Aztec Ruins

National Monument

New Mexico

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

General Management Plan 

and Environmental Assessment
The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural 

resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, 

and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with 

partners to extend the benefi ts of natural and cultural resources conservation and 

outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Aztec Ruins National Monument

San Juan County, New Mexico

February 2010

This document is the General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment for Aztec Ruins 

National Monument. A general management plan (GMP) describes the general approach the 

National Park Service intends to follow in managing this national monument over the next 15 

to 20 years. The general management plan portion of this document identifi es the monument’s 

purpose, signifi cance, and fundamental resources and values (Chapter 1), followed by three 

alternative ways to manage cultural and natural resources, visitor experience, and facilities 

to preserve these important resources and values (Chapter 2). Alternative 1 is the “no-action 

alternative” that provides a baseline against which to evaluate the other alternatives; it would 

result in continuation of current management practices into the future. Alternative 2 would 

expand resource management and visitor opportunities beyond the West Ruin to areas such as 

East Ruin and North Ruin. Alternative 3 would also expand resource management and visitor 

opportunities, and further emphasize outreach and partnerships and the intertwined future of 

both the monument and its surrounding environment in achieving common goals. Alternative 3 

is the National Park Service’s Preferred Alternative, the management strategy the National Park 

Service intends to implement. If approved, it would establish the framework for more detailed 

plans and decisions to come. 

The environmental assessment portion of this document (Chapters 3, 4, and 5) provides 

background information about conditions in and around Aztec Ruins National Monument 

for cultural and natural resources, visitor experience and educational opportunities, the 

socioeconomic environment, and monument operations. It further addresses the environmental 

consequences (also known as “impacts”) that would be expected from implementing each of the 

three GMP alternatives.

This General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment will be released to the public for a 

60-day comment period. Following the review period, the National Park Service planning team 

will evaluate comments from other federal agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals 

in preparation for a decision document for approval of the plan. This document records the 

National Park Service selection of an alternative for implementation and will be signed by the 

National Park Service regional director.
HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN

Comments on this General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment (GMP/EA) are 

welcome and will be accepted for 60 days after its release. Comments should be provided online 

at the National Park Service (NPS) Planning, Environment and Public Comment Web site:

 http://parkplanning.nps.gov/azru

Click on “General Management Plan,” then in the left column, click on “Open for Public 

Comment.” Finally, follow the directions for entering comments. 

For members of the public without Internet access, comments may be mailed in writing to:

Dennis L. Carruth 

Superintendent, Aztec Ruins National Monument

84 County Road 2900

Aztec, NM 87410-9715

We encourage you to provide us with written comments on this document during the 60-day 

comment period, especially to provide your opinion with regards to the alternatives presented 

herein. Dates for which the comment period is open are listed on the Web site shown above and 

are advertised via NPS news releases and local media. You may contact the superintendent for 

this and other project-related information at (505) 334-6174 ext. 222.

It is the practice of the National Park Service to make all comments, including names and 

addresses of respondents who provide that information, available for public review following 

the conclusion of the planning process. However, before including your address, phone number, 

email 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.
i

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This general management plan (GMP) describes the general path the National Park Service 

intends to follow in managing Aztec Ruins National Monument over the next 15 to 20 years. The 

new plan will give comprehensive guidance for preserving cultural and natural resources and for 

providing quality visitor experiences at this remarkable community of ruins along the Animas 

River in Aztec, New Mexico. Its purpose is to ensure that managers and the public share the same 

vision of how best to achieve the monument’s purpose and protect its resources unimpaired 

for future generations. Because implementation of the GMP is a proposed federal action, the 

National Environmental Policy Act mandates that the National Park Service consider a range 

of alternatives, including no action, and disclose the environmental impacts of each alternative. 

Thus, an environmental assessment is being prepared in conjunction with this GMP for Aztec 

Ruins National Monument.

Aztec Ruins is currently being managed under a GMP that was completed in 1989. Since it was 

completed, many of the goals have been achieved and new issues and planning interests have 

arisen that warrant a new GMP to provide direction. These interests include the need to: 

 Determine desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources, visitor 

experience, and facilities development for the nearly 300 acres of land that have been 

added to the monument boundaries since 1988, in addition to the original 27 acres. 

Inventories and resource knowledge that has been acquired since the 1989 GMP and the 

changing and projected future operational needs must also be incorporated into these 

desired future conditions.

 Reassess and make recommendations regarding the development that was prescribed 

in the 1989 GMP. Some of that development has not been implemented, and some 

development has occurred that departed from these prescriptions.

 Address potential impacts to monument resources and visitor experience from 

development that may occur outside, but adjacent to, the monument boundaries, and in 

association with active gas wells within the monument. 

 Explore partnership opportunities with neighbors, the City of Aztec, American Indian 

tribes, and others to protect resources within and surrounding the monument, and to 

enhance opportunities for enjoyment and understanding by visitors to the monument and 

residents throughout the region.

 Seek the input of the local community, American Indian tribes, and other interested 

parties.

BACKGROUND AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AZTEC RUINS NATIONAL 

MONUMENT

Aztec Ruins National Monument was established in 1923 to protect a “ruin of great antiquity and 

historical interest ... with a view to the preservation of said ruin for the enlightenment and culture 
ii

SUMMARY

of the nation” (Presidential Proclamation). Originally, it contained 4.6 acres and was called Aztec 

Ruin National Monument. The name was changed to Aztec Ruins National Monument in 1928 

when its size was increased to 17.2 acres. It was expanded to 25.9 acres in 1930 and to 27.2 acres 

in 1948. Finally, Aztec Ruins was expanded to 317.8 acres in 1988. Research indicates that Aztec 

was the core of an extensive ceremonial center with other major features directly related to the 

Aztec Ruins. Many of these resources are intact and currently preserved within the monument 

boundary. 

On December 8, 1987, the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO) designated Aztec Ruins National Monument, along with Chaco Culture National 

Historical Park, as a World Heritage Site. With this listing, the national monument became one of 

twenty World Heritage Sites in the United States. 

Due to their importance, resources within the national monument that warrant primary 

consideration in the planning process include ancestral Pueblo features such as the primary 

group of ruins in the West Ruin and East Ruin complexes, including the original intact masonry, 

wooden roofs, artifacts, and earthworks, and the reconstructed Kiva; surrounding archeological 

sites; prehistoric roadways; and the overall landscape. Other important resources that are 

considered include wildlife, vegetation, and the viewshed.

The values of Aztec Ruins National Monument considered during the planning process include: 

the opportunity to experience and make connections with an ancestral Pueblo community; the 

many American Indians who have strong connections to the area; archeological resources, which 

can contribute knowledge to the past, present, and future; and the opportunity to understand the 

continuum from ancient Pueblo communities, to the monument’s historic landscape and use, to 

current management by the National Park Service. Through collaboration, there is potential to 

share American Indian oral histories and traditions at Aztec Ruins.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

The general concept of the no-action alternative is to continue with current management 

practices at Aztec Ruins and serve as the baseline for evaluating the impacts of Alternatives 2 

and 3. Management would continue to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources 

with an emphasis on prehistoric ruins and artifacts of the West Ruin area. Features of existing 

cultural landscapes would be retained, even where they overlap and confl ict. Most visitors would 

continue to experience the visitor center and West Ruin interpretive trail. No new facilities would 

be constructed, but the Aztec Ruins Trading Post would be removed and the Kiva Trading Post 

would be rehabilitated for cultural resource offi ces, work space, and a wet lab. Management 

eff orts would continue to be focused within the monument boundary. 

ALTERNATIVE 2

This alternative would expand the scope of resource stewardship and opportunities for more 

comprehensive visitor understanding throughout the monument. Distractions to visitor 

understanding of fundamental resources and values, such as the orchards, would be removed. 

Visitors would have opportunities to experience resources and stories beyond the West Ruin 

through additional trails and interpretative tools that would lead visitors to other areas of the 
iii

SUMMARY

monument, including East Ruin and North Ruin. Resource management activities such as 

ruins stabilization, backfi ll, and research would be expanded from the focus on the West Ruin 

to additional signifi cant cultural resources within the boundary of the monument. The Aztec 

Ruins Trading Post would be rehabilitated to serve as the new administrative headquarters of the 

monument. The Kiva Trading Post would be rehabilitated for cultural resource functions as in 

Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This alternative emphasizes outreach and partnerships with a broader understanding of 

the importance of community and regional context and the intertwined future of both the 

monument and its surrounding environment. Aztec Ruins National Monument would strive to 

be woven into the fabric of the surrounding community and region, working in collaboration 

and partnership to achieve common goals. Such common goals could broadly include education 

and appreciation of shared heritage and culture, stewardship of heritage resources, archeological 

research and preservation, and shared environmental stewardship, in addition to furthering the 

specifi c mission of the monument.

Visitors would have expanded opportunities for experiences and learning within the monument, 

as well as connections to related opportunities in the surrounding region. As with Alternative 

2, resource management activities would be expanded within the monument. However, 

in Alternative 3, such activities would also be linked to opportunities beyond monument 

boundaries. As with Alternative 2, features that distract visitors from understanding the 

monument’s fundamental resources and values, such as the more recent orchards, would be 

removed. Visitors would have opportunities to experience resources and stories beyond the West 

Ruin through additional trails and interpretive tools that would lead visitors to the East Ruin 

and North Ruin. The Kiva Trading Post and the Aztec Ruins Trading Post would be rehabilitated 

as described in Alternative 2, except in this alternative the Aztec Ruins Trading Post would be 

further expanded to include a community meeting space that would welcome collaboration and 

partnership activities into the monument, including educational opportunities, arts and crafts, 

demonstrations, and other activities relating to American Indian cultures.

IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

Preservation activities for archeological resources would be focused on West Ruin resulting 

in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts to West Ruin and long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts to East Ruin and North Ruin. Heavy visitation at West Ruin and grounddisturbing activities on North Mesa could also result in some long-term, minor, adverse impacts. 

Retention of the orchards and other features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape would result 

in moderate, adverse impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Retention of the orchards 

would also result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to native vegetation regimes 

and local wildlife because pear and apple orchards would be maintained. Riparian vegetation and 

water sources would be maintained resulting in no impacts to special status species. 

Visitor access would continue to be limited to the West Ruin resulting in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to visitor experience. Retention of the administration trailer, the orchards, and 

other features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape would continue to degrade the prehistoric 

scene for some visitors. Improved visitor understanding related to limited partnerships and 
iv

SUMMARY

community education would contribute to long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts. Spending 

related to visitors and monument operations would most likely remain at current levels, 

resulting in short-term and long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to the local economy. The 

existing administration trailer would continue to provide insuffi cient space for monument 

staff and compromise safety resulting in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts. Removal of 

the Aztec Ruins Trading Post and rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post would provide longterm, negligible to minor, benefi cial impacts. Staffi ng levels and effi ciency would face long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts due to the demands upon staff time to support resource and program 

needs. 

ALTERNATIVE 2

In Alternative 2, preservation activities would be expanded throughout the monument resulting 

in long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts to archeological resources. New trail 

construction and related visitor use could result in some long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

to East Ruin, North Ruin, and other archeological resources. Removal of the pear and apple 

orchards within the Prehistoric Designed Landscape would result in benefi cial impacts that are 

moderate for vegetation and minor for native wildlife. Wildlife would be adversely impacted in 

the short term due to trail construction activities and in the long term from trail use by visitors 

resulting in minor adverse impacts. 

Long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts would occur to the visitor experience from 

development of the new trail; expanding the interpretive and educational focus for visitors 

beyond the West Ruin to other resources; removing the administration trailer and rehabilitating 

the Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts; and removing the pear and apple orchards and other 

ornamental vegetation that detracts from the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Although visitor 

opportunities would be expanded at the monument, visitation levels would remain similar to 

current levels and visitors’ length of stay would not increase substantially. Thus, visitor spending 

would most likely remain at current levels, resulting in short-term and long-term, minor, 

benefi cial impacts to the local economy. Ongoing monument operations, current employee 

spending, and an increased number of short-term construction projects would also contribute to 

the local economy, resulting in short-term and long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts. 

Monument operations would be substantially improved resulting in long-term, moderate, 

benefi cial impacts with the rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts, because of 

increased space for staff and monument needs. Some short-term, minor, adverse impacts would 

occur to staff effi ciency during facility and trail construction. 

ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Impacts that would result from implementation of Alternative 3 would be the same as those for 

Alternative 2, except for the many long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts that would result 

from the new cultural activities center and the enhanced partnership and outreach opportunities 

provided in Alternative 3. These benefi ts would accrue because of expanded information sharing 

and educational opportunities. The addition of the new cultural activities center would also result 

in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts on monument operations by improving community 

relationships, augmenting staff with volunteers, and strengthening visitor services and protection 

of resources. Some additional adverse impacts could also occur related to new trails that could 

connect to a proposed community trail, but they would be minor to vegetation, wildlife, and the 

monument viewshed in the long term.
v

SUMMARY

THE NEXT STEPS 

After the distribution of the General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment there will be 

a 60-day public review and comment period after which the National Park Service planning team 

will evaluate comments from other federal agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals 

in preparation for a decision document for approval of the plan. This document will outline 

the NPS selection of an alternative for implementation and will be signed by the National Park 

Service regional director. Once it is signed, the plan can then be implemented.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

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

the plan will be forthcoming. The implementation of the approved plan will depend on future 

funding, and it could also be aff ected by factors such as changes in park staffi ng, visitor use 

patterns, and unanticipated environmental changes. Full implementation could be many years in 

the future. Once the General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment has been approved, 

additional feasibility studies and more detailed planning, environmental documentation, and 

consultations would be completed, as appropriate, before certain actions in the NPS Preferred 

Alternative can be carried out. 

Future program and implementation plans, describing specifi c 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.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN — 1

General Management Planning — 1

Brief Description of Aztec Ruins National Monument — 1

Appropriate Use — 7

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT—9

Monument Mission and Goals — 9

Monument Mission Statement — 9

Monument Mission Goals — 9

Foundation for Planning and Management — 9

Monument Purpose — 10

Monument Signifi cance — 10

Fundamental Resources and Values — 11

Primary Interpretive Themes — 14

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments — 14

Desired Conditions–From Law and Policy — 16

Resource Areas — 20

Planning Issues and Opportunities — 20

Archeological Resources — 20

Cultural Landscapes — 21

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 21

Facilities and Operations — 21

Outreach and Partnerships — 22

Relationship of the General Management Plan to Other Planning Efforts — 22

Vegetation and Cultural Landscapes Management Plan — 22

Fire Management Plan — 22

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan — 23

Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process — 23

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES — 25

Management Zones — 25

Carrying Capacity — 33

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES — 35

Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability — 35

Resource Management — 35

Commercial Services — 36

Farmers Ditch and Irrigation System — 37

Land Protection — 37

Privately Owned Land within the Monument — 37
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nonfederal Subsurface Rights — 37

Boundary Adjustments — 38

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS) — 39

General Concept — 39

Resource Management — 39

Archeological Resources — 39

Cultural Landscapes — 42

Museum Collections — 43

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 43

Facilities and Operations — 44

Visitor Center — 44

Administration Trailer — 44

Maintenance Complex — 44

Aztec Ruins Trading Post — 45

Kiva Trading Post — 45

Outreach and Partnerships — 45

Communication with American Indian Tribes — 45

Staffi ng and Costs — 46

ALTERNATIVE 2 — 47

General Concept — 47

Resource Management — 47

Archeological Resources — 47

Cultural Landscapes — 49

Museum Collections — 50

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 50

Facilities and Operations — 51

Visitor Center — 51

Administration Trailer — 51

Maintenance Complex — 51

Aztec Ruins Trading Post — 52

Kiva Trading Post — 52

Outreach and Partnerships — 52

Communication with American Indian Tribes — 53

Staffi ng and Costs — 53

ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE — 55

General Concept — 55

Resource Management — 55

Archeological Resources — 56

Cultural Landscapes — 57

Museum Collections — 57

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 58

Facilities and Operations — 59

Visitor Center — 60

Administration Trailer — 60

Maintenance Complex — 60

Aztec Ruins Trading Post — 60
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Kiva Trading Post — 60

Outreach and Partnerships — 60

Communication with American Indian Tribes — 61

Staffi ng and Costs — 61

ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS — 63

Preservation of the Orchards — 63

Staff Offi ces in Town — 63

New Maintenance and Staff Housing Complex — 64

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES — 65

General — 65

Cultural Resources — 65

Natural Resources — 66

Visitors — 66

NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE — 67

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE — 68

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

IMPACTS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS — 77

Cultural Resources — 77

Archeological Resources — 77

Cultural Landscapes — 81

Natural Resources — 86

Vegetation — 86

Wildlife — 87

Special Status Species — 88

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 90

Socioeconomic Environment — 92

Local Economy — 92

Adjacent Land Use — 93

Monument Operations — 93

Facilities — 93

Staff Housing — 96

Oil and Gas Operations — 96

Staffi ng and Administrative Effi ciency — 96

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS — 97

Cultural Resources — 97

Historic Structures — 97

Ethnographic Resources — 98

Indian Trust Resources — 98

Museum Collections — 99

Natural Resources — 99

Air Quality — 99

Water Resources — 100

Floodplains and Wetlands — 100
x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Topography, Geology, and Soils — 100

Night Sky — 101

Cultural Soundscapes — 101

Prime and Unique Farmland — 101

Environmental Justice — 102

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES — 103

Terms and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts — 103

Cumulative Impacts — 104

Impairment of National Park Resources — 106

Unacceptable Impacts — 107

Impacts to Cultural Resources, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act — 107

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS — 109

Cultural Resources — 109

Archeological Resources — 109

Cultural Landscapes — 110

Natural Resources — 111

Vegetation — 111

Wildlife — 112

Special Status Species — 112

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 113

Socioeconomic Environment — 114

Monument Operations — 114

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING 

CONDITIONS) — 116

Cultural Resources — 116

Archeological Resources — 116

Cultural Landscapes — 117

Natural Resources — 119

Vegetation — 119

Wildlife — 120

Special Status Species — 120

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 121

Socioeconomic Environment — 122

Monument Operations — 123

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 — 125

Cultural Resources — 125

Archeological Resources — 125

Cultural Landscapes — 126

Natural Resources — 128

Vegetation — 128

Wildlife — 128

Special Status Species — 130
xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 131

Socioeconomic Environment — 132

Monument Operations — 134

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE — 136

Cultural Resources — 136

Archeological Resources — 136

Cultural Landscapes — 141

Natural Resources — 143

Vegetation — 143

Wildlife — 144

Special Status Species — 145

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities — 147

Socioeconomic Environment — 149

Monument Operations — 150

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, INCLUDING SCOPING — 153

Scoping — 153

Scoping Newsletter — 153

Scoping Meetings–October 2003 — 154

Second Newsletter–January 2004 — 154

Alternatives Development — 155

Visitor Survey — 155

Public Open House–May 2004 — 156

Focus Group on Economics–November 2004 — 157

Change from Environmental Impact Statement to Environmental Assessment — 157

GMP/EA Review — 157

CONSULTATION WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES — 158

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and New Mexico State Historic 

Preservation Offi cer — 158

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — 158

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish — 158

New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources — 159

Communication with American Indian Tribes — 159

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS — 160

Preparers of the GMP/EA — 160

Contributors and Consultants — 161

BIBLIOGRAPHY — 163

GLOSSARY — 167

Abbreviations — 167

Defi nition of Terms — 167
APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION — 171

APPENDIX B: RESOURCE AREAS — 178

APPENDIX C: CARRYING CAPACITY — 181

APPENDIX D: ALTERNATIVE COST AND STAFFING COMPARISON — 183

APPENDIX E: CONSULTATION LETTERS — 184

LIST OF MAPS AND TABLES

MAPS

Vicinity Map — 2

Prehistoric Sites — 3

Cultural Resources — 5

Management Zones — 28

Alternative 1 — 40

Alternative 2 — 48

Alternative 3 — 54

TABLES

Table 1. Desired Conditions —16

Table 2. Impact Topics — 24

Table 3. Descriptions of Desired Resource Conditions, Visitor Experience, and Facility 

 Development by Management Zone — 29

Table 4. Carrying Capacity Indicators and Management Actions by Management Zone — 34

Table 5. Summary of Alternatives — 70

Table 6. Summary of Environmental Consequences — 73

Table 7. Contributing and Noncontributing Landscape Elements of National Register Eligible 

 Landscapes — 85

Table 8. Species Reported or With Potential to Occur Within Aztec Ruins National 

 Monument — 89

Table 9. Existing Facilities at Aztec Ruins — 94

Table 10. Effects on Cultural Resources — 139

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xii
CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN

The General Management Plan describes the general path the National Park Service intends to follow in managing 

Aztec Ruins National Monument over the next 15-20 years. The 

GMP does not provide specifi c answers to every issue facing 

the monument; rather, it is a framework to assist National Park 

Service managers in making decisions today and into the future.

1

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Park planning is a decision-making process. General management planning is the broadest level 

of decision making and the fi rst phase of tiered planning and decision making for national park 

units. General management plans are required for all units of the national park system and are 

intended to establish the future management direction of a park unit. These plans focus on why 

the park unit was established (purpose), why it is special (signifi cance and fundamental resources 

and values), and what resource conditions and visitor experiences should be achieved and 

maintained (desired future conditions). General management plans look years into the future and 

consider the park in its cultural and ecological context and as part of a surrounding region. 

Actions identifi ed by general management plans or in subsequent implementation plans 

may be accomplished over time. Budget restrictions, requirements for additional data or 

regulatory compliance, and competing national park system priorities may delay or preclude 

implementation of many actions. Full implementation of a plan could lie many years into the 

future.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AZTEC RUINS NATIONAL MONUMENT

Aztec Ruins National Monument was created via presidential proclamation by Warren G. 

Harding on January 24, 1923, as a “ruin of great antiquity and historical interest ... with a view 

to the preservation of said ruin for the enlightenment and culture of the nation.” Originally, 

it contained 4.6 acres and was called Aztec Ruin National Monument. The name was changed 

to Aztec Ruins National Monument in 1928 when its size was increased to 17.2 acres. It was 

expanded to 25.9 acres in 1930 and to 27.2 acres in 1948. Finally, Aztec Ruins was expanded to 

317.8 acres in 1988. Appendix A provides the full language of presidential proclamations and 

public laws pertaining to the establishment of and changes to Aztec Ruins National Monument.

In 1966, Aztec Ruins National Monument was placed on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) as a district. On December 8, 1987, the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c 

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated Aztec Ruins National Monument, along with 

Chaco Culture National Historical Park, as a World Heritage Site. With this listing, the national 

monument became one of twenty World Heritage Sites in the United States. The prehistoric 

features at Aztec Ruins are considered to be “fragile and irreplaceable, and form a signifi cant part 

of our global cultural heritage.” (Lister and Lister 1990, 189)

Located in northwestern New Mexico, in the town of Aztec, in San Juan County, Aztec Ruins 

National Monument is one of the most important archeological sites in the United States (see 

Vicinity map). The signifi cance of Aztec Ruins lies in its great prehistoric physical remains, 

the stories of the cultures that have occupied the Animas River valley, and its role in the larger 

regional prehistoric context. Numerous archeological sites have been found throughout the 

region. Some of the outlying great houses and other prehistoric community sites near Aztec Ruins 

are shown on the Prehistoric Sites map.
2

CHAPTER 1
3

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN

Mine Canyon

Jackson Lake

San Juan River

Animas River

La Plata River

Aztec

Farmington Bloomfield

Salmon Ruin

Sterling

Kello Blancett

Fort Site

Morris 41

Morris 39

Tommy Site

Point Site

Flora Vista

Holmes Group

Jaquez Pueblo

Gillentine Site

Fruitland Pueblo

East Side Rincon

Indian Race Track

Dein Ruin

Farmer Arroyo Site

Twin Angels Pueblo

Late Pueblo II to Pueblo III Central Community Sites 

Near Aztec Ruins National Monument

($'1000 to 1300)

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Aztec Ruins National Monument

New Mexico

Prehistoric Sites

048 2

Miles

IMDE

1/1/09

319

20,036

0 100 200 50

Miles

Legend

Aztec Ruins National Monument

Present-Day Cities

Important Late Prehistoric Sites

Aztec Ruins

National Monument

New Mexico
4

CHAPTER 1

Major concentrations of prehistoric sites at Aztec Ruins are found in two general locations, as 

shown on the Cultural Resources map: 1) the Main Ruins Group, including West Ruin and East 

Ruin; and 2) the Aztec North Mesa Archeological District, consisting of Residence West, North 

Ruin, and an extensive concentration of related sites. Three diff erent cultural landscapes have 

also been identifi ed at Aztec Ruins: 1) the Prehistoric Designed Landscape, which, at over 315 

acres, includes most of the national monument; 2) the Historic Vernacular Landscape, which, at 

170 acres, includes more than half of the monument; and 3) the Historic Designed Landscape, 

consisting of 2.35 acres. These landscapes are also shown on the Cultural Resources map and are 

discussed in more detail throughout this document. More detailed information about many other 

aspects of Aztec Ruins can be found later in this chapter under “Resource Areas” and in Chapter 

3, “Aff ected Environment.”

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

This Aztec Ruins National Monument General Management Plan (GMP) provides 

comprehensive guidance for preserving cultural and natural resources and providing 

opportunities for quality visitor experiences at this remarkable community of ruins along the 

Animas River in Aztec, New Mexico. Its purpose is to ensure that managers and the public 

share the same vision of how best to achieve the monument’s purpose and protect its resources 

unimpaired for future generations. 

Aerial View of Visitor Center, Great Kiva, and West Ruin
5

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN

West

Ruin East Ruin

North Ruin

Great

Kiva

Ruins Road

Ruins Road

Aztec North Road

(Approx.Location)

5600

5800

5800

5700

5600

5600

Animas River

Farmers Ditch

1

2

3

41

51

3 1

2

Residence

West

0 500 1,000

Feet

Prehistoric Designed Landscape (315.36 Acres) = The entire monument, excluding 

the Historic Designed Landscape

Historic Vernacular Landscape (170 Acres) = All Lands southeast of the Farmers Ditch, 

excluding the Historic Designed Landscape

Historic Designed Landscape (2.35 Acres) = The Historic District

IMDE

1/1/09

319

20,037

Concentrations of Prehistoric Sites

Main Ruins Group

Aztec North Mesa Archeological District

LEGEND

Base Data

Existing Trail

Drainage (Irrigation)

Stream/Ditch

Contour (20 Foot Interval)

Mound/Ruin

Building

Orchards

Non-Historic Road

Prehistoric Road

Parking Lot

Picnic Area

Maintenance Compound

Visitor Center

Facilities

1

2

Kiva Trading Post

Aztec Ruins Trading Post

3

Gas Well

Authorized Boundary 317.8 Acres

Administration Offices

(Double-Wide Trailer)

Historic District

5

4

Aztec Ruins National Monument

Cultural Resources

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior New Mexico
6

CHAPTER 1

The GMP describes the general path the National Park Service (NPS) intends to follow in 

managing Aztec Ruins National Monument over the next 15 to 20 years. The GMP does not 

provide specifi c answers to every issue facing the monument; rather, it is a framework to assist 

National Park Service managers in making decisions today and into the future. More detailed 

actions regarding the management of some monument resources, such as cultural landscapes and 

vegetation, will be identifi ed in a separate vegetation and cultural landscapes management plan. 

More specifi cally, the GMP:

 Provides general guidance for how to manage resources and provide for visitor 

understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment.

 Presents a general approach for facilities development.

 Supports the monument’s purpose and signifi cance and protects its fundamental 

resources and values.

 Clearly defi nes the resource conditions and visitor opportunities to be achieved.

 Ensures that the foundation for decision making has been developed in consultation with 

an interested public and adopted by National Park Service leadership after suffi cient 

analysis of the benefi ts, impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action.

Because implementation of the GMP is a proposed federal action, the National Environmental 

Policy Act mandates that the National Park Service considers a range of alternatives, including 

no action, and discloses the environmental impacts of each alternative. Thus, an environmental 

assessment is being prepared in conjunction with this GMP for Aztec Ruins National Monument.

Aztec Ruins is currently being managed under a GMP that was completed in 1989. Since it was 

completed, many of the goals identifi ed in the 1989 plan have been achieved. New issues and 

planning interests have arisen, warranting a new GMP to provide direction. These interests 

include the need to: 

 Determine desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources, visitor 

experience, and facilities development for the nearly 300 acres of land that have been 

added to the monument boundaries since 1988, in addition to the original 27 acres. 

Inventories and resource knowledge that has been acquired since the 1989 GMP and the 

changing and projected future operational needs must also be incorporated into these 

desired future conditions.

 Reassess and make recommendations regarding the development that was prescribed 

in the 1989 GMP. Some of that development has not been implemented, and some 

development has occurred that departed from these prescriptions.

 Address potential impacts to monument resources and visitor experience from 

development that may occur outside, but adjacent to, the monument boundaries, and in 

association with active gas wells within the monument. 

 Explore partnership opportunities with neighbors, the City of Aztec, American Indian 

tribes, and others to protect resources within and surrounding the monument and to 

enhance opportunities for enjoyment and understanding by visitors to the monument and 

residents throughout the region.

 Seek the input of the local community, American Indian tribes, and other interested 

parties.
7

INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN

APPROPRIATE USE

Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of NPS Management Policies 2006 direct that the National Park Service 

must ensure that uses that are allowed within a unit of the national park system would not cause 

impairment of, or unacceptable impacts on, park resources and values. A new form of park 

use may be allowed within a park only after a determination has been made in the professional 

judgment of the park manager that it will not result in unacceptable impacts.

Section 8.1.2 of NPS Management Policies 2006 provides evaluation factors for determining 

appropriate uses. All proposals for park uses are evaluated for:

 consistency with applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies;

 consistency with existing plans for public use and resource management;

 actual and potential eff ects on park resources and values;

 whether the public interest will be served.

Park managers must continually monitor all park uses to prevent unanticipated and unacceptable 

impacts. If unanticipated and unacceptable impacts emerge, the park manager must engage in a 

thoughtful, deliberate process to further manage or constrain the use, or discontinue it.

Further, Section 8.2 of NPS Management Policies 2006 states: “To provide for enjoyment of the 

parks, the National Park Service will encourage visitor use activities that

 are appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established, and

 are inspirational, educational, or healthful, and otherwise appropriate to the park 

environment; and

 will foster an understanding of and appreciation for park resources and values, or will 

promote enjoyment through a direct associations with, interaction with, or relation to 

park resources; and

 can be sustained without causing unacceptable impacts to park resources and values.”

The primary visitor uses that are currently available or will be provided upon implementation 

of this GMP at Aztec Ruins National Monument include: 1) viewing and learning about the 

monument ruins at the visitor center and via the existing and newly proposed interpretive trails 

to the ruins and 2) new collaboration and partnership activities that would be welcomed and 

provided at a new community meeting space in the rehabilitated Aztec Ruins Trading Post at the 

monument. These uses meet the criteria outlined in Section 8.1.2 and Section 8.2 of the NPS 

Management Policies 2006. 

Regarding Section 8.1.2, all the management actions outlined in the alternatives presented in 

Chapter 2, including the Preferred Alternative, are consistent with applicable laws, executive 

orders, regulations, and policies of the National Park Service as described in “ Desired 

Conditions — From Law and Policy” in this chapter. Secondly, this GMP proposes to establish 

future public use and resource management direction for the monument that is compatible 

with or updates existing planning documents; however, it will also establish new resource 

management direction as suggested by the proposed vegetation and cultural landscapes 

management plan. Finally, the eff ects of the proposed alternatives and whether the public interest 

will be served are evaluated in the impact analyses that are presented by impact topic throughout 

Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences.” Additionally, the alternatives proposed in this GMP 

were determined to serve the public interest by identifying public concerns during scoping and 
8

CHAPTER 1

throughout the planning process, and by ensuring preservation of the monument resources 

unimpaired for future generations.

As directed by Section 8.2, the visitor uses outlined in the alternatives presented in Chapter 2 

and evaluated within this GMP are appropriate to the purpose for which the monument was 

established (see “Foundation for Planning and Management”), are inspirational and educational, 

foster an understanding of and appreciation for park resources and values, and can be sustained 

without causing unacceptable impacts to park resources and values. Therefore, all the visitor 

activities proposed within this GMP are appropriate uses for Aztec Ruins National Monument.
9

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

MONUMENT MISSION AND GOALS

A mission statement is an overarching concept that speaks to the vision or “big picture” of 

the national monument over the long term. Mission goals help to determine operational 

requirements for the national monument from year to year. Together, these provide an overall 

direction for monument management. 

MONUMENT MISSION STATEMENT

Aztec Ruins National Monument is the keeper of a remarkable community of ruins along 

the Animas River in northwest New Mexico. These ancient structures of the early Pueblo 

people are preserved and protected to tell their stories, so that the people of today and future 

generations can understand and appreciate that multifaceted culture. We work toward that goal 

in cooperation with monument neighbors, partners, tribes, and others, moving forward together 

to shape our future.

MONUMENT MISSION GOALS

Preserve Monument Resources

Natural and cultural resources and associated values at Aztec Ruins National Monument are 

protected and maintained in good condition and managed within the broader ecosystem and 

cultural context of northwest New Mexico.

Provide for Public Understanding and Enjoyment

Monument visitors and the general public understand and appreciate the purpose, signifi cance, 

and preservation of Aztec Ruins National Monument and its resources for this and future 

generations.

Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfi ed with the availability, accessibility, diversity, and quality of 

facilities, services, and educational opportunities at Aztec Ruins National Monument.

Ensure Organizational Effectiveness

Aztec Ruins National Monument uses current management practices, systems, and technologies 

to accomplish its mission in an environmentally sustainable manner.

The National Park Service at Aztec Ruins National Monument increases its managerial 

capabilities through partnerships that promote appreciation and protection of a shared land 

heritage.

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

The foundation for planning and management identifi es what is most important about the 

monument and is a prerequisite for all subsequent planning and decision making. It helps ensure 

that all stakeholders, including National Park Service managers and staff , understand what is 
10

CHAPTER 1

most important about the monument and that all programs and actions contribute to achieving 

the monument’s purpose and other mandates. 

This foundation outlines the presidentially and congressionally established purpose of the 

monument, the signifi cant resources that warranted its designation as a unit of the national 

park system, the fundamental resources and values that warrant primary consideration during 

planning and in making management decisions, and the primary interpretive themes that 

determine what stories and educational information should be communicated to visitors. It also 

identifi es special mandates such as policies or legislative requirements that may apply specifi cally 

to Aztec Ruins. 

MONUMENT PURPOSE

Each unit in the national park system is established for a specifi c purpose. Purpose statements 

convey the intent of the legislation, legislative history, presidential proclamations, and/or other 

enabling language that established the unit (legislation can be found in Appendix A). Language in 

the Aztec Ruins presidential proclamations that is appropriate to apply to a statement of purpose 

includes the following:

“...a ruin of great antiquity and historical interest...”

[do not] “... appropriate, injure, destroy or remove any of the features or objects 

included within the boundaries...”

“...the preservation of said ruin for the enlightenment and culture of the nation...”

“...a cluster of ruins related in historic and scientifi c interest...”

“...ruin mounds of unusual prehistoric and scientifi c value...”

Based on this language, the purpose of Aztec Ruins National Monument is to:

Preserve, protect, and interpret the ancient Pueblo structures and to encourage and 

conduct scientifi c research to enhance the understanding of the prehistory of the site.

MONUMENT SIGNIFICANCE

Signifi cance statements describe the elements that distinguish Aztec Ruins as a nationally 

signifi cant unit of the national park system. The statements refl ect the exceptional values and 

West Ruin
11

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

resources that must be preserved and maintained to achieve the purpose of the unit. These 

statements help to identify primary interpretive themes, opportunities for visitor understanding 

and enjoyment, and desirable visitor experiences. They also assist managers in focusing their 

eff orts and limited funding on these key resources and values. 

The following statements identify the signifi cance of Aztec Ruins National Monument: 

Aztec Ruins is a refl ection of the ancestral Pueblo peoples that lived here, choosing this 

place because of the abundance of life-sustaining elements in this riparian ecosystem, 

including its spiritual characteristics. The descendents of the people who built and lived 

in this magnifi cent architecture continue to follow traditions that remain intricately linked 

to this sacred place.

Aztec Ruins is an integral component of 200–300 years of cultural cohesiveness and 

expression that occurred throughout the Four Corners region, from approximately A.D. 

1050 to 1300. The site is an important aid to understanding the earlier times of the Pueblo 

world in this area and, along with Mesa Verde, is an integral component of the larger 

Chacoan system.

Aztec Ruins contains some of the 

most remarkably well-preserved 

ancestral Pueblo architecture in 

the Southwest. It is monumental 

in scale, both in its designed 

landscape as well as in its individual 

structures. This planned community 

is characterized by its symmetrical 

layout, its unique complex of 

architectural features that includes 

rare tri-walled structures, and its 

unusually well-preserved masonry 

and wood structures, artifacts, 

earthworks, and other remains from 

the late A.D. 1000s to 1300. Original 

wooden roofs still cover dozens of 

rooms and have enabled Aztec Ruins 

to become the best tree-ring-dated 

site in the Southwest. The high integrity and importance of the site were additionally 

recognized in 1987 when Aztec Ruins National Monument, along with Chaco Culture 

National Historical Park, were together designated a World Heritage Site.

The pioneering excavations of the American Museum of Natural History provided 

archeological data and explanations that infl uenced interpretations of cultural history in 

the San Juan Basin for half a century and the profession as a whole. The reconstruction of 

the Great Kiva was an unparalleled eff ort in the history of Southwestern archeology.

FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCES AND VALUES

Fundamental resources and values are natural and/or cultural resources and related values 

that warrant priority consideration in planning and management because they are critical to 

maintaining the monument’s purpose and signifi cance. These resources and values can include 

Hubbard Site
12

CHAPTER 1

natural systems, processes, fl ora, and fauna; cultural and archeological objects; stories and scenes; 

and their relationship to visitor enjoyment and satisfaction. 

Fundamental Resources

 Ancestral Pueblo features 

• Main Ruins Group within pre-1988 site boundary (West Ruin Complex and East Ruin 

 Complex)

• Archeological sites in the surrounding community

• Ancient Aztec Community cultural landscape 

• Original intact structures

• Ancient roadways

• Artifacts

• Earthworks

• Original wooden roofs

• Other features and vegetation contributing to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape 

 (eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) 

 Ancestral Pueblo features at Aztec Ruins are part of a much larger Four Corners regional 

system that includes many Chacoan and other prehistoric communities.

Fundamental Values 

 The preserved ancient structures and landscape features off er opportunities for visitors 

to learn about, appreciate, and make personal connections to an ancestral Pueblo 

community. 

 Ongoing archeological 

research contributes 

knowledge to the 

understanding of the past.

 Opportunities to explore new 

methods and techniques for 

research and preservation of 

irreplaceable archeological 

resources continue to be 

available.

 An opportunity to understand 

the continuum from ancestral 

Pueblo communities, to 

historic uses, to current 

management by the National 

Park Service is available to all. 

 Many American Indians 

maintain strong connections to the area. Through collaboration, the National Park 

Service and American Indians have the opportunity to share information regarding 

interpretation, management, and conservation of resources. Through collaboration, 

American Indian oral histories and traditions may be shared at Aztec Ruins. 

Great Kiva, West Ruin
13

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

Other Important Resources and Values

Although not considered to be fundamental, the monument includes natural processes and 

human modifi cations that are important considerations in the planning, management, and 

maintenance of the monument’s 

fundamental resources and values. 

These related resources and values 

are important, but are not as critical 

to the monument’s signifi cance.

 Earl Morris home/visitor 

center

 Historic District

 Features and vegetation 

contributing to the Historic 

Designed Landscape 

(eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places) 

 Individual features eligible 

for the National Register of 

Historic Places 

 Natural systems, consisting of physical and biological functions 

and processes, and associated populations of plants and animals

 Viewshed within the monument and when looking beyond the monument boundaries

 Opportunities to experience a sense of solitude and/or spiritual connection when 

exploring the site 

View of West Ruin from North Mesa

Visitor Center Entrance
14

CHAPTER 1

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES

Primary interpretive themes are the most important ideas and concepts communicated to the 

public about the monument. They are the core of all interpretive programs and media provided 

to visitors. Interpretive programs provide access to stories by off ering services to the public so 

that they can develop their own emotional and intellectual connections with the monument 

resources. 

 The monumental scale and accessibility of the remarkably well-preserved West Ruin 

and its associated archeological resources foster contemplation of the rich culture of the 

ancestral Pueblo builders and off er evocative and inspirational connections to the people 

themselves.

 The world-class resources of Aztec Ruins provide an opportunity to explore the 

complexity, diversity, and longevity of the indigenous cultures of the Four Corners region 

and their relationship to our overall understanding of human history.

 The evolution and interaction of archeological and other scholarly and popular 

perspectives with indigenous perspectives of Aztec Ruins increase opportunities to 

understand and appreciate this special place.

 The proximity of the Aztec Ruins landscape to the contemporary City of Aztec provides 

a rare opportunity to compare and contrast how diff erent people interact with their 

environment.

SPECIAL MANDATES AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS

Special mandates and administrative 

commitments are legal requirements 

that apply to a specifi c unit of the 

national park system. They are 

mandated by Congress or by signed 

agreements with other entities. 

Oil and Gas Rights 

Although not mandated in the 

monument’s legislation, when 

the boundary for Aztec Ruins 

was expanded in 1988 and land 

was subsequently acquired, the 

National Park Service only acquired 

surface rights for that expansion. 

Of the approximately 257 acres 

that are federally owned within the 

monument, 149.04 acres are encumbered with third-party mineral rights. The remaining 108 

acres in federal ownership are not encumbered. Three active gas wells and two plugged and 

abandoned sites are located inside the monument. Private mineral ownership and a possibility 

that undeveloped oil and gas resources occur beneath the monument creates the potential for 

additional drilling inside the monument and the replacement of existing pipelines in the future.

Owners of nonfederal oil and gas rights within units of the national park system may exercise 

those rights subject to National Park Service regulations in Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 9, Subpart B (9B Regulations). The regulations require oil and gas operators in National Park 

Drilling on North Mesa
15

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

Service units to submit a plan of operations for National Park Service approval. The plan details 

all activities of the oil and gas development, describes how reclamation will be completed, and 

provides the basis for performance bonds. The National Park Service uses this information to 

determine the eff ects of proposed operations and alternatives on the monument environment, 

visitor experience, and management and to ensure that the monument’s fundamental resources 

and values are protected. Once approved, the plan serves as the operator’s permit. 

Reserved Use and Occupancy Agreement

In 2001, the National Park Service entered into a Reserved Use and Occupancy agreement for 

residential use of a house on Tract 101-22. 

Easements and Rights-of-Way

Several tracts are encumbered with rights-of-way for city and county streets, as well as easements 

for utilities and waterways, and the conveyance of water rights. The most notable of such 

corridors is the Farmers Ditch that conveys water east to west through the monument along 

a right-of-way that extends to 50 feet on each side of the ditch centerline. The Farmers Ditch 

was constructed in 1892. With the acquisition of 1.8 acres of land from the American Museum 

of Natural History in 1930 (see Presidential Proclamation of 1930 in Appendix A) came “one 

sixteenth (1/16) of one share in running space in the Farmers Ditch, a community ditch existing 

under the laws of the state of New Mexico.” Although not yet listed, it has been determined to 

be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a site, under Criterion A, at 

the local level. This determination was made through consultation with the New Mexico State 

Historic Preservation Offi cer based on documentation outside monument boundaries. The ditch 

is operated and maintained by the Lower Animas Water Users Association, which is incorporated 

with the State of New Mexico.

In addition to special mandates and enabling legislation for the national monument, there are 

numerous laws and policies that guide the management of Aztec Ruins. They are identifi ed in the 

section on “Desired Conditions – From Law and Policy,” found later in this chapter. 

Farmers Ditch
16

CHAPTER 1

DESIRED CONDITIONS — FROM LAW AND POLICY

This section provides a picture of the overall desired conditions Aztec Ruins strives to achieve, 

regardless of alternatives, based upon existing laws and policies. As with all units of the national 

park system, management of Aztec Ruins National Monument is guided by the 1916 act creating 

the National Park Service, the General Authorities Act of 1970, the act of March 27, 1978, 

relating to the management of the National Park System, and other applicable federal laws and 

regulations, such as the National Historic Preservation Act. The National Park Service also has 

established policies for all units under its stewardship, which can be found in NPS Management 

Policies 2006.

The following table presents an array of resources and values that the National Park Service is 

required to manage. While the monument focuses its management on fundamental resources 

and values, it also has legal and policy requirements to manage additional resources. While 

not all-encompassing of every resource, law, or policy, this table identifi es desired conditions 

and general management strategies for Aztec Ruins that are based on existing laws and policy 

guidance and that would be implemented in all alternatives. 

Table 1: Desired Conditions 

DESIRED CONDITIONS RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY GUIDANCE

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Archeological Resources

Archeological resources are identifi ed and inventoried, 

and their signifi cance is determined and documented. 

Archeological sites are identifi ed and managed so that 

they are in good condition.

Archeological resources are protected in an undisturbed 

condition, unless it is determined through formal 

processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable.

Scientifi c research and interpretation of archeological 

resources is conducted to enhance understanding of site 

prehistory.

In those cases where disturbance or deterioration is 

unavoidable, appropriate mitigation is conducted. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; 

Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment; Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act; Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

of 1979; the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties; Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation; Programmatic Agreement among the NPS, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Offi cers (2008); 

Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800); Director’s 

Order 28, Cultural Resource Management; Director’s Order 

28A, Archeology; Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act; American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

of 1978; NPS Management Policies 2006 

Cultural Landscapes

The treatment of a cultural landscape will preserve 

signifi cant physical attributes, biotic systems, and uses 

when those uses contribute to historical signifi cance. 

Treatment decisions will be based on a cultural landscape’s 

historical signifi cance over time, existing conditions, and 

use. Treatment decisions will consider both the natural 

and built characteristics and features of a landscape, the 

dynamics inherent in natural processes and continued use, 

and the concerns of traditionally associated peoples.

The treatment implemented will be based on sound 

preservation practices to enable long-term preservation 

of a resource’s historic features, qualities, and materials. 

There are three types of treatment for extant cultural 

landscapes: preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration.

National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11593, 

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; the Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties; Programmatic Agreement among the NPS, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Offi cers (2008); 

NPS Management Policies 2006
17

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

DESIRED CONDITIONS RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY GUIDANCE

Cultural landscapes are listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places when their signifi cant cultural values 

have been documented and evaluated within appropriate 

thematic contexts and physical investigation determines 

that they retain integrity. Cultural landscapes are classifi ed 

in the National Register as sites or districts or may be 

included as contributing elements of larger districts. 

Ethnographic Resources

Ethnographic information will be collected through 

collaborative research that recognizes the sensitive nature 

of such information.

The National Park Service acknowledges that American 

Indian tribes treat specifi c places containing certain natural 

and cultural resources as sacred places having established 

religious meaning and as locales of private ceremonial 

activities. Consistent with E.O. 13007, the National Park 

Service will, to the extent practicable, accommodate 

access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by 

religious practitioners from recognized American Indian 

tribes and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity 

of such sacred sites.

Executive Order 13007 on American Indian Sacred Sites; 

Director’s Order 28, Cultural Resources Management; 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Historic Structures

Historic properties are inventoried, and their signifi cance 

and integrity are evaluated under National Register criteria. 

The qualities that contribute to the eligibility for listing, 

or the actual listing of historic properties on the NRHP 

are protected in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards (unless it is determined through a 

formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable).

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935; 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; National 

Historic Preservation Act; National Register of Historic 

Places (36 CFR Part 60); the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; 

Programmatic Agreement among the NPS, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Offi cers (2008); 

NPS Management Policies 2006

Museum Collections

The monument will protect, preserve, provide access to, 

and use objects, specimens, and archival and manuscript 

collections to aid understanding among visitors and to 

advance knowledge in the humanities and sciences. 

As appropriate, the monument staff will consult with 

culturally affi liated or traditionally associated peoples 

before treating or reproducing items in NPS collections 

that are subject to the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act.

National Historic Preservation Act; Historic Sites, Buildings, 

and Antiquities Act; Museum Act of 1955, as amended; 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act; Antiquities Act of 

1906; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act; Director’s Order 24, Museum Collections; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

NATURAL RESOURCES

Air Quality

Aztec Ruins’ Class II air quality meets ambient air quality 

standards for specifi ed pollutants. Activities in the 

monument do not contribute to the deterioration of air 

quality.

1963 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); 

NPS Management Policies 2006
18

CHAPTER 1

DESIRED CONDITIONS RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY GUIDANCE

Native and Exotic Species 

Populations of native plant species function in as natural a 

condition as possible, except where special management 

considerations are warranted. (Areas with special 

management considerations will be determined through 

management zoning decisions in the GMP.)

The National Park Service will strive to restore extirpated 

native plant species to the monument when specifi c 

criteria are met.

Management of populations of exotic plant species, up 

to and including eradication, will be undertaken wherever 

such species threaten monument resources or public 

health and when control is prudent and feasible.

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species; NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Cultural Soundscapes

Cultural soundscapes at Aztec Ruins are identifi ed and 

maintained and, where possible, restored to a level 

consistent with the cultural landscapes.

Director’s Order 47, Sound Preservation and Noise 

Management; NPS Management Policies 2006

Night Sky

Opportunities to view natural lightscapes at the 

monument are identifi ed and maintained or, where 

possible, improved.

NPS Management Policies 2006

Species of Concern 

Federal and state listed threatened and endangered 

species, other special status species, and their habitats are 

protected and sustained.

Endangered Species Act, NPS Management Policies 2006

Water Resources

Consumptive use of water in the monument is effi cient 

and frugal. Facilities and programs are maintained 

and operated to avoid pollution of surface waters and 

groundwaters. Floodplains will be protected, and potential 

fl ood hazards will be minimized. Waterfl ows through the 

Farmers Ditch will be maintained to fulfi ll legal obligations. 

