest. Species that are easily disturbed would have ample undisturbed habitat remaining in the monument. Therefore, the long-term, adverse impacts on 

wildlife and their habitat would be negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions at Montezuma Castle National Monument, including alternative B, would have a negligible 

effect on wildlife or wildlife habitats at the 

monument. The effects would be associated with increased visitation and visitor 

interaction with wildlife habitats. As a result, cumulative adverse impacts under 

alternative B on wildlife or wildlife habitat 

would be negligible. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan, as 

described previously, would have local 

impacts on wildlife habitat within the monument along the Verde River. Although 

these impacts would include disturbance 

that could limit foraging activity or adversely impact nesting, they could be reduced by timing trail development to 

avoid the breeding season. The long-term 

impacts of the trail development would be 

adverse and negligible to minor but would 

be unlikely to affect wildlife individuals or 

populations to any substantial degree. The 

impacts of alternative B in combination 

with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail would result in negligible to minor, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Conclusion. Trail construction would 

have a negligible to minor, short-term impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Species would have ample undisturbed habitat remaining in the monument. Therefore, the long-term, adverse impacts of 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

207 

trail use on wildlife and their habitat 

would be negligible. 

Although some individuals could be impacted by the proposed trail at Montezuma Well, the long-term, adverse impacts 

on wildlife would be negligible. 

The short-term, adverse impacts on wildlife from construction of the boardwalk at 

Tavasci Marsh in Tuzigoot National Monument would be negligible. The longterm, adverse impacts to wildlife species 

that are especially sensitive to disturbance 

would be negligible to minor, while for 

most adaptable species, the effects would 

be negligible. The long-term, adverse impacts on the habitat characteristics of the 

marsh resulting from disturbance of contaminated sediment in the marsh would be 

negligible to minor, depending on the level of exposure to the contaminated sediment. 

The trail at Tavasci Marsh would be confined to a relatively small area, and the 

number of visitors on the trail is expected 

to be modest. Species that are easily disturbed would have ample undisturbed habitat remaining in the monument. Therefore, the long-term, adverse impacts on 

wildlife and their habitat would be negligible. 

Cumulative adverse impacts under alternative B on wildlife or wildlife habitat 

would be negligible at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. The impacts of alternative B in combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail 

would result in negligible to minor, longterm, adverse, cumulative impacts on 

wildlife and wildlife habitat at Tuzigoot 

National Monument. 

The actions proposed under alternative B 

would not constitute an impairment of 

wildlife or wildlife habitat resources or 

values. Implementation of this alternative 

would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 

of Management Policies 2006. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. There 

could be greater impacts on southwestern 

willow flycatcher habitat at Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

under alternative B than under alternative 

A. The increased potential for impacts results in part from designated trails that 

would be established at each site. The trail 

routes have not yet been determined. The 

designated trail routes would be designed 

to have the least effect on suitable flycatcher habitat. In addition, the National 

Park Service would consider use restrictions for some trails to minimize habitat 

disturbances. These restrictions could include limited access during breeding season or during periods of key activity such 

as migration. Prior to initiating actions 

that would affect the southwestern willow 

flycatcher or its habitat, the National Park 

Service would complete additional environmental compliance activities and consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

as appropriate. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument.

Under alternative B, the management efforts to maintain suitable foraging habitat 

for the flycatcher in the monument would 

continue. These actions would affect flycatcher habitat, but the effects are not 

likely to be adverse. 

Because flycatchers are migratory, development of the trail in the riparian area 

across Beaver Creek could occur when 

flycatchers are not at the monument. Trail 

development could involve trimming vegetation, but no vegetation would be 

cleared. The trail route would be chosen 

to minimize impacts on preferred flycatcher habitat in the riparian area to the 

extent practicable. There would be no 

short- or long-term effects on flycatcher 

habitat in the riparian area from trail development. 

Because flycatchers are shy, visitor use of 

the trail could discourage the flycatchers 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

208 

from foraging around the trail while visitors are present. Because the proposed 

trail would be relatively short, the adverse 

effects of visitors on the trail would be local, leaving most of the riparian area in the 

monument undisturbed. Additional management actions could be taken to further 

reduce the long-term adverse effects of 

trail use, including but not limited to use 

restrictions during breeding season. Longterm trail use could affect flycatcher foraging activity at Montezuma Castle National 

Monument, but the effect is unlikely to be 

adverse. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Active 

marsh restoration activities are proposed 

to maintain natural hydrologic functions 

in Tavasci Marsh under alternative B. 

These actions would support maintenance 

of existing vegetation in the marsh and the 

surrounding riparian area. Flycatchers use 

these areas to forage. Marsh restoration 

activities would have long-term benefits 

on flycatcher foraging habitat; thus, no 

adverse effects would occur. 

Trails would be developed to and around 

the riparian areas, and a boardwalk would 

be developed into Tavasci Marsh under 

this alternative. The short-term effects of 

trail development at Tuzigoot National 

Monument would be the same as for the 

trail at Montezuma Castle; that is, no effects on habitat in the riparian area in the 

short or long term. If trail use would have 

an adverse impact on foraging behavior, 

management actions could be implemented to reduce these effects, including 

limiting access on the trail during certain 

times of year or during periods of key activity. Visitor use of the trails and the 

boardwalk could have long-term effects 

on flycatcher foraging habitat, but the effects are not likely to be adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. There is a documented nesting site for southwestern willow flycatcher just outside the monument 

boundaries in the riparian area of the 

Verde River. Ditch maintenance activities 

in the area help maintain the conditions 

that the flycatcher favors when nesting. 

The ongoing ditch maintenance activities 

would continue to benefit flycatcher habitat in a negligible to minor way. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan, as 

described previously, would contribute to 

cumulative effects. In addition, a small 

parking lot and boat launch is proposed by 

Arizona State Parks on the east side of the 

monument entrance road. This development would be outside the monument 

boundary but would require modifications to the existing roadway. The proposed location of the boat launch is within 

designated critical habitat for the flycatcher, and vegetation in the vicinity has been 

used for nesting. Increased activity could 

disturb the flycatcher and discourage continued use of the area for nesting. 

The National Park Service would work 

with Arizona State Parks to minimize potential adverse impacts associated with the 

Greenway Master Plan trail. The effects of 

the boat launch could be reduced by shifting visitor activity on the river away from 

the patch of vegetation that serves as nesting habitat. In addition, any trail development would avoid creating new or longer 

edges along a nesting patch that could 

make the nests more vulnerable to predation. The proposed trail could have longterm effects on the nesting habitat for the 

flycatcher along the Verde River, but these 

effects are unlikely to be adverse. The effects of alternative B in combination with 

the effects of the other actions described 

above could affect flycatcher habitat; 

however, the cumulative effects would not 

likely be adverse as a result of mitigation 

measures and adaptive management strategies. 

Conclusion. There could be greater impacts on southwestern willow flycatcher 

habitat at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments under alternative B than under alternative A. Management efforts to maintain suitable foraging 

habitat for the flycatcher in Montezuma 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

209 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

would continue. These actions would affect flycatcher habitat, but the effects 

would not likely be adverse. 

The trail route would be chosen to minimize impacts on preferred flycatcher habitat 

in the riparian area to the extent practicable. There would be no short- or longterm effects on flycatcher habitat in the 

riparian area from trail development. 

Additional management actions could be 

taken to further reduce the long-term, adverse effects of trail use. These actions include but would not be limited to use restrictions during breeding season. Longterm trail use could affect flycatcher foraging activity at Montezuma Castle National 

Monument, but the effect would likely not 

be adverse. 

Marsh restoration activities at Tuzigoot 

National Monument would have longterm, negligible to minor benefits on flycatcher foraging habitat. 

If trail use has an adverse impact on foraging behavior, management actions could 

be implemented to reduce these effects, 

including limiting access on the trail during certain times of year or during periods 

of key activity. Visitor use of the trails and 

the boardwalk could have long-term effects on flycatcher foraging habitat, but 

the effects are not likely to be adverse. 

The ongoing ditch maintenance activities 

would continue to provide negligible to 

minor, cumulative benefits on flycatcher 

habitat. 

The effects of alternative B in combination 

with the effects of the other actions at Tuzigoot National Monument could affect 

flycatcher habitat; however, the cumulative effects would not likely be adverse as 

a result of mitigation measures and adaptive management strategies. 

Yuma Clapper Rail. Active marsh restoration activities are proposed to maintain 

natural hydrologic functions in Tavasci 

Marsh under alternative B. This would 

maintain the current wet conditions in the 

lower sections of the marsh. Marsh restoration activities would have a long-term, 

negligible to minor benefit on rail habitat. 

Development of a boardwalk could affect 

clapper rail habitat and increase the shortterm potential for exposure to selenium by 

disturbing sediment and thus increasing 

selenium concentrations. The effects of 

the boardwalk on rail habitat would be 

reduced by choosing a site that meets the 

interpretation objectives of the monument 

with the least impact on the lower portion 

of the marsh. The effects could be further 

reduced by timing construction so that the 

clapper rail is absent following migration. 

This timing would reduce the potential for 

direct exposure to selenium but not indirect exposure through food. Additional 

mitigation measures could include actions 

to prevent movement of the sediment 

away from the construction area and to 

reduce the quantity of sediment in the water column during construction. These 

measures would reduce the potential for 

exposure to selenium by organisms in the 

marsh and ultimately the clapper rail. Development of the boardwalk would have a 

short-term effect on water quality and habitat in the marsh, and the effects are unlikely to be adverse. Exposure to selenium 

in the marsh could affect, but is not likely 

to adversely affect, the long-term reproductive success of the clapper rails that 

use the marsh to forage during migration. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or proposed monument actions 

other than alternative B that would affect 

the Yuma clapper rail or its habitat at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

The Verde River Greenway Management 

Plan could develop trails and other infrastructure (for example, a boat ramp and 

parking lot), near Tavasci Marsh at Tuzigoot National Monument. These actions 

would create additional visitor opportunities that with increased use could affect 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

210 

the Yuma clapper rail. However, the adverse effects of increased visitation or development associated with the Verde River Greenway Management Plan would 

likely be local and negligible contributors 

to adverse, cumulative impacts on the rail. 

Conclusion. Marsh restoration activities 

would affect rail habitat, but the effect 

would not be adverse because of mitigation to minimize the effects. In the longterm, marsh restoration would provide a 

negligible to minor benefit on rail habitat. 

Development of the boardwalk would 

have negligible effect on habitat in the 

marsh with potential to affect the clapper 

rail. However, mitigation measures would 

offset the effects so they would not be adverse. The long-term effects on the clapper rail from exposure to selenium can be 

reduced by timing construction to avoid 

times when rails are present. With these 

mitigation measures, the development of 

the boardwalk would affect the clapper 

rail, but the effects would not likely be adverse. There would be no cumulative effects on clapper rails or their habitat under 

this alternative at Montezuma Castle, and 

although there could be cumulative effects 

at Tuzigoot, the effects on the Yuma clapper rail would not be adverse. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo. There are no 

proposed actions under this alternative 

that would affect the gallery riparian forest 

at Montezuma Castle National Monument. Because this species is difficult to 

disturb, the trail development activities 

and use could affect, but are unlikely to 

adversely affect, the cuckoo. 

The effects of alternative B on cuckoo habitat at Montezuma Well are the same as 

for alternative A: not likely to be adverse. 

Current management of the gallery riparian forest would continue. These actions 

would not have an effect on the habitat 

used by the yellow-billed cuckoo for nesting and forage. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, unimproved trails are proposed along the edge 

of the riparian area. Cottonwood trees are 

present in the riparian area. Trail development could be managed to avoid the 

cottonwood trees used by yellow-billed 

cuckoo for forage. The presence of visitors is unlikely to disturb foraging activity 

because these birds are not easily disturbed. Trail development and use at Tuzigoot National Monument could affect, 

but is unlikely to adversely affect, yellowbilled cuckoo foraging behavior. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative effects 

associated with increased visitation and 

visitor interaction with the habitats used 

by the yellow-billed cuckoo would be negligible at either of the monuments. The 

yellow-billed cuckoo is relatively tolerant 

of disturbance, and management of visitors and their activities would offset any 

potential adverse impacts. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative 

B would have no effect on the yellowbilled cuckoo habitat in the monument. 

Trail development and use at Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot could affect the 

cuckoo, but is unlikely to adversely affect 

yellow-billed cuckoo habitat or populations. Cumulative effects associated with 

this alternative would be negligible at each 

of the monuments. 

The actions associated with alternative B 

would not constitute an impairment of 

threatened and endangered species resources or values at Montezuma Castle or 

Tuzigoot national monuments. Implementation of this alternative would not result 

in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Visitor Experiences 

of Monument Resources 

In alternative B, the three sites in the monuments would be connected with coordinated orientation and marketing via 

partnerships in the Verde Valley. This 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

211 

coordinated orientation would encourage 

visitors to visit all three sites in the monuments as well as other sites in the region to 

get better acquainted with the resources 

and how they each tell, first-hand, a 

unique element of the prehistoric and historic stories associated with human settlement of the Verde Valley. The increased exposure of visitors to all three 

sites in the monuments would be a longterm, moderate, beneficial effect on the 

visitor experience. 

This alternative also emphasizes increased 

access to water and related riparian areas 

to showcase the connections of human 

settlement of the Verde Valley to the natural environment. At each site, trails would 

make the riparian areas accessible to visitors. Visitors at Montezuma Castle would 

be able to cross Beaver Creek and gain 

views back to the castle with the creek in 

the foreground. Natural surface trails 

along the south side of the creek would 

provide a different hiking experience for 

visitors, including opportunities for selfexploration, providing better understanding of the importance of riparian and water resources to the history of the Sinagua. 

This opportunity was highly desired by 

the public during the general management 

plan scoping process as well as by visitors 

that responded to the visitor survey; therefore, trail opportunities to and along 

Beaver Creek would be considered a longterm, major, beneficial impact. 

Also at the Castle, additional parking is 

proposed to alleviate some of the congestion from peak use by automobiles and 

tour buses. During peak season, when impacts from high volumes of vehicles are 

greatest, this increased supply of parking 

would be a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect. 

Finally, a regional multi-use trail is proposed along Montezuma Castle Highway 

at the north end of the monument. Local 

trail groups desired this trail to connect a 

regional trail that extends through the 

Verde Valley, providing a long-term, major benefit to local and regional residents 

interested in regional trail opportunities. 

Visitors at Montezuma Well would be able 

to take a trail across historic farming land 

to access Beaver Creek. This area is 

known for its outstanding birding opportunities and shaded river banks, providing 

a cool and quiet escape for visitors. Trail 

opportunities to Beaver Creek were also 

highly desired by the public and visitor 

survey respondents, making this a longterm, major, beneficial effect on the visitor 

experience. 

At Tuzigoot, trails would connect the monument to Dead Horse Ranch State Park, 

the Verde River Greenway, and Coconino 

National Forest via a boardwalk and trail 

system in Tavasci Marsh. The marsh is 

known for its outstanding birding opportunities and shaded marshlands, providing 

a cool and quiet escape for visitors. Trail 

opportunities to Tavasci Marsh and surrounding public lands were also desired 

by the public and survey respondents, 

making this a long-term, major, beneficial 

impact. 

Also, in partnership with Arizona State 

Parks, the National Park Service would 

provide a Verde River access point in the 

Verde River Greenway, increasing 

recreation opportunities and access to the 

highly desirable Verde River. This would 

be a long-term, moderate, beneficial effect 

for visitors to Tuzigoot National Monument and Dead Horse Ranch State Park, 

as well as residents of the surrounding 

community. 

This alternative would also provide increased opportunities for cultural demonstrations of craftsmanship and social activities in and around the Tuzigoot Pueblo. 

Paved trails south of the pueblo would 

provide access to the river. Signage and 

programs in this area would interpret prehistoric trade activities and farming that 

would have been associated with life in the 

pueblo. The visitor survey identified a 

strong interest for more “hands-on” activ-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

212 

ities, including demonstrations by modern 

affiliated tribes; therefore, this increase in 

interpretive programs and services would 

be considered a long-term, moderate benefit for visitors interested in these types of 

programs. 

Finally, this alternative includes a monitoring and management program for user 

capacity. At all three sites, the monument 

staff would focus on specific monitoring 

and management of areas where action is 

most likely needed to achieve desired 

conditions. This program would help control impacts related to crowding, user conflict, human-caused noise, and resource 

damage, leading to a long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impact on visitor experiences. 

Access to Orientation, 

Interpretation, and Education 

In alternative B, the three sites in the monuments would be connected via coordinated orientation efforts throughout the 

Verde Valley. Partnerships for improved 

wayfinding, information dissemination, 

and marketing would connect the resources at all sites in the Verde Valley, resulting in a long-term, major, beneficial 

effect on interpretation and orientation 

opportunities. 

This alternative calls for increased cultural 

demonstrations and programs at all three 

sites, which are highly desired by the public, resulting in a long-term, moderate 

benefit for those visitors seeking more 

education opportunities. 

This alternative also includes new interpretive opportunities based out of the 

Back cabin at Montezuma Well. The interpretive programs would emphasize 

prehistoric and historic farming activities. 

