BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES: 

 THE STORY BEHIND CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL

by 

Joseph P. Sánchez 

Bruce A. Érickson 

Jerry L. Gurulé 

2001 

1
Preface

The past is out of reach, buried 

deep—Who can discover it?--

Ecclesiastes 7:24 

Why a history of Coronado National Memorial? In some ways, history is the 

recording of events in a formal and factual way in order to gain an understanding of the 

past and present and, perhaps, to ascertain trends leading to the future. In that same 

manner, the present administrative history of Coronado National Memorial reveals 

underlying trends, practices, and themes that have, since 1941, gained, at least, in 

venerability, and others, more ancillary, that have long since disappeared. 

The creation of the Memorial left in its wake many lessons that evolved 

historically about the process involved in establishing an international park. On its face, 

the proposal for establishing a park on the U.S.-Mexico border between two friendly 

countries appears to be a simple matter of getting both parties to agree to the proposition. 

Yet, the historical complexity upon which the relationship is based is profound. In the 

first place, the historical experiences of the two nations resulted in disparate political 

practices and institutions; disparate cultural or world views; and, disparate historical 

traditions resulting in how each would define their public policies. In the political and 

cultural contexts of relationships between Mexico and the United States during the last 

half of the twentieth century, the concept of an international memorial was, at least, 

improbable, as it turned out. Still, hope springs eternal in certain circles today as it did 

for the National Park Service representatives in the 1940s who wished that Mexico would 

respond to their proposal for a Coronado International Memorial. In the end, the National 

Park Service settled for a National Memorial that would commemorate the eventful 

Coronado Expedition of 1540 and the harmonious relationships between Mexico and the 

United States. The historical question continues to beg for an answer: Will there ever be 

a reciprocal Coronado National Memorial on the Mexican side? 

The establishment of Coronado National Memorial, on the other hand, offered the 

usual procedural challenges of starting a National Park area. First, issues regarding size 

and location had to be resolved; then questions about budget and staffing need to be 

answered; and, finally, institutionalizing Coronado National Memorial into the National 

Park Service system as a full member followed. The latter occurred more fully when 

Mission 66 became policy in the development, restoration, and maintenance of National 

Park Service infrastructures. Coronado was the direct beneficiary of Mission 66, for it 

advanced the slow developmental process that had already begun to languish in the 

bureaucratic web of the 1950s. Without Mission 66, the development of Coronado 

National Memorial would have been ponderous. 

With the travails of developing Coronado, came the growing pains involved in the 

evolution of its interpretation program. The most galling issue revolved around how to 

tell the Coronado Expedition story. Along with the struggle to identify the primary 

theme, the self-identity of the park suffered somewhat. The usual question is: If 

Coronado did not pass through the park area, what is the Park Service doing here? From 

2
the beginning, the creators of the Memorial considered the possibility that the Coronado 

Expedition passed near the area. The viewshed offered from Montezuma Peak certainly 

covered the possibility that if one had stood there in 1540, the liklihood of catching a 

glimpse of the expedition would have been highly probable. On that point, the consensus 

of most historians who have studied the expedition is affirmative. Yet, from point of view 

of park staff, explaining that to the visiting public, in time, became less clear, and the 

park sought, in the 1970s to reaffirm that premise. During that period, Coronado 

National Memorial stressed the legacy aspects of the Coronado Expedition by 

emphasizing the cultural heritage of the area and its relations with Mexico and by 

instituting the Coronado Historical Pageant, that eventually evolved into the Borderlands 

Festival, which ran for several years. Additionally, the interpretation program at the 

Memorial has been developed to stress the history of the Coronado Expedition of 1540, 

relate its importance to the heritage of the area, and stress cultural, political, natural, and 

scientific relationships with Mexico. 

 Visitation at the Memorial is another trend that is continuously monitored. 

Today, the Memorial receives nearly 90,000 visitors. During the years 1972 to 1988 

when the Festival and similar programs ran their course, visitation received a varying 

boost ranging from roughly 800 to 13,000 people. In the past, tourism in the area aided 

in the visitation at the Memorial; and, it was also noted that visitation numbers increased 

when Fort Huachuca, Sierra Vista and other neighboring developments were on the 

upswing. Conversely, visitation seemed to decline when the aforementioned population 

centers underwent stress. Times have changed the dynamics of the relationship between 

tourism, population upswings/downswings and increases or decreases in visitation. At 

present, southeastern Cochise County is one of the fastest-growing areas in Arizona, yet, 

visitation at Coronado National Memorial seems to be decreasing. 

 The history of Coronado National Memorial as told in this narrative is about three 

generations: the generation that actively worked to get legislation passed to establish a 

commemorative place for this important legacy of our national story; the generation that 

implemented the establishment of the area inclusive of developing its structures, 

interpretive programs, roads, and infrastructure; and, the generation that currently 

maintains, protects, and continues the work of the Memorial. As the Memorial sits on the 

threshhold of the twenty-first century, it is the latter who holds the key to the future of 

Coronado National Memorial, for it is they who will pass the torch to those who will 

come after them. In that regard, the early chapters of this manuscript attempt to establish 

the narrative, chronology, and trends as the United States National Park Service wended 

its way through the bureaucratic course in attempting to establish Coronado International

Memorial. Similarly, the middle chapters deal with the acquisition of land for Coronado 

National Memorial; and, the concluding chapters discuss evolution of activities of the 

Memorial. Thus, what follows is dedicated to all who have worked to make Coronado 

National Memorial what it is. 

Collectively, the sources housed in various institutions amount to thousands of 

pages of correspondence, reports, news clippings, minutes of meetings, land transaction 

records, telegrams, and telephone notes. In writing this history, the authors encountered 

variations of the same information repeated in the different types of documentation. That 

phenomenon affected the organization of materials in this work. For example, the 

chapters dealing with Mexico utilize many of the same descriptions used in chapters 

3
dealing with land acquisition, for in many ways both topics interrelate. Similarly, the 

history of the founding of the Memorial crosses over into relations with Mexico and the 

many land transfers that occurred. Thus, the topics tend to build on one another. The 

result is a fascinating account of the history of Coronado National Memorial from its 

incipient stages to the culmination of its establishment and beyond. 

 In writing this history, the authors are indebted to many people whose assistance 

is greatly appreciated. Dr. Robert Spude of the National Park Service’s Intermountain 

Systems Support Office in Santa Fe, New Mexico, deserves a special acknowledgement 

for iniciating this important administrative history of Coronado National Memorial. The 

staffs at the National Park Service’s Western Archeological Conservation Center 

(WACC) in Tucson; at the Special Collections Library at Arizona State in Phoenix; at the 

Center for Southwest Research at the University of New Mexico; at the Arizona 

Historical Society in Tucson; at the Cochise County Assessor’s Office and the Recorder’s 

Office in Bisbee; and, at the Lands Office of the National Park Service’s Intermountain 

Support Office in Santa Fe, New Mexico. In particular, the authors gratefully 

acknowledge the staff at Coronado National Memorial, particularly Superintendent Jim 

Bellamy, Barbara Alberti, Scott Sticha, Henry Ruiz, Fred Moosman, and Nancy Wilcox 

for their assistance gathering much needed information. 

Joseph P. Sánchez, Ph.D 

Superintendent 

Spanish Colonial Research Center 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

14 February 2001 

4
Preface 

Part I—Historical Background 

Chapter I 

In the Eye of the Storm: The Creation of the Coronado International “Monument,” 

1939 to 1941 

Chapter II 

“At the Point on the International Border where Coronado crossed into the United 

States”: Bureaucrats, Historians and the Search for Coronado’s Route into Arizona, 

1872-1990 

Chapter III 

The United States-Mexico Conundrum and the Change from “Coronado International 

Memorial” to “Coronado National Memorial” 

Chapter IV 

A Memorial to Mr. Coronado, A Monument to Misunderstanding: The View from 

Cananea 

Chapter V 

From Master Plan to Mission 66 Accomplishments: Early Development of Coronado 

National Memorial, 1952-1966 

Chapter VI 

“...keen interest of...the people of Cochise County and elsewhere:” Grassroots Support 

for the Memorial 

Part II—Land Acquisition 

Chapter VII 

Nothing Ever Happens in Cochise County: Prehistory to 1952 

Chapter VIII 

Private Development and “Boundary Adjustment - a Radical Proposal”: 1952-1978 

Chapter IX 

Resources Made Available for the Enjoyment of the Public: 1978 to the Present 

Part III—Contemporary Issues 

Chapter X 

The Border: Mexican and American Issues, 1940—present 

5
Chapter XI 

The Memorial’s New Direction: Ecology and Biodiversity along the U.S. and Mexican 

Border 

Chapter XII 

Epilogue: The Development of Coronado Memorial and Its Interpretive Program 

Appendix A: Land Acquisitions and Transfers with references to Associated Structures 

Appendix B: Grazing 

Appendix C: Mining 

Bibliography 

6
Part I—Historical Background 

Chapter I 

In the Eye of the Storm: The Creation of the Coronado International “Monument,” 

1939 to 1941 

I can assure you that any more land withdrawals in Arizona 

are going to be mighty unpopular—G.M. Butler to Carl 

Hayden, 1940 

The Secretary of the Interior is not going to withdraw six 

thousand acres for a Coronado Monument....Such a 

proposal was made by the acting Regional Historian of the 

National Park Service at Santa Fé....I have no difficulty in 

putting my foot on it—Senator Carl Hayden to G.M. Butler, 

1940 

I do feel that the National Park people are so much more 

capable of a decision than I am that I have followed their 

proposals and given them my general support—Clinton P. 

Anderson to Senator Carl Hayden, 1940 

I had a good deal to do eleven years ago in getting the 

original bill passed 

—Arizona Congressman John Robert Murdock, 1952 

When, in 1941, the Coronado International Memorial (the predecessor of the 

present Coronado National Memorial) was authorized, many issues were presented that at 

any given point could have tolled the death knell for its establishment. Although the 

opportunity to create an international monument had presented itself in the 400th

anniversary of the Francisco Vázquez de Coronado Expedition, it would take the 

collective optimism of supporters for an international monument to bring it to fruition. 

Indeed, impetus for the international monument grew from the work of the Coronado 

Cuarto Centennial Commission that had been created by the United States Congress in 

7
1935.1

 As Arizona had not yet established its own chapter of the U.S. Coronado Cuarto 

Centennial Commission, Odd S. Halseth, a Phoenix archaeologist, was the Arizona 

representative on the National Advisory Committee of the New Mexico Commission.2 

Four years later, the Arizona Coronado Commission was created by the Gubernatorial 

Proclamation of July 27, 1939.3

 Working together, the supporters of the international 

monument on local, regional, national and international levels wore down the tired and 

weary obstacles in their paths. The story of the creation of the Coronado National 

Memorial is one of community spirit, a hallmark of our National character. 

On August 30, 1939, the Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission of Arizona 

adopted a resolution proposing that an international monument and museum be 

established on the U.S.-Mexico border, specifically between Arizona and Sonora, 

Mexico. The monument’s purpose would be to commemorate the 400th anniversary of 

the Coronado Expedition that had explored from western Mexico, through Arizona, New 

Mexico, western Texas, Oklahoma, and central Kansas. If ever a doubt existed 

concerning the clout the Commission enjoyed to make such a proposal, it was dispelled 

quickly by Charles M. Morgan, Executive Secretary of the Coronado Cuarto Centennial 

Commission. Transmitting a copy of the Commission’s resolution to the President of the 

United States, Morgan boldly, but firmly, stated his position. He wrote, “I am directed to 

request official action, by the President of the United States and by the necessary 

 

1

 Resume of the Coronado Project, probably authored by Odd S. Halseth in 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, 

folder 3. The entry for 1939 reads: “United States Congress passed a bill creating the United States Coronado 

Exposition Commission, with an appropriation of $200,000 for a program of Folk Festivals, publication of historical 

material and pageants to celebrate the Coronado Entrada in the various states supposed to have been visited by his 

expedition, namely Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas. These states set up ‘Coronado 

Commissions’ to plan for participation in this program, but received no share of the federal appropriation, except for 

the sum of ‘not more that $10,000 for the establishment of a suitable monument’ at or near the place where Coronado 

crossed the present border between Mexico and the United States. “ 

2

 Ibid. 

3

 Ibid. 

8
departments and agencies of the United States Government, in conjunction and 

cooperation with the President of Mexico and the necessary departments and agencies of 

the Mexican Government, to set aside and create said International Monument, at the 

place and in the manner and for the purposes set forth in the Resolution.”4

 

Additionally, the Resolution carried the endorsement of R.T. Jones, Governor of 

Arizona. Using his position as governor, Jones urged his old friend, U.S. Senator Carl 

Hayden, to use his influence on this matter. “I trust,” wrote Governor Jones, “that you 

will write the President, the secretaries of State and Interior, and any others, who, in your 

judgment, will be able to help expedite action on this proposal. It is important that it be 

pushed through as rapidly as possible, since 1940 is just around the corner.”5

Throughout September 1939, Senator Carl Hayden from Arizona, taking his lead 

from the Resolution, worked to establish the proper channels to communicate, 

diplomatically, with Mexican officials as well as with members of the American 

President’s cabinet, regarding the proposed international monument and museum. In 

exploring ways and means to create the international monument, Hayden, in a missive to 

Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, wrote, “I presume that such an international monument 

could only be established by joint proclamation of the Presidents of the United States of 

America and of the United Mexican States.”6

 Hayden then requested that the Secretary 

of State contact the American Ambassador to Mexico so that he could present the 

proposal to the proper Mexican officials. 

 

4

 Charles M. Morgan to the President of the United States, Phoenix, Arizona, September 1, 1939, Carl Hayden Papers, 

Arizona Collection, Arizona State University, Tempe (Hereinafter cited as Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 

2. 

5

 R. T. Jones to Carl Hayden, Phoenix, Arizona, September 13, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 6

 Carl Hayden to The Secretary of State, Washington, D.C., September 21, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, 

folder 2. 

9
With his request pending, Hayden, in early October wrote the Secretary of the 

Interior asking for the involvement of the National Park Service in this effort. “I realize” 

he wrote, “that you can reach no final decision in respect to the proposed cession of 

public land for this purpose until after the attitude of the Mexican Government is 

ascertained, but I shall be glad in the meantime if you will ask the National Park Service 

to investigate the feasibility of the land cession and of the monument erection along the 

lines proposed by the Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission of Arizona.”7 Along 

another line, Hayden reminded the Secretary of existing legislation aimed at establishing 

a monument to commemorate the historical event. “You will recall,” he recounted, “that 

Public Law No. 186 of the 76th Congress, approved July 17, 1939, authorizes the sum of 

$10,000 to be spent for the erection of a monument of this type, but does not, of course, 

specify that such a monument shall be of an international character.”8

Meanwhile, Hayden received a response, dated October 10, 1939, from Secretary 

of State Hull. In his reply, Hull wrote, “I take pleasure in informing you that I have 

recently sent instructions to the American embassy at Mexico City with the view of 

ascertaining the general attitude of the Mexican Government towards this matter. 

However, I am still awaiting a report from the Embassy. You may rest assured that I 

shall be glad to give every possible consideration to the international aspects of the 

Cuarto Centennial celebrations and render all appropriate assistance in that connection.”9 

Hull, nevertheless, was quick to point out to Hayden that the proposed domestic activities 

would be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior. 

 

7

 Hayden to The Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C., October 12, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 8

 Ibid., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

9

 Cordell Hull to Carl Hayden, October 10, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

10
Not long afterwards, John W. Finch, acting Assistant Secretary, the Department 

of the Interior, replied to Hayden. Finch informed him that given the Cuarto Centennial 

Commission’s Resolution, and the pending response from the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, 

“I am asking the National Park Service to consider the feasibility of the plan, to 

determine, if possible, the point where Coronado crossed into what is now the State of 

Arizona, and, if this point can be located to recommend appropriate boundaries.”10 

Exuberantly, Hayden wrote his friend R.T. Jones about his success in getting the National 

Park Service involvement in the international monument. Cautiously, he added, “You 

will note of course, that no final action can be taken by the Interior Department until the 

attitude of the Mexican Government is ascertained.”11 Within five days, Hayden was 

again in communication with Hull concerning the status of his request for information 

regarding Mexico. 

Meanwhile, the Cuarto Centennial Commission and Governor Jones’ office had 

been in contact with Mexican officials in Mexico City. On October 19, Jones informed 

Hayden that in a dispatch from the Associated Press in Mexico City dated September 29, 

the Mexican Government “will send a delegation’ to take part in the Coronado Cuarto 

Centennial Celebration.” Jones continued, over-optimistically, saying that Mexican 

officials “will cooperate in the establishment of a suitable monument to Coronado on the 

border, which is our Commission project for the establishment of the International 

Monument and the erection therein of a Coronado Memorial Museum at such suitable 

 

10 John W. Finch to Carl Hayden, Washington, D.C., October 20, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 11 Hayden to Jones, October 21, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

11
monument.”12 Hayden later learned that U.S. Ambassador Daniels could not confirm the 

Associated Press’ story. 

On a more realistic train of thought, Jones informed Hayden that the United States 

Coronado Exposition Commission member states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas 

had adopted a resolution to send a delegation to Mexico City to arrange “the details of 

Mexican Government participation.”13 Jones asked Hayden’s assistance on this matter. 

Meanwhile Secretary of State Hull informed Hayden that the American Embassy had 

been unsuccessful in acquiring “an expression of views of the Mexican Government 

concerning this matter, but so far the Mexican Government has not made a definite 

statement on the subject to our representative in Mexico City.”14 On November 26, Hull 

informed Hayden that the Mexican Government had requested additional information 

regarding the proposed international monument.15 By year’s end, Hull reported to 

Hayden that no word had been received on the Mexican Government’s position on the 

international monument.16 Perhaps the New Year would bring more optimistic tidings. 

Finally, in February 1940, the Mexican Government responded to the U. S. 

Embassy in Mexico City. Clinton P. Anderson, Managing Director, United States 

Coronado Exposition Commission in New Mexico, learned of the response from a copy 

of a letter from the U.S. Embassy. Writing to G.C. Dickens, Executive Officer, United 

States Coronado Exposition Commission in Washington, D.C., Anderson quoted a 

portion of the letter. “The American Ambassador to Mexico,” it stated, “informs the 

United States Coronado Exposition Commission that the Mexican Government will 

 

12 Jones to Hayden, Phoenix, Arizona, October 19, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 13 Ibid., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

14 Hull to Hayden, November 1, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. Hayden promptly informed 

Governor Jones on the situation, see Hayden to Jones, November 2, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 15 Hull to Hayden, November 25, 1939, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

12
accept the invitation to cooperate in the Exposition, and will later discuss the plans of 

participation.”17 Still, the Mexican Government’s response fell short of a commitment. 

Nonetheless, it stirred in Anderson a need to do something to draw in Mexican interest. 

Surely, Anderson’s proposals must have raised eyebrows. Anderson suggested 

that the Department of the Interior take the lead. He claimed that when, in April 1939, 

the Commission had met with the President of the United States, he was pulled aside and 

instructed by him that he wanted the Commission “to take an army of CCC young men 

or National Youth Administration boys and march them over the road which Coronado 

traveled.”18 Recognizing that the Mexican Government did not have the money to 

participate in the event, Anderson went a step farther. He wrote: 

I have in mind specifically this: rather than use NYA or CCC boys it will 

be far more colorful if we selected seventy-five young men from Mexico. 

I would like to have these young men selected from the descendants of 

members of Coronado’s expedition, but if that involves too much of a 

difficulty we could go on down the list and take them from the high school 

at Hermosillo if need be, which is only 150 miles below the border.19

At first, Anderson thought the idea to be feasible and began to think up grandiose plans 

for its implementation. 

Anderson suggested, depending on available funding, that the United States 

transport the young men from Mexico to points visited by Coronado such as Hawikuh, 

the Grand Canyon, Tiguex, Palo Duro Canyon (near Amarillo, Texas), Oklahoma, and 

Kansas. He wondered if it would be feasible for the U.S. Government to acquire cavalry 

horses and have the young Mexican men ride “a substantial portion of the trip on 

 

16 Hull to Hayden, December 29, 1939, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

17 Clinton P. Anderson to G.C. Dickens, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 2, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 

591, folder 2. 

18 Ibid., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

19 Ibid., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

13
horseback?”20 All this, pondered Anderson, could include a meeting of the two 

presidents from each country. Then he questioned whether the invitation to the American 

President “be conditional upon the willingness of the President of Mexico to meet him 

there?”21 Having brainstormed in his letter, he explained that “You can see from the 

above that I am trying to determine how much of this sort of expense the Federal 

government would be willing to assume in order to carry out what the President regarded 

as the proper part of the celebration.”22 Actually, on February 15, Anderson received an 

answer from Hayden regarding the cavalry horses. Hayden wrote that the Secretary of 

War advised that it would not be practical to furnish either cavalry horses or army trucks 

for use in the Coronado celebration.23

As Mexican participation floundered, so too, did the Commission’s hope for 

international cooperation. Hayden took a wiser route. In a telegram to Anderson, he 

wrote I “believe it to be advisable to withhold further action--looking toward general 

meeting until we can secure an expression of views from these individuals.”24 Turning to 

a more serious matter, Hayden sought an answer to Anderson’s query. That is, Anderson 

had raised two questions. The first question concerned the ability of the National Park 

Service or the Department of the Interior to indicate by February 20, whether or not a 

favorable recommendation could be submitted to Congress regarding the creation of an 

international monument at or near the point where Coronado first entered what is now the 

United States. Secondly, he asked whether or not an international museum within such 

 

20 Ibid., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

21 Ibid., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

22 Ibid., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

23 Hayden to Anderson, Telegram dated February 15, 1940, Hayden papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 24 Hayden to Anderson (Telegram) February 12, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 

14
an international park would be looked upon with favor by the United States?25 At that 

point, the questions were rhetorical. No one had a clear answer to either question. 