Clean Water Act (1948 and as amended in 1956, 1972, 

and 1977); Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Executive 

Orders 11988, Floodplain Management, and 11990, 

Protection of Wetlands; Director’s Orders 77-1 and 77-2; 

NPS Management Policies 2006

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Visitors understand and appreciate monument values and 

resources and have the information necessary to adapt 

to monument environments. Visitors have opportunities 

to enjoy the monument in a way that leave monument 

resources unimpaired for future generations. 

Basic visitor needs are met, in keeping with monument 

purposes.

All reasonable efforts will be made to make facilities, 

programs, and services accessible to, and usable by, all 

people, including those with disabilities.

NPS Organic Act; monument’s presidential proclamation; 

36 CFR; Americans with Disabilities Act; Architectural 

Barriers Act; Rehabilitation Act; NPS Management Policies 

2006

FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

Aztec Ruins will provide visitor and administrative 

facilities and services that are necessary, appropriate, and 

consistent with the conservation of monument resources 

and values. Facilities will be harmonious with monument 

resources, compatible with natural processes, esthetically 

pleasing, functional, energy- and water-effi cient, costeffective, universally designed, and as welcoming as

Executive Order 12873 mandates federal agency recycling 

and waste prevention; Executive Order 12902 mandates 

energy effi ciency and water conservation at federal 

facilities; NPS Management Policies 2006
19

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

DESIRED CONDITIONS RELEVANT LAW AND POLICY GUIDANCE

possible to all segments of the population. National 

Park Service facilities and operations will demonstrate 

environmental leadership by incorporating sustainable 

practices to the maximum extent practicable in planning, 

design, siting, construction, and maintenance.

OUTREACH AND PARTNERSHIPS

Communication with American Indian Tribes and Other Entities

Other federal agencies, state and local governments, 

potentially affected American Indian and other 

communities, interest groups, the State Historic 

Preservation Offi cer, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation will be given opportunities to become 

informed about and comment on anticipated NPS actions 

at the earliest practicable time. 

All agencies shall communicate with tribal governments 

prior to taking actions that affect federally recognized 

tribal governments. These discussions are to be open 

and candid so that all interested parties may evaluate for 

themselves the potential impact of relevant proposals. 

The National Park Service will regularly correspond with 

traditionally associated American Indians regarding 

planning, management, and operational decisions that 

affect subsistence activities, sacred materials or places, 

or other ethnographic resources with which they are 

historically associated.

Executive Order 13007 on American Indian Sacred Sites; 

National Historic Preservation Act; Director’s Order 75A, 

Civic Engagement and Public Involvement; Programmatic 

Agreement among the NPS, Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of State 

Historic Preservation Offi cers (2008); Executive Order 

11593,Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment; American Indian Religious Freedom Act; 

American Indian Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; Presidential 

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

Management Policies 2006

Public Partnerships

Public participation in planning and decision making 

ensures that the National Park Service fully understands 

and considers the public’s interests in Aztec Ruins National 

Monument, which is part of their national heritage, 

cultural traditions, and community surroundings. The 

National Park Service will actively seek out and consult 

with existing and potential visitors, neighbors, and 

people with traditional cultural ties to the monument, 

scientists and scholars, cooperating associations, the local 

community, other partners, and government agencies. 

The National Park Service will work cooperatively with 

others to improve the condition of the monument; to 

enhance public service; and to integrate the monument 

into sustainable ecological, cultural, and socioeconomic 

systems.

In the spirit of partnership, the National Park Service will 

also seek opportunities for cooperative management 

agreements with state or local agencies that will allow 

for more effective and effi cient management of the 

monument, as authorized by Section 802 of the National 

Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.

Possible confl icts between the proposed action and land 

use plans, policies, or controls for the area concerned, 

including local and state governments, or American 

Indian tribes, and the extent to which the monument 

will reconcile the confl icts are identifi ed in National Park 

Service environmental documents.

National Environmental Policy Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2006
20

CHAPTER 1

RESOURCE AREAS

Diff erences in resource values and visitor opportunities generally exist within diff erent areas of 

a national park unit. At Aztec Ruins, a resource area is a unit of land containing a composition 

of cultural and natural resources and values, especially fundamental resources and values, 

that are interrelated and make up a component of the purpose and signifi cance of Aztec Ruins 

National Monument. It is a tool to help organize the resources and values of the monument into 

geographic areas for planning purposes. Resources and values include archeological resources, 

such as above-ground ruins, buried artifacts, and prehistoric occupied sites; historic structures; 

cultural landscapes; topography; geology; hydrology; vegetation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; 

scenic quality; and opportunities for visitor experience and understanding.

Resource areas were identifi ed as one of the fi rst steps in identifying management zones and 

alternatives for Aztec Ruins during the early stages of the GMP planning process (see Chapter 

2). Nine diff erent resource areas have been identifi ed within the monument: Residence West; 

North Ruin; Flats; Alluvial Fan; West Ruin; East Ruin; Agricultural; Floodplain; and Pasture.They 

are shown on the Resource Areas map and are described in the table titled “Resource Areas and 

Attributes” in Appendix B.

PLANNING ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

While the monument has overall direction from laws and policies that apply to the National 

Park Service, the unique mission and fundamental resources and values require more specifi c 

guidance from a GMP. There are issues and opportunities for which there are multiple 

management directions that could be pursued, and this GMP provides an opportunity to look at 

a range of actions that are compatible with the monument’s mission and that fi t within legal and 

policy constraints. 

As one of the fi rst steps in the planning process, the planning team examined issues, priorities, 

concerns, and potential opportunities related to the future management of the site, particularly 

those that aff ected fundamental resources and values. They were later elaborated upon during 

initial scoping and information-gathering meetings with American Indian tribes, federal and 

state agencies, and the general public. The major issues and opportunities that need to be and 

are addressed by this GMP are in the areas of resource stewardship — especially archeology 

and cultural landscapes — visitor experience and educational opportunities, facilities, and 

public outreach and partnerships. Those listed below expand upon and provide more detail 

on the general issues and opportunities identifi ed under “Purpose and Need for the General 

Management Plan.”

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Archeological preservation activities in the past have been focused mainly at West Ruin. Because 

other ruins exist within the national monument boundaries, there are opportunities to expand 

preservation activities within the monument as well as look region-wide at strategies to protect 

related resources throughout the area.

Water infi ltration into the ruins from irrigation practices, among other contributors, has been a 

chronic problem since the monument was established. This infi ltration has caused deterioration 
21

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

of the ruins and degradation of buried archeological resources. Methods of resolving this 

problem are addressed in this GMP.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Three diff erent cultural landscapes have been identifi ed at Aztec Ruins National Monument, 

all of which overlap, and which have varying degrees of importance in relation to the purpose 

of the monument and the signifi cance of its resources. As a result, there is a potential for 

confl icting outcomes from one landscape to another in managing the vegetation, structures, 

and other resources within them. This GMP gives guidance as to the future management of the 

landscapes to reduce or eliminate confl icting outcomes. More detailed information regarding the 

implementation of that guidance will be contained in a future vegetation and cultural landscapes 

management plan. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Currently opportunities for visitors to explore and learn about the monument are centered at the 

visitor center and the West Ruin interpretive trail. Opportunities are available to expand beyond 

this existing visitor experience to include the East Ruin within the Main Ruins Group (27-acre 

area that comprised the monument until the last expansion) and the North Ruin in the Aztec 

North Mesa Archeological District. Aztec Ruins National Monument is part of the extensive 

Chacoan regional network and other prehistoric communities; thus, there are also many 

opportunities to further research and expand the depth of interpretive stories and the breadth of 

experiences, both on-site and in the surrounding region. 

Involving the tribes who are descendents of these ancestral Pueblo peoples in providing stories, 

cultural demonstrations, and other experiences for visitors is an important step in expanding 

these visitor experiences. However, the opportunity to seamlessly relate stories and provide 

cultural demonstrations, such as heritage farming, is limited by lack of space. Current facilities, 

such as the visitor center, are fully utilized for other functions. Space is needed that allows for 

visitors, such as school groups, to interact with the tribal customs that are relevant to the ruins 

and its peoples and to host educational workshops and research functions that also relate to the 

monument’s resources.

There is also an opportunity to further involve these tribes in presenting a more balanced 

interpretation of the site by updating current museum displays to incorporate a wider perspective 

of cultures than is currently represented. Many vacant spaces exist in the monument’s museum 

because sacred items, photographs depicting burials, and funerary objects and human remains 

have been removed from exhibits in response to National Park Service management policies and 

to culturally affi liated tribes’ expressed concerns. Tribal participation throughout the monument 

could meaningfully enhance a visitor’s experience of past and present tribal customs and 

practices as they relate to the monument. 

FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

Administrative facilities and space within the monument continue to be inadequate for 

management needs. Although this issue was addressed by the 1989 GMP, along with other 

recommendations, such as relocating the maintenance complex, related actions proposed by that 

GMP have not been enacted. This GMP revisits those issues and makes new recommendations 

that are more environmentally sound, aesthetically appealing, sensitive to local tribal concerns, 

and cost eff ective than the proposals of the former GMP. Rehabilitation and expansion of 

existing buildings are also considered to address the need within the monument for space where 
22

CHAPTER 1

resource-related functions, such as American Indian cultural demonstrations and education 

sessions, could be conducted.

OUTREACH AND PARTNERSHIPS

Aztec Ruins currently has a number of relationships with associated American Indian tribes, 

local and state governments, and neighboring organizations. There are opportunities to expand 

outreach and partnerships to identify and achieve common goals regarding protecting and 

enhancing the understanding of the cultural resources and stories relating to the unique ancient 

Pueblo culture of the area. 

RELATIONSHIP OF THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING 

EFFORTS

Several plans have infl uenced or would be infl uenced by the approved GMP for Aztec Ruins 

National Monument. These plans have been prepared or will be prepared by the National Park 

Service and are described here along with their relationship to the GMP.

VEGETATION AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES MANAGEMENT PLAN

Cultural resources, the Animas River and riparian area, upland and lowland vegetation, wildlife, 

and structures and plantings from National Park Service and agricultural development all 

combine to make up the overall landscape of Aztec Ruins National Monument. To address 

monument resources in an integrated way and to develop vegetation and landscape treatment 

prescriptions that integrate and balance cultural and natural resource concerns, a vegetation 

and cultural landscapes management plan is being prepared to assist in implementing desired 

future conditions identifi ed in the GMP. It is being produced by monument staff and natural and 

cultural resource specialists under contract for the plan and will address treatment of prehistoric 

and historic resources, in addition to vegetation. Just as the GMP will provide direction as to 

what the desired futures are regarding cultural and natural resources, the vegetation and cultural 

landscapes management plan will provide direction on how those futures will be realized through 

implementation within the monument.

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The NPS Management Policies 2006 and NPS Director’s Order 18 both require that each national 

park with vegetation capable of burning prepare a wildland fi re management plan to guide a fi re 

management program that is responsible to the park’s natural and cultural resource objectives 

and to safety considerations for park visitors, employees, and developed facilities. Aztec Ruins 

National Monument contains vegetation within its authorized boundary capable of burning, and 

therefore, as a unit of the National Park Service, requires a fi re management plan. The plan is 

critical to any management decision. The following is a summary of fi re management needs:

• Guide the decision-making process, where safety, social, political, and resource values 

 are evaluated, and appropriate management strategies are identifi ed for wildland fi res.

• Provide a framework for fuels management strategies through the use of mechanical 

 treatments and prescribed fi re.

• Provide a framework to be able to plan and implement a wildland fi re program across 

 agency boundaries.
23

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT

To meet these needs, trees, shrubs, grasses, and other ground cover may require selected 

vegetative clearing to reduce the chance of unwanted wildfi res and associated damage to cultural 

resources and other facilities. These requirements have been integrated into this GMP and, 

where relevant, have been noted in the alternatives.

COMPREHENSIVE INTERPRETIVE PLAN 

A comprehensive interpretive plan for Aztec Ruins National Monument was launched in the fall 

of 2003 with a series of workshops involving monument staff , community members, American 

Indian tribes, and other interested parties. The comprehensive interpretive plan is the basis for 

programmatic decisions regarding interpretation in the monument. One of the goals of the plan 

is to improve the interpretive program at the national monument, regardless of which alternative 

in this GMP is selected for implementation. Ultimately, the comprehensive interpretive plan will 

help implement and support the actions outlined in the Preferred Alternative and will be fi nished 

following the completion of the planning process for the GMP. The comprehensive interpretive 

plan will include specifi cs for new interpretive exhibits, which are expected to occupy nearly 

2,000 square feet of space in the visitor center. Associated costs for planning, design, fabrication, 

and installation of the exhibits have been addressed by work related to the comprehensive 

interpretive plan.

RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

An important part of planning is to identify the environmental consequences of choosing one 

management alternative over another. To assist in this decision, general management plans are 

typically accompanied by an environmental analysis that describes the potential impacts of 

actions in each alternative on monument resources, visitors, and neighbors. An environmental 

assessment was prepared with this plan rather than an environmental impact statement, as 

allowed by NPS Management Policies 2006, because the anticipated level of public controversy is 

low and no signifi cant impacts are anticipated.

Potential impact topics for this plan were identifi ed based on the fundamental and other 

resources and values of the monument, staff subject-matter expertise, issues and concerns 

expressed by the public and other agencies early in the planning process, and federal laws and 

other legal requirements that include the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation regulations (36 CFR 800), and NPS Management Policies 2006. 

Many of these laws, policies, and directives are identifi ed in the earlier section entitled “Desired 

Conditions — From Law and Policy.” The impact topics were further screened and then retained 

for detailed analysis if appreciable impacts could occur from the actions of the alternatives 

identifi ed in Chapter 2. Topics that were not associated with appreciable impacts were dismissed 

from further detailed analysis. The reasons they were dismissed are provided in Chapter 3, 

“Aff ected Environment.” Listed in Table 2, the impact topics that have been retained serve to 

focus the environmental analysis and to ensure the relevance of impact evaluation. They are 

described in more detail in Chapter 3, “Aff ected Environment,” followed by the impacts of the 

alternatives on each impact topic in Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences.”
24

CHAPTER 1

Table 2: Impact Topics

IMPACT TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER 

ANALYSIS

Archeological Resources Historic Structures

Cultural Landscapes Ethnographic Resources

Vegetation Indian Trust Resources

Wildlife Museum Collections

Special Status Species Air Quality

Visitor Experience and Educational Opportunities Water Resources

Socioeconomic Environment Floodplains and Wetlands

Monument Operations Topography, Geology, and Soils

Night Sky

Cultural Soundscapes

Prime and Unique Farmland

Environmental Justice
CHAPTER 2:

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING

THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

To develop the General Management Plan alternatives 

presented in this chapter, the National Park Service 

planning team gathered and analyzed information on 

monument cultural and natural resources, visitor use patterns, 

and desired visitor experiences.

25

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES

The primary purpose of this chapter is to present alternative ways that Aztec Ruins National 

Monument could be managed in the future. Of the numerous options that were considered, 

three alternatives are described in detail. They are Alternative 1: No Action, Alternative 2, and 

Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative. Actions that would be implemented under all three of the 

alternatives are described just prior to the alternatives in the section called “Actions Common 

to All Alternatives.” Actions that were considered, but dismissed from detailed analysis, are 

described after the alternatives, along with the reasons for dismissal. Tables 5 and 6, respectively, 

provide a summary of the alternatives that highlights the diff erences among their proposed 

actions and a summary of environmental consequences, or impacts, that could occur as a result 

of implementing each alternative. 

Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, represents a continuation of existing conditions 

and management strategies at Aztec Ruins. It is included as a baseline for comparing the 

environmental consequences of implementing Alternatives 2 and 3, the action alternatives. 

These alternatives, each of which is consistent with the monument’s purpose, signifi cance, and 

fundamental resources and values, present diff erent ways to manage resources, visitor use, and 

facilities within the national monument. They address the major issues and opportunities facing 

the national monument and supplement the desired conditions guided by law and policy that 

were described in Chapter 1. 

To develop the GMP alternatives presented in this chapter, the National Park Service 

planning team fi rst gathered and analyzed information on monument cultural and natural 

resources, visitor use patterns, and desired visitor experiences. Scoping comments from tribal 

representatives, government agencies, local community residents and offi cials, organizations, and 

the general public also helped shape and refi ne each alternative (see Chapter 5 for summary of 

public comments). 

The team also developed a set of management zones that prescribe desired futures for resource 

management, visitor use and understanding, and facilities development for four separate 

geographical areas within the monument. Each zone may have a diff erent carrying capacity or 

level of visitor use that can be accommodated without degrading resource conditions or the 

visitor experience. The management zones and carrying capacity are described prior to the 

alternatives to set the stage for the actions that are proposed in the alternatives. 

Following public review of the GMP/EA, the National Park Service will evaluate comments from 

other federal agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals in preparation for a decision 

document for approval of the plan. This document will outline the selection of an alternative 

for implementation and will be signed by the National Park Service regional director. Once it is 

signed, the plan can then be implemented as funding and management priorities allow. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Management zones are diff erent geographical areas within the national monument wherein 

specifi c resource conditions and preservation concerns, visitor opportunities, development, and 

management approaches are to be achieved and maintained. Similar to city or county zoning, 

these management zones provide predictable expectations for resource conditions and visitor 
26

CHAPTER 2

experiences in diff erent locations of the monument. Whereas the desired conditions that were 

discussed in Chapter 1 under “Desired Conditions — From Law and Policy” pertain to the 

entire monument as a whole, the desired conditions described for the management zones may 

vary from zone to zone, depending primarily upon the cultural and natural resources that are 

contained in each zone. However, the desired conditions associated with all of the management 

zones are compatible with the monument-wide desired conditions from law and policy. 

Management zones are applied to all 317.8 acres within the monument boundary, although 

approximately 19% of these lands are in private or city and county ownership. These lands 

would be managed to achieve the desired conditions of the overlaying management zone if the 

land was acquired by the National Park Service in the future. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

Alternative 1 would be managed under the zoning scheme identifi ed in the 1989 GMP and 

Development Concept Plan for Aztec Ruins that was developed following the monument’s 

1988 expansion from approximately 27 acres to 317.8 acres. The original monument boundary 

(pre-1988) is identifi ed on the Management Zones map. In this 1989 GMP, all 317.8 acres were 

designated as a historic zone.

MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3: ACTION ALTERNATIVES

For some National Park Service units, the layout or location of the management zones within 

the park varies by action alternative. However, at Aztec Ruins, the planning team developed 

a proposed zoning layout that is the same for both action alternatives. Although some actions 

that achieve the desired conditions for a particular zone may vary between the alternatives, the 

desired conditions in each zone are the same for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Four management zones have been developed for Aztec Ruins and applied to Alternatives 2 and 

3. They are listed in the relative order of intensity of visitor use and overall activity anticipated in 

each zone, from lowest to highest. This zoning scheme will be implemented through this GMP.

 Resource Preservation Emphasis Zone: 55 acres of land that contains extensive 

archeological sites of relatively small size and limited potential for interpretation.

 Extended Learning Zone: 144 acres of accessible land that contains some remnants of 

prehistoric and historic elements and is appropriate for limited visitor use and facilities 

development.

 Essential Learning Zone: 97 acres of land that contains the most important and greatest 

concentration of prehistoric archeological ruins and artifacts in the monument. This area 

is the most appropriate for on-site visitor access in order to communicate the primary 

purpose of the monument.

 Development Zone: 22 acres of land that contains the greatest concentration of historic 

and more modern structures and utilities. This area is most appropriate for development 

of facilities necessary to operate the monument and provide for visitor services, without 

impinging upon the prehistoric resources. 
27

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES

The four management zones are geographically separate from each other. Together, they 

encompass all 317.8 acres of Aztec Ruins National Monument. The management zones overlay 

the resource areas and three diff erent cultural landscapes. These three categories of land 

descriptors (resource areas, cultural landscapes, and management zones) were established 

to facilitate diff erent planning functions. The resource areas described in Chapter 1 and in 

Appendix B grouped related resources together and facilitated the creation and application of 

management zones. Cultural landscapes may occur within or extend across the boundary of a 

management zone. As noted below, the resource condition of each management zone would 

ensure appropriate management of the cultural landscapes within the zone.

The layout of the management zones is shown on the Management Zones map. A description 

of each zone is contained in the following table, including desired resource conditions, visitor 

experience, and appropriate facilities development.
West

Ruin East Ruin

North Ruin

Great

Kiva

Ruins Road

Ruins Road

Aztec North Road

(Approx.Location)

5600

5800

5800

5700

5600

5600

Animas River

Farmers Ditch

1

2

3

41

51

3 1

2

0 500 1,000

Feet

Management Zones

Essential Learning

Extended Learning

55 Acres

144 Acres

97 Acres

22 Acres

Resource Preservation Emphasis

Development

IMDE

1/1/09

319

20,041

Residence

West

LEGEND

Base Data

Existing Trail

Drainage (Irrigation)

Stream/Ditch

Contour (20 Foot Interval)

Mound/Ruin

Building

Orchards

Non-Historic Road

Prehistoric Road

Parking Lot

Picnic Area

Maintenance Compound

Visitor Center

Facilities

1

2

Kiva Trading Post

Aztec Ruins Trading Post

3

Gas Well

Administration Offices

(Double-Wide Trailer)

Historic District

5

4

Boundary Prior to 1988

Authorized Boundary 317.8 Acres

Aztec Ruins National Monument

Management Zones

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

New Mexico

28

CHAPTER 2
29

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES

RESOURCE 

PRESERVATION 

EMPHASIS ZONE 

EXTENDED 

LEARNING ZONE 

ESSENTIAL 

LEARNING ZONE DEVELOPMENT ZONE

OVERVIEW The dense 

concentration of 

prehistoric sites and 

other landscape 

features in this zone 

consists mainly of small 

sites with limited 

interpretive potential. 

The archeological 

resources have good 

research potential and 

are protected. Visitors 

experience this zone 

primarily from the 

outside looking in and 

are allowed on-site for 

special purposes, such 

as scientific research or 

guided walks. This 

entire zone lies within 

the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape. 

The scattered 

prehistoric and historic 

resources in this zone 

are protected, while 

providing occasional 

visitor access for 

extended interpretive 

opportunities. This 

entire zone lies within 

the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape. 

The section of this 

zone that is south of 

the Farmers Ditch also 

lies within the Historic 

Vernacular Landscape. 

The high concentration 

of prehistoric 

archeological ruins and 

artifacts in this zone 

are protected, while 

allowing visitors to get 

intimately close to 

resources and have 

opportunities for deep 

understanding and 

appreciation. As with 

the Extended Learning 

Zone, the entire 

Essential Learning Zone 

lies within the 

Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape. The section 

of this zone that is 

south of the Farmers 

Ditch also lies within 

the Historic Vernacular 

Landscape. 

This area is appropriate 

for concentrating 

visitor services and 

facilities as well as 

administrative 

functions. This zone 

contains parts of the 

Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape and the 

Historic Vernacular 

Landscape. It also 

contains the Historic 

Designed Landscape in 

its entirety. The historic 

resources within the 

Historic Designed 

Landscape and the 

relatively lighter 

distribution of 

prehistoric resources 

within this zone are all 

protected. 

TOTAL ACRES 55 144 97 22 

DESIRED 

RESOURCE 

CONDITION 

Overall 

Protection of sensitive 

or fundamental natural 

and cultural resources 

is the highest priority of 

this zone, including 

fragile and/or unique 

prehistoric resources, 

endangered species, 

and other resources. 

Sensitive natural and 

cultural resources are 

protected. Minor 

changes are allowed 

for occasional visitor or 

operational access. 

Sensitive natural and 

cultural resources are 

protected. Moderate 

changes are allowed 

for opportunities for 

visitor understanding. 

Sensitive natural and 

cultural resources are 

protected. However, 

there may be major 

changes to 

accommodate primary 

visitor services and 

necessary monument 

operations. 

Archeological 

Resources 

The dense 

concentration of 

prehistoric sites in this 

zone is maintained in 

good condition and 

protected against 

further damage. The 

SW portion of the 

Aztec North Mesa 

Archeological District 

extends into this zone. 

It contains numerous 

small to medium-sized 

sites, many of them 

impacted by past 

looters who have dug 

into ancient structures 

and middens. 

Protection against 

further unauthorized 

surface artifact 

collection also is 

Prehistoric sites in this 

zone are improved in 

condition and 

protected against 

further damage. The 

NE portion of the Aztec 

North Mesa 

Archeological District 

extends into this zone, 

but most of the zone is 

outside the district. The 

zone contains few 

sites, but some are 

fairly large and have 

been severely impacted 

by various 

development; a large 

site complex within the 

North Mesa District 

was heavily damaged 

by mechanical 

excavation before the 

Prehistoric sites in this 

zone are maintained in 

good condition and 

protected against 

further damage. The 

Main Ruins Group 

(including the West 

Ruin and East Ruin 

complexes) and the 

central part of the 

Aztec North Mesa 

Archeological District 

are located in this 

zone. Several 

additional important 

ruins, buried 

architectural sites, 

ranging from small to 

fairly large, and other 

ancestral Pueblo sites 

are located in this 

zone. Continued 

Further damage to 

prehistoric sites in this 

zone is prevented or 

mitigated through 

documentation and 

data recovery. Sites are 

fairly scarce, but 

difficult to identify and 

evaluate because of 

past development. 

Future actions are 

assessed and 

monitored, and 

archeological sites are 

preserved wherever 

possible. The most 

extensive subsurface 

site (LA 1674) is 

located on either side 

of Ruins Road in the SE 

part of this zone. 

Table 3: Description Of Desired Resource Conditions, Visitor Experience, And 

Facility Development By Management Zone
30

RESOURCE 

PRESERVATION 

EMPHASIS ZONE 

EXTENDED 

LEARNING ZONE 

ESSENTIAL 

LEARNING ZONE DEVELOPMENT ZONE

needed. Backfilling and 

other restoration of 

damaged sites may be 

conducted. 

property was acquired 

by the National Park 

Service. Backfilling and 

restoration of this area 

is especially critical. 

Significant 

archeological sites in 

the southern part of 

the zone that have not 

been acquired by the 

National Park Service 

should be acquired and 

afforded protection 

and preservation. 

backfilling and fill 

levels reduction at 

West Ruin will enhance 

preservation of this 

excavated site; 

preservation of similar 

differential fill level 

impacts at East Ruin 

would also be 

beneficial. Vigorous 

additional stabilization 

and preservation 

maintenance 

throughout the Main 

Ruins Group is needed 

to maintain these 

resources in good 

condition. The North 

Mesa sites (including 

North Ruin) are largely 

buried, but impacts of 

further gas 

development should 

be avoided. 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Features of the 

Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape are 

preserved. 

Features of the 

Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape are 

preserved as well as 

restored. Most features 

of the Historic 

Vernacular Landscape 

that are in conflict with 

the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape 

are removed. 

Specifically, the apple 

and pear orchard 

would be removed and 

irrigation discontinued. 

The Farmers Ditch, a 

special mandate, 

remains. 

Features of the 

Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape are 

preserved as well as 

restored. Most features 

of the Historic 

Vernacular Landscape 

that are in conflict with 

the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape 

are removed. The 

Farmers Ditch, a 

special mandate, and 

other irrigation 

features and laterals 

remain. 

Features of the Historic 

Designed Landscape 

(Historic District) and 

Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape are 

protected. 

Vegetation Native species are 

dominant and restored 

where appropriate. 

Nonnative invasive 

plants are removed or 

controlled. 

The landscape is 

primarily selfsustaining, and little 

maintenance is 

required. 

Native species are 

dominant and restored 

where appropriate. 

Nonnative invasive 

plants are removed or 

controlled. 

Native species are 

dominant and restored 

where appropriate. 

Nonnative invasive 

plants are removed or 

controlled. 

Native and nonnative 

species, including 

ornamentals related to 

the historic designed 

landscape, may be 

present. 

Hazard trees are 

removed and replaced, 

as needed for the 

function and integrity 

of the Historic District. 

Archeological 

Resources 

(continued) 

CHAPTER 2
31

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES

RESOURCE 

PRESERVATION 

EMPHASIS ZONE 

EXTENDED 

LEARNING ZONE 

ESSENTIAL 

LEARNING ZONE DEVELOPMENT ZONE

VISITOR 

EXPERIENCE 

The primary visitor 

experience is viewing 

the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape 

from trails outside of 

this zone. Visitors have 

unobstructed views of 

the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape 

that evokes a scene 

similar to the period of 

Pueblo occupation, to 

the greatest extent 

possible. The National 

Park Service may 

authorize access for 

scientific research, 

traditional cultural 

activities, resource 

monitoring, and 

specialized guided 

tours. Visitors will also 

benefit from the 

research conducted in 

this zone. 

Visitor access to most 

of this zone is during 

special occasions, such 

as tribal 

demonstrations and 

ranger-guided 

interpretive walks. Part 

of the Ruins Road 

passes through this 

zone. Outside of the 

road corridor are 

opportunities for 

solitude and learning. 

Activities require 

moderate physical 

exertion. Appropriate 

visitor activities include 

contemplative strolling, 

interpretive hiking, 

attending educational 

demonstrations, 

viewing resources, and 

taking photographs. 

Visitors have an 

opportunity to 

experience the most 

important cultural 

resources of the 

monument firsthand, 

and to acquire the 

greatest understanding 

of the site and its 

stories. Interpretation 

of primary themes and 

learning about 

fundamental resources 

and values are 

important elements of 

this experience. 

Appropriate activities 

include walking, 

interpretive walks 

(ranger-led or selfguided), sightseeing, 

and photography. 

Activities require some 

physical exertion, and 

while opportunities for 

solitude could be 

available, there exists a 

moderate to high 

probability of 

encountering other 

visitors. 

As the primary 

entrance to the 

monument, this is 

where visitors receive 

an overview of 

monument resources 

and their significance 

through programs and 

services at the visitor 

center. Basic necessities 

and conveniences are 

also provided. Visitor 

activities include 

access, orientation, 

interpretation, and 

picnicking. Activities 

require little physical 

exertion. Visitors would 

likely encounter others 

frequently. 

FACILITIES AND 

OTHER 

ACTIVITIES 

On National 

Park Service 

Land 

No new National Park 

Service facilities or 

developments are 

allowed. 

Overhead power lines 

and other visual 

intrusions are removed 

to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Appropriate facilities 

include pedestrian and 

bike trails, interpretive 

wayside exhibits, selfguiding trail markers, 

and benches. Trails 

may be paved and may 

be connected to 

regional trail systems. 

Appropriate facilities 

include the existing 

Ruins Road, but no 

additional roads or 

major changes to the 

existing road occur. 

Overhead power lines 

and other visual 

intrusions are removed 

to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Appropriate facilities 

include pedestrian 

trails, kiosks, wayside 

exhibits, self-guiding 

trail markers, and 

benches. Trails may be 

paved, up to five feet 

wide. 

Overhead power lines 

and other visual 

intrusions are removed 

to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Appropriate facilities 

include a visitor center, 

picnic area, 

administrative offices, 

maintenance facilities, 

roads, and utility areas 

and corridors. Also 

appropriate are kiosks, 

wayside exhibits, trails, 

self-guiding trail 

markers, and benches. 

Existing buildings are 

adaptively reused 

before any new 

development occurs. If 

there is any new 

development, it is 

confined to previously 

disturbed areas. All 

modifications and new 

development are 

compatible with the 

historic district and 

Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape, and 
32

CHAPTER 2

RESOURCE 

PRESERVATION 

EMPHASIS ZONE 

EXTENDED 

LEARNING ZONE 

ESSENTIAL 

LEARNING ZONE DEVELOPMENT ZONE

sensitive to the 

surrounding viewshed, 

as seen by visitors 

elsewhere in the 

monument. 

Where possible, 

overhead power lines 

are removed.

Facilities and 

activities on 

private land 

and other 

rights within 

the boundary 

Private mineral rights 

exist in this zone. 

Adverse impacts on 

resources and visitor 

experience, resulting 

from existing or 

potential oil and gas 

activity and associated 

facilities, such as access 

roads, gas pads, 

pipelines, and fencing, 

are mitigated to the 

greatest extent possible 

(recognizing private 

landowner and 

permitted rights). If and 

when the gas wells are 

abandoned, these 

facilities are removed 

and the land is 

restored.

Private mineral rights 

exist in this zone. 

Adverse impacts on 

resources and visitor 

experience, resulting 

from existing or 

potential oil and gas 

activity and associated 

facilities, such as access 

roads, gas pads, 

pipelines, and fencing, 

are mitigated to the 

greatest extent possible 

(recognizing private 

landowner and 

permitted rights). If 

and when the gas wells 

are abandoned, these 

facilities are removed 

and the land is 

restored. 

The Farmers Ditch 

continues to transport 

water across the 

monument via a rightof-way. 

Private mineral rights 

exist in this zone. 

Adverse impacts on 

resources and visitor 

experience, resulting 

from existing or 

potential oil and gas 

activity and associated 

facilities, such as 

access roads, gas pads, 

pipelines, and fencing, 

are mitigated to the 

greatest extent 

possible (recognizing 

private landowner and 

permitted rights). If 

and when the gas 

wells are abandoned, 

these facilities are 

removed and the land 

is restored. 

The Farmers Ditch 

continues to transport 

water across the 

monument via a rightof-way.

A gas well access road 

is located within this 

zone. If the related gas 

well is abandoned, the 

road is removed, and 

the land is restored.

FACILITIES AND 

OTHER 

ACTIVITIES 

On National 

Park Service 

Land 

(continued) 
33

CARRYING CAPACITY

General management plans are required to address visitor carrying capacity for national park 

units. The National Park Service defi nes visitor carrying capacity as “the type and level of 

visitor use that can be accommodated while sustaining desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences in the park.” Carrying capacity does not necessarily involve identifying a “magic 

number” for visitor use, nor does it necessarily imply closures or use limits.

The carrying capacity process for national parks typically involves the following steps (more 

detail on these steps is provided in Appendix C): 

 Identify desired conditions (goals) for resources and visitors.

 Identify indicators (things to monitor to determine whether desired conditions are being 

met).

 Identify standards (limits of acceptable change) for the indicators.

 Monitor indicators.

 Take management action, as necessary, to ensure that standards are met.

 Regularly evaluate and make adjustments based on new information and lessons learned.

This GMP addresses each of these steps in the carrying capacity process. Desired resource and 

visitor experience conditions for each management zone were outlined previously in Table 3. In 

Table 4, potential carrying capacity concerns, indicators, and possible management actions are 

identifi ed by management zone. If concerns, such as theft of archeological resources or trampling 

of native vegetation, were observed in a management zone, it could indicate that desired resource 

conditions are not being maintained and that management actions need to be taken to protect 

resources. Indicators are identifi ed so that park managers can collect baseline data that will assist 

with setting preliminary standards, as well as measure changes in resource conditions and visitor 

experience. Possible management actions that might be used to address deteriorating trends or 

unacceptable conditions for each resource concern are also listed in Table 4.

With limited National Park Service personnel and budgets, park managers must focus carrying 

capacity eff orts on areas where there are defi nite concerns or clear evidence of problems. This 

means that monitoring should concentrate on areas where: conditions violate standards (or 

threaten to), conditions are changing rapidly, specifi c and important values are threatened by 

visitation, or eff ects of management actions or visitation are unknown. At Aztec Ruins, eff orts to 

monitor conditions would be focused at the West Ruin and extended under alternatives where 

more access is proposed to the East Ruin and North Ruin. 

INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES
34

CHAPTER 2

Table 4: Carrying Capacity Indicators and Management Actions 

by Management Zone

RESOURCE 

PRESERVATION 

EMPHASIS ZONE

EXTENDED 

LEARNING ZONE

ESSENTIAL 

LEARNING ZONE

DEVELOPMENT 

ZONE

CARRYING 

CAPACITY

Concerns

Theft or vandalism 

of archeological 

resources.

Theft or vandalism 

of archeological 

resources.

Trampling of native 

vegetation.

Theft or vandalism 

of archeological 

resources.

Trampling of native 

vegetation.

Visitor crowding.

Vegetation trampling 

(future concern, but 

no capacity problems 

have been observed 

at current visitation 

levels and patterns).

Visitor crowding.

Possible Indicators Social trails, surface 

artifact density loss, 

illegal excavations, 

incidents of 

vandalism, and 

structure degradation, 

as monitored by 

condition assessment.

Social trails, surface 

artifact density loss, 

illegal excavations, 

incidents of 

vandalism, and 

structure degradation, 

as monitored by 

condition assessment.

Social trails, surface 

artifact density loss, 

illegal excavations 

incidents of 

vandalism, and 

structure degradation, 

as monitored by 

condition assessment.

Widening of existing 

trails.

Visitor satisfaction 

surveys and staff 

observations of 

crowding.

Bare ground.

Staff observations of 

overfl ow parking.

Possible 

Management 

Actions

Revise visitor 

education strategies, 

increase surveillance, 

or limit access.

Revise visitor 

education strategies, 

increase ranger 

presence and guided 

tours.

Reclaim social trails, 

harden trail edges, 

and construct barriers.

Revise visitor 

education strategies, 

increase ranger 

presence and guided 

tours.

Reclaim social trails, 

harden trail edges, 

construct barriers, 

and periodically close 

new trail.

Change scheduling of 

activities, encourage 

bus tours at different 

time slots.

Improve pedestrian 

circulation routes.

Change scheduling of 

activities, encourage 

bus tours at different 

time slots.

Provide for overfl ow 

parking.
35

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Proposed actions listed here would be implemented under all three of the alternatives described 

after this section. 

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability can be described as doing things in ways that do not compromise the environment 

or its capacity to provide for present and future generations. Sustainable practices consider local 

and global consequences to minimize the short- and long-term environmental impacts of human 

actions and developments through resource conservation, recycling, waste minimization, and the 

use of energy-effi cient and ecologically responsible materials and techniques. 

At Aztec Ruins National Monument, the concept of environmental stewardship would be 

demonstrated through all aspects of planning, design, construction, resource management, 

visitor use, programs, and operations. All decisions regarding monument operations, facilities 

management, and development in the monument — from the initial concept through design 

and construction — would refl ect principles of resource conservation. Thus, all monument 

developments and monument operations would be sustainable to the maximum degree possible 

and practical. New developments and existing facilities would be located, built, and modifi ed 

according to the NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (1993). 

In adhering to these concepts and principles, the following would be accomplished by 

monument staff :

 Continue to work with appropriate experts to make monument facilities and programs 

sustainable.

 Support and encourage suppliers, permittees, and contractors to follow sustainable 

practices.

 Address sustainable practices within and outside the national monument in interpretive 

programs.

 Promote the reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials; support the rehabilitation 

(recycling) of existing buildings and facilities over new construction; require new 

development or modifi cations of existing facilities to be built using National Park Service 

sustainability guidelines.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

In conjunction with the resource management actions listed in each alternative, important 

attributes of the cultural soundscape within the monument and the night sky above the 

monument would be managed in accordance with NPS Management Policies 2006. More 

specifi cally, the National Park Service would assess and strive to minimize soundscape impacts 

from proposed plans of operations for oil and gas development within the monument. Similarly, 

the National Park Service would ensure that all existing lighting and any new lighting proposals 

within the monument would reduce light pollution and energy consumption. They would also 
36

CHAPTER 2

work with adjacent neighbors, including oil and gas operators, to facilitate their understanding of 

and interest in preserving the monument’s cultural soundscape and night sky.

COMMERCIAL SERVICES

Commercial visitor services in National Park Service areas like Aztec Ruins can include uses 

and activities, such as food services, transportation, lodging, interpretive guiding, equipment 

rentals, educational classes, special events, and other similar services, that are authorized through 

concession contracts, commercial use authorizations (formerly Incidental Business Permits), 

leases, and special use permits. These potential services are managed in accordance with National 

Park Service policies and to meet the following criteria for “necessary and appropriate.”

Necessary (meets one or more)

 Enhances visitor understanding and appreciation of the monument’s mission and values.

 Facilitates or complements the fundamental experiences of monument visitors.

 Assists the monument in managing visitor use and educating visitors via appropriate, safe, 

and minimum-impact techniques.

 Is an essential visitor service or facility not available within a reasonable distance from the 

monument.

Appropriate (meets all)

 Services are consistent with the purposes and values for which the monument was 

established as well as applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

 Services do not compromise public health, safety, or well-being.

 Services do not signifi cantly impact important monument resources and values.

 Services do not unduly confl ict with other authorized monument uses and activities or 

services outside the boundary.

Because Aztec Ruins National Monument is surrounded by the City of Aztec, New Mexico, 

multiple services are provided by local businesses that are easily accessible to visitors. Services 

such as lodging, food, and transportation (rental cars, airport, and bus service) are located 

adjacent to or within minutes of the monument. The national monument should not duplicate 

and compete with these available services. 

In compliance with the listed criteria, no major commercial services are currently provided or are 

envisioned in the near future within Aztec Ruins National Monument, because such services are 

provided outside the monument’s boundaries, and therefore are not necessary to be provided 

within the boundaries. However, should availability of some services change, new commercial 

services within the monument could be considered if they satisfi ed the criteria.

Under a commercial use authorization, some commercial services could be off ered at the 

monument that would be considered appropriate, but not necessary. For example, this could 

include a benefi cial service such as an educational class that meets all of the appropriate use 

criteria. Special events and leases that are appropriate may also occur in the national monument 

if they meet the previously listed criteria.
37

ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

FARMERS DITCH AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM

The Farmers Ditch would continue to be used as a conduit for water under an implied rightof-way, wherein no actions within the monument boundary would be allowed to contribute to 

water pollution. Groundwater and surface runoff from the Farmers Ditch would be controlled 

to the greatest extent possible, thereby protecting and preserving the core area of Aztec Ruins 

from further deterioration. Other features associated with the overall irrigation system within the 

monument include some unused lateral drainage ditches and an unused drainage pond. Their 

eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places will be evaluated in conjunction 

with the comprehensive cultural resource inventory. Further guidance will be provided in the 

vegetation and cultural landscapes management plan that is to be developed. 

LAND PROTECTION

PRIVATELY OWNED LAND WITHIN THE MONUMENT 

On October 28, 1988, Public Law 100-559, 102 Stat. 2800 revised the boundary for Aztec Ruins 

National Monument. It added just over 290 acres to the boundary, enlarging the monument to 

approximately 318 acres. A total of about 257 acres within the boundary are federally owned, of 

which about 149 acres are encumbered with third-party mineral rights (see discussion of Oil and 

Gas Rights under “Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments” in Chapter 1). About 60 

acres of nonfederal land remain (including private ownership and city or county rights-of-way) 

and do not contain federally owned minerals. A Land Protection Plan approved in 1993 remains 

valid in recommending that the National Park Service should seek to acquire most remaining 

nonfederal lands within the boundary through fee simple methods or obtaining easements 

with willing landowners. The Land Protection Plan also remains valid in not recommending 

acquisition of subsurface interests, as the cost of acquiring these interests while production is 

under way is expected to be substantially in excess of benefi ts (unless they can be acquired by 

donation or at a cost commensurate with benefi ts of protection).

The National Park Service will continue to manage the resources on federally owned land within 

the monument, in full recognition of the rights of private property owners within the monument 

boundary. However, it should also be recognized that resources, such as invasive exotic 

vegetation, know no political or ownership boundary. Removal of such species wherever they 

occur within the monument boundary may be desirable, especially if they threaten archeological 

resources. Therefore, the National Park Service will communicate with private landowners 

within the monument to try and institute cooperative eff orts that will enhance overall resource 

preservation and protection. 

NONFEDERAL SUBSURFACE RIGHTS

As noted in “Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments” in Chapter 1, owners of 

nonfederal subsurface rights (primarily oil and gas) within Aztec Ruins National Monument 

may exercise those rights subject to National Park Service regulations in Title 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), Part 9, Subpart B (9B Regulations). Pursuant to the 9B regulations, two of the 

three wells, the Fee 9Y and Fee 4A, are operated under an approved plan of operations. Under 

the plan, operators must conduct operations using technologically feasible methods that are 

least damaging to monument resources, while ensuring protection of public health and safety. 

The third well, Bobbie Herrera No. 1, qualifi es for an exemption to the plan of operations and 
38

CHAPTER 2

bonding requirements, because the current operator was conducting operations at the time the 

federal government acquired the surface estate. The superintendent may suspend operations 

should they ever pose an immediate threat of signifi cant injury to federal property. Eventually, 

well plugging and surface reclamation will be conducted under a National Park Service-approved 

plan of operations.

Activities outside the scope of 36 CFR 9B Regulations, such as the gas gathering system operated 

by an entity not exercising a private mineral right, may be addressed under a special use permit.

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS

The National Park Service would continue to examine the current authorized boundary and 

recommend changes as necessary and appropriate. Currently, no major boundary adjustments 

are recommended. Minor boundary adjustments could be sought to resolve minor issues with 

neighboring landowners and improve resource protection. Minor boundary revisions could 

be made without congressional legislation as long as certain criteria are met. One criterion is 

that private landowners involved in the boundary adjustment must provide written consent. 

Secondly, the sum of total acreage added to the monument must not exceed 5% of its total 

acreage and must be fewer than 200 acres. Deletions of acreage from within the boundary would 

require legislation.
39

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF 

EXISTING CONDITIONS) 

GENERAL CONCEPT

The general concept of the no-action alternative is to identify current management practices 

as a baseline of comparison for evaluating the changes and impacts of the action alternatives 

(see Alternative 1 map). The zoning scheme from the 1989 GMP would remain in place. 

Management would continue to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources with an 

emphasis on prehistoric ruins and artifacts of the West Ruin area. Features of existing cultural 

landscapes would be retained, even where they overlap and confl ict. Most visitors would 

continue to experience the visitor center and West Ruin interpretive trail. There would be no 

new construction of facilities, but existing facilities would be reconfi gured to improve monument 

operations. National Park Service managers would continue to focus their eff orts within the 

monument boundary. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Aztec Ruins National Monument would holistically approach the treatment of resources found 

within the monument. This consists of cultural resources, which include archeological resources, 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, the museum collection, and ethnographic resources, 

and natural resources, which include vegetation, wildlife, and special status species. In general, 

resources would be managed in accordance with the monument’s Resources Management Plan, 

which addresses both cultural and natural resources and is periodically updated. In Alternative 1, 

management of natural and cultural resources would stay primarily focused on resources within 

monument boundaries. Key resources are described below. 

The terms West Ruin, East Ruin, and North Ruin, when used in the “Archeological Resources” 

section of each alternative description, refer not only to the major ruin that is named, but also to 

the complex of archeological features and sites associated with that major ruin. The associated 

features and sites in each ruin complex are described in Chapter 3 under “Archeological 

Resources.” Other references to these ruins, such as in “Visitor Experience and Educational 

Opportunities,” are generally about the major ruin and not the associated smaller sites.

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Archeological resources include the remnants of ancient structures, known as “ruins,” and 

associated artifacts and features, both excavated and unexcavated. Resources would be protected 

against human and natural agents of destruction and deterioration. Nonstructural sites of both 

prehistoric and historic age also are present along with isolated artifact scatters. Monumentwide cultural resource inventories and condition assessments would continue to be updated. 

Archeological preservation activities would continue to focus on West Ruin, with programs 

such as ruins stabilization, backfi lling, and fi ll level adjustment. Research would also continue to 

be primarily focused at the West Ruin. Research would remain important to the mission of the 

monument, and research activities would emphasize nondestructive techniques. 
40

CHAPTER 2

West

Ruin East Ruin

North Ruin

Great

Kiva

Ruins Road

Ruins Road

Aztec North Road

(Approx.Location)

5600

5800

5800

5700

5600

5600

Animas River

Farmers Ditch

1

2

3

41

51

3 1

2

North Ruin

Residence

West

CONTINUE WITH ADMINISTRATION

IN DOUBLE-WIDE TRAILER

REMOVE AZTEC RUINS TRADING POST

ADAPTIVELY USE KIVA TRADING POST

FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE FUNCTIONS

0 500 1,000

Feet

Aztec Ruins National Monument National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior Alternative 1

IMDE

1/1/09

319

20,042

ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action (Continuation of Existing Conditions)

OVERALL MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS: The emphasis on resource management and visitor experience is focused on the 

West Ruin area. Somewhat limited functions continue within the monument, such as inadequate administrative facilities 

and visitor use that is restricted to West Ruin.

LEGEND

Facilities

Base Data

Existing Trail

Drainage (Irrigation)

Stream/Ditch

Contour (20 Foot Interval)

Mound/Ruin

Building

Orchards

Non-Historic Road

Prehistoric Road

Parking Lot

Picnic Area

Historic District

Administration Offices

(Double-Wide Trailer)

Maintenance Compound

1 Visitor Center

2

Kiva Trading Post

Aztec Ruins Trading Post

3

Gas Well

Authorized Boundary 317.8 Acres

5

4

Management Emphasis
41

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS)

Inventory and Monitoring

The inventory and geographic information system database that has been developed to manage 

cultural resource data would be maintained so that current information on archeological 

resources is available to assist with planning and implementation of projects and operations 

discussed in this GMP. Archeological site condition assessments would be performed at least 

every fi ve years and used to prioritize site preservation activities. Monitoring would be focused 

primarily on the aboveground architecture of West Ruin and East Ruin.

Archeological resources would continue to be monitored for impacts from groundwater and 

irrigation. 

Ruins Stabilization

Aztec Ruins has a continuous program of ruins maintenance, repair, stabilization, and 

monitoring. The major goal is to maintain the ancient structures in good condition. Most ruins 

preservation activities consist of masonry work that repairs and sometimes provides in-kind 

replacement of ancient stonework and earthen mortar. A cyclic maintenance program seeks 

to apply preventive treatments that remedy ruins deterioration before serious damage ensues 

or the ruins become unstable. Particularly during harsh weather, some destabilization occurs 

that requires more aggressive treatments. New manufactured roofs that protect ancient roofi ng 

decrease deterioration in many exceptionally well-preserved structures, but the protective roofs 

also require frequent repairs, maintenance, and occasionally replacement.

Within the hundreds of rooms exposed in West Ruin and East Ruin, emphasis would continue 

to be on high-priority cyclic maintenance projects to repair deterioration from weather, 

groundwater, visitation, and other forces. These tasks would be accomplished in a manner that 

attempts to minimize intrusive treatment, replicates the original style as much as possible, and 

provides results that are aesthetically pleasing to visitors.