More formalized and consistent interpretive opportunities were desired by the 

public as well as visitors who responded to 

the visitor survey; therefore, the new opportunities at the Back cabin are considered a long-term, moderate benefit for 

visitors. 

Also at Montezuma Well, a visitor contact 

ramada with interpretive panels and staff 

would be provided. Currently, orientation 

and interpretation at Montezuma Well is 

minimal because of a lack of facilities and 

staff resources. The visitor contact ramada 

would provide more information for selfguided opportunities as well as a location 

for focused attention by monument staff. 

The ramada would also provide a shady 

spot for rest during the hot months. More 

orientation and interpretive information is 

considered a long-term, major benefit for 

all visitors. 

Visitor Safety 

Safety information would continue to be 

available at all three sites. At the Castle, 

additional parking would minimize the 

crowded conditions that sometimes occur 

during peak hours, increasing both perceived and actual visitor safety during visitors’ arrival. At Montezuma Well, the expanded visitor contact station would improve dissemination of orientation information on safety factors, which may reduce unsafe incidents. Finally, at Tuzigoot, designating trails in areas that are 

currently being explored by visitors may 

reduce safety hazards. These improvements would result in a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact on visitor safety. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on the visitor 

experience at all three sites related to alternative B. First, at Montezuma Castle, 

the proposed Yavapai-Apache Nation Native American Cultural Center would likely have a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

effect on interpretation and education 

opportunities related to the cultural history of the region. In this alternative, the 

coordinated orientation in the Verde Valley and the Castle’s existing visitor center 

would complement the new education 

and interpretive opportunities provided at 

the cultural center, enhancing the longterm, beneficial impacts. The cultural cen-
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

213 

ter would also likely attract visitors to the 

area and may increase visitation to the 

Castle. Alternative B includes an expansion of the parking area at the Castle, 

which would help mitigate crowded conditions. Furthermore, this alternative includes monitoring visitor use, particularly 

crowded conditions in the parking area, 

visitor center, and along the loop trail, 

which would allow the monument to 

work cooperatively with the tribe to manage the distribution of use between the 

cultural center and Castle. Finally, the regional multi-use trail proposed along 

Montezuma Castle Highway would 

represent a moderate, cumulative, beneficial effect on recreation opportunities in 

the region. This alternative would connect 

the regional trail through the monument, 

which would result in a long-term, beneficial effect on this proposed recreation opportunity. 

At Montezuma Well, surrounding development projects could have an adverse 

impact on visitor experiences by increasing visitation to Montezuma Well, with a 

minor to moderate, adverse effect on the 

contemplative experiences at the outlet, 

along the trails, and in the picnic area. Also, these developments may have a minor, 

adverse impact on the scenic viewsheds of 

Montezuma Well. Alternative B includes 

more trail opportunities in Montezuma 

Well, which may help distribute use and 

improve recreation opportunities. In addition, this alternative includes a monitoring 

program of use levels and visitor experiences, so if increasing use results in adverse impacts on the quiet and contemplative settings, the monument would take 

actions to better manage and distribute 

use to mitigate these impacts. There are no 

proposals in alternative B that would mitigate the potential impacts to the viewsheds from these surrounding developments. 

At Tuzigoot, the camping and reservoir 

improvements at Dead Horse Ranch State 

Park would likely increase the desirability 

of the state park for day and overnight use. 

As more people visit the state park, there 

would likely be an increased demand for 

trail connections to Tuzigoot. This alternative proposes trail connections between 

the monument and the park, leading to a 

long-term, moderate, cumulative, beneficial impact. Further, the proposed 

recreation opportunities of the Verde River Greenway, which runs along the southern boundary of Tuzigoot, would enhance 

recreation opportunities for Tuzigoot visitors. Alternative B contributes to the moderate cumulative benefits of the Verde 

River Greenway by providing a Verde 

River access point in the Verde River 

Greenway, increasing recreation opportunities and access to the highly desirable 

Verde River. Finally, the restoration of the 

mine tailings by Freeport McMoRan 

Copper and Gold, Inc., particularly covering of the tailings with topsoil to promote 

vegetation growth, would likely have a 

major beneficial impact on visitor experiences at Tuzigoot by improving the scenic viewshed. 

Finally, the proposed Sinaguan Circle 

Tour could enhance the interpretive opportunities at all three sites by connecting 

all of the Sinaguan sites in the region via an 

interpretive, self-guided tour with associated resource materials. Alternative B 

would contribute to this moderate to major, beneficial impact by providing increased diversity in opportunities to view 

and learn about the monuments’ prime 

cultural resources, and through enhanced 

interpretation of the Sinaguan story at the 

central orientation center. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would result in moderate to 

major, beneficial effects resulting from the 

increased diversity in opportunities to 

view and learn about the monuments’ 

prime cultural resources. Particularly, 

connecting the three sites in the monuments via a central orientation facility in 

the Verde Valley would increase exposure 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

214 

of visitors to all three sites and provide a 

better understanding of each site’s unique 

role in settlement of the Verde Valley. 

Further, providing more trail opportunities and cultural programs would make 

visits to each site more exciting, interesting, and inviting for repeat visitation. Cumulative effects on visitor use and experience would be beneficial and moderate 

to major. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS 

The primary emphasis of alternative B 

would be to connect the three sites (Montezuma Castle, Montezuma Well, and Tuzigoot) with improved regional orientation to the Verde Valley area. 

Montezuma Well 

The area just south and west of the picnic 

area at Montezuma Well would be zoned 

Interaction and Discovery, providing natural surface trails for visitors to hike and 

explore the land that was used for historic 

farming activities. A shade ramada by the 

visitor contact station is proposed in the 

existing footprint of the parking lot near 

Montezuma Well. The facility would be a 

covered porch that contains interpretive 

panels and shaded space for interaction 

with NPS staff and volunteers. Interpretation and visitor contact would be improved with alternative B. Alternative B 

would result in a long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial effect on monument 

operations through the provision of additional onsite space for operations. Additional facilities would result in long-term, 

minor, adverse effects by increasing operation and maintenance demands. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

Marsh rehabilitation and management 

efforts would be expanded at Tuzigoot. A 

new wayside would be added to the south 

of the tailings, and the tailings area would 

be outside the monument’s legislated 

boundary. A marsh boardwalk would be 

added that connects the visitor center 

with the Tavasci Marsh. Trails would be 

improved in the area east of the pueblo. 

Tuzigoot would have increased cultural 

demonstrations of craftsmanship and social activities in and around the pueblo. 

The area south of the Tuzigoot Pueblo 

would include trails to the river. A new 

workspace and storage facility would be 

constructed near the existing maintenance 

area to provide administrative space for 

the functions and operations of Tuzigoot, 

replacing offsite workspace and storage 

lost with the expiration of the General 

Services Administration lease with the Yavapai Apache reservation. While interpretation would be improved at Tuzigoot, 

there would still be no area designated 

there for group interpretation. The actions 

associated with alternative B would result 

in long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial effects on monument operations 

through improved management of visitors 

and improved operations space. Additional facilities would result in long-term, minor, adverse effects by increasing operation and maintenance demands. 

All Sites 

The main emphasis of alternative B is to 

connect the three sites with improved regional orientation to the Verde Valley 

area. Visitors would be introduced to all 

three sites and their related interpretive 

themes through coordinated messaging 

among the three sites. Visitors would travel to the sites to learn firsthand about 

elements of the prehistoric and historic 

stories associated with human settlement 

of the Verde Valley. Each site would maintain a visitor center that would provide 

interpretation through signs, programs, 

and cultural demonstrations highlighting 

the major themes associated with the particular site. This could result in the need 

for additional personnel to provide this 

level of interpretation. Formal interpretive 

and education opportunities would be 

expanded. Partnerships that focus on 

coordinated wayfinding, marketing, increased information dissemination, and 

pre-trip planning services would increase 
Impacts of Implementing 

Alternative B (Preferred)

215 

to provide orientation to the sites and other opportunities in the Verde Valley. Visitation could also increase because of 

greater awareness of the monuments. 

Resource management activities would be 

increased through expansion of the monuments’ resource stabilization program 

and active participation in the NPS inventory and monitoring program. The National Park Service would acquire most of 

the lands within the legislated boundaries 

except for the mine tailings in Tuzigoot. 

Operational efficiency would be improved 

through the development of workspace 

and storage among the three sites. Partners would be sought to support rehabilitation activities and programming/visitor 

services. Maintenance would become 

more efficient, although the improvements would require additional maintenance. The monument headquarters would 

remain in leased office space in Camp 

Verde. 

Assuming that the workforce increases to 

accommodate the increased interpretive 

and maintenance responsibilities, alternative B would result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial effects on monument 

operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on monument 

operations. The other plans, projects, and 

actions in the region and nearby would 

have effects similar to those described for 

alternative A: long-term, minor, adverse, 

cumulative effects on monument operations, primarily the result of increased visitation and demand for associated support 

services. However, alternative B would 

contribute long-term, minor, beneficial 

effects on monument operations, resulting 

in cumulative, negligible to minor benefits 

for monument operations. 

Conclusion 

Implementation of alternative B would 

result in long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial effects on monument operations because it would provide increased, 

improved space for monument operations, and improved capability to manage 

visitors and resources. There would be 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts due the 

addition of facilities that would require 

increased operations and maintenance. 

Alternative B would contribute long-term, 

minor beneficial effects on monument operations, resulting in cumulative, negligible to minor benefits for monument operations. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

All Sites 

The main emphasis of this alternative is to 

connect the three sites with improved regional orientation to the Verde Valley 

area. Visitors would be introduced to all 

three sites and their related interpretive 

themes through coordinated messaging 

among the three sites. Each site would 

maintain a visitor center that would provide interpretation through signs, programs, and cultural demonstrations highlighting the major themes associated with 

the particular site. The National Park Service would acquire most of the lands within the legislated boundaries except for the 

mine tailings in Tuzigoot. This would include approximately 800 acres of land that 

would be withdrawn from the local tax 

rolls, which would reduce the property 

taxes collected by the local governments, 

resulting in a negligible, adverse impact on 

local socioeconomics. 

Overall, alternative B would result in 

short-term, negligible to minor, beneficial 

effects on socioeconomics. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

New trails would be constructed on the 

site. A new viewing area that provides visi-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

216 

tors with views of the cliff dwellings 

would be constructed along with a parking facility. The remainder of the facilities 

at Montezuma Castle would remain the 

same as alternative A. This construction 

activity associated with alternative B at 

Montezuma Castle would result in shortterm, negligible to minor, beneficial effects 

on socioeconomics. 

Montezuma Well 

The Back cabin at Montezuma Well would 

be used for interpretation purposes. Trails 

would be constructed in the area just 

south and west of the picnic area at Montezuma Well and a shade ramada that contains interpretive panels and shaded space 

for interaction with NPS staff and volunteers would be constructed in the existing 

footprint of the parking lot near Montezuma Well. This construction activity associated with alternative B at Montezuma 

Well would result in short-term, negligible, beneficial effects on socioeconomics. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

A marsh boardwalk would be added that 

connects the visitor center with the Tavasci Marsh and additional trails would be 

constructed in the area east of the pueblo. 

A workspace and storage facility would be 

constructed near the existing maintenance 

area to provide more administrative space 

for the functions and operations of Tuzigoot, replacing offsite workspace and storage lost with the expiration of the General Services Administration lease with the 

Yavapai Apache reservation. This construction activity associated with alternative B would result in short-term, negligible, beneficial effects on socioeconomics 

at Tuzigoot National Monument. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on socioeconomics in the region. The effects of these 

projects would be the same as described 

for alternative A. The effects of alternative 

B (negligible to minor benefits) in combination with the effects of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would result in short- and longterm, minor, beneficial, cumulative effects 

on socioeconomics. Adjacent and surrounding land use changes could result in 

long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts to groundwater resources connected to Montezuma Well. 

Conclusion 

When the effects of each of the sites of the 

monument are added, alternative B would 

result in a minor, short-term, beneficial 

effect on socioeconomics in the region. 

The effects of alternative B in combination 

with the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would result in short- and long-term, minor, beneficial cumulative effects on socioeconomics. Adjacent and surrounding 

land use changes could result in longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts 

to groundwater resources connected to 

Montezuma Well. 

IMPAIRMENT CONCLUSION 

FOR ALTERNATIVE B 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monument’s establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monuments, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. 

 Consequently, there would be no impairment of resources or values. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006.
217 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE C 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Implementation of alternative C 

would generally have the same impacts on 

archeological resources in Montezuma 

Castle National Monument as those described under alternative A. Where possible, new facilities, such as trails, a headquarters building, and visitor contact facilities, would be constructed in already disturbed areas, and all ground-disturbing 

activities would be preceded by sitespecific archeological surveys. However, 

actions under this alternative would generally expand opportunities for visitors to 

connect with the natural and cultural environment of the monument by providing 

new and enhanced self-guided, designated 

trails and visitor facilities. Thus, construction of new parking lots, headquarters and 

visitor contact facilities, and designated 

natural surface trails (for example, to and 

along the riparian area of Beaver Creek, 

the prehistoric ditch extending from 

Montezuma Well and along Beaver Creek, 

along the north side of Montezuma Well’s 

rim, and along the road from the visitor 

contact facility to Montezuma Well) could 

result in negligible impacts to an unknown 

number of archeological resources from 

inadvertent use or looting and vandalism. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on archeological resources at Tuzigoot National Monument as those described under alternative A, although some additional negligible 

impacts on archeological resources from 

inadvertent visitor use and from looting 

and vandalism could be anticipated as a 

result of developing trail connections with 

nearby state and federal lands and construction of new facilities such as a proposed small parking area and boat launch 

on the east side of the entrance road at the 

Verde River. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Implementation of 

alternative C would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on archeological 

resources as those listed under alternative 

A, although expanded interpretation and 

education could improve visitor stewardship. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of alternative C would generally have the same cumulative effects on archeological resources as those listed under alternative A, 

although expanded interpretation and 

education could improve visitor stewardship. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on archeological resources in the national monument. The 

cumulative effects would be beneficial; 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with archeological resources. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would have no adverse 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

218 

effect on archeological resources in the 

national monument. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be 

small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with archeological resources. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Prehistoric and Historic 

Structures and Buildings 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Implementation of this alternative 

would generally have the same impacts on 

prehistoric and historic structures and 

buildings in Montezuma Castle National 

Monument as those described under alternative A. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on prehistoric 

and historic structures and buildings in 

Tuzigoot National Monument as those 

described under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Implementation of 

this alternative would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on prehistoric 

and historic structures and buildings as 

those described under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same cumulative effects on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings as those described under alternative A. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in the national 

monument. The cumulative effects would 

be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would have no adverse 

effect on prehistoric and historic structures and buildings in the national monument. The cumulative effects would be 

beneficial; this alternative’s contribution 

to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with prehistoric and historic structures and buildings. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Implementation of this alternative 

would generally have the same impacts on 

cultural landscape resources in Montezuma Castle National Monument as those 

described under alternative A. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same impacts on cultural 

landscape resources in Tuzigoot National 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

219 

Monument as those described under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Implementation of 

this alternative would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on cultural landscape resources as those described under 

alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of this alternative would generally have the same cumulative effects on cultural landscape resources as those described under alternative A. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would have 

no adverse effect on cultural landscape resources in the national monument. The 

cumulative effects would be beneficial; 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would have no adverse 

effect on cultural landscape resources in 

the national monument. The cumulative 

effects would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would 

be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with cultural landscapes. Implementation of this alternative would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts and is 

consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Ethnographic Resources and 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Implementation of alternative C 

would generally have the same impacts on 

ethnographic resources and traditional 

cultural properties in Montezuma Castle 

National Monument as those described 

under alternative A. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Implementation of alternative C would generally have the same impacts on ethnographic 

resources and traditional cultural properties in Tuzigoot National Monument as 

those described for alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Montezuma Castle 

National Monument. Implementation of 

alternative C would generally have the 

same cumulative effects on ethnographic 

resources and traditional cultural properties as those described under alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects: Tuzigoot National 

Monument. Implementation of alternative C would generally have the same cumulative effects on ethnographic resources and traditional cultural properties 

as those described under alternative A. 

Conclusion: Montezuma Castle National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 

regulations implementing section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, 

the National Park Service determined that 

actions under this alternative would affect

no historic properties in the national monument. There would also be no impacts 

on ethnographic resources. The cumulative effects would be beneficial; this alter-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

220 

native’s contribution to these effects 

would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties. Implementation of this alternative would not result in 

any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

Conclusion: Tuzigoot National Monument. After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Park Service determined that actions under this alternative would affect no historic 

properties in the national monument. 

There also would be no impacts on ethnographic resources. The cumulative effects 

would be beneficial; this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

impairment of resources or values associated with ethnographic resources or traditional cultural properties. Implementation of this alternative would not result in 

any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Floodplains 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. The impacts on the floodplain 

would be greater for this alternative than 

under alternative B. The greater impacts 

are associated with the development of a 

footbridge to convey visitors across Beaver Creek and a designated trail through 

the riparian area along the entire length of 

Beaver Creek within the monument 

boundaries. 