Meanwhile, Oscar L. Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the Department of the 

Interior, informed Senator Hayden that the National Park Service’s investigation of the 

feasibility of the proposed international monument had been made by a representative of 

the National Park Service’s Region III Office in Santa Fe. The report, when written, 

would be communicated to him.26 The field investigation team, led by Dr. Aubry 

Neasham, the Regional Historian for the National Park Service in Santa Fe, and a 

committee, had visited Arizona in mid-December. His head spinning with ideas about 

the international monument, Neasham met with the committee several times to formulate 

their reports and recommendations. Among his consultants was Dr. Emil Haury, Head of 

the Department of Anthropology at the University of Arizona, Tucson. In December, 

Haury wrote Neasham and expressed his views on the international monument. Haury 

explained that he supported the idea of the Coronado International Monument, and he 

urged the cooperation of the Mexican government toward that endeavor. “Soliciting the 

cooperation of the Mexican government,” he wrote optimistically, “should, it seems to 

me, be accomplished without too much difficulty. Apart from the objectives that such a 

monument would endeavor to reach, there would also be tangible evidence of a feeling of 

good neighborliness between our and the Mexican government.”27 Haury obviously did 

not know the difficulty Hull and Hayden had already experienced in their attempts to get 

a response from the Mexican Government. 

 

25 Hayden to the Secretary of the Interior, February 8, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 26 Oscar L. Chapman to Hayden, Washington, D.C., January 4, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 2. 27 Emil W. Haury to Aubrey Neasham, Tucson, December 19, 1939, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

15
By February 1940, Neasham had generated a series of reports dealing with the 

prospect of an international monument commemorating the Coronado Expedition of 

1540. The consultants to these reports included Jerome C. Miller, associate landscape 

architect, and W. Ward Yeager, associate forester of the National Park Service Region 

III, as well as Dr. Haury and Dr. Russell Ewing of the University of Arizona, Tucson. In 

mid-December 1939, they met with a team to survey the international border between 

Nogales and Naco to determine the establishment of an international monument “at or 

near the point where Coronado crossed from Mexico into what is now Arizona.”28 

Indeed, A.J. Wirtz, Under Secretary, the Department of the Interior, wrote Hayden and 

identified the survey team as Neasham, Herbert E. Bolton, and George P. Hammond, all 

distinguished historians. Wirtz apologized that the report had been delayed by the need 

to secure further identification of Coronado’s route. The team had spent several weeks 

tracing the route of the Coronado Expedition, he wrote, and the survey was presently 

nearly completed.29

Their reports made some interesting observations, suggestions and 

recommendations regarding the establishment of the international monument. They 

stressed, moreover, the importance of Mexico’s cooperation in the establishment of an 

appropriate commemorative site. Neasham’s report, nonetheless, spelled out the thinking 

and hopes of those on the United States side who worked to establish the Coronado 

International Monument. 

Neasham clearly understood the significance of establishing the international 

monument. He wrote, “It is believed that the creation of an international monument (i.e., 

 

28 Report of Vernon A. Neasham in Special Report covering the Proposed Coronado International Monument submitted 

by Region III Headquarters, national Park Service, Department of the Interior, Santa Fe, New Mexico, February, 1940, 

16
park area) in which can be established an international museum to commemorate the 

explorations of Coronado, and the whole northward thrust of Spanish culture into what is 

now the United States, is desirable and feasible, provided the Governments of Mexico 

and the United States cooperate fully to bring about the establishment and maintenance of 

such an area and its units of development.”30 Throughout his report, Neasham stressed 

that “cultural understanding” was the pillar upon which the international monument 

would be built. 

Beyond that, he hoped that cooperation between the two nations in regard to 

scientific endeavors would eventually take place. On that point, Neasham reported, “It is 

believed that an international monument established in the area indicated will be of great 

value in advancing the relationships of the United States and Mexico upon a friendly 

basis of cultural understanding. Furthermore, such an area with its international museum 

would serve as a common clearing ground for scientific endeavor between Mexico and 

the United States.”31 The museum was, indeed, an integral feature of the international 

monument as in it could be displayed important artifacts and documents demonstrating 

the history and culture of that area. 

Associated with the development of the international monument, Neasham added 

another enthusiastic point for the justification for the park area. In his conversations with 

a certain “Señor Gonzales” who was the Mexican consulate in Phoenix, Neasham 

explored the meaning of a proposed international highway that would be completed in 

two years. The highway, running from Guadalajara, Mexico, would straddle the Pacific 

Coast before turning inland and terminating in Nogales, Arizona, thus serving as a 

 

Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

29 A.J. Wirtz to Carl Hayden, Washington, D.C., February 14, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

17
conduit for increased tourism. Neasham pointed out that the international “parkway or 

freeway” would eventually connect the proposed international monument and Nogales on 

the United States side. Neasham saw all kinds of possibilities growing out of the 

international freeway. Not only would it be feasible and desirable, an added feature 

would be that it would pass along “a scenic border country.” 

Unabated in his enthusiasm, Neasham wrote, “The area of Bisbee and Douglas, 

Arizona, could tie in with that parkway without difficulty. The War Department, too, 

may be interested in developing such a parkway, because of its close proximity to the 

Mexican border and Fort Huachuca. It is believed that the people of Arizona would enter 

wholeheartedly into the development of an international monument, museum, and 

parkway along the international border.”32 To that end, he recommended that an 

international survey party comprised of representatives from the United States and 

Mexico investigate the possibilities for the creation of an international monument, 

museum, and parkway. “Mexico,” he wrote, “ has indicated that she will cooperate fully 

with this government in celebrating this year’s Coronado Cuarto-Centennial, of which the 

establishment of an international monument is an important phase.”33

Neasham was optimistic along other lines. For example, should an agreement be 

reached between the United States and Mexico to create the international monument, he 

speculated that funding by Congress for the commemoration of the Cuatro-Centenial 

would be matched by Mexico in 1940. Pointing out that the Civilian Conservation Corp 

would establish a camp; and, Mexico would set up “a similar labor unit;” he cautioned 

that a “joint administration of the two National Park Services of Mexico and the United 

 

30 Ibid., p. 1, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

31 Ibid., p. 3, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

18
States would, of course, have to be provided.”34 Neasham, needless to say, did not fully 

understand the Mexican bureaucracy, for a Mexican National Park Service did not exist, 

but his meaning was well taken. 

An international advisory board was recommended to further such interests on 

both sides of the border. Three citizens from each country would make up the board, 

hopefully headed by Dr. Herbert E. Bolton of the Advisory Board on National Parks, 

Historical Sites, Buildings, and Monuments. Bolton and his committee would “do much 

to insure the success of the international monument, in view of the sympathy, contacts, 

and cultural understanding of such an individual.”35

In context, it would be unfair to characterize Neasham’s enthusiastic report as a 

product of naivete, for a genuine feeling on the part of the United States—through the 

Cuarto Centennial Commission and the National Park Service—was based on the hope 

that all could ride on the coattails of interest engendered by the opportunity presented by 

the 400th anniversary of Coronado’s expedition. Neasham ended his report with the hope 

that “international travel, advancement of good will, and cultural relationships with Latin 

America” 36could be spurred by this effort. Indeed, it was an interesting time in the 

history of the United States, as war clouds burst into the violence of World War II. 

 In his transmittal of Neasham’s report to Hayden, Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of 

the Interior, clarified the position of the Department of the Interior. He wrote, the 

Department “is not in a position to give approval to a proposal for an international project 

of this character prior to receiving an expression of the views of the State Department. If 

 

32 Ibid., pp. 4-5, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

33 Ibid., p. 5, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

34 Ibid., p. 6, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

35 Ibid., p. 6, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

36 Ibid., p. 6, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

19
the State Department favors the creation of an international project, the Department of the 

Interior will interpose no objection, provided the development conforms to sound park 

practice.”37 In the same letter, Ickes stated that Interior policy prohibited the creation of 

an international park, but would permit an international monument or memorial. 

To that, as well as expressing concerns about the amount of land involved and any 

mineral or grazing privileges attached to the land within the monument, Hayden, on 

Thursday, February 29, 1940, responded that an international monument would be 

“highly desirable.” Incidentally, he informed Ickes “it occurs to me that more land is 

proposed to be taken for the Monument within the United States than would seem to me 

necessary. I am particularly interested in the fact that the land involved shows at least 

two existing mines, the Grubb Stake Mine and the Texas Mine [sic].”38 Hayden, 

furthermore, suggested to him that, when established, the area of the international 

monument be reduced. The reduction, he suggested would be “to eliminate therefrom 

any land which contains potentially valuable minerals, or that a careful and complete 

geological and mineral survey be made so as definitely and finally to determine that no 

minerals exist in whatever area is selected.”39 

Over a week later, Hayden revisited the question regarding the size of the 

monument and suggested that “eleven sections of land are vastly more than is needed for 

a monument of this type. I should assume that an acre or two would be ample.”40 The 

eleven sections were to be taken from the Coronado National Forest for the monument. 

Given that grazing privileges existed on that land, they too would be taken into 

 

37 Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior to Hon. Carl Hayden, Washington, D.C., February 27, 1940, Hayden 

Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

3838 Hayden to Ickes, Washington, D.C., February 29, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. The “Texas 

Mine” is a reference to the State of Texas Mine. 

39 Ibid. 

20
consideration. Hayden then suggested that the Secretary of the Interior deliver a copy of 

the proposal for the monument to the Secretary of Agriculture so that the Forest Service 

could study and reach an agreement regarding the boundaries. Evidently, some 

discussions between Hayden and his constituents had taken place over the size of the 

proposed monument, grazing privileges, and any subsurface minerals that could exist 

within the projected boundaries. 

 To Hayden’s concerns, Arno B. Cammerer, Director, National Park Service, 

responded that once the State Department informed Interior of the possibility of an 

international monument, the National Park Service would make “further studies...to 

insure the exclusion of mineral lands from the proposed area.”41 The issue of the size of 

the monument would resurface several times in the next few weeks. 

Meanwhile, Clinton P. Anderson had been moving the question of an 

international monument before the Department of State. Pressing the issue, he informed 

Hayden that Ickes had requested the Cuarto Centennial Commission to present the 

“matter of the international monument”42 to the Secretary of State. The urgency for 

Anderson concerned April 14, 1940, as the date that if the Commission hoped to “have a 

celebration...as planned, it will be necessary for the State Department to act promptly.”43 

 Imposing if not bold, Anderson made a request of Hayden. “Will you,” he writes, 

“be good enough to get in touch with Mr. Dickens and attempt to expedite action by the 

State Department, so that we may notify a representaive of this Commission who is now 

in Mexico and who is awaiting definite action by the American Government, in order that 

 

40 Hayden to Ickles, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 41 Arno B. Cammerer to Hayden, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 42 Anderson to Hayden, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 15, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

43 Ibid. 

21
Ambassador Daniels may immediately present the subject to the Mexican 

Government?”44

The pressure to propose legislation for the monument grew in Hayden’s mind. 

On March 18, he received a letter from E.K. Burlew, First Assistant Secretary of the 

Interior, repeating that Interior could not approve a proposal for an international 

monument unless it received a favorable expression from the Department of State. “Until 

such an expression has been received,” wrote Burlew, “the Department of the Interior 

cannot submit a proposal to establish an international monument to the Department of 

Agriculture. It is understood, however, that the Coronado Cuarto Centennial 

Commission is presenting the above-mentioned proposition to the Department of State 

for its consideration. If that Department favors the proposal, the Department of the 

Interior will submit it to the Department of Agriculture for study.”45 About the same 

time, Ickes formally requested an opinion from the Department of State concerning the 

feasibility of an international monument.46 

The Department of State moved slowly. In a telegraph to Stuart M. Bailey, 

Chairman of the Arizona Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission, Hayden advised him 

that the Department of State would not be able to present the proposal to the Republic of 

Mexico by April 15. Meanwhile, he suggested that the National Park Service make an 

additional study regarding the boundary and mineral possibilities on the proposed land. 

In his telegram, Hayden stated 

THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE PRESENTED 

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SO THAT THE FOREST 

SERVICE CAN MAKE AN INDEPENDENT STUDY AND SUBMIT A 

 

44 Ibid. 

45 E.K. Burlew, First Assistant Secretary, to Hayden, Washington, D.C., March 18, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, 

Box 591, folder 2. 

46 Hayden to Anderson, March 18, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

22
REPORT THEREON STOP THIS LATTER STEP IS NECESSARY 

SINCE THE LAND PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN FOR THE 

MONUMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CORONADO NATIONAL 

FOREST STOP SHALL BE GLAD TO SEND YOU COPIES OF 

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE I MAY HAVE IN THIS 

CONNECTION. 47

 Much to Hayden’s chagrin, he discovered, in a conversation with Fred Winn, 

Forest Supervisor in Tucson, that the Forest Service “apparently has never received any 

information from the Park Service” regarding the proposed international monument.48 

To that, Hayden instructed Frank C.W. Pooler, Regional Forester in Albuquerque to send 

“one of your men...to Santa Fe and discuss the proposition with representatives of the 

Park Service there, who have under study...an international monument which will 

embrace approximately eleven sections of land within the Coronado National Forest near 

the Montezuma Pass.”49 

 Pooler reported to Hayden two weeks later that he had met with National Park 

Service representatives. Actually, he had met with Regional Director Tolson in Phoenix 

and discussed the matter. On March 21, Tolson and Neasham met with Pooler in his 

Albuquerque office in the Post Office Building to discuss the proposal further. 

In the interim, Tolson had met with Forest Service personnel at the proposed site 

and had walked through the land in question. Pooler summarized the National Park 

Service position. “There are several patented mining claims and water rights,” he wrote, 

“which the Park Service would wish to avoid.”50 Pooler went on to inform Hayden that 

he and Park Service officials would further examine the site for the monument and 

 

47 Hayden to Stuart M. Bailey, Postal Telegraph, March 22, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 48 Hayden to Frank C.W. Pooler, Regional Forester, March 8, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 49 Ibid. 

50 Franck C.W. Pooler to Hayden, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 21, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, 

folder 2. 

23
museum and review the international aspects of the proposal. After that, wrote Pooler, 

“we will then be in a position to submit joint recommendations.”51

After having attended a public meeting regarding the Catalina Highway Bill, 

G.M. Butler, dean and director of the Arizona Bureau of Mines and the College of Mines 

and Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson, advised Hayden that he feared 

public reaction against any project that suggested land withdrawals in Arizona. “I can 

assure you” he wrote, “that any more land withdrawals in Arizona are going to be mighty 

unpopular.”52 Butler voiced a concern that the Secretary of the Interior “contemplates 

withdrawing 6,000 acres near the point where Coronado is supposed to have entered 

Arizona and setting it aside as a monument to Coronado.” To that Butler informed him 

that he thought there was an abundance of “mineralization in the area involved, and I 

hope that you will watch this movement like a hawk.”53 Squashing that rumor, Hayden 

promptly and somewhat tersely, responded that the Secretary of the Interior “is not going 

to withdraw six thousand acres for a Coronado Monument....Such a proposal was made 

by the acting Regional Historian of the National Park Service at Santa Fé, but I have no 

difficulty in putting my foot on it.”54 

 Hayden, of course, could speak with authoritative bravado, for he already had a 

part of his answer. The day before he made his response to Butler, Hayden had received 

word of the joint proposal from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service 

submitted by Pooler to his boss, the Chief Forester, in Washington, D.C. Dated April 5, 

Pooler’s letter explained that he had met with NPS Regional Director Tolson, Historian 

Neasham, and a certain Mr. Ritchie of the National Park Service. Additionally, Pooler 

 

51 Ibid. 

52 G.M. Butler to Hayden, Tucson, March 31, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

24
said that Clinton P. Anderson of the Coronado Cuarto Commission and Mr. Dickens, the 

Washington representative of the Commission were also present. Both Anderson and 

Dickens were in direct contact with Hayden, for they hoped to move the establishment of 

the international monument as soon as they could to coincide with celebrations of the 

Coronado Expedition anniversary. Indeed, Pooler mentioned in his letter that 

“Accordingly, I advised Mr. Tolson and Mr. Anderson that they were authorized to state 

that the Region would recommend favorably on the proposed monument and that we 

would forward the report promptly.”55 

The main concession made by all of them is that they all agreed to reduce the 

amount of land originally requested by 50% equalling 2,750 acres. They justified the 

request by explaining the need for an international monument that would represent the 

desired relationships between the two countries. Pooler wrote: “The purpose of this 

monument on the international boundary is not only to afford a site for the monument 

authorized by Act of Congress and the proposed museum but to include a sufficient area 

which, with that to be provided by the Mexican Government, will furnish a national 

monument of real international aspect.”56 In his conclusion that the Mexican government 

would support the monument, Pooler, in hindsight, appears misinformed. 

 Pooler explained, further, that forest values, that is minerals and other natural 

resources, were negligible in the “small” area under consideration.57 Continuing with his 

recommendation, Pooler based his reasoning on the report’s finding that “grazing use will 

not be disturbed except for the small plots immediately around the structures, it is not felt 

 

53 Ibid. 

54 Hayden to Butler, April 6, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 55 Frank C.W. Pooler to Chief, Forest Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 5, 1940. Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, 

Box 591, folder 2. 

56 Ibid. 

25
that any opposition will be developed by the stockmen and that future use of the area for 

grazing can be worked out on a cooperative basis. It is our understanding the Park 

Service will recommend the establishment of the national monument on the lines shown 

subject to all valid existing rights which would include valid mining claims already of 

record and outstanding grazing permits for the remainder of the contract term.”58

Arguing that time was of the essence, as “the dedication ceremonies are desired at 

the earliest possible date,” Pooler, urging his boss to acquiesce to the compromise in the 

joint proposal regarding the 2,750 acres, ventured an explanation. “I do not think,” he 

wrote, “the Forest Service should place itself in the position of arguing acreages but 

rather should, in an instance of this kind, cooperate fully while considering all the 

interests involved.” Besides, Pooler already had gone out on the limb by advising Tolson 

and Anderson that the region would “recommend favorably on the proposed 

monument”59and “authorizing” them to so state the same as their position. 

The report, dated April 4, was signed by John A. Adams, Regional Forest 

Inspector, Division of Recreation and Lands, in Albuquerque New Mexico. The 

proposed Coronado International Monument, wrote Adams, “is located in the Huachuca 

Division of the Coronado National Forest, approximately thirty miles west of Bisbee, 

Arizona. The area contains 2,745 acres in T. 24 S., Rs. 20 and 21 E., adjoining and north 

of the International boundary.”60 A survey of the area had been made by Forest Service 

personnel on March 12 and 13 to determine the location, land status, range use, range 

improvements, and forest products. 

 

57 Ibid. 

58 Ibid. 

59 Ibid. 

60 Report signed by John A. Adams, Albuquerque, New Mexico April 4, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, 

folder 2. 

26
Range use, on the other hand, posed complications. There were three grazing 

allotments within the area. Two permittees had prescribed privileges to the Lone 

Mountain allotment. They were H.D. Lee, who had a yearlong term permit to graze 650 

head of cattle as well as a temporary permit that covered a short period for any natural 

increase to his herd. His neighbor, Alex D’Albini also had a yearlong term permit for 88 

head of stock. D’Albini also had a yearlong term permit for 42 cattle on the Grubstake 

allotment. Meanwhile, Joe Zaleski continued his yearlong term permit on the 

Montezuma allotment for 30 head of cattle which was the portion that he would later 

consider donating in Section 18. Regional Director Tolson agreed that the National Park 

Service would not interfere with these permits for a period of ten years ending in 1945. 

The report cited that “Following this date the Forest Service and the National Park 

Service will determine how the grazing permits will be issued, but no change in the range 

use is anticipated.”61 The National Park Service did make clear, however, that although 

it would not interfere with the continued use of the range, it would make an exception 

“to the two small fenced areas surrounding the observation point and the Museum site.”62 

As far as range improvements were concerned, D’Albini declared a short drift fence of 31 

chains in Section 13, and another drift fence of one and a half mile in sections 11 and 4 as 

well as a 500 foot pipeline from a spring that flowed in Section 13.63 The National Park 

Service would be amenable to working out resolutions with the ranchers concerned and 

other interests regarding land use. 

Given that there were other accessible areas to Bisbee, Warren, and Lowell for 

forest products such as fuel wood and fence posts, the report included an observation that 

 

61 Ibid., p. 2. 

62 Ibid., p. 2. 

27
they would not be inconvenienced by the withdrawal of public land for the establishment 

of the Coronado International Monument. Oddly, the volume of this use was unknown, 

and there was no public outcry against the withdrawal of that land. Additionally, lands 

adjoining the north boundary of the proposed monument included homesteads controlled 

by Zaleski and the popular Border Guest Ranch, both of which would be unaffected by 

the alienation of lands to the monument. Indeed, the report suggested that the Chamber of 

Commerce of Bisbee and other towns in southern Arizona as well as the State Coronado 

Commission would support the establishment of a monument.64 

Beyond location, land status, range use, range improvements, and forest products, 

there were other amenities. The report cited that although the area comprised rough, 

brushy, mountainous slopes on the south side of Montezuma Canyon along the eastern 

drainage from the divide in section 11, the land gently sloped west of there, in sections 

10, 15, and 22, into a flat covered with live oak and other species. Perhaps, the 

panoramic vistas afforded from the highpoint offered the best vantage point from which 

to commemorate the four hundredth anniversary of the Coronado Expedition. The 

writers of the report aptly observed: 

The lookout or observation point is located half a mile south where the road 

crosses the saddle in the southern part of Sec. 11. From this point an unexcelled 

view is had of the country north of the Sonora Valley, as well as the Cananea 

Mountains in Mexico. To the west is seen the Patagonia Range across the San 

Rafael Valley. From the Sonora divide following north viz. The San Pedro 

Valley is the probable route of Francisco Coronado during the year 1540.65

The land had strong values and amenities for interpreting the historical event and the 

geography of the area. 

 

63 Ibid., p. 2. 

64 Ibid., pp. 2-3. 

65 Ibid., p. 2. 

28
 Having reviewed the report, Senator Hayden responded to Cammerer, director of 

the National Park Service. In a letter dated April 8, 1940, Hayden stressed that he had 

“objected most vigorously to the size of the tentative international monument” that 

totaled less than 13 sections or nearly 6000 acres. Hayden reasserted his belief, that 

notwithstanding the presence of grazing privileges and mineral wealth within that 

acreage, the proposed size was unjustified. He wrote, “I assumed, without so stating, that 

the only reasonable justification for requiring as much land as was then proposed was that 

the Park Service desired to build a new highway within the monument and to protect its 

right-of-way against mineral and grazing development.”66

 In Hayden’s mind, the size of the Coronado International Monument was an 

obstacle to his presentation of a bill before Congress to establish it. In his letter to 

Cammerer, he wrote, that even though the proposal had reduced the total area of the 

proposed monument by fifty percent, “I cannot see any conceivable purposes in having 

even this much land.”67 He again pointed out that beyond the need to construct a 

highway, if the land contained scenic or historical features suitable for development as a 

national monument, it would support justification for that much land. His objection 

revolved around value the 2,750 acres had for its grazing and mineral development. He 

argued that the report of the Regional Forester indicated that the land in question “is 

covered with unpatented claims and...three grazing allotments.”68 Almost to the point of 

lecturing the director of the National Park Service, Hayden, at length, stated: 

The only conceivable purpose of having an international Coronado monument 

on the International Boundary is to provide a place where there can be located a 

museum dedicated to the memory of the conquistador and containing artifacts 

 

66 Hayden to Cammerer, Washington, D.C., April 8, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 67 Ibid. 

68 Ibid. 

29
and relics which are proposed to be contributed by the Republic of Mexico. 