Backfi lling

The National Park Service identifi ed backfi lling (site reburial) as a major stabilization technique 

at Aztec Ruins in the 1989 GMP. Several small-scale backfi lling projects were initiated 

prior to development of a master Backfi lling Plan for West Ruin (Trott 1997) — a plan that 

has guided site reburial since that time. Backfi lling helps to support standing walls, control 

moisture deterioration, and to equalize diff erential fi ll levels that cause pressure on walls where 

unexcavated rooms adjoin excavated areas or rooms that still have intact ancient roofs, which has 

prevented natural fi lling over the centuries. The West Ruin backfi lling program is ongoing and 

has evolved as the master plan was implemented in the fi eld and its limitations were recognized.

There would continue to be refi nements in implementing backfi ll techniques at the West Ruin, 

including adjusting fi ll levels, limited fi ll reduction in critical areas, regrading ground surface, and 

installing drainage and soil retention structures. This would be done under a fi nal treatment plan 

in consultation with the Mew Mexico State Historic Preservation Offi ce and American Indian 

tribes. 

Research

Aztec Ruins was set aside “for the enlightenment and culture of the nation” and because of 

its “unusual prehistoric and scientifi c value.” Ongoing research is central to the monument’s 

mission. The monument would continue to conduct research and encourage research by 

other institutions and scholars. Research would be conducted with the minimum disturbance 

possible to cultural resources and their natural setting. Both the National Park Service and 
42

CHAPTER 2

independent research would emphasize the use of the least destructive techniques feasible for 

any particular situation or research agenda. Research techniques would shift away from highimpact techniques, like excavation to high-tech approaches such as geophysical prospecting. The 

interpretive program would strive to inform the public about research methods and fi ndings. 

Archeological materials removed from in situ archeological contexts for whatever reason would 

be recovered and preserved in the monument’s museum collection.

Archeological data recovery, or excavation, may be permitted if justifi ed by research or 

interpretive needs or to mitigate potential loss of resources owing to uncontrollable degradation. 

Judicious use of small-scale excavations or subsurface archeological testing may be employed to 

answer archeological research questions, verify hypothetical information, mitigate unavoidable 

impacts, or preserve cultural resources. Tribal input would be gathered through discussions 

with associated American Indian groups for any proposed project that includes excavation. 

Every eff ort would be made to minimize the chances of encountering human remains. Pertinent 

legislation and approved procedures would be followed in such circumstances. Consultation 

would also be conducted with the State Historic Preservation Offi cer. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Cultural landscapes are geographic areas, including both cultural and natural resources, that are 

associated with a historic or prehistoric event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or 

aesthetic values. Elements that contribute to cultural landscapes include vegetation; structures 

such as buildings, walls and fences, and habitat and ceremonial ruins; roads and circulation 

systems; and water features. Natural resources are also integral components of cultural 

landscapes (see “Aff ected Environment” for further description). 

Under this alternative, the management of natural and cultural resources would be integrated 

though recognition of the following three cultural landscapes present within Aztec Ruins 

National Monument. 

 Prehistoric Designed Landscape, which relates primarily to the ancient Pueblo 

community and consists of just over 315 acres. This landscape encompasses all lands 

within the monument except the Historic Designed Landscape.

 Historic Designed Landscape, which comprises the Historic District (primarily the visitor 

center complex) and consists of 2.35 acres.

 Historic Vernacular Landscape, which relates primarily to the agricultural lands southeast 

of the Farmers Ditch, excluding the Historic Designed Landscape, and consists of 

approximately 170 acres. 

Under Alternative 1, existing features of all three landscapes would generally be retained, 

even where they overlap. The Prehistoric Designed Landscape, a landscape that is eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), would continue to overlap with the 

Historic Vernacular Landscape. Pear and apple orchards, other fruit trees and ornamentals, and 

agricultural structures of the Historic Vernacular Landscape would be retained. Irrigation of 

the pear and apple orchards would continue, and groundwater would continue to be monitored 

to identify possible impacts to archeological resources. If orchard trees die, they would not be 

replaced. If retention of specifi c elements of the Historic Vernacular Landscape could threaten 

important archeological resources, they may be considered for removal. For example, the 
43

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS)

drainage pond north of the East Ruin (part of the Historic Vernacular Landscape) would be 

retained, although the surface pipe would be removed to protect archeological resources. 

The Historic Designed Landscape, composed of the Historic District (visitor center complex), 

would continue to be managed to protect features that contribute to its eligibility for listing on 

the NRHP. Existing trees, such as cottonwood and Russian olive, in the vicinity of the monument 

ruins, developed and parking areas, picnic area, and maintenance area would remain. As they 

become hazardous, especially the cottonwoods, they would be pruned or removed. However, 

there is no intent to replant any of the trees in kind outside of the Historic District. Trees within 

the Historic District that contribute to the signifi cance of the Historic District would be replaced 

in kind, if possible. Whether or not volunteer trees would be allowed to grow depends on how 

they relate to or impact the integrity of the Historic District. The impact of the removal and 

replacement of exotic trees within the Historic District would be evaluated. Mowing of grass 

would continue adjacent to roads, within the picnic area, and near residential areas for the 

enjoyment of visitors, staff , and residents. 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

All collections at Aztec Ruins National Monument would be managed according to the 

monument’s Collections Management Plan (1980). As directed by the Park Museum Collection 

Storage Plan (NPS 2007), the monument’s archives and archeological collections would continue 

to be stored at the Hibben Center, a permanent repository at the University of New Mexico. The 

monument’s history collection would be moved from the national monument to the Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center in Tucson. The natural history collection would be 

moved to the Northern Arizona Facility in Flagstaff . Object and artifact collections related to the 

occupation of the site would continue to be evaluated for potential additions to public display 

collections within the monument.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

The primary experience for visitors to Aztec Ruins National Monument involves making 

connections to the past through exploration and seeing the archeological ruins on the site. Under 

this alternative, visitors would continue to learn about the stories associated with Aztec Ruins at 

the visitor center and via a self-guided walk through the West Ruin. Picnicking would continue to 

be available. The monument would continue to be operated as a day-use area and would be gated 

and closed at night. However, specially scheduled and guided activities confi ned to specifi c areas 

would occur at night.

The primary access would continue to be from the city of Aztec, via Ruins Road, to the visitor 

center. Secondary access would also continue from the north via Ruins Road. The National Park 

Service would work with the City of Aztec, San Juan County, and the New Mexico Department 

of Highways to improve the signage along the roadways leading to Aztec Ruins, to make it easier 

for visitors to fi nd the monument.

The visitor center would continue to be the fi rst stop for all visitors, and access to other parts 

of the site would require passing through the visitor center. Visitors would learn about the 

stories associated with Aztec Ruins at the visitor center through museum exhibits, a multimedia 

presentation, and educational publications on sale at the front desk. From the visitor center, the 

visitor would continue to have direct access to the West Ruin via a paved, self-guided loop trail 
44

CHAPTER 2

extending approximately 0.40 miles that includes several intact rooms and the reconstructed 

Great Kiva. This would continue to be the only area open to the public on a regular basis. 

Views from the trail remain important for understanding the Prehistoric Designed Landscape 

and the monument’s relationship to other Chacoan sites beyond monument boundaries. The 

National Park Service would work with the local community through partnerships and other 

means to minimize adverse impacts on the visitor experience related to the viewshed outside the 

monument boundary.

Through interpretive and educational programs, the National Park Service provides 

opportunities for visitors to understand, appreciate, and enjoy the signifi cance of the monument 

and its resources, with the hope that this will encourage the development of a personal 

stewardship ethic and broaden public support for preserving monument resources. The 

monument would maintain a comprehensive interpretive plan to guide the overall interpretive 

program, based on the primary interpretive themes identifi ed in Chapter 1 of this document. 

Personal services, publications, exhibits, and audiovisual presentations are all tools to enhance 

the interpretive and educational programs provided by the monument.

As time and funding permit, the staff at Aztec Ruins would continue to be involved in interpretive 

programs outside the monument, such as presentations to students at local libraries. They would 

also seek creative ways to involve partners in providing other interpretive and educational 

services when goals and objectives are compatible.

The monument would continue to strive to make programs and facilities comply with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and other requirements. Where terrain or other constraints 

prevent physical access to major features, eff orts would be made to provide alternative 

experiences through exhibits, photographs, and other means.

FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

Under this alternative, most of the existing facilities (structures, roads, parking areas, and picnic 

area) would generally be maintained. The Kiva Trading Post would be rehabilitated and one 

structure would be removed. There are no new buildings proposed. 

VISITOR CENTER

The building would continue to be used as a visitor center and for some staff offi ces. The historic 

character of the structure, which is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, would be maintained. 

ADMINISTRATION TRAILER

The modular trailer just west of the visitor center would continue to be used for administrative 

headquarters, where the superintendent, employees in the administration division and the 

ranger/interpretive division, and other support staff work in relatively cramped conditions. 

MAINTENANCE COMPLEX

The existing maintenance complex would continue to be used by maintenance and cultural 

resource personnel for offi ces and as a garage, storage, and staging area for maintenance and 

stabilization functions. Staff offi ces would also continue to be located in a former employee 

housing structure in the maintenance complex. 
45

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS)

AZTEC RUINS TRADING POST

The Aztec Ruins Trading Post would be removed.

KIVA TRADING POST

The Kiva Trading Post would be rehabilitated for cultural resource offi ces, work space, and a wet 

lab (laboratory area where artifacts are washed, dried, and prepared for curation).

OUTREACH AND PARTNERSHIPS

Aztec Ruins National Monument would continue to work cooperatively with other federal, state, 

and local agencies; American Indian authorities; adjacent landowners; not-for-profi t groups, 

such as friends or cooperating associations; and others to identify and achieve broad goals in 

resource preservation and environmental sustainability. Monument staff would also encourage 

educational opportunities relating to the ancient Pueblo culture, both inside and outside of the 

monument boundary, to the extent that staffi ng and funding allow. Through these relationships, 

the National Park Service would continue to provide and receive valuable assistance in the form 

of educational programs, living history demonstrations, search and rescue operations, fundraising campaigns, habitat restoration, ecosystem management, and a host of other activities.

Some activities occurring outside the monument boundaries could continue to have a profound 

eff ect on the ability of Aztec Ruins to protect the natural and cultural resources within the 

monument. Formal and informal communication with others would help the National Park 

Service better achieve monument management objectives and protection of resources. The 

National Park Service would continue to embrace partnership opportunities that would help 

accomplish the National Park Service mission, provided personnel and funding requirements 

do not make it impractical to participate and that the partnership activity would not (1) violate 

legal or ethical standards, (2) otherwise refl ect adversely on the National Park Service mission 

and image, or (3) imply an unwillingness by the National Park Service to perform an inherently 

governmental function.

COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES

The National Park Service would continue to foster relationships and cultural sensitivity with the 

tribes and nations associated with Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

Monument staff would continue to meet and communicate with tribal offi cials on a project-byproject and periodic basis to identify problems and issues of mutual concern and interest and 

work together to take actions to address these concerns. Tribal offi cials would continue to be 

kept informed of planning and other actions in Aztec Ruins National Monument that could aff ect 

the tribes. When appropriate, monument staff would provide technical assistance to the tribes, 

including sharing information and resources, to address problems and issues of mutual concern.

Aztec Ruins staff would also continue to recognize the past and present existence of Ancestral 

people in the region and their land use and occupation as an important part of the cultural 

environment to be researched, preserved, and interpreted. They would consult with the tribes 

traditionally associated with the monument to develop and accomplish the programs of Aztec 

Ruins National Monument in a way that respects the beliefs, traditions, and other cultural values 

of the tribes with ties to monument lands. The monument staff would also accommodate access 
46

CHAPTER 2

to traditionally used areas in ways consistent with monument purposes and American Indian 

values and that avoid adversely aff ecting the physical integrity of such sites and resources.

STAFFING AND COSTS 

Aztec Ruins National Monument and Chaco Culture National Historical Park have consolidated 

administrative and maintenance operations, staff , and resources since the 2001 fi scal year. In 

late 2007, the staff s of Aztec and Chaco met with facilitators from the Intermountain Region 

and other parks to take part in a core operations analysis to assist both parks with strategic 

and fi nancial planning for the next fi ve years. The creation of the Eastern Four Corners Group 

caused another organizational realignment in July 2007. This realignment “grouped” Aztec and 

Chaco with Yucca House under the group superintendent at Mesa Verde National Park. The 

superintendents of the Eastern Four Corners Group have been tasked with identifying and 

implementing opportunities for operational effi ciencies through shared services across park 

boundaries.

All staffi ng proposals would be consistent with the position management plan identifi ed in 

the core operations analysis and the effi ciencies recognized in the creation of the Eastern 

Four Corners Group realignment. Any new positions may be fi lled by realignment of existing 

positions, shared services within the “Group” realignment, or as a result of the base funding 

increase request identifi ed in the core operations analysis.

Under this no-action alternative, the monument staffi ng level would be 16 full-time equivalent 

employees. This is the number of person-years of staff required to maintain the assets of the 

monument, provide acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and generally support the 

monument’s operations. Four of these positions are shared with Chaco Culture National 

Historical Park. Operational needs under this alternative would continue to be met through 

several sources of funding that provide for employees to fulfi ll management’s responsibilities for 

resource protection and visitor use and understanding. 

The cost fi gures provided here are for alternatives comparison purposes only — they are not to 

be used for budgeting purposes. Annual operating costs would be $1.13 million, and one-time 

facility costs for the design, construction, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of facilities would 

be $430,000. A comparison of costs by alternative and more specifi c information is provided in 

Appendix D.
47

ALTERNATIVE 2

GENERAL CONCEPT

The emphasis of this alternative would be to expand opportunities for more comprehensive 

visitor understanding and to expand the scope of resource stewardship throughout the 

monument (see Alternative 2 map). Distractions to visitor understanding of fundamental 

resources and values, such as the orchards, would be removed. Visitors would have opportunities 

to experience resources and stories beyond the West Ruin through additional trails and 

interpretive tools that would lead visitors to other areas of the monument, including the East 

Ruin and the North Ruin. Resource management activities, such as ruins stabilization, backfi ll, 

and research, would be expanded from the focus on the West Ruin to additional signifi cant 

cultural resources within the boundary of the monument. Existing buildings would be remodeled 

and expanded to improve administrative functions. This proposed concept would be consistent 

with the desired resource conditions, visitor experiences, and facility development outlined in 

Table 3 and shown in the Management Zones map.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

As in Alternative 1, Aztec Ruins National Monument would holistically approach the treatment 

of resources found within the monument. This consists of cultural resources, which include 

archeological resources, historic structures, cultural landscapes, the museum collection, and 

ethnographic resources; and natural resources, which include vegetation, wildlife, and special 

status species. In general, resources would be managed in accordance with the monument’s 

Resources Management Plan, which addresses both cultural and natural resources and is 

periodically updated.

In Alternative 2, resource management would integrate natural and cultural resource 

management though greater emphasis on the diff erences among the three cultural landscapes 

that exist within the monument. Under this alternative, archeological research and preservation 

activities would be expanded beyond the West Ruin to other areas in the monument, and cultural 

landscapes would be managed according to a hierarchy of priorities. As in Alternative 1, resource 

management would remain focused within the boundary of the monument. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Inventory, site condition assessments, and monitoring would be conducted to provide the basis 

for work priorities as outlined in Alternative 1. However, additional preservation activities 

would occur related to ruins stabilization and backfi lling. Detailed planning for expanding these 

preservation activities would be done in consultation with American Indian tribes and the New 

Mexico State Historic Preservation Offi ce. 

Inventory and Monitoring

Under Alternative 2, inventory and site condition assessments could lead to more active 

preservation of resources throughout the monument, such as the North Ruin. 
48

CHAPTER 2

West

Ruin East Ruin

North Ruin

Great

Kiva

Ruins Road

Ruins Road

Aztec North Road

(Approx.Location)

5600

5800

5800

5700

5600

5600

Animas River

Farmers Ditch

1

2

3

41

51

3 1

2

Residence

West

PROPOSED

BRIDGE OVER

FARMERS DITCH

PROPOSED

BRIDGE OVER

FARMERS DITCH

0 500 1,000

Feet

ADAPTIVELY USE KIVA TRADING POST

FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE FUNCTIONS

REMODEL, EXPAND, AND

ADAPTIVELY USE AZTEC 

RUINS TRADING POST FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE

HEADQUARTERS

REMOVE ADMINISTRATION TRAILER

PROPOSED INTERPRETIVE TRAIL

(ACTUAL LOCATION OF TRAIL TO BE 

DETERMINED DURING DESIGN)

BEGIN AND END NEW

TRAIL TO EAST RUIN

AND NORTH MESA

IMDE

1/1/09

319

20,043

POTENTIAL

INTERPRETIVE

OVERLOOK

ALTERNATIVE 2

OVERALL MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS: The emphasis on resource management and visitor experience extends beyond 

West Ruin to other areas of the monument, including East Ruin and Aztec North Mesa Archeological District. 

Enhanced functions occur within the monument, including expanded on-site visitor use and educational opportunities 

and new administrative facilities. 

LEGEND

Administration Offices

(Double-Wide Trailer)

Maintenance Compound

Visitor Center

Facilities

1

2

3

Base Data

Existing Trail

Drainage (Irrigation)

Stream/Ditch

Contour (20 Foot Interval)

Mound/Ruin

Building

Orchards

Non-Historic Road

Prehistoric Road

Parking Lot

Picnic Area

Historic District

Kiva Trading Post

Aztec RuinsTrading Post

Gas Well

Authorized Boundary 317.8 Acres

5

4

Management Emphasis

Aztec Ruins National Monument

New Mexico

Alternative 2

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior
49

ALTERNATIVE 2

Ruins Stabilization

Ruins stabilization would continue to be performed on the West Ruin, East Ruin, and throughout 

the rest of the monument as described in Alternative 1, but would address both medium- and 

high-priority cyclical maintenance needs to repair deterioration from weather, groundwater, 

visitation, and other forces. Stabilization activities would be both preventive and proactive. 

These tasks would be accomplished in a manner that attempts to minimize intrusive treatment, 

replicates the original style as much as possible, and provides results that are aesthetically 

pleasing to visitors.

Backfi lling

As described in Alternative 1, programs of backfi ll and fi ll level adjustment, including adjusting 

fi ll levels, limited fi ll reduction in critical areas, regrading ground surface, and installing drainage 

and soil retention structures, would continue at the West Ruin. However, in Alternative 2, 

preservation through backfi ll and fi ll level adjustment would also be considered for the East 

Ruin and North Ruin. This would be done through the development of a fi nal treatment plan 

in consultation with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Offi cer and American Indian 

tribes. 

Research

As in Alternative 1, the monument would continue to conduct research and encourage research 

by other institutions and scholars with the least intrusive techniques. Research techniques 

would shift away from high-impact techniques like excavation to high-tech approaches, such 

as geophysical prospecting. Research, which would be primarily focused at the West Ruin in 

Alternative 1, would be expanded in Alternative 2 to learn more about the entire monument, 

particularly the new lands added to the north. The interpretive program would strive to inform 

the public about research methods and fi ndings. 

As outlined in Alternative 1, archeological data recovery, or excavation, may be permitted if 

justifi ed by research or interpretive needs or to mitigate potential loss of resources owing to 

uncontrollable degradation. Tribal input would be gathered through discussions with associated 

American Indian groups for any proposed project that includes excavation.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

The management of natural and cultural resources would be integrated though recognition 

of cultural landscapes. Recognizing the diff erences in the three landscapes, a hierarchy of 

importance would be established to resolve confl icting goals where the historic landscapes 

overlap. To protect the two most important landscapes, which are eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places, and to provide improved opportunities for visitor understanding of 

the most signifi cant resources, the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and the Historic Designed 

Landscape would be retained and enhanced. Features of the least important Historic Vernacular 

Landscape that overlap with the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and confl ict with or degrade 

the primary two landscapes would be considered for removal. 

In keeping with the purpose of the monument and its fundamental resources and values, the 

Prehistoric Designed Landscape would be the highest priority for restoration and enhancement 

actions when competing for scarce dollars. The Historic Designed Landscape (visitor center 

complex) is surrounded by the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. It would continue to be 

managed to protect features that contribute to its eligibility on the National Register of Historic 
50

CHAPTER 2

Places, as well as to minimize impacts to the character-defi ning features of the surrounding 

Prehistoric Designed Landscape.

Orchards and other ornamentals of the Historic Vernacular Landscape are features that directly 

confl ict with preservation of archeological resources and visitor understanding of the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape, and would be removed. Orchards and ornamentals are a major distraction 

from developing visitor understanding of the primary interpretive themes and appreciation of 

the monument’s fundamental resources and values. Groundwater infi ltration from irrigating 

the orchards and ornamentals is adversely aff ecting archeological resources. Based on these 

treatment priorities for cultural landscapes, the pear and apple orchards just to the west of the 

West Ruin would be removed. Other orchards, fruit trees, and ornamentals, such as roses and 

lilacs, would also be removed. Other features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape, such as 

agricultural structures, would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they 

should remain or should be removed. Some vernacular features may be left in place, considered 

for removal only if there is a compelling management reason, such as a confl ict with fundamental 

resources in the two primary cultural landscapes, adverse impact on the visitor experience, 

or safety concerns. Management decisions would also consider the environmental impacts of 

actions and fi scal priorities.

Throughout the Prehistoric Designed Landscape, native vegetation that is either contributing to 

or is compatible with what might have appeared in the ancient Pueblo scene would be restored 

and maintained. Vegetation within the Historic Designed Landscape would be managed for the 

function and integrity of the Historic District.

Additional details to implement this alternative would be developed in a separate vegetation and 

cultural landscapes management plan.

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

As in Alternative 1, all collections would be managed according to the monument’s Collections 

Management Plan (1980). The monument’s archives and archeological collections would 

continue to be stored at the Hibben Center. The monument’s history collection would be 

moved from the national monument to the Western Archeological and Conservation Center. The 

natural history collection would be moved to the Northern Arizona Facility. Object and artifact 

collections related to the occupation of the site would continue to be evaluated for potential 

additions to public display collections within the monument.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Opportunities for visitors to experience and learn about Aztec Ruins would be greatly expanded 

under this alternative. Experiences and opportunities available in Alternative 1, such as the 

visitor center, self-guided walks through the West Ruin, and picnicking, would continue. Primary 

visitor access would continue to be from Ruins Road, and the monument would continue to be 

primarily a day-use area. There would be minor modifi cations to the visitor center and a major 

upgrade to exhibits. As in Alternative 1, the monument staff would continue to be involved in 

interpretive programs outside of the monument as time and funding permit. The monument 

would continue to strive to improve universal access to programs and facilities. However, there 

are three key diff erences in Alternative 2:
51

ALTERNATIVE 2

 The removal of the orchards and ornamentals from the Prehistoric Designed Landscape 

would improve opportunities for visitors to understand ancient Puebloan culture.

 Expanded research would inform new exhibits and interpretive programs, off ering 

visitors a broader understanding of the monument.

 A new one and one-half-mile interpretive loop trail would greatly expand visitor 

experience and understanding of the site. The trail would begin and end at West Ruin and 

loop to East Ruin and North Ruin. This would provide visitors with the opportunity to be 

immersed in and view a greater variety of the monument’s resources, such as unexcavated 

ruins and cultural landscapes. This new trail would allow for broader learning 

opportunities for the visitor, including self-guided and ranger-led tours, and would be 

accessible for disabled visitors, if possible. The proposed location and layout for the trail, 

including a potential interpretive overlook, is shown on the Alternative 2 map. However, 

as noted on the map, the fi nal trail layout and location would be determined during a 

more detailed design phase. Additional compliance would be required to analyze impacts 

associated with the fi nal location.

FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

Existing facilities (structures, roads, parking areas, and picnic area) would generally be 

maintained. As described below, the Kiva Trading Post and the Aztec Ruins Trading Post would 

be remodeled and rehabilitated to improve monument operations and the administration trailer 

would be removed. There are no new structures proposed. As in Alternative 1, the monument 

would strive to demonstrate environmental stewardship and sustainability through all aspects of 

planning, design, construction, resource management, and operations.

VISITOR CENTER

As in Alternative 1, the building would continue to be used as a visitor center and for some staff 

offi ces. The historic character of the structure (eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places) would be maintained. New exhibits would be installed.

ADMINISTRATION TRAILER

 The existing administration trailer would be removed. 

MAINTENANCE COMPLEX 

As in Alternative 1, the existing maintenance complex would continue to be used by maintenance 

and cultural resource personnel for offi ces and storage and as a garage and staging area for 

maintenance and stabilization function.
Aztec Ruins Trading Post

52

CHAPTER 2

AZTEC RUINS TRADING POST

The Aztec Ruins Trading Post would be rehabilitated to serve as the new administrative 

headquarters for the monument. This would include offi ce space for the superintendent and for 

up to 10 employees from the administration division, the ranger/interpretive division, and other 

support staff . A conference room would also be provided. 

The original building was nearly half the size it is now and dates back to 1930, when it was fi rst 

used as a trading post. A number of additions have been made to the structure over the years. 

A recent structural analysis suggests that the original building is salvageable, but the additions 

should be removed. Although determined to be not eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places, the architecture of the original core structure of this building would be restored. 

Existing add-on construction would be replaced by new construction, and the building 

footprint would be slightly expanded to provide the needed space. The existing space in the 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post measures 2, 718 square feet, of which 1,278 square feet is the original 

1930s construction and 1,440 square feet is add-on construction. The total fi nished size of the 

rehabilitated building would be 3,800 square feet. New construction would be in keeping with 

the original architecture of the building and would occur on previously disturbed ground. The 

existing roof would also be fl attened, resulting in a lower profi le.

KIVA TRADING POST

As in Alternative 1, the Kiva Trading Post would be rehabilitated for cultural resource offi ces, 

work space, and a wet lab (laboratory area where artifacts are washed, dried, and prepared for 

curation). 

OUTREACH AND PARTNERSHIPS

As in Alternative 1, Aztec Ruins National Monument would continue to work cooperatively with 

other federal, state, and local agencies; American Indian authorities; adjacent landowners; notfor-profi t groups, such as friends or cooperating associations; and others to identify and achieve 

broad goals in resource preservation and environmental sustainability. Monument staff would 
53

also encourage educational opportunities relating to the ancient Pueblo culture, both inside and 

outside of the monument boundary, to the extent that staffi ng and funding allow. Through these 

relationships, the monument would continue to provide and receive valuable assistance in the 

form of educational programs, living history demonstrations, emergency response, fund-raising 

campaigns, habitat restoration, ecosystem management, and a host of other activities.

COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES

As in Alternative 1, the National Park Service would continue to foster relationships and cultural 

sensitivity with the tribes and nations associated with Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

STAFFING AND COSTS 

Under Alternative 2, the monument staffi ng level would be 18 full-time equivalent employees. 

Four of these positions would continue to be shared with Chaco Culture National Historical 

Park. As described in Alternative 1, all staffi ng proposals would be consistent with the position 

management plan identifi ed in the core operations analysis and the effi ciencies recognized in 

the creation of the Eastern Four Corners Group realignment. Any new positions may be fi lled by 

realignment of existing positions, shared services within the “Group” realignment, or as a result 

of the base funding increase request identifi ed in the core operations analysis.

Annual operating costs would be $1.25 million, and one-time facility costs for the design, 

construction, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of facilities would be $2.4 million. Non-facility 

costs for one-time removal of the orchards would be $20,000. A comparison of costs by 

alternative and more specifi c information is provided in Appendix D.

The cost fi gures provided here are for alternatives comparison purpose only — they are not to 

be used for budgeting purposes. More specifi c costs would be determined in subsequent, more 

detailed planning and design exercises, in consideration of the design of facilities, identifi cation 

of detailed resource protection needs, and changing visitor expectations. The separate vegetation 

and cultural landscapes management plan, which will follow this GMP, would provide some of 

these more detailed costs.

Actual costs to the National Park Service would 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, would depend on future National Park 

Service funding levels and service-wide priorities and on partnership funds, time, and eff ort. The 

approval of a GMP does not guarantee that funding and staffi ng needed to implement the plan 

will be forthcoming. Full implementation of the plan could be many years into the future.

ALTERNATIVE 2
54

CHAPTER 2

West

Ruin East Ruin

North Ruin

Great

Kiva

Ruins Road

Ruins Road

Aztec North Road

(Approx.Location)

5600

5800

5800

5700

5600

5600

Animas River

Farmers Ditch

1

2

3

41

51

3 1

2

Residence

West

BEGIN & END NEW

TRAIL TO EAST RUIN

AND NORTH MESA

POTENTIAL

INTERPRETIVE

OVERLOOK

ADAPTIVELY USE KIVA TRADING POST

FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE FUNCTIONS

REMOVE ADMINISTRATION TRAILER

PROPOSED

BRIDGE OVER

FARMERS DITCH

PROPOSED

BRIDGE OVER

FARMERS DITCH

PROPOSED INTERPRETIVE TRAIL

(ACTUAL LOCATION OF TRAIL TO BE

DETERMINED DURING DESIGN)

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Aztec Ruins National Monument

New Mexico

Alternative 3

0 500 1,000

Feet

IMDE

1/1/09

319

20,044

ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred Alternative

OVERALL MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS: The emphasis on resource management and visitor experience extends 

beyond the national monument into the surrounding region. It involves greater focus on outreach and partnerships 

outside the monument with a broader understanding of the importance of regional context. Enhanced functions

occur within the monument, including a new cultural activities center and new administrative facilities. 

REMODEL, EXPAND, AND ADAPTIVELY

USE AZTEC RUINS TRADING POST FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE HEADQUARTERS;

AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NEW INDOOR

AND OUTDOOR SPACE FOR UNMET NEEDS

RELATING TO RESOURCE EDUCATION,

TRAINING, TRIBAL DEMONSTRATIONS,

EXHIBITS, CONFERENCES, AND MEETINGS,

CALLED THE "CULTURAL ACTIVITIES CENTER"

Management Emphasis

LEGEND

Base Data

Existing Trail

Drainage (Irrigation)

Stream/Ditch

Contour (20 Foot Interval)

Mound/Ruin

Building

Orchards

Non-Historic Road

Prehistoric Road

Parking Lot

Picnic Area

Historic District

Administration Offices

(Double-Wide Trailer)

Maintenance Compound

Visitor Center

Facilities

1

2

Kiva Trading Post

Aztec Ruins Trading Post

3

Gas Well

Authorized Boundary 317.8 Acres

5

4
55

ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

GENERAL CONCEPT

This alternative emphasizes outreach and partnerships, with a broader understanding of 

the importance of community and regional context and the intertwined future of both the 

monument and its surrounding environment (see Alternative 3 map). Aztec Ruins National 

Monument would strive to be woven into the fabric of the surrounding community and region, 

working in collaboration and partnership to achieve common goals. Such common goals 

could broadly include education and appreciation of shared heritage and culture, stewardship 

of heritage resources, archeological research and preservation, and shared environmental 

stewardship, in addition to furthering the specifi c mission of the monument.

Visitors would have expanded opportunities for experiences and learning within the monument, 

as well as connections to related opportunities in the surrounding region and virtual technology. 

As with Alternative 2, resource management activities would be expanded within the monument. 

However, in Alternative 3, such activities would also be linked to opportunities beyond 

monument boundaries. As with Alternative 2, features that distract visitors from understanding 

the monument’s fundamental resources and values, such as the more recent orchards, would be 

removed. Visitors would have opportunities to experience resources and stories beyond the West 

Ruin through additional trails and interpretive tools that would lead visitors to the East Ruin and 

North Ruin. Existing structures would be remodeled and expanded to improve operations and 

to provide a community meeting space to welcome collaboration and partnership activities into 

the monument, including educational opportunities, arts and crafts, demonstrations, and other 

activities relating to American Indian cultures. This proposed concept would achieve the desired 

resource conditions, visitor experiences, and facility development outlined in Table 3 and shown 

in the Management Zones map.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

As in Alternative 2, Aztec Ruins National Monument would holistically approach the treatment 

of resources found within the monument. This consists of cultural resources, which include 

archeological resources, historic structures, cultural landscapes, the museum collection, and 

ethnographic resources; and natural resources, which include vegetation, wildlife, and special 

status species. In general, resources would be managed in accordance with the monument’s 

Resources Management Plan, which addresses both cultural and natural resources and is 

periodically updated. Resource management would integrate natural and cultural resource 

management though greater emphasis on the diff erences among the three cultural landscapes 

that exist within the monument. Archeological research and preservation activities would be 

expanded beyond the West Ruin to other areas in the monument, and cultural landscapes would 

be managed according to a hierarchy of priorities. 

In addition to the direction of Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would emphasize collaboration and 

partnership opportunities to further stewardship of associated resources throughout the region. 

Greater external collaboration and understanding of regional context would inform resource 

management within the monument. The monument would seek to connect to larger networks 
56

CHAPTER 2

of inventory and monitoring. Aztec Ruins would expend more eff ort to share their knowledge 

and seek best practices among other related National Park Service units and stewards of related 

resources. Research would be encouraged not only within the monument, but throughout the 

greater region and Chacoan network. Through these expanded networks, the National Park 

Service would work with others to seek stewardship of ancient Pueblo resources throughout 

the region. Increased eff orts would be made to develop additional linkages to repositories with 

related artifacts, objects, and archives, as well as to display collections at suitable locations 

throughout the region.

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

As in Alternatives 1 and 2, inventory, site condition assessments, and monitoring would be 

conducted to provide the basis for work priorities. Additional preservation activities would occur 

related to ruins stabilization and backfi lling, as outlined in Alternative 2. Detailed planning for 

expanding these preservation activities would be done in consultation with American Indian 

tribes and the State Historic Preservation Offi ce. 

Inventory and Monitoring

Actions taken in Alternative 3 would be the same as described in Alternative 2. Inventory and 

site condition assessments could lead to more active preservation of resources throughout the 

monument, such as the North Ruin. 

Ruins Stabilization

As in Alternative 2, ruins stabilization would continue to be performed on the West Ruin, 

East Ruin, and throughout the rest of the monument, and would address both medium- and 

high-priority cyclical maintenance needs. Stabilization activities would be both preventive and 

proactive. 

Backfi lling

As in Alternatives 1 and 2, programs of backfi ll and fi ll level adjustment, including adjusting fi ll 

levels, limited fi ll reduction in critical areas, regrading ground surface, and installing drainage 

and soil retention structures, would continue at the West Ruin. However, as in Alternative 2, 

preservation through backfi ll and fi ll level adjustment would also be considered for the East Ruin 

and North Ruin. This would be done through developing a fi nal treatment plan in consultation 

with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Offi cer and American Indian tribes. 

Research

Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, the monument would continue to conduct research and 

encourage research by other institutions and scholars with the least intrusive techniques. As in 

Alternative 2, research would be expanded beyond West Ruin to learn more about the entire 

monument, particularly the new lands added to the north. The interpretive program would strive 

to inform the public about research methods and fi ndings. 

As outlined in Alternatives 1 and 2, archeological data recovery, or excavation, may be permitted 

if justifi ed by research or interpretive needs or to mitigate potential loss of resources owing to 

uncontrollable degradation. Tribal input would be gathered through discussions with associated 

American Indian groups for any proposed project that includes excavation.
57

ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

As described in Alternative 2, a hierarchy of importance would be established to resolve 

confl icting goals where the cultural landscapes overlap. To protect the two most important 

landscapes, which are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to provide 

improved opportunities for visitor understanding of the most signifi cant resources, the 

contributing landscape elements in the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and the Historic 

Designed Landscape would be retained and enhanced. Elements of the least important Historic 

Vernacular Landscape that confl ict with or degrade the two primary landscapes would be 

considered for removal. 

As outlined in Alternative 2, other primary actions related to cultural landscapes include the 

following:

 The Prehistoric Designed Landscape would be the highest priority for restoration and 

enhancement actions when competing for scarce dollars. 

 The Historic Designed Landscape (visitor center complex), which is surrounded by the 

Prehistoric Designed Landscape, would be managed to protect features that contribute to 

its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, as well as to minimize impacts to 

the character-defi ning features of the surrounding Prehistoric Designed Landscape.

 Orchards and other ornamentals of the Historic Vernacular Landscape would be 

removed because they confl ict with visitor understanding of the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape. 

 Pear and apple orchards just to the west of the West Ruin, and all other orchards, fruit 

trees, and ornamentals, such as roses and lilacs, would be removed. Other features of the 

Historic Vernacular Landscape would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine 

whether they should remain or should be removed. 

 Native vegetation that is either contributing to or compatible with what might have 

appeared in the ancient Pueblo scene would be restored and maintained throughout the 

Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Vegetation within the Historic Designed Landscape 

would be managed for the function and integrity of the Historic District. 

Additional details to implement this alternative would be developed in a separate vegetation and 

cultural landscapes management plan.

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

As in Alternatives 1 and 2, all collections would be managed according to the monument’s 

Collections Management Plan (1980). The monument’s archives and archeological collections 

would continue to be stored at the Hibben Center. The monument’s history collection would be 

moved from the national monument to the Western Archeological and Conservation Center. The 

natural history collection would be moved to the Northern Arizona Facility. Object and artifact 

collections related to the occupation of the site would continue to be evaluated for potential 

additions to public display collections within the monument.In Alternative 3, there would be 

greater opportunities to form partnerships and link with related repositories throughout the 

region.
58

CHAPTER 2

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Opportunities for visitors to experience and learn about Aztec Ruins would be greatly expanded, 

similar to Alternative 2. Experiences and learning opportunities such as the visitor center, selfguided walks through the West Ruin, and picnicking would continue. Primary visitor access 

would continue to be from Ruins Road. There would be minor modifi cations to the visitor 

center and a major upgrade to exhibits. The monument would continue to strive to improve 

universal access to programs and facilities. The orchards would be removed to enhance 

visitor understanding of the ancient Pueblo landscape, and expanded research would inform 

new exhibits and interpretive programs. In Alternative 3, monument staff would increase its 

involvement in interpretive programs outside of the monument. Although the monument would 

still be largely a day-use area, there would be increased opportunities for evening activities at the 

proposed cultural activities center.

A new one and one-half-mile interpretive trail loop would be constructed, as described in 

Alternative 2, that would greatly expand visitor experience and understanding of the site. The 

trail would begin and end at West Ruin and loop to East Ruin and North Ruin, via the North 

Mesa, and would provide visitors with the opportunity to be immersed in and view a greater 

variety of the monument’s resources. The proposed location and layout for the trail is shown on 

the Alternative 3 map. However, as noted on the map, the fi nal trail layout and location would be 

determined during a more detailed design phase. Additional compliance would also be required 

to analyze impacts associated with the fi nal location.

In Alternative 3, other trails may be considered in the future to expand visitor understanding 

of resources such as the riparian/riverine environment. Such future trails could be located in 

all management zones, except the Resource Preservation Emphasis Zone. These trails might 

eventually connect with future regional trails outside the monument.

In Alternative 3, additional emphasis would be placed on visitors understanding stories related 

to Aztec Ruins and encouraging visitors to see related regional prehistoric sites. Collaboration 

and partnerships with American Indian tribes and others would greatly expand interpretation 

opportunities regarding the continuum of human habitation, history of archeological research 

and preservation in the Southwest, and interpretation of Native American agriculture in the 

region through demonstrative farming plots. Education and outreach would be a priority. Staff 

would strive for greater integration of Aztec Ruins’ rich cultural history and research activities 

with regional school curriculum requirements. Staff would also strive to engage and welcome 

a wide spectrum of cultures and generations and try new technologies and communication 

networks to make connections.

A cultural activities center would be added to the new administration facilities in the expanded 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post to facilitate tribal and community involvement in providing these new 

and enhanced visitor and educational experiences. It would function as a much-needed space 

that would support activities and educational programs for visitors, American Indian tribes, 

school groups, and community members that relate to the fundamental resources and values of 

the monument. Secondarily, the cultural activities would serve as a monument and community 

resource, providing space for local meetings. Creating this space in the monument would also 

support goals of outreach and partnerships with the tribes, universities and other researchers, 

other agencies, and the local community. More specifi cally, the building would be used for the 

following functions:
59

ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

 Conferences and symposiums

 Training and educational seminars

 Tribal consultation with the monument, the local community, and other tribes

 Periodic indoor tribal demonstrations that are open to the public

 Large interpretive presentations and multimedia events

 National Park Service and community partnership meetings

 General public meetings

 National Park Service meetings, including regional staff , adjacent parks, and monument 

staff

 Interagency meetings

The National Park Service would actively seek partnerships and relationships that would expand 

interpretation of the cultural resources of the monument and beyond, to include interpretation 

opportunities related to evolving cultural histories. Possible actions would include:

 Continual sharing of ideas to enhance the visitor experience, understanding, and 

enjoyment within the monument and to enhance the understanding and appreciation of 

American Indian culture throughout the region.

 Expanding public and tribal outreach and information exchange opportunities in areas 

such as archeo- and ethno-astronomy and farming practices. 

 Refi nement of the monument’s interpretive program, including planning and design 

of indoor interpretive exhibits and outdoor wayside exhibits, and the presentation of 

cultural demonstrations.

 Interpretation of the Animas River and the role it played in the settlement and continued 

occupation of the site.

 Seeking partnerships or other mechanisms, such as founding of a friends group, to 

facilitate operations of interpretive opportunities related to resources represented within 

the monument as well as on a regional level. 

 Establishing a trail connection to a future trail along the Animas River that would include 

interpretive opportunities.

 Presenting and describing in depth the relationship of regional cultural resources to 

resources within the monument in cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies.

 Expansion of related educational opportunities outside the monument boundary, in 

terms of electronic outreach and personal presentations.

 Assigning a staff position to implement tasks associated with this vision and to become 

the permanent partnership liaison and educational outreach coordinator. 

FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS

Existing facilities (structures, roads, parking areas, and picnic area) would generally be 

maintained. Similar to Alternative 2, the Kiva Trading Post and the Aztec Ruins Trading Post 

would be remodeled and rehabilitated to improve monument operations, and the administration 

trailer would be removed. However, in Alternative 3, the rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins Trading 

Post would be expanded to include a new cultural activities center. The monument would strive 

to demonstrate environmental stewardship and sustainability through all aspects of planning, 

design, construction, resource management, and operations. 
60

CHAPTER 2

VISITOR CENTER

New exhibits would be installed as described in Alternatives 1 and 2. The building would 

continue to be used as a visitor center and for some staff offi ces. The historic character of the 

structure (eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) would be maintained. 

ADMINISTRATION TRAILER

The existing administration trailer would be removed, as in Alternative 2. 

MAINTENANCE COMPLEX 

As in Alternatives 1 and 2, the existing maintenance complex would continue to be used by 

maintenance and cultural resource personnel for offi ces and storage and as a garage and staging 

area for maintenance and stabilization functions. 

AZTEC RUINS TRADING POST

The Aztec Ruins Trading Post would be rehabilitated to serve as the administrative headquarters 

for the monument and to accommodate the administrative functions described in Alternative 2. 

In addition to the administrative function, a new cultural activities center would be constructed 

under Alternative 3 as part of this rehabilitation project. Existing add-on construction in the 

trading post would be replaced by new construction and expanded into previously disturbed 

areas surrounding the building to provide for the new space. Upon completion, the rehabilitated 

building would be 6,000 square feet, consisting of 1,278 square feet of original space and 4,722 

square feet of new construction (subject to changes during the design phase). Approximately 

2,200 square feet of the new construction represents the cultural activities center. Approximately 

600 square feet of outdoor covered space would also be provided for uses associated with the 

interior activities center. 

KIVA TRADING POST 

As in Alternatives 1 and 2, the Kiva Trading Post would be rehabilitated for cultural resource 

offi ces, work space, and a wet lab (laboratory area where artifacts are washed, dried, and 

prepared for curation). 

OUTREACH AND PARTNERSHIPS

As in Alternatives 1 and 2, Aztec Ruins National Monument would continue to work 

cooperatively with other federal, state, and local agencies; American Indian tribes; adjacent 

landowners; not-for-profi t groups, such as friends or cooperating associations; and others to 

identify and achieve broad goals in resource preservation and environmental sustainability. 

Through a new staff position in Alternative 3, the monument would also provide increased 

educational opportunities relating to the ancient Pueblo culture, both inside and outside of the 

monument boundary, as well as emphasize a broader context for outreach and partnerships.

A number of such opportunities have been identifi ed under Alternative 3 in earlier discussions 

about resource management, visitor and educational opportunities, and facilities and operations. 

Through these relationships, and with the addition of a new staff position and the cultural 

activities center that provides much needed space, Aztec Ruins would be able to provide and 

receive even more valuable assistance in the form of educational programs; living history 
61

demonstrations; cultural resource identifi cation, preservation, research and interpretation; fundraising campaigns; habitat restoration; ecosystem management; and a host of other activities.

In implementing this alternative, the National Park Service would also seek partnerships in the 

following areas:

 Planning, design, and construction of proposed interpretive trails and potential 

connecting trails.

 Planning, design, fund-raising, and construction of proposed modifi ed and new facilities, 

especially the cultural activities center.

 Maintenance of monument resources and facilities.

 Opportunities to demonstrate and promote environmentally excellent planning, design, 

and construction practices and to more eff ectively support sustainable economic 

development in the region.

COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES

As in Alternatives 1 and 2, the National Park Service would continue to foster relationships and 

cultural sensitivity with the tribes and nations associated with Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

However, with greater emphasis on outreach and partnerships and a new cultural activities 

center in Alternative 3, the National Park Service would have the ability and space to promote the 

involvement of American Indian tribes in the interpretation and telling of stories related to the 

monument’s fundamental resources and values. This enhanced emphasis and space would also 

encourage more frequent and eff ective communication between monument staff and affi liated 

tribes and provide for ongoing educational programs and activities that would benefi t visitors and 

tribal members alike.

STAFFING AND COSTS

Under Alternative 3, the monument staffi ng level would be 19 full-time equivalent employees. 

Four of these positions would continue to be shared with Chaco Culture National Historical 

Park, and operational needs would continue to be met through several sources of funding. 

As described in Alternative 1, all staffi ng proposals would be consistent with the position 

management plan identifi ed in the core operations analysis and the effi ciencies recognized in 

the creation of the Eastern Four Corners Group realignment. Any new positions may be fi lled by 

realignment of existing positions, shared services within the “Group” realignment, or as a result 

of the base funding increase request identifi ed in the core operations analysis.

Annual operating costs would be $1.32 million, and one-time facility costs for the design, 

construction, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of facilities would be $3.44 million. Non-facility 

costs for one-time removal of the orchards would be $20,000. A comparison of costs by 

alternative and more specifi c information is provided in Appendix D. 

The cost fi gures provided here are for alternatives comparison purpose only — they are not to 

be used for budgeting purposes. More specifi c costs would be determined in subsequent, more 

detailed planning and design exercises, in consideration of the design of facilities, identifi cation 

of detailed resource protection needs, and changing visitor expectations. The separate vegetation 

and cultural landscapes management plan, which will follow this GMP, would provide some of 

these more detailed costs.

ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
62

CHAPTER 2

Actual costs to the National Park Service would 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, would depend on future National Park 

Service funding levels and service-wide priorities and on partnership funds, time, and eff ort. The 

approval of a GMP does not guarantee that funding and staffi ng needed to implement the plan 

will be forthcoming. Full implementation of the plan could be many years into the future.
63

ACTIONS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED 

FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

During the planning process, some additional actions were considered, but dismissed from 

further analysis for various reasons described below.

PRESERVATION OF THE ORCHARDS

Rehabilitating the pear and apple orchards and preserving them into the future was considered 

as an option. The one-time restoration cost would be approximately $55,000, followed by annual 

maintenance costs of approximately $13,000. Rehabilitating and preserving the orchards was not 

considered viable and was dismissed from further analysis for the following reasons: 

 Infi ltration of irrigation water adjacent to the ruins is a major cause of deterioration to 

ancient architecture.

 The pear and apple orchards are not contributing features to the purpose, signifi cance, 

fundamental resources and values, or mission of Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

Additionally, they are not contributing features of the most important cultural landscape 

in the monument, wherein they occur — the Prehistoric Designed Landscape.

 The orchards would continue to be visual distractions to the visitor on the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape, since fruit trees did not exist in the ancestral Pueblo cultural 

landscape, nor were orchards of any kind part of the ancient economy.

 The estimated long-term cost of restoring, preserving, and maintaining the orchards 

would be more than the estimated cost of removing them and replacing them with native 

vegetation.

 Preserving the orchards is not considered essential to the core mission of the monument. 

Thus, expending funds to preserve them would be a low priority when considering the 

limited funds available to preserve and operate the monument and its core mission.

STAFF OFFICES IN TOWN

Over the years discussions have occurred about the viability of locating the National Park 

Service administrative offi ces in the town of Aztec rather than at the monument. This option was 

considered during the GMP planning process. However, a preliminary analysis determined that 

necessary and appropriate offi ce space for all the needs of National Park Service management, 

administration, and operations at one location was not available in town, and it would be 

undesirable to separate the staff into diff erent locations. Furthermore, for security purposes, the 

National Park Service believes that it is desirable to have a staff presence within the boundary 

of the monument. Community and tribal leaders support this desire. Therefore, the option of 

relocating administrative offi ces in town was rejected and dismissed from further analysis.
64

CHAPTER 2

NEW MAINTENANCE AND STAFF HOUSING COMPLEX 

The 1989 General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan for Aztec Ruins National 

Monument proposed that the maintenance function and staff housing be moved from their 

current location in the maintenance compound to new facilities in a diff erent area of the 

monument. This proposal has not yet been implemented but was reconsidered during this GMP 

planning process. Because it is no longer viable, the proposal was dismissed from further analysis 

for the following reasons.

Since the 1989 GMP was written, staff housing within the monument is no longer needed. 

The housing that once existed in the maintenance area has been converted to offi ce space for 

maintenance personnel. As a result, the existing maintenance compound suffi ciently meets the 

monument’s needs and is in a location that does not adversely impact the visitor experience 

or the monument’s important resources. A new maintenance complex would also represent a 

substantial cost that would compete with other monument management priorities.

Although proposed in the development zone, new development of the magnitude proposed in 

the 1989 plan within the limited land base of the monument would be visible from numerous 

locations within the visitor use areas of the Prehistoric Designed Landscape, as well as be 

incompatible with that landscape. Thus, such development would adversely impact visitor 

understanding and experience of the monument’s fundamental resources. 