The footings of the footbridge could 

change the local water flow characteristics, increasing sand deposition in some 

areas and causing erosion in others. The 

footings would have a local impact on the 

contours of the creek bed. The bridge 

would be designed to minimize changes to 

water flow and erosion to mitigate these 

long-term impacts. Mitigation measures 

could include development of silt guards 

to encourage the flow of water and sediment around the footing of the bridge. 

The long-term adverse impacts of the 

footbridge on water flow characteristics 

and the contours of the creek bed would 

be minor. Aside from the impacts of the 

footings, the bridge would have minimal 

impacts on the floodplain. The structure 

would not impede the flow of water underneath it and so would not limit the ability of the floodplain to convey floodwaters 

nor would it cause an increase in flood 

height. Additional environmental compliance would be completed as necessary 

prior to development of the proposed 

bridge. 

The type of impacts associated with trail 

development in the riparian area of Beaver 

Creek would be the same as for alternative 

B. The potential adverse impacts to the 

floodplain from erosion or changes in water flow patterns would be greater under 

this alternative because the proposed trail 

would run the length of Beaver Creek 

within the monument. The potential adverse impacts associated with the trail 

would no longer be localized and would 

require greater effort to reduce potential 

impacts, particularly in the long term. In 

the short term, the erosion potential could 

be reduced by designing the trail to avoid 

areas where the understory vegetation is 

sparse or more susceptible to disturbance 

and areas with uneven or unstable terrain. 

The potential erosion of the trail could be 

reduced in the long term by using best 

management practices during trail maintenance. These actions would also reduce 

the potential for changes in water flow 

patterns in the riparian area. The shortterm adverse impacts of the trail on erosion and water flow patterns in the floodplain would be negligible to minor. The 

long-term impacts of the trail on erosion 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

221 

and water flow patterns in the floodplain 

would also be negligible to minor. 

Additional trails are proposed that include 

sections within the floodplain at Montezuma Well under alternative C. These 

trails would provide visitors with the opportunity to hike to and along the riparian 

area and from near the historic ditch to 

Montezuma Well and along Wet Beaver 

Creek. The trail segments along the riparian area and the creek would be in the 

floodplain, but these trails would not introduce an impervious surface. Hence, the 

actions would not raise the height of 

floodwaters in the floodplain, and the 

presence of the trail would not impede the 

ability of the floodplain to convey floodwaters within the river corridor. 

There could be an increase in the erosion 

potential along the trails. In the short 

term, the erosion potential could be reduced by routing the trail away from 

slopes to the extent practicable and incorporating best management practices for 

trails as appropriate. In the long term, the 

erosion potential could be reduced using 

best management practices during trail 

maintenance activities. With these measures, the short- and long-term adverse impacts of erosion on the proposed trails in 

the floodplain would be negligible. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. Actions 

proposed under this alternative are the 

same as those described for alternative B 

and would also include two additional 

trails that would use the existing roadbeds 

near the marsh if assessment determines 

that there would be no conflict with preservation of significant cultural resources. 

Under this alternative, trails would be developed along the riparian area near the 

Verde River and Tavasci Marsh. Trail development would require some selective 

removal of tree limbs or brushy material to 

mark the trail. The understory vegetation 

would not be removed from the trail, so 

the only change in vegetative cover would 

be a result of visitor use. Trail use is expected to be low, with minimal loss of vegetation. Potential adverse impacts, such 

as increased erosion potential, could be 

reduced by designing the trail to avoid 

areas where the understory vegetation is 

sparse or more susceptible to disturbance 

and by avoiding areas of uneven or unstable terrain. Because trail development 

would not involve clearing vegetation, the 

short-term, adverse impacts of the trails 

on the erosion potential in the floodplain 

or the capability of the floodplain to convey flood waters would be negligible. Under this alternative, the two existing roadbeds that originate near the Visitor Center 

would be converted to trails. Both trails 

would allow the use of mountain bikes. 

The impact of using the existing roadbeds 

for trails would be negligible in the short 

term because no actions would be required to create the trail. In the long term, 

implementation of best management practices during maintenance would reduce 

the erosion potential associated from trail 

use. The long-term, adverse impacts on 

the floodplain from erosion associated 

with these new trails would be negligible. 

There could be some adverse impacts on 

understory vegetation from visitor use of 

the trail. Potential impacts include a decrease in the amount of understory vegetation, which could increase the potential 

for erosion along the trail. The understory 

vegetation is quite hardy and adapted to 

disturbance. Visitor use would be modest 

and localized, reducing the potential impacts on the vegetation. Vegetation loss 

could be reduced through best management practices during trail maintenance, 

thus decreasing the erosion potential 

along the trail. The short- and long-term 

adverse impacts of the trail on erosion in 

the floodplain would be negligible. 

A boardwalk into the Tavasci Marsh 

would provide visitors with an opportunity to experience the marsh and would 

provide education and interpretation of 

the marsh resource. The boardwalk would 

extend into the marsh on pilings spaced 

such that they would neither act as a barrier to water flow in the marsh nor change 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

222 

existing flow patterns. The construction 

and use of the boardwalk would not increase erosion in the floodplain or decrease the capability of the floodplain to 

convey flood waters. The potential for 

short- and long-term adverse impacts 

from development of a boardwalk in the 

marsh on water flow, erosion, or the capacity of the floodplain to convey flood 

waters would be negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions outside the Montezuma Castle 

National Monument that would contribute to the height of a flood along the 

creek or adversely impact the ability of the 

floodplain to convey floodwaters within 

the river corridor. Consequently, there 

would be no cumulative impacts on 

floodplains under alternative C at Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan (Arizona State Parks 2004), as previously described, would not add any impervious 

surface to the floodplain and so would not 

contribute to the height of a flood along 

the river or adversely impact the ability of 

the floodplain to convey floodwaters 

within the river corridor. The presence of 

a formalized trail could reduce the number of social trails along the creek. This 

would reduce the erosion potential along 

the entire corridor and provide long-term 

benefits. The trail proposed along the riparian area at Tuzigoot could link to the 

trail proposed in the Verde River Greenway Master Plan. Visitor use could increase along the trail in the monument 

once the trails are connected. Increased 

use of the trail in the monument could result in greater potential for erosion along 

the trail because of vegetation loss, which 

could be reduced using best management 

practices during trail maintenance, decreasing the erosion potential along the 

trail in the monument. The long-term impact of the linked trails on erosion would 

be negligible to minor. Cumulatively, alternative C would result in negligible, adverse impacts on the height of a flood 

along the creek, and the long-term erosion 

potential on the trail could increase to 

negligible to minor. 

Conclusion. The impacts on the floodplain would be greater under alternative 

C, but implementation of the proposed 

actions would not contribute to the height 

of a flood along the creek or adversely impact the ability of the floodplain to convey 

floodwaters within the river corridor for 

all three sites of the monument. Visitor 

use of new trails designated at the Castle 

and Tuzigoot could increase the potential 

for erosion because of the associated loss 

of vegetative cover. With mitigation, the 

long-term adverse impacts would be negligible to minor at Montezuma Castle and 

negligible at Tuzigoot national monuments. Use of the existing roadbeds as 

trails in Tuzigoot National Monument 

would have a long-term adverse impact on 

the floodplain because of the potential for 

increased erosion of the trails, although 

the impact would be negligible. Construction and use of a boardwalk at Tavasci 

Marsh would have long-term adverse negligible impacts on water flow and erosion 

in the marsh. There would be no cumulative impacts under alternative C at Montezuma Castle National Monument. Alternative C would result in negligible adverse 

cumulative impacts at Tuzigoot National 

Monument. The erosion potential on the 

trail along the riparian area would minimally increase and be negligible to minor. 

Alternative C would not constitute an impairment of floodplain resources or values 

at Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. Implementation of this 

alternative would not result in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with 

section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 

2006. 

Soils and Vegetation 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. There would be greater impacts to 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

223 

both soils and vegetation under this alternative than under alternative B. The shortterm impacts of trail development would 

be the same: adverse but negligible. However, because the trail in the riparian area 

would be substantially longer than the trail 

proposed under alternative B, the potential impacts to soils and vegetation could 

also be greater. Because visitor use of the 

trail is expected to be low and seasonal, 

the long-term, adverse impacts on the soil 

and vegetation would be negligible to minor. 

Disturbances caused by visitor use of the 

trail could encourage growth of nonnative 

and exotic species and over time could 

reduce the abundance and distribution of 

native species around the trail. A reduction in native plant species could locally 

reduce habitat suitability for residents of 

the riparian area such as birds, insects, and 

amphibians. Because the trail would be 

substantially longer under this alternative, 

the impacts would be greater than under 

alternative B. In the short term, adverse 

impacts on native vegetation could be reduced by designating a route that avoids 

native vegetation and minimizes to the 

extent practicable disturbances that could 

encourage the growth of nonnative and 

exotic species. The short-term, adverse 

impacts from trail development on native 

vegetation would be negligible. Maintenance and management of nonnative and 

exotic species would reduce the longterm, adverse impacts of trail development 

on native plants. The long-term, adverse 

impacts of trail designation on abundance 

and distribution of native vegetation 

would be negligible. 

This alternative includes two development 

projects: a new headquarters facility within the monument boundary and a paved 

road across the plateau above the cliff 

dwelling. The new headquarters building 

would be across from the overflow parking at the beginning of the entrance road. 

The proposed location for the new headquarters building has been previously disturbed. Construction of the new building 

would result in a local loss of soil productivity as well as an increase in soil erosion 

and clearing of vegetation. The loss in soil 

productivity cannot be mitigated, but the 

long-term adverse impacts would be minor because the effects would be limited 

to the developed area. The erosion potential can be mitigated using best management practices such that the short-term, 

adverse impacts would be negligible. With 

ongoing maintenance activities and revegetation, the long-term, adverse impacts 

from soil erosion around the new building 

would be negligible. 

Development of the roadbed would require clearing a substantial area of all vegetation while creating a long edge of disturbed soil that nonnative or exotic species of plants could rapidly colonize. The 

short-term impacts of the road construction include increased erosion and 

changes in the flow of water over the land 

surface that would adversely impact soil 

productivity over a larger area. 

Erosion could be controlled using best 

management practices during construction such that the short-term, adverse impacts would be negligible. Once the road is 

completed, changes to the soil productivity could extend beyond the roadbed because of changes in the flow of water over 

the landscape. Typically, water flows over 

the landscape as sheet flow. Once the road 

is complete, the sheet flow would change 

to channel flow along the edge of the 

roadbed. Without mitigation, the longterm potential for soil erosion would increase. Mitigation measures could decrease soil erosion but would not reduce 

the adverse impacts of runoff on soil 

productivity. Runoff from the roadway 

would spread hydrocarbons across the 

plateau. Over time, the buildup of hydrocarbons in the soil could decrease the diversity of plant species on the plateau and 

could possibly favor the more invasive or 

weedy species. Even with mitigation, the 

long-term adverse impacts on soil produc-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

224 

tivity and vegetation would be minor and 

local. 

A smaller area of the old pasture at Montezuma Well would have designated unimproved trails under this alternative than 

under alternative B. In addition, an unimproved trail would be developed to and 

along the riparian area of Wet Beaver 

Creek and along the prehistoric ditch that 

extends from Montezuma Well to the 

creek. As with alternative B, the development of the unimproved trails would have 

short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on 

soil erosion, assuming mitigation measures 

were used. The greater impacts would be 

to the vegetative communities at Montezuma Well. 

Because the area around Montezuma Well 

has historically been used for grazing, 

there are many nonnative and exotic species, particularly grasses. Development of 

the new trails would disturb a substantial 

amount of soil, which could contribute to 

the spread of nonnative grasses. Without 

mitigation, the trails could contribute to a 

decrease in the native plant species and 

composition of the plant communities at 

Montezuma Well. Management of the 

nonnative species would be required to 

control the spread of the nonnative species across a larger area. With mitigation, 

the long-term, adverse impacts on the vegetation at Montezuma Well could be minor to moderate. 

A visitor center would be constructed near 

the Back cabin under this alternative. The 

proposed location has been heavily disturbed, and the dominant vegetation is 

nonnative grasses. Construction of the 

new building would result in localized loss 

of soil productivity as well as increased 

soil erosion. The loss in soil productivity 

cannot be mitigated, but the long-term 

adverse impacts would be minor because 

the effects would be limited to the developed area. The erosion potential can be 

mitigated using best management practices to keep the short-term adverse impact 

negligible. There could also be an increase 

in nonnative and exotic vegetation because of the disturbance caused by the 

construction. This would cause a shortterm, adverse, negligible impact on the 

surrounding vegetation because the landscape has already been disturbed and the 

dominant plant species are nonnative and 

exotic grasses. 

Once construction is complete, the potential for soil erosion can be mitigated using 

best management practices and revegetation of the surrounding landscape. The 

long-term, adverse impacts on soil around 

the new visitor center from erosion would 

be negligible. Plant species used to revegetate around the new visitor center would 

be native. The long-term impacts of using 

native plant materials would be beneficial, 

local, and negligible. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. A larger 

area of the monument would be zoned 

Interaction and Discovery than under alternative B. The expanded area allows for 

a greater number of designated but unimproved trails in the monument. The shortterm, adverse impacts of trail development 

on vegetation at Tuzigoot would be negligible because any change in the distribution or abundance of individual plants or 

communities would not likely be measurable. Similarly, because no clearing would 

occur, the short-term, adverse impacts on 

soil from increased erosion would be negligible. 

The long-term impacts would be greater 

under this alternative because of the 

greater area that would be impacted by the 

trail use. Visitor use could reduce the 

amount of understory vegetation on the 

trail, which would also increase the potential for soil erosion along the trail. Potential adverse impacts on vegetation and soil 

could be reduced by designing the trail to 

avoid areas where the understory vegetation is sparse or more susceptible to disturbance and to avoid areas of uneven or 

unstable terrain. Best management practices used during trail maintenance could 

reduce losses to the understory vegetation 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

225 

and decrease soil erosion. The long-term, 

adverse impacts of the trail on the understory vegetation would be negligible to minor, as would the long-term, adverse impacts from soil erosion. 

Trail use by visitors, even with best management practices, would disturb vegetation and encourage the growth of nonnative and exotic species. Over time, these 

species could change the abundance and 

distribution of native species, resulting in 

changes to biological productivity in the 

monument. There are ongoing management actions to control nonnative and exotic species within the monument. The 

long-term, adverse impacts of an increase 

in nonnative and exotic vegetation would 

be negligible to minor. 

The Tavasci Marsh boardwalk would extend into the marsh on pilings. Soils would 

be disturbed during construction, but the 

erosion potential would not increase, and 

soil productivity would not be affected. 

The short-term impact on soils would be 

adverse but local and negligible. Once 

completed, the boardwalk would have a 

negligible, long-term, adverse impact on 

soil because the soil would not be disturbed and the erosion potential would 

not increase. Soil productivity would be 

adversely impacted, but the effects would 

be local and negligible. 

Impacts on marsh vegetation could be reduced during boardwalk construction by 

avoiding vegetation to the extent practicable. The short-term, adverse impacts on 

vegetation during boardwalk construction 

would be negligible. The long-term, adverse impacts on vegetation could be reduced by designing the boardwalk to minimize shading of the surrounding vegetation. The long-term, adverse impacts on 

vegetation from the boardwalk would be 

negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable actions 

outside Montezuma Castle National Monument that would impact soils or vegetation at the monuments. Consequently, 

there would be no cumulative impacts under alternative C on soils or vegetation. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan (Arizona State Parks 2004), as previously described, would have local impacts on the 

soils and vegetation. These impacts would 

include an increase in erosion potential 

and the removal of some vegetation. The 

erosion potential could be reduced during 

trail development using best management 

practices that could include but would not 

be limited to silt fencing. The short-term, 

cumulative impacts of the trail development would be adverse but local and negligible. Trail maintenance activities, including best management practices, would 

help minimize the potential for erosion 

along the trail. The long-term, adverse impacts of the trail on soil erosion would be 

negligible. The impacts of alternative C on 

soils in combination with the impacts of 

the proposed greenway trail would result 

in negligible, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on soils. 

Although some vegetation would be removed, the impacts would be local and 

not likely to change the abundance and 

distribution of individual plants or communities in the monument. Therefore, the 

long-term, adverse impacts on the vegetation from trail development would be negligible. If nonnative or exotic species are 

present, management actions may be necessary to control the spread of these species once the ground has been disturbed 

to minimize any adverse impacts on native 

plants from trail development. The longterm, adverse impacts from nonnative and 

exotic species would be negligible. The 

impacts of alternative C in combination 

with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail would result in negligible, longterm, adverse, cumulative impacts on vegetation. 

Conclusion. There would be greater impacts on both soils and vegetation in the 

monuments under alternative C than under alternative B. The designated trail in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

226 

the riparian area at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument would be longer under this alternative; thus, the long-term, 

adverse impacts on the soil would be negligible to minor. 

The short-term, adverse impacts from trail 

development on native vegetation would 

be negligible. Maintenance and management of nonnative and exotic species 

would reduce the long-term, adverse impacts of trail development on native 

plants. The long-term, adverse impacts of 

trail designation on abundance and distribution of native vegetation would be negligible. 