One acre would be ample land upon which to place such a museum, and fifty 

acres would give you land enough to have the surrounding territory landscaped 

and to provide parking facilities and such service stations, etc., as seem 

desirable. On the Forest Service map, there is marked in the north half, 

northwest quarter, sec. 20., T. 24 S., R. 21 E., a small square which is 

designated as the probable museum site.69

Although Hayden felt strongly about his stance, he would later modify his argument. 

 After a long recitation of the sections, townships, and ranges involved, he 

proceeded to tell Cammerer what he was willing to support. Indeed, in no uncertain 

terms he wrote: 

Let me suggest that there be withdrawn for international monument purposes, 

therefore, a total of approixately (sic) 160 acres and comprising the north half of 

the northwest quarter of sec. 20 and the south half of the southwest quarter of 

sec. 17, T. 24 S., R. 21 E. This will give you a quarter section of land upon 

which you can have a museum, outbuildings, Superintendent’s house, and even 

a lodge and facilities for the public. The Monument would be adjacent to an 

existing dude ranch and apparently a right-of-way to it from the proposed 

highway along the north side of the dude ranch would be preserved. I really 

feel that 160 acres is more land than the Park Service can ever make any 

reasonable use of for an international monument of this type, and certainly it is 

enough to everything that is necessary or desirable. If you want to have a 

proposed circle road from the proposed northern road, skirting the guest ranch 

down to the monument and around into Mexico and back up to join the existing 

road coming up Copper Canyon, there can certainly be no objection to such 

construction....So far as that goes, if later on additional recreational facilities 

are felt to be necessary in any of the forest land adjacent and to the west of the 

monument area, a regulation of the Forest Service governing recreational 

permits should be ample to protect the interests of the United States.70

Hayden closed his letter by noting that Cammerer would certainly agree with him that 

no conceivable justification existed for “the elaborate proposals jointly submitted by the 

Regional Offices of the Forest Service and the National Park Service. Hayden believed 

that the interests of the United States Government would be better served by setting 

 

69 Ibid. 

70 Ibid. 

30
aside only 160 acres he proposed. He ended with the admonition that “I cannot consent 

to any monument land acquisition on a more grandiose scale.”71

Cammerer, of course, responded that the position of the regional representatives 

of the Forest Service and the National Park Service was that the monument should 

contain approximately 2,750 acres. So as to mitigate that statement, Cammerer quickly 

and diplomatically added, “I agree with you that the area of the monument should be 

limited to a minimum, and I have advised Regional Director Tolson of your letter. He 

reminded Hayden that the Department of State had yet to respond to the international 

aspects of the monument. Meanwhile, he and Tolson, who was being transferred from 

Santa Fe to Washington, D.C. as NPS Chief of Operations, would review all the plans of 

the projected Coronado International Monument within a week.72 

Leaving no stone unturned, Hayden, let loose a flurry of correspondence 

regarding the proposed international monument. Within a few days, he had written 

Colonel John R. White, the newly appointed Regional Director of the National Park 

Service’s Santa Fe office, to inform him about the Coronado International Monument 

proposal.73 Apparently, the project was too important for Hayden to let drop, for he kept 

tight control over it. In a letter to Pooler, he commented that “Mr. Cammerer agrees with 

me that the area of the proposed International Monument to Coronado should be limited 

to a minimum and that he has so advised Dr. Hillory. A. Tolson, the former Regional 

Director of the National Park Service at Santa Fé.”74 Apparently other correspondence or 

 

71 Ibid. 

72 Cammerer to Hayden, Washington, D.C., April 9, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 73 Hayden to Colonel John R. White, April 12, 1940, Hayden Papers,AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 74 Hayden to Pooler, April 12, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

31
a telephone call had been made, for Hayden confided in Pooler that upon Tolson’s arrival 

in Washington, Cammerer would determine a new boundary.75 

 It would take a Herculean effort to bend the mind of the stalwart Senator Hayden 

who was convinced that 160 acres sufficed for the international monument. Apparently, 

he believed that private lands would be required, and that would not set well with his 

rancher constituents. 

In this dark moment, tall, lanky, charming, Clinton P. Anderson stepped forward. 

Sitting at his desk, he looked over a copy of Hayden’s letter that called for limiting the 

acreage of the proposed international monument. With a twinkle in his eye, Anderson 

began his response. Diplomatically, Anderson waxed eloquent expressing to Hayden 

how he appreciated his thoughts on the proposed size of the international monument. “I 

wish I could discuss this with you intelligently,” he wrote, “But I do feel that the National 

Park people are so much more capable of a decision than I am that I have followed their 

proposals and given them my general support.”76 Anderson reminded him that private 

lands were not involved. Applying logic to the situation, Anderson posited: 

I wish that before they reach a final decision you could take a look at it. I think 

that would help you to appreciate the suggestion made by the Park Service. 

Their lookout is back a short distance from the border. It is at a very excellent 

location and I really feel that it would be very much worth while to connect the 

lookout point with the museum site. If you do that you stretch the area quite a 

little distance along the border I admit, but the land is not of great value for any 

purpose other than a park area. It is rather sandy at the bottom and rather steep 

on the grades which go up toward the lookout. It would be one thing to transfer 

this much acreage from private ownership to Federal ownership, but it is quite 

another thing to transfer it from Forest Service land to Park Service land.77

The last sentence surely caused Hayden to raise his eyebrows and tilt his head 

 

75 Ibid. 

76 Anderson to Hayden, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 11, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

77 Ibid. 

32
in approbation. Clearly he grasped Anderson’s meaning: the land in question was 

largely, if not entirely, being transferred from one government agency to another. 

Astutely, Anderson pointed out that the Senator had short-changed the proposal 

by addressing the space requirement “only for the museum itself....but at the same time if 

you look over the land I feel you will be inclined to say that it would serve as useful a 

purpose in the international monument as it does now in the Forest Service.”78 Using 

salesmanship skills, Anderson wrote, “I believe it will be a splendid national attraction.” 

He described the historical landscape and ended by saying “All the rest is wilderness 

looking just as it did when Coronado crossed it 400 years ago. There are very few areas 

in the United States of which that can be said....I know of no place along the border 

which serves as well as the lookout point selected by the Park Service.”79

 Hayden got the point. “I thank you for your letter of April 11,” he responded to 

Anderson, “in which you ask that I reconsider my suggestion that the proposed Coronado 

international monument be restricted insofar as the American portion thereof is 

concerned to no more than 160 acres.”80 He stated, further, that Director Cammerer and 

Chief of Operations Tolson had recently made the same request. Hayden’s repeated 

position was that he could not consent to any proposal that called for a withdrawal of any 

considerable area of land in Arizona that restricted mineral and grazing operations. After 

they had suggested that legislation could be drawn reflecting that position, Hayden sat 

back and made a recommendation. “I asked them,” he wrote Anderson, “to be good 

enough to prepare the draft of such a bill and promised that when it was presented to me, 

 

78 Ibid. 

79 Ibid. 

80 Hayden to Anderson, Washington, D.C., April 16, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

33
I shall be very glad to give it my most sympathetic consideration. I shall let you know 

what is determined at that time.”81

 Meanwhile, Hayden received a confidential, hand-written letter from Fred Winn, 

the Forest Supervisor in Tucson, Arizona, stating that he opposed Pooler’s agreement 

with the National Park Service. Winn felt that 160 acres was ample. Not wishing to 

embarrass Pooler, Winn stated that the grazing “permittees” and the small mine owners 

had not been consulted. Closing, he asked “Again, please do not mention this letter. It is 

for your information only.”82 Hayden assured him that he would not introduce any 

legislation unless its purpose was understood and approved by “all local interested 

parties.”83

 Returning to the lack of response from Mexico, Hayden transmitted a copy of 

Anderson’s letter to Cordell Hull, adding “I assume that if legislation establishing the 

proposed international monument is to be sought, there will be no great point in your 

presenting any proposals along these lines to the Republic of Mexico, at least until the 

legislation has been formulated and introduced.”84 Hull quickly responded. He 

mentioned that State Department officers working on the “Coronado matter” would be 

able to meet with Tolson in Washington. Beyond that, Hull astutely reiterated the desire 

of his office to assist in the “Coronado matter” in any way including sending further 

instructions to Ambassador Daniels in Mexico City “as soon as the [Coronado] 

Commission presents to the Department [of State] a definite proposal with regard to the 

 

81 Ibid. 

82 Fred Winn to Hayden, Tucson, Arizona, April 12, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 83 Hayden to Winn, Washington, April 17, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 84 Hayden to Hull, Washington, D.C., April 16, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

34
international monument the Commission contemplates establishing in honor of 

Coronado.”85 Still, Mexican officials, apparently cool to the idea, had not responded. 

 Whatever transpired to change Hayden’s mind on presenting a bill to Congress 

establishing the Coronado International Monument is not clear in the record. On 

Monday, April 17, 1940, Tolson informed Hull that “he was now in a position to make 

recommendations to the United States Coronado Commission on the basis of which the 

Commission could present a definite plan to the Department of State.”86 Possibly after a 

few telephone calls, he decided to move forward with his proposal. At any rate, on 

Monday, April 22, 1940, Hayden informed W.E. Clark, Clerk of the Cochise County 

Board of Supervisors, as well as a selected group of people, mostly leaders of 

associations in Arizona, that he would present a bill providing for the creation of the 

Coronado International Monument in Arizona to the Committee on Public lands and 

Surveys. In his correspondence, he provided a print of a bill dated April 20, 1940, to set 

aside an area for “a Coronado international monument.”87 The bill called for the 

establishment of the international monument with the prerogative to grant grazing 

privileges as well as prospecting and mining privileges within the monument area as 

consistent and appropriate with public uses.88 Despite his earlier objections to the 

contrary, Hayden’s bill called for 2,960 acres! It was the first legislative step in the 

creation of the monument. The bill remained in committee until May 28, when a new 

draft was presented. Section 2 of the new bill read, “The National Park Service, under 

 

85 Hull to Hayden, Washington, D.C., April 16, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 86 Hull to Hayden, Washington, D.C., April 17, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 87 Hayden to Hull, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. Copies with the 

same date were sent to Fred Winn,, Mrs. J.M. Keith, Secretary of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association in Phoenix, 

Charles F. Willis, State Secretary of the Arizona Small Mine Operators Association, Phoenix, Arizona, and William 

Alberts, State Land Commissioner, Phoenix, Arizona, Ibid. 

35
the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, shall promote and regulate the use of the 

Coronado International Monument for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the 

United States.”89 Slowly, legislation that would establish the Coronado International 

Monument under the administration of the National Park Service emerged. 

 Costs associated with the Coronado International Monument were usually 

discussed in terms of the $10,000 given the Cuarto Centennial Commission which were 

authorized to be used for monument purposes. Additionally, it was hoped that “$35,000 

or $40,000” would later be donated. In his letter to Anderson, Director Camerer 

estimated that “Approximately $150,000 to $200,000 will probably have to be expended 

in the monument area before the development program has been completed.” The annual 

administration and maintenance costs were estimated to be another $10,000.90 Aside 

from the size of the land being an issue, so too were the costs of developing and 

maintaining the site. 

 Once the bill was introduced, the response from Hayden’s Arizona constituency 

was cautiously supportive and emotionally mixed. Charles F. Willis, State Secretary of 

the Arizona Small Mine Operators Association, for example, endorsed the bill based on 

the premise that those “already having mining property in that area are fully protected,” 

and that the opportunity for future prospecting in the area is maintained.91 Others, such 

as the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association would register their outcry in such a way as 

 

88 A Bill to provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Monument, in the State of Arizona, Committee 

on Public lands and Surveys, 76th Congress, 3rd Session, April 20, 1940, no Senate Bill number assigned, Hayden 

Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 

89 A Bill to provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Monument in the State of Arizona, Revised 

Committee Print, May 28, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2. 90 Cammerer to Anderson, Washington, D.C., April 22, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 91 Charles F. Willis to Hayden, Phoenix, May 2, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 

36
to threaten the progress of the bill. Their concern dealt mostly with the size of the 

monument and fears that their grazing privileges would be curtailed. 

Mrs. J.M. Keith, Secretary of the Arizona Cattle Grower’s Association, expressed 

a guarded opinion about the effect of the Coronado International Park on her 

constituency. She noted that, while from a historical viewpoint setting land aside to 

commemorate Coronado’s passage through Arizona was desirable, “Experience has 

shown that once lands are withdrawn they can never be fully utilized by the stockmen.”92 

Alex D’Albini’s handwritten letter echoed a similar tone. Recognizing that the land upon 

which he grazed his stock was already under Forest Service control, he reported that he 

had spent much money within the tract of his permit to build a water catchment for his 

stock. Furthermore, D’Albini complained that he feared that the creation of the 

Coronado International Monument on U.S. Forest land would lead to the devaluation of 

his water improvement actions and would create “a natural refuge for lions and wolves 

due to the dual authority in administration.” He also expressed dismay at the thought that 

the “dual administration” would “provide a relay station for the border renegades as it is 

on the national border at what is known as ‘smuglars (sic) Gap’. Thus, he reported, he 

believed that the land would have “value only as a monument site” but he felt it would 

only require a few acres not the high acreage proposed.”93 Speaking for other permittees, 

Henry Davis Lee announced that he was “unalterably opposed” to the transfer of nearly 

five sections of land that would result in “jeopardizing existing capital investment.” He 

asked “what public good would be done with extra acreage entailing expenditures of tax 

 

92 Mrs. J.M. Keith to Hayden, Phoenix, May 2, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 93 Alex D’Albini to Hayden, Hereford, April 26, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 

37
payers money”?94 W.E. Clark, however, reported the protests from certain stockmen 

based on their fear that the monument would fence the area. Expressing their concerns, 

Clark stated that the Board of Supervisors “stands on [its] former telegram to you 

concerning this matter.”95 State Land Commissioner William Alberts expressed that his 

office would support the bill provided that the Board of Supervisors of Cochise County 

did not raise any objections to it.96 The Board of Supervisors had earlier affirmed its 

support and remained steadfast in its decision. 

Meanwhile, Mrs. J.M. Keith softened her tone. Writing to Hayden on May 11, 

she acknowledged receipt of his letter in which he had explained to her the intent of his 

bill. “We appreciate your understanding of the cattle industry,” she wrote, “and feel sure 

that an International Monument can be worked out without too great an injury to our 

stockmen in Southern Arizona....We want to be helpful in all projects that will be a 

benefit to Arizona as a state, and cattlemen are especially interested in historical lore in 

Arizona.”97 Hayden had managed to assuage the anxious feelings of a major 

constituency that could have raised a considerable opposition to the passage of his bill. 

Actually, Hayden put in more time thinking about and consulting the National 

Park Service regarding the cattle grower’s objection to fencing the area. Hayden wrote to 

Mrs. J.M. Keith that he had made two proposals to the National Park Service and had 

created wording to place in his bill reflecting them. His first proposal concerned the 

western boundary of the monument, which he suggested be moved one section to the 

east. The National Park Service objected to that proposal because of the proposed loop 

 

94 Henry Davis Lee to Hayden, Ft. Huachuca, May 28, 1940, Western Union Telegram, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 

591, folder 3. 

95 W.E. Clark to Hayden, Bisbee, May 11, 1940, Western Union Telegram, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 

3. 

96 Wm. Alberts to Hayden, Phoenix, May 8, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 

38
road which the topography of the countryside allowed. He explained that indeed it was 

the “only suitable location for such a loop road going into Mexico and returning, and my 

suggestion was, therefore, not acceptable to the National Park Service.”98

Regarding the second proposal, Hayden had better success. Hayden spoke with 

Tolson about National Park Service plans to fence the exterior boundaries of the 

monument. Tolson responded that “the only portions of the Monument which might ever 

be fenced would be the look out point, the museum site, and the rights-of-way of any 

roads which were built within the Monument and that no fences would ever be built 

along the boundaries of the Monument.”99 Hayden then suggested that “a prohibition 

against such fencing be placed in the bill, and the National Park Service agreed to it. 

Thus, Hayden asked the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association to review his new 

provision which would be inserted to the end of Section 2, page 2, line 23 of the draft 

bill. It read as follows: 

Provided, That in the administration of the Monument, the Secretary shall 

not permit the construction of fences except along the International 

Boundary, beside Monument roads or approach roads thereto, and around 

Monument areas within which improvements have been located by the 

National Park Service; 

 

97 Mrs. J.M. Keith to Hayden, Phoenix, May 11, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 98 Hayden to Mrs. J.M. Keith, May 15, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. Regarding this proposal 

Hayden wrote: “First, I suggested that the western boundary of the Monument be moved one section east so as to 

eliminate all of Sec. 15, T. 24 W., R. 20 E., as well as those portions of Sections 10 and 22 which were included within 

the boundaries as shown on the map which I sent you and in the draft of bill previously transmitted for your 

information. Since the only developments within the Monument which are proposed by the Park Service would be 

located at the look out point and at the probable museum site (marked on the map which I sent you and located, 

respectively, on the mountain peak in about the center of Section 14, T. 24 S., R. 29 E. and in the N1⁄2 of the NW1⁄4 of 

Sec. 20, T. 24 S., R. 21 E.), it seems to me that if the area is reduced the most reasonable reduction could be brought 

about by, as I suggested, moving the boundary one section east. However, I am told the purpose of including within 

the Monument Section 15 and the fractional portions of Sections 10 and 22, T. 24 S., R. 20 E. is to provide a suitable 

location for a proposed circle road which will leave the existing Copper Canyon Road at about the northwest corner of 

the proposed Monument (near the northwest corner of the southwest quarter of section 10), go down through about the 

middle of Section 15 and cross into Mexico, making a circle and returning to the existing road via the museum, through 

a right-of-way lying between patented lands in Section 17, T. 24 S., R. 21 E. Because of the topography of the country, 

Section 15 is apparently about the only suitable location for such a loop road going into Mexico and returning, and my 

suggestion was, therefore not acceptable to the National Park Service.” 99 Ibid. 

39
Provided further, That any roads constructed within the Monument by the 

National Park service shall include necessary cattle underpasses.100

Hayden believed that such language in the bill would allay the fears of Lee and 

D’Albini. 

Although the issues regarding fencing and grazing privileges had been 

ameliorated by Hayden’s compromises with the National Park Service, the ranchers 

found a ready ally in the Arizona Daily Star. Earlier, on May 5, 1940, the Star printed an 

editorial favoring Hayden’s stand to reduce the size of the monument. It argued that 

3000 acres was too much for purposes of a monument to Coronado, although the editor 

agreed that the explorer of yore merited the honor. Instead the editorial vented its fiery 

breath against the National Park Service. “However,” went the editorial, “in recent years, 

there has been a bureaucratic mastodon marching across the southwestern states which 

must have been wearing the fabled seven-league boots as it paced off its own peculiar 

bed grounds. For national parks created by proclamation, have appeared as if by magic 

in areas which prior to their dedications were used in part for grazing, usually under lease 

from the U.S. Forest Service.”101 Henry Davis Lee, owner of the Lone Mountain Ranch, 

read the editorial and remarked to Mrs. Keith in a letter, “Where the Arizona Star got its 

dope is an untruthful flattery to me, I wish it were true.”102

On a more serious note, Lee wrote to Hayden expressing his view that some 

people had not been included in the process and that their views had not been heard. 

Regarding the size of the monument, Lee expressed that if the monument were to occupy 

more than 100 acres, then the rights of permittees would be secondary. “If,” he wrote, “a 

 

100 Ibid. 101 Editorial, Arizona Daily Star, Phoenix, May 5, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3.. 102 Henry Davis Lee to Ms. J.M. Keith, Lone Mountain Ranch, Patagonia, May 15, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, 

Box 591, folder 3. 

40
greater acreage is deemed necessary...then we feel: first, that the National Park Service is 

not a sympathetic service to grazing interests, second, that the proposed bill would give 

little or no protection to our existing grazing and water rights and investments.”103 

Pointing out that when Saguaro National Monument east of Tucson was established 

Forest Service permittees lost their rights to grazing privileges, Lee noted that 

disadvantages to National Park Service administration of the monument would adversely 

affect cattlemen in the area. He proposed that the Forest Service “supervise the 

Monument in its entirety (it is our feeling that the Forest Service is competant [sic] to do 

so).”104 Basically, Lee, speaking in behalf of D’Albini, Zaleski and other ranchers, felt 

that the National Park Service would be insensitive to the needs of cattle growers and 

unsympathetic to their grazing privileges. Indeed, D’Albini helped Lee draft his letter to 

Hayden.105 Don Smith, executive secretary of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of 

Commerce in Nogales, endorsed their sentiment regarding the excessive size of the 

monument.106

Hayden hoped to reach a compromise with D’Albini, Zaleski, and Lee. He 

viewed D’Albini’s concern that the monument not be fenced off as solvable once as soon 

as D’Albini read his amendment to the bill. He did not feel that Lee would be receptive 

as he was “entirely opposed to the creation of any national monument. He felt that 

Zaleski was approachable on the issues as he had offered to donate a piece of land to the 

National Park Service “to straighten out the boundary.”107 Hayden closed his letter by 

assuring Smith that he would not take any action that would hurt D’Albini, Zaleski, or 

 

103 Davis to Hayden, Patagonia, May 15, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 104 Ibid. 105 D’Albini to Hayden, Hereford, May 16, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 106 Don Smith to Hayden, Nogales, May 17, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 107 Hayden to Smith, May 22, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 

41
Lee. Having read Hayden’s amendment to the bill, D’Albini wrote “Your Proposed 

fence provision to the Bill creating the Coronado Monument removes all my objections 

to same and I don’t see why I cannot handle the situation from there on.”108 After 

conferring with the Secretary of the Interior, Hayden wrote to Regional Director John 

White in Santa Fe to have Neasham accompany him in a visit to D’Albini and explain the 

process of establishing the monument and in observing the prescribed rights of the 

appropriate cattle growers.109 

Lee was not so trusting. He wanted Hayden to make a similar proposal to protect 

the water rights of the permittees. Still in opposition to the large acreage proposed in the 

bill for the monument, Lee wrote: 

It appears to me that unless a great deal of money is to be spent on roads, 

water development, public camp sites,etc., the Monument and Museum 

should be put in some place readily accessible to the public. My 

suggestion would be near where the main Bisbee, fort Huachuca highway 

crosses the San Pedro River, which is actually following the footsteps of 

Coronado. It is my impression that the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce had 

such a site picked for the Marcos de Niza Monument which finally got 

away from them and was located in the San Rafael Valley near Lochiel.110 

Protecting his self-interests, Lee hoped to convince Hayden that the monument idea 

was badly conceived and that the costs of running the monument were not justified. 