It was determined in this GMP that a more sustainable, aesthetic, and cost-eff ective approach to 

development would be to adaptively reuse existing structures such as the Aztec Ruins Trading 

Post, the Kiva Trading Post, and existing maintenance buildings. This approach would also help 

facilitate the visitor’s experience of the monument as they transition from the modern City of 

Aztec into the earlier times of the site (represented by the Aztec Ruins Trading Post, the Kiva 

Trading Post, and the historic visitor center) and then into the prehistoric ruins. 
65

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The following mitigation measures would be used to minimize the eff ects of any of the action 

alternatives. 

GENERAL

 All new construction would be completed using sustainable practices, such as the use of 

environmentally friendly materials, sustainable building materials, and effi cient utility 

systems. Components of such projects would also be assessed for visual quality. Utilities 

and support functions, such as water, sewer, electricity, roads, and parking areas, would 

be evaluated and designed to mitigate visual impacts.

 A construction zone and construction staging area would be identifi ed and demarcated 

with construction tape or some similar material prior to initiation of building 

rehabilitation activities. The tape would defi ne the zone and confi ne the activity to the 

minimum area needed for project implementation. All protection measures would be 

clearly stated in the construction specifi cations, and workers would be instructed to avoid 

conducting activities beyond the zone as defi ned by the fencing. In addition, the National 

Park Service would ensure that all workers are informed that damage to resources outside 

the scope of work is subject to prosecution, fi ne, restitution costs, and other penalties.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 The National Park Service would ensure that all construction workers are informed of 

the penalties for illegally collecting artifacts or intentionally damaging archeological sites 

and historic properties. Workers would also be instructed on procedures to follow in 

case a previously unknown archeological resource is uncovered during construction. 

Preservation and restoration workers and supervisors would be informed about the 

special sensitivity of the Historic District’s values and regulations. 

 To minimize the amount of ground disturbance, staging and stockpiling areas would be 

located in previously disturbed sites, away from visitor use areas to the extent possible. 

Existing native vegetation at the site would be undisturbed to the extent possible.

 Compliance with Section 106 would be completed, including any needed archeological 

investigations, prior to any land-modifying activity such as construction. A qualifi ed 

professional archeologist would inspect the ground surface of the proposed development 

site and the immediate vicinity for the presence of cultural remains, both prehistoric and 

historic. Similarly, in those areas where subsurface remains appear likely, an archeologist 

would be on hand to monitor land-modifying actions.

 Some undertakings would require project-specifi c consultation and development of 

mitigation measures that would be outlined in an approved treatment plan.

 Should preservation or restoration activities result in unearthing previously undiscovered 

cultural resources, work would be stopped in the area of any discovery and consultation 

would occur with the State Historic Preservation Offi cer, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Offi cer, other tribes, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, as necessary, 
66

CHAPTER 2

according to §36 CFR 800.13, Post Review Discoveries. In the unlikely event that human 

remains are discovered during construction, provisions outlined in the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) would be followed.

 Impacts to historic structures would be minimized by ensuring that all proposed 

rehabilitation be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Restoring, 

and Reconstructing Historic Structures.

NATURAL RESOURCES

 The National Park Service would ensure that construction workers and supervisors are 

informed about wildlife values and regulations.

 Temporary impacts associated with construction would occur, such as soil and vegetation 

disturbance and the possibility of soil erosion. In an eff ort to avoid introduction of exotic 

plant species, no materials would be used, such as hay bales, which could contain seeds of 

undesirable or harmful alien plant species. Standard erosion control measures, such as silt 

fences and/or sandbags would also be used to minimize any potential soil erosion.

 Potential compaction and erosion of bare soils would be minimized by conserving topsoil 

in windrows. The use of conserved topsoil would help preserve microorganisms and 

seeds of native plants. The topsoil would be returned to or near the original location and 

supplemented with scarifi cation, mulching, seeding, or planting with species native to 

the immediate area (per the vegetation and cultural landscapes management plan). This 

would reduce construction scars and erosion.

 Soil erosion would be minimized by placing silt fencing around the excavated soil. 

Excavated soil may be used in the construction project; excess soil would be stored in 

approved areas. If used, silt fencing fabric would be inspected weekly or after every major 

storm. Silt removal would be accomplished in such a way as to avoid its introduction into 

any wetlands or fl owing water bodies.

 Revegetation plantings would use native species, as directed by the vegetation and cultural 

landscapes management plan. 

VISITORS

 Construction activities would be scheduled to minimize building rehabilitation and trail 

construction impacts on visitors. Areas not under construction would remain accessible 

to visitors as much as is safely possible.
67

NPS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The alternatives presented in this GMP were developed with National Park Service staff 

and monument stakeholders such as affi liated American Indian tribes, city and county 

representatives, and other agencies. Opportunities and issues identifi ed during public scoping 

meetings were foundational in determining the range of actions considered in the alternatives.

A series of workshops were held in 2004 that included the following steps: refi ne planning 

opportunities, interests, and issues; analyze resources and create resource areas; defi ne 

management zones and develop alternatives; identify partnership opportunities; and present 

preliminary alternatives at public open houses. The two action alternatives were determined from 

this process. 

The Preferred Alternative was selected during a subsequent workshop when the potential 

impacts, both benefi cial and adverse, were identifi ed by National Park Service staff and 

monument stakeholders. The advantages of each alternative were weighed in relationship to 

the GMP planning issues and opportunities and desired future conditions for the monument. 

Alternative 3 was identifi ed as the alternative that would best develop opportunities and 

achieve desired conditions, particularly related to expanded visitor experience, outreach, and 

partnerships. 
68

CHAPTER 2

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

An environmentally preferred alternative must be identifi ed in an environmental document 

to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The 

environmentally preferred alternative must meet the criteria that were established in Section 

101(b) of NEPA and subsequently adopted by the National Park Service. This includes 

alternatives that: 

1. Fulfi ll the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations; 

2. Ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings;

3. Attain the widest range of benefi cial uses of the environment without degradation, 

risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequence;

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and 

maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and variety of 

individual choice;

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources.

“Generally this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment. It also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, 

cultural, and natural resources” (Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), “Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations” [40 CFR 1500-

1508], Federal Register Vol. 46, No. 55, 18026–18030, March 23, 1981: Question 6a).

Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, has the most advantages with respect to the criteria in 

Section 101(b) of the NEPA compared with the other alternatives. It also meets the purpose 

and need for the GMP. The expanded preservation eff orts and visitor access to other signifi cant 

cultural resources, the increased interpretation of all cultural resources, the new cultural 

activities center, and the major emphasis on partnerships and collaborative management to 

achieve monument goals would meet criteria 1 through 5. This alternative is preferred over the 

other alternatives relative to these criteria because it off ers more diverse visitor opportunities 

and opportunities to connect with the City of Aztec and American Indian tribes, emphasizes 

a stronger management of natural resources and understanding of prehistoric sites within a 

regional context, provides most for growing demands while protecting resources, and provides 

stronger preservation of the ruins. Criterion 6 could be met by ensuring that all future building 

design and construction at Aztec Ruins follows sustainable design principles. 

Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, represents how the monument is currently managed 

and would be managed into the future without a new GMP. As noted earlier, it was included 

to provide a baseline against which to compare the eff ects of the action alternatives. It only 
69

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

minimally meets the six criteria compared with Alternative 3. Furthermore, it does not adequately 

address the GMP’s purpose and need, or key planning issues outlined in Chapter 1.

Alternative 2 would meet criteria 2, 3, 5, and 6 by improving resource preservation and 

visitor access to more cultural resources. Because it does not pursue strong partnerships and 

collaborative management opportunities, focuses only on providing new space for administrative 

purposes rather than community purposes, and does not broaden the scope of interpretive 

opportunities through collaboration with tribes, this alternative would not meet criteria 1 and 4 

to the same degree as Alternative 3 would.

After a review of the alternatives’ environmental consequences, it was determined that 

Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, is also the environmentally preferred alternative. This 

alternative best realizes the full range of national environmental policy goals, as stated in Section 

101 of the NEPA.
70

CHAPTER 2

KEY ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE 1: NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred Alternative 

Overall 

Management 

Emphasis 

Continuation of existing 

management direction, with 

primary emphasis of resource 

management and visitor 

experience on the West Ruin 

area. 

Expand the primary emphasis of 

resource management and visitor 

experience beyond West Ruin to 

include East Ruin, North Ruin, 

and other areas in the 

monument. 

Same as Alternative 2, plus: 

Place a greater emphasis on 

outreach and partnerships, with 

a broader understanding of the 

importance of community and 

regional context and the 

intertwined future of both the 

monument and its surrounding 

environment. 

Resource 

Management 

Holistic management of 

natural and cultural resources 

would stay primarily focused 

on resources within 

monument boundaries. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternatives 1 and 2, 

plus: 

Seek collaboration and 

partnerships in resource 

stewardship. 

Greater recognition of regional 

context. 

Archeological1

Resources 

Preservation activities primarily 

focused on the West Ruin. 

Activities include: 

Inventory and monitoring. 

Ruins stabilization. 

Backfilling and fill level 

adjustment. 

Research encouraged, 

emphasizes minimum impact. 

Archeological preservation 

activities described in Alternative 

1 would be expanded to include 

more areas throughout the 

monument, especially at East 

Ruin and North Ruin. 

Same as Alternative 2, plus: 

Seek to engage in networks for 

regional inventory and 

monitoring. 

Seek to share knowledge and 

best practices. 

Encourage research and sharing 

of information throughout the 

Southwest. 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Retain features of all three 

cultural landscapes. 

Orchards are retained and 

irrigated. 

Complete a vegetation and 

cultural landscapes 

management plan. 

Establish a hierarchy of 

importance among the 

overlapping cultural landscapes 

to resolve issues that arise when 

goals are in conflict. 

Prehistoric Designed Landscape 

— eligible for National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP) and 

fundamental resource — 

preserve and maintain. 

Historic Designed Landscape — 

eligible for NRHP — protect 

features. 

Historic Vernacular Landscape — 

not eligible for NRHP — remove 

features that directly conflict 

with Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape and resources. 

Orchards would be removed. 

Other features may be left in 

place and considered for removal 

only if there is a compelling 

management reason. 

Complete a vegetation and 

cultural landscapes management 

plan. 

Same as Alternative 2. 

Table 5: Summary Of Alternatives
71

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

KEY ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE 1: NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred Alternative 

Museum 

Collections 

Collections would be placed at 

the Hibben Center, Western 

Archeological and 

Conservation Center, or 

Northern Arizona Facility per 

the Park Museum Collection 

Storage Plan. 

Collections would continue to 

be evaluated for potential 

additions to public display. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternatives 1 and 2, 

plus: 

An emphasis on developing 

additional linkages to related 

repositories throughout the 

region. 

Visitor 

Experience and 

Educational 

Opportunities 

Primary experience is visitor 

center and self-guided trail to 

the West Ruin. 

Visitor opportunities would be 

expanded to the North Ruin and 

East Ruin. 

Same as Alternative 2, plus: 

Additional opportunities for 

education and outreach in the 

greater region. 

Access Visitor center would continue 

to be first stop and gateway to 

site. 

Picnicking would continue. 

Primarily a day-use area, with 

occasional evening programs. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternatives 1 and 2, 

plus: 

Potentially more evening 

programs at the cultural 

activities center. 

Interpretation 

and Education 

Visitor center would continue 

to be central to interpretation 

and education. Exhibits would 

be improved. 

West Ruin self-guided hike 

remains primary experience 

close to the resource. 

Staff would be involved in 

interpretation and education 

outside of the monument, as 

time and funding permit. 

As in Alternative 1, visitor center 

would continue to be central to 

interpretation and education. 

Exhibits would be improved. 

In addition to the West Ruin 

experience: 

Visitor experience close to the 

resource would be expanded 

from West Ruin to new 

opportunities to visit East Ruin 

and North Ruin. 

Interpretation would be 

expanded to include 

unexcavated resources, cultural 

landscapes, collections, 

preservation activities, and 

current research. 

As in Alternative 1, staff would 

be involved in interpretation and 

education outside of the 

monument, as time and funding 

permit. 

Interpretation opportunities 

would be expanded and 

improved as in Alternative 2, 

plus: 

Additional emphasis would be 

placed on visitors to the 

monument understanding the 

greater context of Aztec Ruins. 

Visitors would be encouraged to 

see related regional prehistoric 

sites. 

Increased collaboration and 

partnerships with American 

Indian tribes and others would 

greatly expand interpretation 

opportunities. 

Education and outreach would 

be a staff priority. 

A cultural activities center would 

be created to foster interaction 

with tribes, partners, and the 

surrounding community. 

Trails The West Ruins Trail (0.40 

mile) would be maintained. 

Same as Alternative 1, plus: 

A new loop interpretive trail (1.5 

miles) would be constructed to 

East Ruin and North Ruin from 

West Ruin. 

Same as Alternative 2, plus: 

Other trails may be considered in 

the future, and may eventually 

connect with future regional 

trails outside the monument. 

Facilities Existing facilities (structures, 

roads, parking areas, and 

picnic area) would generally be 

maintained. Structures would 

be remodeled and rehabiliSame as Alternative 1, except 

there would be different 

treatments for some structures. 

Same as Alternative 2, plus: 

The addition of space for a 

cultural activities center. 
72

CHAPTER 2

KEY ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE 1: NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred Alternative 

tated, and in one instance, 

removed to improve monument operations. There are no 

new structures proposed. 

Structures The visitor center would 

continue to be maintained and 

used as a visitor center, with 

some staff offices. Its historic 

character would be 

maintained. 

Visitor center — same as 

Alternative 1. 

Visitor center — same as 

Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Administrative headquarters 

would remain in the 

doublewide administration 

trailer. 

The administration trailer would 

be removed. 

The administration trailer would 

be removed — same as 

Alternative 2. 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post 

would be removed. 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post would 

be expanded and adaptively used 

to serve as administrative 

headquarters. 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post would 

be expanded and adaptively 

used to serve as administrative 

headquarters, as in Alternative 2, 

plus: 

A new space would be 

constructed as part of the 

expanded building to serve as 

the cultural activities center to 

support the goals of this 

alternative. 

The Kiva Trading Post would 

be adaptively used for cultural 

resources offices, workspace, 

and a wet lab. 

Kiva Trading Post — same as 

Alternative 1. 

Kiva Trading Post — same as 

Alternatives 1 and 2. 

The maintenance complex 

would continue to be 

maintained and used for 

offices, storage, garage space, 

and a staging area. 

Maintenance complex — same 

as Alternative 1. 

Maintenance complex — same 

as Alternatives 1 and 2. 

Outreach and 

Partnerships 

NPS would continue current 

relationships with associated 

American Indian tribes, local 

and state governments, 

neighboring NPS units, and 

others to share information, 

and to identify and reach 

mutual goals related to the 

ancestral Pueblo culture. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternatives 1 and 2, 

plus: 

Emphasize outreach and 

partnerships 

Recognize the importance of 

community and regional context 

Increase work in collaboration 

and partnership with others to 

achieve common goals. 

Staffing and 

Costs 

Annual Operating 

Costs (ONPS) 

$1,130,000 $1,250,000 $1,320,000 

Staffing (FTE) 16 18 19 

Total One-Time 

Costs 

$430,000 $2,420,000 $3,460,000 

1

 For Archeological Resources, West Ruin, East Ruin, and North Ruin refer to not only the major ruin that is named, 

but also to the complex of archeological features and sites associated with that major ruin. 
73

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

IMPACT TOPIC ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred 

Alternative 

Archeological 

Resources 

Preservation activities would 

be focused on West Ruin, 

resulting in long-term, 

moderate, beneficial impacts 

to West Ruin and long-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts to East Ruin and 

North Ruin. Heavy visitation at 

West Ruin and grounddisturbing activities on North 

Mesa could also result in longterm, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts. Inventory and 

monitoring, nonintrusive 

research methods, and the 

rehabilitation of the Kiva 

Trading Post would have longterm, negligible to minor, 

beneficial impacts. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term 

and adverse, but minor. 

Preservation activities would be 

expanded throughout the 

monument, resulting in longterm, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts to 

archeological resources. New 

trail construction and related 

visitor use could result in longterm, minor, adverse impacts to 

East Ruin, North Ruin, and 

other archeological resources. 

Monitoring and inventorying 

activities and nonintrusive 

research methods would occur 

more frequently, resulting in 

long-term, minor, beneficial 

impacts, as would the 

rehabilitation of the Kiva 

Trading Post. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term 

and minor beneficial. 

The new cultural activities center 

at the Aztec Ruins Trading Post 

and the enhanced partnership 

and outreach opportunities would 

result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts to 

archeological resources. Similar to 

Alternative 2, preservation 

activities in Alternative 3 would be 

expanded throughout the 

monument, resulting in longterm, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts to archeological 

resources. New trail construction 

and related visitor use would have 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

to East Ruin, North Ruin, and 

other archeological resources. 

Inventory, monitoring, 

nonintrusive research, and 

rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading 

Post would result in long-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long-term, beneficial, and range 

from minor to moderate. 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Retention of the orchards and 

other features of the Historic 

Vernacular Landscape would 

result in moderate, adverse 

impacts to the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape and 

negligible, beneficial impacts 

to the Historic Vernacular 

Landscape in the long term. 

Removal of existing nonnative 

vegetation and restoration 

with native species, outside 

the Historic Designed 

Landscape, would result in 

some long-term, negligible, 

beneficial impacts to the 

prehistoric scene. Cumulative 

impacts would be minor and 

adverse in the long term. 

The removal of the pear and 

apple orchards would result in 

long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts to the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape and longterm, negligible, adverse 

impacts to the Historic 

Vernacular Landscape. Other 

contributing features to the 

Historic Vernacular Landscape 

that conflict with NRHP-eligible 

landscapes would be evaluated 

for retention or removal on a 

case-by-case basis or through 

other plans. The trail would 

cause long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to the 

Prehistoric Designed Landscape. 

Rehabilitation of the Aztec 

Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts 

and removal of the 

administration trailer would 

result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, beneficial impacts to 

the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape. Cumulative impacts 

would be long term, moderate, 

and beneficial. 

Removal of the pear and apple 

orchards would result in longterm, moderate, beneficial 

impacts to the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape and longterm, negligible, adverse impacts 

to the Historic Vernacular 

Landscape. Other contributing 

features to the Historic Vernacular 

Landscape that conflict with 

NRHP-eligible landscapes would 

be evaluated for retention or 

removal on a case-by-case basis or 

through other plans. The trail 

would cause long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape. 

Rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins 

and Kiva Trading Posts and 

removal of the administration 

trailer would result in long-term, 

negligible to moderate, beneficial 

impacts to the Historic Designed 

Landscape. Cumulative impacts 

would be long-term, moderate 

and beneficial. 

Vegetation Vegetation management 

strategies would result in longterm, moderate, adverse 

Removal of nonnative 

vegetation, such as the pear 

and apple orchards would 

Removal of nonnative vegetation, 

such as the pear and apple 

orchards would result in longTable 6: Summary of Environmental Consequences
74

CHAPTER 2

IMPACT TOPIC ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred 

Alternative 

impacts to native vegetation 

regimes, because pear and 

apple orchards would be 

maintained. However, other 

strategies that promote 

removal of nonnative 

vegetation and restoration of 

native species would result in 

some negligible, beneficial 

impacts over the long term. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long-term, adverse, and 

moderate. 

result in long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts to 

vegetation. Some removal of 

native vegetation due to the 

trail to North Ruin and East 

Ruin would result in long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts. 

Because building construction 

activities would occur in 

previously disturbed areas, no 

vegetation impacts would 

occur. Cumulative impacts 

would be minor and beneficial 

in the long term. 

term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts to vegetation. Some 

removal of native vegetation 

because of the trail to North Ruin 

and East Ruin and potential 

connections to a river trail would 

result in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts. Because building 

construction activities would 

occur in previously disturbed 

areas, no vegetation impacts 

would occur. Cumulative impacts 

would be minor and beneficial in 

the long term. 

Wildlife Impacts to local wildlife would 

be long-term, minor, and 

adverse because the nonnative 

orchards would be retained. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, minor, and adverse.

Removal of the orchards would 

have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact on native 

wildlife, once native vegetation 

is restored. Wildlife would be 

adversely impacted in the short 

term, because of trail 

construction activities, and in 

the long term, because of trail 

use by visitors, resulting in 

minor adverse impacts. 

Rehabilitation of the trading 

posts would result in no 

impacts because of the lack of 

quality habitat in their vicinity. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, negligible to minor, 

and beneficial. 

Removal of the orchards would 

have a long-term, minor, 

beneficial impact on native 

wildlife, once native vegetation is 

restored. Wildlife would be 

adversely impacted in the short 

term, because of trail construction 

activities, and in the long term, 

because of trail use by visitors, 

resulting in minor adverse 

impacts. Rehabilitation of the 

trading posts, including the new 

cultural activities center, would 

have no impacts because of the 

lack of quality habitat in their 

vicinity. New trails that connect to 

a proposed community trail could 

result in some long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term, 

negligible to minor, and 

beneficial. 

Special Status 

Species 

Riparian vegetation and water 

sources would be maintained, 

resulting in no impacts to 

special status species. There 

would be no cumulative 

impacts. 

Construction activities related 

to the trail to East Ruin and 

North Ruin would result in 

short-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts and would not 

likely adversely affect any 

special status species. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, minor, and adverse. 

Construction activities related to 

the trail to East Ruin, North Ruin, 

and potentially the Animas River 

and the rehabilitation of the Aztec 

Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts 

would result in short-term, 

negligible to minor, adverse 

impacts and would not likely 

adversely affect any special status 

species. Cumulative impacts 

would be long term, minor, and 

adverse. 

Visitor 

Experience and 

Educational 

Opportunities 

Visitor access would continue 

to be limited to the West Ruin, 

resulting in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to visitor 

experience. Retention of the 

administration trailer, the 

orchards, and other features 

of the Historic Vernacular 

Long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts would occur 

to the visitor experience from 

development of the new trail, 

expanding the interpretive and 

educational focus for visitors 

beyond the West Ruin to other 

resources, removing the 

Long-term, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts would occur to 

the visitor experience from 

development of the new trail, 

expanding the interpretive and 

educational focus for visitors 

beyond the West Ruin to other 

resources, removing the 
75

IMPACT TOPIC ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred 

Alternative 

Landscape would continue to 

degrade the prehistoric scene 

for some visitors, resulting in 

long-term, minor to moderate, 

adverse impacts. Improved 

visitor understanding related 

to limited partnerships and 

community education would 

contribute to long-term, 

minor, beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, minor, and adverse.

administration trailer and 

rehabilitating the Aztec Ruins 

and Kiva Trading Posts, and 

removing the pear and apple 

orchards and other ornamental 

vegetation that detracts from 

the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape. Long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts would also 

occur with the outreach and 

community partnership 

program. Cumulative impacts 

would range from long term, 

minor adverse to moderate 

beneficial, depending on the 

degree of future development 

outside the monument 

boundaries. 

administration trailer and 

rehabilitating the Aztec Ruins and 

Kiva Trading Posts, and removing 

the pear and apple orchards and 

other ornamental vegetation that 

detracts from the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape. In 

Alternative 3, the new cultural 

activities center and the 

partnership program would result 

in long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts owing to expanded 

information sharing and 

educational opportunities. Some 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

would occur to the viewshed 

because of the new facility and 

trails. Cumulative impacts would 

be long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Socioeconomic 

Environment 

Visitor spending would most 

likely remain at current levels, 

resulting in short-term and 

long-term, minor, beneficial 

impacts to the local economy. 

Ongoing monument 

operations, current employee 

spending, and proposed 

rehabilitation projects would 

also contribute to the local 

economy, resulting in shortterm and long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, minor, and 

beneficial. 

Although visitor opportunities 

would be expanded at the 

monument, visitation levels 

would remain similar to current 

levels and visitor’s length of 

stay would not increase 

substantially. Thus, visitor 

spending would most likely 

remain at current levels, 

resulting in short-term and 

long-term, minor, beneficial 

impacts to the local economy. 

Ongoing monument 

operations, current employee 

spending, and an increased 

number of short-term 

construction projects would 

also contribute to the local 

economy, resulting in shortterm and long-term, minor, 

beneficial impacts. Impacts to 

adjacent landowners would be 

short term, negligible to minor, 

and adverse. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term, 

minor, and beneficial. 

Annual visitation would most 

likely increase because of the 

development and promotion of 

the cultural activities center, 

increased local and regional 

partnership opportunities, and the 

enhanced interpretive and 

educational focus on regional 

resources. Thus, visitor spending 

would most likely increase beyond 

current levels, resulting in longterm, minor to moderate, 

beneficial impacts to the local 

economy. Ongoing monument 

operations, increased employee 

spending, and an increased 

number of short-term 

construction projects would also 

contribute to the local economy, 

resulting in short-term and longterm, minor, beneficial impacts. 

Adjacent landowners would 

experience short-term, negligible, 

adverse impacts, as well as longterm, minor, beneficial impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Monument 

Operations 

The existing administration 

trailer would continue to 

provide insufficient space for 

monument staff and 

compromise safety resulting in 

long-term, moderate, adverse 

impacts. Removal of the Aztec 

Ruins Trading Post and 

rehabilitation of the Kiva 

The rehabilitated Aztec Ruins 

and Kiva Trading Posts would 

result in long-term, moderate, 

beneficial impacts to 

monument operations, because 

of increased space for staff and 

monument needs. Some shortterm, minor, adverse impacts 

would occur during facility 

As in Alternative 2, the 

rehabilitated Aztec Ruins and Kiva 

Trading Posts would result in 

long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts to monument operations, 

because of increased space for 

staff and monument needs. The 

new trail to North Ruin and East 

Ruin, continued outreach 

Visitor 

Experience and 

Educational 

Opportunities 

continued

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
76

CHAPTER 2

IMPACT TOPIC ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3: Preferred 

Alternative 

Trading Post would provide 

long-term, negligible to minor, 

beneficial impacts. Staffing 

levels and efficiency would 

face long-term, moderate, 

adverse impacts owing to the 

demands on staff time to 

support resource and program 

needs. Cumulative impacts 

would be long term, 

moderate, and adverse. 

construction. The new trail to 

North and East Ruins, 

continued outreach activities, 

and increased need for visitor 

and resource protection, 

among other needs, would 

result in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on staff 

efficiency. Cumulative impacts 

would be long term, minor, 

and adverse. 

activities, and increased need for 

visitor and resource protection, 

among other needs, would result 

in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on staff efficiency. 

However, in Alternative 3, the 

addition of the new cultural 

activities center would result in 

long-term, moderate, beneficial 

impacts on monument operations 

by improving community 

relationships, augmenting staff 

with volunteers, and 

strengthening visitor services and 

protection of resources. 

Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, minor to moderate, 

and beneficial. 

Monument 

Operations 

continued
CHAPTER 3:

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The importance of the resources described in this chapter is recognized by the designation of Aztec Ruins National 

Monument, along with Chaco Culture National Historical 

Park, as a World Heritage site.

77

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

This chapter describes the existing environment of Aztec Ruins National Monument. The focus 

is on cultural and natural resources, visitor use and educational opportunities, socioeconomic 

characteristics, and monument operations that would be aff ected by the alternatives, should 

they be implemented. The impact topics to be analyzed in detail were identifi ed in Chapter 1 

in “Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process” and are described in detail in the 

fi rst section of this chapter. The next section briefl y describes impact topics that are commonly 

addressed, but are not analyzed in this plan and explains the rationale for this decision. 

The impact topics described in detail in this chapter establish the baseline for Chapter 4, 

“Environmental Consequences.”

As noted in Chapter 1, the importance of the resources described in this chapter is recognized 

by the fact that on December 8, 1987, the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) designated Aztec Ruins National Monument, along with Chaco Culture 

National Historical Park, as a World Heritage Site (Lister and Lister 1990, page 189). With this 

listing, the national monument became one of twenty World Heritage Sites in the United States. 

Aztec Ruins had already been placed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a 

district in 1966.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

A preliminary archeological reconnaissance of areas surrounding Aztec Ruins was conducted 

in 1987–88 in conjunction with the 1989 General Management Plan (GMP). Since that time, 

much of this land was acquired for expansion of the national monument. Beginning in 2005, a 

comprehensive, intensive cultural resource inventory was initiated that has provided complete 

survey coverage and documentation of all cultural resources. This project has resulted in current 

records and condition assessments for all archeological sites, along with data entry in the 

National Park Service Archeological Sites Management Information System computer database. 

The survey report and all documentation will be provided to the State Historic Preservation 

Offi ce, with recommendations for management and eligibility to the NRHP.

Archeological Sites 

The Main Ruins Group dominates the 27-acre area within what were the monument boundaries 

prior to expansion during the 1990s. This core area includes the both the West Ruin Complex 

and East Ruin Complex. 

West Ruin Complex

 West Ruin: the largest of three Chacoan-style “great house” ruins within the Main Ruins 

Group

 reconstructed Great Kiva

 an excavated tri-wall structure (Hubbard Site)

 cluster of seven houseblocks identifi ed as the West Ruin Annex

 An unexcavated tri-wall structure that lies halfway between West Ruin and East Ruin 

great houses (Mound F)
78

CHAPTER 3

East Ruin Complex

 East Ruin: the second largest of three Chacoan-style great house ruins within the Main 

Ruins Group

 an unexcavated great kiva 

 unexcavated Earl Morris Ruin (a relatively small Chacoan great house ruin)

 an unexcavated tri-wall structure (Mound A)

 series of small structural and trash mounds associated with the East Ruin Great House

The sites within the Main Ruins Group are all included in the listing that designates Aztec Ruins 

as a World Heritage Site.

Prehistoric and historic to more recent cultural resources were encountered during the 

archeological survey project. A total of 25 new archeological sites have been documented, and 

30 previously recorded sites have been updated within the expanded monument boundaries, 

producing a total of 55 sites in addition to the Main Ruins Group. These newly identifi ed and 

updated resources are predominantly prehistoric sites associated with the ancestral Pueblo 

occupation of the Main Ruins Group. Most of the outlying sites are located on the mesa lands to 

the north and above the Animas Valley, clustered in the Aztec North Mesa Archeological District.

The outlying ancestral Pueblo sites vary from small residential to large community sites 

containing residential units in conjunction with public architecture. Those in the Aztec North 

Mesa Archeological District are densely clustered into a formal cultural landscape that is 

integrated through a series of ancient roads and smaller satellite features within the Main Ruins 

Great Kiva
79

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

Group. The largest of the sites appears to be the remains of an adobe building that may have been 

another great house known as North Ruin. The longest known road connected North Ruin to 

the Main Ruins Group and also extends north into private land outside the monument.

Most prehistoric sites in the Aztec North Mesa Archeological District are located in a tight 

cluster that was defi ned as “Residence West” during the Aztec Ruins reconnaissance survey 

(Stein and McKenna 1988). As the name implies, most of these are habitation sites consisting of 

small to medium-sized pueblos in the western portion of the mesa top district. However, there 

also are some specialized sites and prehistoric road segments that integrate this ancestral Pueblo 

residential area into the larger prehistoric community.

The small residential sites consist of unit pueblos that typically contain a single-story roomblock, 

kiva, and associated features such as midden areas, artifact scatters, and other related features. 

The larger pueblo sites contain rubble mounds that comprise the remains of multistory 

structures, kivas, and great kivas, and associated features. Over half of the prehistoric sites 

documented during the inventory have been classifi ed as habitation sites. Other sites contain 

public architecture or served functions related to the community itself. Additional sites include 

specialized activity sites that served specifi c functions. Examples of such sites are stone circles 

and other earthworks that generally seem related to roads.

About 90% of the prehistoric sites contain either the visible remains of architectural features or 

some evidence suggesting that buried architectural features exist. Isolated artifacts and isolated 

occurrences are also abundant. Isolated artifacts represent lost or discarded items. Isolated 

occurrences consist of small scatters of artifacts or poorly defi ned landscape features. These 

resources are not signifi cant enough to attain status as an archeological site, but still represent an 

aspect of the prehistoric occupation. The prehistoric resources represent evidence of occupation 

mainly in the late Pueblo II to early Pueblo III 

time periods, A.D. 1000 to 1300.

The historic or more recent site components 

range from the remains of single-family 

residences to features representing agricultural 

or ranching activities. More ephemeral site 

components also exist, evidenced by historic 

or recent campsites and trash dumps. The site 

components in this category characterize the 

occupation and land use here from the early 

1900s up to recent times.

West Ruin Backfi lling

The National Park Service identifi ed backfi lling 

(site reburial) as a major stabilization 

technique at Aztec Ruins in the 1989 GMP. 

Backfi lling helps to support standing walls, 

control moisture deterioration, and equalize 

diff erential fi ll levels that cause pressure 

on walls where unexcavated rooms adjoin 

excavated areas or rooms that still have 

intact ancient roofs, which precluded natural 

fi lling over the centuries. Several small-scale 

Backfi lling
80

CHAPTER 3

backfi lling projects were initiated prior to development of a master Backfi lling Plan for West Ruin 

(Trott 1997) that has guided site reburial since that time. 

The master Backfi lling Plan made it possible to 

coordinate various preservation projects and to 

implement a comprehensive strategy that reduced 

the amount of ancient masonry exposed to the 

elements. This plan has resulted in the backfi lling of 

well over 100 rooms, kivas, and other architectural 

spaces in and surrounding West Ruin. The project 

has resolved some critical preservation problems 

but also has left some issues unaddressed or beyond 

the capability of backfi lling. These issues do not 

diminish the success of the West Ruin Backfi ll 

Program; such issues were anticipated in the master 

Backfi lling Plan. The need to balance backfi lling with 

limited excavations in some parts of West Ruin was recognized and partially corrected by a 1984 

excavation project, but other areas simply could not be backfi lled without causing an adverse 

impact on visitor experience.

Backfi lling has been a huge success, and major portions of West Ruin have been completed. 

Some areas could not be backfi lled without eliminating major visitor attractions or fi lling in 

roofed rooms that never had been fi lled in or excavated. Extreme pressure from unexcavated 

fi ll on ancient walls that separate areas with diff erential fi ll levels has been alleviated through 

other techniques. Some of these techniques require lowering of fi ll levels or trenching to install 

drainage or soil retention structures in the area where higher fi ll levels is causing pressure or 

moisture deterioration. 

Beginning in 2005, a backfi ll adjustment project was implemented to correct defi ciencies in 

areas that were backfi lled using the initial techniques. Following this preliminary modifi cation 

of the existing West Ruin Backfi ll Program, planning was initiated in 2006 for a major Fill Levels 

Adjustment Project. Archeological testing was conducted in 2008 to facilitate development 

of a fi nal treatment plan. Proactive treatments to resolve these unequal fi ll levels will require 

lowering fi ll through excavation, installing soil retention structures, belowground drainage 

pipes, and regrading the ground surface to control drainage and erosion. Soil retention 

structures and drainage pipes are integral techniques for the West Ruin Backfi ll Project; however, 

implementation in high parts of the site included in the Fill Levels Adjustment Project would 

require trenching, rather than simply installation as backfi lling proceeds.

Consultation on a treatment plan for the fi nal, major phase of the Fill Levels Adjustment Project 

is under way. Implementation will complement the West Ruin Backfi ll Program to provide a 

comprehensive long-term solution to diff erential fi ll problems. The project work is scheduled 

to fi nish up in the next few years, but ongoing maintenance and repairs of the associated 

infrastructure will require cyclic operations and monitoring.

Groundwater Issues

Water infi ltration into the ruins from neighboring irrigation practices has been a chronic problem 

since the late 1800s. This infi ltration, primarily from the Farmers Ditch and over-irrigating 

the fi elds to the north of the original boundary, has caused deterioration of the ruins and has 

contributed to continued degradation of buried archeological resources.

Staff at Work
81

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

The destructive eff ects of groundwater saturation on archeological sites, especially belowground 

architectural remains and organic and other perishable materials, are well understood as a basic 

premise in archeology and ruins conservation. Such impacts at Aztec Ruins are acute, owing 

largely to irrigation of agricultural lands surrounding the main ruins complex. The problem 

occupied a complete chapter in the monument’s Administrative History (Lister and Lister 1990, 

Chapter 12). A major reason that the 1989 GMP recommended acquisition of neighboring lands 

was so that irrigation practices could be curtailed in areas surrounding the main ruins. Since that 

time, irrigation of fi elds to the north has halted, but the orchards to the west are still irrigated, and 

the Farmers Ditch farther north continues to fl ow through an unlined canal.

A hydrology project is under way to better understand the sources and movement of 

groundwater from irrigation and other sources, and treatment recommendations are being 

developed to counteract these groundwater infl uxes. Available data indicates that the Farmers 

Ditch dominates the pattern of groundwater variability. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Cultural landscapes are geographic areas, including both cultural and natural resources, that are 

associated with a historic or prehistoric event, activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or 

aesthetic values. Elements that contribute to cultural landscapes include vegetation; structures 

such as buildings, walls and fences, and habitat and ceremonial ruins; roads and circulation 

systems; water features; as well as archeological resources directly associated with and related 

to the cultural landscape and its features. Cultural landscape inventories — which require 

concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Offi ce — determine if a landscape meets the 
82

CHAPTER 3

signifi cance and integrity criteria to be eligible for the NRHP. The National Park Service has a 

responsibility to maintain the historic integrity of eligible cultural landscapes and to determine 

the potential negative eff ects of management or construction projects on those landscapes. 

Cultural landscape integrity is maintained by preserving contributing landscape elements.

In 2002, three cultural landscape inventories were completed at Aztec Ruins National 

Monument. Two of the three landscapes were determined eligible for the NRHP: the Historic 

District, known as the Historic Designed Landscape, and the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. 

The Historic Vernacular Landscape (a 19th–20th-century agricultural landscape) was 

determined ineligible. Concurrence on these landscapes was received from the New Mexico 

Historic Preservation Offi cer in July 2005. The cultural landscapes are shown on the Cultural 

Resources map in Chapter 1. Following is a brief description of each landscape and a list of 

contributing and noncontributing landscape elements for the two landscapes eligible for the 

National Register (see Table 7).

Historic Designed Landscape

The Historic Designed 

Landscape consists of 

the 2.35 acres primarily 

around the visitor center 

complex. This landscape 

is also known as the 

Aztec Ruins Historic 

District and is signifi cant 

for its association with 

archeologist Earl Morris, 

the history of American 

archeology, and NPS 

New Deal Era visitor and 

administrative facility 

development, which was 

located in Morris’s former 

house. As noted in Table 8, 

this landscape consists of 

the administrative and picnic grounds area identifi ed in the 1942 Master Plan and includes the 

monument entrance, parking lot, administration building (including the north patio and nearby 

rocked irrigation ditch), and picnic grounds where many of the cottonwood trees were planted 

by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s. The period of signifi cance for this 2.35-acre 

landscape is 1931–1939.

Prehistoric Designed Landscape

The Prehistoric Designed Landscape encompasses all lands within the monument, excluding 

the 2.35 acres designated as the Historic Designed Landscape, and relates to the ancient Pueblo 

community. The northern part of the Prehistoric Designed Landscape is listed on the New 

Mexico State Listing of Cultural Properties, designated as the Aztec North Mesa Archeological 

District. Because natural landforms apparently played an important role in the layout and 

use of the prehistoric landscape, the true limits of the Prehistoric Designed Landscape may 

extend beyond the authorized boundaries of the monument. The Aztec Ruins Archeological 

Reconnaissance identifi ed extensive archeological features outside the current monument 

Historic Entrance
Aerial view of portions of the Prehistoric Designed Landscape

83

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

boundary (Stein and 

McKenna 1988). It is 

signifi cant for its association 

with several phases of the 

prehistoric Ancestral Pueblo 

development and settlement 

in the U.S. Southwest. It 

includes all precontact and 

prehistoric ceremonial, 

settlement, agricultural, 

and circulation-related 

archeological resources, 

including West Ruin, 

East Ruin, Aztec North, 

Residence West, and 

Chacoan road segments. 

The primary period of 

signifi cance is A.D. 1100–1300. 

Historic Vernacular Landscape 

The Historic Vernacular Landscape consists of 170 acres of agricultural land southeast of the 

Farmers Ditch, excluding the Historic Designed Landscape, and contains most of Resource Areas 

#3 through #9 (as shown on the Resource Areas map in Appendix B). Prior to the establishment 

of Aztec Ruins, the majority of the land in and around the prehistoric ruins was under cultivation. 

Corral and Eastern Section of North Mesa
84

CHAPTER 3

Over the years, the cultivated 

acreage was reduced because 

of development of the 

national monument and the 

growing town of Aztec. 

This landscape was 

determined ineligible for 

the NRHP owing to limited 

integrity; the New Mexico 

State Historic Preservation 

Offi ce concurred with this 

determination in March 

2009. There are insuffi cient 

material resources, such 

as historic vegetation and 

associated buildings and 

structures, remaining from 

the period of signifi cance to be able to represent and tell the story of the themes of agricultural 

land-use activities that ranged from the early homestead period to the mid-twentieth century. 

This area includes Farmers Ditch (an eligible site on the NRHP), apple and pear orchards, 

pasture land, and various deteriorating structural features, such as fences and outbuildings. These 

latter features are found in the fi eld north of the Main Ruins Group. The historic period for this 

landscape ranges from the 1890s, when the land was initially patented for agricultural use, into 

the 1930s with Henry Abram’s operation.

Apple and pear orchards that were planted in the 1950s are located north of the administration 

building and west of the West Ruin. Farmers Ditch and associated lateral ditches also contribute 

to the overall landscape. The monument no longer irrigates historic pasture land. 

Relationship between Cultural Landscape Features 

As illustrated on the Cultural Resources map in Chapter 1, the 2.35-acre Historic Designed 

Landscape that encompasses the visitor center is surrounded by both the Prehistoric and Historic 

Vernacular Landscapes. Further, the monument-wide Prehistoric Designed Landscape overlaps 

the area defi ned as the Historic Vernacular Landscape. Although overlapping, the historic 

use and features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape, such as the orchards, farmstead, and 

other structural remains, are noncontributing features to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. 

Features from National Park Service development — roads, parking areas, structures, utilities, 

signs, fences, and work areas — are noncontributing features and uses to both of those cultural 

landscapes.

Culvert and Building Remnants
85

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

Table 7: Contributing and Noncontributing Landscape Elements of National 

Register (NRHP) Eligible Landscapes1

HISTORIC DESIGNED LANDSCAPE PREHISTORIC DESIGNED LANDSCAPE

Contributing Landscape Element

Native grasses and native cottonwoods in picnic grounds West Ruin Complex

Native plantings in front of administration building 

(including sumac, sage)

East Ruin Complex

Morris house/museum/administration building Other archeological mounds and other archeological 

resources associated with the Main Ruins Group

Parking lot and central planting island Aztec North Mesa Archeological District (referred to as the 

Cobble Terrace in the Cultural Landscape Inventory)

Fish pond (now fi lled in) Remnants of prehistoric roads, road alignments

Enclosed north patio area with associated native plantings, 

walkways, and stone coping

Animas River, Farmer Arroyo, and Estes Arroyo

North patio portal with aspen vigas Views without modern development

Site furnishings (fl agpole and entrance sign) Mounds and sites to the south of the original location of 

Ruins Road and additional archeological sites recorded 

since the Cultural Landscape Inventory was written

Perimeter walls, including entrance signs and pilasters Native vegetation

Picnic grounds

CSA-era drainage tiles and “Rock Lined Irrigation Ditch”

Orientation of entrance in relation to Ruins Road

Use of local materials in construction, including adobe 

brick and cobblestones

National Park Service rustic design style

Noncontributing Landscape Element

Lawn in administration building patio and entrance Altered density and distribution of native vegetation

Nonnative shrubs in front of visitor center and in parking 

lot island

Preservation and maintenance work and staging areas

Elm trees in picnic grounds and elsewhere within the 

district

19th- and 20th-century historic uses and features, 

National Park Service development

Accessible ramp at front of visitor center

Noncontributing-Compatible Landscape Element

Rocky mountain junipers and cottonwoods in front of 

administration building

Self-guided trail system established in 1954

1 The Historic Vernacular Landscape is not included because it is not eligible for the NRHP.
86

CHAPTER 3

NATURAL RESOURCES

VEGETATION

Aztec Ruins National Monument lies within the Upper Sonoran life zone. Almost 300 plant 

species have been documented in the monument, many of which are nonnative (Rink and Cully 

2008). 

Vegetation types found within the boundaries of the monument include riparian, piñon-juniper 

woodlands, grasslands, old agricultural fi elds or pastures, and restoration areas. Characteristic 

vegetation found throughout upland areas within the monument includes sagebrush (Artemesia 

spp.), four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), black 

greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), yucca (Yucca spp.), piñon pine (Pinus edulis), and juniper 

(Juniperus monosperma). Native grasses can be found mainly on the north terrace among the 

piñon-juniper woodlands and include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), prairie Junegrass (Koeleria

cristata), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), galleta (Hilaria jamesii), and Indian ricegrass 

(Oryzopsis hymenoides). 

Riparian and wetland communities border the riverbanks and ditches in the lowest portions of 

the monument. These communities are dominated by willow (Salix spp.), cottonwood (Populus 

fremontii Wats.), box elder (Acer negundo), and cattail (Typha sp.). Russian olive (Eleagnus 

angustifolia) and tamarisk or saltcedar (Tamarix gallica) are two exotic tree species that are 

common along the river. 

Exotic grasses are dominant around the old pasture site, and other exotic and noxious weeds 

are interspersed throughout the monument. Common exotic species present within the park 

include tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum), stork’s bill, (Erodium cicutarium), common mallow (Malva neglecta), smooth brome 

(Bromus inermis), dock (Rumex spp.), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and goathead 

(Tribulus terrestris). Species designated noxious by the State of New Mexico that are found within 

the monument include Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), 

Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), fi eld bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), bull thistle 

(Cirsium vulgare), whitetop (Cardaria draba), Russian olive, saltcedar, and Siberian elm (Ulmus 

pumila) (USGS 2004).

The apple and pear orchards west of the West Ruin are approximately three acres in size. They 

are in less than ideal condition and currently receive minimal maintenance, which includes 

occasional irrigation, some pruning, and removal of fallen branches to eliminate unsightliness 

and safety hazards. Another orchard, which is less than one acre and relatively sparse in number 

of trees, is located southeast of the maintenance compound across Ruins Road. In addition, 

there are a few other fruit trees scattered throughout the monument. As noted under “Cultural 

Landscapes,” these orchards do not contribute to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape, the 

predominant and NRHP-eligible landscape within the monument.

The historic use of monument land for agricultural and grazing purposes has greatly contributed 

to introduction and establishment of numerous nonnative plant species. In addition, an existing 

trailer park, a subdivision south of the monument, a new subdivision being developed north 

and west of the monument, and gas wells are all potential activities that encourage nonnative 

plant species introduction and establishment within monument boundaries. There were 57 

nonnative species within the approximately 112 hectares (277 acres) sampled in a 2008 nonnative 

plant inventory (Korb 2008). The highest numbers of nonnative plant species were found in the 
87

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

old fi elds and previously cultivated lands, along the Farmers Ditch, in the orchards, and in the 

riparian fl oodplains along the Animas River.

WILDLIFE

Habitat that supports wildlife within the monument consists of riparian and upland vegetation 

communities, including grassy fi elds, desert scrub, and orchards. Wildlife surveys conducted in 

2001 and 2002, along with supplemental sightings, detected 68 bird species, 26 mammal species, 2 

amphibian species, and 9 reptile species within the monument boundary.

Mammals likely to occur in the monument on a regular basis include coyote (Canis latrans), mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus), skunks, squirrels, many species of mice, and seven species of bats. 

These species occur throughout the monument, but biologists found that the highest number 

of terrestrial mammals occurred in the piñon-juniper woodland on the mesa top. Bats were 

found predominately along the Farmers Ditch and at the Great Kiva, where fi ve species were 

documented. 

During the 2001 surveys, biologists captured, observed, or documented previous sightings of the 

following 19 species of mammals (USGS 2003): Western small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum 

melanorhinus), Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis yumanensis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), 

spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Brazilian free-tailed bat 

(Tadarida brasiliensis), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus 

audubonii), black-tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus), silky pocket mouse (Perognathus fl avus), 

western harvest mouse, brush mouse (Peromyscus boylii), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), 

pinon mouse (Peromyscus truei), northern grasshopper mouse (Onychomys leucogaster), house 

mouse, white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), western spotted skunk (Spilogale gracilis), and 

mule deer. Additional species identifi ed by monument staff or biologists include: rock squirrel 

Mule Deer in the Orchard
88

CHAPTER 3

(Spermophilus variegates), Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni), Botta’s pocket gopher 

(Thomomys boff ae), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), coyote, 

red fox (Vulpes vulpes), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and American black bear (Ursus Americana) (an 

accidental sighting.)

The riparian and piñon-juniper woodland areas, along with patches of once-cultivated grassy 

fi elds, orchards, and desert scrub, all provide diverse habitats for avian species within the 

monument. Ornithologists conducted bird inventories in the monument in 2001 and 2002 

(USGS 2002a). In addition, a multipark grant from the National Park Foundation and Hawks 

Aloft provided for a survey in 2002 of neo-tropical migrant breeding birds. Prior to these recent 

inventories, volunteers from the local Audubon Society had compiled a bird checklist for the 

monument that listed 74 species.

Common avian species in upland areas of the monument include black-billed magpie (Pica 

pica), blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), Gambel’s quail 

(Callipepla gambelii), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), house fi nch (Carpodacus 

mexicanus), Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii), hummingbirds, starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), and 

mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). In addition to the above species, the following birds are 

likely to be found in riparian habitats within the monument: black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus 

melanocephalus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), cliff swallow (Hirundo 

pyrrhonota), and lesser goldfi nch (Carduelis psaltria). 

Reptiles and amphibians identifi ed in the 2001 and 2002 surveys included Woodhouse’s 

toad, (Bufo woodhousii), striped chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), common collared lizard 

(Crotaphytus collaris), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus 

undulates), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), plateau striped whiptail (Cnemidophorus 

velox), striped whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), western 

terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) (USGS 

2002b).