Construction of the new building would 

result in a local loss of soil productivity as 

well as an increase in soil erosion and 

clearing of vegetation. The loss in soil 

productivity cannot be mitigated, but the 

long-term, adverse impacts would be minor because the effects would be limited 

to the developed area. With ongoing 

maintenance activities and revegetation, 

the long-term, adverse impacts from soil 

erosion around the new building would be 

negligible. 

The short-term impacts of the road construction include increased erosion as well 

as changes in the flow of water over the 

land surface that would adversely impact 

soil productivity over a larger area. With 

mitigation, the long-term, adverse impacts 

on soil productivity and vegetation would 

be minor and local. 

As with alternative B, the development of 

the unimproved trails would have shortterm, negligible, adverse impacts on soil 

erosion, assuming mitigation measures 

were used. 

Management of nonnative species would 

be required to control the spread of the 

nonnative species across a larger area at 

Montezuma Well following development 

of new trails. With mitigation, the longterm, adverse impact on the vegetation at 

the well could be minor to moderate. 

Construction of the new visitor center 

near the Back cabin would result in a localized loss of soil productivity and an increase in soil erosion. The loss in soil 

productivity cannot be mitigated, but the 

long-term, adverse impacts would be minor because the effects would be limited 

to the developed area. This would be a 

short-term, adverse, negligible impact on 

the surrounding vegetation because the 

landscape has already been disturbed and 

the dominant plant species are nonnative 

and exotic grasses. The long-term, adverse 

impacts on soils around the new visitor 

center from erosion would be negligible. 

Plant species used to revegetate around 

the new visitor center would be native. 

The long-term impacts of using native 

plant materials would be beneficial, local, 

and negligible. 

The short-term adverse impacts of trail 

development on vegetation at Tuzigoot 

would be negligible because any change in 

the distribution or abundance of individual plants or communities would not likely 

be measurable. Similarly, because no 

clearing would occur, the short-term, adverse impacts on soil from increased erosion would be negligible. 

The long-term, adverse impacts of the trail 

on the understory vegetation would be 

negligible to minor, as would the longterm, adverse impacts from soil erosion. 

The long-term, adverse impacts of an increase in nonnative and exotic vegetation 

along the trails would be negligible to minor. 

Construction of the Tavasci Marsh 

boardwalk would disturb soils, but the 

erosion potential would not increase, and 

soil productivity would not be affected. 

The short-term impact on soils would be 

adverse but local and negligible. Once 

completed, the boardwalk would have a 

negligible, long-term, adverse impact on 

soil because the soil would not be disturbed, and the erosion potential would 

not increase. Soil productivity would be 

adversely impacted, but the effects would 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

227 

be local and negligible. The short-term, 

adverse impacts on vegetation during 

boardwalk construction would be negligible. The long-term, adverse impacts on 

vegetation could be reduced by designing 

the boardwalk to minimize shading of the 

surrounding vegetation. The long-term, 

adverse impacts on vegetation from the 

boardwalk would be negligible. 

There would be no cumulative impacts 

under alternative C on soils or vegetation 

at Montezuma Castle National Monument. 

The impacts of alternative C on soils in 

combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail at Tuzigoot National 

Monument would result in negligible, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on 

soils and vegetation. 

Alternative C would not constitute an impairment of soil or vegetation resources or 

values at Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot 

national monuments. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

Wetlands 

A boardwalk into the Tavasci Marsh is 

proposed to provide visitors with an opportunity to experience the marsh as well 

as to provide education and interpretation 

of the marsh resource. The boardwalk 

could have both short- and long-term impacts on habitat in the marsh. During construction, the potential adverse impacts on 

the marsh include habitat disturbance. 

The impacts from habitat disturbance 

could be reduced by siting the boardwalk 

where there is the least impact on areas 

used by species that frequent the marsh 

and by designing to avoid shading the surrounding vegetation. With mitigation, the 

short-term impacts on the habitat characteristics of the marsh could be negligible 

to minor. 

Construction activities would increase the 

amount of contaminated sediment in the 

water column. The contaminants accumulate in the tissues of the wildlife that live in 

the marsh. Over time, wildlife exposed to 

these contaminants can experience adverse impacts on reproductive success. To 

limit the amount of contaminated sediment in the water column, the construction of the boardwalk could be timed such 

that the water level is relatively low. Sediment fences could be installed to keep the 

disturbed sediment from spreading over a 

wider area. The long-term, adverse impacts on the habitat characteristics of the 

marsh would be negligible to minor, depending on the level of exposure to the 

contaminated sediment. 

Cumulative Impacts. The cumulative impacts of alternative C are the same as those 

described for alternative B. 

Conclusion. There would be no actions at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

that would affect wetlands under alternative C. 

Active marsh restoration activities would 

have a negligible to minor, long-term, 

beneficial effect on wetland habitat functions at Tavasci Marsh. Trail development 

around the marsh could increase sedimentation in the marsh. The long-term impacts of the increased sedimentation on 

the marsh would be negligible. Construction of the boardwalk could impact wetland habitat quality in the marsh. With 

mitigation, the short- and long-term impacts on the marsh wetlands would be 

negligible to minor. There would be no 

cumulative impacts on wetlands of alternative C at Montezuma Castle or Tuzigoot 

national monuments under this alternative. 

The impacts of alternative C would not 

constitute an impairment of wetland resources or values at Montezuma Castle or 

Tuzigoot national monuments. Implementation of this alternative would not result 

in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

228 

Wildlife 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. The impacts on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat from the proposed trail in the riparian area under alternative C would be 

greater than the impacts under alternative 

B because the trail would run the length of 

the riparian area in the monument. The 

habitat available within the monument for 

species sensitive to disturbance would be 

less because the trail is longer. Potential 

adverse impacts from erosion associated 

with the trail include negligible, local effects on aquatic species’ habitats if sediments accumulate in the creek. Management actions could include closure of the 

trail during breeding season to minimize 

the impacts. The long-term, adverse impacts on sensitive wildlife would be minor 

to moderate because erosion could impact 

the local population enough to change 

abundance or distribution of a species 

within the monument. 

At Montezuma Well, in addition to the 

trail in the former pasture, an additional 

trail would be developed from the pasture 

to the riparian area. This would increase 

the wildlife species, and types of habitat 

that could be disturbed. The adverse impacts of the trail to the riparian area would 

be minimized by route design to minimize 

the creation of additional edges within the 

riparian area that would reduce the size of 

suitable habitat and increase opportunities 

for predators. The short-term, adverse 

impacts from the trail on the riparian area 

would be negligible to minor. Although 

some individuals could be impacted by the 

trail, the long-term, adverse impacts 

would be negligible because the trail 

would not reduce the abundance or distribution of a species at Montezuma Well. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. A 

boardwalk into the marsh would be developed as described for alternative B, and 

the impacts would be the same: the shortterm, adverse impacts on wildlife from 

construction of the boardwalk would be 

negligible, and the long-term, adverse impacts on wildlife species sensitive to disturbance would be negligible to minor, 

while for the more common adaptable 

species, the effects would be negligible. 

The impacts of trail development under 

alternative C would be greater than the 

impacts under alternative B because the 

trails in the monument would be longer 

and would impact a broader range of habitats. Development of the trail could disturb some wildlife species, resulting in 

temporary displacement. The short-term, 

adverse impacts of trail development 

could be minimized by timing trail work to 

the extent practicable to avoid seasons 

when there is an especially high concentration of wildlife in the riparian area or in 

Tavasci Marsh. The short-term, adverse 

impacts of trail development would be 

negligible. Although the trail would be unlikely to increase opportunities for predators, visitors could be present across a 

greater area of the monument. Species that 

are easily disturbed would have less suitable habitat within the monument. This 

could impact the abundance and distribution of some species within the monument. Therefore, the long-term, adverse 

impacts on wildlife and their habitat 

would be minor. 

Cumulative Impacts. Increased development (for example, trails) and visitation 

at Montezuma Castle National Monument 

would have minimal impact wildlife or 

wildlife habitats at the monument. Alternative C’s contribution to the negligible, 

cumulative effects on wildlife would be 

small. 

At Tuzigoot, the Verde River Greenway 

Master Plan (Arizona State Parks 2004), as 

previously described, would have local 

impacts on wildlife habitat within the monument along the Verde River. These impacts would include disturbance that 

could limit foraging activity or adversely 

impact nesting. These impacts could be 

reduced by timing trail development to 

minimize the impact on breeding activity. 

The long-term impacts of the trail devel-
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

229 

opment would be adverse and negligible 

to minor but would be unlikely to affect 

the distribution of individuals outside the 

local area and would not have an impact 

on viability of regional wildlife populations. The impacts of alternative C in 

combination with the impacts of the proposed greenway trail would result in negligible to minor, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. 

Conclusion. This alternative includes actions that would have the greatest adverse 

impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat 

when compared to the other alternatives. 

In particular, proposed trails in each monument are longer and would impact 

more habitat within each site. Those species that are easily disturbed are of particular concern. The long-term, adverse 

impacts on sensitive species from the increased length of the trails would be minor to moderate at Montezuma Castle National Monument. The long-term, adverse 

impacts on wildlife and habitat at Montezuma Well would be local and negligible. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the trail 

along the riparian area and the marsh 

would be unlikely to increase opportunities for predators, but visitors could have a 

greater presence. Species that are easily 

disturbed would have a less suitable habitat within the monument. This could impact the abundance and distribution of 

some species locally within the monument. Therefore, the long-term, adverse 

impacts on wildlife and their habitat 

would be local and negligible to minor. 

The impacts of alternative C in combination with the impacts of the proposed 

greenway trail would result in negligible to 

minor, long-term, adverse, cumulative impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Alternative C would not constitute an impairment of wildlife or wildlife habitat resources or values at Montezuma Castle or 

Tuzigoot national monuments. Implementation of this alternative would not result 

in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. There 

could be greater effects on southwestern 

willow flycatcher habitat in Montezuma 

Castle or Tuzigoot national monuments 

under alternative C than under alternative 

A. These impacts would result in part from 

trails that would be established at each 

site. The trail routes have not yet been determined but would be designed to have 

the least effect on flycatcher habitat. In 

addition, the National Park Service would 

consider use restrictions for some trails to 

minimize habitat disturbances. These restrictions could include limited access 

during breeding season or during periods 

of key activity such as foraging. Prior to 

initiating actions that would affect the 

southwestern willow flycatcher or its habitat, the National Park Service would 

complete additional environmental compliance activities and consult with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service as appropriate. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. As 

described for alternative B, trail development could be managed such that there 

would be no short-term, adverse effects 

on flycatcher habitat in the riparian area 

from trail designation. 

Visitor use of the trail could discourage 

flycatcher foraging around the trail while 

visitors are present because flycatchers are 

shy. The proposed trail would run the 

length of the riparian area within the monument. Additional management actions 

could be necessary to reduce the longterm effects of trail use on foraging behavior. These actions include, but would not 

be limited to, use restrictions during 

breeding season. Long-term trail use 

could affect flycatcher foraging activity at 

Montezuma Castle National Monument, 

but the effect would not likely be adverse. 

Tuzigoot National Monument. In addition 

to actions proposed under alternative B, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

230 

there would be additional unimproved 

trails around the marsh and connecting to 

Peck’s Lake. Trail alignments in the monument and connections to existing trails 

have not been identified. The short-term 

effects of trails at Tuzigoot National Monument would be the same as for the trail 

at Montezuma Castle National Monument. The trails and the boardwalk would 

bring visitors near more areas where the 

flycatchers forage. The adverse impacts of 

the trails and the boardwalk could be reduced by avoiding preferred forage habitat to the extent practicable. If trail use is 

found to have an adverse impact on foraging behavior, management actions would 

be implemented to reduce these effects, 

including limiting access on the trail during certain times of year or during periods 

of key activity. Visitor use of the trails and 

the boardwalk could have a long-term effect on flycatcher foraging habitat, but the 

effects would not likely be adverse. 

Cumulative Impacts. There is a documented nesting site for southwestern willow flycatcher just outside the Tuzigoot 

National Monument boundary in the 

Verde River riparian area. Ditch maintenance activities in the area help maintain 

the conditions that the flycatcher favors 

when nesting. The ongoing ditch maintenance activities would continue to have 

a beneficial effect on flycatcher habitat. 

At Tuzigoot National Monument, the 

Verde River Greenway Master Plan, as 

described previously, would contribute to 

cumulative effects. In addition, Arizona 

State Parks has proposed a small parking 

lot and boat launch on the east side of the 

monument entrance road outside the monument boundary; this would require 

modifications to the existing roadway. 

The proposed location of the boat launch 

is within the designated critical habitat for 

the flycatcher, and vegetation in the vicinity has been used for nesting. Increased 

activity could disturb the flycatcher and 

discourage continued use of the area for 

nesting. The National Park Service would 

work with Arizona State Parks to minimize potential adverse impacts associated 

with the Greenway Master Plan trail. The 

effects of the boat launch could be reduced by shifting visitor activity on the 

river away from the patch of vegetation 

that serves as nesting habitat. In addition, 

any trail development would avoid creating new or longer edges along a nesting 

patch that could make the nests more vulnerable to predation. The proposed trail 

could have a long-term effect on the nesting habitat for the flycatcher along the 

Verde River, but these effects are unlikely 

to be adverse. The effects of alternative C 

in combination with the effects of the other actions described above could affect 

flycatcher habitat; however, the cumulative effects would not likely be adverse as 

a result of mitigation measures and adaptive management strategies. 

Conclusion. Disturbance of flycatcher habitat would be greater than under alternative C and would require additional mitigation measures to offset the potential effects on habitat and foraging behavior and 

to avoid adverse effects. In the short term, 

trail development would affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect, flycatcher foraging activity. Visitor use of the proposed 

trails could have long-term effects on flycatcher foraging behavior. These effects 

on flycatcher habitat could be offset using 

targeted and adapted management strategies to avoid adverse effects. Because the 

proposed trails would affect a larger area 

at both monuments, access to the trails 

could be more limited than under alternative B to ensure that the effects from trail 

use would not be adverse. The marsh restoration activities would affect flycatcher 

foraging habitat, but the effects would 

likely be beneficial. 

Outside the boundaries at Tuzigoot National Monument, the ongoing ditch 

maintenance activities could have a longterm, negligible to minor, beneficial effect 

on flycatcher habitat. The effects of alternative C in combination with the effects of 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

231 

the other actions described above could 

affect flycatcher habitat; however, the cumulative effects would not likely be adverse because of mitigation measures and 

adaptive management strategies. 

Yuma Clapper Rail. The effects of alternative C on habitat of the Yuma clapper 

rail in Tavasci Marsh would be the same as 

for alternative B. Marsh restoration activities would affect rail habitat in the short 

term, but the effect would be offset by 

adaptive management strategies and 

would be beneficial in the long term as the 

rail’s preferred habitat would be improved. Development of the boardwalk 

would have a short-term effect on water 

quality and habitat in the marsh, although 

the long-term effects are unlikely to be 

adverse. Exposure to selenium in the 

marsh could affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the long-term reproductive 

success of the clapper rails that primarily 

use the marsh to forage during migration 

stopovers. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or proposed actions in addition 

to alternative C that would affect the Yuma clapper rail or its habitat at Tavasci 

Marsh. 

Conclusion. The effects of alternative C on 

the Yuma clapper rail and its habitat at 

Tavasci Marsh would be the same as the 

effects described for alternative B. The 

development of a boardwalk in the marsh 

would have short-term effects on water 

quality and habitat. These effects could be 

mitigated such that the impact is not adverse. Exposure to selenium in the marsh 

could affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect, the long-term reproductive success 

of the clapper rails that use the marsh to 

forage during migration stopovers. There 

are no cumulative effects on the rail associated with this alternative. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Although there is 

more proposed development under alternative C, the effects of alternative C on the 

yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat in the 

monument are similar to the effects of alternative B. A footbridge across Beaver 

Creek is proposed at Montezuma Castle 

National Monument to provide visitor 

access to the trails in the riparian area. 

Additionally, the trail in the riparian area 

runs the entire length of the creek within 

the monument. Potential adverse effects 

of the footbridge would be offset by 

avoiding impacts on the large trees (for 

example, the Arizona sycamore and the 

cottonwoods) that are important for both 

foraging and breeding activities. Development of the footbridge could affect yellow-billed cuckoo habitat, but the effects 

are unlikely to be adverse. 

Alternative C includes a proposal to develop an unimproved trail from the picnic 

area to Wet Beaver Creek at Montezuma 

Well. Effects on cuckoo habitat at Montezuma Well include potential removal of 

tree species that play in an important role 

in nesting and foraging activities. Potential 

adverse effects would be offset by siting 

the trail to minimize tree loss. Because this 

species is tolerant of disturbance, the 

long-term effects associated with visitor 

use of the trail could affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, the yellow-billed 

cuckoo or its habitat. 