 By the end of summer 1940, the Committee on Public lands and Surveys 

submitted its report recommending that the bill pass and attached supporting letters from 

the Acting Secretary of Agriculture and the Acting Secretary of the Interior. 

Additionally, the report included a printed invitation to Mexico from the United States 

Coronado Exposition Commission. The invitation, addressed to the Minister for Foreign 

 

108 D’Albini to Hayden, Hereford, May 21, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 109 Hayden to Colonel John R. White, May 24, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 110 Lee to Hayden, Patagonia, May 23, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 

42
Relations, Republic of Mexico, expressed the hope that Mexico would join the United 

States in the development of the Coronado International Monument as a bi-national 

effort.111

 Meanwhile, word spread quickly that Hayden had introduced the legislation. 

From Bisbee, W.E. Clark, Clerk of the Cochise County Board of Supervisors, sent him a 

telegraph saying that the Board of Supervisors was pleased that private interests were 

adequately protected and that they had received only two protests from two holders of 

National Forest Service grazing permits. “We believe they are not injured.” He added.112

 Finally, by September 30, an elated Hayden was pleased to announce the passage 

of his bill by the Senate. With a subdued enthusiasm, he sent a telegram to Charles F. 

Willis, State Secretary of the Arizona Small Mine Operators Association in Phoenix and 

copied eighteen other supporters of the bill. In it he expressed the following: “VERY 

GLAD TO ADVISE SENATE TODAY PASSED MY BILL S4130 PROVIDING FOR 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CORONADO INTERNATIONAL MONUMENT IN 

COCHISE COUNTY STOP BILL NOW GOES TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WHERE I HOPE EARLY ACTION CAN BE HAD.” Meanwhile, Senate Bill 4130 

returned to the House of Representatives shortly thereafter. It seemed that the 

tempestuous rapidity with which the bill had taken form had left a swirl from Arizona to 

Washington, D.C. Hayden thanked his eighteen principal contacts, some of whom 

opposed the Memorial. Among those receiving letters of appreciation were, Stuart M 

 

111 Report, Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Calendar No. 2220, September 10 (legislative day, August 5), 

1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 

112 W.E. Clark, Clerk Board of Supervisors, to Hon. Carl Hayden, Bisbee, Postal Telegraph dated Arizona, May 3, 

1940, 12:55 PM in Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 3. Clark wrote: “REPLYING YOUR LETTER APRIL 

TWENTY SECOND STOP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARTILY APPROVES PROJECT AND BELIEVES 

BILL PROPOSED BY YOU ADEQUATELY PROTECTS PRIVATE INTERESTS STOP ONLY PROTESTS WE 

HAVE HEARD ARE FROM TWO HOLDERS OF NATIONAL FOREST GRAZING PERMITS WE BELIEVE 

THAY ARE NOT INJURED STOP LETTER FOLLOWS.” 

43
Bailey, William Alberts and Mrs. J.M. Keith from Phoenix, G.M. Butler and Fred Winn 

from Tucson, Grace M. Sparkes from Prescott, Frank Pooler from Albuquerque, Henry 

Davis Lee from Patagonia, Alex D’Albini and Joe Zaleski from Hereford, W.H. 

Hathaway and Don Smith from Nogales, Mayor W.K. Caley, W.E. Clark, M.J. 

Cunningham, C.C. Beddome, Folsom Moore, and S.S. Shattuck from Bisbee.113 Hayden 

sent personalized letters to each of them. 

It was not until mid-November 1940 that the House took up the bill. There, 

Arizona Congressman Robert Murdock defended his House version of the bill and 

responded to questions from Congressman Church from Illinois regarding its 

appropriateness. Clarifying his support of the bill, Murdock responded that “My bill is 

identical with the Senate bill. The Senate bill has already passed the Senate.”114 

Murdock went on to explain that $10,000 had been appropriated to establish the 

monument “at the point on the international border where Coronado crossed into Arizona 

400 years ago this spring.”115 He specified that no further appropriation would be 

required, unless for maintenance, and grazing, prospecting, and mineral development 

would not be curtailed by the legislation. Asserting his support of the bill and its 

protection of grazing, prospecting and mineral development rights, he stated: “This is not 

a new principle. We have extended the right of grazing and mineral prospecting on other 

public lands and national forests and Indian reservations. The idea has my concurrence. 

I believe in it.”116 

 

113 Hayden to Charles F. Willis, September 30, 1940, Western Union Telegram, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, 

folder 3. 

114 Congressional Record—House, November 18, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 3. 115 Ibid. 116 Ibid. 

44
Congressman Church from Illinois, who had raised objections, but was now 

quieted by Murdock’s responses, stood and announced. “I ask unanimous consent that the 

bill be passed over without prejudice.”117 Another hurdle had been surmounted as the 

bill progressed through the legislative processes. One more stop, the Oval Office, and the 

bill, with the President’s signature, would become law. Finally, the Coronado 

International Memorial received official confirmation with the Act of August 18, 1941 

(55. Stat. 630). By October, members of the Arizona Coronado International Memorial 

Commission had preliminary sketches of the Memorial that were drawn by the National 

Park Service.118 These plans were passed around to the Commissioners in anticipation 

that the Coronado International Memorial would soon be developed on both sides of the 

border. In view of the bill’s supporters, there was still time to commemorate the four 

hundredth year of Coronado’s famed expedition into the heart of North America. 

 

117 Ibid. 118 G.E. Michaels to Pete Riley, October 25, 1941, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 

45
Chapter II 

“At the Point on the International Border where Coronado crossed into the United 

States”: Bureaucrats, Historians and the Search for Coronado’s Route into 

Arizona, 1872-1990 

The exact spot where Coronado entered the territory 

of what is now the United States has long been a 

matter of controversy—Congressman John M. 

Houston quoting the Washington Post to members of 

the House of Representatives, March 26, 1940 

We feel certain that we know almost exactly the spot 

which was entered by Coronado in 1540—Arizona 

Congressman John Robert Murdock, 1952 

Though this area was set aside as a memorial to 

commemorate the first large scale Spanish expedition 

into the Southwest, no physical remains of historic 

features or trails pertaining to this event exist within 

the area...from high on the southern end of the 

Huachuca Mountains, one looks over the San Pedro 

and Santa Cruz Valleys, either one of which, 

depending on the historian consulted, may represent 

the actual route of travel over which Coronado 

passed....—National Park Service Master Plan, 1954 

It is rather doubtful whether Coronado chose a 

mountain to cross over when there were valleys on 

either side—Nogales taxpayers against funding a 

Memorial near Bisbee, 1955 

The Memorial will not only commemorate the 

Coronado expedition and provide an ideal place for 

telling the history of the Coronado expedition and the 

history of the Southwest, but...will play an important 

part in improving the economy of southern Arizona—

Hillory Tolson to the Nogales Protestors, 1955 

Throughout fall 1940 and into summer of 1941, the United States Congress 

entertained the possibility of creating the Coronado International Memorial in Arizona. 

Answering a question regarding the proposed “monument,” Congressman John Robert 

Murdock of Arizona commented that the monument would be established “at the point 

46
on the international border where Coronado crossed into Arizona 400 years ago this 

spring.”119 Earlier, on March 26, Congressman John M. Houston addressed the House of 

Representatives on a Washington Post article entitled “Southwest to Celebrate Four 

Hundredth Anniversary of Coronado’s March”120 dated two days prior. Quoting from it, 

Houston read that “The exact spot where Coronado entered the territory of what is now 

the United States has long been a matter of controversy.” 

To reach a solution, the matter was referred to the National Park Service and early 

in January 1940 a special party of historians, headed by Dr. Herbert E. Bolton, director of 

the Bancroft Library at the University of California drove to Compostela, Nayarit, 

Mexico. They retraced, mile for mile, what they believed to be the original route of the 

Coronado expedition of 1540. They determined that the explorers entered the United 

States at Naco, Arizona, which is on the east slope of the St. Pedro Valley, about 10 miles 

south of Bisbee, Arizona.121 In his Coronado Knight of Pueblos and Plains (1949)122, 

Bolton reiterated his position that the entry point, in the vicinity of Naco, was somewhere 

south of Benson, Arizona. 

The acceptance of the vicinity of Naco as the point of entry by the Coronado 

expedition gained in popularity among the Arizona proponents of the Coronado 

International Memorial for a variety of reasons. Some of the conclusions regarding the 

Coronado entry point were speculative, and others went beyond reason. For example, in 

 

119 Congressional Record—Senate, November 1940, 13645. 120 Southwest to Celebrate Four Hundredth Anniversary of Coronado’s March. Extension of Remarks of Hon. John M. 

Houston of Kansas in the House of Representatives, Tuesday, March 26, 1940. Includes article by Martelle W. Trager, 

Washington Post of March 24, 1940 in Appendix to the Congressional Record, 1677. 121 Martelle W. Trager, “Southwest to Celebrate Four Hundredth Anniversary of Coronado’s March—Traveling 

Pageant to Follow Trail Spaniard Blazed in Quest for Riches,” Washington Post, March 24, 1940 in appendix to the 

Congressional Record, 1677. 

122 Herbert E. Bolton, Coronado, Knight of Pueblos and Plains, (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1949). 

Actually, A. Grove Day in 1940 suggested Naco as the entry point. See A. Grove Day, Coronado’s Quest: The 

47
a letter dated May 9, 1940, from Mrs. J.M. Keith to Charles M. Morgan, Executive 

Secretary of the Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission, she complained that 2,900 

acres “is too large a tract to be effective or practical.”123 Instead she suggested a smaller 

tract, consisting of one section along the north and one section along the south side of the 

Arizona-Mexico international line that would include a museum at the “very highest 

point” along the border. What would be the highest point, and why would it be 

important? Mrs. Keith explained: “We know, of course, that Coronado climbed the 

highest peak in order to survey the vast territory to the north and to the south, in his 

search for the ‘Seven Cities of Cibola’. Nothing lower than the highest vantage point 

would have satisfied him, and when honoring him we should build at the point that is 

actually hallowed by his footsteps.” Mrs. Keith, undoubtedly, referred to Lookout Peak, 

which was later renamed Coronado Peak. Still, it would be left to historians, 

archaeologists, and other researchers to validate the history of the Coronado expedition’s 

entry into Arizona from Mexico. 

There was another alternative to the Naco area point of entry by Coronado. In his 

autobiographical notes, Morgan mentions that there was a push to have the Coronado 

International Monument located in Nogales, Arizona. “For many years,” he wrote, “there 

has been continuous controversey [sic] about where the Coronado Entrada came out of 

Mexico into what is now Arizona. As a casual student of Southwestern history I was 

well aware that they went down the San Pedro River—but a lot of very influential people 

seriously contended that he came down the Santa Cruz, crossing the present line near 

 

Discovery of the American Southwest. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1940) for his full account of the Coronado 

Expedition. 

123 Mrs. J.M. Keith to Mr. Chas. M. Morgan, May 9, 1940, Phoenix, Arizona, Coronado National Memorial Collection, 

Box 4. 

48
Nogales.”124 To quell the Nogales proponents, Morgan claimed he influenced a study to 

be made. “We put a suitable resolution through the commission,” he wrote,...So an 

imposing historical commission, headed by the famous southwestern historian, Dr. 

Herbert Bolton, from the University of California at Berkeley, with members from the 

Universities of Arizona and New Mexico, representatives of the Park Service, 

photographers, etc. all equipped [sic] with special high-wheeled cars for rough country, 

carrying all the known data along; took off from Compostela and retraced the route of the 

Coronado entrada to the border.”125 The Bolton group, wrote Morgan “came out along 

the San Pedro, any other route would have been quite impossible.”126 Apparently, Bolton 

had presented his preliminary findings to Congress in November 1939.127 In his letter to 

Congressman John R. Murdock in 1939, Clinton P. Anderson, Managing Director of the 

Coronado Commission, wrote that the people of Nogales raised the question regarding 

Coronado’s route. They did so because, wrote Anderson, they wanted “a monument in 

that City for Coronado as a step toward the realization of their dream of making Nogales 

the great International Gateway. I believe that Mr. Morgan feels that Coronado came into 

the State 160 miles East of Nogales, and that the Park Service will so decide.”128

Other historians such as R.K. Wyllys at Arizona State Teachers College in Tempe 

emphatically argued in favor of the San Pedro Valley point of entry and against the Santa 

 

124 Charles M. Morgan, “Autobiographical Notes, 1960,” Coronado National Memorial Collection, WACC, Folder H 

14: Area and Service History (1939) F1. 

125 Ibid. 126 Ibid. 127 Charles M. Morgan to Herbert E. Bolton, November 4, 1939, Coronado National Memorial Collection, WACC, 

Folder H 14: Area and Service History (1939) F1. 

128 Clinton P. Anderson to Congressman John R. Murdock, October 10, 1939, University of New Mexico Archives, 

Box 1. 

49
Cruz Valley route.129 Renowned, New Mexico historian, J. Manuel Espinosa supported 

Coronado’s entrance along San Pedro River130 into Arizona near the Palominas-Naco 

area as the corridor which led to the Arizona entry point. 

 On February 6, 1940, G.R. Michaels, secretary of the Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce, announced to Dr. Vernon Aubrey Neasham, Regional Historian, National 

Park Service, Santa Fe Regional Office, that the last hurdle toward gathering a consensus 

about the whereabouts of Coronado’s entry into the United States had been overcome. 

“Needless to say,” he wrote, “all of the people in this area were delighted with the 

announcement from Albuquerque, Sunday. Coronado entered what is now the United 

States via San Pedro Valley. We wish to assure you that we are ready and willing to do 

everything possible to assist your committee in getting this memorial project under 

way.”131

In an undated printed letter to the Minister for Foreign Relations in Mexico, the 

United States Coronado Exposition Commission appeared ambiguous about Coronado’s 

point of entry. The Commission wrote, “The point at which Coronado’s expedition 

passed into what is now Arizona from Mexico is generally believed by historians to have 

been in the vicinity of the San Pedro and Santa Cruz River valleys.”132

 Acknowledging the significance of the Coronado Expedition, the Commission 

appended an “Historical Statement which read: “Coronado’s expedition was one of the 

outstanding achievements of a period marked by notable explorations. It made known 

 

129 Comments of Dr. R. K. Wyllys, History and Social Studies Depts., Arizona State Teachers Collee, Tempe, Arizona 

in Karl E. Kilby to President Zimmerman and Gilberto Espinosa, Albuquerque, NM., University of New Mexico 

Archives (hereinafter cited as UNM Archives, Box 7). 

130 Comments of J. Manuel Espinosa, St. Louis University in Karl E.Kilby to President Zimmerman and Gilberto 

Espinosa (undated), UNM Archives, Box 7. 

131 G.R. Michaels to Aubrey Neasham, Bisbee, Arizona, February 6, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU Box 591, folder 

2. 

50
the vast extent and the nature of the country that lay north of central Mexico, and from 

the time of Coronado, Spaniards never lost interest in the country. In no small measure 

their subsequent occupation of it was due to the curiosity so created.”133

 In 1952, during the Congressional Hearings to change the name from Coronado 

International Memorial to Coronado National Memorial, Representative Murdock, who 

had supported the original 1940 legislation, again felt it important to reassert that the 

location of Coronado National Memorial was correct. “I might say to those of you who 

are students of history,” he remarked, “that there has been some discussion as to where 

Coronado entered what is now the United States, but that I think was very definitely 

determined by a board of historical authorities headed by Dr. Herbert Moulton [sic], of 

the University of California, who in my judgment, is the best student on the Spanish 

phases of American history that we have. We feel certain that we know almost exactly 

the spot which was entered by Coronado in 1540.”134 Indeed, the February 1952 issue of 

the Arizona Highways announced it, too, could prescribe the exact route: “Coronado’s 

route from Mexico crossed the southern peak of the Huachucas across the valley and San 

Pedro where recently an old Spanish spur was found buried in the sand. Their route also 

trailed over the Bisbee mountain near Lime Peak and across the divide to the valley 

below.”135 Despite the apodictic quality of such statements, questions regarding 

Coronado’s entry point persisted and would continue to be raised time and again 

 

132 United States Coronado Exposition Commission to The Minister for Foreign Relations, The Republic of Mexico, 

1940, Coronado National Memorial Collection, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (1939) F1. 133 Ibid.. 134 An Act, to provide the establishment of Coronado National Memorial in the State of Arizona, House of 

Representatives, Committee On Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Public Lands. H.R. 7553, June 16, 1952, 

Unpublished U.S. House of Representatives Committee Hearings, 1947-1954. 135 Quoted in Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., February 21, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

51
throughout the next fifty years, especially when the 450th anniversary of the expedition 

rolled around in 1990-1992. 

 The traditional consensus regarding Coronado’s route, however, is that it lies 

close to that proposed by A. Grove Day and Herbert Eugene Bolton. Both men 

popularized portions of the route through western Mexico, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, 

Oklahoma and central Kansas. Although the route they proposed is not necessarily the 

object of this analysis, it plays an important role in evaluating the historical significance 

of the expedition led by Coronado. Significantly, Day, in 1940, was among the first to 

propose that the expedition entered Arizona through a point near Naco, not far from the 

present Coronado National Memorial. The Bolton-Day route is presented herein with the 

historiographical perspectives of other researchers who have promulgated theories, 

hypotheses, and issues related to the expedition’s travel through a large portion of North 

America. The collective conclusion about the location of portions of Coronado’s route 

among historians and other researchers has taken the form of consensus. While historians 

continue their research of Coronado’ route, the general consensus of the route along the 

San Pedro River as known in the 1940s and 1950s influenced the location of Coronado 

National Memorial. 

 Historians agree that the Coronado expedition was the first major European 

exploration to penetrate the interior of the present United States. Exploring from 

Compostela on the west coast of Mexico, northward through Sonora, eastern Arizona to a 

point near Coronado National Memorial, across central New Mexico to the Rio Grande, 

the expedition moved eastward across the Texas Panhandle, marched through Oklahoma 

and reached the Great Bend of the Arkansas River in central Kansas. 

52
 Narrative accounts of the expedition describe its many encounters with the 

native inhabitants and contain a wealth of information about certain societies and their 

cultures while they were still in a pristine state of development. Likewise, descriptions of 

the flora and fauna and other natural resources were mentioned by these explorers. They 

were the first Europeans to describe the Grand Canyon of Arizona, the large herds of 

buffalo seen in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, as well as the Great Plains. 

The expedition members noted mountains, valleys, rivers, saltbeds, lakes, forests and 

other topographical features including the Continental Divide, the watershed that 

separates rivers flowing toward the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic. 

 During the period 1539 to 1545, two other expeditions, one led by Hernando de 

Soto whose men explored from Florida to Texas, and the other commanded by Juan 

Rodríguez Cabrillo who sailed up the California coast as far north as Cape Blanco in 

Oregon, aided Spanish officials in evaluating the widest geographic expanse of North 

America from coast to coast. Indeed, the Spaniards were the first Europeans to leave a 

written record of their deeds in North America, thus beginning a literary heritage about a 

large geographic area from California to Florida. That heritage includes the diaries, 

reports, correspondences, and later historical documentation referencing the expedition. 

Equally important to that heritage is the literature generated by modern writers about the 

expedition, for that body of literature is extensive. 

 Even before the days of the four hundredth anniversary of Francisco Vázquez de 

Coronado’s expedition, researchers had debated portions of the route subsequently 

proposed by Day and Bolton. Some of them went as far as to propose new ones. There 

are reasons for the disparities between some of the hypotheses. Day and Bolton dealt 

53
with the larger picture of the route. Based on the work of previous researchers, they were 

able to connect known places visited by the expedition with theories explaining how it 

reached them. Later researchers, concerned only with portions of the route, began to 

discover other hypothetical alternatives by concentrating on specific topographical and 

cultural features in certain areas believed crossed by the expedition. 

 It should be noted that while Day, Bolton and other researchers tested their 

hypothetical routes on the ground, other early writers of the route lacked access to the 

documentation and used translations that precluded certain perspectives about what the 

expedition had seen. Still, other writers lacked geographical knowledge about the areas 

traveled by the expedition or did not read carefully the sources available to them. 

Their search for the route began with the first steps taken by the expedition as it left 

Compostela on the west Mexican coast. 

 Indeed, the singlemost important leg of the expedition is that from Compostela 

through Sonora. Without a fundamental understanding of that portion of the route it is 

impossible to determine exactly where the expedition entered present Arizona and what 

direction it took beyond that point. The literature suggests two viable points through 

which the expedition passed upon entering present Arizona: the San Pedro and San 

Bernardino River valleys. Because Coronado’s route from Compostela to either of those 

two points is vague, a third line of march, one farther east, is possible. A fourth 

alternative, a western route through the Santa Cruz valley, has been discounted in recent 

years by scholars. In any case, finding the location of the expedition’s entry into the 

present United States depends wholly on determining the route taken through Sonora. 