Reptile and amphibian diversity was expected to be higher within the monument and some 

species expected to be present were not found. The surveys were conducted during severe 

drought conditions, and many common amphibian species may not have been found because 

of the dry conditions. The recently acquired monument property to the north of the Farmers 

Ditch may contain a number of snake species (e.g., night snake [Hypsiglena torquata], hognose 

snake [Heterodon nasicus], common kingsnake [Lampropeltis getula], and glossy snake [Arizona 

elegans]) that have not yet been found. 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2003, and again in 2006, resulted in a list 

of species with federal status that are of issue in San Juan County. This list was updated in 2009 

by consulting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New Mexico Ecological Services Field Offi ce 

Web site and the New Mexico Game and Fish Department’s Biota Information System for listed 

and sensitive species in San Juan County, New Mexico. Further research based on the presence 

of potential habitat and surveys in 2000 and 2001 for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and 

plants, as outlined in “Wildlife” above, narrowed the list of species with potential to occur within 

the monument to those species shown in Table 8. 
89

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

Table 8. Species Reported Or With Potential To Occur Within 

Aztec Ruins National Monument

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME REPORTED 

(Y/N) STATUS

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus alascanus Y FD/ST

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Y FC/SS

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Y ST

Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum Y SS

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Y SS

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Y SS

Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni Y SS

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis Y SS

Western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis Y SS

Red fox Vulpes vulpes Y SS

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior N SS

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus N SS

Southwestern willow fl ycatcher Empindonax traillii extimus N FE/SE

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum N FD/FSC/ST

Black tern Chlidonias niger N FSC

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea N FSC

FT/E = Federal Threatened/Endangered; FSC = Federal Species of Concern; FC = Federal Candidate Species; FD = Federally 

Delisted; SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SS = State Sensitive

The main habitat areas for special status species within and adjacent to the monument include 

the Farmers Ditch and the Animas River. Bats are likely to feed over both main water sources but 

even more so along the lateral ditches, whereas bald eagle, southwestern willow fl ycatcher, black 

tern, and yellow-billed cuckoo potentially could occur in the riparian zone of the Animas River. 

Casual use by the peregrine falcon is possible.

Bald eagles have been sighted migrating through the monument and occasionally roosting in 

tall cottonwoods near the Animas River within the monument. The bald eagle is now listed 

by the state as threatened, but was federally delisted in 2007 and will be monitored at 5-year 

intervals. The yellow-billed cuckoo was detected in the Animas River riparian area during a bird 

survey in 2001. Suitable habitat for the southwestern willow fl ycatcher was identifi ed adjacent 

to the Animas River, but the species has not been confi rmed within the vicinity. Piñon-juniper 

woodlands within the monument also provides habitat for the gray vireo and the loggerhead 

shrike, both New Mexico sensitive species, but they have not been observed. 

Several bat species that occur within the monument are New Mexico sensitive species: western 

small-footed myotis, Yuma myotis bat, and big free-tailed bat. The spotted bat is listed as a state 

threatened species. The spotted bat was audibly detected within the monument during the 

wildlife survey in 2002. The western small-footed myotis and the little brown bat were captured 

within the monument during the bat survey. The Yuma myotis bat and the big free-tailed bat were 

detected by echo location but not by capture. The spotted and big free-tailed bats are most likely 

long-distance travelers into the monument from their roosting areas elsewhere. A nesting colony 

of the pallid bat is present in the supporting roof beams of the reconstructed Great Kiva.
90

CHAPTER 3

Although in the past Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies have been identifi ed within the monument 

boundary, none are known to exist at this time. Prairie dog populations are extremely dynamic 

and characterized by change, both in population size and location. Because suitable habitat for 

prairie dogs is found in the monument, it is probable that a colony could return during the life of 

this plan. A prairie dog colony would also provide suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl, 

although no sightings have been reported in the monument.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

The primary visitor experience at Aztec Ruins is to walk along the interpretive trail through the 

West Ruin and explore the extant structures from the Pueblo period of occupation. As visitors 

move along the existing West Ruin trail, there are opportunities to take in views not only of 

scenery within the monument, but of surrounding areas as well. One of the stops on the West 

Ruin trail gives visitors a view of the East Ruin. A portion of the trail travels to an outlying site, 

the Hubbard Site, just north of the West Ruin. From this vantage, visitors have a view of the 

former agricultural fi elds to the north and the North Mesa (also known as the Aztec North Mesa 

Archeological District). Views of surrounding development occur in several locations throughout 

the monument.

Other areas of the monument are closed to visitor access unless accompanied by monument staff . 

Occasionally, monument staff conducts guided tours to the East Ruin and North Mesa. From the 

North Mesa, visitors experience a sweeping view of the Animas River valley, the cultural mounds 

and ruins in the core area of the monument, and an impressive view north toward the San Juan 

Mountains. This off ers a more comprehensive perspective of the ancestral Pueblo people and 

opportunities to explore monument themes related to the larger community, cultural landscapes, 

Visitors Exploring Hubbard Site
91

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

human interaction 

with the environment, 

and changing 

perspectives and 

interpretations of the 

people.

The visitor center is 

the primary visitoruse facility within 

the monument and 

currently serves 

approximately 40,000 

visitors annually 

(39,538 in 2007). 

Interpretation 

and educational 

opportunities include 

exhibits and video 

presentations. The present Mission 66-era exhibits were designed and constructed in the early 

1960s. The exhibits are in need of refurbishing, as the level of deterioration is unacceptably 

high. A recent conservator’s collection condition survey cites the unacceptably high level of 

deterioration in the present exhibits; losses to the collection are cumulative and irreversible. 

There is also a need to add stories and reevaluate cultural perspective in the exhibits, as well as 

enhance visitor understanding with updated exhibits. 

The stories told at Aztec Ruins come from the primary interpretive themes listed in Chapter 1. 

Interpretive programs, including the trail and guidebook, guided tours, audio and visual exhibits, 

and museum displays, assist visitors in understanding the relationship between the ruins and the 

culture of the Pueblo builders. Visitors have the opportunity to acquire a greater understanding 

and appreciation of the larger regional cultural setting and contrast the past with the modern 

society of Aztec. In addition to providing educational opportunities within the monument, 

interpretive staff participates in off -site programs.

A year-long visitor survey was conducted from March 2003 to February 2004 to gather 

demographic information about visitors to the national monument and to learn about their 

experiences at the monument and their opinions about how it is managed. The survey showed 

that visitor use is currently focused on the visitor center and the self-guided interpretive trail 

through the West Ruin, located just north of the visitor center. The majority of visitors spend 1 to 

2 hours touring the visitor center, viewing exhibits, completing the West Ruin trail, and browsing 

the bookstore. Visitor survey results indicate an overall satisfaction with the management and 

conditions at the monument. Many visitors expressed a desire for more opportunities to view 

a larger portion of the prehistoric community, as well as the surrounding natural environment. 

Many visitors also expressed a desire for more walking trails and opportunities for self-guided 

and guided tours of unexcavated ruins. Crowding does not appear to be a problem in the 

monument according to the majority of visitors.

Inside Kiva
92

CHAPTER 3

Figure 1. Annual Visits from 1995 through 2007

Visitation statistics from the National Park Service Social Science Program, Public Use Statistics 

Offi ce show that there is a trend toward decreased visitation at Aztec Ruins from the years 1995 

to 2007 (see Figure 1). In 2007, visitation was 39,538; whereas, in 1995, it was 72,499. Weather and 

factors of state and national economic and political conditions can aff ect visitation levels.

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

San Juan County is approximately 5,500 square miles and is located in the extreme northwest 

corner of New Mexico. It is bordered by Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, as well as Rio Arriba, 

Sandoval, and McKinley counties in New Mexico. The monument is almost entirely surrounded 

by the city of Aztec. The three cities that are in close proximity to Aztec are Farmington (14.3 

miles southwest), Flora Vista (6.2 miles southwest), and Bloomfi eld (8.0 miles south). The 

majority of the land within San Juan County is owned by American Indians (1,979,813 acres) and 

lies within a number of American Indian reservations (1,129,998 acres). In addition, the Navajo 

Nation Reservation and the Jicarilla Reservation lie adjacent to San Juan County. Chaco Culture 

National Historical Park, Salmon Ruins, and Mesa Verde National Park are all located within 85 

miles of Aztec Ruins.

San Juan County’s population was 113,801 in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008) and is estimated to 

increase to 133,170 by 2010 and 151,501 by 2025 (BBER 2008). Population increased 24.2% from 

1990 (91,605) to 2000 (113,801), and the county was the second-fastest growing in the State of 

New Mexico during the years 2000 to 2003. The town of Aztec had a population of 6,378 in 2000 

that was estimated to increase to 6,810 by 2003 (ePodunk 2008). Aztec is in close proximity to 

Farmington and Bloomfi eld, New Mexico, and to Durango, Colorado. Farmington is the largest 

city in the county, with a population of approximately 40,000, and provides the main shopping 

destination for residents within a 150-mile radius. San Juan County is larger in population than 

the three neighboring New Mexico counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2000): Rio Arriba (population 

41,190), Mc Kinley (population 74,798), and Sandoval (population 89,908).

LOCAL ECONOMY 

With water from the Animas River, the City of Aztec grew, based on the development of rural 

ranching and is refl ected in a farming way of life. During the last 50 years, farming and ranching 

have declined, while the number of people in the area has increased. Between 1990 and 2000, the 

City of Aztec grew 10.1%, whereas neighboring rural areas grew by almost 65%. The oil and gas 

industry is now the dominant employer.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Annual Visits
93

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

According to 2000 census data for the town of Aztec, the median household income is $33,110 

and the median house value is $91,100. The primary industries providing employment in San 

Juan County are educational, health, and social services (20.7%); retail trade (13.2%); and 

agriculture, forestry, fi shing and hunting, and mining (10.8%). The local government and 

retail trade are the primary employers for this county. A diverse range of industries provide 

employment in Aztec that include education, health, social services, retail trade, agriculture, 

forestry, fi shing, hunting, mining, arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food 

services. The San Juan County unemployment rate was 6.0% in March 2005 down from 6.2% in 

March 2004 (New Mexico Department of Labor 2008). 

In an attempt to diversify its economy, San Juan County has focused on tourism and recreation 

opportunities in recent years (Wall 2000). Tourism in the Four Corners area was up by about 19% 

in 2004. The county receives most of its visitors to such popular attractions as Chaco Canyon, the 

Aztec Ruins, and Shiprock in the spring. Many visitors to the Grand Canyon in Arizona also visit 

Farmington. Visitors to Aztec Ruins also visited other national monuments and parks, including 

Salmon Ruins (20%), Chaco Culture National Historic Park (36%), and Mesa Verde (53%). 

These tourist visits to Aztec Ruins and other locations contribute dollars to the local and regional 

economies. An NPS 2003 visitor spending and economic analysis for Aztec Ruins (visitation was 

roughly the same as in 2007) estimated that 7% of all recreation visits were local residents on day 

trips, 64% were visitors on day trips from outside the local area, 17% were visitors on overnight 

trips staying in lodges, motels/hotels, or bed and breakfasts in the local area, and 12% were 

camping. (These numbers correlate with the 2003 visitor survey results that indicated visitors 

stayed in the following locations the night before visiting Aztec Ruins: 8% in Aztec, 63% within 

40 miles of Aztec, and 29% farther than 40 miles from Aztec.) On average, visitors spent $78 per 

party per day in the local area. Total visitor spending was $1.16 million in 2003.

Business sales, personal income from wages and salaries and employee benefi ts, and the number 

of jobs in the region are directly aff ected by visitor spending. The $1.16 million spent by visitors 

to Aztec Ruins resulted in $920,000 in sales, $340,000 in personal income, and 23 jobs. The largest 

direct eff ects were $220,000 in the hotel sector, $270,000 in food and drinking places, $150,000 

in amusements, and $160,000 in retail trade. Because visitor spending circulated throughout the 

local economy, secondary eff ects created an additional $150,000 in personal income and 6 jobs 

(NPS 2003). Updated fi gures for 2006 showed an approximate 8% to 10% increase in visitor 

spending ($1.3 million) and jobs (25) over 2003 (Stynes 2007). 

ADJACENT LAND USE

Private land development adjacent to the boundaries of the monument has produced a mixed 

community of mobile homes and permanent residences and will likely continue to grow. 

Development plans have been approved for a 400–600 unit residential development on the north 

mesa, adjacent to the monument boundary.

MONUMENT OPERATIONS

FACILITIES

Facilities located at Aztec Ruins include two former trading posts, a visitor center, maintenance 

buildings, and a trailer used for administrative purposes. Square footage and current use of each 

facility is described in Table 9.
94

CHAPTER 3

Table 9. Existing Facilities at Aztec Ruins

BUILDING NAME SQUARE FOOTAGE CURRENT USE

Aztec Ruins Trading Post 2,713 Vacant

Kiva Trading Post 1,449 Temporary staff offi ces and cultural resource 

staging area

Visitor Center 1,600 Audio-visual, sales, offi ces, museum, 

interpretive exhibits, bookstore, public 

restrooms, and storage

Maintenance and Preservation Complex — Offi ce 

Building

1,800 Offi ce, kitchen, meeting room, bathroom

Maintenance and Preservation Complex — Shops 1,875 Storage and use of equipment and tools

Preservation Barn 400 Storage of preservation materials

Administration Trailer 1,972 Offi ces, kitchen, bathroom

Monument Headquarters

Currently, monument headquarters and administrative offi ces are located within a doublewide 

mobile home structure in the central/south portion of the monument. Intended to be a 

temporary situation, there are concerns regarding the visual impact of the trailer on the 

landscape. Offi ce space is tight within the trailer, and working conditions are less than ideal. 

Maintenance Complex

Maintenance and cultural resource personnel are stationed in the maintenance compound. 

Offi ces for such staff are located in a Mission 66-era building within the monument boundary. 

This structure includes the only meeting room within the monument. Other buildings within the 

compound include maintenance shops and a preservation barn, where materials and equipment 

are stored and used.

Visitor Center

The visitor center is located in the original home of Earl Morris, the early excavator and caretaker 

of the ruins. The home was built in the early 1920s and early on housed museum space and was 

the point of entry for visitation to the ruins. The most recent remodel of the structure occurred 

in 2009. The building now provides offi ce space in addition to the interpretive exhibits and a 

bookstore. 

Parking for visitors is located at the visitor center as well as next door at the administration trailer. 

Parking lots are not usually fi lled to capacity.

Administration Trailer
95

IMPACTS TOPICS RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

Trading Posts

The Aztec Ruins Trading 

Post and the Kiva Trading 

Post are located within 

monument boundaries 

and in the ownership of 

the National Park Service. 

Currently, the Aztec Ruins 

Trading Post is empty and 

in disrepair. Although 

the Kiva Trading Post is 

in need of rehabilitation, 

it is currently being used 

by cultural resource 

personnel as temporary 

offi ces and as a staging 

area for fi eld activities. 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post 

was originally opened 

about 1940 by Ernest 

Josey and was named 

the Westward Ho Curio 

Store. It opened in an 

existing building that was 

nearly half the size it is 

now. Over the years it was 

expanded and remodeled 

as it changed ownership 

and names. The current 

structure consists of an 

original concrete block/

stucco building, which has had several additions constructed to the west and south sides, to 

include coverage of the front two-thirds of the entire facility with a pitched roof. The original 

construction of these building additions was inadequate by current building code standards. 

The Kiva Trading Post was originally opened in 1964 by W. P. Shyrock and was named the Kiva 

Kurio Shop. It has also been expanded and remodeled over the years. The gross area of the Kiva 

Trading Post, including covered porches on the north and west sides, is approximately 2,278 

square feet. The facility consists of an original concrete block/stucco building with two additions 

constructed on the south side. 

1940’s Aztec Ruins Trading Post

Current Aztec Ruins Trading Post

Kiva Trading Post
96

CHAPTER 3

STAFF HOUSING 

No staff housing is currently located within the boundaries of the monument.

OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS

Three gas wells are active in Aztec Ruins National Monument: Bobbie Herrera No. 1 well, 

Fee 4-A well, and Fee 9Y well. XTO Energy operates the Fee 4-A and the Fee 9Y wells in the 

monument. Manana Gas, Inc., operates the Bobbie Herrera No. 1 well. These wells were drilled 

through multiple producing zones and will likely produce gas for 50 or more years. Management 

of these existing wells was discussed in Chapter 1 under “Special Mandates and Administrative 

Commitments” and again in Chapter 2 under “Nonfederal Subsurface Rights.” The monument 

also contains two active pipelines and two abandoned wells: Rhods Abram No. 1 and MoyaHubbard No. 1. Existing and abandoned oil and gas operations impact approximately 4 acres 

within the monument. 

STAFFING AND ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY

 Currently, there are 16 full-time employees at the monument. Each year, costs of operations 

increase at Aztec Ruins. The increase in acreage of the monument in 1988 resulted in an increase 

of resources to manage, but employee resources have not increased accordingly. Needs have been 

identifi ed in all aspects of monument operations, including management and administration, 

resource protection and management, science and research, and interpretive programs. The 

inadequate infrastructure and workspace for administrative and other staff pose challenges to 

monument operations. The empty Aztec Ruins Trading Post requires eff orts to address security 

and maintenance issues.
97

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The following impact topics are not analyzed in detail because the resource does not occur in 

the national monument or because implementing the alternatives would result in negligible 

to minor impacts to that resource. An impact of negligible or minor intensity may range from 

“barely perceptible and not measurable” to one that is “measurable or perceptible, but is slight 

and localized and would result in a limited alternation.” The rationale for dismissing these topics 

is stated for each resource. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Historic resources are landscapes, buildings, structures, and other facilities at Aztec Ruins 

National Monument that are at least 50 years old. A subset of historic resources is historic 

structures, which are those that are eligible or already listed on the NRHP. Historic structures at 

Aztec Ruins include the visitor center (Administration Building Museum), the Farmers Ditch, 

and the Great Kiva. The Great Kiva is both a historic and an archeological resource that is 

discussed under “Archeological Resources.” 

The visitor center occupies a portion of the historic home/offi ce of Earl Morris, who was the 

archeologist who excavated Aztec Ruins during the early 20th century. It is on the NRHP (listed 

as the Aztec Ruins Administration Building Museum on the National Register form) and the List 

of Classifi ed Structures. Morris built the structure between 1919 and 1925 of material reclaimed 

from excavations at the West Ruin. The building was later expanded to serve as a combined 

visitor center and museum. 

Farmers Ditch was constructed in 1892. Approximately 4,000 feet (1,219 meters) of the ditch 

is included within the national monument. For many years Farmers Ditch primarily irrigated 

agricultural fi elds; today, the portion of Farmers Ditch that runs through the monument is a 

source of municipal water to the City of Farmington and a source of irrigation water for the Aztec 

area, in addition to irrigating orchard trees and the picnic area within the monument. The ditch 

underwent modifi cation (i.e., widening and deepening) during the 1960s in connection with the 

construction of Farmington Lake. 

The Aztec Ruins Trading Post and Kiva Trading Post are not considered historic structures 

in this GMP because neither building is eligible for the NRHP. The Aztec Ruins Trading Post 

was assessed for eligibility, but determined to be ineligible because of limited integrity. The 

Kiva Trading Post is not yet of age (50 years) to qualify for the NRHP, but most likely lacks 

the necessary integrity. Both these structures were discussed in detail under “Monument 

Operations” in this chapter.

Under all alternatives, annual maintenance to the Farmers Ditch by the Lower Animas Water 

Users Association would be ongoing, resulting in short-term, negligible, adverse impacts. In 

Alternatives 2 and 3, construction of the new interpretive trail would include bridges across the 

Farmers Ditch, which could result in some long-term, minor, adverse impacts to the integrity of 

the historic ditch. However, any potential impacts would be mitigated through consultation with 

the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Offi cer during all phases of trail design. Removal 
98

CHAPTER 3

of the pear and apple orchards would have long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts on subsurface 

architectural features because of the elimination of groundwater saturation resulting from 

irrigation practices related to the orchards. Because all potential impacts to historic structures 

would be negligible to minor and mitigated through consultation, this topic was dismissed from 

further analysis in this document.

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES

Pueblo peoples living in Arizona and New Mexico are the descendants of the ancestral Pueblo. 

A cultural affi liations study was undertaken in the 1990s by Drs. George S. Esber and Adolph 

M. Greenberg, with the assistance of Edith P. Morgan, to determine which contemporary 

communities hold a traditional association with the resources of Aztec Ruins National 

Monument. The study suggests that Keresan speaking people, especially Western Keresan (Zia, 

Santa Ana, Acoma, Laguna, Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe) along with the Towa-speaking 

Jemez, are more likely to have closer ties to Aztec Ruins than Tewa and Tiwa speaking people. 

Hopi and Zuni have also claimed ties and interest in Aztec Ruins. The literature search completed 

during the study also suggested contact with the Navajo Nation. Tribes having a geographic, but 

no documented, relationship to Aztec Ruins include the Apache and the Ute. Nearby tribes that 

have no documented or geographic relationship to Aztec Ruins include the Arapaho and the 

Comanche.

Ultimately, the study recommended that an ethnographic overview and assessment be 

undertaken to provide more information on which tribes to maintain a consultation relationship 

with. Although affi liation information is scant, most of the tribes refer to Aztec Ruins as a sacred 

homeland for their ancestors and spiritual beings, and it remains important in their history 

and spiritual life today. Thus, pending more study, the entire site is considered an important 

ethnographic resource for spiritual use for all Pueblo and Navajo peoples. 

To ensure that continued access to ethnographic resources is preserved, the National Park 

Service contacted all American Indian tribes traditionally associated with the monument, 

via letter during scoping activities in 2003. Some tribes participated in scoping meetings 

and provided feedback regarding the importance of monument resources (see Chapter 5 

“Consultation and Coordination”). No measurable impacts to ethnographic resources are 

expected based on their comments. Further, the national monument is committed to ongoing 

communication with affi liated American Indian tribes regarding this general management plan 

to ensure continued access to and protection of ethnographic resources. Therefore, this impact 

topic was dismissed from further analysis in this document.

INDIAN TRUST RESOURCES 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts to Indian trust resources from 

a proposed project or action by Department of the Interior agencies be explicitly addressed 

in environmental documents. The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legally enforceable 

fi duciary 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 Indians and Alaska Native tribes. The lands that make up Aztec Ruins National 

Monument are not held in trust by the secretary of the Interior for the benefi t of Indians owing 

to their status as Indians. Therefore, Indian trust resources were dismissed from further analysis 

in this document.
99

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

According to Director’s Order 24, Museum Collections, the National Park Service requires 

the consideration of impacts on museum collections (historic artifacts, natural specimens, and 

archival and manuscript material). Currently, Aztec Ruins National Monument houses a large 

number of archeological objects in a room just off of the library in the visitor center. Roughly 

half of these items and other small objects housed in another location will be moved to the 

Hibben Center, a permanent repository that is located on the University of New Mexico campus. 

Archeological objects housed at the Western Archeological and Conservation Center and the 

National Park Service Santa Fe support offi ce are also in the process of being moved to the 

Hibben Center. Archives and the history collection are to be stored at the Western Archeological 

and Conservation Center. The natural history collection is to be housed at the Northern Arizona 

Facility.

All museum collections would be managed according to the monument’s Collections 

Management Plan (1980). Because the vast majority of these museum collections would continue 

to be off site and the visitor center would not be aff ected by construction activities proposed 

in the alternatives, there would be no impact to the monument’s existing museum collections. 

Should actions in Alternative 2 or 3 result in the collection of additional artifacts, appropriate 

funding and plans to catalog, store, and curate the collections in perpetuity that are consistent 

with the Collections Management Plan and all applicable laws and regulations would be included 

as part of the action. Therefore, museum collections were dismissed from further analysis.

NATURAL RESOURCES

AIR QUALITY

The 1963 Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), requires federal land managers to 

protect park air quality, and the National Park Service Management Policies 2006 address the 

need to analyze air quality during park planning. Aztec Ruins was designated Class II under the 

1963 Clean Air Act, as amended. A Class II designation allows for moderate deterioration of 

air quality within national ambient air quality standards. The Clean Air Act also provides that 

the federal land manager has an affi rmative responsibility to protect air quality-related values 

(including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and visitor health) 

from adverse pollution impacts. Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires the monument to meet 

all federal, state, and local air pollution standards. Section 176 (c) requires all federal activities 

and projects to conform to state air quality implementation plans to attain and maintain national 

ambient air quality standards.

Air quality in Aztec Ruins is aff ected by a variety of air pollution sources, including vehicle 

emissions and industrial uses, such as oil and gas wells, and is infl uenced by factors such as 

precipitation. Construction activities proposed in the alternatives could result in some increases 

in emission related to construction vehicles and equipment; however, because construction 

would be limited to several small facilities and would be short term, impacts to air quality from 

emission increases would be negligible to minor. Some increased visitation could also occur 

in response to new trails, improved interpretive opportunities, and increased partnerships. 

Although potentially long term, these increases would not be substantial and would result in 

negligible increases in vehicle emissions. Therefore, air quality was dismissed from further 

analysis in this document. 
100

CHAPTER 3

WATER RESOURCES

National Park Service policies require protection of water quality consistent with the Clean 

Water Act (1948 and as amended in 1956, 1972, and 1977), a national policy to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters and to prevent, 

control, and abate water pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility 

for oversight and review of permits and actions that aff ect waters of the United States.

The proposed project area contains a community ditch, known as the Farmers Ditch, which fl ows 

through the national monument to a nearby private reservoir. Additionally, the Animas River 

forms the eastern boundary of the monument.

Proposed construction of new structures and the removal of existing structures would occur 

within existing developed areas and away from known water resources. The footprint related 

to new construction in Alternatives 2 and 3 would only marginally increase because old addon construction to existing buildings would be removed and replaced by new construction. 

New trail construction would bridge over the Farmers Ditch and provide views of the Animas 

River, but proposed mitigation would prevent any impacts to water quality. Suggested mitigation 

measures (listed in Chapter 2, “Alternatives”) include standard erosion and sediment control 

measures, as well as minimizing the area of disturbance. With mitigation, resulting impacts to 

water resources would be negligible; therefore, water resources was dismissed from further 

analysis in this document.

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prohibit or 

regulate, through a permitting process, discharge of dredged or fi ll material into U.S. waters. 

Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) require 

an examination of impacts to fl oodplains and wetlands—of potential risk involved in placing 

facilities within fl oodplains and protecting wetlands. The NPS Management Policies 2006 and 

Director’s Orders 77-1 and 77-2 provide direction on developments proposed in fl oodplains 

and wetlands. At Aztec Ruins, no jurisdictional wetlands would be disturbed as a result of 

implementing the preferred alternative. Additionally, no actions identifi ed in the alternatives are 

proposed in the 100-year fl oodplain that borders the Animas River and is located on the eastern 

side of Ruins Road. Because there would be no eff ects to fl oodplains or wetlands, these impact 

topics were dismissed from further analysis in this document.

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS

According to the NPS Management Policies 2006, the National Park Service will preserve and 

protect geologic resources and features from adverse eff ects of human activity, while allowing 

natural processes to continue. These policies also state that soil resources of the monument 

will be preserved and, to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, physical removal, or 

contamination of the soil will be prevented. 

Aztec Ruins National Monument is located in the Animas River valley, which is signifi cant as 

the former site of the largest glacier bordering the Colorado Plateau. This small ice cap, called 

the Animas Glacier, was situated in the San Juan Mountains. Aztec Ruins lies in the outwash of 

this glacier. Investigators have identifi ed 34 existing terrace levels in the Animas valley between 

Durango and Farmington; three of these occur in Aztec Ruins National Monument. These fl at 

alluvial surfaces step up in elevation from the modern fl oodplain to old, “stranded” fl oodplains 

2,165 feet above the valley fl oor. Geologically speaking, terraces are signifi cant because they 
101

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

record entire glacial-interglacial cycles (NPS 2007). Actions proposed in the alternatives would 

have no impact on these important geologic and topographic features.

As noted under “Water Resources,” new facility construction in Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

generally be limited to disturbed areas and would require only limited excavation that could 

potentially displace and disturb soils. New trail construction would disturb some soils along its 

length in the vicinity of the North and East Ruins. Soils may also be disturbed and compacted 

on a temporary basis in the locations used to access the construction site. Construction staging 

would also occur in a previously disturbed site.

Because there would be no topographic or geologic impacts and any potential impacts on soil 

would be only short-term negligible to minor because of mitigation, this topic is dismissed from 

further analysis in this document.

NIGHT SKY 

In accordance with NPS Management Policies 2006, the National Park Service is obligated to 

preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural lightscapes of park units such as Aztec Ruins 

National Monument. To mitigate the eff ect of surrounding artifi cial lighting on the monument’s 

natural night skies, the National Park Service would continue in all alternatives to seek the 

cooperation of monument visitors, neighbors, and local government agencies to prevent or 

minimize the intrusion of artifi cial light into the night scene of the monument. Proposed new 

building and trail construction in Alternatives 2 and 3 could also result in additional lighting 

within the monument. To minimize any potential impacts to night skies over the monument, 

construction activities would only occur during daylight hours. Permanent lighting would be 

provided only where necessary for mobility or safety of visitors, and the minimum amount 

of lighting would be used in new developed areas. Because of this mitigation, only negligible 

impacts would occur on the national monument’s night sky; therefore, this impact topic was 

dismissed from further analysis in this document. 

CULTURAL SOUNDSCAPES

NPS Management Policies 2006 and NPS Director’s Order 47, Sound Preservation and Noise 

Management, provide guidance to protect the cultural soundscapes associated with park units. 

There is local through-traffi c, including trucks that drive through the monument along Ruins 

Road that creates noise within the monument. Actions proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 could 

result in some increased visitation and related vehicle traffi c along Ruins Road. This potential 

traffi c, although minimal, and other activities such as oil and gas wells that could cause unnatural 

sounds in and adjacent to Aztec Ruins would continue to be monitored. If necessary, action 

would be taken to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely aff ect monument 

resources or values, or visitors’ enjoyment of them to ensure that impacts to the national 

monument’s soundscapes would be short term and negligible. Therefore, this impact topic was 

dismissed from further analysis.

PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLAND 

In August 1980, the Council on Environmental Quality directed that federal agencies must assess 

the eff ects of their actions on farmland soils classifi ed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Natural Resource Conservation Service as prime or unique. Prime or unique farmland is defi ned 

as soil that particularly produces general crops such as common foods, forage, fi ber, and oil 

seed; unique farmland produces specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. According 

to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, there are no prime or unique farmlands within 
102

CHAPTER 3

Aztec Ruins National Monument; therefore, this topic is dismissed from further analysis in this 

document.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898, General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires all federal agencies to incorporate 

environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately 

high or adverse human health or environmental eff ects of their programs and policies on 

minorities and low-income populations and communities. The proposed alternatives would not 

have health or environmental eff ects on minorities or low-income populations or communities, 

because the national monument would continue to be available for use by all visitors, regardless 

of race or income. Race or income would not be a consideration in hiring construction 

workforces, and no new fees would be instituted that would exclude low-income individuals. 

Additionally, Aztec Ruins National Monument would continue to regularly consult with 

traditionally affi liated American Indians to ensure that the selected actions proposed in this plan 

have no adverse impact to these communities. Because there would be no adverse eff ects on 

environmental justice, this impact topic was dismissed from further analysis in this document.
CHAPTER 4:

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

This chapter analyzes the potential eff ects of the management 

alternatives on cultural resources, natural resources, visitor 

experience and educational opportunities, socioeconomic 

environment, and monument operations.

103

INTRODUCTION TO 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The National Environmental Policy Act mandates that environmental assessments disclose 

the environmental impacts of a proposed federal action. In this case, the proposed federal 

action is the implementation of the General Management Plan (GMP) for Aztec Ruins National 

Monument. This chapter analyzes the potential eff ects of the management alternatives on cultural 

resources, natural resources, visitor experience and educational opportunities, socioeconomic 

environment, and monument operations. 

The alternatives provide broad management direction. The conceptual nature of their potential 

consequences allows for the alternatives to be analyzed in only general terms. The environmental 

assessment should be considered a programmatic document. Prior to undertaking specifi c 

actions as a result of the GMP, park managers will determine whether or not more detailed 

environmental documents will be required under the provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act.

The fi rst section of this chapter discusses terms and assumptions used in identifying impacts. 

The following four sections identify important policy and terminology used in assessing the 

environmental impacts of the alternatives that includes: cumulative impacts, impairment 

of monument resources, unacceptable impacts, and relationship of the impact analyses to 

requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The next section discusses 

methods that the planning team used to identify impacts and includes defi nitions of terms for 

each resource impact analysis. The impacts of the alternatives are then analyzed by resource 

topic in the order they appear in Chapter 3, “Aff ected Environment.” Each impact topic includes 

a description of the benefi cial and adverse impacts of the alternative, a discussion of cumulative 

eff ects, and a conclusion.

TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

Each impact topic area includes a discussion of impacts, including intensity, duration, and type. 

Intensity of impact describes the degree, level, or strength of an impact as negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major. Because defi nitions of intensity vary by resource topic, separate intensity 

defi nitions are provided for each impact topic.

Duration of impact considers whether the impact would occur over the short term or long term. 

Short-term impacts are those that, within a short period of time, generally less than one year, 

would no longer be detectable as the resource or value returns to its pre-disturbance condition or 

appearance. Long-term impacts refer to a change in a resource or value that is expected to persist 

for more than one year. 

The type of impact refers to whether the impact on the environment would be benefi cial 

(positive) or adverse (negative) and direct or indirect, as described below. Although evaluated in 

the analysis, direct and indirect impacts are not identifi ed as such.

Benefi cial — a positive change in the condition or appearance of the 

resource or a change that moves the resource toward a desired condition. 
104

CHAPTER 4

Adverse — a change that declines, degrades, or moves the resource away 

from a desired condition or detracts from its appearance or condition. 

Direct — an eff ect that is caused by an action and occurs in the same time 

and place. 

Indirect — an eff ect that is caused by an action, but occurs later in time or is 

farther removed in distance and is still reasonably foreseeable.

The impact analyses for the action alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) describe the diff erence 

between implementing the no-action alternative and implementing each action alternative. In 

other words, to understand the consequences of any action alternative, the reader must also 

consider what would happen if no action were taken. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Council on Environmental Quality regulations, which implement the National Environmental 

Policy Act, require assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making process for federal 

projects. Cumulative impacts are defi ned as “the impact on the environment which results 

from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively signifi cant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are assessed for both the no-action and action alternatives. These impacts 

were determined by combining the impacts of the alternatives with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the national monument and in neighboring 

areas administered by other agencies and local governments. Development activities that have 

occurred in the recent past, are now under way, or that would be implemented in the reasonably 

foreseeable future were included. The geographic scope for this analysis was the City of Aztec, 

which surrounds the monument, and the temporal scope was within fi ve years of 2008. 

Aztec Ruins National Monument Fire Management Plan 

The NPS Management Policy 2006 and NPS Director’s Order 18 both require that each park 

with vegetation capable of burning prepare a wildland fi re management plan to guide a fi re 

management program that is responsible to the park’s natural and cultural resource objectives 

and to safety considerations for park visitors, employees, and developed facilities. Aztec Ruins 

National Monument contains vegetation within its authorized boundary capable of burning and 

therefore requires a fi re management plan. The plan is critical to any management decision. The 

following is a summary of fi re management needs:

 Guide the decision-making process where safety, social, political, and resource values are 

evaluated and identify appropriate management strategies for wildland fi res.

 Provide a framework for fuels management strategies through the use of mechanical 

treatments and prescribed fi re.

 Provide a framework to be able to plan and implement a wildland fi re program across 

agency boundaries.
105

INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

To meet these needs, trees, shrubs, grasses, and other ground cover may require selected 

vegetative clearing to reduce the chance of unwanted wildfi res and associated damage to cultural 

resources and other facilities. 

New Gas and Oil Wells Within and Adjacent to the Monument

The northwestern portion of New Mexico, known as the San Juan Basin, has played an 

important role in the energy business and overall economy of New Mexico (NPS 2007). Aztec 

Ruins National Monument lies within the San Juan Basin and along the edge of the Mesa 

Verde–Blanco oil fi eld. Additional oil and gas wells may be developed outside the monument, 

particularly if oil prices increase. As noted in previous chapters, additional wells may also be 

drilled within the monument’s boundaries in the future because the National Park Service does 

not own the mineral rights. New wells are proposed within the monument periodically. Wells and 

related pipelines that are currently proposed are not specifi cally described because their status is 

dynamic and subject to change as the well’s viability is explored.

Proposed new oil and gas development in the monument would be subject to the approval 

standard of “use of least damaging technologically feasible methods” of the 36 CFR 9B 

Regulations (see “Nonfederal Subsurface Rights” in Chapter 2). Mitigation would be 

incorporated to ensure the least intrusive locations for access roads and drilling sites and all 

necessary resource protective measures in the conduct of operations. Directional drilling 

from surface locations outside the monument to extract resources beneath the monument is a 

potential option that could also be considered. In addition, per these regulations, future wells 

within the monument must protect monument resources during operation through a National 

Park Service-approved operation plan.

Encroaching Residential and Other Development 

A housing development immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of Aztec Ruins National 

Monument has been proposed and approved by the City of Aztec Commissioners. Phase I of the 

development consists of approximately 189 lots for single-family dwellings in a 55-acre area. The 

City of Aztec granted approval of the preliminary development plat, contingent on the conditions 

delineated in a memorandum of agreement signed in January 2006 by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (Region 6), the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Division, and the 

development to minimize potential impacts and to address landscape design. To date, there has 

been some earth movement but no construction. 

Other potential development near the monument includes the possibility of utility corridors, 

communication towers, and road realignments.

City of Aztec Comprehensive Land Use plan — Update of Goals and Policies (2008)

The City of Aztec recently updated the goals and policies in the city’s Comprehensive Land 

Use Plan. The 12 goals in the plan include topics such as management of natural resources, 

scenic and historic areas, and open space, as well as economics, housing, and transportation. 

As evidenced by its goals and policies and stated in the introductory letter to the plan, the city 

supports maintaining governance at the local level, that is, keeping the city’s infl uence at the city, 

county, and state levels versus a federal mandate that they believe is signifi cantly disconnected 

from northwestern New Mexico business and the local lifestyle. With local governance having 

great eff ect on the business environment in the greater Aztec area, the city will advocate for a 

healthy business climate and will promote a healthy physical environment. Aztec Ruins National 

Monument is not specifi cally mentioned in the Land Use Plan.
106

CHAPTER 4

Aztec Trail System (Previously Identifi ed as Animas River Trail)

The City of Aztec is proposing a looped trail system along the Animas River corridor to 

encourage use and enjoyment of the river and to provide alternative access to Aztec Ruins 

National Monument, city parks, and recreation facilities. This trail development would be part 

of the regional trail system in San Juan County. Based on information provided on the City of 

Aztec Web site (Infrastructure Capital Improvements Projects, 2010–14), preliminary design and 

engineering and an environmental assessment are to begin in 2010, although specifi c funding 

sources have yet to be identifi ed. Final design and construction would potentially occur from 

2011 through 2013. 

City of Aztec Main Avenue Extension

To connect Main Avenue to the Animas River and Aztec Ruins National Monument, and to 

provide access to the future Aztec Trail System (see above), the city is planning to extend Main 

Avenue to the north. In addition, a parking area and trailhead would be developed for trail users. 

The city indicates this extension is also needed to promote potential economic development in 

the area due east of the monument on the eastern side of the river. Construction could begin in 

2009, once design is completed and all necessary archeological and environmental clearances 

have been obtained. 

IMPAIRMENT OF NATIONAL PARK RESOURCES

NPS Management Policies 2006 require an analysis of potential eff ects to determine whether 

or not actions would impair park resources. The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act of 1916 and reaffi rmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve park resources and values. National Park Service 

managers must seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, adversely 

impacting monument resources and values. However, laws do give National Park Service 

management the discretion to allow impacts on park resources and values when necessary and 

appropriate to fulfi ll the purposes of a park, so long as the impacts do not constitute impairment 

of the aff ected resources and values. 

Although Congress has given the National Park Service the management discretion to allow 

certain impacts within parks, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that the 

National Park Service must leave park resources and values unimpaired unless a particular law 

directly and specifi cally provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in 

the professional judgment of the responsible National Park Service manager, would harm the 

integrity of park resources or values. An impact to any park resource or value may constitute 

impairment, but an impact would be more likely to constitute impairment if it has a major or 

severe adverse eff ect on a resource or value whose conservation is:

 necessary to fulfi ll specifi c purposes identifi ed in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the park;

 key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park, or to opportunities to enjoy the park; or 

 identifi ed as a specifi c goal in the park’s GMP or other relevant National Park Service 

planning documents.

Impairment may result from National Park Service activities in managing the park, visitor 

activities, or activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the 

park. A determination of impairment is included in the impact analysis in the “Conclusion” 
107

INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

statement for all impact topics relating to the monument’s resources and values based on the 

previously listed criteria. Visitor experience and educational opportunities, socioeconomic 

environment, and monument operations are not considered monument resources; therefore, 

impairment fi ndings are not included as part of the impact analysis for these topics.

UNACCEPTABLE IMPACTS

The impact threshold at which impairment occurs is not always readily apparent. Therefore, the 

National Park Service applies a standard that off ers greater assurance that impairment will not 

occur by avoiding unacceptable impacts. These are impacts that fall short of impairment, but 

are still not acceptable within a particular park’s environment. Park managers must not allow 

uses that would cause unacceptable impacts; they must evaluate existing or proposed uses and 

determine whether the associated impacts on park resources and values are acceptable.

Virtually every form of human activity that takes place within a park has some degree of eff ect on 

park resources or values, but that does not mean the impact is unacceptable or that a particular 

use must be disallowed. Therefore, for the purposes of 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 identifi ed 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.

• National Park Service concessioner or contractor operations or services.

In accordance with NPS 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 Aztec Ruins National Monument, the impacts 

of the alternatives in this GMP were evaluated based on the previously identifi ed criteria. A 

determination on unacceptable impacts is made in the Conclusion statement for each of the 

physical resource topics carried forward in this chapter.

IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES, AND SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

In this GMP and environmental assessment, impacts to cultural resources (archeological 

resources and cultural landscapes) are described in terms of type, context, duration, and 

intensity, which is consistent with the Council of Environmental Quality regulations. These 

impact analyses are also intended to comply with the requirements of both the National 
108

CHAPTER 4

Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act. In accordance 

with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations implementing Section 106 (36 

CFR 800, “Protection of Historic Properties”), impacts to cultural resources were identifi ed 

and evaluated by: (1) determining the area of potential eff ects; (2) identifying cultural resources 

present in the area of potential eff ects that were either listed on or eligible to be listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); (3) applying the criteria of adverse eff ect to aff ected 

cultural resources, either listed on or eligible to be listed on, the NRHP; and (4) considering ways 

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse eff ects.

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations, a determination of either 

adverse eff ect or no adverse eff ect must also be made for aff ected, 

NRHP-eligible cultural resources. An adverse eff ect is 

found when an undertaking may alter, directly or 

indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic 

property that qualify the property for inclusion 

in the NRHP in a manner than would diminish 

the integrity of the property’s location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

or association. Consideration is given to all 

qualifying characteristics of a historic property, 

including those that may have been identifi ed 

subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the NRHP. Adverse eff ects 

may include reasonably foreseeable eff ects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in 

time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. A fi nding of no adverse eff ect is found 

when the undertaking’s eff ects do not meet the criteria of 800.5(a)(1) [800.5.(b)].

Council of Environmental Quality regulations and the NPS Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision-making (DO-12) Handbook also call for a discussion 

of the appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an analysis of how eff ective the mitigation would 

be in reducing the intensity of a potential impact (e.g., reducing the intensity of an impact 

from major to moderate or minor). Any resultant reduction in intensity of impact because of 

mitigation, however, is an estimate of the eff ectiveness of mitigation only under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Such reduction in impact intensity does not suggest that the level of 

eff ect as defi ned by Section 106 and 36 CFR 800 is similarly reduced. Cultural resources are nonrenewable resources and adverse eff ects generally consume, diminish, or destroy the original 

historic materials or form, resulting in a loss of integrity that can never be recovered. Therefore, 

although actions determined to have an adverse eff ect under Section 106 and 36 CFR 800 may be 

mitigated, the eff ect remains adverse. 

A brief Section 106 summary is included following the impact analysis for archeological 

resources and cultural landscapes in Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative. This summary 

is intended to identify NRHP-eligible or -listed cultural resources and to make a preliminary 

determination of eff ect for informational purposes; however, it is not intended to fulfi ll the 

requirements of Section 106. The National Park Service will comply with Section 106, in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800, as it proceeds with further projects and plans related to the GMP. 

As the Preferred Alternative is implemented, Aztec Ruins National Monument staff will consult 

with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Offi cer and make an assessment of the eff ect of 

each undertaking on cultural resources, based on the criterion of eff ect and criterion of adverse 

eff ect found in the Advisory Council’s regulations.
109

 METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR 

ANALYZING IMPACTS 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Information on archeological sites gathered during the cultural resource inventory that began in 

2005 was used in determining archeological impacts. This project has resulted in current records 

and condition assessments for all archeological sites. Monument resource specialists were also 

consulted. References to the West Ruin, East Ruin, and North Ruin in “Archeological Resources” 

pertain to the major ruin by that name, as well as the smaller, associated archeological features 

and sites described in the “Aff ected Environment.”

In order for an archeological resource to be listed on the NRHP, it must meet one or more of 

the following criteria of signifi cance: (A) associated with events that have made a signifi cant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (B) associated with the lives of persons 

signifi cant in our past; (C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method 

of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or represent a 

signifi cant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and (D) 

have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Certain important research questions about human history can only be answered by the actual 

physical material of cultural resources. Archeological resources have the potential to answer, in 

whole or in part, such research questions. An archeological site(s) can be eligible to be listed on 

the NRHP if the site(s) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory 

or history. An archeological site(s) can be nominated to the NRHP in an infi nite variety of 

historic contexts within which a site may be eligible for NR listing, and local, state, or national are 

the general levels within which site signifi cance can be evaluated (see National Register Bulletin 

#15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation). 

Applying Council of Environmental Quality regulations for the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the thresholds for the intensity of impacts on archeological resources are defi ned as follows: 

Negligible: 

Impacts would be at the lowest level of detection or barely measurable, with no 

perceptible consequences, either adverse or benefi cial, to archeological resources. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of eff ect would be no adverse eff ect.

Minor: 

Adverse Impact — Impacts would be measurable or perceptible, but slight and localized 

within a relatively small area of a site or group of sites. Impacts would not aff ect the 

character-defi ning features of a NRHP-eligible or -listed site. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of eff ect would be no adverse eff ect. 

Benefi cial Impact — A site would be preserved in its natural state. For purposes of Section 

106, the determination of eff ect would be no adverse eff ect.
110

CHAPTER 4

Moderate: 

Adverse Impact — Impacts would be measurable and perceptible, change one or more 

character-defi ning features, but would not diminish the integrity of the site to the extent 

that its NRHP eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

eff ect would be adverse eff ect.

Benefi cial Impact — The site would be stabilized. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of eff ect would be no adverse eff ect.

Major: 

Adverse Impact — Impacts would be substantial, noticeable, and permanent. The impact 

is severe or of exceptional benefi t. For NRHP-eligible or -listed sites, the impact changes 

one or more character-defi ning features, diminishing the integrity of the resource to the 

extent that it is no longer eligible for listing in the NRHP. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of eff ect would be adverse eff ect.

Benefi cial Impact — Active intervention would be taken to preserve the 

site. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of eff ect would be no adverse eff ect.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Information regarding cultural landscapes was compiled from the cultural landscape inventories 

completed for the monument, as well as from monument and regional resource specialists.

In order for a cultural landscape to be listed on the NRHP, it must meet one or more of the 

following criteria of signifi cance: (A) associated with events that have made a signifi cant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (B) associated with the lives of persons 

signifi cant in our past; (C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method 

of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, or represent a 

signifi cant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and 

(D) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The 

landscape must also have integrity of those patterns and features — spatial organization and land 

forms; topography; vegetation; circulation networks; water features; and structures/buildings, site 

furnishings, or objects — necessary to convey its signifi cance (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties). 

Applying Council of Environmental Quality regulations for National Environmental Policy Act 

analysis, the thresholds for the intensity of impacts on cultural landscapes are defi ned as follows:

Negligible: 

Impacts would be at the lowest level of detection or barely measurable, with no 

perceptible consequences. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of eff ect 

would be no adverse eff ect.

Minor: 

Adverse Impact — Impacts would not aff ect a character defi ning pattern(s) or feature(s) 

of a NRHP-eligible or -listed cultural landscape. For purposes of Section 106, the 

determination of eff ect would be no adverse eff ect.

Benefi cial Impact — Preservation of character defi ning patterns and features is done 

in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 
111

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

Properties. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of eff ect would be no adverse 

eff ect.

Moderate:

Adverse Impact — Impacts would alter a character defi ning pattern(s) or feature(s) of 

the cultural landscape but would not diminish the integrity of the landscape to the extent 

that its NRHP eligibility is jeopardized. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of 

eff ect would be no adverse eff ect.

Benefi cial Impact — Rehabilitation of a landscape or its pattern(s) or feature(s) in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of eff ect would be no adverse 

eff ect.

Major: 

Adverse Impact — Impacts would alter a character defi ning pattern(s) or feature(s) of the 

cultural landscape to the extent that it is no longer eligible to be listed on the NRHP. For 

purposes of Section 106, the determination of eff ect would be adverse eff ect.

Benefi cial Impact — Restoration of a landscape or its pattern(s) and feature(s) in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. For purposes of Section 106, the determination of eff ect would be no adverse 

eff ect.

NATURAL RESOURCES

VEGETATION 

Information on vegetation was compiled from vegetation inventories conducted in 2001 and 

2002, other research reports, and from monument resource specialists. These reports and 

vegetation communities are described in Chapter 3, “Aff ected Environment.” In analyzing the 

various alternatives, the degree of impacts to a vegetative community should be in context with 

the frequency of occurrence in which the community type can be found (common or rare) and 

the type of proposed impact (direct or indirect, short- or long-term). Impact thresholds for 

vegetation are defi ned as follows:

Negligible: No native vegetation would be aff ected, or some individual native plants could 

be aff ected, as a result of the alternative; however, there would be no eff ect on native 

species populations as a whole. 