The extent of the trail network across the 

monument and along the edge of the riparian area would increase at Tuzigoot National Monument. Cottonwood trees are 

present in the riparian area. The trail route 

would be designed to avoid the cottonwood trees used by yellow-billed cuckoos 

for forage. Again, the cuckoo is relatively 

tolerant of disturbance, thus the presence 

of visitors is unlikely to disturb foraging 

activity. Trail development and use at Tuzigoot could affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, yellow-billed cuckoo foraging behavior. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are no past, 

present, or proposed actions outside the 

alternative C proposed action that would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

232 

affect the yellow-billed cuckoo or its habitat at the monuments. 

Conclusion. Development of the footbridge at Montezuma Castle National 

Monument, the trail to the creek at Montezuma Well, and the trail along the riparian area at Tuzigoot National Monument 

could affect, but are not likely to adversely 

affect, yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. Potential adverse effects would be mitigated 

by avoiding impacts to the large trees that 

are important to cuckoo habitat. Visitor 

use of the trail could affect, but is unlikely 

to adversely affect, the cuckoo or its habitat. There are no cumulative effects associated with this alternative. 

The actions associated with alternative C 

would not constitute an impairment of 

threatened and endangered species resources or values at Montezuma Castle or 

Tuzigoot national monuments. Implementation of this alternative would not result 

in any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with section 1.4.7.1 of Management 

Policies 2006. 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

Visitor Experiences of 

Monument Resources 

In alternative C, the three sites in the monuments would be connected with coordinated orientation and marketing via 

partnerships in the Verde Valley. This 

coordinated orientation would encourage 

visitors to visit all three sites in the monuments as well as other sites in the region to 

get better acquainted with the resources 

and how they each tell, first hand, a 

unique element of the prehistoric and historic stories associated with human settlement of the Verde Valley. The increased exposure of visitors to all three 

sites in the monuments would have a longterm, moderate, beneficial effect on the 

visitor experience. 

This alternative also emphasizes increased 

access to water and related riparian areas 

to showcase the connections of human 

settlement of the Verde Valley to the natural environment. At each site, trails would 

make the riparian areas accessible to visitors. Visitors at Montezuma Castle would 

be able to cross Beaver Creek and gain 

views back to the castle with the creek in 

the foreground. Natural surface trails 

along the south side of the creek would 

provide a different hiking experience for 

visitors, including opportunities for selfexploration and a better understanding of 

the importance of riparian and water resources to the history of the Sinagua. This 

opportunity was highly desired by the 

public during the general management 

plan scoping process and by visitors that 

responded to the visitor survey; therefore, 

trail opportunities to and along Beaver 

Creek would be considered a long-term, 

major, beneficial impact. 

Also at the Castle, additional parking 

would alleviate some of the congestion 

from peak use by automobiles and tour 

buses. During peak season, when impacts 

from high volumes of vehicles are highest, 

this increased supply of parking would 

have a long-term, moderate, beneficial 

effect. 

Finally, a regional multi-use trail is proposed along Montezuma Castle Highway 

at the north end of the monument. This 

trail was desired by local trail groups to 

connect a regional trail that extends 

through the Verde Valley, providing a 

long-term, major, benefit for local and regional residents interested in regional trail 

opportunities. 

Visitors at Montezuma Well would be able 

to take a trail across prehistoric and historic farming land to access Beaver Creek. 

This area is known for its outstanding 

birding opportunities and shaded river 

banks, providing a cool and quiet escape 

for visitors. Trail opportunities to Beaver 

Creek were also highly desired by the public and visitor survey respondents, making 

this a long-term, major, beneficial effect 

on the visitor experience. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

233 

At Tuzigoot, trails would connect the monument to Dead Horse Ranch State Park, 

the Verde River Greenway, and Coconino 

National Forest via a boardwalk and trail 

system in Tavasci Marsh. The marsh is 

known for its outstanding birding opportunities and shaded marshlands, providing 

a cool and quiet escape for visitors. Trail 

opportunities to Tavasci Marsh and surrounding public lands were also desired 

by the public and survey respondents, 

making this a long-term, major, beneficial 

impact. 

Also, in partnership with Arizona State 

Parks, the National Park Service would 

provide a Verde River access point in the 

Verde River Greenway, increasing 

recreation opportunities, and access to the 

highly desirable Verde River. This would 

be a long-term, moderate, benefit for visitors to Tuzigoot and Dead Horse Ranch 

State Park and for residents of the surrounding community. 

This alternative would also increase opportunities for cultural demonstrations of 

craftsmanship and social activities in and 

around the Tuzigoot Pueblo. Paved trails 

south of the pueblo would provide access 

to the river. Signage and programs in this 

area would interpret prehistoric trade activities and farming that would have been 

associated with life in the pueblo. The visitor survey identified a strong interest by 

visitors for more “hands-on” activities, 

including demonstrations by modern affiliated tribes; therefore, this increase in interpretive programs and services would be 

considered a long-term, moderate benefit 

for visitors interested in these types of 

programs. 

Finally, this alternative includes a monitoring and management program for user 

capacity. At all three sites, monument staff 

would monitor and manage areas where 

action is most likely needed to achieve desired conditions. This program would 

help control impacts related to crowding, 

user conflict, human-caused noise, and 

resource damage, leading to long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts on visitor 

experiences. 

Access to Orientation, 

Interpretation, and Education 

Under alternative C, the three sites in the 

monuments would be connected via 

coordinated orientation efforts throughout the Verde Valley. Partnerships for improved wayfinding, information dissemination, and marketing would connect the 

resources at all sites in the Verde Valley, 

resulting in a long-term, major, beneficial 

effect on interpretation and orientation 

opportunities. 

This alternative calls for increased cultural 

demonstrations and programs at all three 

sites, which are highly desired by the public, resulting in a long-term, moderate 

benefit for those visitors seeking more 

education opportunities. 

This alternative also includes new interpretive opportunities based out of the 

Back cabin at Montezuma Well. The interpretive programs would emphasize 

prehistoric and historic farming activities. 

More formalized and consistent interpretive opportunities were desired by the 

public and by visitors who responded to 

the visitor survey; therefore, the new opportunities at the Back cabin are considered a long-term, moderate, benefit for 

visitors. 

The new visitor center at Montezuma 

Well would serve as a focal point for visitor contact to improve visitor understanding of regional opportunities and to gain a 

more comprehensive understanding of 

settlement, land use, and migration in the 

Verde Valley. It would also enable improved distribution of visitors among the 

three sites. Improved visitor orientation 

and interpretation services would contribute to better visitor understanding and 

appreciation of the resources of the monuments and the region, and would result 

in long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts 

on visitors. Removal of the existing visitor 

contact station at the Well would result in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

234 

long-term, minor beneficial impacts by 

improving scenic quality. 

Visitor Safety 

Safety information would continue to be 

available at all three sites. At the Castle, 

additional parking would minimize the 

crowded conditions that sometimes occur 

during peak hours, increasing both perceived and actual visitor safety during visitors’ arrival. At Montezuma Well, the expanded visitor contact station would improve dissemination of orientation information on safety factors, which may reduce unsafe incidents. Finally, at Tuzigoot, designating trails in areas that are 

currently being explored by visitors may 

reduce safety hazards. These improvements would result in long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts on visitor safety. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on the visitor 

experience at all three sites. First, at Montezuma Castle, the proposed YavapaiApache Nation Native American Cultural 

Center would likely have long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on interpretation 

and education opportunities related to the 

cultural history of the region. In this alternative, the coordinated orientation in the 

Verde Valley and the Castle’s existing visitor center would complement the new 

education and interpretive opportunities 

provided at the cultural center, enhancing 

the long-term beneficial impacts. The cultural center would also likely attract visitors to the area and may increase visitation 

to the Castle. Alternative C includes an 

expansion of the parking area at the Castle, which would help mitigate crowded 

conditions. Further, this alternative would 

monitor visitor use, particularly crowded 

conditions in the parking area, visitor center, and along the loop trail, which would 

allow the monument to work cooperatively with the tribe to manage the distribution 

of use between the cultural center and 

Castle. Finally, the regional multi-use trail 

proposed along Montezuma Castle Highway would have a beneficial impact on 

recreation opportunities in the region. 

This alternative would connect the regional trail through the monument, which 

would result in a long-term, beneficial impact on this proposed recreation opportunity. 

At Montezuma Well, surrounding development projects could have adverse impacts on visitor experiences by increasing 

visitation to Montezuma Well and thereby 

impacting the contemplative experiences 

at the outlet, along the trails, and in the 

picnic area. Also, these developments may 

have negative impacts on the scenic viewsheds of Montezuma Well. Alternative C 

includes more trail opportunities in Montezuma Well, which may help distribute 

use and improve recreation opportunities. 

In addition, this alternative includes a 

monitoring program of use levels and visitor experiences, so if increasing use results 

in negative impacts on the quiet and contemplative settings, the monument would 

take actions to better manage and distribute use to mitigate these impacts. There 

are no proposals in alternative C that 

would mitigate the potential impacts to 

the viewsheds from surrounding developments. 

At Tuzigoot, the camping and reservoir 

improvements at Dead Horse Ranch State 

Park would likely increase the desirability 

of the state park for day and overnight use. 

As more people visit the state park, demand for trail connections to Tuzigoot 

would likely increase. This alternative 

proposes trail connections between the 

monument and the park, a long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impact. Further, the 

proposed recreation opportunities that 

would be part of the Verde River Greenway, which runs along the southern 

boundary of Tuzigoot, would enhance 

recreation opportunities for Tuzigoot visitors. Alternative C contributes to the 

beneficial impacts of the Verde River 

Greenway by providing a Verde River 

access point in the Verde River Greenway, 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

235 

increasing recreation opportunities and 

access to the highly desirable Verde River. 

The restoration of the mine tailings by 

Freeport McMoRan, particularly covering 

the tailings with topsoil to promote vegetation growth, would likely have a major, 

beneficial impact on visitor experiences at 

Tuzigoot by improving the scenic 

viewshed. 

Finally, the proposed Sinaguan Circle 

Tour could enhance the interpretive opportunities at all three sites by connecting 

the Sinaguan sites in the region via an interpretive, self-guided tour with associated resource materials. Alternative C 

would contribute to this beneficial impact 

by providing more diverse opportunities 

to view and learn about the monuments’ 

prime cultural resources and by providing 

enhanced interpretation of the Sinaguan 

story at the central orientation center. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would result in increased 

beneficial impacts resulting from the increased diversity in opportunities to view 

and learn about the monuments’ prime 

cultural resources. Particularly, connecting the three sites in the monuments via a 

central visitor center and orientation facility in the Verde Valley would increase exposure of visitors to all three sites and 

provide a better understanding of each 

site’s unique role in settlement of the 

Verde Valley. Further, providing more 

trail opportunities and cultural programs 

would make visits to each site more exciting, interesting and inviting for repeat visitation. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS 

The main emphasis of this alternative 

would be to provide increased opportunities for visitors to self-discover the beauty 

and wonder of the natural and cultural 

resources of the monuments. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

The monument headquarters would be 

relocated from Camp Verde to Montezuma Castle National Monument near the 

entrance at the intersection of Montezuma Castle Road and Montezuma Castle 

Highway. This facility would allow administrative activities to be moved on site and 

closer to visitor service activities. This 

would allow monument maintenance operations to be conducted more effectively, 

while replacing offsite workspace and storage lost with the expiration of the General Services Administration lease. 

The road to the water tanks would be 

opened to the public, and a parking facility 

would be built near the water tanks to 

provide better views of the river valley and 

its proximity to the Montezuma Castle. An 

overlook would be constructed near the 

water tank, providing a unique view of 

Montezuma Castle. A new picnic area 

would be constructed west of the existing 

administration buildings to replace the old 

picnic area. A new system of trails would 

traverse the monument from north to 

south. Additional parking and/or a bus 

drop-off could be constructed at the junction of the Montezuma Castle entrance 

road and the service road to the sewage 

lagoons. The area south of the Montezuma Castle loop trail would include access 

over the creek and some picnic facilities 

on the south bank of the creek. From this 

picnic location, visitors would have views 

across the river to Montezuma Castle. Interpretive signs would be installed along 

the river near Montezuma Castle for selfguided tours. These improvements would 

reduce congestion in the visitor center, 

parking facilities, and on the trail to the 

Castle. The actions described above associated with alternative C would result in 

long-term, moderate to major, beneficial 

effects on monument operations because 

of increased. improved space for monument operations, and improved capability 

to manage visitors and resources. There 

would be long-term, minor, adverse impacts due the addition of facilities that 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

236 

would require increased operations and 

maintenance. This would include the adverse impacts on operations from potential washouts during floods of a new footbridge across Beaver Creek. With the road 

to the water tanks open to the public, any 

increased potential for vandalism would 

be mitigated through increased staff presence, signage, or other security measures. 

Montezuma Well 

A new visitor center would be constructed 

along Beaver Creek Road near the entrance to Montezuma Well to increase visitor orientation and interpretation services 

on site. A trail would be constructed parallel to the road leading from the new visitor 

center to Montezuma Well, and, if assessment determines that there would be no 

conflict with preservation of significant 

cultural resources, another trail would be 

constructed surrounding the well and 

near the south boundary of the monument 

from Montezuma Well to the existing picnic area near Beaver Creek Road. The size 

of the administration area would be reduced in this alternative. A corridor along 

Beaver Creek Road would be designated 

to accommodate horseback riding, hiking 

and mountain biking. Additional trails 

would be provided at Montezuma Well 

for visitors to connect with the natural 

environment. 

These improvements would enhance interpretive opportunities at Montezuma 

Well and would also encourage visitors to 

walk around and see more of the site. 

Maintenance operations would also become more efficient at Montezuma Well 

because of onsite maintenance facilities. 

The actions to be implemented at Montezuma Well under alternative C would result in long-term, moderate to major, 

beneficial effects on monument operations because of increased and improved 

onsite space for monument operations, 

and improved capability to manage visitors and resources. There would be longterm, minor, adverse impacts due the addition of facilities that would require increased operations and maintenance. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

The mine tailings at Tuzigoot would be 

removed from the legislated boundary. A 

new wayside would be added to the south 

of the tailings. A paved trail would be added that connects the visitor center with the 

Tavasci Marsh. Additional trails would be 

constructed in the area east of the pueblo. 

A hiking trail to Peck’s Lake would be 

constructed. The hiking trails would connect to the trails in the Coconino National 

Forest north of the monument. Several 

mountain bike trails would be added west 

of the visitor center. At Tuzigoot, if assessment determines that there would be 

no conflict with preservation of significant 

cultural resources, mountain bicycling 

opportunities may also be provided on old 

roadbeds in the area. Trail connections 

with neighboring federal and state lands 

would be explored. 

While interpretation would be improved 

at Tuzigoot, there would still be no area 

designated at Tuzigoot for group interpretation. Maintenance responsibilities 

would increase because of the additional 

recreational facilities. Alternative C would 

result in long-term, negligible, beneficial 

effects on monument operations because 

of the improved capability to manage visitors and resources. 

All Sites 

Visitor contact facilities would be located 

at each of the three sites. The monument 

would depend on partnerships with surrounding public lands agencies to provide 

connections to recreational and educational opportunities off site. Protection of 

cultural resources would not change from 

the no-action alternative. Protection of 

natural resources would be reduced from 

alternative B. Visitor services and administrative facilities may be expanded in select 

areas (for example, new headquarters at 

the Castle, new visitor center at Montezuma Well, new trails at all three sites), 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

237 

leaving a slightly larger development footprint. Trail connection opportunities with 

surrounding public lands would be explored with partners to increase 

recreation and education activities. The 

visitor stay would be extended at each of 

the three sites. The monuments could become the primary destination for a larger 

number of visitors, especially for local and 

regional residents. 

The National Park Service would acquire 

most of the lands within the legislated 

boundaries, except for the mine tailings at 

Tuzigoot, which would be removed from 

the legislated boundary. Maintenance responsibilities would increase with alternative C because of the additional onsite facilities, but would be more efficient because of increased maintenance facilities 

in each of the sites. Interpretation would 

be improved. Visitation could increase, 

based on a larger number of visitors and a 

longer average stay. Assuming that the 

workforce increases to accommodate the 

increased interpretive and maintenance 

responsibilities, alternative C would result 

in long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial effects on monument operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on monument 

operations. The other plans, projects, and 

actions in the region and nearby would 

have effects similar to those described for 

alternative A; namely long-term, minor, 

adverse, cumulative effects on monument 

operations, primarily the result of increased visitation and demand for associated support services. However, alternative C would have long-term, moderate, 

beneficial effects on monument operations, resulting in a cumulative, minor 

benefit for monument operations. 

Conclusion 

The beneficial effects of the alternative C 

actions on monument operations would 

span a range from negligible to major, although most of the benefits would be minor to moderate. Adverse impacts on monument operations would be minor. The 

effects of alternative C in combination 

with the effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would result in a long-term, minor, beneficial effect on monument operations. 

SOCIOECONOMICS 

The main emphasis of this alternative 

would be to provide increased opportunities for visitors to self-discover the beauty 

and wonder of the natural and cultural 

resources of the monuments. 

Montezuma Castle National Monument 

The monument headquarters would be 

relocated from Camp Verde to Montezuma Castle National Monument near the 

entrance at the intersection of Montezuma Castle Road and Montezuma Castle 

Highway. This facility would allow administrative activities to be moved on site, 

closer to visitor service activities. 