54
 Although Bolton and Day presented a route through Sonora based on 

observation and analogy of their readings of the documents and what they perceived to be 

on the ground, Charles DiPeso, in 1974, approached the problem by utilizing available 

archaeological data and pertinent historical documentation. The historical problem lay in 

part with the lack of identity of rivers in Sonora for the early Spanish period. DiPeso 

wrote, “when modern historians attempt to correlate present-day names, such as Yaqui or 

Sonora River, with names used by early explorers who had no maps and often were 

inconvenienced by a lack of interpreters, and who used such terms as Yaqui and Senora, 

then distances and travel times are sacrificed and misconceptions are bound to arise. As 

just mentioned, a league was accepted as being a specific distance, and wherever possible 

was used to determine distances between points.”136 

 By comparing accounts of various sixteenth century expeditions, DiPeso arrived 

at a certain determination of place-names in Sonora. The variations of place names 

mentioned by explorers, explained DiPeso, were inconsequential because their singular 

locations were determined by Indian settlements along them, and their names were 

constant. Besides, he argued, the distance between them was a controlling factor, for the 

explorers had given estimated figures of time taken to travel between them and/or 

measurements in leagues. Additionally, Coronado kept a record of distances by having 

one of his men count the steps between the expedition’s daily campsites.137

DiPeso’s analysis could very well be a key to the historical conundrum 

concerning Coronado’s route through Sonora. By following the documentation almost 

to a fault, DiPeso determined that the route of Coronado veered northeastward to the Río 

 

136 Charles DiPeso, Casas Grandes (Dragoon: The Amerind Foundation, Inc. 1974), Vol. 4, p. 39. 

55
Bavispe and its confluence with the Río Batepito which he followed to the Río San 

Bernardino that originates in southeastern Arizona considerably east of the San Pedro 

River. DiPeso made a strong case for the expedition crossing into Arizona at present 

Slaughter Ranch not far westward from the Arizona-New Mexico border. He concluded 

that the expedition entered New Mexico crossing into the Animas Valley through 

Antelope Pass and then straddled the Arizona-New Mexico boundary until reaching Zuni 

Pueblo. 

 Earlier, in 1872, Brig. General J.H. Simpson, one of the first to attempt to trace 

Coronado’s route in southern Arizona, had assumed that the Spaniards had entered the 

present United States through the Santa Cruz Valley, stopping at Chichilticale, which he 

reckoned to be Casa Grande on the Gila River, and then turned northeast across the Pinal 

and Mogollon Mountains to Zuni. Simpson’s account, filled with errors, suggested the 

westernmost theory of the expedition through Arizona. His discussion of the route 

through the Mogollon Rim, however, lacks substantive detail.138 The notion persisted for 

almost seventy years, however, for in 1939, archaeologist Charlie Steen suggested that 

Fray Marcos de Niza’s preliminary expedition in 1539 had entered Arizona through the 

Santa Cruz River valley and turned northwestward somewhere between Tucson and 

Phoenix, entering the mountains probably beyond Florence near the Salt River.139 Niza 

was one of the guides of the Coronado Expedition in 1540. 

 

137 George P. Hammond and Agapito Rey, eds. and trans. Narratives of the Coronado Expedition (Albuquerque, 

University of New Mexico, 1940), p. 240. 138 James H. Simpson, “Coronado’s march in search of the `Seven Cities of Cibola’ and discussion of their probable 

location” in Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, (Washington, D.C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1872), p. 329. 

139 Charlie R. Steen, “The First European Explorers of the Southwest.” Article VI, United States Department of the 

Interior Memorandum for the Press. On file, Coronado National Memorial, Arizona. 

56
 Other scholars have contended that the expedition entered Arizona through the 

San Pedro River valley because it was most compatible with Spanish documentation and 

topography, being the easiest route northward. In 1895, Frederick W. Hodge argued that 

the expedition traveled north along the Río Sonora and entered Arizona through the San 

Pedro River valley, then crossed the Pinaleño Mountains over Railroad Pass, followed the 

San Simeon valley to a point near present Solomonsville and the Gila River, south of the 

present White Mountain Apache Reservation.140 Hodge’s route took the expedition 

directly on a northeastward path to the Zuni River. Of this portion of the route, Hodge’s 

explanation, likewise, lacks sufficient detail for analysis. The debate over the location of 

the expedition’s crossing into Arizona from Sonora was only beginning. Hodge had 

raised a point which would cause much speculation concerning the San Pedro River 

valley hypothesis. 

 In 1947 George J. Undreiner141 re-examined Fray Marcos de Niza’s journey to 

Cibola and proposed that Niza had entered Arizona on April 13, 1539 by following a 

route north along the Pima road about 15 miles east of Lochiel soon after which he 

reached Quiburi, a Sobaipuri village on the San Pedro River. Three days later, Niza 

visited Baicatcan, another village on the San Pedro, which DiPeso had dated pre-1698. 

Herein was the riddle. Pedro de Castañeda, chronicler of the Coronado expedition, stated 

that after visiting a certain Indian town, the expedition described a four-day despoblado 

(an uninhabited area) north of there. Undreiner pointed out that in his preliminary 

expedition of 1539, Niza, probably at Baicatcan, or at least at Quiburi, learned that two 

more days of travel would bring him to a despoblado which would take four days to 

 

140 Frederick Webb Hodge, “The First Discovered City of Cibola,” American Anthropologist, (1895) 8:142-252. 

57
cross. He contended that Niza, after two days of travel, had reached the northernmost 

Sobaipuri village on the San Pedro and that it was probably near Aravaipa Creek.142

 On that same point, Albert H. Schroeder responded to historians who had 

suggested that Coronado’s expedition went down the San Pedro River in southeastern 

Arizona. Additionally,on the basis that Juan Jaramillo, chronicler of the expedition, had 

indicated that the expedition turned east, Schroeder routed Niza and Coronado either up 

Aravaipa Creek or east from the Tres Alamos region.143 Schroeder wrote, “If the former 

route is accepted it would imply that that portion of the middle San Pedro River, more 

that two days travel south of the junction with the Aravaipa, would not have been 

occupied, since it would then be the four-day despoblado. 

 Seeking to validate Niza’s whereabouts on his route, Schroeder’s thesis pointed 

to the very area where DiPeso, basing his conclusions on archaeological evidence, 

suggested. Dipeso argued that “occupation may have been unbroken from late 

prehistoric into historic (1690s) times. Thus, the old routes appear to be in error.”144 In 

support of Hodge’s hypothesis, Schroeder defends Niza, commenting that “The evidence 

presented herein not only indicates the good father was telling the truth, but that 

Coronado and his chroniclers knowingly supported much of his relation pertaining to the 

trip through this area.”145 Thus, Schroeder, in the end, cast his lot with the San Pedro 

River valley entrance hypothesis. 

 

141 George J. Undreiner, “Fray Marcos de Niza and his Journey to Cibola,” in The Americas, Vol. III, no. 4, April 1947, 

pp. 415-486. 

142 Undreiner, op. cit., 1947, pp. 415-486. 143 Adolph F. Bandelier, “Historical Introduction to Studies among the Sedentary Indians of New Mexico” in Papers of 

the Archaeological Institute of America (Boston, American Series I, 1881), p. 1 and “An Outline of the Documentary 

History of the Zuni Tribe,” Journal of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 1892, pt. II:407; George P. Winship, The 

Coronado Expedition, 1540-1542 (Washington, D.C.: Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1896), p. 

387. Bolton, Coronado1(949), 105; Carl Sauer, “The Road to Cibola,” Ibero-Americana, Berkeley, 1932, p. 36. 144 Albert H. Shroeder, “Fray Marcos de Niza, Coronado and the Yavapai,” New Mexico Historical Review, 30: 265. 145 Ibid., p. 267. 

58
 The debate surrounding the San Pedro River Valley entrance is tied to the 

location of Chichilticale (sometimes spelled Chichilticalli). Of Chichilticale, Coronado 

wrote, “I rested for two days at Chichilticale, and there was no chance to rest further, 

because the food was giving out.”146 In his account, Pedro de Castañeda reported, “The 

land changes again at Chichilticale and the thorny trees disappear. The reason is that 

since the gulf extends as far as that place and the coast turns, so also the ridge of the 

sierra turns. Here one comes to cross the ridge and it breaks to pass into the plains of the 

land.”147

 What was Chichilticale? At times the documents refer to it as a valley, other 

times it appears as a mountain range, a bay, or even a despoblado, and finally, as a place 

or a village. Coronado and Melchior Díaz mentioned the “people of Chichiltcale”.148 

After careful consideration, DiPeso concluded that it was south of the Arizona-Sonora 

border closer to the Río Batepito and the San Bernardino valley. He wrote, “Ruins which 

might be ascribed to those of the ‘red house’ of Chichilticale occur up and down the San 

Bernardino Valley, and the Stevens Ranch site contains pottery fragments which indicate 

a trade relationship with the N[orth] and the Little Colorado.”149 By placing Chichilticale 

in that area, DiPeso suggested that north of the confluence of the San Bernardino River 

valley was a fifteen day despoblado.150

 Schroeder correctly surmised the critical need to define the location of 

Chichilticale because, for one of many reasons, it determined where the expedition went 

next. He countered any argument that suggests that Chichilticale lay south of the 

 

146 Hammond and Rey, Narratives, p. 166. 147 Ibid., p. 251. 148 Ibid., p. 165. 149 DiPeso, Casas Grandes, p. 100. 150 Ibid. 

59
Arizona-Sonora border by stating, “The ethnological traits reported by the early Spanish 

who recorded their travels of 1539 and 1540 through Arizona point to the Yavapai as the 

people who occupied the area on the north side of the four-day despoblado, where 

Chichilticale was located. Internal evidence within these early documents also indicates 

that Fray Marcos and Coronado followed the San Pedro to its mouth, not just to Tres 

Alamos or Aravaipa on the San Pedro, and that from there they crossed the Gila and went 

over to the Salt River as Undreiner suggests.”151 Schroeder was emphatic about the 

significance of this point writing, “Thus, the Yavapai remain as the only possible group, 

separated by four days’ travel, that bordered the Sobaipuri on the north in 1539 and 

1540.”152

 Furthermore, in contrast to DiPeso’s and Hodge’s routes from Arizona to New 

Mexico, he proposed that after departing the mouth of the San Pedro River, the 

expedition proceeded down the Salt River “almost to the mouth of Tonto Creek, then up 

Salome Creek and over the north end of the Sierra Anchas and then generally northeast 

over the Mogollon Rim across to Zuni. There is little or no evidence to indicate they 

went east from the San Pedro at Tres Alamos or via Aravaipa Creek and then across the 

present day San Carlos Apache country to Zuni. Such a trail would necessitate a route 

directed to the north or north-north-east, rather than northeast as the documents state.”153

 Carroll L. Riley and Joni L. Manson also agree, without specifying their 

argument, that Chichilticale was in southern Arizona or New Mexico.154 Riley, on the 

basis of historical, anthropological and botanical evidence revolving around linguistics, 

 

151 Schroeder, “Fray Marcos de Niza,” New Mexico Historical Review (1956), 31:32. 152 Ibid., p. 33. 153 Ibid., p. 32. 154 Carroll L. Riley and Joni L. Manson, “The Cíbola-Tiguex Route: Continuity and Change in the Southwest,” New 

Mexico Historical Review (October 1983), pp. 349. 

60
argued that the location of Chichiltacale was at one of two probable locations: one on the 

lower Salt River, the other on the upper Gila River155

 Having crossed the despoblado, the anonymous sixteenth century writer of the 

Relación del Suceso156 commented that “the entire route up to within fifty leagues of 

Cibola (New Mexico) is inhabited, although in some places at a distance from the road.” 

This and other commentary by the members of the expedition are open to interpretation. 

The route to Cibola from the despoblado is fraught with a dearth of information leaving 

the researcher often with little more than his imagination. 

 The most accepted route of the expedition through Arizona is that proposed by 

Herbert E. Bolton. Since 1949, the Bolton route has gained in venerability, partly 

because of his scholarly influence and partly because his field research almost rivaled 

that of Coronado’s epic march across a large portion of North America. Bolton built on 

the work of earlier researchers, and was probably influenced, although he denied it, by A. 

Grove Day’s Coronado’s Quest: The Discovery of the American West, which was 

published in 1940. 

 Day favored the Sonora Valley as a probable point from which Arizona was 

reached. Furthermore, he opted for the San Pedro River route, specifying that Coronado 

had entered Arizona through a plain extending to the headwaters of the San Pedro River 

near present-day Naco. Somewhere near there, he explained, was the point of departure 

for crossing the despoblado. Day went on to propose that the expedition crossed the Gila 

and Salt Rivers by means of an old Indian trail, and then proceeded through the White 

Mountains to the upper drainage of the Little Colorado near St. Johns to the Zuni River. 

 

155 Riley, “The Location of Chichilticale” in Charles H. Lange, ed., Collected Papers in Honor of Albert H. Schroeder

(Santa Fe: Ancient City Press, 1985), 153. 

61
Although Day did not specifically tell how the expedition crossed the area, he deferred to 

the work by Sauer and Winship for his information. 

 Just as it is paramount to understand the expedition’s whereabouts through 

Sonora to where they entered Arizona, it is equally important to learn about the route 

from Arizona to New Mexico. In that way, it may be possible to backtrack to the 

Arizona point of entry. Each leg of the expedition’s trek through a given area links with 

its previous leg and the one that follows it. Like Day, Bolton relied on Winship and other 

sources to define his proposed route which he then set out to prove through his fieldwork. 

Generally, Bolton’s route has the expedition leaving the traditionally mentioned 

Compostela to Culiacán where they followed the coastal plain, veering northeastward 

between the Gulf of California and the Sierra Madre Occidental crossing rivers until they 

reached the Sonora River valley. From there, deduced Bolton, the expedition entered 

Arizona through the San Pedro River Valley. The Bolton route placed the expedition’s 

point of departure through the despoblado near Benson, Arizona, from where it marched 

northeast through the Galiuro range and crossed the Arivaipa valley, passing through 

Eagle Pass between the Pinaleño and Santa Teresa mountains. 

 Bolton surmised that the expedition’s line of march through the despoblado ran 

along the Gila River, crossing it at present-day Bylas, after which it forded the Salt River 

near Bonito Creek. Next, he proposed that Coronado continued northward, crossed the 

White River near Fort Apache, ascended the Mogollon Rim by following small streams 

before emerging on the Little Colorado River near its confluence with the Zuni River. 

Shortly, the expedition reached Hawikuh.157

 

156 Hammond and Rey, Narratives, 284. 157 Bolton, Coronado, 108-117. 

62
 The route has been accepted by some historians, modified by others and 

contested by yet another group of researchers who offer their own conclusions markedly 

different from Bolton’s. Researchers, namely R.M. Wagstaff, have criticized the Bolton 

proposal by noting that the distances traveled by the expedition do not conform with 

Bolton’s conclusions. Also, Bolton’s identification of rivers, which often appear to be 

juxtaposed to fit the narrative are misleading. Although Wagstaff did not adequately 

support the discrepancies he cited, DiPeso attempted to propose an alternative route in 

which he accounted for rivers and distances. Employing the same methodology as he had 

on the rivers in Sonora, DiPeso suggested that the expedition traveled from Antelope Pass 

to Cibola, meandering in and out of Arizona and New Mexico until they reached Zuni.158 

 Preceding Bolton, Carl Sauer’s interpretation of the route through Arizona is 

traced from the San Pedro River to a point north of Benson, around the Galiuro 

mountains into the upper basin of Arivaipa Creek north to the Gila River by way of Eagle 

Pass between the Pinaleño and Santa Teresa ranges. Following the San Carlos River, the 

expedition turned northeast crossing the Natanes plateau and the Black River to a point 

on the White River near present-day Fort Apache from where Coronado passed near 

present McNary. From there, they crossed the Colorado Plateau to the Little Colorado 

River, thence to the Zuni River before reaching Hawikuh.159

 The consensus among historians, is that the San Pedro River served as the 

passageway to Arizona on the last leg of Coronado’s march through Sonora. They 

mostly agree that from a point along the San Pedro River, the expedition veered 

northward, entering Arizona somewhere along the present border. Day suggests that 

 

158 DiPeso, Casas Grandes, p. 102. 159 Sauer, “The Road to Cibola,” Ibid., pp. 36-37. 

63
Coronado crossed into Arizona where the valley broadens, near Naco, not far from 

Bisbee. As the exact entry point cannot be ascertained, historians have debated the 

hypothesis adding their own conclusions. From its strategic location, Coronado National 

Memorial overlooks the panoramic view of the San Pedro River Valley which, the 

legislators of 1940 surmised, the expedition crossed in 1540, and commemorates the 

Francisco Vázquez de Coronado expedition as part of our national story. The wise 

creators of the Master Plan for Coronado National Memorial in 1954 astutely recognized 

the purpose of the Memorial. They began the Master Plan Development Outline with the 

words: 

Though this area was set aside as a memorial to commemorate the first 

large scale Spanish expedition into the Southwest, no physical remains of 

historic features or trails pertaining to this event exist within the 

area...from high on the southern end of the Huachuca Mountains, one 

looks over the San Pedro and Santa Cruz Valleys, either one of which, 

depending on the historian consulted, may represent the actual route of 

travel over which Coronado passed in the spring of 1540 when he with his 

advance guard, and later his main army, came through this region. There 

also is a view out over a wide expanse of the Sonora Valley region 

through which Coronado approached Arizona from the south.160

These words ring true today as when they were written.

 

160 Master Plan Development Outline Coronado National Memorial, November 1954, D18, Master Plans [1954] F2.pdf, 

WACC, Archives CD Box 3. 

64
Chapter III 

The United States-Mexico Conundrum and the Change from “Coronado 

International Memorial” to “Coronado National Memorial” 

Provided, that said proclamation shall not be issued 

until the President of the United States shall have 

been advised through official channels that the 

Government of Mexico has established, or provided 

for the establishment of, an area of similar type and 

size adjoining the area described herein.—Act of 

August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 630) 

It is my feeling, Gus, that it will be along, long time 

before we can get the Mexican Government to go 

along with us to establish a joint memorial to 

Coronado—Hillory Tolson, Acting Director, National 

Park Service, to G.R. Michaels, February 8, 1946 

I understand that Senator Hayden...may discuss with 

you...and others the feasibility...of establishing the 

Arizona portion of the proposed Coronado 

International Memorial as the ‘Coronado National 

Memorial’. To do this, it would be necessary, of 

course, to amend the act of August 18, 1941, by 

eliminating the above-quoted provision and by 

changing the name of the area.—Hillory Tolson to 

Grace Sparkes, September 15, 1950. 

Since that period, interest continued—war retarded 

action—likewise apparent lack of action and proper 

understanding in Mexico—Grace Sparkes to Arthur 

R. Williams, American Consul, Agua Prieta, Mexico, 

March 19, 1951. 

Following the Congressional action of 1940-1941, very little toward the 

establishment of the Coronado International Memorial occurred. Even though the 

proposal to establish a suitable monument received a “hearty approval of both President 

Manuel Avila Camacho and President Franklin D. Roosevelt” in 1940, long term 

65
Mexican support for it proved to be lukewarm.161 On June 1, 3, 5, and 10, 1942,162

representatives of Mexico and the United States met at the Mexican International Park 

Commission meeting in Mexico City to discuss plans for the proposed Coronado 

International Memorial. Among the U.S. representatives were Hillory Tolson, chairman; 

Miner E. Tillotson, Dr. Aubrey Neasham, Mrs. Foster Rockwell, Odd S. Halseth, and Dr. 

Herbert E. Bolton.163 The members of the Mexican Coronado International Commission 

named by Marte R. Gómez, Secretary of Agriculture, were Ingeniero Fernando Romero 

Quintana, chairman, Ing. Carlos Villas Pérez, Ing. Rafael Fernández McGregor, Ing. Juan 

Manuel Corona, Ing. José Garcia Martínez, and Ing. Agustín Gómez y Gutierrez.164 The 

joint recommendations submitted to Secretary Gómez called for a survey of the proposed 

site in Sonora that was occupied by the Cananea Cattle Company. 

Once the survey was completed, the recommendations provided that the President 

of Mexico issue “a decree establishing the Coronado International Memorial in 

Sonora.”165 Lastly, a copy of the decree, signed and published, would be sent to the 

United States government. To comply with the recommendations, the surveyor, Villas 

Pérez, a trained engineer, was sent to the border to “survey and fence the proposed area in 

Sonora, and to negotiate with the Cananea Cattle Company.”166 As a result of the 

meeting held in Mexico City in 1942, the over-enthused U.S. participants optimistically 

reported “that they [the Mexicans] would like to see an area of approximately the same 

 

161 Resume of the Coronado Project, probably written by Odd S. Halseth in 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, 

folder 3. 

162 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, July 18, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. In this 

correspondence, Tolson gives these dates and place of the 1942 meeting. 163 Ibid., Also see Tolson to G.R. Michaels, Chicago, January 29, 1944, WACC, H14: Area & Service, History 41-42 

F3. 

164 Ibid. 165 Ibid. 166 Ibid. 

66
acreage [2,800 acres]”167 on the Mexican side. Unfortunately, World War II intervened 

and the project lay inactive until 1947. 

Among other national priorities affecting the United States, World War II had 

taken up much of the country’s energies, and, during the war years, the Arizona 

Coronado Commission had been deactivated. However, any earlier Presidential 

Proclamation would have been muted by the Act of August 18, 1941, which effectively 

put the proposed Coronado International Memorial on hold until Mexico reciprocated 

with a memorial mirroring the U.S. effort on the border. It seemed that the word 

“international” required the agreement of both Mexico and the United States to erect the 

proposed memorial on the border. Meanwhile, Hayden did not return to his pet project of 

establishing an international memorial near Bisbee until the late 1940s when the war 

years were behind him. 

Meanwhile, in the United States, the embers of hope that Mexico would 

reciprocate were kept alive through correspondence and meetings that took place between 

the Arizona Commission and the National Park Service. In August 1943, following up 

on the 1942 meeting, Ing. Emilio Gutierrez Roldán, Mexico’s Director General of Forests 

and Game, wrote to the NPS Director advising him of an agreement reached between him 

and the Cananea Cattle Company. Gutierrez Roldán stated that the Company “had 

offered to place the land at the disposal of the Director General of Forests and Game for 

an indefinite period, subject only to the condition that the Company be allowed to graze 

cattle on it and to terminate the grant at such time as the land is no longer used as an 

international park.”168 Tolson went on to explain to Senator Hayden that following the 

 

167 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., December 6, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 168 Tolson to Hayden, Chicago, May 27, 1944, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 

67
National Park Service response of October 11, 1943 to Gutierrez Roldán, communication 

with Mexico suddenly stopped. A copy of that letter had also been sent to Villas Pérez 

who also did not respond. Finally, on April 1, 1944, Tolson wrote to George 

Messersmith, American Ambassador to Mexico, to inquire of Gutierrez Roldán of the 

status of the letter and their plans for the International Memorial. On May 3, L.D. 

Mallory, the Agricultural Attache of the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, met with Villas 

Pérez, “who located our letter of October 11, 1943, and found that a reply had not been 

made to it.”169 He promised a reply, but as of May 27, 1944, none had been received by 

the National Park Service. 