Minor: The alternative would aff ect some individual native plants and would also aff ect a 

relatively minor portion of the species’ population.

Moderate: The alternative would aff ect some individual native plants and would also 

aff ect a sizeable segment of the species’ population within the national monument.

Major: The alternative would have a considerable eff ect on native plant populations and 

aff ect a relatively large area inside and outside of the monument. 
112

CHAPTER 4

WILDLIFE 

All available information on wildlife and wildlife habitat was compiled from wildlife inventories 

conducted in 2001 and 2002, existing planning documents, research reports, and consultation 

with monument specialists. These surveys and reports are described in Chapter 3, “Aff ected 

Environment.” The impact thresholds are defi ned as follows: 

Negligible: There would be no perceptible impacts to wildlife species, their 

habitats, or the natural processes sustaining them. Impacts would be within 

the range of natural variability.

Minor: Impacts would be detectable, but would include only small, 

localized disturbances to individuals without interference to feeding, 

reproduction, or other factors aff ecting population levels.

Moderate: Impacts on wildlife, their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them, would be measurable, of consequence, and localized. 

Impacts may include eff ects to breeding, migrating, or juvenile individuals. 

Mortality or interference with activities necessary for survival can be 

expected on an occasional basis, but is not expected to threaten the 

continued existence of the species in the monument. 

Major: Impacts on wildlife, their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them would be measurable, of consequence, and severely adverse 

or major benefi cial, with possible permanent consequences on the species 

or supporting resource.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species include those listed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service as threatened, endangered, and/or proposed for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to 

consider the eff ects of agency actions on such species. Language consistent with Section 7 is used 

in the impacts analysis for these species. In addition, state and park sensitive species are also 

considered in the analysis. 

All available information on threatened and endangered and other special status species was 

compiled from existing planning documents, research reports, and consultation with federal 

and state wildlife agencies and park specialists. State and federally listed species were identifi ed 

through discussions with monument staff , informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and with the New Mexico Division of Wildlife. The resulting list of species was 

compared with avian and mammalian inventory Annual Reports for Aztec Ruins (USGS 2002 

a, 2002b, and 2003). Predictions for the potential for distribution of non-reported species were 

based on species habitat requirements and Gap Analysis Program habitat suitability data. 

Impact thresholds for threatened, endangered, and other special status species are defi ned as 

follows: 

Negligible: An action that would not aff ect any individuals of a sensitive 

species or their habitat within the monument. This would result in a 

determination of no eff ect from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listed 

or proposed species.
113

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

Minor: An action that would aff ect a few individuals of a sensitive species 

or have very localized impacts on their habitat within the monument. The 

change would require considerable scientifi c eff ort to measure and have 

barely perceptible consequences to the species or habitat function. Minor 

impacts would likely result in a U.S. Fish and Wildlife determination of may 

aff ect / not likely to adversely aff ect a species or its habitat due to discountable 

adverse eff ects or completely benefi cial eff ects.

Moderate: An action that would cause measurable eff ects on: (1) a relatively 

moderate number of individuals within a sensitive species population; 

(2) the existing dynamics between multiple species (e.g., predator-prey, 

herbivore-forage, vegetation structure-wildlife breeding habitat); or (3) 

a relatively large habitat area or important habitat attributes within the 

monument. A sensitive species population or habitat might deviate from 

normal levels under existing conditions, but would remain indefi nitely 

viable within the monument. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife determination of 

may aff ect would apply and would also include a determination of likely or

unlikely to adversely aff ect, based on the specifi c situation. 

Major: An action that would have drastic and permanent consequences for 

a sensitive species population, dynamics among multiple species, or almost 

all available critical or unique habitat area within the monument. A sensitive 

species population or its habitat would be permanently altered from 

normal levels under existing conditions, and the species would be at risk of 

extirpation from the monument. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife determination 

for major impacts would be likely to adversely aff ect or is likely to jeopardize 

proposed species / adversely modify proposed critical habitat, depending on 

the specifi c situation.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Visitor surveys and personal observation of visitation patterns, combined with an assessment 

of what is available to visitors under current management, were used to determine the potential 

eff ects of the actions in each alternative. The impact on the ability of the visitor to experience 

and enjoy a full range of monument resources and to fully understand and appreciate the 

stories associated with the monument was analyzed by examining resources mentioned in the 

monument signifi cance statement and the interpretive and educational opportunities of the 

various alternatives. The impact thresholds for visitor experience and educational opportunities 

are as follows:

Negligible: Visitors would likely be unaware of any eff ects associated with 

implementation of the alternative. Any eff ects would be short term. There 

would be no noticeable change in visitor use and understanding, or in any 

defi ned indicators of visitor satisfaction or behavior.

Minor: Changes in visitor use or understanding would be slight but 

detectable. Changes would not appreciably limit or enhance critical 
114

CHAPTER 4

characteristics of the visitor experience. Visitor satisfaction would remain 

stable. 

Moderate: Changes in visitor use or understanding would be readily 

apparent. The visitor would be aware of the eff ects associated with the 

change and would likely be able to express an opinion about the changes. 

Visitor satisfaction would begin to either decline or increase as a direct 

result of the eff ect.

Major: Changes in visitor use or understanding would be readily apparent. 

The visitor would be aware of the eff ects associated with the change and 

would likely express a strong opinion. Visitor satisfaction would markedly 

decline or increase for the majority of visitors.

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Concerns covered by this section include the local economy and adjacent land use patterns. 

Information on potential impacts was collected during meetings with stakeholders, from 

monument staff , and based on city trends. Potential changes in local economics were also 

extrapolated from visitor spending and economic analyses conducted for Aztec Ruins in 2003 

and 2007 (see “Aff ected Environment”). Impact thresholds for the socioeconomic environment 

are defi ned as follows:

Negligible: The impact to neighbors, businesses, or other community 

members would be nonexistent, barely detectable, or detectable only 

through indirect means and with no discernable impact on local social or 

economic conditions.

Minor: The impact to neighbors, businesses, or other community members 

would be small, but detectable, localized in geographic area, and would not 

substantively alter social or economic conditions. 

Moderate: The impact to neighbors, businesses, or other community 

members would be readily apparent, localized in geographic area, and 

would have noticeable eff ects on the established social or economic 

conditions. 

Major: The impact to neighbors, businesses, and other community 

members would be readily apparent, would extend beyond the local 

community to the region, and would have a substantial infl uence on the 

established social or economic conditions. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS

The impact analysis on monument operations considers the eff ects of the alternatives on the 

ability of monument infrastructure and staff to operate safely and effi ciently. Various aspects of 
115

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS

monument operations, including current staff levels, funding levels, partnerships, volunteers, and 

trends, were reviewed. 

For the purpose of this analysis, monument operations were evaluated given the current staff 

and funding available to perform duties necessary to protect and preserve resources, provide for 

visitor use and understanding of the site, and protect human health and safety. The ability of staff 

to manage the monument and meet its mission was assessed in the analysis of each alternative, 

including potential impacts to monument facilities, operations, staffi ng, administrative 

effi ciency, and public health and safety. Specifi c duties include law enforcement, maintenance, 

interpretation and other visitor services, monument research, and general monument 

administration. Impact thresholds for monument operations are defi ned as follows. 

Negligible: Impacts on monument operations would be not be measurable 

or perceptible.

Minor: Impacts on monument operations would be slight and localized 

with few measurable consequences.

Moderate: Impacts on monument operations would be readily apparent to 

staff and possibly to visitors.

Major: Impacts on monument operations would be readily apparent to staff 

and to visitors and would result in substantial, widespread changes.
116

CHAPTER 4

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION 

(CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS)

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Impact Analysis 

The East Ruin and North Ruin could be adversely impacted as a result of Alternative 1. The focus 

of archeological preservation activities would remain on West Ruin; only high-priority cyclic 

maintenance and stabilization would occur at East Ruin. Therefore, East Ruin could suff er longterm, minor, adverse impacts through limited preservation activities and gradual deterioration 

from natural processes. The Aztec North Mesa Archeological District (North Mesa) could also 

suff er long-term, minor, adverse impacts due to pot hunting, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) traffi c, and 

other ground-disturbing activities (see the Cultural Resources map in Chapter 1 for location of 

this archeological district). Social trails are currently developing as a result of periodic visitation 

to this area.

The West Ruin would continue to experience long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts from 

the continued emphasis on preservation activities, such as inventory and monitoring, backfi ll 

and fi ll level adjustment, stabilization, and research. Some long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

would also occur because ruins stabilization and backfi lling would add modern materials such 

as new mortar and back dirt to the West Ruin. Heavy visitation to West Ruin could also result 

in long-term minor, adverse impacts that include potential vandalism, climbing on walls, and 

illegal collection of artifacts. Impacts could be mitigated through ongoing management, survey, 

evaluation, and the use of established trails to prevent impacts from exceeding minor levels. 

Ongoing monitoring activities to assess stabilization of West Ruin and East Ruin and periodic 

condition assessments of archeological sites could result in long-term, negligible, benefi ts to 

these archeological resources. Additionally, emphasis on nonintrusive research methods, like 

geophysical prospecting, could result in similar benefi ts to West Ruin. The rehabilitation of the 

Kiva Trading Post to provide for cultural resource needs, including a place to wash, dry, and 

prepare artifacts for curation would result in long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts by facilitating 

the preservation process. 

Ongoing irrigation practices related to the orchards would have long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on subsurface archeological sites due to groundwater saturation. Ongoing groundwater 

monitoring would help mitigate potential impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts

Ongoing projects throughout Aztec Ruins National Monument, such as the cultural resource 

inventory, the master Backfi ll Plan, and other preservation activities at West Ruin, have resulted 

in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts to the ruins and other archeological resources 

within the monument by inventorying, monitoring, and preserving resources associated with 

the ancestral Pueblo peoples. As noted in Chapter 2, “Alternatives,” some of these projects are 

ongoing.
117

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS) 

Past residential and oil/gas development near the monument has adversely impacted 

archeological resources associated with ancestral Pueblo occupation of the Animas River valley. 

Residential development adjacent to the monument and future development of oil and gas wells 

both within and outside the monument boundaries could also adversely impact archeological 

resources. Existing regulations (36 CFR Part 9B) would help ensure that wells within the 

monument would be placed and operated to protect resources and minimize impacts. Thus, 

adverse impacts to archeological resources from within the monument would be long term, but 

minor.

To minimize impacts related to oil and gas development outside the monument, the National 

Park Service would work closely with representatives of the oil and gas industry to help ensure 

that any future drilling or resource extraction surrounding the monument would be done in 

concert with the monument’s management goals and objectives. In the event that damage is 

caused to monument resources from activities outside monument boundaries, the National 

Park Service has authority to recover up to three times the damages from the company under 

the Park System Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 19jj. This statute is a strict liability 

statute that authorizes the National Park Service to recover response costs and damages from a 

person who destroys, causes the loss of, or injures park system resources. Thus, adverse impacts 

to archeological resources within the monument from outside activities would be long term 

and negligible to minor. However, impacts to archeological resources outside the monument 

boundary from these activities would most likely continue to be long term, moderate, and 

adverse, unless mitigated.

These impacts from past preservation activities at the monument and energy and residential 

development, when combined with the long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts associated with 

West Ruin preservation and the long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts associated with 

East Ruin and North Ruin in Alternative 1, would result in long-term, minor, adverse cumulative 

impacts to archeological resources. 

Conclusion

Preservation activities would be focused on West Ruin resulting in long-term, moderate, 

benefi cial impacts to West Ruin and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts to East Ruin 

and North Ruin. Heavy visitation at West Ruin and ground-disturbing activities on North Mesa 

could also result in long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts. Inventory and monitoring, 

nonintrusive research methods, and the rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post would have 

long-term, negligible to minor, benefi cial impacts. Cumulative impacts would be long term 

and adverse, but minor. There would be no impairment of archeological resources from this 

alternative and its implementation would not result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in 

§1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Impact Analysis

Existing features of all three cultural landscapes would be retained, including the pear and apple 

orchards, other fruit trees and ornamentals, and remaining agricultural structures that are part 

of the Historic Vernacular Landscape. As a result, some nonnative vegetation and other features 

would both contribute to and detract from the integrity of cultural landscapes. 

The pear and apple orchards, ornamentals, and the corral complex, the chicken coop, and fences 

in the immediate vicinity of the ruins would continue to be a noticeable visual distraction on 
118

CHAPTER 4

the Prehistoric Designed Landscape because this vegetation and modern farm features did not 

exist in the ancestral Pueblo cultural landscape, nor were they a part of their ancient economy. 

Retention would result in a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape. In contrast, the retention of the pear and apple orchards and other farm features 

would have a long-term, benefi cial impact on the Historic Vernacular Landscape. However, 

the benefi t would be only negligible because many of the elements of this landscape have been 

removed over the years and it lacks integrity. The orchard trees would not be replaced as they 

become hazardous or die through time resulting in some long-term, negligible benefi t to the 

Prehistoric Designed Landscape. 

The preservation activities at the West Ruin would result in long-term, negligible benefi ts to 

the Prehistoric Designed Landscape, whereas the limited or no preservation activity at East 

Ruin and North Ruin would result in long-term, negligible, adverse impacts to the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape. Impacts would be negligible because of the large scale of this landscape 

in comparison to the size of each feature. The rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post would also 

negligibly benefi t the Historic Designed Landscape because of the compatibility of its design with 

this landscape.

Nonnative trees that occur outside the Historic Designed Landscape, such as elms and Russian 

olives, would not be replaced as they become hazardous and are removed. Nonnative plants and 

invasive weeds would also be managed and native vegetation restored to the extent possible. 

These vegetation management strategies could slowly help improve the prehistoric scene and 

result in some long-term benefi cial impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. However, 

because this natural process would be slow, limited in scope, and possibly extend beyond the life 

of this plan, the impact would most likely be negligible. 

Cumulative Impacts

Past preservation activities at West Ruin have resulted in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts 

to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape because it is a dominant element on the landscape. 

Other more recent activities include ongoing oil and gas well development that have adversely 

aff ected the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and development of recreational vehicle parking 

and location of the administration buildings that have adversely impacted the Historic Designed 

Landscape. Oil and gas development both within and outside the monument and adjacent 

residential development would result in adverse visual impacts to the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape because of equipment and infrastructure, such as pumps and roads, associated with 

oil and gas extraction and the presence of modern houses. Although existing regulations (36 CFR 

Part 9B) would help ensure that wells would be placed and operated to protect resources within 

the monument, equipment related to the wells and other structures, such as houses, would be a 

detraction to the monument landscape. Thus, adverse impacts would be minor to moderate in 

the long term.

These impacts from past activities and from future energy and residential developments when 

combined with the long-term, moderate, adverse impacts associated with other detracting 

features in the Prehistoric Designed Landscape in Alternative 1 would result in long-term, minor, 

adverse cumulative impacts to cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion

Retention of the orchards and other features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape would result 

in moderate, adverse impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and negligible, benefi cial 

impacts to the Historic Vernacular Landscape in the long term. Removal of existing nonnative 
119

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS) 

vegetation and restoration with native species, outside the Historic Designed Landscape, would 

result in some long-term, negligible, benefi cial impacts to the prehistoric scene. Cumulative 

impacts would be minor and adverse in the long term. There would be no impairment of cultural 

landscapes from this alternative, and its implementation would not result in any unacceptable 

impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

NATURAL RESOURCES

VEGETATION

Impact Analysis

Under Alternative 1, the vegetation management strategy would be to promote native species, 

while managing to preserve contributing elements of the three cultural landscapes as described 

above in “Cultural Landscapes.” Because most vegetation would be retained, some nonnative 

vegetation types would adversely impact cultural landscapes. 

According to NPS Management Policies 2006, the National Park Service will reestablish natural 

functions and processes within park units, including native plants and animals. Retention 

of the pear and apple orchards, which are nonnative vegetation, would have a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact on native vegetation regimes because there would be nearly four 

acres of concentrated nonnative vegetation that would continue to preclude the growth of 

native vegetation and would not be consistent with National Park Service guidance. In contrast, 

allowing nonnative trees (Russian olives and elms) to be removed and not replaced as they 

become hazardous or die and implementing management strategies to eliminate nonnative plants 

and restore native species, where compatible with cultural landscapes, would have long-term, 

negligible, benefi cial impacts on the native vegetation. 

Cumulative Impacts

Past development activities at Aztec Ruins and in areas adjacent to the monument have 

contributed to the introduction of nonnative vegetation. Ongoing oil and gas development 

inside and outside the monument, as well as residential development adjacent to its boundaries, 

threaten to further introduce nonnative vegetation and result in long-term, minor to moderate 

adverse impacts to vegetation, if not managed correctly. However, existing regulations (36 CFR 

Part 9B) would help ensure that wells within the monument would be placed and operated to 

protect and restore native vegetation, where appropriate. The monument’s Fire Management Plan

could also result in selective clearing of unnatural concentrations of vegetation to protect cultural 

resources and to reduce the chance of unwanted wildfi res. This clearing would result in minor, 

benefi cial impacts to native vegetation in the long term by restoring a more natural regime.

These past and ongoing impacts when combined with the long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts of Alternative 1 would result in long-term, moderate, adverse cumulative impacts to 

vegetation. 

Conclusion

Vegetation management strategies would result in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to 

native vegetation regimes because pear and apple orchards would be maintained. However, other 

strategies that promote removal of nonnative vegetation and restoration of native species would 

result in some negligible, benefi cial impacts over the long term. Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, adverse, and moderate. There would be no impairment of vegetation resources from 
120

CHAPTER 4

this alternative, and its implementation would not result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined 

in §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

WILDLIFE

Impact Analysis

Wildlife management strategy would continue to be consistent with National Park Service 

policies. The monument would continue to manage for sustainable native wildlife populations 

with necessary exceptions that allow for the management of and protection of cultural resources.

Some species of the local wildlife community have become overly dependent on the nonnative 

pear and apple orchards and would benefi t from their retention. This could be considered 

artifi cial sustenance of natural wildlife species in a nonnative vegetation system that is not 

compatible with National Park Service guidance or Aztec Ruins fundamental resources and 

values. According to NPS Management Policies 2006, the National Park Service will reestablish 

natural functions and processes within park units, including native plants and animals. Therefore, 

retention of the orchards would not be consistent with National Park Service guidance and 

would have a long-term, minor, adverse impact on local wildlife that normally would not be 

dependent on the orchards.

The future vegetation and cultural landscapes management plan would evaluate any potential 

impacts to related to removal of Russian olive trees along the Farmers Ditch.

Cumulative Impacts

The monument’s current Fire Management Plan could result in some minor, adverse impacts to 

native wildlife from vegetation clearing. Other similar contributions to cumulative impacts on 

area wildlife include habitat loss and fragmentation on surrounding lands due to past, present, 

and future development and other land uses. Scattered natural gas production, agriculture, and 

residential and commercial development surround the monument. New residential development 

is occurring to the north of the monument boundary, and the city is planning to expand its 

trail system. This could further increase the fragmentation of wildlife habitat and reduce travel 

corridors available to native wildlife, attract scavenging wildlife, remove native vegetation, and 

potentially increase the spread of noxious weeds. This habitat loss could result in long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts.

These impacts when combined with the long-term, minor, benefi cial and adverse impacts of 

Alternative 1 would result in long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts to wildlife in the 

Aztec area. 

Conclusion

Impacts to local wildlife would be long term, minor, and adverse because the nonnative orchards 

would be retained. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor and adverse. There would be 

no impairment of wildlife resources from implementation of this alternative, and it would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Impact Analysis

The main habitat areas for special status species within and alongside the monument include the 

Animas River, Farmers Ditch, and lateral ditches. Bats are likely to feed over the irrigation ditches, 

while bald eagle, southwestern willow fl ycatcher, black tern, and yellow-billed cuckoo potentially 
121

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS) 

could occur in the riparian zone along the Animas. Western burrowing owls could inhabit prairie 

dog burrows within the monument, and casual use by peregrine falcons is possible.

Current management activities at the monument do not adversely aff ect special status species, in 

accordance with NPS Management Policies 2006. Under the no-action alternative, this strategy 

would continue and no impacts would be expected from its implementation. Riparian vegetation 

and water sources would be maintained and would continue to support potential habitat for 

special status species, such as bats, bald eagle, southwestern willow fl ycatcher, black tern, and 

yellow-billed cuckoo. There would be no eff ect to threatened, endangered, or other special status 

species from the no-action alternative.

Cumulative Impacts

Because no impacts to special status species would occur in Alternative 1, there would be no 

cumulative impacts.

Conclusion

Riparian vegetation and water sources would be maintained, resulting in no impacts to special 

status species. There would be no cumulative impacts. No impairment of the monument’s special 

status species would result from this alternative, and its implementation would not result in any 

unacceptable impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Impact Analysis

Alternative 1 would continue to result in a relatively narrow visitor experience and opportunity 

for visitor understanding because visitor access to the ruins would remain restricted to the West 

Ruin, rather than expanding opportunities to view other ruins. 

Retaining the administration trailer west of the visitor center would result in moderate, adverse 

impacts on the viewshed experienced by visitors, while removing the abandoned Aztec Ruins 

Trading Post would improve the viewshed and provide a minor benefi t to visitors. Overall, 

changes to facilities would result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts because the administration 

trailer would remain.

Retention of the pear and apple orchards and other noticeable visible distractions such as the 

corral complex (all features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape) would have a long-term, 

moderate, adverse impact on visitor experience. Many visitors would prefer to see a landscape 

that more closely represents the natural scene during the period of Pueblo occupation, rather 

than relatively modern orchards and farm features. Retention of the orchards would also have 

a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on visitor understanding for those whose curiosity and 

ability to explore and make personal connections to the monument’s primary ancestral Pueblo 

signifi cance would be distracted by the orchards, as opposed to a scene of natural vegetation. 

Limited partnerships with local organizations and educational programs by the National Park 

Service within the local community, as staff is available, would provide for better understanding 

of monument resources. These educational opportunities would enhance the experience of local 

citizens when they visit Aztec Ruins, as well as promote its stewardship, because they will better 

understand the monument’s history. This enhanced understanding would result in long-term, 

negligible to minor, benefi cial impacts. 
122

CHAPTER 4

Cumulative Impacts

Similar to cumulative impacts for other resources, ongoing oil and gas well development within 

and outside the monument would adversely impact visitor experience because of the potential 

viewshed impacts. However, existing regulations would minimize these impacts within the 

monument and ensure that signifi cant visual and other characteristics of the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape are preserved for visitor enjoyment. Thus, impacts would most likely be long term 

and adverse, but at most minor. Potential residential development also threatens the prehistoric 

scene; however, these adverse impacts would most likely be negligible to minor for most visitors 

because their experience would be focused on the West Ruin.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that are being undertaken by the city and would most likely 

aff ect visitors include the extension of Main Street and the trail system along the Animas River. 

Both actions would provide access to new visitor opportunities, such as walking and biking, 

outside the monument that could ultimately connect with the monument and result in long-term, 

minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts for area visitors.

These impacts when combined with the long-term, minor to moderate adverse and minor 

benefi cial impacts of Alternative 1 would result in minor, adverse cumulative impacts to visitor 

experience and educational opportunities in the long term. 

Conclusion

Visitor access would continue to be limited to the West Ruin, resulting in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to visitor experience. Retention of the administration trailer, the orchards, and 

other features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape would continue to degrade the prehistoric 

scene for some visitors resulting in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts. Improved 

visitor understanding related to limited partnerships and community education would contribute 

to long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor, and 

adverse.

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Impact Analysis

Local Economy. In the short term, visitation to the monument would most likely remain at 

current levels. Long-term visitation would likely depend on national and regional economic 

conditions and how potential visitors respond to those conditions over time. In the short 

term, less than 10% of visitors would most likely be day users and the remaining 90% would 

be visitors on day trips from outside the local area or visitors on overnight trips staying in local 

accommodations, including campgrounds. Visitor spending in the Aztec area would be similar 

to values reported in 2003 and 2007, approximately $1.16 to $1.3 million. This visitor spending 

would continue to result in short-term and most likely long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to the 

local economy. However, if visitor use declined, local revenues attributable to visitor spending 

would also decline.

Ongoing monument operations, including repair and rehabilitation projects, removal of the 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post, and the rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post, would result in shortterm and long-term, negligible to minor, benefi cial impacts to the local economy because of 

expenditures related to supplies, construction materials, and local labor. Current staff would also 

continue to contribute to the local economy in a long-term, negligible, but benefi cial way through 
123

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION (CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS) 

their expenditures for housing, food, and other daily and long-term needs within the local and 

regional area. 

Adjacent Land Use. Ongoing monument operations would not adversely aff ect adjacent 

land uses, such as the private lands to the north, where residential development is planned. 

Landowners would most likely benefi t from the proximity of the monument to their lands.

Cumulative Impacts

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could contribute to social and economic 

cumulative impacts include ongoing oil and gas development, the proposed residential 

development adjacent to the monument, the updated comprehensive land use plan, and 

creation of the city trail and related parking. Most of these projects or operations, if instituted 

or approved by the City of Aztec, would be for the purposes of expanding the local economy 

and generating additional revenues. Any future residential construction near the monument 

could result in potentially new families moving into the area and spending their dollars within 

the local economy. Similarly, the new trail along the Las Animas could provide new recreational 

opportunities for visitors to the area, potentially increasing the length of stay for many visitors 

and their related expenditures within the local community. The comprehensive plan for the 

city would continue to foster a positive environment for economic growth. In part or in whole, 

these projects would result in long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to the local economy. Despite 

increased visitation or population, the range of dining, lodging, or retail opportunities would 

remain limited.

These impacts when combined with the short-term and long-term, negligible to minor, benefi cial 

impacts of Alternative 1 would result in minor, benefi cial cumulative impacts in the long term. 

Conclusion

Visitor spending would most likely remain at current levels, resulting in short-term and longterm, minor, benefi cial impacts to the local economy. Ongoing monument operations, current 

employee spending, and proposed rehabilitation projects would also contribute to the local 

economy, resulting in short-term and long-term, negligible, benefi cial impacts. Cumulative 

impacts would be long term, minor, and benefi cial. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS

Impact Analysis

Facilities. Adaptive reuse of the Kiva Trading Post would have long-term, minor, benefi cial 

impacts to operations because of the additional cultural resource offi ces, work space, and 

laboratory area for artifacts to be washed, dried, and prepared for curation. Occupation of the 

Kiva Trading Post would also require regular maintenance of the structure, which would further 

its preservation.

The continuing use of the administration trailer for the administrative headquarters of 

the monument would result in ongoing long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to staff and 

monument operations because of the inadequate infrastructure and workspace within the trailer. 

Additionally, the trailer does not comply with current regulations for disabled visitors, and there 

are safety issues that include a lack of fi re sprinklers and old wiring. The trailer was not designed 
124

CHAPTER 4

or intended to be permanent offi ce space, and it is not in keeping with National Park Service 

policies since it is a double-wide trailer. 

Removing the Aztec Ruins Trading Post and rehabilitating the Kiva Trading Post would result in 

long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts by eliminating concerns about vandalism and safety of these 

structures and the potential allocation of resources needed to address these concerns. 

Staffi ng and Administrative Effi ciency. The proposed outreach program, although benefi cial 

to the local community (see “Socioeconomic Environment”), would continue to stretch staff 

and reduce their overall effi ciency because of the limited number of staff available to address 

monument visitor use and resource management needs, as well as interact within the community. 

These competing demands both within the monument and outside the monument would result 

in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to monument operations.

Retention of the pear and apple orchards would have a long-term, moderate, adverse impact on 

staff effi ciency because more staff time is needed to maintain the orchards than native vegetation. 

Cumulative Impacts

Past and present activities that have aff ected monument operations include the expansion of the 

monument boundaries that occurred in 1988, which did not include an expansion of the staff , 

and current and ongoing oil and gas operations. These activities require additional staff time to 

manage more resources and to identify and address potential impacts and needed mitigation 

associated with oil and gas wells. Thus, long-term, moderate, adverse impacts to monument 

operations have resulted since staffi ng levels have never increased.

Reasonably foreseeable future activities include the trail along the Animas River that may be 

designed and built by the City of Aztec. This trail would be benefi cial both to the city and visitors. 

Because visitors using the trail would enter the monument ruins through the visitor center, no 

new impacts are anticipated. 

These impacts when combined with the long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts 

and minor, benefi cial impacts of Alternative 1 would result in long-term, moderate, adverse 

cumulative impacts to monument operations. 

Conclusion

The existing administration trailer would continue to provide insuffi cient space for monument 

staff and compromise safety, resulting in long-term, moderate, adverse impacts. Removal of 

the Aztec Ruins Trading Post and rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post would provide longterm, negligible to minor, benefi cial impacts. Staffi ng levels and effi ciency would face longterm, moderate, adverse impacts because of the demands on staff time to support resource and 

program needs. Cumulative impacts would be long term, moderate, and adverse.
125

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Impact Analysis

 Alternative 2 impacts that would be the same as Alternative 1 include the following: 

The West Ruin would continue to experience long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts 

from the continued emphasis on preservation activities, such as inventory and 

monitoring, backfi ll and level adjustment, stabilization, and research. Some long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts would also occur because ruins stabilization and backfi lling 

would both add modern materials such as new mortar and back dirt to the West Ruin. 

Heavy visitation to West Ruin could also result in long-term minor, adverse impacts that 

include potential vandalism, climbing on walls, and illegal collection of artifacts. Impacts 

could be mitigated through ongoing management, survey, and evaluation, and the use of 

established trails to prevent impacts from exceeding minor levels.

The North Mesa could also suff er long-term, minor, adverse impacts due to pot hunting, 

ATV traffi c, and other ground-disturbing activities. Social trails are currently developing 

as a result of periodic visitation to this area. 

The rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post to provide for cultural resource needs, 

including a place to wash, dry, and prepare artifacts for curation, would result in longterm, minor, benefi cial impacts by facilitating the preservation process.

In Alternative 2, cyclic maintenance projects and preventive and proactive ruins stabilization 

activities would be expanded to include cyclic preservation at East Ruin and other signifi cant 

archeological sites throughout the monument resulting in long-term, moderate, benefi cial 

impacts. Similar to West Ruin, some long-term, minor, adverse impacts would also occur related 

to the addition of modern materials as part of stabilization work. Ongoing monitoring activities 

to assess stabilization priorities and periodic condition assessments of archeological sites would 

be increased, in comparison to Alternative 1, and would result in long-term, minor, benefi ts to 

these archeological resources. Additionally, emphasis on nonintrusive research methods, like 

geophysical prospecting, could result in similar benefi ts to West Ruin, East Ruin, and throughout 

the monument. 

Trail construction activities and use by visitors could cause long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

to North Ruin and East Ruin due to potential disturbance by visitors. Similarly, documented 

archeological resources outside of the main West, East, and North Ruin complexes could also 

be disturbed by visitors who wander off the trail. However, the implementation of mitigation 

and protection measures would help ensure that impacts are limited. Such measures could 

include routing the trail to avoid fragile archeological resources, while also allowing for visitors 

to experience the ruins; preconstruction treatments such as information gathering and data 

recovery; monitoring of construction activities to protect known and unknown archeological 

resources; visitor education; and allowing visitors out to the East Ruin and North Ruin only 

on ranger-led tours. The exact location of the trail and specifi c mitigation measures would be 
126

CHAPTER 4

determined during future planning, design, and compliance activities specifi cally for the trail and 

to minimize impacts to archeological resources. Information collected through mitigation eff orts 

would have a long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial impact on the knowledge base used to 

manage the resource.

 Removal of the pear and apple orchards would have a minor, long-term, benefi cial impact on 

subsurface archeological sites due to the elimination of groundwater saturation resulting from 

irrigation practices related to the orchards. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be the same as 

under Alternative 1. In summary, long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts have occurred because 

of past preservation activities at West Ruin. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts have resulted 

from past residential and oil/gas development and would result from current and future oil and 

gas wells adjacent to and within the monument. Existing regulations (36 CFR Part 9B) would help 

ensure that new wells within the monument would be placed and operated to protect monument 

resources. These impacts when combined with the long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts and 

negligible to minor, adverse impacts of Alternative 2 would result in long-term, minor, benefi cial 

cumulative impacts to archeological resources. 

Conclusion 

Preservation activities would be expanded throughout the monument, resulting in long-term, 

minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts to archeological resources. New trail construction and 

related visitor use could result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts to East Ruin, North Ruin, 

and other archeological resources. Monitoring and inventorying activities and nonintrusive 

research methods would occur more frequently, resulting in long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts, 

as would the rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post. Cumulative impacts would be long term and 

minor benefi cial. There would be no impairment of archeological resources from this alternative, 

and its implementation would not result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of 

NPS Management Policies 2006.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Impact Analysis

In Alternative 2, a hierarchy of importance would be established for the overlapping cultural 

landscapes. This hierarchy would facilitate and enhance the preservation and management of 

the two NRHP-eligible landscapes — the Prehistoric Designed Landscape (fi rst priority) and 

the Historic Designed Landscape (second priority). Because it is not eligible for NRHP, features 

of the Historic Vernacular Landscape that either confl ict with or degrade these two primary 

landscapes would be considered for removal. As features in the Historic Vernacular Landscape 

are evaluated and potentially removed using these priorities, the integrity of the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape would be improved, resulting in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts 

over time. 

Specifi cally in this plan, removal of the pear and apple orchards, all other fruit trees, and 

ornamentals (roses and lilacs) associated with the Historic Vernacular Landscape would 

eliminate a noticeable distraction on the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and result in longterm, moderate, benefi cial impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Other confl icting 

features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape would be evaluated in the vegetation and cultural 

landscapes management plan or on a case-by-case basis. Although the pear and apple orchards 
127

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2

are contributing features to the Historic Vernacular Landscape, this landscape is ineligible for 

the NRHP. Therefore, the removal of the orchards would result in long-term, negligible, adverse 

impacts on that landscape. 

The restoration and maintenance of native vegetation throughout the monument would also 

contribute to restoration of the ancient Pueblo scene. This would further contribute to longterm, moderate, benefi cial impacts by further enhancing the integrity of the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape. 

The proposed trail to the North Ruin and East Ruin would result in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts on the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and the Historic Vernacular Landscape because 

it introduces a new element that would visually intrude upon these landscapes. Bridges would 

be constructed where the trail crosses the Farmers Ditch, resulting in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts to the integrity of the historic ditch. 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post is in close proximity to, but not within, the Historic Designed 

Landscape; therefore, adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins Trading Post would 

result in long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to the Historic Designed Landscape because the 

exterior would be rehabilitated to preserve its historic character. Removal of the administration 

trailer would have long-term, negligible, benefi cial impacts on all three landscapes. Infrastructure 

associated with adaptive reuse and restoration of the Kiva Trading Post, such as parking and 

lighting, may have long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the historic district. These impacts 

could be either benefi cial or adverse, depending on design. Impacts would be minimized through 

designs that blend in or complement the Historic District. 

Cumulative Impacts

Similar to Alternative 1, past preservation activities at West Ruin have resulted in long-term, 

moderate, benefi cial impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape because it is a dominant 

feature on the landscape. More recent activities include ongoing oil and gas well development 

that have adversely aff ected the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and development of recreational 

vehicle parking and location of the administration buildings that have adversely impacted the 

Historic Designed Landscape. Oil and gas development both within and outside the monument 

and adjacent residential development would result in adverse visual impacts to the Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape because of equipment and infrastructure. Thus, adverse impacts related 

to development would be minor to moderate in the long term. When combined with the longterm, negligible to moderate, benefi cial impacts and minor, adverse impacts of Alternative 2, 

cumulative impacts would be long-term, moderate, and benefi cial.

Conclusion

The removal of the pear and apple orchards would result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial 

impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts to 

the Historic Vernacular Landscape. Other contributing features to the Historic Vernacular 

Landscape that confl ict with NRHP-eligible landscapes would be evaluated for retention or 

removal on a case-by-case basis or through other plans. The trail would cause long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins and 

Kiva Trading Posts and removal of the administration trailer would result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, benefi cial impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Cumulative impacts would 

be long term, moderate, and benefi cial. There would be no impairment of cultural landscapes 

from this alternative, and its implementation would not result in any unacceptable impacts as 

outlined in §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.
128

CHAPTER 4

NATURAL RESOURCES

VEGETATION

Impact Analysis

Removal of the pear and apple orchards would have long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts on 

native vegetation regimes because nearly four additional acres of nonnative vegetation would 

be replanted with native vegetation once the nonnative orchards are removed. Additional native 

vegetation would be restored and maintained throughout the entire Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape, resulting in additional benefi cial impacts.

Construction of the trail to the East Ruin and North Ruin through the Aztec North Mesa 

Archeological District would have long-term, minor, adverse impacts to vegetation along the trail 

alignment from the replacement of native vegetation with trail surface. Adverse impacts could 

also result from the encroachment of exotic species in some vulnerable areas due to ground 

disturbance. Mitigation actions such as weed control would minimize these impacts and keep 

them at a minor level.

The areas in vicinity of the Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts have been previously disturbed; 

therefore, there would be no impacts to vegetation from these buildings. Staging for all 

construction activities would occur in a previously disturbed area and would be properly 

mitigated per the measures outlined in Chapter 2. 

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities and related impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative 1. Ongoing oil and gas development inside and outside the monument, 

as well as residential development adjacent to its boundaries, threaten to further introduce 

nonnative vegetation and result in long-term, minor to moderate adverse impacts to vegetation, 

if not managed correctly. The monument Fire Management Plan could also result in selective 

clearing of unnatural concentrations of vegetation to protect cultural resources and to reduce the 

chance of unwanted wildfi res. This clearing would result in minor, benefi cial impacts to native 

vegetation in the long term by restoring a more natural regime. When combined with the longterm, moderate benefi cial and adverse impacts of Alternative 2, these activities would result in 

minor, benefi cial cumulative impacts in the long term.

Conclusion

Removal of nonnative vegetation, such as the pear and apple orchards would result in long-term, 

moderate, benefi cial impacts to vegetation. Some removal of native vegetation due to the trail to 

North Ruin and East Ruin would result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts. Because building 

construction activities would occur in previously disturbed areas, no vegetation impacts would 

occur. Cumulative impacts would be minor and benefi cial in the long term. There would be no 

impairment of vegetation resources from this alternative, and its implementation would not 

result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

WILDLIFE

Impact Analysis 

As noted in Alternative 1, the monument would continue to manage for sustainable native 

wildlife populations with necessary exceptions that allow for the management of and protection 

of cultural resources.
129

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2

In Alternative 2, removal of the nonnative orchards would be consistent with NPS Management 

Policies 2006 and Aztec Ruins fundamental resources and values by reestablishing natural 

functions and processes within the monument, including native plants and animals. Therefore, 

removal of the orchards would have a long-term, minor, benefi cial impact on native wildlife once 

native vegetation is restored. In the short-term, minor adverse impacts would occur to wildlife 

currently using the orchards for nesting, feeding, or other activities because they would be 

temporarily impacted as they sought similar habitat in new locations. Prior to their removal, the 

orchards would be surveyed for wildlife, and appropriate methods for removing any nonnative 

species and protecting native species would be identifi ed. 

Disturbance during construction of the trail to the East Ruin and North Ruin would have shortterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to wildlife such as deer, reptiles, avian species, and 

others that commonly use the aff ected habitats. Long-term, minor adverse impacts would result 

from increased human activity due to use of the trail. Larger mammals are generally accustomed 

to human activity and long-term impacts should be no more than minor to species such as deer 

and coyote. To smaller species such as reptiles, the trail would be more of an impediment to their 

movements and may have long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts. The potential for 

impacts would be greatest in the vicinity of the Farmers Ditch, which supplies a source of water 

and cover to wildlife in the area. Rehabilitation of the trading posts would result in no impacts 

because of the lack of quality habitat in their vicinity.

Travel patterns of wildlife that tend to follow trail corridors, human scent, or use bridges may 

be disrupted. Animals that might be aff ected would include raccoons, feral animals, bobcats, 

coyotes, and potentially mountain lions. Impacts to these animal travel patterns would be long 

term, minor, and adverse.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would be the same as described in 

Alternative 1. The monument’s current Fire Management Plan could result in some minor, 

benefi cial impacts to native wildlife from vegetation clearing. Other similar contributions to 

cumulative impacts on area wildlife include habitat loss and fragmentation on surrounding 

lands due to past, present, and future development and other land uses. Scattered natural gas 

production, agriculture, and residential and commercial development surround the monument. 

New residential development is occurring to the north of the monument boundary, and the city 

is planning to expand its trail system. This could further increase the fragmentation of wildlife 

habitat and reduce travel corridors available to native wildlife, attract scavenging wildlife, 

decrease native vegetation, and potentially increase the spread of noxious weeds. This continued 

habitat loss outside the monument could result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts.

These impacts when combined with the long-term, minor, benefi cial and adverse impacts of 

Alternative 2 would result in long-term, negligible to minor, benefi cial cumulative impacts to 

wildlife in the Aztec area. 

Conclusion

Removal of the orchards would have a long-term, minor, benefi cial impact on native wildlife once 

native vegetation is restored. Wildlife would be adversely impacted in the short term because 

of trail construction activities and in the long term because of trail use by visitors, resulting in 

minor adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the trading posts would result in no impacts because of 

the lack of quality habitat in their vicinity. Cumulative impacts would be long term, negligible to 

minor, and benefi cial. There would be no impairment of wildlife resources from implementation 
130

CHAPTER 4

of this alternative, and it would not result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of 

NPS Management Policies 2006.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Trail construction in the vicinity of the Farmers Ditch could aff ect special status bat species that 

feed over the water. However, bats are not likely to be feeding during daylight when construction 

would occur; thus, these impacts would be minimal. Short-term, negligible, adverse impacts to 

special status bat species could also result from periodic disturbance from visitor use of the trail. 

However, the monument’s hours of operation would limit regular use of the trail to daylight 

hours when bats are not active. Implementation of Alternative 2 is not likely to adversely aff ect 

special status bat species.

Western burrowing owls could be present in areas with prairie dog colonies. If prairie dog 

burrows are present in the area of proposed trail construction or any other proposed activity, 

surveys would be conducted prior to any disturbance to ensure avoidance of active burrowing 

owl nests. If nests are found, further consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 

occur prior to any such undertaking to identify appropriate mitigation measures and ensure that 

negligible to minor adverse impacts occurred. Through consultation and mitigation, burrowing 

owls are not likely to be adversely aff ected by this alternative. 

Special status avian species that may use riparian habitats along the Animas River would not 

be aff ected by the proposed trail construction or its related use. Any adverse impacts from trail 

construction along the Farmers Ditch would be short term and negligible to minor and would 

not likely adversely aff ect avian special status species such as the bald eagle, southwestern willow 

fl ycatcher, black tern, or yellow-billed cuckoo. Use of the trail would not likely adversely aff ect 

these species because of limited or controlled visitor use.

Regular use of the monument by peregrine falcons is unlikely. They would not be adversely 

impacted and would experience no more than negligible impacts from trail construction. 

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that could aff ect special status species 

include oil and gas development inside and outside the monument, residential development on 

the monument boundary, and trail construction by the city along the Animas River. Ongoing 

energy and residential development are most likely the greatest threats as they create disturbance 

and disturb habitat both in the short and long terms. The intensity of the impact would be minor 

and, with proper mitigation measures, would most likely not adversely impact any of the listed 

species. Therefore, these impacts when combined with the short-term and long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts of Alternative 2 would result in long-term, minor, adverse cumulative impacts.

Conclusion

Construction activities related to the trail to East Ruin and North Ruin would result in shortterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts and would not likely adversely aff ect any special 

status species. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor, and adverse. There would be no 

impairment of the monument’s special status species, and its implementation would not result in 

any unacceptable impacts and is consistent with §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.
131

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Impact Analysis

Implementation of Alternative 2 would improve the quality of the visitor experience off ered 

at Aztec Ruins National Monument. The construction of the trail would create a greater 

opportunity to experience the East Ruin, North Ruin, North Mesa, and associated resources. 

The trail would also provide access to overlook points, providing new opportunities for visitors 

to appreciate the view within and outside the monument. Thus, the trail would result in longterm, moderate, benefi cial impacts to visitor experience through these increased opportunities. 

In contrast, the addition of the new trail would cause visual impacts on the landscape, as well 

as from visitors using the trail, and result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to 

the visitors and the viewshed. The trail would be sited with these concerns in mind to minimize 

impacts. 

Architectural modifi cations to the Aztec Ruins Trading Post, such as fl attening the existing 

roof, restoring the historic façade, and removing the doublewide administration trailer, would 

have long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts on the historic viewshed and to those visitors 

viewing the prehistoric scene. Impacts to the prehistoric scene or viewshed would be minimized 

by structural alterations that would assimilate the remaining buildings into the surroundings. 

Removal of the administration trailer and renovation of the trading posts would have also longterm, moderate, benefi cial impacts to some visitors and occupants since the adaptively reused 

buildings would be accessible for disabled visitors.

The new interpretive focus that expands beyond the West Ruin to other areas of the monument 

would increase the number of visitors having fi rsthand experiences of more resources in the 

monument and more monument stories. Increased interpretation of more resources would 

lead to increased visitor understanding and appreciation of monument resources. The available 

methods of learning about the monument and related resources would also increase, and 

museum exhibits would be updated to refl ect the expanded focus of monument resources. This 

increased access to resources combined with more eff ective interpretation would result in shortto long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts to interpretive and educational opportunities and for 

visitor understanding and appreciation. 

Removal of the pear and apple orchards and other ornamental vegetation would result in longterm, moderate, benefi cial impacts on visitor enjoyment. This would result in a landscape that 

more closely represents a natural scene of native vegetation that might have appeared during the 

period of Pueblo occupation. Removal of the orchards would also result in long-term, moderate, 

benefi cial impacts on visitor understanding of the most important cultural landscape in the 

monument — the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. The ability of visitors to explore and make 

personal connections with the ruins and the Prehistoric Designed Landscape could be improved 

by the removal of the orchards. Native vegetation would provide a more appropriate backdrop 

for appreciation and interpretation of the ruins.

Any remaining features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape, such as the farmsteads and 

other deteriorating structural remains, would continue to be a distraction for visitors viewing 

the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. However, other structures in the Historic Vernacular 

Landscape, such as the drainage pond and lateral drainage ditches, are not as much of a 

distraction. Therefore, some long-term, minor, adverse impacts would result to visitor experience 

from these continued distractions.
132

CHAPTER 4

Conversely, removal of the orchards could also result in a long-term, negligible, adverse impact 

on visitor understanding of the Historic Vernacular Landscape. Many other opportunities exist 

locally to compare and contrast how diff erent peoples interacted with their environment and to 

connect with a relatively recent historic period of the agricultural landscape.

Ongoing partnerships with local organizations and educational programs by the National Park 

Service within the local community, as staff is available, would provide for better understanding 

of monument resources. These educational opportunities would enhance the experience of local 

citizens when they visit Aztec Ruins, as well as promote its stewardship, because they will better 

understand the monument’s history. This enhanced understanding would result in long-term, 

minor, benefi cial impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be the same as in Alternative 

1. Ongoing oil and gas well development within and outside the monument would adversely 

impact visitor experience because of the potential viewshed impacts. However, existing 

regulations would minimize these impacts within the monument, where possible, and work to 

ensure visual and other characteristics of the prehistoric designed landscape are preserved for 

visitor enjoyment. Potential residential development outside the monument also threatens the 

prehistoric scene. Because of the proximity of oil/gas and residential development to the new trail 

and North Ruin, the impacts to visitors from observing this development would most likely be 

long term, minor to moderate, and adverse.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that are being undertaken by the city and would most likely 

aff ect visitors include the extension of Main Street and the trail system along the Animas River. 

Both actions would provide access to new visitor opportunities outside the monument, such as 

walking and biking, which could ultimately connect with the monument and result in long-term, 

minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts for area visitors.

When combined with the predominately benefi cial impacts of Alternative 2, long-term, minor 

adverse to moderate benefi cial, cumulative impacts could occur, depending on the proximity and 

degree of residential and energy development that occurs in the future.

Conclusion

Long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts would occur to the visitor experience from 

development of the new trail; expanding the interpretive and educational focus for visitors 

beyond the West Ruin to other resources; removing the administration trailer and rehabilitating 

the Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts; and removing the pear and apple orchards and other 

ornamental vegetation that detracts from the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Long-term, 

minor, benefi cial impacts would also occur with the outreach and community partnership 

program. Cumulative impacts would range from long term, minor adverse to moderate benefi cial, 

depending on the degree of future development outside the monument boundaries. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Impact Analysis

Local Economy. Although the interpretive focus of the monument would broaden and 

visitors would be able to experience and learn about more of the ruins and other resources 
133

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2

at the monument, visitation would most likely remain the same as in Alternative 1. Increased 

visitor opportunities would not necessarily be known to potential visitors until they arrived 

at the monument. Although visitors might stay longer at the monument because of these new 

opportunities, visitation would remain at current levels in the short term. Visitors might stay a 

few hours longer within the local area, resulting in some increased expenditures related to meals 

and other daily needs; however, overnight stays would most likely not increase. As indicated 

in Alternative 1, long-term trends would depend largely on national and regional economic 

conditions. Thus, in the short term, visitor spending in the Aztec area would be similar to values 

reported in 2003 and 2007, approximately $1.16 to $1.3 million. This visitor spending would 

continue to result in short-term and long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to the local economy. 

However, if visitor use declined, local revenues attributable to visitor spending would also 

decline.

Similar to Alternative 1, ongoing monument operations, including repair and rehabilitation 

projects and the rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post would result in short-term and long-term 

benefi cial impacts to the local economy because of expenditures related to supplies, construction 

materials, and local labor. However, in Alternative 2, the additional labor and expenditures for 

materials and equipment associated with construction of the trail, rehabilitation of the Aztec 

Ruins Trading Post, and removal of the administration trailer would result in some additional 

economic benefi ts. Short-term, minor, benefi cial impacts would result from these combined 

construction activities. Current and new staff proposed under this alternative would also 

continue to contribute to the local economy in a long-term, negligible, but benefi cial way through 

their expenditures for housing, food, and other daily and long-term needs within the local and 

regional area. 