New trails would be constructed on the 

site. The road to the water tanks would be 

opened to the public, and a parking facility 

would be built near the water tanks to 

provide better views of the river valley and 

its proximity to Montezuma Castle. An 

overlook would be constructed near the 

water tank providing a unique view of the 

Castle. A new picnic area would be constructed west of the existing administration buildings that would replace the old 

picnic area. A new system of trails would 

traverse the monument from north to 

south. Additional parking and/or a bus 

drop-off could be constructed at the juncture of the Castle entrance road and the 

service road to the sewage lagoons. The 

area south of the Castle loop trail would 

include access over the creek and some 

picnic facilities on the south bank of the 

creek. Although this alternative would 

eliminate NPS spending on the rental of 

an offsite monument headquarters in 

Camp Verde, the construction activity associated with alternative C would result in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

238 

short-term, minor, beneficial effects on 

local socioeconomics. 

Montezuma Well 

A new visitor center would be constructed 

along Beaver Creek Road near the entrance to Montezuma Well to increase visitor orientation and interpretation services 

on site. A trail would be constructed parallel to the road leading from the new visitor 

center to Montezuma Well, and another 

trail would be constructed surrounding 

Montezuma Well. This trail would connect with another trail near the south 

boundary of the monument to the existing 

picnic area near Beaver Creek Road. A 

corridor along Beaver Creek Road would 

be designated to accommodate horseback 

riding, hiking, and mountain biking. Additional trails would be provided at Montezuma Well for visitors to connect with the 

natural environment. This construction 

activity associated with alternative C 

would result in short-term, minor, beneficial effects on local socioeconomics. 

Tuzigoot National Monument 

A marsh boardwalk would connect the 

visitor center with the Tavasci Marsh. Additional trails would be constructed in the 

area to the east of the pueblo. An additional workspace and storage facility near 

the existing maintenance area would provide onsite space for the functions and 

operations of Tuzigoot, replacing offsite 

workspace and storage lost with the expiration of the General Services Administration lease with the Yavapai Apache reservation. This construction activity associated with alternative C would result in 

short-term, negligible, beneficial effects 

on local socioeconomics. 

All Sites 

Visitor contact facilities would be located 

at each of the three sites, encouraging visitors to spend more time at the current site 

and also visit the other sites. Interpretive 

opportunities would increase at each site. 

The monument would depend on partnerships with surrounding public lands 

agencies to provide connections to recreational and educational opportunities off 

site. Visitor services and administrative 

facilities may be expanded in select areas 

(for example, new headquarters at Montezuma Castle, new visitor center at Montezuma Well, new trails at all three sites), 

leaving a slightly larger development footprint and more attractions for visitors. 

Trail connection opportunities with surrounding public lands would be explored 

with partners to increase recreation and 

education activities. 

The monuments could become the primary destination for a larger number of visitors, especially for local and regional residents. Visitation could increase, based on 

a larger number of visitors and a longer 

average stay. Additional staffing could be 

required to accommodate this visitation. 

The National Park Service would acquire 

most of the lands within the legislated 

boundaries except for the mine tailings at 

Tuzigoot, which would be removed from 

the legislated boundary. This would remove approximately 600 acres from the 

property tax rolls of the local government, 

resulting in a local, negligible, adverse socioeconomic effect. Maintenance responsibilities would increase with alternative C 

because of the additional onsite facilities. 

Considering the construction activity and 

assuming that the workforce is increased 

to accommodate the increased interpretive and maintenance responsibilities, alternative C would result in long-term, 

negligible, beneficial effects on socioeconomics. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several projects in the region may contribute to cumulative impacts on socioeconomics in the region. The effects of these 

projects on socioeconomics would be as 

described for alternative A. The effects of 

alternative C (minor benefits) in combination with the effects of other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would result in short- and long-term, mi-
Impacts of Implementing Alternative C 

239 

nor, beneficial, cumulative effects on socioeconomics. Adjacent and surrounding 

land use changes could result in longterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts 

to groundwater resources connected to 

Montezuma Well. 

Conclusion 

When the effects of each of the sites of the 

monuments are added, alternative C 

would result in negligible to minor, shortand long-term, beneficial effects on socioeconomics in the region. The effects of 

alternative C in combination with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would result 

in short- and long-term, minor, beneficial, 

cumulative effects on socioeconomics. 

Adjacent and surrounding land use 

changes could result in long-term, minor 

to moderate, adverse impacts to groundwater resources connected to Montezuma 

Well. 

IMPAIRMENT CONCLUSION 

FOR ALTERNATIVE C 

Under this alternative, there would be no 

adverse impacts on resources or values 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the national monuments’ establishing legislation, 

(2) key to the cultural integrity or opportunities for enjoyment of the national monuments, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

general management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. Consequently, there would be no impairment of 

resources or values. Implementation of 

this alternative would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts and is consistent 

with section 1.4.7.1 of Management Policies 2006. 

CHAPTER 5:

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

243 

HISTORY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY 

DEVELOPMENT 

The general management plan and environmental assessment for Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments 

represents thoughts of the National Park 

Service / national monuments’ staff, Native American groups, and the public. 

Consultation and coordination among the 

agencies and the public were vitally important throughout the planning process. 

The public had three primary avenues by 

which it participated during the development of the plan: participation in public 

meetings, responses to newsletters, and 

comments on the national monuments’ 

websites. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

AND NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used 

to keep the public informed and involved 

in the planning process for Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot national monuments. 

A mailing list was compiled that consisted 

of members of government agencies, organizations, businesses, legislators, local 

governments, and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on May 29, 

2003. Following additional review, the 

National Park Service determined that the 

actions anticipated in the plan would likely not result in significant environmental 

impacts nor was public controversy likely; 

therefore, an environmental assessment 

was appropriate rather than an environmental impact statement. 

The first newsletter issued in August 2003 

described the planning effort. Public 

meetings were held in Camp Verde on 

September 24, 2003, and Clarkdale on 

September 25, 2003, and were each attended by fewer than 20 people. People 

attending these meetings informed the 

National Park Service concerning the issues (opportunities, problems, or concerns) that it should address in the general 

management plan. 

The National Park Service also met with 

representatives of local, state, and other 

federal agencies to obtain input regarding 

the future of the national monuments. 

These meetings were held at key points 

throughout the planning process. The National Park Service contacted eight Native 

American tribes to discuss the future of 

the national monuments and has met with 

six at their request. In addition, the National Park Service partnered with Arizona 

State University to conduct a visitor use 

survey and gather data on visitor characteristics and preferences. 

The following issues and concerns were 

raised in response to the first newsletter, 

in public meetings, and in meetings with 

other government agencies and organizations: 

• Lands within the existing legislated 

boundaries and adjacent to the national monuments should be reviewed. These areas should be evaluated for possible boundary adjustments. 

• The national monuments should be 

evaluated to determine if additional 

opportunities exist to expand the story being told at the monuments, link 

the prehistoric cultures with contemporary peoples, and increase the areas 

that are available with the monuments 

for visitors to explore. 

• Interaction of the visitors with the resources in the national monuments 

should be evaluated. 

• The character and level of development within the national monuments 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

244 

should be evaluated. Questions as to 

whether existing facilities should be 

expanded or additional facilities are 

needed at the monuments to accommodate visitors and operations should 

also be evaluated. 

• Since the national monuments’ existing headquarters and maintenance facilities are outside the national monuments, the plan should examine 

how best to accommodate these management functions. 

• Because the national monuments constitute only a small portion of the 

Verde Valley, the National Park Service should partner with other land 

management agencies, local communities, Native American tribes, and local 

organizations in the valley to deal with 

resource management and visitor use 

issues and opportunities. 

These concerns were considered and incorporated into the issues for the general 

management plan. 

A second newsletter, distributed in August 

2004, described the management prescriptions and alternative concepts for managing the national monuments. Public meetings were held in Cottonwood and Camp 

Verde on September 7 and 8, 2004, respectively, and were attended by fewer than 20 

people. 

SECTION 7 CONSULTATION (U.S. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE) 

During the preparation of this document, 

National Park Service staff has coordinated informally with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office. In October 2003 the 

planning team initiated informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

determine the presence of federally listed 

threatened and endangered species in 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments. Telephone conversations 

were conducted with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to discuss the project and obtain 

input from the agency on the alternatives 

and their potential impacts. The list of 

threatened and endangered species (see 

appendix D) was compiled using lists and 

information received from the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act and relevant regulations in 50 

CFR Part 402, the National Park Service 

determined that the management plan is 

not likely to adversely affect any federally 

threatened or endangered species. In informal consultation, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service concluded that implementation of the management plan is not 

likely to adversely affect listed species or 

critical habitat. 

In addition, the National Park Service has 

committed to consult on future actions 

conducted under the framework described in this management plan to ensure 

that such actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. 

ARIZONA STATE AGENCY 

CONSULTATION 

In October 2003 a letter was sent to the 

Arizona Game and Fish Department requesting a list of threatened and endangered species. 

Consultation was also initiated with Arizona State Parks because lands under its 

administration -- Dead Horse Ranch State 

Park and the Verde River Greenway – are 

adjacent to the national monuments. 

SECTION 106 CONSULTATION 

(ARIZONA STATE HISTORIC 

PRESERVATION OFFICE) 

Agencies that have direct or indirect jurisdiction over historic properties are required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended (16 USC 270, et. seq.) to take into 

account the effect of any undertaking on 

properties listed or eligible for listing in 

the National Register of Historic Places. 
History of Public Involvement 

245 

To meet the requirements of 36 CFR 800, 

the National Park Service sent letters to 

the Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation on September 25, 

2003 inviting their participation in the 

planning process. 

The general management plan represents 

plan-level compliance in accordance with 

the 1995 programmatic agreement among 

the National Park Service, the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and under the terms of stipulation VI. E. The National Park Service, in consultation with 

the SHPO, will make a determination 

about which are programmatic exclusions 

under IV. A and B, and for all other undertakings, whether there is sufficient information about resources and potential effects on those resources to seek review 

and comment under 36 CFR 800.4-6 during the plan review process. 

CONSULTATION WITH 

NATIVE AMERICANS 

Letters were sent to the following Native 

American groups in September 2003 at the 

outset of this general management planning process to invite their participation in 

the planning process: 

• Yavapai Apache Nation; 

• Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe; 

• Zuni Pueblo; 

• The Hopi Tribe; 

• Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community; 

• Gila River Indian Community; 

• Ak-Chin Indian Community; and 

• Tohono O’Odham Nation. 

On November 15, 2003, Superintendent 

Kathy M. Davis and Archeologist Kevin 

Harper from the Southern Arizona Office 

visited the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office (HCPO) in response to the National 

Park Service notification letter. Davis and 

Harper met with Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, 

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office Director, and Clay Hamilton, Hopi Cultural 

Preservation Office Research Assistant, to 

present the plan’s goals and schedule and 

to provide an overview of the general 

management planning process. Kuwanwisiwma recommended that a memorandum 

of agreement be developed between the 

tribes and the national monuments to 

cover topics of mutual concern, including 

compliance, Archeological Resources Protection Act and the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

issues, cultural demonstrations, and preservation. 

On August 27, 2004, Davis and Harper, 

along with Archeologist John Schroeder 

and Student Conservation Association 

intern Amy Frost returned to the Hopi 

Cultural Preservation Office to meet with 

Director Kuwanwisiwma and employees 

Lee Wayne Lomayestewa, Terry Morgart, 

and Lanell Poseyesva. During the meeting, 

a draft memorandum of agreement was 

completed. After further review, the final 

version of the agreement was sent in January 2005 to representatives of the eight 

affiliated tribes for their consideration. 

Superintendent Davis presented the general management plan process to the 

“Four Southern Tribes Cultural Resources 

Working Group Meeting, Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community” on March 

26, 2004, at the Salt River Senior Center. 

In attendance: representatives of the Tohono O’Odham Nation, Pascua Yaqui 

Tribe of Arizona, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, 

and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Community. 

Superintendent Davis also met with the 

four southern tribes – Ak-Chin, Gila River 

Pima-Maricopa, Salt River PimaMaricopa, and Tohono O’Odham – at 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot national 

monuments on November 15 and 16, 

2004. 

The tribes will have an opportunity to review and comment on this plan. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

246 

The National Park Service will continue to 

consult with concerned Native American 

tribes to learn about sites or resources of 

cultural or religious significance and to 

develop strategies for protecting and preserving the sites and resources that might 

be identified as well as providing access to 

areas of traditional cultural and religious 

importance. The National Park Service 

will also continue to consult with concerned Native American tribes before taking actions that might affect traditional 

cultural properties; encourage archeologists, anthropologists, and researchers to 

consult with the Native American tribes 

regarding areas of interest that could be 

included in research efforts; and promote 

ethnographic involvement in excavations 

and anthropological research. 

COUNTY AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION 

The National Park Service consulted with 

Yavapai County and the towns of Camp 

Verde, Sedona, and Cottonwood during 

the planning process via partnership meetings and newsletters. 
247 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

CORE PLANNING TEAM 

Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot 

National Monuments 

Kathy M. Davis 

Superintendent, responsible for review 

and development of the general management plan, 31 years of NPS experience, 

masters degree, forestry 

Sherry Wood 

Administrative officer, provided scoping 

input, 28 years of NPS experience 

Leonard Ontiveros 

Facility manager (acting), responsible for 

monument operations affected environment and contribution to scoping issues, 

34 years of NPS experience 

Karen Hughes 

Supervisory park ranger, responsible for 

input to monument operations, resource 

protection, interpretation, and visitor use 

and experience, 22 years of federal government experience, bachelor of science 

degree 

Ed Cummins 

Chief, Division of Resource Protection 

and Visitor Services, responsible for input 

to monument operations, interpretation, 

and visitor use and experience, 27 years of 

NPS experience, bachelors degree, 

recreation and park management 

Randall Skeirik 

Chief, Division of Resources Management, responsible for input to monument 

operations and resources management 

affected environment, 18 years of experience as a licensed architect, 4 years with 

NPS, masters degree, architecture 

John Schroeder 

Archeologist, responsible for cultural resources affected environment and scoping 

issues, 15 years of experience in archeology, master degree, archeology (pending) 

Dennis Casper 

Biologist, responsible for input to resources management affected environment, 7 years of experience in natural resource management, bachelors degree, 

ecology, graduate study underway 

Matthew Guebard 

Archeologist, responsible for cultural resources affected environment, 3.5 years of 

NPS experience, masters degree, anthropology 

Denver Service Center 

Patrick Kenney 

Project manager (former), responsible for 

project management and oversight, 19 

years of NPS experience, bachelors degree, zoology 

Cynthia Nelson 

Project manager, responsible for project 

management and oversight, 14 years of 

experience with the Federal Aviation Administration and 2 years of NPS experience, masters degree, public administration 

Kerri Cahill 

Community planner, responsible for user 

carrying capacity and visitor use and experience affected environment and impacts, 

15 years of experience in natural resource 

and recreation planning, Ph.D., natural 

resource recreation management 

Erin Flanagan 

Natural resource specialist, responsible 

for natural resource affected environment 

and impacts, 15 years of experience in resource planning, masters degree, resources law and urban and regional planning 

Jane Sikoryak 

Cultural resource specialist, responsible 

for cultural resources affected environment and impacts, 22 years of NPS experience, bachelors degree, history 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

248 

Harlan Unrau 

Cultural resource specialist, responsible 

for cultural resources affected environment and impacts, 35 years of experience 

in history, masters degree, history 

Ruth Eitel, graphics specialist 

Christy Fischer, writer-editor 

CONSULTANTS 

Parsons 

John Hoesterey 

Project manager, responsible for project 

management and oversight, 35 years of 

experience in natural resource and 

recreation planning, masters degree, geography 

John Martin 

Community planner, responsible for monument operations and socioeconomic 

impacts, 37 years of experience in community and transportation planning, masters degree, city and regional planning 

Don Kellett 

Natural resource specialist, responsible 

for natural resources affected environment and impacts, 16 years of experience 

in biology, bachelors degree, wildlife biology 

Janet Snyder, 

Senior writer-editor, 34 years of experience, bachelors degree, zoology 

Scott Lowry 

Writer-editor, 16 years of experience, 

Ph.D., English 

National Park Service, 

Southern Arizona Office 

Kevin Harper, Archeologist 

Larry Laing, Natural resources 

Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center 

Sue Wells, Archeologist 

Western National Parks Association 

Jon Fistler, Field manager 

e2M (Engineering Environmental 

Management) 

Ron Dutton, Sammons Dutton, LLC 
249 

LIST OF RECIPIENTS 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Coconino National Forest 

Chiricahua National Monument 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Petrified Forest National Park 

Pipe Springs National Monument 

Saguaro National Park 

Tumacacori National Historic Park 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. SENATORS AND 

REPRESENTATIVES 

U.S. Senator Jon Kyle 

U.S. Senator John McCain 

U.S. Representative Rick Renzi 

U.S. Representative Bob Stump 

STATE AGENCIES 

Arizona Game and Fish 

Arizona Office of Tourism 

Arizona State Parks 

Dead Horse Ranch State Park 

Fort Verde State Park 

Jerome State Historical Park 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Red Rock State Park 

Slide Rock State Park 

STATE OFFICIALS 

Office of the Governor 

State Senator Ken Bennett 

State Senator John Vercamp 

State Representative Henry Camarot 

State Representative Tom O’Halleran 

NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES 

TRADITIONALLY ASSOCIATED 

WITH THE NATIONAL 

MONUMENTS 

Yavapai Apache Nation 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 

Zuni Pueblo 

The Hopi Tribe 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

Gila River Indian Community 

Ak-Chin Indian Community 

Tohono O’Odham Nation 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

Camp Verde Fire Department 

Camp Verde Marshall’s’ Office 

Camp Verde Schools 

City of Cottonwood 

City of Sedona 

Clarkdale Fire Department 

Cottonwood Fire Department 

Cottonwood Police Department 

Mingus Union High School District 

Montezuma-Rimrock Fire Department 

Prescott Department of Public Safety 

Sedona/Oak Creek School District 

Sedona Parks and Recreation 

Town of Camp Verde 

Town of Clarkdale 

Town of Jerome 

Verde Greenway 

Verde Valley Fire Department 

Yavapai County 

Yavapai County Development Services 

Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

250 

ORGANIZATIONS 

AND BUSINESSES 

Camp Verde Historical Society 

Camp Verde Journal 

Central Arizona Land Trust 

Clarkdale Chamber of Commerce 

Cottonwood Chamber of Commerce 

Glen Canyon Institute 

Glen Canyon Trust 

Jerome Chamber of Commerce 

Jerome Historical Society 

Keep Sedona Beautiful 

Northern Arizona Audubon Society 

Northern Arizona University Department 

of Biological Sciences 

Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, 

Inc. (formerly Phelps-Dodge Company) 

Plateau Group 

Radio Station KAZM 

Radio Station KNAU 

Sedona Academy 

Sedona Historical Society 

Sedona-Oak Creek Chamber of Commerce 

Sedona Red Rock News 

Shumway Family Living Trust 

Sierra Club 

Southwest Expedition Institute, Inc. 