Despite his frustration with Mexican officials, Tolson informed Hayden that 

tentative plans for development of the site were underway in the event that Mexico would 

soon reciprocate. Of the plans, particularly for the U.S. side, he wrote: 

If and when, a copy of the decree establishing the Coronado International 

Memorial Park in Sonora is received by this Service, we will be in a 

position to prepare and submit to the President, through the Secretary of 

the Interior, the proclamation establishing the Coronado International 

Memorial in Arizona. 

A development plan for the two areas which are to constitute the 

Coronado International Memorial will necessarily develop slowly as it 

should be considered and approved jointly by the proper representatives of 

Mexico and the United States. Any developments, including the roads 

leading to the areas, should be carefully designed so that they will be in 

keeping with the commemorative nature of the Memorial and with the 

character of the area itself. The developments probably should include 

only small administration-exhibit and utility buildings and a custodian’s 

residence, with their necessary telephone, electricity, sewage, and water 

facilities; a parking area adjacent to the administration building; and an 

entrance road leading to the developed area from the nearest State 

Highway. All of these structures should be located on lower ground than 

“Coronado Peak,” the highest point in the Memorial areas. On that peak it 

is proposed to construct only an observation station and a trail leading to it 

 

169 Ibid. 

68
either from the existing spur road leading off of the state highway or from 

a point near the administration building.170

Indeed, Tolson, as nearly everyone involved with the Memorial on the United 

States’ side, held out hope for a reciprocal agreement with Mexico. Clarifying the 

implementation of the plans, Tolson explained that they were “tentative” and, 

given Mexican cooperation, “The final plan for the two areas, however, cannot be 

developed until an opportunity is afforded after the war, for representatives of the 

two Governments to confer and agree upon it.”171

In June 1944, several National Park Service personnel, among them E.T. Scoyen, 

acting Regional Director in Santa Fe, toured southern Arizona. They made a stop in 

Bisbee where a meeting between those interested parties took place.172 The business of 

the meeting was to discuss the status of the proposed memorial. Everyone knew that the 

project was in a holding pattern until the Mexicans could reciprocate. Still, Mexico City 

remained silent on the issue of the Coronado International Memorial. On August 19, 

1944, Tolson wrote to Halseth saying “We feel sure that Ing. Villas Perez is still 

interested in the international memorial project, and has not been in position to get his 

Department to reply to our communications due to circumstances beyond his control.”173 

Turning to his “last resort” plan, Tolson suggested to Halseth that “if the Mexican 

Government finally decides that it is not interested in carrying out the recommendations 

of the Mexico-United States commission which met in Mexico City in June 1942,” then 

the Act of August 18, 1941 should be amended to eliminate the requirement for an 

international memorial and instead move for a national memorial within the state of 

 

170 Ibid. 171 Ibid. 172 E.T. Scoyen to Gus Michaels, Santa Fe, June 8, 1944, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 

69
Arizona.174 Still, Tolson, holding out hope, suggested to Halseth that they proceed with 

their plans. To that end, he wrote: 

It may be held by some that this is a matter that need not be pressed at this 

time. However it is probable that the wars against Hitler’s Germany and 

Japan will be terminated within the next year. If so, active plans, 

presumably, will be made to handle the resulting unemployment; and 

funds will probably be made available for some type of public works 

program. The establishment of the memorial, therefore, as soon as 

practicable would seem to be in order so that the necessary plans and 

arrangements can be made for its development and administration. This 

will involve, as you know, working out arrangements with those agencies 

of our Government which, under the law, are responsible for customs, 

immigration, border patrol, and naturalization activities, etc. It will also 

involve reaching agreements with the proper Mexican officials with 

respect to the developments to be placed in the companion areas of the 

memorial. The preparation of the development plans alone is no small 

item. The handling of all of these matters is obviously time-consuming. 

Unless we get started promptly, the development and administration of 

this splendid international memorial area (which is important because of 

its great possibilities in the promotion of a friendly relationship between 

Mexico and the United States in addition to providing a fitting memorial 

for the Coronado expedition) will lag far behind the rest of the coming 

postwar public works programs.175

Tolson obviously hoped that, this time, things would be different in regard to Mexican 

participation. 

On September 6, 1944, Tolson informed Hayden that Mexican authorities had not 

responded to his letter of October 11, 1943. Searching for a solution to the lack of 

communication from Mexico, Tolson asked Halseth to write to his friend Villas Pérez, 

and he agreed to do so.176 Still no response. On February 1, 1944, Tolson issued another 

letter to Villas Pérez. In it, Tolson asked him about the changing memberships of the 

Mexican Coronado Commission and the International Park Commission of Mexico. 

 

173 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., July 18, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. Here, Tolson 

quotes from his letter to Halseth dated August 19, 1944. 

174 Ibid. 175 Ibid. 

70
Referencing a letter from Villas Pérez dated May 27 regarding the re-appointment of Ing. 

Fernando Romero Quintana and the appointment of Ing. Emilio Gutierrez Roldán to the 

position of Director General of Forests and Game, Tolson wanted to know whether 

Gutierrez Roldán would replace Romero Quintana as chairman of the Mexican Coronado 

Commission.177 In regard to the unanswered letter of October 11, 1943, to Gutierrez 

Roldán from then National Park Service Director Newton B. Drury, Tolson expressed to 

Villas Pérez that once the Mexican Government had committed to establishing its part of 

the Memorial, the U. S. President could and would make the necessary proclamation. 

Paraphrasing from Drury’s 1943 letter, Tolson wrote: 

...it would appear that the next step to be taken after the Mexican 

Government has legally perfected its right to provide for the establishment 

of the Coronado International Memorial Park pursuant to the Cananea 

Cattle Company’s offer, is that an appropriate notification to that effect 

should be communicated to the President of the United States through 

official diplomatic channels. Mr. Drury also advised Ing. Emilio 

Gutierrez Roldan that upon receipt of the official notification mentioned, 

the National Park Service of the United States Department of the Interior 

will prepare the necessary proclamation to establish the Coronado 

International Memorial in Arizona, U.S.A., and send it to the President of 

the United States for approval and issuance.178

Apparently, Tolson hoped that the Mexicans would respond if the processes for 

establishing the Coronado International Memorial did not appear as complicated for 

them as it actually was politically. By year’s end, the response was not forthcoming. 

On December 26, 1944, Tolson wrote to Hayden announcing that “it is regretted that no 

word has as yet been received from Ing. Carlos Villas Perez, either directly or through 

 

176 Tolson to Hayden, Washington, D.C., September 6, 1944, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) 

F3. 

177 Tolson to Villas Perez, Chicago, February 1, 1944, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 178 Ibid. 

71
Mr. Odd Halseth of Phoenix, Arizona, regarding the proposed Coronado International 

Memorial Park in Sonora, Republic of Mexico.”179

Little occurred throughout 1945 that would change the course of events. 

Although communications with Mexico were, as they had been in the previous years, 

minimal, Tolson continued to make plans in the event that Mexico would respond 

affirmatively. Aside from making general points about the development that should take 

place at the proposed site (“small administration building, exhibit room, utility area, 

custodian’s residence, parking area, an observation station, an entrance road, and other 

necessary facilities”), Tolson wrote to Hayden about other exigencies. Referring to other 

issues, he wrote: 

It will be necessary for representatives of Mexico and the United States to 

agree upon and work out a plan for administering the Memorial in view 

of the fact that important customs and immigration, and perhaps other, 

questions will arise when the two areas in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico 

are set aside as the Coronado International Memorial.180

Hoping for a response which, he felt, could come at any moment, Tolson anticipated 

what steps would have to be taken to plan a joint memorial with Mexico. 

 As 1945 rolled into 1946, little had been accomplished toward establishing 

Coronado International Memorial. Disappointed, Tolson, in February 1946, wrote to 

Michaels saying “It is my feeling, Gus, that it will be a long, long time before we can get 

the Mexican Government to go along with us to establish a joint memorial to 

Coronado.”181 By March, Tolson hoped to learn what Halseth had been able to do about 

the Coronado International Memorial while in Mexico City. Writing to Michaels about 

the situation, Tolson remarked, “While it will be helpful to know what Odd Halseth was 

 

179 Tolson to Hayden, Chicago, December 26, 1944, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 180 Tolson to Hayden, Chicago, January 15, 1945, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 

72
able to find out about it in Mexico City, I have no confidence that we will be able to do 

anything in Mexico at this time toward the establishment of the memorial.”182 As 

secretary of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, Michaels continued to have a strong 

interest in establishing the Memorial and informed Tolson to that end. On November 4, 

1946, Michaels wrote to Tolson saying: 

At a local committee meeting recently, it was felt that actually nothing 

could be done until after the first of the year when the new president of 

Mexico takes office and we find out who the members of his cabinet will 

be handling this matter. I believe you will concur in this idea. 

Some time between now and the first of the year I believe we should 

outline a plan so that we can start immediately. We would also like to 

have the project developed to a point where we could get a small 

appropriation in the 1946-1947 budget and actually start work next year. 

At your convenience kindly let me have your ideas on this matter.183

Perhaps the post-war years were setting in, and along with it, a new optimism that 

things would change for the better. Too, from that parallax view, the Mexican 

Presidential election of 1946 appeared to bode well. To boost the morale of those 

involved with the Memorial on the U.S. side, Tolson learned in late November that he 

and Dr. Jesse L. Nusbaum, a National Park Service Archeologist in Santa Fe, had been 

appointed to the International Park Commission by Secretary of the Interior.184 

Undoubtedly, Tolson hoped that his appointment would put him in better position to 

deal with his Mexican counterparts as a peer. 

Due to the election of 1946 in Mexico, many governmental departments were 

reorganized in early 1947. Unfortunately, one of the casualties of the reorganization was 

 

181 Tolson to Michaels, Chicago, February 8, 1946, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 182 Tolson to Michaels, Chicago, March 8, 1946, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 183 Michaels to Tolson, Bisbee, November 4, 1946, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. 184 Tolson to Tillotson, Chicago, November 20, 1946, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3.Also 

see, Dean Acheson, Acting Secretary, Department of State, to Julius A. Krug, Secretary of the Interior, November 8, 

1946, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History (41-52) F3. Other members were P.V. Wood head, U.S. Forest 

73
the Coronado Memorial Commission of Mexico, which was dispersed. Hoping to 

reestablish contact, Tolson, Tillotson, Ross Maxwell, Superintendent of Big Bend 

National Park, and I.J. Castro, also of the National Park Service, went to Mexico City in 

July 1947 at the urgings of Villas Pérez. They met with Ambassador Walter P. Thurston 

on July 15 and made arrangements to meet with Secretary of Agriculture Nazario Ortiz 

Garza and his representatives the following day. Tolson reported that the meeting 

resulted in the assignment of a “permanent International Park Commission of 

Mexico.”185 

Its members consisted of Ing. Jesus Merino Fernández Delgado, under secretary 

of Agriculture and chairman of the Commission. Other members were Lic. Silverstre 

Aguilar, Director General of Forests and Game; Ing. Villas Pérez, Chief of Office of 

Department of Agriculture; Ing. Luis de la Fuente, Chief of Development, Forests and 

Game; and Ing. David Herrera Jordán, Member, Mexican Boundary and Water 

Commission.186 That committee would soon change.187 The upshot of the joint meeting 

of July 16, however, was a recommendation that a decree be prepared establishing the 

“Sonora companion area to the Coronado International Memorial.” 

 

Service, Albuquerque; William H. Zeh, Office of Indian Affairs, Phoenix; and John C. Gatlin, Regional Director, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. 

185 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., July 18, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 186Ibid. Also see entry for 1947 in Resume of the Coronado Project, probably authored by Odd S. Halseth in 1951, 

Hayden papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. In this summary report, probably written by Halseth it is stated that the 

United States Commission sent a member to visit Secretary of Agriculture, Nasario Ortiz Garza and Ing. Villas Perez 

resulting in the establishment of, a new Commission for Mexico. On July 16, 1947, the Mexican Commissioners Ing. 

Jesús Merino Fernandez Delgado, Ing. Federico Sanchez, Lic. Silvestre Aguilar, Ing. Carlos Villas Perez, and Ing. Luis 

de la Fuente met with members of the U.S. Commission in Mexico City. This is obviously the same meeting that 

Tolson reported on in his July 18, 1951 letter to Sparkes, op. cit. 187 Tolson to Sparkes, July 18, 1951, ibid. The Mexican Commission was reorganized with the following members: 

Ing. Eulogio de la Garza, Director General, Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries Service; Ing. David Herrera Jordan, 

Mexican Representative of the International Boundary and Water Commission; Ing., Luis Macias Arellano, Chief 

Wildlife Division, Forest and Wildlife Service; and Ing. Humerto Ortega Gattaneo, Chief, Division of Forest 

Protection. Minister of Agriculture Nazario S. Ortiz Garza was the ex officio member of the Commission. 

74
Almost suddenly, the Coronado International Memorial project received new 

life.188 Tolson wrote that the members of the Mexican Commission promised that they 

would start work immediately on the decrees for both the Coronado International 

Memorial in Sonora and the international park mirroring Big Bend National Park in 

Coahuila and Chihuahua. They also agreed to call another joint meeting in Santa Fe, 

New Mexico “as soon as practicable after the decrees were issued and printed in the 

Diario Official,”189 the corresponding publication of the U.S. Federal Register. 

In July 1947, the Department of State communicated to the U.S. government 

about “two decrees” in draft form, that were being discussed in Mexico regarding the 

establishment of a Mexican parks across from Big Bend National Park in Texas and a 

“memorial area in Sonora as a companion area to the proposed Coronado International 

Memorial in Arizona.”190

Meanwhile, the National Park Service’s efforts were thwarted by the actions of 

the Cananea Cattle Company. Not long after the July 18 meeting in Mexico City that had 

promised so much, Tolson, much chagrinned, reported “The next information we had 

regarding the Coronado Memorial was that Mr. C.E. Wiswall of the Cananea Cattle 

Company had gotten in touch with the representatives of the State Department of this 

Country and of the Mexican Government to protest the creation of the memorial.”191 It 

was that protest, in large part, which led to the decision of the Department of State to 

demur on the matter. 

 

188 Ibid. 189 Ibid. 190 Memorandum from Assistant Director Tolson, National Park Service to Assistant Secretary Davidson, Department 

of the Interior, Washington, D.C., January 12, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 191 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., July 18, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

75
The following year, on December 21, 1948, Senator Hayden wrote to Ing. Villas 

Pérez, a member of the International Park Commission of Mexico, advising him that 

through diplomatic channels the United States Department of State had informed the 

Mexican government that it could not insist that Mexico cooperate in the Coronado 

Memorial project because of “its policy of not pressing the Mexican Government too 

strongly for action in matters where American interests are involved.”192 The “American 

interests,” in regard to the Coronado International Memorial in Sonora, were those of the 

Cananea Cattle Company. Having no response from Villas Pérez for a year, Hayden 

seemed at a loss to find ways to encourage Mexican interest in the Coronado 

International Memorial. 

In January 1949, Hayden wrote to a number of his constituents, responding to a 

proposed plan by the National Park Service concerning the Coronado International 

Memorial. In it, he discussed the intent of Hillory Tolson, Assistant Director, National 

Park Service, to reactivate the Arizona Coronado Commission so that all interested 

parties could be brought together in the plans for the “international monument.” One of 

the constituents, Odd S. Halseth, asked Hayden for his assistance in getting the governor 

of Arizona involved in the planning as it “will help to bring about a speedy conclusion of 

negotiations needed to bring the United States-Mexico-Cananea Cattle Company officials 

 

192 Ibid., Toldon informed Davidson of Department of State “Assistant Secretary Peurifoy’s reply of December 3, 1948, 

stating that, because of the American interests involved in thes proposed park areas, the Department of Stte hesitates to 

make further inquiry of the Mexican Government, at this time, concerning the status of the two decrees. Mr. Peurifoy 

also stated that the state Department would be glad to have its representatives discuss this matter further with 

representatives of the Interior Department, and, if this was desired, to get in touch with Mr. Paul J. Reveley, Chief, 

Division of Mexican Affairs, to arrange for a time and place for the meeting.” Hayden to Halseth, Washington, D.C., 

February 14, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

76
together on a plan suitable to all.”193 Perhaps, thought Hayden, the solution to the lack of 

cooperation by Mexico had presented itself. 

 Two intricately tied trends had evolved during the interim years to get the 

Coronado International Memorial going. One was the ongoing effort to determine 

Mexico’s interest in the project, the other was to reestablish the Arizona Commission 

chapter of the old Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission to jumpstart the 

establishment of the Memorial and Mexico’s interest. In 1949, Halseth had put it bluntly 

to Hayden, “Protocol seems to be a hindrance to the Interior Department, whereas an 

Arizona Commission could invite participation in meeting and planning.”194 Still, it was 

Tolson, Assistant Director of the National Park Service, who earlier had made the 

proposal to reactivate the Arizona Coronado Commission. Tolson’s words were: 

I believe that we can work out a plan which will clear the way for the 

Mexican government to issue the decree to establish the Coronado 

International Memorial in Sonora. The Arizona Coronado commission, 

which became inactive during the war, is, in accordance with my 

suggestion, being re-activated. It will be composed of prominent Arizona 

citizens who are interested in the establishment of the Coronado 

International memorial. Most of them, I understand, are acquainted with 

the officials of the Cananea Cattle Company, which owns the land (about 

2,880 acres) needed by the Mexican Government for the establishment of 

the Memorial.195

Tolson also reported on a meeting that had taken place on December 3, 1948 between 

him and Charles A. Richey of the National Park Service, and Mr. Reveley and a staff 

member from the Department of State. At this meeting Reveley was quick to explain the 

position of the Department of State regarding the “two decrees”. Tolson concluded that 

 

193 On January 28, 1949, Hayden wrote a form letter to those he believed still interested in the Coronado International 

Memorial. For copies of the letter, see Hayden to Grace Sparkes, Gus R. Michaels, H.H. Peterson (Montezuma 

Ranch), and Odd S. Halseth, January 28, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. Also see, Halseth to 

Hayden, Phoenix, February 7, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 194 Halseth to Hayden, Phoenix, February 7, 1949, Ibid. 

77
“Accordingly, we believe that no further action should be taken in connection with our 

idea of getting the Department of State to inquire as to the status of the two decrees.”196

In 1949, however, there was an auspicious moment in which it was believed that 

an international park between the United States and Mexico could be established. 

Indeed, Hayden wrote to Halseth on February 14, 1949 informing him that he had 

requested of the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior their views 

regarding “the proposal of the Mexican Government to establish a national park in 

Mexico opposite Big Bend National Park in Texas and a Coronado International 

Memorial in Sonora opposite the proposed Coronado International Memorial in 

Arizona.”197 Hayden reiterated the view to Assistant Secretary Davidson of the 

Department of the Interior that he felt that the Mexican Government would not support 

the establishment of Mexican park across from Big Bend National Park because of the 

heavy investments in the land required of both American and Mexican landowners. On 

the other hand, he did feel that a good possibility existed to establish Coronado 

international memorials in Sonora and Arizona because only one American concern was 

involved in the 2,880 acres needed in Sonora for the Mexican portion of the Memorial. 

The big plus in the Coronado International Memorial proposal, argued Hayden, 

was the proposed re-activation of the Arizona Coronado Commission, which could 

continue to push the matter forward. Writing to Halseth, Hayden repeated what was 

probably discussed via telephone and in private meetings. He told Halseth that 

It will be greatly appreciated if you will let me know the present status of 

your and Mrs. Rockwell’s plans to re-activate the Arizona Coronado 

Commission. If it is re-activated soon, it is suggested that the Commission 

 

195 Memorandum from Assistant Director Tolson to Assistant Secretary Davidson, January 12, 1949, Hayden Papers, 

AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

196 Ibid. 197 Hayden to Halseth, Washington, D.C., February 14, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

78
might desire to hold a meeting of representatives of the Mexican 

International Park Commission, the United States International Park 

Commission, the Cananea Cattle Company, and the Arizona Coronado 

Commission, the meeting place to be somewhere in Arizona, perhaps in 

Phoenix, Nogales, or Bisbee.198

Hayden felt a compromise with Mexico could easily be achieved. All that would be 

needed, he felt, would be 200 acres on the Mexican side for the necessary structures 

and the installation of a proposed cactus aboretum that would be fenced. 

As for the 2,880 acres held by the Cananea Cattle Company, Hayden believed that 

as long as their cattle could continue to graze the land an agreement could be reached. 

But there were deeper problems. C.W. Wiswall, President of the Cananea Cattle 

Company opposed the Memorial and suggested that a “shaft of marble or some other 

material” be sufficient to commemorate Coronado’s 1540 expedition “somewhere along 

the border”. Given that previous correspondence with the Cananea Cattle Company had 

expressed the contrary, Hayden was probably surprised by the attitude expressed by 

Wiswall. Hayden, believed that the re-established Arizona Coronado Commission 

members would invite Wiswall to their first meeting and explain to him the purposes of 

the joint memorials and the reasons why the required tracts of land were important for a 

more appropriate commemoration of the historical 1540 expedition.199 Months later, 

Grace Sparkes, in a letter to Hayden expressed the same sentiment. “I am wondering,” 

she wrote, “why the change of position on the part of the Green [sic] Cattle interests—all 

back data showed they were for it and only asked that their rights for grazing be protected 

and in [the] event land was not used for International Park it s[h]ould [sic] revert to 

 

198 Ibid. 199 Ibid. 

79
them.”200 Hayden must have raised his eyebrows at the scribbled postscript at the bottom 

of her type-written letter which read: “Has there been any movement to change location 

of the CIM?” 

 Meanwhile, Arizona Governor Dan E. Garvey informed Hayden that he fully 

intended to re-establish the Arizona Coronado Commission with members from Phoenix, 

Tucson, and Nogales.201 Reporting to Hayden on the progress made, Tolson wrote that 

on Friday, March 4, Governor Garvey had officially reactivated the Arizona Coronado 

International Memorial Commission. The commissioners, wrote Tolson, were former 

Phoenix mayor, Ray Busey, Phoenix radio commentator, J. Howard Pyle, Phoenix 

archaeologist, Odd S. Halseth, Tucson newspaper publisher William R. Mathews, and 

Nogales Mayor James V. Robins. A new member, Alex Jácome was appointed shortly 

thereafter.202 Meantime, the new Arizona Coronado International Memorial Commission 

was instructed to call a meeting on April 1, 1949 and invite members of representatives 

of the Mexican International Park Commission, the United States International Park 

Commission, and the Cananea Cattle Company.203 Did the meeting take place? Grace 

Sparkes inquired whether it had on April 14, as she had not heard any report of it. 