Adjacent Land Use. The rehabilitation of the trading posts and other construction activities 

could result in some additional traffi c and noise in the short term, resulting in negligible, adverse 

impacts to adjacent landowners, owing to the proximity to the new facility. The new interpretive 

trail to North Ruin would bring visitors closer to the northern boundary, where residential 

development could occur, however, this would not impact residents. Landowners would most 

likely continue to benefi t from the proximity of the monument to their lands. 

Cumulative Impacts

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could contribute to cumulative impacts 

would be the same as in Alternative 1 and include ongoing oil and gas operations, the proposed 

residential development adjacent to the monument, the updated comprehensive land use 

plan, and creation of the city trail and related parking. All of these operations and projects, if 

instituted and/or approved by the City of Aztec, would be for the purposes of expanding the 

local economy and generating additional revenues. Residential construction near the monument 

could result in potentially new families moving into the area and spending their dollars within 

the local economy. Similarly, the new trail along the Animas River could provide new recreational 

opportunities for visitors to the area, potentially increasing the length of stay for many visitors 

and their related expenditures within the local community. The comprehensive plan for the 

city would continue to foster a positive environment for economic growth. In part or in whole, 

these projects would result in long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to the local economy. Despite 

increased visitation or population, the range of dining, lodging, or retail opportunities would 

remain limited.

These impacts when combined with the short-term and long-term, negligible to minor, benefi cial 

impacts of Alternative 2 would result in minor, benefi cial cumulative impacts in the long term. 
134

CHAPTER 4

Conclusion

Although visitor opportunities would be expanded at the monument, visitation levels would 

remain similar to current levels and visitor’s length of stay would not increase substantially. 

Thus, visitor spending would most likely remain at current levels, resulting in short-term and 

long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to the local economy. Ongoing monument operations, 

current employee spending, and an increased number of short-term construction projects would 

also contribute to the local economy, resulting in short-term and long-term, minor, benefi cial 

impacts. Impacts to adjacent landowners would be short term, negligible to minor, and adverse. 

Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor, and benefi cial. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS

Impact Analysis

Facilities. The use of the rehabilitated Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts for additional and 

more effi cient offi ces and workspace would result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts. 

These buildings would benefi t monument operations by adding useable facilities for functions 

such as cultural resources offi ces, work space, laboratories, and administrative offi ces. 

The adaptive reuse of the buildings would pose risks to those involved in renovation of the 

buildings from potential exposure to hantavirus, lead paint, and other hazards. The resulting 

short-term, negligible, adverse impacts would be mitigated by hiring construction professionals 

who are experienced with such issues. 

The new trail to the North Ruin and East Ruin would create the potential for people to wander 

off trail and onto unstable ruins. Hazards associated with the trail could include level of exertion, 

ease of emergency response, and natural elements such as sun and lightning. Mitigation would 

occur through the education of visitors and staff patrols. Risks associated with the new trail 

would result in short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on public health and safety.

Staffi ng and Administrative Effi ciency. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts to operations 

would occur to staff managing or involved in construction of new facilities. Long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts could result from increased needs for protection along new trails and 

throughout the monument; maintenance of renovated buildings and new trails; broadening of 

preservation and other cultural resource activities; security concerns and emergency response; 

and increased compliance activities. The new trail would help to facilitate management of more 

remote areas of the monument, resulting in some benefi cial impacts. Mitigation would include 

hiring of additional staff , if possible, and acquisition of project funding. Alternative 2 could be 

implemented over an extended time period and to a limited degree as opportunities present 

themselves and staffi ng allows. 

Maintenance of the new trail would also be necessary, requiring new skills and tools at the 

monument. The trail would create the need for increased resource protection and additional 

areas with interpretive functions, including media. The new trails would have long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on operations and administrative effi ciency. Any impacts could be mitigated 

through shared services in the Eastern Four Corners Group of the National Park Service.

The outreach program would continue to stretch staff and could reduce their overall effi ciency 

because of the limited number of staff available to address visitor use and resource management 

needs, as well as interact within the community. These competing demands both within the 
135

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2

monument and outside the monument would result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse 

impacts to monument operations. 

Removal of the pear and apple orchards would result in some short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

to staff time while managing the removal operation, as well as long-term, moderate, benefi cial 

impacts on monument operations because it is less expensive to maintain native vegetation than 

pear orchards. In addition, there would be a long-term, minor, benefi cial impact on the ability to 

identify, monitor, and conduct research on prehistoric cultural resources.

Conservation Potential. Rehabilitation of the Kiva and Aztec Ruins Trading Posts and 

associated new construction would have short-term, moderate, adverse impacts during 

construction due to energy consumed by construction equipment. Conservation potential 

realized through adaptive reuse of the trading posts would result in long-term, moderate, 

benefi cial impacts due to the potential for installing energy- and water-effi cient building systems, 

using state-of-the art heating, ventilation, and air condition systems, lights that operate on 

sensors, and low-fl ow fi xtures.

Rehabilitation of the trading posts, removal of the administration trailer, and construction of the 

trail would require energy use, resulting in short-term, minor, adverse impacts. All construction 

and rehabilitation activities would use recycled materials and employ mitigation techniques such 

as erosion and sediment control. 

Cumulative Impacts

Similar to Alternative 1, past and present activities that aff ect monument operations include the 

expansion of the monument boundaries that occurred in 1988 and current and ongoing oil and 

gas operations. These activities required and continue to require additional staff time to manage 

resources within the expanded monument boundary and to identify and address potential 

impacts and needed mitigation associated with oil and gas wells. Thus, long-term, moderate, 

adverse impacts to monument operations have resulted.

Reasonably foreseeable future activities include the trail along the Animas River that may be 

designed and built by the city of Aztec. Because visitors using the trail would enter the monument 

ruins through the visitor center, no new impacts are anticipated. 

These impacts combined with the benefi cial impacts of the building rehabilitations and the 

adverse impacts associated with new demands on staff of Alternative 2 would result in long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impacts on monument operations. 

Conclusion

The rehabilitated Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts would result in long-term, moderate, 

benefi cial impacts to monument operations because of increased space for staff and monument 

needs. Some short-term, minor, adverse impacts would occur during facility construction. The 

new trail to North and East Ruins, continued outreach activities, and increased need for visitor 

and resource protection, among other needs, would result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

on staff effi ciency. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor, and adverse.
136

CHAPTER 4

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Impact Analysis

Impacts to archeological resources would be predominately the same as under Alternative 2, with 

the addition of a few new impacts that are attributable only to Alternative 3. These are related to a 

new cultural activities center and a new partnership approach that would benefi t resources. 

The impacts that are common to all three alternatives include the following:

The West Ruin would continue to experience long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts 

from the continued emphasis on preservation activities, such as inventory and 

monitoring, backfi ll and fi ll level adjustment, stabilization, and research. Some longterm, minor, adverse impacts would also occur because ruins stabilization and backfi lling 

would both add modern materials such as new mortar and back dirt to the West Ruin. 

Heavy visitation to West Ruin could also result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts that 

include potential vandalism, climbing on walls, and illegal collection of artifacts. Impacts 

could be mitigated through ongoing management, survey, and evaluation, and the use of 

established trails to prevent impacts from exceeding minor levels.

The North Mesa could also suff er long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts due 

to pot hunting, all-terrain vehicle traffi c, and other ground-disturbing activities. Social 

trails are currently developing as a result of periodic visitation to this area. 

The rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post to provide for cultural resource needs, 

including a place to wash, dry, and prepare artifacts for curation, would result in longterm, minor, benefi cial impacts by facilitating the preservation process.

Impacts that would only occur in Alternatives 2 and 3 include: 

Cyclic maintenance projects and preventive and proactive ruins stabilization activities 

would be expanded to include cyclic preservation at East Ruin and other signifi cant 

archeological sites throughout the monument resulting in long-term, moderate, benefi cial 

impacts. Similar to West Ruin, some long-term, minor, adverse impacts would also occur 

related to the addition of modern materials. Ongoing monitoring activities to assess 

stabilization priorities and periodic condition assessments of archeological sites would 

be increased, in comparison to Alternative 1, and would result in long-term, minor, 

benefi ts to these archeological resources. Additionally, emphasis on nonintrusive research 

methods, like geophysical prospecting, could result in similar benefi ts to West Ruin, East 

Ruin, and throughout the monument. 

Trail construction activities and use by visitors could cause long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts to North Ruin and East Ruin due to potential disturbance by visitors. Similarly, 

documented archeological resources outside of the main West, East, and North Ruin 
137

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

complexes could also be disturbed by visitors who wander off the trail. However, the 

implementation of mitigation and protection measures would help ensure that impacts 

are limited. Such measures could include routing the trail to avoid fragile archeological 

resources, while also allowing for visitors to experience the ruins, preconstruction 

treatments such as data recovery, monitoring of construction activities to protect 

known and unknown archeological resources, and allowing visitors out to the East 

Ruin and North Ruin only on ranger-led tours. The exact location of the trail and 

specifi c mitigation measures would be determined during future planning, design, and 

compliance activities specifi cally for the trail and to minimize impacts to archeological 

resources. Information collected through mitigation eff orts would have a long-term, 

minor to moderate, benefi cial impact on the knowledge base used to manage the 

resource. 

Removal of the pear and apple orchards would have a long-term, minor, benefi cial impact 

on subsurface archeological sites because of the elimination of groundwater saturation 

resulting from irrigation practices related to the orchards. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in construction of a new cultural activities 

center in conjunction with the new administrative facilities in the Aztec Ruins Trading Post. 

Demonstration farming based on traditional Native American agriculture would be located near 

the cultural activities center in an area where no signifi cant archeological resources have been 

identifi ed. No impacts would occur to archeological resources within this area because it has 

been previously tested and is currently developed. With any new construction, archeological 

monitoring would be conducted.

The cultural activities center and the enhanced partnership and outreach opportunities 

promoted by Alternative 3 would result in long-term, benefi cial impacts to archeological 

resources that could range from minor to moderate. An increasing number of formal 

opportunities would be available for the following: partnering with other parks and foundations, 

community outreach, volunteer programs, sharing information on preservation, memorandums 

of agreement, research partnerships, and other collaborative activities. These opportunities 

would benefi t monument archeological resources by developing increased research 

opportunities, protection of sites, and resource stewardship. This partnering focus would also 

result in the potential for long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts to archeological 

resources outside monument boundaries on a regional and national scale.

Cumulative Impacts

Impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be the same as in 

Alternatives 1 and 2. In summary, long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts have occurred due 

to past preservation activities at West Ruin. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts have resulted 

from past residential and oil/gas development and would result from current and future oil and 

gas wells within the monument. Existing regulations (36 CFR Part 9B) would help ensure that 

new wells within the monument would be placed and operated to avoid and protect monument 

resources. 

When combined with the many long-term, benefi cial and adverse impacts of Alternative 3, 

these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in long-term, minor 

to potentially moderate, benefi cial cumulative impacts to archeological resources because 

there would be ongoing protection within the monument and increased communication and 
138

CHAPTER 4

collaboration with outside agencies and other groups to protect important local archeological 

resources. 

Conclusion

The new cultural activities center at the Aztec Ruins Trading Post and the enhanced partnership 

and outreach opportunities would result in long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts to 

archeological resources. Similar to Alternative 2, preservation activities in Alternative 3 would 

be expanded throughout the monument, resulting in long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial 

impacts to archeological resources. New trail construction and related visitor use would have 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts to East Ruin, North Ruin, and other archeological resources. 

Inventory, monitoring, nonintrusive research, and rehabilitation of the Kiva Trading Post would 

result in long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts. Cumulative impacts would be long term, benefi cial, 

and would range from minor to moderate. There would be no impairment of archeological 

resources from this alternative, and its implementation would not result in any unacceptable 

impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

Section 106 Summary 

As part of the GMP process, Aztec Ruins National Monument’s cultural resource staff has 

identifi ed NRHP-eligible or -listed cultural resources that could potentially be aff ected by the 

proposed action and has completed a preliminary analysis to determine potential impacts to 

cultural resources, including archeological resources. Table 10 provides a summary of this 

preliminary analysis that identifi es the archeological resource or cultural landscape that may be 

impacted, site number, action or treatment, potential mitigation, and further Section106 actions 

that would be required. This table is not intended to fulfi ll Section 106 requirements. 

Prior to implementing any of the actions described in Alternative 3, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument’s cultural resource staff , in consultation with the New Mexico State Historic 

Preservation Offi cer, would reconfi rm (see Table 10) or identify additional NRHP-eligible or 

-listed archeological resources that could potentially be aff ected by the proposed action and 

apply the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse eff ects (36 CFR Part 

800.5, Assessment of Adverse Eff ects), to determine whether or not the proposed action would 

adversely impact archeological resources. If it is determined that the proposed action would 

adversely impact NRHP-eligible or -listed cultural resources, monument staff would prepare an 

environmental assessment to analyze the impacts of the action on the monument’s cultural and 

natural resources, as well as negotiate and execute a memorandum of agreement with the New 

Mexico State Historic Preservation Offi ce, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6[c], Resolution 

of Adverse Eff ects — Memorandum of Agreement, to stipulate how the adverse eff ects would be 

minimized or mitigated. 

If it is determined that any of the proposed actions would have no adverse eff ect on NRHPeligible or -listed cultural resources, monument staff would document this determination on an 

assessment of eff ect form and forward the form to the New Mexico State Historic Preservation 

Offi ce.
139

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Table 10. Effects on Cultural Resources

RESOURCE SITE # ACTION/ 

TREATMENT EFFECT MITIGATION FURTHER 106 ACTIONS REMARKS 

Aztec West 

Ruin 

LA 45 Continue 

preservation, 

visitation, etc., 

with emphasis 

on partnering 

and 

collaboration. 

No 

Adverse 

Effect

Continuing work will 

meet Secretary of 

Interior’s Standards for 

Preservation and 

Vanishing Treasures 

preservation guidelines. 

Ongoing periodic 

consultation with 

State Historic 

Preservation Office 

and tribes for 

information and 

review purposes. 

Alternative 3 provides 

opportunities for 

increased research and 

collaboration with nonNational Park Service 

parties. 

Aztec West 

Ruin 

LA 45 Backfilling and 

fill levels 

adjustment. 

No 

Adverse 

Effect

Intensive architectural 

and photo 

documentation, 

archeological 

monitoring, project 

design to maintain and 

enhance visitor 

experience, testing and 

any further excavation 

will meet Secretary’s 

Standards for 

Archeology and Historic 

Preservation. 

Test excavations have 

been conducted 

under approved 

testing plan (2008), 

providing basis for 

ongoing consultation 

with State Historic 

Preservation Office 

and tribes on 

development of final 

treatment plan for 

comprehensive Fill 

Levels Adjustment 

Project. 

Purpose and need for 

West Ruin Backfill Project 

were identified in 1989 

GMP; General Backfilling 

Plan (1997) and Backfill 

Adjustment Plan (2004) 

have previously been 

reviewed by the State 

Historic Preservation 

Office and tribes prior to 

implementation; Testing 

Plan for Fill Levels 

Adjustment reviewed by 

State Historic Preservation 

Office and tribes before 

consultation; next phase 

subject to continuing 

consultation and 

compliance. 

West Ruin 

Annex 

LA 45 Removal of pear 

orchard on 

Hubbard 

farmstead. 

No 

Adverse 

Effect

Archeological 

monitoring during tree 

removal. 

Consultation with 

State Historic 

Preservation Office 

required. 

Subsurface extent of 

archeological resources in 

Annex is uncertain; 

planting and growth of 

trees has probably 

impacted features to west 

of structures excavated by 

American Museum of 

Natural History. 

Aztec East 

Ruin 

LA 45 Continue 

preservation, 

with emphasis 

on partnering 

and 

collaboration. 

No 

Adverse 

Effect

Continuing work will 

meet Secretary’s 

Standards for 

Preservation and 

Vanishing Treasures 

preservation guidelines. 

Ongoing periodic 

consultation with 

State Historic 

Preservation Office 

and tribes for 

information and 

review purposes. 

Alternative 3 provides 

opportunities for 

increased research and 

collaboration with nonNational Park Service 

parties. 

Aztec East 

Ruin 

LA 45 Backfilling and 

fill levels 

adjustment. 

No 

Adverse 

Effect 

Intensive architectural 

and photo 

documentation, 

archeological 

monitoring, project 

design to maintain and 

enhance visitor 

experience, any testing 

and excavation will 

meet Secretary’s 

Standards for 

Archeology and Historic 

Preservation. 

Consultation with 

State Historic 

Preservation Office 

and tribes must be 

initiated; 

development of East 

Ruin backfilling and 

fill levels adjustment 

plans would be done 

based on future 

consultation. 

This action would involve 

project comparable to 

that under way at West 

Ruin, but it would be 

much smaller in scale 

because there is much less 

exposed architecture at 

East Ruin. 
140

CHAPTER 4

Table 10. Effects on Cultural Resources

RESOURCE SITE # ACTION/ 

TREATMENT EFFECT MITIGATION FURTHER 106 ACTIONS REMARKS 

Aztec East 

Ruin 

LA 45 Interpretive Trail 

construction and 

increased 

visitation. 

No 

Adverse 

Effect 

Archeological 

mitigation through 

intensive surface 

documentation, surface 

artifact collections and 

baseline data for 

surface density, possible 

data recovery 

depending on exact trail 

route selected, 

archeological 

monitoring of trail 

construction periodically 

to assess visitor impacts.

Consultation with 

State Historic 

Preservation Office 

and tribes must be 

initiated; treatment 

plan for archeological 

mitigation to be 

designed 

incorporating future 

consultation. 

Trail design and 

construction plans have 

not been developed; trail 

route described in GMP is 

a general concept that will 

be refined to provide 

positive visitor experience 

with minimal impact to 

archeological resources; 

more intensive 

preservation effort as part 

of Alternative 3 would 

ensure that fragile 

standing architecture at 

East Ruin is stable before 

visitation is increased. 

Aztec North 

Ruin 

LA 5603 Interpretive Trail 

construction and 

increased 

visitation. 

No 

Adverse 

Effect 

Archeological 

mitigation through 

intensive surface 

documentation, surface 

artifact collections and 

baseline data for 

surface density, possible 

data recovery 

depending on exact trail 

route selected, 

archeological 

monitoring of trail 

construction 

periodically to assess 

visitor impacts. 

Consultation with 

State Historic 

Preservation Office 

and tribes must be 

initiated; treatment 

plan for archeological 

mitigation to be 

designed 

incorporating future 

consultation. 

Trail design and 

construction plans have 

not been developed; trail 

route described in GMP is 

a general concept that will 

be refined to provide 

positive visitor experience 

with minimal impact to 

archeological resources. 

Ancient 

Aztec 

Community 

cultural 

landscape 

Numerous See above No 

Adverse 

Effect 

See above See above Sites identified above and 

many additional cultural 

landscape features are 

affected by actions 

described in GMP; in 

addition to sites, the 

Interpretation Trail 

construction, increased 

visitation, and orchard 

removal would have 

effects on non-site 

cultural landscape 

resources. 
141

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Impact Analysis 

Impacts to cultural landscapes are the same as under Alternative 2, except for additional impacts 

associated with the cultural activities center that would be constructed in conjunction with the 

Aztec Ruins Trading Post. Impacts to cultural landscapes in Alternatives 2 and 3 are described as 

follows.

 A hierarchy of importance would be established for the overlapping cultural landscapes. 

This hierarchy would facilitate and enhance the preservation and management of the two 

NRHP-eligible landscapes — the Prehistoric Designed Landscape (fi rst priority) and the 

Historic Designed Landscape (second priority). Because it is not eligible for the NRHP, 

features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape that either confl ict with or degrade the 

two primary landscapes would be considered for removal. As features in the Historic 

Vernacular Landscape are evaluated and potentially removed using these priorities, the 

integrity of the Prehistoric Designed Landscape would be improved, resulting in longterm, moderate, benefi cial impacts over time. 

Specifi cally in this plan, removal of the pear and apple orchards, all other fruit trees, and 

ornamentals (roses and lilacs) associated with the Historic Vernacular Landscape would 

eliminate a noticeable distraction on the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and result in 

long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Other 

confl icting features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape would be evaluated in the 

vegetation and cultural landscapes management plan or on a case-by-case basis. Although 

the pear and apple orchards are contributing features to the Historic Vernacular 

Landscape, this landscape is ineligible for the NRHP. Therefore, the removal of the 

orchards would result in long-term, negligible, adverse impacts. 

The restoration and maintenance of native vegetation throughout the monument would 

also contribute to restoration of the ancient Pueblo scene. This would further contribute 

to long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts by further enhancing the integrity of the 

Prehistoric Designed Landscape. 

The proposed trail to the North Ruin and East Ruin would result in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and the Historic Vernacular 

Landscape because it introduces a new element that would visually intrude upon these 

landscapes. Bridges would be constructed where the trail crosses the Farmers Ditch, a 

contributing feature of the Historic Vernacular Landscape, resulting in long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to the integrity of the historic ditch.

In Alternative 3, adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins Trading Post would result 

in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts to the Historic Designed Landscape because the 

exterior would be rehabilitated to be compatible with character of the district. However, the 

size of the facility (6,000 square feet) would be larger than the 2,713 square feet of the current 

building. This increased size would be off set by its lower-profi le design and would occur in a 

previously disturbed area, resulting in long-term, negligible, adverse impacts to the landscape. 

Demonstration farming based on traditional Native American agriculture has the potential for 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on Prehistoric Designed Landscape because it would occur 

within and be visible in the landscape. 
142

CHAPTER 4

Infrastructure associated with adaptive reuse and renovation of the Kiva Trading Post such as 

parking and lighting may have long-term, minor, impacts on the Historic District. These impacts 

could be benefi cial or adverse, depending on design. Impacts would be minimized through 

designs that blend in or complement the Historic District. Removal of the administration trailer 

would have long-term, negligible, benefi cial impacts on all three landscapes.

Cumulative Impacts 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would be the same as described 

in Alternatives 1 and 2. Past preservation activities at West Ruin have resulted in long-term, 

moderate, benefi cial impacts to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. These activities also include 

ongoing oil and gas well development that has adversely aff ected the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape and development of recreational vehicle parking and location of the administration 

buildings that have adversely impacted the Historic Designed Landscape. These projects have 

resulted in long-term, minor, adverse impacts. When combined with the long-term, negligible 

to moderate, benefi cial impacts and minor, adverse impacts of Alternative 3, cumulative impacts 

would be long term, moderate, and benefi cial.

Conclusion

Removal of the pear and apple orchards would result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts 

to the Prehistoric Designed Landscape and long-term, negligible, adverse impacts to the Historic 

Vernacular Landscape. Other contributing features to the Historic Vernacular Landscape that 

confl ict with NRHP-eligible landscapes would be evaluated for retention or removal on a caseby-case basis or through other plans. The trail would cause long-term, minor, adverse impacts to 

the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. Rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts 

and removal of the administration trailer would result in long-term, negligible to moderate, 

benefi cial impacts to the Historic Designed Landscape. Cumulative impacts would be long 

term, moderate, and benefi cial. There would be no impairment of cultural landscapes from this 

alternative, and its implementation would not result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in 

§1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

Section 106 Summary

As noted in “Archeological Resources” above, Aztec Ruins National Monument’s cultural 

resource staff has identifi ed NRHP-eligible or -listed cultural resources that could potentially be 

aff ected by the proposed action and has completed a preliminary analysis to determine potential 

impacts to cultural resources, including cultural landscapes. Table 10 provides a summary of 

this preliminary analysis for the Ancient Aztec Community cultural landscape and archeological 

resources that are contributing elements to this landscape. The table includes site number, action 

or treatment, potential mitigation, and further 106 actions that would be required. This table is 

not intended to fulfi ll Section 106 requirements.

Prior to implementing any of the actions described in Alternative 3, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument’s cultural resource staff in consultation with the New Mexico State Historic 

Preservation Offi cer would reconfi rm (see Table 10) or identify additional NRHP-eligible or 

-listed cultural landscapes that could potentially be aff ected by the proposed action and apply 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s criteria of adverse eff ects (36 CFR Part 800.5, 

Assessment of Adverse Eff ects), to determine whether or not the proposed action would adversely 

impact cultural landscapes. If it is determined that the proposed action would adversely impact 

NRHP-eligible or -listed cultural resources, monument staff would prepare an environmental 

assessment to analyze the impacts of the action on the monument’s cultural and natural 
143

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

resources, as well as negotiate and execute a memorandum of agreement with the appropriate 

tribal historic preservation offi ce, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6[c], Resolution of Adverse 

Eff ects — Memorandum of Agreement, to stipulate how the adverse eff ects would be minimized or 

mitigated. 

If it is determined that any of the proposed actions would have no adverse eff ect on NRHPeligible or -listed cultural resources, monument staff would document this determination on an 

assessment of eff ect form and forward the form to the appropriate tribe for review and comment, 

as well as inform the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Offi ce.

NATURAL RESOURCES

VEGETATION

Impact Analysis

Similar to Alternative 2, removal of the pear and apple orchards would have long-term, moderate, 

benefi cial impacts on native vegetation regimes because nearly four additional acres of nonnative 

vegetation would be replanted with native vegetation once the nonnative orchards are removed. 

Additional native vegetation would be restored and maintained throughout the entire Prehistoric 

Designed Landscape, resulting in additional benefi cial impacts.

Construction of the trail to the East Ruin and North Ruin through the Aztec North Mesa 

Archeological District would have long-term, minor, adverse impacts to vegetation along the 

trail alignment from the replacement of native vegetation with trail surface. Because connections 

to a proposed community trail along the Animas River would be possible in this alternative, 

construction of this trail connection would result in additional long-term, minor, adverse impacts 

to vegetation, especially along the riparian corridor of the Animas River. Adverse impacts could 

also result from the encroachment of exotic species in some vulnerable areas because of ground 

disturbance. Mitigation actions such as weed control would minimize these impacts and keep 

them at a minor level.

The areas in vicinity of the Kiva and Aztec Ruins Trading Post, including the new cultural 

activities center, have been previously disturbed; therefore, no new vegetation impacts would 

occur in the immediate vicinity of these buildings. Staging for all construction activities would 

also occur in a previously disturbed area and would be properly mitigated per the measures 

outlined in Chapter 2. 

Implementation of demonstration farming plots would have long-term, negligible to minor, 

adverse impacts to existing vegetation. Impacts to native vegetation would likely be kept at 

negligible levels because of the disturbed nature of the proposed location(s) for the farming 

plots.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would be the same as described in 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Selective clearing of unnatural concentrations of vegetation per the Fire 

Management Plan could result in some minor, benefi cial impacts to native vegetation. Habitat loss 

and fragmentation has and will continue to occur because of residential development, oil and gas 

production, and new city projects such as trails outside the monument, all resulting in long-term, 

minor to moderate, adverse impacts. When combined with the long-term, moderate benefi cial 
144

CHAPTER 4

and long-term, minor adverse impacts of Alternative 3, these activities would result in long-term, 

minor, benefi cial cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion

Removal of nonnative vegetation, such as the pear and apple orchards would result in long-term, 

moderate, benefi cial impacts to vegetation. Some removal of native vegetation because of the 

trail to North Ruin and East Ruin and potential connections to a river trail would result in longterm, minor, adverse impacts. Because building construction activities would occur in previously 

disturbed areas, no impacts to vegetation would occur. Cumulative impacts would be minor 

and benefi cial in the long term. No impairment of vegetation resources would occur from this 

alternative, and its implementation would not result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in 

§1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

WILDLIFE

Impact Analysis 

Impacts to wildlife in Alternative 3 that would be the same as those under Alternative 2 include 

the following:

The monument would continue to manage for sustainable native wildlife populations with 

necessary exceptions that allow for the management and protection of cultural resources.

Removal of the nonnative orchards would be consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006 and 

Aztec Ruins fundamental resources and values by reestablishing natural functions and processes 

within the monument, including native plants and animals. Therefore, removal of the orchards 

would have a long-term, minor, benefi cial impact on native wildlife once native vegetation is 

restored. In the short term, minor adverse temporary impacts would occur to wildlife currently 

using the orchards for nesting, feeding, or other activities, while they sought similar habitat 

in new locations. Prior to their removal, the orchards would be surveyed for wildlife, and 

appropriate methods for removing any nonnative species and protecting native species would be 

identifi ed. 

Disturbance during construction of the trail to the East Ruin and North Ruin would have shortterm, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to wildlife such as deer, reptiles, avian species, and 

others that commonly use the aff ected habitats. Long-term, minor adverse impacts would result 

from increased human activity because of trail use. Larger mammals are generally accustomed 

to human activity, and long-term impacts should be no more than minor to species such as deer 

and coyote. To smaller species such as reptiles, the trail would be more of an impediment to their 

movements and may have long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts. The potential for 

impacts would be greatest in the vicinity of the Farmers Ditch, which supplies a source of water 

and cover to wildlife in the area. Rehabilitation of the trading posts would result in no impacts 

because of the lack of quality habitat in their vicinity.

Travel patterns of wildlife that tend to follow trail corridors, human scent, or use bridges may 

be disrupted. Animals that might be aff ected would include raccoons, feral animals, bobcats, 

coyotes, and potentially mountain lions. Impacts to these animal travel patterns would be long 

term, minor, and adverse.

In Alternative 3, potential connection to a community river corridor trail and other community 

trails would have short-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to wildlife and habitat owing 

to disturbance from construction. Impacts from the use of the trail(s) would be long term, 
145

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

minor, and adverse to species that are supported by habitat along the river. Mitigation would be 

developed prior to construction to minimize any impacts to wildlife in riparian or other aff ected 

habitats. 

The expanded footprint of the Aztec Ruins Trading Post, which would include a new activities 

center, would have short-term and only negligible, if any, adverse impacts to wildlife and 

associated habitat. This is because of the proximity of the proposed facility site to existing 

development and the lack of quality wildlife habitat.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would be the same as those described 

in Alternative 1. The monument’s Fire Management Plan could result in some minor, benefi cial 

impacts to native wildlife from vegetation clearing. Other similar contributions to cumulative 

impacts on area wildlife include habitat loss and fragmentation on surrounding lands because 

of past, present, and future development and other land uses. Scattered natural gas production, 

agriculture, and residential and commercial development surround the monument. New 

residential development is occurring to the north of the monument boundary, and the city is 

planning to expand its trail system. This could further increase the fragmentation of wildlife 

habitat and reduce travel corridors available to native wildlife, attract scavenging wildlife, 

decrease native vegetation, and potentially increase the spread of noxious weeds. This continued 

habitat loss outside the monument could result in long-term, minor, adverse impacts.

These impacts when combined with the long-term, minor, benefi cial and adverse impacts of 

Alternative 3 would result in long-term, negligible to minor, benefi cial cumulative impacts to 

wildlife in the Aztec area. 

Conclusion

Removal of the orchards would have a long-term, minor, benefi cial impact on native wildlife once 

native vegetation is restored. Wildlife would be adversely impacted in the short term because of 

trail construction activities and in the long term because of trail use by visitors, resulting in minor 

adverse impacts. Rehabilitation of the trading posts, including the new cultural activities center, 

would have no impacts because there is a lack of quality habitat in their vicinity. New trails that 

connect to a proposed community trail could result in some long-term, minor, adverse impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would be long term, negligible to minor, and benefi cial. There would be no 

impairment of wildlife resources from implementation of this alternative, and it would not result 

in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of NPS Management Policies 2006.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Impact Analysis 

Impacts to special status species from trail and building construction would be the same as 

described in Alternative 2, although there would be some additional construction activity in 

Alternative 3 related to the cultural activities center and the potential trail connection with the 

proposed community river trail. 

Trail construction in the vicinity of the Farmers Ditch could aff ect special status bat species that 

feed over the water. However, bats are not likely to be feeding during daylight when construction 

would occur; thus, these impacts would be minimal. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts to 

special status bat species could also result from periodic disturbance from visitor use of the trail. 

However, the monument’s hours of operation would limit use of the trail to daylight hours when 
146

CHAPTER 4

bats are not active. Implementation of Alternative 3 is not likely to adversely aff ect special status 

bat species.

Any impacts to avian species from trail construction along the Farmers Ditch would be short 

term and negligible to minor and would not likely adversely aff ect avian special status species 

such as the bald eagle, southwestern willow fl ycatcher, black tern, or yellow-billed cuckoo. Use of 

the trail would not likely adversely aff ect these species because of limited and controlled visitor 

use.

A potential trail connection to a community river corridor trail and other community trails 

would have short-term, minor, adverse impacts to wildlife and habitat because of disturbance 

from construction. Impacts from the use of the trail(s) would be long term, minor, and adverse 

to species that are supported by habitat along the river. The need for surveys for special status 

species would be evaluated prior to construction in the riparian community along the Animas 

River. This, in addition to other mitigation that would be developed prior to construction would 

not allow eff ects to wildlife in riparian or other aff ected habitats to be more than minor and 

would make adverse impacts to special status species unlikely. 

Western burrowing owls could be present in areas with prairie dog colonies. If prairie dog 

burrows are present in the area of proposed trail construction or any other proposed activity, 

surveys would be conducted prior to any disturbance to ensure avoidance of active burrowing 

owl nests. If nests are found, further consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 

occur prior to any such undertaking to identify appropriate mitigation measures and ensure 

that negligible to minor adverse impacts occurred. Because of this consultation and mitigation, 

burrowing owls are not likely to be adversely aff ected by this alternative. 

Regular use of the monument by peregrine falcons is unlikely. They would not be adversely 

impacted and would experience no more than negligible impacts from trail construction. 

Impacts to special status species from new facility construction would be short term and 

negligible because of the already disturbed nature of the area and lack of habitat for such species 

on the proposed site.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that could aff ect special status species 

are the same as in Alternatives 1 and 2. They include oil and gas development inside and outside 

the monument, residential development on the monument boundary, and trail construction by 

the city along the Animas River. Ongoing energy and residential development are most likely the 

greatest threats because they disturb habitat both in the short and long terms. The intensity of 

the impacts would be minor, but would most likely not adversely impact any of the listed species 

when proper mitigation measures are followed. Therefore, these impacts when combined with 

the short-term and long-term, minor, adverse impacts of Alternative 3 would result in long-term, 

minor, adverse cumulative impacts.

Conclusion

Construction activities related to the trail to East Ruin, North Ruin, and potentially the Animas 

River and the rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts would result in shortterm, negligible to minor, adverse impacts and would not likely adversely aff ect any special 

status species. Cumulative impacts would be long term, minor, and adverse. There would 

be no impairment of the monument’s special status species from this alternative, and its 
147

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

implementation would not result in any unacceptable impacts as outlined in §1.4.7.1 of NPS 

Management Policies 2006.

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

Impact Analysis 

The impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be the same as those under Alternative 2, 

except the educational opportunities would be greatly expanded as a result of the partnership 

and outreach program and the new cultural activities center. As described for Alternative 2, 

implementation of Alternative 3 would also improve the overall quality of the visitor experience 

off ered at Aztec Ruins National Monument. The impacts that are relevant to both Alternatives 2 

and 3 include the following.

The construction of the new trail would create a greater opportunity to experience the 

East Ruin, North Ruin, North Mesa, and associated resources. The trail would also 

provide access to overlook points, providing new opportunities for visitors to appreciate 

the view within and outside the monument. Thus, the trail would result in long-term, 

moderate, benefi cial impacts to visitor experience through these increased opportunities. 

In contrast, the addition of the new trail would cause visual impacts from the trail on 

the landscape, as well as from visitors using the trail, and result in long-term, minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts to the visitors and the viewshed. The trail would be sited with 

these concerns in mind to minimize impacts. 

Architectural modifi cations to the Aztec Ruins Trading Post, such as fl attening the existing 

roof, restoring the historic façade, and removing the doublewide administration trailer 

would have long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts on the historic viewshed and to those 

visitors viewing the prehistoric scene. Impacts to the prehistoric scene or viewshed would 

be minimized by structural alterations that would assimilate the remaining buildings 

into the surroundings. Removal of the non-ADA compliant trailer and renovation of the 

trading posts would have long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts to some visitors and 

occupants who are mobility impaired since the adaptively reused buildings would be 

compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Removal of the pear and apple orchards and other ornamental vegetation would result 

in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts on visitor enjoyment. This would result 

in a landscape that more closely represents a natural scene of native vegetation that 

might have appeared during the period of Pueblo occupation. Removal of the orchards 

would also result in a long-term, moderate, benefi cial impact on visitor understanding 

of the most important cultural landscape in the monument — the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape. The ability of visitors to explore and make personal connections with the 

ruins and the Prehistoric Designed Landscape could be improved by removal of the 

orchards. Native vegetation would provide a more appropriate backdrop for appreciation 

and interpretation of the ruins.

Any remaining features of the Historic Vernacular Landscape, such as the farmsteads and 

other deteriorating structural remains, would continue to be a distraction for visitors for 

viewing the Prehistoric Designed Landscape. However, other structures in the Historic 

Vernacular Landscape, such as the drainage pond and lateral drainage ditches, are not as 
148

CHAPTER 4

much of a distraction. Therefore, some long-term, minor, adverse impacts would result to 

visitor experience from these continued distractions.

Removal of the orchards could also result in a long-term, negligible adverse impact on 

visitor understanding of the Historic Vernacular Landscape. Many other opportunities 

exist to compare and contrast how diff erent peoples interacted with their environment 

and to connect with a relatively recent historic agricultural landscape.

Under Alternative 3, the interpretive focus of the monument would be expanded beyond West 

Ruin, as described in Alternative 2, to include resources in a regional context, interpretation 

of the continuum of history, and occupation of the region. This would lead to a greater 

understanding and appreciation of monument resources within a regional and historical context. 

This expanded focus and increased access combined with eff ective interpretation would result in 

short- to long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts. 

In Alternative 3 only, the addition of a new cultural activities center and new partnerships would 

provide opportunities for visitors to experience a variety of programs and activities conducted 

by the National Park Service, tribes, and other partners. An example of such a benefi t through 

partner participation would include the possibility of extending the hours that visitors can 

enjoy the new trail by having partners available to assist visitors. Collaboration with universities, 

opportunities for research, and contributions to regional knowledge would also be encouraged, 

allowing for more knowledge of both the monument and the surrounding culture. Museum 

exhibits would be updated to refl ect regional context. Demonstration farming based on 

traditional Native American agriculture would be located near the cultural activities to educate 

visitors. These eff orts would result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts to educational 

opportunities and visitor experience. Visitor use might increase as a result of the regional 

emphasis and greater involvement by tribes and other partners.

The new cultural activities center would also increase the building footprint from approximately 

2,713 square feet to approximately 6,000 square feet, resulting in long-term, minor, adverse 

impacts to visitors viewing the remnants of the prehistoric landscape. The impacts would be 

mitigated and minimized by creating a sensitive low-profi le design, planting trees for screening, 

and locating the buildings in a developed area. Connections to the potential river corridor trail 

would also have a negligible eff ect on the viewshed, because it would be mostly screened by 

existing vegetation. 

Trail connections to the potential river corridor trail would also increase access and 

opportunities to experience the riparian zone along the Animas River and other portions of the 

monument, resulting in short- to long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts.

Cumulative Impacts

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be the same as in Alternatives 

1 and 2. Ongoing oil and gas well development within and outside the monument would 

adversely impact visitor experience because of the potential viewshed impacts. However, existing 

regulations would minimize these impacts within the monument where possible and work to 

ensure visual and other characteristics of the prehistoric designed landscape are preserved for 

visitor enjoyment. Potential residential development outside the monument also threatens the 

prehistoric scene. Because of the proximity of oil/gas and residential development to the new trail 

and North Ruin, the impacts to visitors from observing this development would most likely be 

long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse.
149

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that are being undertaken by the city and would most likely 

aff ect visitors include the extension of Main Street and the trail system along the Animas River. 

Both actions would provide access to new visitor opportunities outside the monument, such as 

walking and biking, which could ultimately connect with the monument and result in long-term, 

minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts for area visitors. When combined with the predominately 

benefi cial impacts of Alternative 3, long-term, moderate benefi cial, cumulative impacts could 

occur.

Conclusion

Similar to Alternative 2, long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial impacts would occur to the 

visitor experience from development of the new trail, expanding the interpretive and educational 

focus for visitors beyond the West Ruin to other resources, removing the administration 

trailer and rehabilitating the Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts, and removing the pear and 

apple orchards and other ornamental vegetation that detracts from the Prehistoric Designed 

Landscape. In Alternative 3, the new cultural activities center and the partnership program would 

result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts because of expanded information sharing and 

educational opportunities. Some long-term, minor, adverse impacts would occur to the viewshed 

because of the new facility and trails. Cumulative impacts would be long term, moderate, and 

benefi cial. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Impact Analysis

Local Economy. Similar to Alternative 2, the interpretive focus of the monument would broaden 

and visitors would be able to experience and learn about more of the ruins and other resources 

at the monument. However, the increased focus on regional resources and partnerships with 

tribes and other organizations and the addition of the cultural activities center to provide for 

multiple purposes such as education, demonstrations, and meetings, would most likely increase 

the visibility of and interest in Aztec Ruins National Monument, resulting in increased annual 

visitation in the long term. Increased annual visitation coupled with an increased length-of-stay 

because of the new interpretive trail and expanded interpretive focus would most likely result 

in visitor spending levels that exceed current levels, resulting in long-term, minor to moderate, 

benefi cial impacts to the local economy. However, similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, long-term 

trends would also depend on national and regional economic conditions. However, in Alternative 

3, the increased number of relationships within the regional area through partnerships, research 

opportunities, and other programs could help increase the number of local and regional visitors 

and minimize the eff ects of these national trends. 

Similar to Alternative 2, ongoing monument operations, the rehabilitation of the Aztec Ruins 

Trading Post and Kiva Trading Post, the construction of the interpretive trail, and the removal of 

the administration trailer would result in short-term and long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to 

the local economy because of expenditures related to supplies, construction materials, and local 

labor. Current and new staff proposed under this alternative would also continue to contribute 

to the local economy in a long-term, negligible, but benefi cial way through their expenditures for 

housing, food, and other daily and long-term needs within the local and regional area. 

Adjacent Land Use. Similar to Alternative 2, increased traffi c and noise related to construction 

activities could result in short-term, negligible, adverse impacts. The new interpretive trail to 

North Ruin and cultural resource demonstrations could increase visitor activity in the vicinity 
150

CHAPTER 4

of the monument boundary where residential development could occur. However, this would 

not impact residents. The cultural resource demonstration area would have long-term, minor, 

benefi cial impacts to nearby landowners by creating a positive and purposeful use for an open 

space area that is currently infested with weeds. Overall, adjacent landowners would most likely 

continue to benefi t from the proximity of the monument to their lands.

Cumulative Impacts

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could contribute to cumulative impacts 

would be the same as in Alternatives 1 and 2 and include ongoing oil and gas operations, the 

proposed residential development adjacent to the monument, the updated comprehensive land 

use plan, and creation of the city trail and related parking. All of these operations and projects, 

if instituted or approved by the City of Aztec, would be for the purposes of expanding the local 

economy and generating additional revenues. Residential construction could result in potentially 

new families moving into the area and spending their dollars within the local economy. Similarly, 

the new trail along the Animas River could provide new recreational opportunities for visitors to 

the area, potentially increasing the length of stay for many visitors and their related expenditures 

within the local community. The comprehensive plan for the city would continue to foster a 

positive environment for economic growth. In part or in whole, these projects would result in 

long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts to the local economy.

These impacts when combined with the short-term and long-term, negligible to moderate, 

benefi cial impacts of Alternative 3 would result in long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial 

cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion

Annual visitation would most likely increase because of the development and promotion of 

the cultural activities center, increased local and regional partnership opportunities, and the 

enhanced interpretive and educational focus on regional resources. Thus, visitor spending would 

most likely increase beyond current levels resulting in long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial 

impacts to the local economy. Ongoing monument operations, increased employee spending, 

and an increased number of short-term construction projects would also contribute to the local 

economy, resulting in short-term and long-term, minor, benefi cial impacts. Adjacent landowners 

would experience short-term, negligible, adverse impacts, as well as long-term, minor, benefi cial 

impacts. Cumulative impacts would be long term, moderate, and benefi cial. 

MONUMENT OPERATIONS

Impact Analysis

Facilities. Similar to Alternative 2, the use of the rehabilitated Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading 

Posts for additional and more effi cient offi ces and workspace would result in long-term, 

moderate, benefi cial impacts. These buildings would benefi t monument operations by adding 

useable facilities for functions such as cultural resources offi ces, work space, laboratories, and 

administrative offi ces. 

The adaptive reuse of the buildings would pose risks to those involved in renovation of the 

buildings from potential exposure to hantavirus, lead paint, and other hazards. The resulting 

short-term, negligible, adverse impacts would be mitigated by hiring construction professionals 

who are experienced with such issues. 
151

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The new trail to the North Ruin and East Ruin would create the potential for people to wander 

off trail and onto unstable ruins. Other hazards associated with the trail include level of exertion, 

ease of emergency response, and natural elements such as sun and lightning. Mitigation would 

occur through the education of visitors and staff patrols. Risks associated with the new trail 

would result in short-term, negligible, adverse impacts on public health and safety.

In Alternative 3, the new cultural activities center would have long-term, moderate, benefi cial, 

impacts on the availability of facilities within the monument. The new facility would provide 

opportunities to accommodate a variety of activities for the National Park Service, tribal 

meetings, and other functions. The creation of this facility would fi ll a need for meeting/function 

space in the community. 

Staffi ng and Administrative Effi ciency. Impacts of Alternative 3 are the same as those for 

Alternative 2, except for additional impacts related to the cultural activities center and new trail 

connections. Short-term, minor, adverse impacts to operations would occur to staff managing or 

involved in construction of new facilities. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts could result from 

increased needs for protection along new trails and throughout the monument, maintenance 

of renovated buildings and new trails, broadening of preservation and other cultural resource 

activities, security concerns and emergency response, and increased compliance activities. The 

new trail would help to facilitate management of more remote areas of the monument, resulting 

in some benefi cial impacts. Mitigation would include hiring of additional staff , if possible, and 

acquisition of project funding. Alternative 3 could be implemented over an extended time period 

and to a limited degree as opportunities present themselves and staffi ng allows. 

Maintenance of the new trail would also be necessary, requiring new skills and tools at the 

monument. The trail would create the need for increased resource protection and additional 

areas with interpretive functions, including media. The new trails would have long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts on operations and administrative effi ciency. Any impacts could be mitigated 

through shared services in the Eastern Four Corners Group of the National Park Service.

Removal of the pear and apple orchards would result in some short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

to staff time while managing the removal operation, as well as long-term, moderate, benefi cial 

impacts on monument operations because it is less expensive to maintain native vegetation than 

pear orchards. In addition, there would be a long-term, minor, benefi cial impact on the ability to 

identify, monitor, and conduct research on prehistoric cultural resources.

In Alternative 3, the new cultural activities center and the potential extended trail system would 

result in additional staffi ng needs. Increased opportunities for partnerships and collaboration 

would be pursued, which could result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts through 

information sharing, program effi ciencies, and volunteer eff orts. These partnerships and 

collaborations could also have some short-term, minor, adverse impacts while staff develop and 

administer the programs for educational outreach. Recognizing that partnership programs would 

require staff time, the net long-term benefi t of these programs would remain moderate. 

Conservation Potential. Impacts would be the same as in Alternative 2, except for the 

construction and use of the new cultural activities center. These impacts include the following; 

Rehabilitation of the Kiva and Aztec Ruins Trading Posts and associated new construction would 

have short-term, moderate, adverse impacts during construction because of energy consumed 

by construction equipment. Conservation potential realized through adaptive reuse of the 

trading posts would result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts because of the potential for 
152

CHAPTER 4

installing energy- and water-effi cient building systems, using state-of-the art heating, ventilation, 

air conditioning systems, lights that operate on sensors, and low-fl ow fi xtures.

Rehabilitation of the trading posts, removal of the administration trailer, and construction of the 

trail would require energy use resulting in short-term, minor, adverse impacts. All construction 

and rehabilitation activities would use recycled materials and employ mitigation techniques such 

as erosion and sediment control. 

Constructing a new cultural activities center would have short-term, minor, adverse impacts 

because of energy required by construction equipment and the use of building materials. 

Conservation potential would be achieved by specifying use of recycled, local, and rapidly 

renewable materials and by recycling construction waste. 

Building a new facility would have long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts because of 

conservation potential. The new facility would be designed and constructed to be energy 

effi cient or even energy producing. There is an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in energy 

management to the public as showcased in a new facility or adaptive reuse of an existing facility. 

This leadership could provide some long-term benefi cial impacts on energy and resource 

conservation in the region. The monument could enhance community awareness about the 

importance of energy conservation and environmental design.

Cumulative Impacts

Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, past and present activities that aff ect monument operations 

include the expansion of the monument boundaries that occurred in 1988 and current and 

ongoing oil and gas operations. These activities required and continue to require additional staff 

time to manage resources within the expanded monument boundary and to identify and address 

potential impacts and needed mitigation associated with oil and gas wells. Thus, long-term, 

moderate, adverse impacts to monument operations have resulted. 

Reasonably foreseeable future activities include the trail along the Animas River that may 

be designed and built by the City of Aztec. Because visitors using the trail would enter the 

monument ruins through the visitor center, no new impacts are anticipated.

These impacts combined with the benefi cial impacts of the building rehabilitations, including 

the cultural activities center and new partnerships, and the adverse impacts associated with 

new demands on staff in Alternative 3 would result in long-term, minor to moderate, benefi cial 

cumulative impacts on monument operations.

Conclusion

As in Alternative 2, the rehabilitated Aztec Ruins and Kiva Trading Posts would result in longterm, moderate, benefi cial impacts to monument operations because of increased space for staff 

and monument needs. The new trail to North Ruin and East Ruin, continued outreach activities, 

and increased need for visitor and resource protection, among other needs, would result in 

long-term, minor, adverse impacts on staff effi ciency. However, in Alternative 3, the addition 

of the new cultural activities center would result in long-term, moderate, benefi cial impacts on 

monument operations by improving community relationships, augmenting staff with volunteers, 

and strengthening visitor services and protection of resources. Cumulative impacts would be 

long term, minor to moderate, and benefi cial. 
CHAPTER 5:

CONSULTATION AND

COORDINATION

I

nformation and comments gathered from the scoping brochure, 

scoping meetings, and consultation with state and federal 

agencies, among other information resources, were used to 

develop the alternatives ways of managing Aztec Ruins National 

Monument.