The Nature Conservancy 

Trust for Public Lands 

United Christian School of Camp Verde 

Verde Independent/Camp Verde Bugle 

Verde River Citizens Alliance 

Verde Valley Archeological Society 

Verde Valley Open Space Committee 

Verde Watershed Association 

Walmart 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center 

Western National Parks Association 

Yavapai Broadcasting 

Yavapai College, Verde Valley Campus 
REFERENCES

253 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Arizona Department of Commerce 

(ADOC) 

1989 Community Profiles. Camp Verde 

(April), Clarkdale (April), Cottonwood (May), and Jerome (April). 

Phoenix. 

Arizona Department of Economic 

Security 

1990 Arizona Revised Population Estimates, 1981-1989 and Population 

Projections, 1989-2040. Arizona 

Department of Economic Security, 

Research Administration, Population Statistics Unit. May. 

1997 Arizona County Population Projections, July 1, 1997 to July 1, 

2050. Research Administration, 

Population Statistics Unit. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AGFD) 

2007 Arizona's Natural Heritage Program: Heritage Data Management 

System (HDMS). Accessed via the 

internet, July 2007, at 

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/s

pecies_concern.shtml. 

Arizona State Parks 

1992 Verde River Greenway Management Plan. Prepared by Design 

Workshop, Inc. for Arizona State 

Parks. 

2004 Dead Horse Ranch State Park and 

Verde River Greenway Information Page. 

http://www.pr.state.az.us/Parks/pa

rkhtml/deadhorse.html. 

Averitt, E., C. Bodeker, V. Coltman, G. 

DelMonte, J. Duvall, D. Gelfand, and T. 

Toliver. 

1990 Verde River Corridor Clarkdale, 

An Ecological Inventory and 

Analysis. Department of Planning, 

College of Architecture and Environmental Design. Arizona State 

University. December. Tempe, 

Arizona. 

Basso, K.H. 

1983 “Western Apache.” In Handbook 

of North American Indians: Vol. 

10, Southwest 462-88. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 

Bond, B. 

1996 Wisdom sits in places: Landscape 

and language among the Western 

Apache. Albuquerque: University 

of New Mexico Press. 

2005 Personal communication with 

Brian Bond, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. September 

27. 

Breternitz, D.A. 

1960 Excavation at Three Sites in the 

Verde Valley, Arizona, Museum of 

N. Arizona Bulletin Number 34, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1999 Tavasci Marsh Supplemental 

Sampling Report. Prepared by 

URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, 

Denver, Colorado. September. 

Council on Environmental Quality 

1978 “Regulations for Implementing the 

Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.” 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 

40, Parts 1500-1508. 

Federal Register 

2006 71 FR 53755, September 12. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered 

or Threatened; Annual Notice of 

Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of 

Progress on Listing Actions. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 
REFERENCES

254 

Fish, P.R. and S.K. Fish 

1977 Verde Valley Archeology; Review 

and Perspective, Museum of 

Northern Arizona Research Paper 

8, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Fistler, J. 

2005 Personal communication with Jon 

Fistler, manager, Western National Parks Association. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

2002 Fishing Verde River. Accessed on 

the Internet August 2008 at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/prescott/fi

shing/fishing_verde.htm 

Gifford, E.W. 

1936 Northeastern and Western Yavapai. Univ. of California Publications in American Archaeology 

and Ethnology, vol. 34. 

Grenville, G. and J.T. Goodwin, ed. 

1942 The social organization of the 

Western Apache. The University 

of Chicago publications in anthropology: Ethnological series. Chicago: The University of Chicago 

Press. [reprinted 1969 by Tucson: 

University of Arizona Press]. 

Lehner, R.E. 

1958 Geology of the Clarkdale Quadrangle, Arizona. U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin. Washington, D.C. 

Minckley, W.L. and D.E. Brown 

1982 "Wetlands." Desert Plants 4(1-4), 

special issue part 6. Tucson: University of Arizona. 

National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of the Interior 

1987 Tuzigoot National Monument 

Archeological District. National 

Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form. Prepared by Susan J. Wells, Archeologist, Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center. September 

24. 

1990 Montezuma Castle National Monument Archeological District. 

Draft National Register of Historic 

Places Registration Form. Prepared by Ron Beckwith, Archeologist, and Keith Anderson, Regional Research Archeologist, 

Western Archeological and Conservation Center. May 2. 

1992a Water Resources Management 

Plan: Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments. 

1992b Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. National Park Service, Washington D.C. 

1998 Director's Order #28: Cultural Resource Management. Washington, 

DC. 

2001 Director’s Order #12 and Handbook: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making. Washington, 

D.C. 

2003 Director’s Order 77-2: Floodplain 

Management. Washington D.C. 

2006 Management Policies: The Guide 

to Managing the National Park 

System. Washington, D.C.: NPS 

Office of Policy. 

2007 Park Museum Collection Storage 

Plan. Accessed via the Internet 

August 2008 at 

http://www.nps.gov/history/ museum/parkmuseum collectionstorageplan.html. 

2008a Collection Management Plan: 

Montezuma Castle National Monument. Prepared by the Western 

Archeological and Conservation 

Center. June. 

2008b Collection Management Plan: Tuzigoot National Monument. Prepared by the Western Archeological and Conservation Center. June. 
Bibliography 

255 

Northern Arizona University 

2002 The Economic Impact of Arizona 

State Parks. The Arizona Hospitality Research and Resource Center, 

School of Hotel and Restaurant 

Management, Northern Arizona 

University. 

Protas, J. 

2002 A Past Preserved in Stone: A History of Montezuma Castle National Monument. Western National Parks Association, Tucson, 

Arizona. 

Powers, Robert P. and Nancy E. Pearson 

2008 An Overview and Assessment of 

Middle Verde Valley Archeology. 

Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Publications in 

Anthropology No. 99. National 

Park Service, Tucson. 

Rowlands, P.G. 

1999 Vegetation Survey of Montezuma 

Castle National Monument. April 

20. 

Schroeder, A. H. 

1960 A Study of Yavapai History, NPS 

Publication. Santa Fe, NM. 

Sedona Verde Valley Tourism Council 

2007 Enjoying an Arizona Treasure: 

The Verde Valley Greenway. Accessed via the Internet August 

2008 at http://www.sedonaverdevalley.com/ articles/Greenway.htm. 

Soil Conservation Service and U.S. Forest 

Service (SCS and USFS), U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 

1972 Soil Survey of Yavapai County, 

Arizona. Wendt, G. E. and Richardson (Eds.). Washington, D. C. 

Stynes, D.J., D.B. Propst, W.H. Chang, and 

Y. Sun 

2000 Money Generation Model Version 2 (MGM2): Estimating regional economic impacts of park 

visitor spending. East Lansing, MI: 

Department of Park, Recreation 

and Tourism Resources, Michigan 

State University. 

Tagg, M.D. 

1986 The Tuzigoot Survey and Three 

Small Verde Valley Projects, 

Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Publication in 

Anthropology Number 40, Tucson, Arizona. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census 

2000 U.S. Census of the Population. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

2004 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. 

Available at http://www.fws.gov. 

January. 

Verde River Corridor Project Steering 

Committee 

1991 Verde River Corridor Project: Final Report and Plan of Action. 

June. Verde Valley, Arizona. 

Wells, S.J. and K.M. Anderson 

1988 Archeological Survey and Architectural Study of Montezuma Castle National Monument, Western 

Archeological and Conservation 

Center, Publications in Anthropology Number 50, Tucson, Arizona. 

White, D. and R. Virden 

2004 Visitor Study Final Technical Report: Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot National Monuments. Arizona State University. 

Yavapai County, Arizona. 

2003 The Yavapai County General Plan 

2003. 

257 

INDEX 

Alternative A, i, iv, v, x, xiv, xvii, xviii, 4, 

45, 51, 53, 54, 55, 72, 83, 86, 87, 90, 91, 

93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 

175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 

183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 

193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 207, 

209, 210, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 230, 

238, 239 

Alternative B, i, iv, v, vi, x, xiv, xv, xvii, 3, 4, 

45, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 72, 82, 86, 

87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 196, 

197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 

206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 

214, 215, 216, 221, 222, 224, 225, 227, 

228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 237 

Alternative C, i, iv, vi, vii, xi, xv, xvii, 4, 45, 

64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 72, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 

90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 162, 218, 

220, 222, 223, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 

232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 

240 

American Indians (see Native Americans), 

39, 253, 300 

Back cabin, 14, 19, 58, 66, 94, 95, 118, 173, 

212, 216, 225, 227, 234 

Beaver Creek, vii, 6, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 

21, 36, 38, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 65, 66, 82, 

87, 88, 92, 119, 121, 123, 125, 131, 135, 

140, 182, 185, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201, 

205, 207, 211, 218, 221, 222, 225, 232, 

233, 237, 239 

Campgrounds, 13, 14, 138, 145 

Camping, 31, 111, 138, 172, 175, 190, 213, 

235 

Carrying Capacity, 119, 199, 247 

Coconino National Forest, vi, 12, 31, 32, 

39, 58, 67, 88, 92, 117, 120, 137, 144, 211, 

234, 237, 249 

Consultation, iv, 10, 23, 24, 26, 36, 51, 76, 

77, 78, 87, 88, 90, 112, 122, 180, 181, 192, 

207, 230, 244, 245, 246, 269 

Cottonwood, 119, 130, 146, 147, 148, 149, 

150, 151, 210, 232, 244, 246, 249, 250, 

253 

Cultural resources, i, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, 4, 11, 

14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 35, 46, 

48, 49, 51, 59, 64, 66, 67, 76, 77, 80, 86, 

88, 91, 98, 104, 105, 109, 113, 114, 133, 

144, 159, 161, 162, 163, 167, 188, 191, 

192, 200, 204, 206, 213, 214, 222, 236, 

237, 238, 247, 248, 267, 270 

Dead Horse Ranch State Park, vi, 16, 31, 

39, 58, 67, 84, 88, 92, 136, 138, 172, 175, 

179, 190, 192, 194, 211, 213, 234, 235, 

244, 249, 253 

Desired future conditions, iii, 10, 27, 161 

Erosion, 38, 48, 52, 78, 79, 87, 94, 96, 109, 

111, 165, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 177, 

178, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 199, 

200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 221, 222, 223, 

224, 225, 226, 227, 229 

Ethnographic resources, v, vi, viii, 36, 37, 

38, 76, 77, 94, 104, 111, 163, 180, 181, 

198, 199, 220, 221 

Fire, x, 25, 35, 123, 249 

Flooding, 14, 36, 65, 87, 111, 119, 121, 123, 

164, 171, 174, 182, 199, 200, 201, 221, 

222, 223, 237, 271 

Floodplain, 19, 77, 94, 106, 109, 119, 121, 

123, 164, 165, 182, 183, 199, 200, 201, 

221, 222, 223, 271 

Hiking, v, vii, 4, 31, 57, 58, 65, 84, 87, 92, 

111, 138, 141, 145, 172, 175, 196, 211, 

214, 222, 233, 237, 239 

Interaction and Discovery Zone, xi, 196 

Interpretation and orientation, i, iv, v, vi, 

viii, ix, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, 17, 20, 21, 24, 29, 