Hayden responded that he had not heard of the meeting taking place, but awaited 

word.204 If it did take place, it appears the Mexican representatives did not participate, 

for it would have been quickly reported to Hayden and Tolson. Their correspondence on 

the meeting of April 1, 1949, is silent. 

 

200 Sparkes to Hayden, July 28, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 201 Dan E. Garvey to Hayden, Phoenix, March 2, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 202 Garvey to Tolson, Phoenix, July 19, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. The terms of office for the 

commissioners were: “Ray Busey, term expiring first Monday in January 1950; Alex Jacome-January 1951; J.V. 

Robbins-January 1952; Art [Odd?] Halseth-January 1953; J. Howard Pile-January 1954.” 203 Tolson to Hayden, Washington, D.C., March 11, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 204 Sparkes to Hayden, Bisbee, April 14, 1949; and, Hayden to Sparkes, April 23, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 

201, folder 3. 

80
In a conversation between Tolson and Hayden on May 3, Tolson informed him 

that he was “quite sure that the Mexican Government will go ahead with their part of this 

program if the Cananea Cattle Company will withdraw its demand that it be given 

grazing privileges on the Monument; or, of course, if the Cananea Cattle Company can 

make some proposal to the Mexican Government to which the Mexican Government will 

agree.”205 Skeptically, Hayden did not believe that the situation with the Mexican 

Government had changed. He did, however, believe that the Cananea Cattle Company 

could donate the 2,880 acres if the land, except for 200 acres for the arboretum, were not 

fenced. The Mexican Government, however, felt otherwise as regard the fencing.206 

On July 29, Governor Garvey traveled with the Arizona Coronado International 

Memorial Commission to Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico, and along with the governors of New 

Mexico and California they met with the Mexican governors of Sonora, Sinaloa, and 

Nayarit. Garvey hoped that the Arizona commissioners could make a presentation and 

“reactivate the movement on the part of the Mexican government to cooperate with me in 

the setting up of an international memorial.”207 That the meeting took place was true, but 

Garvey did not report anything until October 28 when Tolson asked him to provide 

information on it.208 Two weeks later, Garvey responded that he had visited Mexico with 

a group of educators and a few members of the Coronado International Monument 

Commission and that a general discussion had taken place, “however, nothing was done 

specifically on the memorial.”209 Furthermore, added Garvey, the Arizona Commission 

had deferred action but “I am sure that in the very near future, I can report to you the 

 

205 Hayden to Folsom Moore, May 3, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 206 Ibid. 207 Garvey to Tolson, Phoenix, July 19, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 208 Tolson to Garvey, Washington, D.C., October 28, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 209 Garvey to Tolson, Phoenix, November 14, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

81
progress accomplished and whether or not we can get the Mexican officials to cooperate 

with us.”210 He ended by promising that as soon as he had the information, he would 

report back to him. Obviously dissatisfied with Garvey’s response, Tolson forwarded 

copies of his and Garvey’s correspondence to the National Park Service’s Regional 

Director, M.R. Tillotson, in Santa Fe, with copies going to Hayden. In the 

correspondence, Tolson reiterated his request of Garvey regarding “whether the Arizona 

Coronado International memorial Commission proposed to call a meeting of 

representatives of the international park commissions of the United States and Mexico 

and of the Cananea Cattle Company for a discussion of ways and means to establish the 

memorial.”211 Earlier, Hayden, too, had expressed the hope that the governor’s meeting 

could spark an interest in Mexico regarding the proposed memorial.212 At that time, the 

governor’s meeting with Mexican governors was the only activity that could rekindle 

Mexican interest in the Memorial, outside of the Department of State, which had backed 

off in approaching Mexican officials with the proposal. 

In late summer 1950, Grace Sparkes, a local businesswomen and avid promoter of 

of southern Arizona, invited Hayden to visit the site of the proposed memorial on his next 

visit to Arizona. Although he agreed, he found himself too busy during the election 

campaign to get beyond Bisbee to visit the proposed site, much less Montezuma Peak, 

which Sparkes wished him to ascend to view the panoramic vistas and flavor the 

ambiance of yore. Apologetically, he wrote Sparkes saying “I regret very much that I 

was unable to visit the Memorial site while I was in Bisbee just before the election...time 

just did not permit me to do all the things I would have liked to have done then.” 

 

210 Ibid. 

82
Promising to visit the site at another time, he expressed his desire to meet with the 

“Coronado International Memorial Committee.”213 Hopeful, Sparkes, a few days prior, 

had sent Hayden a telegram to his Western Ho Hotel room in Phoenix reemphasizing her 

concern. It read: “REGRET NOT SEEING CORONADO INTERNATIONAL 

MEMORIAL COMMITTEE BISBEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETS 

WEDNESDAY MORNING SEPTEMBER 13 HAS ANY PROGRESS DEVELOPED 

WITH MEXICAN INTEREST. HAVE YOU ANY SUGGESTIONS OR 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US. OUR COMMITTEE MOST ANXIOUS YOUR 

PERSONAL VISIT TO PROJECT AND SESSION IS POSSIBLE PRIOR YOUR 

RETURN WASHINGTON=GRACE SPARKES CHAIRMAN=“214 Two weeks later, 

Sparkes, instructed by the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, which had met on September 

13, 1950, issued another invitation to Hayden on his next visit to Arizona. As a friend, 

she added, “Don’t disappoint us.”215 

Unhappy with Hayden’s inability to go to the proposed memorial site, Sparkes, as 

“Chairman of the National Parks and Monuments Committee,” turned to Tolson for 

information on the status of the project. She also invited him to the meeting of 

September 13.216 Tolson’s lengthy response reiterated much of what was already known 

to date saying, “Unfortunately, there is very little to add at this time to the information 

you already have with respect to the establishment of the proposed Coronado 

 

211 Memorandum from Assistant Director Tolson to Regional Director, Region Three, November 30, 1949, Hayden 

Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

212 Hayden to Sparkes, August 2, 1949, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 213 Hayden to Sparkes, Phoenix, September 15, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. Also see, Hayden 

to Sparkes, July 3, 1950, ibid. 

214 Telegram, Sparkes to Hayden, Bisbee, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 215 Sparkes to Hayden, Phoenix, September 25, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 216 Sparkes to Tolson, Bisbee, September 5, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

83
International Memorial in Arizona and Sonora.”217 In his letter, he proposed that a 

solution to get around the Mexican participation, or lack thereof, by amending the Act of 

August 18, 1941, so that the Memorial could change its objectives and its name from the 

Coronado International Memorial to the Coronado National Memorial.218 

Tolson’s reference to a possible amendment of the Act of August 18, 1941, 

appeared to be a new development, but it had been a suggestion that had been fleetingly 

discussed in the halls of Washington, D.C. Indeed, on Wednesday, July 5, 1950, Hayden 

was aware of a memorandum from D.M. Lyons suggesting that “Paul”, obviously Paul 

Eaton, Hayden’s Administrative Assistant, telephone Tolson. Apparently, Tolson had 

expressed concern that the Arizona Coronado Commission was “inactive” and the 

Mexican Commission was “doing nothing.” To that end, he suggested “an amendment” 

to eliminate Mexican participation.219 Soon after, Hayden was beset with a number of 

inquiries regarding the decade-long delay in establishing the Memorial as well as lack of 

response from Mexico. C. Edgar Goyette, Manager of the Tucson Chamber of 

Commerce, succinctly cut to the point in his letter to Hayden on July 14. “According to 

the best information we have,” he wrote, “the reason for lack of progress has been due to 

lack of action on the part of the Republic of Mexico.”220 Pressure mounted as Senator 

Hayden weighed the possibility of amending the Act of August 18, 1941. 

Sparkes’s letter to Hayden on September 25, may have renewed his hopes that a 

compromise between the Mexican government and the Greene Cattle Company was more 

than possible. She informed Hayden of the September 13 meeting that took place in 

 

217 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., September 15, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 218 Ibid. 219 Memorandum, D.M. Lyons to Paul, United States Senate (Letterhead), Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 

3. 

220 C. Edgar Goyette to Hayden, Tucson, July 14, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

84
Bisbee. At the meeting, Hayden’s role as a catalyst was discussed, favoring that “you are 

the one who can iron out the differences of opinion that are necessary apparently between 

the Government of Mexico and the Greene Cattle Company.”221 Those in attendance 

posited the sentiment that “every effort should be made to induce the Mexican 

Government to initiate its Bill on the same basis as that of our country, wherein those 

holding legitimate grazing and mineral rights are amply protected.”222

 C.E. Wiswall attended the meeting. He politely answered questions, particularly 

that regarding whether the Cananea Cattle Company would agree to support the 

Memorial if the Mexican government guaranteed the protection of grazing and mineral 

rights. He said, “he would.”223 With that, Sparkes rested her case with the Senator. 

Meanwhile, M.R. Tillotson, Regional Director, National Park Service, Santa Fe, 

informed Sparkes that new members of the International Park Commission of Mexico 

included Ing. Eulogio de la Garza, Director General, Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries 

Service; Ing. David Herrera Jordán, Mexican Representative on the International 

Boundary and Water Commission; Ing. Luis Macia Arellano, Chief, Wildlife Division, 

Forest and Wildlife Service; and, Ing. Humberto Ortega Cattaneo, Chief, Division of 

Forest Protection. Tillotson informed Sparkes that Tolson expressed the hope that the 

appointment of the new members meant that Mexico would renew its interest in the 

project. To Tolson the new membership offered hope.224 

Coincidental to that small ray of hope showered by the new Mexican committee 

appointees, Sparkes wrote to Tolson a second time asking him to “comply with Mr. 

Greene’s request for 3 photostatic maps showing the Mexico area proposed for our 

 

221 Sparkes to Hayden, Bisbee, September 25, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 222 Ibid. 

85
Coronado International memorial Park. (Please do so. I believe this is very 

important.)”225 What could it mean? Sparkes added, “I am confident with Carl’s 

insistence with the Greene Cattle Company and the Mexican Park and Forestry Officials, 

that we do want the international angle kept, the difficulties can be broken and our efforts 

really worthwhile.”226 Although Tolson denied Greene’s request explaining that the 

Mexicans had not yet produced a map showing their proposed area, he ended his letter 

optimistically with “It is hoped that the Memorial can be established as an international 

area in accordance with the terms of the Act of August 18, 1941.”227 

On December 14, Tillotson submitted a trip report to the National Park Service’s 

director regarding a meeting he had attended on December 8, 1950. In his trip report, he 

briefly clarified some changes in the Cananea Cattle Company’s organization. 

“Incidentally,” he wrote, “frequent reference has been made in some previous 

correspondence to the Green [sic] Cattle Company. This, I understand, is the company 

which operates on the American side of the line and which some three years ago was 

divorced from the Cananea Cattle Company, operating in Mexico. Also, the Copper 

Company at Cananea, formerly known as the Greene-Cananea Copper Company, is now 

a subsidiary of the Anaconda Cooper [sic] Company and is known as the Cananea 

Consolidated Copper Company.”228 Tillotson stated that Charles E. Wiswall, Vice 

President of “La Compañia Ganadora de Cananea, S.A. (The Cananea Cattle Company)” 

along with his associates, Carl Gutmacher, General Manager, and L.B. Flippen, Ranch 

 

223 Ibid. 224 Tillotson to Sparkes, Santa Fe, New Mexico, October 28, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 225 Sparkes to Tolson, Bisbee, November 27, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 226 Ibid. 227 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., December 6, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 228 Memorandum from Regional Director to Director, Santa Fe, December 14, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 

201, folder 3. 

86
Foreman, were in attendance. Apparently, Tillotson made opening remarks outlining the 

objectives of the Coronado International Memorial, the Act of August 18, 1941, and the 

position of the Mexican Government in relation to the Greene Cattle Company regarding 

the Memorial. 

In his remarks, he suggestively proposed that “the Mexican Government could not 

establish such an adjoining area south of the Border until title had been acquired and that 

the only way for the Mexican Government to secure title would be through the generosity 

and public spiritedness of the Cananea Cattle Company, since it would undoubtedly be 

unwilling and without funds to purchase the necessary lands, even if the present owners 

should be willing to sell and could agree on a price.”229 As Tillotson spoke, Wiswall and 

his colleagues undoubtedly sat menacingly in their chairs. “I immediately sensed that my 

remarks concerning the possibility of the Cananea Company donating the required lands 

met with a very cold reception on the part of the company officials present,” wrote an 

observant Tillotson. Not only did Wiswall make known his feeling about “releasing any 

of their lands but they also objected to any action which would result in bringing 

Mexican nationals through their property to visit the area. They made a considerable 

point of probable illegal hunting, wood cutting, and cattle rustling by those who would 

use a visit to the area as an excuse to cross company lands.”230 Wiswall added that “the 

company at this time was not favorable to releasing any land, no matter how small an 

area.”231 Despite Wiswall’s rejection, Tillotson reported his optimistic feeling that the 

 

229 Ibid. 230 Ibid. 231 Ibid. 

87
Greene Cattle Company would eventually be willing to offer “the Mexican Government 

for park purposes...the donation of a reasonable acreage.”232

Tillotson saw that the size of the “donation” was the problem behind the Greene 

Cattle Company’s reluctance to make any commitment. To that end, he recommended 

“that an effort be made to amend the Act of August 18, 1941, so as to make the size of 

the area to be established by the Mexican Government a matter of negotiation rather than 

a matter of law.”233 He attached a suggested draft of the bill to that end. Tillotson’s 

optimism was buoyed by the notion that Wiswall discussed that a memorial, somewhere 

on the border, “be dedicated to the late Colonel William Cornell Greene, founder of the 

cattle, copper, and other associated companies which bear, or formerly bore, his 

name.”234 Tillotson saw an opening. Unabashedly, he asked Sparkes that “she might 

suggest [to Wiswall] that perhaps the United States Government could be persuaded at 

some later time to place a table in the museum to commemorate this action on the part of 

the Cananea Cattle Company as a memorial to William Cornell Greene.”235 Meanwhile, 

Hayden wrote to Wiswall asking him his opinion “whether you think that there is a 

possibility of an area in Mexico adjoining the American area becoming available for 

Memorial purposes.”236

Following up on the December 8 meeting, Tillotson wrote Wiswall hoping to 

convince him that the donation of land to the Mexican Government would not require 

 

232 Ibid. 233 Ibid. Tillotson’s amendment, in part, read: “That section 1 of the Act...be, and the same is hereby, amended by 

striking the word ‘size’ from the proviso at the end of the said section 1 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: `of 

such size as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be necessary.” See, “‘A Bill...To Amend...An Act 

to provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Memorial, in the State of Arizona,’ approved August 18, 

1941,” Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

234 Ibid. 235 Ibid. 236 Hayden to Wiswall, December 21, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

88
2,880 acres but “an area of considerable less acreage.”237 Explaining the “tentative” 

plans for the development of the Memorial, Tillotson promised to send him copies of the 

planning documents. Careful not to offend Wiswall’s sensitivities, Tillotson reminded 

him of their earlier conversation regarding the required size of the donation. Hoping for a 

positive response, Tillotson wrote “If so, I should like to have a statement from you to 

that effect and, with the full understanding that it would not constitute a commitment on 

your part, an estimate of the acreage you might be willing to donate for such a purpose. 

With that as a basis to work on, perhaps we could proceed with the necessary 

negotiations and with an amendment to the enabling act of August 18, 1941, if such 

should be necessary.”238 Perhaps realizing the forcefulness of his request to Wiswall, 

Tillotson, as if softening his approach, told him that he would be glad to meet him in 

Mexico if Wiswall thought that a written response was not to his liking. The proverbial 

ball was now in Wiswall’s court. 

The situation was truly “touch and go.” Tillotson must have had qualms over his 

otherwise wishful but obviously manipulative approach toward Wiswall. Writing to his 

Director, he reiterated the “small area” proposal made to the Cananea Cattle Company. 

Too, he noted the safety valve plan to cover the possibility of the Cananea Cattle 

Company’s denial of a donation of land. To that, Tillotson wrote, “I note your apparent 

agreement with Senator Hayden’s thought that if the Cananea Cattle Company adheres to 

the position that it will not donate any acreage for the memorial project, the act of August 

18, 1941, should be amended to provide for the creation of a national rather than an 

 

237 Tillotson to Wiswall, Washington, D.C., December 29, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 238 Ibid. 

89
international memorial. Personally, I would agree to such a course of action only as a 

very last resort.”239

Intuitively, Sparkes sent Hayden a telegram informing him that she would soon be 

making a presentation on the status of the Coronado International Memorial proposal. 

She asked him for some up to date information to use in her presentation.240 Sensing that 

the Cananea Cattle Company would not make the donation, and that therefore, Mexican 

cooperation would not be forthcoming, in his response, Hayden telegramed Grace 

Sparkes saying: 

HAVE TALKED WITH HILLORY TOLSON, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, 

REGARDING CORONADO INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL, BUT WE 

HAVE NOT YET REACHED ANY FIRM DECISION ON BEST WAY TO 

PROCEED. IN EVENT LAND IN MEXICO DOES NOT BECOME 

AVAILABLE IT MAY BE THAT WE WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER 

AMENDING PRESENT LAW TO PERMIT ESTABLISHMENT OF 

NATIONAL MEMORIAL ON AMERICAN SIDE ONLY. WILL KEEP YOU 

FULLY ADVISED241

Difficult though it was, no one was ready to fully admit that Mexico was not interested. 

Meanwhile, Tolson had been in contact with Hayden’s assistant, Paul Eaton, who 

had a more realistic view of the possibilities that the Cananea Cattle Company would 

donate any land. Eaton strongly believed that Wiswall “will not agree to his Company 

transferring any of it holdings in Sonora to Mexico for the Coronado Memorial.242 Still, 

hopeful that the “small size” proposal would fulfill the requirements of the Act of August 

18, 1941, both Tolson and Eaton hoped to pursue the possibility of the Cananea Cattle 

Company donation of land.243

 

239 Tillotson to NPS Director, December 21, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 240 Telegram Sparkes to Hayden, Bisbee, December 22, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 241 Telegram Hayden to Sparkes, December 26, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 242 Memorandom Tolson to Tillotson, Washington, D.C., December 26, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, 

folder 3. 

243 Ibid. 

90
 As the year came to an end, no one had heard from Wiswall, much less Hayden, 

who had written to him in mid-December. Dated January 31, 1951, Hayden received a 

letter from Mary Contreras, Secretary to Mr. Wiswall at Ranchos de Cananea. She 

explained that the reason he had not heard from Wiswall was that he had been in ill 

health for several weeks and unable to respond to his correspondence.244 Undoubtedly, 

Hayden looked forward to a time when Wiswall would be able to respond. 

 Meanwhile, the newly appointed members of the Arizona Coronado International 

Memorial Commission, as it was now called, included Grace Sparkes, Margaret 

Rockwell, Ben Arnold, Odd S. Halseth, and James V. Robins. Their next scheduled 

meeting would take place in Tucson on February 24 at the Santa Rita Hotel. The 

Commission hoped to take a more active role in the Coronado International Memorial 

project. To that end, they hoped to invite to future meetings representatives of the 

Mexican Commission, the Cananea Cattle Company, and the National Park Service to 

participate in that meeting.245

At 11 A.M. on the appointed day, the Arizona Coronado International Memorial 

Commission met. The first order of business was to elect Sparkes as chairman. Next 

they reviewed the already long history of efforts to get the Memorial established. After a 

lengthy discussion, the Commission adopted several recommendations as follows: 

1. That the original plans of the Arizona Commission, as approved by the 

governments of Mexico and the United States, should be pursued to the end 

that the Coronado International Memorial will eventually be established as 

an international area, and that only if this should fail, plans for a national 

area should be contemplated. 

 

244 Mary Contreras to Hayden, Cananea, January 31, 1951. 245 Tolson to Eaton, Washington, D.C., February 15, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. Throughout 

its history, the words “Memorial” and “Monument” were used interchangeably in the Arizona Commission’s name in 

both official and informal contexts. 

91
2. That the Governor of Arizona be asked to arrange a meeting with the 

Governor of Sonora, Mexico, for the purpose of enlisting official support by 

these two state governments for plans to expedite procedure by the federal 

governments of Mexico and the United States. 

3. That members of the Arizona Commission plan and arrange for meetings 

with the owners of the land in Sonora needed to complete the international 

area, either in its present proposed size, or any other size agreeable to the 

governments of Mexico and the United States. 

4. Ms. Sparkes delegated herself to handle the necessary negotiations with the 

Greene Cattle Company, and appointed Mrs. Rockwell a delegate to deal 

with Statehouse and Washington matters. Mr. Halseth was asked to prepare 

a history of the Arizona Commission and the Coronado project from its 

inception, and Mr. Arnold was asked to contact Senator McFarland in 

regard to the project. The meeting was adjourned subject to call by the 

chairman.246

The Minutes were sent to Hayden by Halseth showing him the fresh start of the 

Commission. Apparently, after some discussion, the Commission hoped to keep the 

Coronado International Memorial issue separate from the Big Bend International Park 

proposal. Halseth confided in Hayden that if that happened, “I feel the Mexians also 

will act favorably.”247

Actively pursuing support for their project, the Commission hosted a number of 

activities between March 5 and 16. On March 10, for example, the Commission 

sponsored a “horseback trail trip” along the U.S. side of the planned memorial. The 

seven hour tour included a hike to Montezuma Peak. During that period, Sparkes hoped 

to meet with representatives of the Cananea Cattle Company, but, aside from Wiswall 

being ill, she and “Mr. Greene” missed meeting each other at Bisbee. Sparkes telephoned 

Wiswall hoping to meet him at some future date. 

 

246 Minutes of the Arizona International Memorial Commission Meeting, February 25, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, 

ASU, Box 201, folder 3 

247 Handwritten note from Halseth to Hayden transmitting the Minutes, Phoenix, February 28, 1951, Hayden Papers, 

AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

92
On March 16th, Sparkes and Brophy, President of the Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce, made an official visit to Arthur R. Williams, U.S. Consul at Agua Prieta. 

After two hours of discussion, Williams, while agreeing to meet again, informed Sparkes 

that he preferred his office serve as a “reporting office” whereby he could inform his 

superiors about the status of the planned memorial. 