153

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, 

INCLUDING SCOPING

The planning process formally began when the notice of intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2003. As explained 

later in this section, this EIS was changed to an environment assessment following scoping 

because it was determined that no signifi cant impacts would occur. Since the notice of intent, 

public involvement for the Aztec Ruins National Monument General Management Plan / 

Environmental Assessment (GMP/EA) has included:

 Scoping newsletter released in September 2003 to initiate the plan

 Five public and tribal scoping meetings in four diff erent locations in October 2003 

 Second newsletter released in January 2004 outlining comments from meetings and 

describing preliminary planning data

 Public open house at the monument in May 2004 to review draft alternatives for the GMP

 Focus group meeting in November 2004 on potential economic impacts 

Since late 2004 when the last formal meetings were held, the National Park Service has continued 

to provide updates on the status of the Aztec Ruins GMP to tribes, agencies, and inquiring 

members of the public upon request. Internal delays have slowed the development of this GMP.

A brief summary of each newsletter or meeting is provided below, including comments from 

the general public, agencies, and tribes. These meetings are summarized in context of the GMP 

planning process, including scoping and alternatives development.

SCOPING 

To initiate the Aztec Ruins GMP and to engage members of the public, agencies, and tribes in 

the planning process a scoping brochure (or newsletter) and a series of public meetings were 

held to introduce the GMP process and to gather comments. Comments collected during this 

process helped to identify issues and opportunities to be considered in developing alternatives 

for managing the monument’s future.

SCOPING NEWSLETTER

A scoping brochure was released in September 2003 that presented the project background and 

planning interests to be addressed in the GMP, detailed the phases of the planning process, and 

outlined opportunities to become involved. Comments received include some of the following.

People expressed a desire to fi nd more ways to understand the ancestral Pueblo from the past 

through today. A three-dimensional model of the monument was suggested to give visitors a 

better visual perspective of the site. Other suggested maps included an area map and a map of any 

future excavation areas. People also suggested audio and guided tours as regular options at the 

monument. Installing wayside signs at various points of interest in the monument was seen as a 

good way to provide people information while not being intrusive.
154

CHAPTER 5

Several comments focused on new trail development. There was excitement about the possibility 

of having features like a native plant path and natural education trails that could include the 

riparian area along the Animas River.

Connecting the monument to the surrounding community was addressed in numerous 

comments. One recommended that an educational specialist be hired by the monument to assist 

in the coordination of educational programs made available by the monument for area schools. 

Others suggested that the monument host special events, such as the solstices and equinoxes, to 

encourage more people to visit. Inviting tribes to the monument to demonstrate things like social 

dancing was another suggestion.

One commenter raised concerns about the stewardship of the new lands acquired by the 

monument. Lack of regular orchard irrigation, spread of noxious weeds, and the occurrence of 

trash in the Farmers Ditch were the primary concerns.

SCOPING MEETINGS — OCTOBER 2003

A series of public and tribal information meetings were conducted in October 2003 at various 

locations in New Mexico. Public information meetings were hosted on October 16 in the City 

Council Chambers in Aztec and at an open house at the monument on October 18. Meetings 

with tribal representatives and other members of the public occurred on October 27 in Santa Fe, 

October 28 in Albuquerque, and October 29 in Gallup. A reoccurring topic in all meetings was 

interpretation. 

Meeting attendees encouraged the expansion of the interpretive emphasis beyond the West Ruins 

to other areas of the monument, as well as out into the community to promote an awareness of 

how Aztec Ruins is connected to contemporary native peoples of the Southwest. Individuals were 

interested in a more diverse range of services, including demonstrations and tours, and more 

interactive opportunities such as watching stabilization activities or working with educators. The 

concepts of living community — how the land changes over time — and living culture were also 

emphasized as important stories to share. Others suggested that sharing of more artifacts and oral 

traditions could help bridge time between original occupants and today’s visitors. 

Some encouraged the monument to identify cultural resources, partners, and activities that could 

support the development of a “Heritage” concept that could be interwoven with monument 

programs. It was also suggested that the monument develop relationships with interested tribes 

and invite tribes to demonstrate dances, food preparation, and arts at cultural events. 

The importance of good working relationships among the monument, the City of Aztec, and 

the tribes was also emphasized. Sharing information with others was also discussed in detail. 

It was suggested that sites ranging from the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, the University of 

New Mexico, and local chambers of commerce should be approached by the monument about 

displays and other types of joint opportunities.

Consultation with the tribes was emphasized on a variety of levels from the formal governmentto-government consultation to more informal conversations on a personal level. 

SECOND NEWSLETTER — JANUARY 2004

A second newsletter was released in January 2004. It defi ned what a general management 

plan is, explained the seven phases of the planning process, summarized public and tribal 

comments from the series of informational meetings conducted in the fall of 2003, summarized 
155

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, INCLUDING SCOPING

responses to the September scoping newsletter, summarized the visitor survey (see “Alternatives 

Development” below), and provided the latest version of the Foundation Statements. Because it 

summarized the results of previous meetings, public comments were not solicited.

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

Information and comments gathered from the scoping brochure and scoping meetings in 

October 2003, among other information resources, were used to develop the alternative ways of 

managing Aztec Ruins National Monument. A visitor survey, described below, was also initiated 

early in the planning process to help identify visitor needs and to ensure these needs were 

considered in future management strategies. 

The alternatives were developed during a series of workshops conducted with monument staff , 

tribal representatives, and other monument stakeholders. In these workshops, participants were 

involved in reaffi rming the key opportunities and concerns that should be addressed by the GMP, 

analyzing cultural and natural resources, and reviewing the foundation statements that had been 

developed earlier in the planning process. This resulted in the creation of management zones, 

the development of preliminary alternatives, and the identifi cation of partnership opportunities 

to help implement the alternatives. The management zones and alternatives are presented in 

Chapter 2, “Alternatives.”

VISITOR SURVEY

From March 2003 through February 2004, Northern Arizona University gathered information 

on visitors for use in the monument’s general management plan. Over the course of the survey, 

monument staff distributed 977 questionnaires with 964 returned, for a 99% response rate. 

Information was gathered on visitor demographics, their reasons for visiting, where they went, 

high and low points of their visit, and their feelings about how Aztec Ruins is currently and 

should be managed in the future. This visitor survey information was used in the development 

of alternatives for management, including programs in interpretation, visitor services, facility 

development, and resource management. Some of the more relevant comments included the 

following.

Survey respondents indicated that their stop at Aztec Ruins was one of many stops they were 

making as part of a larger travel plan, which often include stops to Mesa Verde National Park, 

Aztec Museum, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, 

or Salmon Ruins. The night before coming to Aztec Ruins, 8% of visitors stay in Aztec and 

another 62% of visitors stay within forty miles of the monument. 

The monument attracts visitors from the surrounding regions, across the country, and 

internationally. Thirteen percent of visitors were from New Mexico, followed by visitors 

from California, Texas, and Colorado. Approximately 52% of visitors came from other states 

throughout the United States. Foreign visitors contribute 4% of the total visitation. 

Of those surveyed, 85% were fi rst-time visitors to the monument. Most often, visitors said that 

their reasons for visiting were to see the archeological ruins, to learn and see how people lived 

back then, to satisfy curiosity, or to gain a perspective on the present through understanding 

the past. Some of the most popular activities participated in by visitors while at the monument 

included walking on the West Ruin Trail, looking at the visitor center exhibits, watching the 

movie, and browsing the bookstore. Most visitors indicated that crowding was not a concern. 
156

CHAPTER 5

Forty-six percent of visitors indicated that they had either a fairly good or extensive knowledge 

of the site before arriving at the monument. Fifty-one percent said they had either a somewhat or 

very limited knowledge prior to their visit.

When asked what type of interpretive/educational opportunities they would like to see at Aztec 

Ruins, those surveyed indicated interest in the following: self-guided walks (61%), interpretive 

and educational talks (55%), and museum exhibits and artifacts (54%). Interest in additional 

opportunities included: self-guided interpretive trails to unexcavated ruins (59%), chances to 

view more of the prehistoric community (59%), guided tours to unexcavated ruins (53%), and 

48% indicated an interest in seeing more of the natural surroundings, including the river, birds, 

and other wildlife.

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE — MAY 2004

On May 1, the monument hosted a public open house to share the results of the Alternatives 

Workshop. Visitors were invited to review materials and respond. A wide range of comments 

were received, including the following.

Resource concerns were expressed related to the proper management and watering of the 

orchards and the suggestion that stabilization was covering too much of the monument area.

Related to trails, commenters suggested that a pedestrian trail along Farmers Ditch and the gas 

and oil lines be considered as a way for visitors to experience more of the monument. A trail to 

the East Ruin was also seen as a great chance for visitors to see unexcavated ruins. It was also 

suggested that more benches and information related to the scene be provided at existing trails. 

While most people expressed an interest in extended trails, one comment did caution that the 

preservation of sites should take precedence over risking deterioration of excessive visitation.

There was a concern that visitors may not understand the signifi cance of the Great Kiva. It was 

suggested that more rangers in the Great Kiva was one way to help share the concept of the 

“Home of the Great Kiva.” Other ideas included a discussion concerning the great distances over 

which supplies and materials necessary to build the site were brought, or having people dancing 

to music in the Great Kiva as an example of traditional dances. Greater use of movies or video 

(indoors, out of the heat) could also show how people used spaces, how people live here, and 

what items they used every day.

The need for additional staff was also raised. An educational coordinator could focus on 

education plans and would be much appreciated by teachers. More tour guides to help people 

(groups of four or more) were also suggested. It was suggested that the monument should “court 

the people” to improve community relations and encourage more local involvement.

One commenter was concerned about the eff ects of city-related development on Aztec Ruins. 

The commenter indicated that visitors need to be able to make a “spiritual connection” with 

the monument to ensure that it is preserved and protected, and that development could impact 

this connection. The monument is the City of Aztec’s biggest draw and must be kept pristine. 

Other concerns about activities outside the boundary of the monument included possible 

water contamination from the proposed development north of the monument. There was also 

concern about potential pollution from the development’s septic systems and about eff ects to the 

prehistoric road that extends beyond the monument boundary into this development.
157

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, INCLUDING SCOPING

FOCUS GROUP ON ECONOMICS — NOVEMBER 2004

A focus group meeting with members of the community was hosted at San Juan College in 

Farmington, New Mexico, the morning of November 18, 2004, to obtain information relating to 

potential impacts on the socioeconomic environment and regional understanding and eff ects on 

the quality of life of community residents.

CHANGE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT

It was originally intended to provide an EIS with this GMP. This was so announced in a Federal 

Register notice on October 8, 2003, and via a scoping newsletter. During scoping, the public did 

not identify issues or concerns that led the planning team to conclude that they would lead to 

signifi cant impacts on the environment. After public scoping was completed, three alternatives 

were developed, impacts were assessed, and a proposed action was identifi ed. The impact 

analysis of the alternatives revealed no signifi cant adverse impacts on the human environment or 

impairment of monument resources and values. 

Because the public did not identify signifi cant impacts and the impacts analysis did not reveal 

signifi cant adverse impacts, the planning team requested a waiver to prepare an environmental 

assessment associated with the GMP, rather than an EIS, as provided for in paragraph 4.4 of the 

Director’s Order 12 Handbook. In March 2006, the National Park Service associate director, 

Natural Resources Stewardship and Science, approved of the request for the waiver. Offi cial 

notifi cation of the change was printed in the Federal Register on April 15, 2009.

GMP/EA REVIEW

This GMP/EA will be distributed for public and agency review with a comment period of 60 

days. During this period, public meetings or open houses will be provided by the National Park 

Service to solicit public comment. Additionally, this document will be provided to all state and 

federal agencies (listed in the next section), individuals, and groups that are participating in 

planning for the national monument. The National Park Service will consider all comments to 

verify that an EIS is not needed and to draft a Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI). The 

FONSI will be sent to the Intermountain regional director for approval and signature.
158

CHAPTER 5

CONSULTATION WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND NEW MEXICO STATE 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 

Consultation was initiated in September 2001 with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation 

Offi cer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as stipulated in Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Both agencies were notifi ed of the project via 

letter, copies of which are included in Appendix E. The national monument staff contacted the 

state historic preservation offi cer again in September 2003 to invite them to participate in the 

public and agency scoping meetings held throughout New Mexico in late October 2003. The 

State Historic Preservation Offi cer and their staff participated and provided comments in the 

scoping meeting held in Santa Fe on October 27, 2003. 

As noted in Chapter 4, the National Park Service does not intend to use the National 

Environmental Policy Act process and documentation to comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act for specifi c projects identifi ed within this GMP. The National 

Park Service will comply with Section 106 (36 CFR 800) as it proceeds with further projects and 

plans. Additional consultation will occur related to the proposed actions outlined in this GMP.

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Informal consultation was fi rst initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in November 

2003. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded during the same month, outlining general 

guidelines and providing a list of federal species of concern. In 2006, the National Park Service 

again consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because of the time that had lapsed 

since initial planning eff orts began. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responded and directed 

the National Park Service to consult a regional Web site that identifi es New Mexico listed and 

sensitive species by county. This letter is included in Appendix E. The information from the Web 

site was used to guide the species analyzed in the Environmental Consequences chapter under 

“Species of Special Concern.” In September 2009, the regional Web site was consulted to confi rm 

that the list of species at Aztec Ruins and their current status was the same as identifi ed in 2006. 

The status of several species, such as the bald eagle, had changed; thus, appropriate changes were 

made in the document (see Table 8).

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH 

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish was contacted via letter in April 2006. A letter 

of response was received in May 2006 identifying New Mexico wildlife of concern for San Juan 

County. The National Park Service again consulted the state Web site in 2009 to reconfi rm the 

state-listed species evaluated in the environmental assessment.
159

CONSULTATION WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES

NEW MEXICO ENERGY, MINERALS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES

The Forestry Division of New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources was also 

contacted by letter in April 2006 to receive any additional input on fi sh, wildlife, and plants of 

state concern. No response was received.

COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES

All American Indian tribes associated with Aztec Ruins National Monument were contacted in 

September 2003 through a letter that provided information on the GMP planning eff ort and that 

invited tribal representatives to participate in public scoping meetings. Associated tribes include 

the following:

Some tribal representatives attended and provided comments at scoping meetings held in 

both Albuquerque and Gallup on October 28 and 29, 2003, respectively. Aztec Ruins National 

Monument staff members participate in annual American Indian Consultation Committee 

meetings with affi liated tribes in conjunction with other national parks such as Chaco Culture 

National Historical Park and Mesa Verde National Park. The status of the Aztec Ruins GMP, 

including some discussion on the alternatives and schedule updates, was presented at the 2006 

and 2007 annual meetings. Aztec Ruins will continue to communicate with the tribes as the GMP 

is implemented.

 Hopi Tribe

 Jicarilla Apache Nation

 Mecalero Apache Tribe

 Navajo Nation

 Pueblo of Acoma

 Pueblo of Cochiti

 Pueblo of Isleta

 Pueblo of Jemez

 Pueblo of Laguna

 Pueblo of Nambe

 Pueblo of Picuris

 Pueblo of Pojoaque

 Pueblo of Sandia

 Pueblo of San Felipe

 Pueblo of San Ildefonso

 Pueblo of San Juan

 Pueblo of Santa Ana

 Pueblo of Santa Clara

 Pueblo of Santa Domingo

 Pueblo of Tesuque

 Pueblo of Taos

 Pueblo of Ysleta del Sur

 Pueblo of Zia

 Pueblo of Zuni

 Southern Ute Indian Tribe

 Ute MountAin Tribe
160

CHAPTER 5

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

PREPARERS OF THE GMP/EA

National Park Service — Aztec Ruins National Monument

Matilda Arviso, Administrative Offi cer — Assisted in development of GMP and alternatives for 

document.

Gary Brown, Chief, Cultural Resource Management/Acting GMP Liaison — Contributed to 

all sections of the document, particularly archeological resources and cultural landscapes. Has 

worked with the National Park Service for nine years. Prior to his National Park Service career, 

he worked with private-sector cultural resource/environmental consulting companies, including 

several years under contract with the National Park Service.

Dennis L. Carruth, Superintendent — Responsible for management of the Aztec Ruins 

National Monument, including the coordination of the planning process at the monument 

level. Contributed to all sections of the document and led all of the public scoping activities and 

consultation with tribes. Responsible for future implementation of the General Management 

Plan. Thirty-two years with the National Park Service.

George Herring, Former Chief of Interpretation — Contributed to multiple sections of the 

document, particularly Visitor Experience and Education Opportunities.

Terry Nichols, Chief, Visitor Services/Resource Management — Contributed to multiple sections 

of the document. Thirty years with the National Park Service.

Charlene Yazzie, Chief of Maintenance — Contributed to multiple sections of the document. 

More than 25 years with the National Park Service in various positions in four parks, with the last 

15 years spent in facility management.

National Park Service — Intermountain Region

Jill Cowley, Historical Landscape Architect — Provided guidance on cultural landscape analysis 

and issues, contributed to cultural landscape sections of the document, reviewed drafts. Twentythree years experience with the National Park Service, 10 years in park planning and 13 years in 

managing the IMR Cultural Landscapes program.

Jeff Heywood, Former Team Leader, Landscape Architect/Planner — Responsible for overall 

management of the project. Contributed to all sections of the document. Experience writing 

general management plans, development concept plans, and environmental impact statements. 

Thirty years with the National Park Service; retired in January 2009.

Karen Lusby, Community Planner — Organized document, completed environmental impacts, 

and contributed to multiple sections of document. Assumed management of GMP in January 

2009. Twenty years of experience managing planning and compliance projects for the National 

Park Service.

Suzy Stutzman, Lead Planner — Assisted in development of GMP document. Has worked for the 

National Park Service for 31 years.
161

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

CONTRIBUTORS AND CONSULTANTS

Contractor

Nicole Korbe, Former Vegetation and Wildlife Specialist/Environmental Planner

National Park Service — Aztec Ruins National Monument

Tracy Bodnar, Park Ranger

James Brown, Retired Maintenance Work Leader

Brian Culpepper, Former Archeologist

Grady Griffi th, Information Technology Specialist

Frank Hayde, Former Park Ranger/Interpretation

Gayle Lopes, Retired Human Resources Assistant

Jerome Lopez, Former Maintenance

Marti Stebbins, Visitor Use Assistant/Fees

National Park Service — Intermountain Region

Wayne Gardner, Former Chief of Planning and Environmental Quality 

Greg Kendrick, Heritage Partnerships, Regional Partnership Coordinator 

Lori Kinser, Visual Arts, Production Specialist 

Richard Kohen, Lead Interpretive Planner

Sarah Lowry, Geographic Information Systems Specialist 

Vicki Magnis, Former Geographic Information Systems Specialist 

Nancy Shock, Geographic Information Systems Specialist

Kim Sikoryak, Retired Interpretive Planner 

Jim Trott, Retired Archeologist 

Mark Tyboroski, Former Structural Engineer

Sean Worthington, Geographic Information Systems Specialist

National Park Service — Other Contributors

Kate Cannon, Deputy Superintendent, Grand Canyon 

Stephanie Dubois, Former Superintendent, Chaco Culture National Historical Park and Aztec 

Ruins National Monument

Betty Janes, Retired Assistant Superintendent, Mesa Verde National Park

Pat O’Dell, Petroleum Engineer, Washington Offi ce Geological Resources Division

Ernest Ortega, Former New Mexico State Coordinator
162

CHAPTER 5

Western National Parks Association — Aztec Ruins National Monument

Cyresa Bloom, Former Bookstore Manager

City of Aztec

Robert Anderson, Former Aztec City Planner

Erik Aune, Former Aztec City Planner

Sally Burbridge, Aztec Chamber of Commerce, Executive Director

Leanne Hathcock, Aztec Public Library Offi cial

Others

Larry Baker, Executive Director, Salmon Ruins

Linda Carlson, Copy Editor, Carlson Editing

Marty Lee, Principal Investigator for Visitor Survey, Northern Arizona University 
163

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bogan, Michael A., Keith Geluso, Shauna Haymond, and Ernest W. Valdez 

2007 Mammal Inventories for Eight National Parks in the Southern Colorado Plateau 

Network. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/IIMR/SCPN/NRTR-2007-

054. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Brown, Gary M., Thomas C. Windes, and Peter J. McKenna 

 2008 Animas Anamnesis: Aztec Ruins or Anasazi Capital? In Chaco’s Prodigies: 

Salmon, Aztec, and the Ascendancy of the Middle San Juan Region after AD 

1100, edited by Paul F. Reed, pp. 231–250. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake 

City. 

Bureau of Business and Economic Research 

2008 University of New Mexico BBER Population Projections for New Mexico and 

Counties. Viewed on 9-09-08 at http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/table1.htm. 

ePodunk 

2008 Population Growth of Counties, New Mexico. Viewed on 9-08-08 at 

http://www.epodunk.com/top10/countyPop/coPop32.html 

2008 Aztec Community Profile. Viewed on 9-08-08 at http://www.epodunk.com/cgibin/genInfo.php?locIndex=17784 

Esber, George S., and Adolph M. Greenberg, with Edith P. Morgan 

ND. Cultural Affiliation Study: Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

Ford, Dabney, Martha Damas, Neville Agnew, Robert Blanchette, Shin Maekawa, and Michael 

Romero Taylor 

 2004 Chaco Canyon Reburial Programme. Conservation and Management of 

Archaeological Sites 6(3&4): 177–202. Special Issue on Site Reburial. 

Johnson Matthew, Jennifer Holmes, Maureen Stuart, and Janet Lynn 

2007 Avian Inventories for Six National Parks in the Southern Colorado Plateau 

Network. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/FRTR-2007/047. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Lister, Robert H., and Florence C. Lister 

 1987 Aztec Ruins on the Animas: Excavated, Preserved, and Interpreted. University of 

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Reprinted by Western National Parks 

Association, 2007. 

 1990 Aztec Ruins National Monument: Administrative History of an Archeological 

Preserve. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Professional Papers No. 24. 

National Park Service, Santa Fe. 

Morris, Earl H. 

1928 Notes on Excavations in the Aztec Ruin. Anthropological Papers Vol. 26, Part 5. 

American Museum of Natural History, New York City. 
164

CHAPTER 5

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1989 General Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument. Copy available at Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

1990 Administrative History of an Archeological Preserve, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument Administrative History, page 190, paragraph 2, referencing original 

perceived needs that led Senator Jeff Bingaman to sponsor PL 100-559. 

1993 Land Protection Plan, Aztec Ruins National Monument. Copy available at Aztec 

Ruins National Monument. 

1993 NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design. Available online. 

1996 Resources Management Plan, Aztec Ruins National Monument. Copy available at 

Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

1998 Cultural Landscapes Inventory, Ancient Aztec Community, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument. Revised 2005. 

1998 Cultural Landscapes Inventory, Aztec Ruins Historic District, Aztec Ruins 

National Monument. Revised 2002. 

1998 Cultural Landscapes Inventory, Historic Vernacular Landscape, Aztec Ruins 

National Monument. Revised 2005. 

1998 Director’s Order 28, Cultural Resource Management. Available online at: 

http://data2.itc.nps.gov/npspolicy/DOrders.cfm. 

2000 Draft Restoration Site Plan — Northeast Oldfield/Pasture, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument. 

2001 Aztec Ruins National Monument Strategic Plan 2001 through 2005. 

2001 Director’s Order 12, Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-Making. Available online at: 

http://data2.itc.nps.gov/npspolicy/DOrders.cfm. 

2002 Environment Assessment, Relocate Ruins Road, Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

Copy available at Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

2002 NP Species Report for NRMAP Project, Aztec Ruins National Monument,

Vascular Plants with Nativity of Non-Native, Unknown, or Null. 

2002 Remodeling Interior of Visitor Center, Aztec Ruins National Monument. Copy 

available at Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

2003 Economic Impacts of Visitor Spending by Parks, 2003. Viewed on 9/25/08 at 

http://web4.canr.msu.edu/mgm2/ParkOutput.cfm) 
165

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2004 Visitor Survey, Final Draft Report, Aztec Ruins National Monument, prepared by 

Dr. Marty Lee and Gretchen Teich (graduate assistant) for the National Park 

Service. Copy available at Aztec Ruins National Monument. 

2005 The Kiva Trading Post Condition Assessment and Preservation 

Recommendations, Historic Preservation Report, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument, National Park Service, November 1, 2005. 

2006 National Park Service Management Policies 2006. 

2006 Public Use Statistics Office, Recreation Visitors. Northern Arizona University,

School of Forestry. Viewed at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/NPstats/dspAnnual 

Visits.cfm. 

2007 Park Museum Collection Storage Plan. Park Museum Management Program, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Viewed at 

http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/plans/parkmuseumcollectionstorageplan.pdf

on on 9-24-09. 

2007 Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping Summary, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument, New Mexico. Prepared by Katie Kellerlynn, March 2007. Geologic 

Resources Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior. 

New Mexico Department of Labor 

2008 New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, Employment Statistics. 

Viewed at http://www.dws.state.nm.us/LMI/pdf/ta2007.pdf on 9-25-08. 

Richert, Roland 

 1964 Excavation of a Portion of the East Ruin, Aztec Ruins National Monument, New 

Mexico. Technical Series No. 4. Southwest Monuments Association, Globe. 

Rink, Glenn, and Anne Cully 

 2008 A Checklist of the Vascular Flora of Aztec Ruins National Monument, San Juan 

County, New Mexico. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 125(4):571–584. 

Rivera, Angela Bass, Brian Culpepper, Jake Barrow, and Preston Fisher 

2004 Partial Reburial of West Ruin at Aztec Ruins National Monument. Conservation 

and Management of Archaeological Sites 6(3&4): 285–294. Special Issue on Site 

Reburial. 

Salas, David, Dave Wegner, and Lisa Floyd-Hanna 

2008 Vegetation Classification and Mapping Report, Aztec Ruins National 

Monument. Natural Resource Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR-2008. National Park 

Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Stein, John R., and Peter J. McKenna 

 1988 The Archeological Reconnaissance of a Late Bonito Phase Occupation near Aztec 

Ruins National Monument, New Mexico. National Park Service, Division of 

Anthropology, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe. 
166

CHAPTER 5

Stynes, Daniel J. 

2007 NPS Visitor Spending and Payroll Impacts 2006. Michigan State University,

October 2007. 

Trott, Jim 

In prep. 1984 Archeological Excavations at West Ruin for Preservation Modification. 

Report in preparation by National Park Service, Intermountain Region Support 

Office, Santa Fe. 

1997 Aztec Ruins National Monument Backfilling Plan for West Ruin. National Park 

Service, Intermountain Support Office, Santa Fe. 

U.S. Census Bureau 

2000 State and County Quickfacts, San Juan County, New Mexico QuickLinks. 

Viewed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35045lk.html 

2008 State and County Quickfacts, San Juan County, New Mexico QuickLinks. 

Viewed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35045lk.html 

U.S. Geological Survey 

2002a 2001 Avian Inventory Annual Report for Southern Colorado Plateau National 

Parks: Aztec Ruins National Monument, El Morro National Monument,

Petroglyph National Monument, Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument,

and Yucca House National Monument. 

 2002b Results for First-Year Herpetofauna Inventories of Southern Colorado Plateau 

National Parks. USGS Biological Resources Division, Forest and Rangeland 

Ecosystem Science Center, Colorado Plateau Field Station, Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

2003 2002 Mammalian Inventory Annual Report for Southern Colorado Plateau 

National Parks: Aztec Ruins National Monument, El Morro National 

Monument, Petroglyph National Monument, Salinas Pueblo Missions National 

Monument, and Yucca House National Monument. 

2004 New Mexico Noxious Weed List. 

http://usgssrv1.usgs.nau.edu/swepic/asp/swemp/list.asp?status=New%20Mexico 

Viewed on 12/27/2004 

Valdez, Ernie 

2004 Personal communication on May 14, 2004, between U.S. Geological Survey 

Albuquerque Wildlife Biologist Ernie Valdez and Theresa Nichols, Aztec Ruins 

National Monument, regarding the Gas Well EA and bats. 

Vivian, Gordon C. 

 1959 The Hubbard Site and Other Tri-Wall Structures in New Mexico and Colorado. 

Archeological Research Series No. 5. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 

Wall, Denis 

2000 NM Business Journal, July. Putting It Together — San Juan County New Mexico 

— Statistical Data Included. 
167

GLOSSARY

ABBREVIATIONS 

CEQ — Council of Environmental Quality

CFR — Code of Federal Regulations

EA — Environmental Assessment

EIS — Environmental Impact Statement

FONSI — Finding of No Signifi cant Impact

GMP — General Management Plan

NEPA — National Environmental Policy Act

NRHP — National Register of Historic Places

NPS — National Park Service

USC — United States Code

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Accessibility — The provision of National Park Service programs, facilities, and services in ways 

that include individuals with disabilities or makes available to those individuals the same benefi ts 

available to persons without disabilities. 

Aff ected Environment — Resources expected to experience environmental impacts.

Affi liated American Indian Tribes — The lineal descendents or culturally affi liated American 

Indian groups, for the purposes of fulfi lling the intent of the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act. 

Archeological Resources — Any material remains or physical evidence of past human life or 

activities which are of archeological interest, including the record of the eff ects on the human 

environment. Archeological resources may range in size from a single isolated artifact on the 

surface of the ground or below the ground’s surface, to huge structural ruins, middens, mounds, 

landscape modifi cations, or other features. The term generally refers to items that have been 

abandoned and are falling into decay. There is no time limit regarding when the human life 

or activity must have occurred for the evidence to be considered an archeological resource. 

It could have occurred as recently as last year, or any time prior to recorded history. At Aztec 

Ruins National Monument, there are both historic archeological resources, dating to the 

defi ned historic period of 1880 to 1960 (see defi nition of “historic resources”), and prehistoric 

archeological resources, dating to the defi ned prehistoric period of A.D. 1050 – 1300 (see 

defi nition of “prehistoric resources”). An archeological resource is capable of revealing scientifi c 

or humanistic information through archeological research. At Aztec Ruins, and elsewhere 
168

CHAPTER 5

throughout the United States, American Indian human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, 

and objects of cultural patrimony belong to culturally affi liated American Indian groups through 

the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

Archeological Site — At Aztec Ruins National Monument, the term archeological site refers 

to an assemblage of 10 or more artifacts with or without a feature, or a feature with or without 

artifacts. (An artifact is a portable object that was made or used by people, and a feature is a nonportable landscape modifi cation that was made or used by people, such as a campfi re hearth or a 

Chaco great house.) The boundary of an archeological site is marked when the distance from one 

artifact to the next is greater than approximately eight to nine meters. 

Archeology — The scientifi c study, interpretation, and reconstruction of past human cultures 

from an anthropological perspective based on the investigation of the surviving physical evidence 

of human activity and the reconstruction of related past environments. Historic archeology uses 

historic documents as additional sources of information. 

Associated American Indian Tribes — Tribes with cultural associations to the area of the 

monument that include a distinct set of beliefs and a relationship to the sites, geography, and 

landscapes of the monument area. This association precedes the establishment of the monument 

by numerous generations. 

Conservation — The protection and preservation of natural and cultural resources from harm. 

Historically, the terms conserve, protect, and preserve have come collectively to embody the 

fundamental purpose of the National Park Serve – preserving, protecting, and conserving the 

national park system.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) — An agency of the president’s offi ce created under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to serve as “caretaker” of NEPA. 

Cultural Landscape — A geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources, the 

vegetation, and the wildlife therein, that is associated with an historic or prehistoric event, 

activity, or person, or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. Cultural landscapes have 

meaning for people, because of their historic or prehistoric signifi cance. Stories about human 

occupation and use of these landscapes are important values that are associated with them. 

Elements that contribute to cultural landscapes include vegetation; structures such as buildings, 

walls and fences, and habitat and ceremonial ruins; roads and circulation systems; and water 

features. NPS units may contain no cultural landscapes, or numerous cultural landscapes, some 

of which may overlap each other. The signifi cance of a cultural landscape, especially as relates 

to the purpose of the NPS unit; the period of signifi cance; the location, size, and confi guration 

of the landscape within the unit; and the contributing elements all combine to determine how 

that landscape should be managed, and what type of visitor experience is appropriate for the 

landscape. 

Cultural Resources — Aspects of a cultural system that are representative of a culture or 

that contain information about a culture. Cultural resources may be tangible entities such as 

structures, museum objects, archeological resources, cultural landscapes, or ethnographic 

resources; or intangible activities such as cultural practices. 

Environmental Assessment — A NEPA document that is prepared with, with public 

involvement, (a) to help determine whether the impact of a proposed action or its alternatives 

could be signifi cant; (b) to aid the NPS in compliance with NEPA by evaluating a proposal that 

will have no signifi cant impacts, but may have measurable adverse impacts; or (c) as an evaluation 
169

GLOSSARY

of a proposal that is either not described on the list of categorically excluded actions, or is on the 

list, but exceptional circumstances apply.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative — Alternative that will promote the national 

environmental policy expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act.

Final Plan — Guides future park management.

Finding of No Signifi cant Impact (FONSI) — Documents agency’s fi nal decision in a planning 

process, following release of environmental assessment.

Foundation for Park Planning and Management — Describes purpose, signifi cance, primary 

interpretive themes, mission, mission goals, and special mandates; briefl y summarizes the 

servicewide legal and policy requirements applicable to all units of the national park system; 

identifi es and analyzes those resources and values, including opportunities for public enjoyment, 

determined to warrant primary consideration in park planning and management.

General Management Plan — A plan which clearly defi nes direction for resource preservation 

and visitor use in a park, and serves as the basic foundation for decision making. GMPs are 

developed with broad public involvement.

Historic Resources — A district, site, structure, or landscape signifi cant in American history, 

architecture, engineering, archeology, or culture; an umbrella term for all entries in the National 

Register of Historic Places. For purposes of discussion, the historic period at Aztec Ruins dates 

from 1880 to 1960, when relatively recent items that still exist on site, such as farming and 

ranching facilities, and the visitor center, fi rst appeared. This is to diff erentiate from the term 

prehistoric resources, which applies to landscapes, buildings, ruins, and other structures that date 

back to the period of major occupation of the site by the Pueblo Indians in A.D. 1050 – 1300. 

Impact Analyses — Rigorous analysis of each alternative to determine potential environmental 

(natural, cultural, and socioeconomic) impacts as required by the Council on Environmental 

Quality. Analysis attempts to estimate the degree to which the resource will be aff ected. This 

includes consideration of context, intensity, duration, and timing.

Impairment — An impact so severe that, in the professional judgment of a responsible National 

Park Service manager, it would harm the integrity of park resources or values and violate the 1916 

National Park Service Organic Act. 

Management Zones — A management zone is a specifi c geographical area in the monument 

to which is assigned a set of desired futures for resource condition, visitor experience, and 

development facilities, based on the cultural and natural resources contained within that zone. 

Each zone defi nes a diff erent set of desired futures. 

Need — Discussion of existing conditions that need to be changed, problems that need to be 

remedied, decisions that need to be made, and policies or mandates that need to be implemented. 

Why the park must take action at this time and in this place.

“No-Action” Alternative — As a rule for GMPs, the no-action alternative would continue 

present management actions. Sets a baseline of existing impact continued into the future against 

which to compare impacts of action alternatives. 

Preferred Alternative — Alternative that is believed to best accomplish park goals.
170

CHAPTER 5

Prehistoric Resources — Within the context of this document, the term prehistoric resources 

refers to landscapes, buildings, ruins, and other structures at Aztec ruins National Monument 

that date back to the period of major occupation of the site by the Pueblo Indians in 1050 – 1300 

A.D.. Other terms that are used somewhat interchangeably with prehistoric in this document 

are ancestral Pueblo and ancient. This is to diff erentiate from the term historic resources, which 

applies to landscapes, buildings, structures, and other facilities on-site that date back to the 

period from 1880 to 1960. 

Preservation — For the purposes of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties, preservation means the act or process of applying measures necessary to 

sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property.

Protection — The words conservation, preservation, and protection are used throughout this 

document. Although they have similar meanings, there are fi ne diff erences. In the context of 

this GMP, protection is defi ned as follows: The use of legal and physical mechanisms to protect 

resources and the environment from further degradation. It does not include management 

actions that might serve to restore or sustain, but emphasizes lessening or preventing adverse 

impacts to resources from external infl uences and activities. It may be more narrow in its 

perspective than conservation or preservation, such as to protect a single species, geographic 

area, or structure. See also the defi nition for conservation and preservation.

Purpose — Statement of goals and objectives that the National Park Service intends to fulfi ll by 

taking action.

Reasonable Alternatives — Defi ned by the Council on Environmental Quality as those 

alternatives that are economically and technically feasible and show evidence of common sense.

Rehabilitation — The process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or 

alteration, which makes possible an effi cient contemporary use while preserving those portions 

and features of the property which are signifi cant to its historic, architectural, and cultural 

values. This requires preservation of contributing elements and may require some changes as 

needed for continued operations and visitor use. Within this overall approach, some areas of the 

monument may be preserved (e.g., the archeological resources) and some partially restored (e.g., 

the Chacoan landscape to more prehistoric agricultural conditions and changes to the plantings 

in front of the visitor center).

Resource Area — A unit of land containing a composition of cultural and natural resources and 

values that are interrelated and make up a component of the purpose and signifi cance of Aztec 

Ruins National Monument. It is a tool to provide for better understanding of the resources 

and to help organize the resources and values of the monument into geographic areas, so that 

management prescriptions can be developed to protect important resources, provide for visitor 

use and understanding, and meet management planning and operational goals and objectives. 

Soundscape— The aggregate of all the natural, non-human-caused sounds that occur in the 

monument, together with the physical capacity for transmitting natural sounds. 

Stabilization — Intervening treatment action taken to increase the stability of durability of an 

object when preventative conservation measures fail to decrease its rate of deterioration to an 

acceptable level or when it has deteriorated so far that its existence is jeopardized. 
APPENDIXES

171

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION
172

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION
173

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION
174

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION
175

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION
176

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION
177

APPENDIX A: LEGISLATION
178

APPENDIX B: RESOURCE AREAS

West

Ruin East Ruin

North Ruin

Great

Kiva

Ruins Road

Ruins Road

Aztec North Road

(Approx.Location)

5600

5800

5800

5700

5600

5600

Animas River

Farmers Ditch

1

2

3

41

51

3 1

2

Residence

West

Aztec Ruins National Monument

Resource Areas

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

7

1

2

4

3

5

6

8

9

0 500 1,000

Feet

New Mexico

Resource Areas

Residence West

North Ruin

Flats

Alluvial Fan

West Ruin

East Ruin

Agricultural

Floodplain

Pasture

BOUNDARY

55 Acres

74 Acres

38 Acres

29 Acres

9 Acres

14 Acres

29 Acres

32 Acres

38 Acres

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IMDE

1/1/09

319

20,040

Resource Areas represent significantly different areas of the monument in terms of 

archeology, topography, vegetation, land cover, and land use. The map serves as 

a site analysis tool to help better understand the resources and existing conditions 

and to help determine management zones.

LEGEND

Base Data

Existing Trail

Drainage (Irrigation)

Stream/Ditch

Contour (20 Foot Interval)

Mound/Ruin

Building

Orchards

Non-Historic Road

Prehistoric Road

Parking Lot

Picnic Area

Historic District

Maintenance Compound

Visitor Center

Facilities

1

2

Kiva Trading Post

Aztec Ruins Trading Post

3

Gas Well

Authorized Boundary 317.8 Acres

Administration Offices

(Double-Wide Trailer)

5

4
179

APPENDIX B: RESOURCE AREAS

Resource Areas and Attributes

RESOURCE 

AREA ATTRIBUTES

Location and General 

Description

Cultural Resources Opportunities for Visitor 

Experience



Residence West

(55 Acres)

Undulating land on upper 

river terrace (mesa), elevation 

5,800 ft.; surrounded by steep 

cobble slopes, desert scrub, 

and grass; capped natural gas 

well. Bordered by monument 

boundary to north and west; 

Farmers Ditch to south and 

drainage to east.

Many archeological sites, 

artifacts, and prehistoric 

landscape features. 

Opportunities for research.

Views of Main Ruins Group, river 

valley, and city; unexcavated 

archeological resources; and 

prehistoric designed landscape. 

Opportunities for specially 

requested guided tours for 

specifi c programs or groups.



North Ruin

(74 Acres)

Undulating land on upper river 

terrace (mesa), elevation 5,800 

ft.; surrounded by steep cobble 

slopes, desert scrub, and grass; 

active natural gas wells with 

associated roads. Bordered by 

monument boundary to north 

and east, drainage to west, 

Farmers Ditch to south.

Many archeological sites, 

artifacts, and prehistoric 

landscape features. 

Opportunities for research.

Views of Main Ruins Group, river 

valley, and city; unexcavated 

archeological resources; and 

prehistoric designed landscape. 

May be accessible to disabled 

visitors, unobtrusive learning 

support facilities, guided and 

self-guided tours.



Flats

(38 Acres)

Open fi eld, orchard, exotic 

and native vegetation, and 

active natural gas resources. 

Bordered by Farmers Ditch on 

north, alluvial fan and West 

Ruin to east, and monument 

boundary to west and south. 

Also bordered by housing 

development to south.

Prehistoric landscape features, 

including unrecorded 

archeological sites. Historic 

landscape features, including 

orchards, Farmers Ditch, and 

homestead.

Potential demonstration area; 

interpretation of historic use. 

Guided or self-guided tours.



Alluvial Fan

(29 Acres)

Open fi eld, exotic and native 

vegetation, prairie dog colony. 

Area bordered by fl ats to west, 

Farmers Ditch on north, East 

and West ruins to south, and 

County Road 2900 (Ruins 

Road) to east.

Prehistoric landscape 

features, including recorded 

archeological sites. Historic 

landscape features, including 

Farmers Ditch and agricultural 

structures. Connection to 

West and East Ruins.

Opportunity for guided or selfguided tours (loop trail), historic 

structures and prehistoric 

resources, alluvial fan, and 

riparian zone.



West Ruin

(9 Acres)

West Ruin Complex—

excavated ruins. Interpretive 

trail—main interpretive site 

of monument. Bordered by 

orchards and fl ats to west, 

projected alignment of 

Chacoan road and East Ruin 

to east, maintenance trail and 

Historic District to south, and 

alluvial fan to north.

Excavated and partially 

preserved ruins. 

Reconstructed kiva.

Main interpretive area, 

most accessible, handicap 

accommodations (full or nearfull accessibility to facilities), 

reconstructed kiva, rooms with 

intact roofs. Current school 

tour area. Interpretation of 

preservation activities.



East Ruin

(14 Acres)

East Ruin Complex—

unexcavated ruins. Bordered 

by maintenance complex to 

south, projected alignment 

of Chacoan road and West 

Ruin to west, County Road 

2900 (Ruins Road) to east, and 

alluvial fan to north.

Unexcavated large ruin 

complex.

Opportunities for interpretation 

of unexcavated ruins; full or 

near-full accessibility facilities.
180

RESOURCE 

AREA ATTRIBUTES

Location and General 

Description

Cultural Resources Opportunities for Visitor 

Experience



Agricultural

(29 Acres)

Far northeast corner of 

monument. Bordered by 

County Road 2900 (Ruins 

Road) to west, monument 

boundary to north and east, 

and fl oodplain to south. 

Terraced, grazed, and farmed, 

residential development—

privately owned. Area farmed 

historically, and historic 

Farmers Ditch runs through 

part of zone.

Poorly known, owing to lack 

of fi eld survey and inventory. 

Moderate potential for 

ancestral Pueblo and historic 

cultural resources.

Interpretation of cultural 

landscape. Opportunity for 

special events/group activities. 



Floodplain

(32 Acres)

Animas River fl oodplain area 

south of terraced agricultural 

area. Bordered to west by 

Ruins Road and pasture and by 

river and monument boundary 

to east and south.

Historic landscape. Water— access to Animas River. 

Potential trail to, or along, river 

corridor.



Pasture

(38 Acres)

Either current or former 

pasture. Contains 

development. Bordered by 

monument boundary and river 

to south, monument boundary 

and fl ats to west, maintenance 

trail and West and East Ruins 

to north, and fl oodplain to 

east. Southern portions are 

privately owned.

Archeological and historic 

sites, artifacts, and prehistoric 

and historic landscape 

features.

Potential demonstration area. 

Possible foot bridge/trail. Historic 

orchards/interpretation for 

historic use. Continuum of use. 

Opportunities for interpretation 

of connection of ruins to river.

APPENDIX B: RESOURCE AREAS
181

APPENDIX C: CARRYING CAPACITY

CARRYING CAPACITY STEPS 

The carrying capacity process for national parks typically involves the following steps: 

1. Identify desired conditions (goals) for resources and visitors. 

2. Identify indicators (things to monitor to determine whether desired conditions are 

being met). 

3. Identify standards (limits of acceptable change) for the indicators. 

4. Monitor indicators. 

5. Take management action as necessary to ensure that standards are met. 

6. Regularly evaluate and make adjustments based on new information and lessons 

learned. 

Step 1: identify desired conditions, involves assigning management zones that have different 

desired resource and visitor conditions to different park areas. 

Step 2: identify indicators, often begins with a discussion of park and zone- specific resource and 

visitor experience concerns (signs that desired conditions are perhaps not being met). 

Discussing specific concerns helps managers identify potential resource and visitor experience 

indicators to monitor. Depending on the situation, managers may also consult scientific 

literature, conduct research, consult other park managers, consult public opinion, and apply 

management judgment to assist with identifying indicators. 

Step 3: identify standards, involves using scientific information, combined with best judgment, 

to establish the minimum acceptable condition for an indicator. (A standard does not define an 

intolerable condition. It is not a condition that managers should strive to achieve, unless 

intolerable conditions already exist.) 

Step 4: monitor indicators, means checking indicators to see if conditions are deteriorating or if 

standards are being exceeded. Ideally, monitoring involves systematic and periodic 

measurement of indicators according to a predefined plan. With limited NPS staff and budgets, 

park managers must focus on areas where there are definite concerns and/or clear evidence of 

problems. This means monitoring should generally take place where: 

conditions are at or violate standards 

conditions are changing rapidly 

specific and important values are threatened by visitation 

effects of management actions are unknown 
182

APPENDIX C: CARRYING CAPACITY

Step 5: take management action, means taking corrective steps to address deteriorating or 

unacceptable conditions. Management action includes things like expanding education or 

information, requiring visitor guides or permits, delineating trails, extending seasons or hours, 

expanding facilities, establishing one- way trails, increasing patrols, implementing temporary 

closures, or redirecting use. Using a combination of strategies provides managers with greater 

flexibility and allows them to address multiple dimensions and causes of undesired impacts. 

Reducing use may appear to be the obvious solution to visitor use impacts, but less restrictive 

strategies may work as well and have fewer undesired consequences. 

Step 6: sometimes referred to as adaptive management, means remaining flexible and “learning 

as you go.” Park managers rarely have all the information they desire to make decisions. 

Nonetheless, they are responsible for ensuring that park resources remain unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations, which may mean taking a cautious or conservative approach 

while gathering additional information. Adaptive management also includes using best 

judgment, trying different things to see what works, and adapting as new information becomes 

available.
183

APPENDIX D: ALTERNATIVE CAST AND 

STAFFING COMPARISON

ESTIMATED COSTS AND STAFFING FOR ALTERNATIVES 1, 2, AND 3 

COST ITEM 1 ALTERNATIVE 1:

NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3:

PROPOSED

 ACTION 

ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS 2

(ONPS)

$1,130,000 3 $1,250,000 4 $1,320,000 5

 

STAFFING (FTE) 6 16 18 19 

TOTAL ONE-TIME COSTS $430,000 $2,420,000 $3,460,000

 FACILITY COSTS 7 $430,000 $2,400,000 $3,440,000

 Aztec Ruins Trading Post 8 (Removal) 60,000 1,260,000 2,300,000

 Kiva Trading Post 370,000 370,000 370,000

 Administrative Trailer 0 (Removal) 10,000 (Removal) 10,000

 Interpretive Trail 0 760,000 760,000

 NON-FACILITY COSTS 9

 (Remove Orchards, Alts. 2 & 3) 

$ 0 $ 20,000 $ 20,000

1

 Costs are in 2009 dollars, rounded to the nearest ten thousand dollars. 

2

 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. 

3

 Includes $16,000 annual cost of maintaining orchards. 

4

 Excludes $16,000 cost of maintaining orchards; and includes cost of two additional FTE over Alternative 1: 

Office Automation Clerk/Receptionist

Archeologist 5

 Excludes $16,000 cost of maintaining orchards; and includes cost of three additional FTE over Alternative 1: 

Office Automation Clerk/Receptionist 

Archeologist 

Educational/Interpretation Outreach Specialist 6

 The total number of FTEs is the number of person-years of staff required to maintain the assets of the monument at 

a good level, provide acceptable visitor services, protect resources, and generally support the monument’s 

operations. The FTE number indicates ONPS-funded NPS staff only, not volunteer positions or positions funded by 

partners or projects. FTE salaries and benefits are included in the annual operating costs. 

7

 One-time facility costs include those for the design, construction, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of visitor 

centers, roads, parking areas, trails, administrative facilities, comfort stations, educational facilities, entrance 

stations, fire stations, maintenance facilities, museum collection facilities, and other visitor facilities. Costs consist 

of Net Construction Cost + Gross-Up (Construction Supervision [8%] & Contingencies [10%]) + Planning, Design, 

& Compliance (22%). 

8

 Costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 are based on approved Administration Facility Planning Model, with 10 NPS staff 

(Alternatives 2 & 3), and 50 people in Cultural Activities Center (Alternative 3); including landscaping at 15% of 

building cost. 

9

 One-time non-facility costs include actions for the preservation, removal, or other management of cultural or 

natural resources not related to facilities; the development of visitor use tools not related to facilities; and other park 

management activities that would require substantial funding above park annual operating costs. 
184

APPENDIX E: CONSULTAION LETTERS
185

APPENDIX E: CONSULTAION LETTERS
186

APPENDIX E: CONSULTAION LETTERS
187

APPENDIX E: CONSULTAION LETTERS

NPS 319/100156