31, 34, 45, 49, 50, 51, 56, 58, 65, 66, 72, 

74, 86, 88, 91, 92, 93, 98, 99, 126, 134, 

135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 142, 189, 190, 

191, 192, 196, 200, 203, 204, 209, 211, 

212, 213, 214, 215, 216,218, 222, 228, 

233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 247 

Invasive species, 27 
REFERENCES

258 

Mine tailings, v, vii, x, 32, 34, 35, 56, 58, 59, 

60, 64, 67, 81, 86, 88, 90, 133, 136, 137, 

179, 189, 190, 213, 214, 215, 236, 237, 

238, 239 

Montezuma Castle, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, 

ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 3, 

4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 

21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 

37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 

56, 57, 61, 62, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 

81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 

99, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 

114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 

122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 

130, 131, 133, 134, 138, 140, 141, 142, 

144, 145, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 159, 

160, 161, 165, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 

172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 

181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 

189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 196, 197, 198, 

199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 

208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216, 218, 

219, 220, 221, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 

230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 239, 

243, 244, 245, 247, 254, 255, 259, 267, 

299 

Montezuma Well, i, iii, iv, v, vii, viii, xi, xiii, 

xv, xvii, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 

21, 34, 38, 51, 56, 58, 64, 66, 74, 81, 84, 

88, 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 106, 108, 111, 112, 

113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 

123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 

135, 136, 138, 141, 144, 170, 172, 173, 

176, 177, 180, 182, 185, 188, 189, 190, 

191, 192, 194, 200, 202, 205, 207, 210, 

211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 218, 222, 225, 

227, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 

239, 240, 259 

National Environmental Policy Act, i, 3, 

10, 22, 73, 81, 82, 85, 159, 160, 253, 267, 

270, 271 

National Historic Preservation Act, 3, 21, 

22, 23, 51, 73, 81, 104, 116, 159, 162, 163, 

172, 173, 176, 179, 180, 181, 196, 197, 

198, 199, 218, 219, 220, 221, 244, 270 

National Register of Historic Places, v, xii, 

xiii, 23, 48, 58, 66, 76, 77, 87, 104, 108, 

111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 162, 163, 

170, 173, 174, 176, 177, 244, 254, 270 

Native American (see American Indians), 

x, xii, xvi, 23, 24, 27, 32, 37, 38, 58, 107, 

111, 112, 117, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 

139, 144, 149, 180, 190, 192, 194, 212, 

235, 243, 244, 245, 246, 249, 270 

Native Americans, 39, 253, 300 

Natural resources, i, iv, v, vi, 4, 20, 24, 25, 

27, 33, 34, 40, 46, 48, 49, 51, 64, 79, 82, 

84, 86, 90, 91, 115, 120, 133, 134, 136, 

138, 142, 159, 164, 177, 178, 179, 237, 

247, 248, 267, 268, 271, 300 

Park Operations Zone, xi, 73 

Parking, vi, vii, 4, 6, 14, 50, 57, 58, 59, 65, 

66, 67, 72, 74, 79, 81, 84, 87, 88, 92, 95, 

98, 133, 134, 141, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 

192, 196, 205, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 

214, 216, 218, 224, 231, 233, 235, 236, 

238 

Pit houses, vii, 15, 65, 88, 106, 108, 116, 

170 

Pueblos, iv, vi, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 37, 51, 

56, 58, 59, 67, 74, 84, 88, 91, 106, 108, 

109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 117, 118, 136, 

137, 138, 141, 174, 192, 196, 212, 214, 

216, 234, 237, 239, 245, 249 

Religious significance, 180, 246 

Section 106, xvi, 3, 244 

Sedona, 32, 112, 113, 120, 130, 144, 146, 

148, 149, 150, 151, 193, 246, 249, 250, 

255 

Sinaguan culture, x, 4, 6, 11, 12, 17, 19, 32, 

49, 57, 106, 109, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 

126, 131, 133, 136, 137, 139, 141, 151, 

176, 177, 181, 189, 190, 192, 194, 211, 

213, 233, 236 

Soils, vii, 26, 36, 77, 78, 79, 94, 95, 106, 112, 

113, 120, 121, 123, 165, 183, 184, 201, 

202, 203, 204, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 

Southwestern willow flycatcher, 97, 120, 

123, 124, 186, 187, 207, 208, 209, 230, 

231 

Tavasci Marsh, vi, 34, 36, 59, 67, 72, 88, 90, 

94, 96, 97, 120, 121, 124, 136, 184, 185, 

186, 187, 188, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 

206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 214, 216, 
Index 

259 

222, 223, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 

234, 239 

Threatened and endangered species, 21, 

26, 32, 57, 64, 78, 90, 97, 103, 120, 166, 

188, 210, 233, 244 

Traffic, 12, 74, 133, 144, 193 

Trails, v, vi, vii, 4, 6, 13, 14, 31, 36, 38, 40, 

49, 50, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 

74, 78, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 

94, 95, 96, 98, 109, 111, 122, 131, 133, 

134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 145, 

171, 174, 175, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184, 

185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 

196, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 

206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 

214, 216, 218, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 

226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 

234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 

Tuzigoot, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, xi, xii, 

xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 

11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 

26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 45, 

46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 

64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72,"74, 81, 82, 84, 86, 

88, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 103, 105, 106, 

107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 

115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 

123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 133, 

136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 144, 145, 

151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 159, 160, 161, 

167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 

176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 

185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 

194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 

203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 

211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 

220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 

229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 

238, 239, 243, 244, 245, 247, 254, 255, 

264, 267, 299 

Vegetation, vii, 26, 32, 36, 38, 59, 77, 78, 

79, 95, 108, 111, 115, 119, 120, 121, 123, 

124, 165, 171, 177, 183, 184, 187, 190, 

199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 

208, 213, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 

227, 228, 231, 236 

Vehicles, vii, 4, 40, 48, 65, 72, 74, 87, 133, 

138, 141, 143, 145, 188, 211, 233 

Verde River, iv, vii, x, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 

31, 36, 38, 39, 51, 59, 67, 88, 92, 96, 105, 

106, 107, 109, 112, 113, 116, 117, 119, 

120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 128, 136, 138, 

139, 172, 175, 179, 182, 183, 185, 186, 

187, 190, 192, 194, 196, 200, 202, 203, 

204, 206, 208, 210, 211, 213, 218, 222, 

223, 226, 229, 231, 234, 235, 244, 250, 

253, 254, 255 

Verde River Greenway, vii, x, 16, 31, 39, 

59, 67, 88, 92, 96, 120, 137, 138, 172, 175, 

179, 182, 183, 185, 187, 190, 192, 194, 

200, 203, 204, 206, 208, 210, 211, 213, 

223, 226, 229, 231, 234, 235, 244, 253 

Verde Valley, i, iii, iv, v, x, xii, xviii, 11, 15, 

17, 18, 20, 23, 32, 33, 35, 39, 56, 64, 66, 

76, 86, 91, 92, 98, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 

117, 119, 120, 128, 133, 134, 135, 136, 

137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 

148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 

170, 193, 194, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 

233, 234, 235, 236, 244, 249, 250, 253, 

254, 255 

Viewshed, 59, 80, 189, 190, 213, 236 

Visitor center, iv, vii, viii, 4, 6, 14, 15, 21, 

40, 50, 51, 57, 59, 64, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 77, 84, 87, 88, 91, 94, 95, 98, 118, 131, 

133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 141, 152, 173, 

174, 183, 189, 190, 191, 192, 213, 214, 

215, 216, 225, 227, 234, 235, 236, 237, 

239 

Visitor experience, 28, 33, 45, 46, 47, 48, 

50, 73, 76, 80, 88, 98, 126, 133, 159, 160, 

167, 168, 189, 190, 193, 211, 212, 213, 

233, 234, 235, 236 

Visual intrusion, 80, 111, 151 

Water quality, 25, 36, 39, 88, 133, 135, 137, 

164, 194, 209, 232, 269 

Water quantity, iv 

Wetlands, 21, 79, 81, 96, 164, 184, 185, 204, 

205, 228, 269, 271 

Wildlife, v, vi, vii, 20, 25, 27, 32, 36, 48, 78, 

79, 96, 120, 122, 124, 131, 133, 135, 136, 

137, 141, 164, 166, 167, 184, 185, 186, 

201, 205, 206, 207, 228, 229, 230, 248, 

267, 269, 271, 299, 300 
REFERENCES

260 

Yavapai County, i, xvii, 15, 21, 31, 119, 

122, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 

155, 246, 249, 255, 299 

Yavapai-Apache Tribe, x, 32, 107, 112, 

144, 145, 149, 151, 171, 175, 178, 190, 

192, 194, 212, 235 

Yellow-billed cuckoo, 97, 124, 125, 188, 

210, 232, 233 

Yuma clapper rail, v, 97, 124, 188, 209, 

210, 232, 299 
261 

APPENDIX A: LEGAL MANDATES 

Appendix A includes summaries and descriptions of the application of federal laws, regulations, executive orders, policies, and guidelines that are applicable to the National Park Service’s management of resources in the natural and human environment. 

ENABLING LEGISLATION 

ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 AND PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 696, 

DECEMBER 8, 1906, ESTABLISHING MONTEZUMA CASTLE NATIONAL 

MONUMENT 

Montezuma Castle National Monument was founded by virtue of Presidential Proclamation 

696, under the authority granted the president by the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States 

Code 431-433). President Theodore Roosevelt issued the proclamation on December 8, 1906. 

The Antiquities Act and the subsequent proclamation form the foundation for all the rules, 

regulations, laws, and policies of the monument. Montezuma Well was added in 1943 as a 

detached unit of the monument with an act of Congress (October 19, 1943, 57 Stat. 572). 
REFERENCES

262 
Appendix A: Legal Mandates 

263 
REFERENCES

264 
Appendix A: Legal Mandates 

265 
REFERENCES

266 

PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 2344, JULY 25, 1939, 

ESTABLISHING TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Tuzigoot National Monument was established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt with the 

signing of Presidential Proclamation 2344, on July 25, 1939. The proclamation and the Antiquities Act of 1906 form the foundation for all the rules, regulations, laws, and policies of the 

monument. 
Appendix A: Legal Mandates 

267 
REFERENCES

268 
269 

LAWS AND POLICIES GUIDING MANAGEMENT OF 

MONTEZUMA CASTLE AND TUZIGOOT NATIONAL MONUMENTS 

Three overarching environmental protection laws and policies guide the actions of the National Park Service in the management of parks and their resources: the NPS Organic Act of 

1916, the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations, and the Omnibus Management Act. For an in-depth discussion of guiding regulations, refer to the section 

“Servicewide Mandates and Policies” in the “Purpose of and Need for Action” chapter. 

These guiding regulations are briefly described below. 

• The Organic Act of 1916 (16 United States Code [USC] 1) commits the National Park Service to making informed decisions that perpetuate the conservation and protection of 

park resources unimpaired for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. 

• The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is implemented through CEQ regulations 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508). The National Park Service has, in turn, 

adopted procedures to comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations, as found in Director’s 

Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making

(NPS 2001) and Handbook. 

• The Omnibus Management Act (16 USC 5901 et seq.) underscores NEPA in that both are 

fundamental to park management decisions. Both acts provide direction for connecting 

resource management decisions to the analysis of impacts, and communicating the impacts of these decisions for the public, using appropriate technical and scientific information. Both acts also recognize that such data may not be readily available, and they provide options for resource impact analysis should this be the case. 

Management Policies 2006 states that the “fundamental purpose” of the national park system 

is to conserve park resources and values and to provide for the public enjoyment of the parks 

resources and values to the extent that the resources will be left unimpaired for future generations. Native wildlife is identified as a park resource. Management Policies 2006 provides 

general principles for the maintenance of natural resources in the park by: 

“preserving and restoring the natural abundances, diversities, dynamics, distributions, habitats, and behaviors of native plant and animal populations and the communities and ecosystems in which they occur.” 

Because many forms of recreation can take place outside a national park setting, the National 

Park Service will therefore seek to: 

• Provide opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited and appropriate to 

the superlative natural and cultural resources found in a particular unit; and 

• Defer to local, state, and other federal agencies; private industry; and non-governmental 

organizations to meet the broader spectrum of recreational needs and demands that are 

not dependent on a national park setting.
REFERENCES

270 

Any closures or restrictions, other than those imposed by law, must be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and (except in emergency situations) require a written 

determination by the superintendent that such measures are needed to: 

• Protect public health and safety; 

• Prevent unacceptable impacts on park resources or values; 

• Carry out scientific research; 

• Minimize visitor use conflicts; or 

• Otherwise implement management responsibilities. 

Section 4.5 of Director’s Order 12 adds to this guidance by stating, “when it is not possible to 

modify alternatives to eliminate an activity with unknown or uncertain potential impacts, and 

such information is essential to making a well-reasoned decision, the National Park Service 

will follow the provisions of the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22).” In summary, the National Park Service must state in an environmental assessment or impact statement (1) 

whether such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) the relevance of the incomplete 

or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts 

on the human environment; (3) a summary of existing credible scientific adverse impacts that 

is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts; and (4) an 

evaluation of such impacts based on theoretical approaches or research methods generally 

accepted in the scientific community. 

Collectively, these guiding regulations provide a framework and process for evaluating the 

impacts of the alternatives proposed in this general management plan and environmental assessment. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, prohibits the taking, killing, possession, 

transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11). Additionally, the act authorizes and directs the 

Secretary of the Interior to determine if, and by what means, the take of migratory birds 

should be allowed and to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing take (for example, hunting seasons for ducks and geese). “Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine 

mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine 

mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. See 

http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/marmam.html for more information. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (particularly the 1996 

amendments) requires regional fishery management councils with the assistance of NMFS to 

delineate Essential Fish Habitat for all managed species, for the purpose of maintaining sustainable fisheries. See http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/efhprim.htm for more information. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Management Policies 2006 and Natural Resources Management Guidelines (Director’s Order 

77) direct the National Park Service to “encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage 

to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man and to enrich 

the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Na-
Appendix A: Legal Mandates 

271 

tion...” Policies and guidelines for natural resources direct that the park must (1) identify 

and complete the inventories of natural resources for baseline information; (2) minimize impacts of human activities, developments, and uses on marine and terrestrial resources; (3) 

continue to close areas to protect nests; and (4) manage endangered, threatened, and candidate species. 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides strict legal protection for endangered and 

threatened species, as well as those special concern species that may be in jeopardy of extinction, and for which special protection under federal and state law is afforded. The federal list 

of plants and animals is published in 50 CFR 17.11-12, and is administered by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Special status species of plants and wildlife are included in 

this section. If the National Park Service determines that an action may adversely affect a 

federally listed species, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required to ensure that the action would not jeopardize the species’ continued existence or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended, provides for the protection of 

the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, 

sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any 

bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit. 

“Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or 

disturb. 

WETLANDS 

Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulate the 

discharge of dredged or fill material resulting from water resources projects (such as dams or 

levees) into the waters of the U.S. through a permit program. The section 404(b)(1) 

guidelines are the substantive criteria by which proposed dredged material discharge actions 

are evaluated. The U.S. EPA also maintains general environmental oversight, including 

section 404(c) permit veto authority, if there will be an "unacceptable adverse effect." The 

basic premise of the program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted 

if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the 

nation's waters would be significantly degraded. 

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands requires federal agencies to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency’s responsibilities. Also, each agency must consider 

factors relevant to effects on the survival and quality of wetlands when proposing an action. 

WATER RESOURCES 

The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA), or Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 

and its amendments is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity 

of the nation’s waters.” The goal of the Clean Water Act is to produce waters of the United 

States that are “fishable and swimmable.” A primary means for evaluating and protecting 

water quality is the establishment and enforcement of water quality standards. Under the 

Clean Water Act, the federal government delegated responsibility for establishing water 

quality criteria to each state, subject to approval by the EPA. Water quality standards consist 

of three parts: 1) designated beneficial uses of water [e.g., drinking, recreation, aquatic life]; 

2) numeric criteria for physical and chemical characteristics for each type of designated use; 

and 3) an “antidegradation” provision to protect uses and water quality. 
REFERENCES

272 

Management Policies 2006 states that the National Park 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 the parks.” Management Policies 

2006 also state that the National Park Service will “take all necessary actions to maintain or 

restore the quality of surface waters and groundwaters within the parks consistent with the 

Clean Water Act and all other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.” 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, requires in §106 that federal 

agencies with direct or indirect jurisdiction over undertakings take into account the effect of 

those undertakings on properties that are listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National 

Register of Historic Places. This act and its implementing regulations provide guidance for 

deciding whether cultural resources are of sufficient importance to be determined eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The NHPA uses the term “historic properties,” to mean all prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in, 

or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. Regulations that guide 

the implementation of NHPA are contained in 36 CFR, Part 800 (36 CFR 800). 

The management and protection of cultural resources are guided by a variety of laws and 

policies, including: 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800; 

• Antiquities Act of 1906; 

• NPS Organic Act of 1916; 

• Historic Sites Act of 1935; 

• Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974; 

• Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979; 

• General Authorities Act of 1976; 

• Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955, as amended; 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 

• Executive Order 11593; 

• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation; 

• Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes; 

• Departmental Manual 411 DM 1-3, Managing Museum Property; 

• Departmental Manual 519 DM 1, Protection of the Cultural Environment; Departmental 

Manual 519 DM 2, Preservation of American Antiquities and Treatment and Disposition 

of Native American Cultural Items; 

• Programmatic Agreement among the National Park Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers (1995); 

• Management Policies 2006; 

• Director’s Order 28, Cultural Resource Management; 
Appendix A: Legal Mandates 

273 

• Director’s Order 28A, Archeology; and 

• Director’s Order 24, NPS Museum Collections Management. 

COASTAL ZONE AND FLOODPLAINS 

In recognition of the increasing pressures of development on the nation's coastal resources, 

Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972 and has amended it several times (16 United States Code 1450 et seq.). The CZMA encourages states to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal resources such 

as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as 

the fish and wildlife using those habitats. 

The CZMA specifies that coastal states may protect coastal resources and manage coastal 

development. A state with an OCRM-approved program can deny or restrict any development that is inconsistent with its coastal zone management program. 

Management Policies 2006 states that the National Park Service, in managing floodplains on 

park lands, “will (1) manage for the preservation of floodplain values; (2) minimize potentially hazardous conditions associated with flooding; and (3) comply with the NPS Organic Act 

and all other federal laws and executive orders related to the management of activities in 

flood-prone areas, including Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), the National 

Environmental Policy Act, applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, and the Rivers and 

Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899.” Specifically, the National Park Service will “protect, 

preserve, and restore the natural resources and functions of floodplains.” 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, which in part addresses coastal areas, mandates all federal agencies to develop agency-specific guidance, provide leadership, and take 

action to: 

• Reduce the risk of flood loss; 

• Minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and 

• Restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. 

275 

APPENDIX B: CONSULTATION AND 

CORRESPONDENCE
REFERENCES

276 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

277 
REFERENCES

278 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

279 
REFERENCES

280 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

281 
REFERENCES

282 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

283 
REFERENCES

284 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

285 
REFERENCES

286 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

287 
REFERENCES

288 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

289 
REFERENCES

290 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

291 
REFERENCES

292 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

293 
REFERENCES

294 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

295 
REFERENCES

296 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

297 
REFERENCES

298 
Appendix B: Consultation and Correspondence 

299 
REFERENCES

300 
301 

APPENDIX C: THREATENED 

AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Table C.1 presents the species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidates for listing and having potential to occur in Yavapai County, Arizona. The Arizona Game and Fish Department does not make any distinctions with regard to status 

such as threatened or endangered; all state special status species are classified as Wildlife of Special Concern. The Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data Management System provided lists of the state special status species that may be found within five miles of Montezuma 

Castle or Tuzigoot national monuments. 

TABLE C.1: ENDANGERED, THREATENED, CANDIDATE, AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA 

Common Name Scientific Name Status a/

Plant 

Arizona cliffrose Purshia subintegra FE, AWSC 

Invertebrate 

Page springsnail Pyrgulopsis morrisoni FC, AWSC 

Reptile 

Northern Mexican garter snake Thamnophis eques megalops AWSC 

Amphibians 

Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis FT, AWSC 

Lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis AWSC 

Fish 

Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FE, AWSC 

Desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius FE, AWSC 

Gila chub Gila intermedia FE, AWSC 

Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis FE, AWSC 

Headwater chub Gila nigra FC, AWSC 

Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE, AWSC 

Roundtail chub Gila robusta AWSC 

Spikedace Meda fulgida FT, AWSC 

Birds 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT b/, AWSC 

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon AWSC 

California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus FE, AWSC 

Common black hawk Buteogallus anthracinus AWSC 

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida FT, AWSC 

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, AWSC 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FC, AWSC 

Yuma clapper rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis FE, AWSC 

Mammal 

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii AWSC 

a/ FE = federal endangered; FT = federal threatened; FC = federal candidate; AWSC = Arizona wildlife of special concern 

b/ The bald eagle was recently delisted (June 28, 2007), although the delisting is not administratively complete. 

As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has the responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound 

use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving 

the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for 

the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories 

under U.S. administration. 

NPS 309/100861 / January 2010 
National Park Ser vice • U.S. Department of the Interior