Beyond those activities, two, otherwise unnoticed, activities took place. On her 

circuitous way back from Agua Prieta, she and Brophy stopped at Benson to talk to a 

man “who years ago unearthed a Spanish coin in the Park area.” Not long afterwards, 

Brophy requested that the Arizona Highway Department designate Montezuma Pass and 

Coronado Peak on official highway maps of Arizona to encourage travelers to visit the 

area.248

Three days later, Sparkes wrote Williams reiterating, while documenting, their 

discussion of March 16 in Agua Prieta. The letter presented a litany of names and events 

regarding the history of the Coronado International Memorial proposal from 1939 to 

1951. In her long letter, she listed the names of both United States International Park 

Commission members as well as those of the International Park Commission of Mexico. 

On the U.S. side were M.R. Tillotson, Conrad L. Wirth, Jesse L. Nusbaum, and Hillory 

A. Tolson of the National Park Service; Lawrence M. Lawson, U.S. Commissioner of the 

International Boundary and Water Commission; C. Otto Lindh, Regional Forester, U.S. 

Forest Service; Moris Burge, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and John C. Gatlin, Regional 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. On the Mexican Commission were Ing. Eulogia de 

la Garza, Director General, Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries Service; Ing. David Herrera 

 

248 Memorandum from Sparkes to Arizona Coronado International Memorial Commission, March 20, 1951, Hayden 

Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

93
Jordan, Representative on the International Boundary and Water Commission; Ing. Luis 

Macias Arellano, Chief, Wildlife Division, Forest and Wildlife Service; and Ing. 

Humberto Ortega Cattaneo, Chief, Division of Forest Protection.249 By presenting the 

facts and names, Sparkes hoped to convince Williams that interest in the Memorial was 

intense, longstanding, and beneficial to both countries. 

Leaving no stone unturned while hoping to enlist Williams in the cause and keep 

the fires of hope burning among the Washington supporters, Sparkes sent a telegram to 

Governor Howard Pyle who was visiting Washington, D.C. in mid-April. In it she asked 

him, while there, to arrange a meeting between Senators Hayden and McFarland, 

Congressmen Murdock and Patten, Tolson, and Eaton as well as, if possible, a 

representative of the Mexican Embassy to discuss the Coronado International Memorial. 

Having spoken to Wiswall, Sparkes felt that he was agreeable to donating a plot of land if 

the grazing rights of the Cananea Cattle Company could be protected. Also, wrote 

Sparkes, an additional incentive would go a long way with Wiswall if a small memorial 

could be incorporated into the plan to commemorate the life of Colonial William Greene, 

the founder of their company.250

Hayden was not as hopeful. Responding to Sparkes request for a meeting, he 

informed her that it had not been possible to arrange the meeting with the parties 

aforementioned. Communicating to her that little, if anything had changed, he wrote: 

I am keeping in close touch with Mr. Tolson concerning any developments 

there may be. At the present time help can come only from the Cananea 

Cattle company or from the Mexican Government. I understand that your 

Committee is arranging for Governor Pyle and the Governor of Sonora to 

get together on this problem with the hope that some solution can be 

 

249 Sparkes to Williams, Hereford, March 19, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. Ing. Nazario S. Ortiz 

Garza, Minister of Agriculture, was an ex officio member of the Mexican Commission, Memorandum Tolson to 

Tollitson, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 250 Telegram Sparkes to Pyle, Bisbee, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

94
reached. I would certainly appreciate being advised of the results of such a 

meeting.251

 Sparkes and the Arizona Coronado International Memorial Committee members 

were aggressive. By June, Halseth had met with Governor Pyle and convinced him to 

write a letter on his behalf introducing him to Mexican officials in Mexico City. Halseth 

planned to go there in August to convince Mexican officials to move on the project and 

remove the stalemate caused by the Cananea Cattle Company.252

It appears that the Cananea Cattle Company was openly playing both ends against 

the middle. On June 18, 1951, for example, Emilio Segura, Jr., Secretary of the Ranchos 

de Cananea, wrote to Grace Sparkes saying that Frank T. Greene, who had to leave town 

hurriedly on business, asked him to respond to her letters of May 30 and June 15, 1951. 

The letter was delivered to Olga M. Reasonover in the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce on 

June 19, by a “Mexican lad” who insisted that his copy be “receipted”, that is, certified in 

its delivery. Greene’s response was that the proprieters of the Cananea Cattle Company 

had unanimously adopted the following resolution on June 17, 1951: 

RESOLVED, that the use of no graizing [sic] land and of no cattlewatering facilities whatever should be lost by this Company to the 

Coronado National Park project or to any other similar project, because 

our ranch is stocked to full capacity and must continue to be, under our 

program of increased production of beef for the Mexican domestic market 

and of processed beef for export to the United States, which is a material 

contribution to the war effort; also because fencing wire is very scarce and 

expensive at present, with the result that the cattlemen are encountering 

most serious difficulties in securing, regardless of price, even their 

minimum requirements of such wire for current repairs and maintenance 

of their ranch fence lines. A project such as the Coronado National Park 

would consume a large amount of fencing wire. Furthermore, it is 

considered that, in the present situation of international emergency, the 

proposed spending of money and use of scarce materials, for recreational 

 

251 Hayden to Sparkes, April 24, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 252 Halseth to Hayden, Phoenix, June 21, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

95
project purposes such as this, should at least be held in abeyance until the 

return of normal times.253

Segura ended his letter by saying “Mr. Greene, further, asked me to express to you his 

regrets at our Company’s inability, for the reasons embodied in the above-transcribed 

resolution, to dispense with the use of any part of our ranch land.” To that, Sparkes 

scribbled a note on the top right hand margin for Tolson’s eyes. It read: “This letter 

disgusts me after our efforts & their supposedly desire to co-operate.” 

Undeterred, Sparkes wrote to Hayden informing him of a possible meeting 

between the Governor Pyle with the President of Mexico. In her letter, she asked him to 

write a letter to Interior Secretary Oscar L.Chapman to “assign Mr. Tolson to the all 

important task of accompanying Governor Pyle’s representative to Mexico City this 

month, for the conference on this Project with President [Miguel] Aleman Valdis.”254

Unable to resist a parting shot at Wiswall in her letter to Hayden, Sparkes wrote, “I am 

disappointed, as many others, in the attitude taken by the Greene [sic] family and 

particularly Mr. Wiswall, for I feel he could have given the ‘go’ signal. After what this 

country has done for Mexico and the Greene interests there....”255 A few days later, 

Hayden requested of Chapman Tolson’s participation in the meeting.256 Soon after, Dale 

E. Doty, acting Secretary of the Interior responded saying that Tolson may participate “if 

and when the Mexico City meeting is to be held.”257 

 In preparation for the meeting with President Aleman, Governor Pyle sent him a 

letter in August briefing him of the already long history in the establishment of the 

 

253 Emilio Segura, Jr. to Grace Sparkes, June 18, 1951, Ranchos de Cananea, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, 

folder 3. 

254 Sparkes to Hayden Hereford, September 3, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 255 Ibid. 256 Hayden to Chapman, September 5, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 257 Dale E. Doty to Pyle, Washington, D.C., (no date) Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

96
Coronado International Memorial, the objectives, and the ardent desire, on the part of the 

Arizona Coronado Memorial Commission to have Mexico’s reciprocity in the matter. In 

Pyle’s view, there were only two issues that needed to be ironed out. The first was to 

ascertain the terms under which the Cananea Cattle Company would donate land in 

Sonora for the government sponsored Mexican memorial. The second involved the 

issuance of a decree by the Mexican Government to establish its portion of the 

International Memorial in Sonora so that the U.S. part of the Memorial could be created. 

In order to facilitate the “reopening” of negotiations, Pyle asked President Aleman to 

grant Halseth and Tolson an audience at the earliest convenient date.258 Hayden endorsed 

the letter by writing President Aleman asking him for his support in calling the requested 

meeting.259 By November 20, after a three month wait, Pyle expressed his 

discouragement. He wrote to Sparkes saying, “Our efforts...have apparently bogged 

down again. President Aleman has failed to answer my letter which would seem to 

indicate that the Mexican Government prefers to ignore the whole matter.”260 

Suddenly hope revived, especially when Manuel Pello, Secretario de Relaciones 

Exteriores in Mexico City, wrote Pyle a short, polite letter acknowledging receipt of his 

letter by the President. All Pello said was “In accordance with the instructions of the 

President, I have taken the necessary steps with the other governmental agencies who 

have an interest in this subject in order to obtain mutual consideration of the same.”261 

There was no commitment nor embellishment on Pello’s part. In an exchange of letters, 

Pyle and Sparkes, however, chose to read between the lines of Pello’s translated letter. 

The only real thing about the letter was that President Aleman had received Pyle’s 

 

258 Howard Pyle to Miguel Aleman Valdis, Phoenix, August 31, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 259 Hayden to President Aleman, Washington, D.C., September 12, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

97
request for an audience. Pyle assumed that Pello was expressing his interest in the 

Coronado International Memorial. Pyle wistfully responded, “We hope with all out 

hearts that your association with this project will guarantee its fulfillment.”262 Sparkes 

and Pyle felt it was great news, and passed on a copy to Tolson, who eagerly awaited it 

arrival as proof that the Mexican Government was interested. Quietly, they braced 

themselves for another disappointment. Months later, at the end of January 1952, Tolson 

interpreted Pello’s letter correctly. He wrote to Sparkes saying that Paul Eaton, Hayden’s 

administrative assistant, feels “as I do, that the letter indicates that no definite action will 

be taken as a result of Governor Pyle’s request for a meeting in Mexico City.”263 

 Meanwhile, Dr. Aubrey Neasham, now Regional Historian in San Francisco, who 

had accompanied Bolton in 1940 on his trip retracing Coronado’s expedition from 

Compostela, Mexico to the U.S.-Mexico border, contacted Don Perry, whose sister had 

married into the Greene family. Perry, referred him to Frank Greene who was then living 

in Sausalito, California. It turned out that Greene was the “step-son of President Wiswall 

of the Cananea Cattle Company.” For some reason, that fact seemed to surprise the 

National Park Service and likely added perspective to the power wielded by Wiswall, 

now in his 70s. Wiswall’s life was no secret as he began work for Colonel Greene in 

1901 and helped establish the Cananea Cattle Company in 1907. Aside from being 

General Manager of the Cananea Cattle Company, he was president of the Banco de 

Cananea. In 1918, he married Colonel Greene’s widow.264 Hence, he was Frank 

Greene’s step-father. Nonetheless, Neasham and Greene agreed to meet during the last 

 

260 Pyle to Sparkes, Phoenix, November 29, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 261 Manuel Pello to Pyle, Mexico City, November 16, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 262 Pyle to Manuel Pello, December 13, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 263 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., January 28, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

98
week in October, depending on “the outcome of Mr. Wiswall’s illness,” for he was 

“seriously ill and...expected to live only a short time.”265 Apparently Neasham hoped to 

persuade Greene on finalizing the donation of land for the Mexican memorial on the 

border. Consequently, Neasham vowed to keep contact with Greene. 

 Six weeks later, Neasham reported that Wiswall had survived his scrape with 

death and had “resumed his duties, in Cananea, as General Manager of the Cananea 

Cattle Company.” In his discussions with Neasham, Greene admitted the reasons for the 

Cananea Cattle Company’s vacillations in regard to the donation of land to Mexico. He 

said, 

...the Board of Directors of the Cananea Cattle Company is afraid, if land 

is given to the Mexican Government for international memorial purposes, 

the Mexican authorities might take steps to confiscate additional lands in 

line with their agrarian policy; also, that the land proposed for 

incorporation within the boundaries of the Coronado International 

Memorial area on the Mexican side contains valuable spring and water 

resources which the Cananea Cattle Company claims are needed for its 

cattle. 

It was then that Greene, while talking with Neasham, proposed that 

if an exchange could be made whereby the Cananea Cattle Company 

would receive an equal amount of land elsewhere from the Mexican 

Government, some arrangement might be made to turn over the Memorial 

land to that Government. Mr. Greene suggested that this matter be taken 

up with Mr. Wiswall, if desired, since he has entire control of the matter as 

a result of the unanimous approval given him by the Board of Directors.266

Again, Tolson repeated that “Mr. Wiswall is Mr. Frank Greene’s step-father.” Looking 

toward taking the next step, Tolson noted that President Aleman had not yet responded to 

 

264 “C.E. Wiswall, Rancher, Dies in Cananea,” The Bisbee Daily Review, Saturday March 1, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, 

ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

265 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., October 19, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 266 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., December 7, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

99
the request for a meeting. Indeed, thought Tolson, perhaps Greene’s proposal could be 

brought up at that meeting.267

 December 1951 came to an end with no action from the Mexican Government. 

On January 2, 1952, Hayden wrote to Sparkes saying that perhaps the best course would 

be, as Tolson had earlier suggested, to “ignore the Mexican angle and see if our Congress 

can be persuaded to set aside the generally agreed upon public lands located in the United 

States as a National Monument to the Coronado Expedition.”268 In view of the fact that 

Pyle had not received a response from President Aleman regarding his proposed meeting, 

Sparkes agreed.269

 On January 28, 1952, Tolson tried reasoning with Wiswall one more time. The 

object of his letter was to present Wiswall with Greene’s idea of an exchange of land in 

Mexico equal to that needed to establish the Memorial on the Mexican side. Tolson also 

suggested that the Cananea Cattle Company could also negotiate future uses of water and 

grazing resources within the proposed Mexican memorial. To that end, Tolson offered 

Wiswall any assistance the National Park Service or the Commission chaired by Tillotson 

could render toward this cause.270 Hoping for a quick reply, Tolson sent his letter via air 

mail. 

The abeyance, caused by the constant change in the memberships of the Mexican 

commissions, left the National Park Service with no one to contact in Mexico City. That, 

coupled with the seeming lack of cooperation on the part of the Cananea Cattle 

Company, which had not, as of February 21, responded to Tolson’s January 28 letter to 

Wiswall, moved the National Park Service to work with Hayden toward an amendment of 

 

267 Ibid. 268 Hayden to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., January 2, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

100
the Act of August 18, 1941. That remedy was becoming more and more clear. 

Acknowledging the effort made for nearly twelve years to work with Mexico and the 

Cananea Cattle Company, Tolson informed Sparkes that Hayden “is seriously 

considering the possibility of proceeding with the plan to amend the Act of August 18, 

1941, so as to provide for the establishment of a Coronado National Memorial.”271 

Two weeks later, Hayden sent Sparkes a copy of his proposed bill to amend the 

Act of August 18, 1941. “Before I introduce the bill,” he wrote, “ I shall be glad to have 

you advise me of the present thinking along this line of you as Chairman of The 

Coronado International Monument Commission of Arizona.”272 Even with such a stern 

move under consideration, hope sprang eternal. Tolson remarked to Sparkes, “If this 

action is taken, the Mexican Government will probably take steps eventually to set aside 

a companion area in Sonora so that an International Memorial to Coronado can be 

created.”273 In turn, Sparkes wrote to Hayden expressing like sentiment. She wrote, “I 

definitely feel we should not lose more valuable time and that by going national through 

the introduction of your Bill we may later accomplish the international angle, when 

Mexico and the Greene interests iron out their problems. Time has a way of fleating (sic) 

and our Project has hung fire too long.”274 Still, Sparkes blamed Wiswall as she wrote: 

“Many feel as I do, that Mr. Wiswall could give the nod and the job there would be 

complete.”275 In the meantime, Sparkes, Halseth, Pyle, and others endorsed Hayden’s 

proposed bill. At the February 25, Chamber of Commerce meeting held at the Copper 

 

269 Sparkes to Tolson, Hereford, January 12, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 270 Tolson to Wiswall, Washington, D.C., January 28, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 271 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C, January 28, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 272 Hayden to Sparkes, February 11, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 273 Ibid. 274 Sparkes to Hayden, State of Texas Mine, February 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 275 Ibid. 

101
Queen Hotel headquarters in Bisbee, the membership unanimously pledged its approval 

and support of Hayden’s bill.276 

Charles Wiswall died on February 29, 1952 at age 74.277 In her letter to Hayden 

dated March 6, 1952, Sparkes wrote of the possibilities of reopening negotiations with 

Mexico and the Cananea Cattle Company. She wrote: “With Mr. Wiswall’s death, I am 

wondering if the Ranchos de Cananea and the Mexican Government might be disposed to 

follow suggestions of Mr. Frank Greene to Dr. Neasham re: exchange of land—outlined 

in Hillory Tolson’s letter to Mr. Wiswall, Jan. 28, 1952.”278 Somewhat surprised that 

“Mr. Charles E. Wiswall has passed on,” Hayden informed Sparkes that “I shall take no 

action regarding amendatory legislation until I have received further information from the 

Coronado International Monument Commission of Arizona.” Accordingly, Governor 

Pyle had called a Commission meeting to determine their druthers on the matter,279 and 

Hayden was disposed to await their response to the situation. 

March 18 proved pivotal in deciding whether to proceed with Hayden’s bill. 

Upon hearing of Wiswall’s death, Tolson expressed his sympathies to Sparkes, but added 

that “This might change the attitude of the Cananea Cattle Company toward the 

Memorial project.”280 Simultaneously, Tolson informed Sparkes that he would instruct 

Neasham to contact Frank Greene in Sausalito to “ascertain, if possible, as to whether 

there is a possibility of such a change.” The response from the Cananea Cattle Company 

was chilling. On March 18, Tolson wired Sparkes about a response to his letter to 

 

276 Brief Digest Bisbee Chamber of Commerce—National Parks and Monuments Committee Meeting, Bisbee, 

February 25, 1952, 2 p.m., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 277 “C.E. Wiswall, Rancher, Dies, in Cananea, The Bisbee Daily Review, Saturday, March 1, 1952; also see, Emile 

Segura, Jr. to Tolson, Cananea, March 11, 1952; and, Sparkes to Tolson, Hereford, March 18, 1952, Hayden Papers, 

AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

278 Sparkes to Hayden, Hereford, March 6, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 279 Ibid.; also see, Hayden to Sparkes, March 12, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 280 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

102
Wiswall of January 28 dated March 11 from Emile Segura, Secretary, Ranchos de 

Cananea. Segura informed Tolson that Neasham had “misquoted” Frank Greene and “the 

Companys [sic] stockholders continue to be unalterably opposed to proposed segregation 

of any part of grazing land constituting its cattle ranch for Coronado Memorial or any 

other purposes.”281 Segura was more direct than Tolson. He wrote that “Mr. Frank T. 

Greene, with whom we had taken the matter up, has directed us to advise you that he has 

been misquoted, as he never made any of the statements attributed to him according to 

the second paragraph on page 2 of your letter under reply.”282 On that same day, 

coincidentally, Sparkes telegramed Hayden advising him that the International 

Monument Commission had met as prescribed by Governor Pyle and had unanimously 

approved that he proceed with his bill amending the Act of August 18, 1941.283 The next 

day, Tolson communicated to Sparkes, that the NPS had no alternative than to “follow 

the suggestion I made several years ago, and in which Senator Hayden concurs, that a 

Coronado National Memorial be established in Arizona.”284 Adding a post script, Tolson 

wrote that he had just seen Sparkes’ telegram of March 18 to Hayden, and that “I 

understand that he proposes to introduce the necessary bill to do this very soon.”285

On March 24, Hayden introduced Senate Bill 2909 requesting that “the words 

‘Coronado National Memorial’ are hereby substituted in lieu of the words ‘Coronado 

International Memorial’ wherever such words occur in the Act of August 18, 1941.” 

Section 1 of the Act of August 18, 1941 “is hereby amended by striking out” the portion 

requiring Mexican participation in the establishment of the Coronado International 

 

281 National Park Service PBS dated March 18, 1952, Tolson to Sparkes, Care of Mrs. Margaret rockwell, Adams 

Hotel, Phoenix, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 282 Segura to Tolson, Cananea March 11, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 283 Sparkes to Hayden, telegram, March 18, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 284 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., March 19, 1952, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

103
Memorial. A month later, on April 23, H.R. 7553, a companion bill in the House of 

Representatives, was introduced. The language was the same.286 The long wait was 

over. Hayden and the Arizona Coronado International Memorial Commission were now 

committed to a course that would establish the Coronado National Memorial. Sensing an 

end to the long struggle to establish the Memorial, Sparkes asked Hayden “if you would 

have your file on our Coronado Project bound and sent to us—or present it to the U.S. 

Park Service.” She also asked Tolson, Rockwell, Halseth, and others to do the same 

saying that they would be kept in the “museum” at Bisbee.287

By the end of June 1952, S.2909 had passed the Senate and the House bill was 

pending on the Calendar of the House.288 On July 2, 1952, Hayden wired Sparkes the 

following message “HOUSE TODAY PASSED S. 2909 CLEARING IT FOR THE 

PRESIDENT.”289 Quickly, Sparkes dashed off a letter to Hayden asking for the pen and 

holder used by the President of the United States to sign the bill. “Remember,” she 

wrote, “we want this for the Museum—the finale to your wonderful effort for this great 

historical project.”290 On July 10, Hayden received a charming letter from Charles S. 

Murphy, Special Counsel to the President saying that “I have the pleasure in sending you, 

herewith, the pen used by the President today in approving S. 2909.”291 The next step 

toward creating the Coronado National Memorial would be a Presidential Proclamation, 

which was being prepared for President Truman.292 The proclamation worked its way 

 

285 Ibid. 286 H.R. 7553 in the House of Representatives, April 23, 1952, introduced by Congressman Patten, Hayden Papers, AC, 

ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

287 Sparkes to Hayden, Hereford, April 2, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 288 Hayden to Sparkes, June 23, 1952, and Hayden to Father Bonaventure Oblasser, O.F.M. June 28, 1952, Hayden 

Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

289 Hayden to Sparkes, telegram, July 2, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 290 Sparkes to Hayden, July 3, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box, 201, folder 3. 291 Charles S. Murphy to Hayden, The White House, July 10, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 292 Hayden to Sparkes, August 26, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

104
slowly to the President for it first had to clear the Bureau of Budget then the Attorney 

General. 

Reading a Western Union telegram he received from his aide in Washington D.C., 

U.S. Senator Carl Hayden, now in his Phoenix office, must have allowed himself a smile 

as he uttered the words: “Just been advised President Truman on November 5, signed 

Coronado National Memorial Proclamation, Executive Order 2995.293 Twelve days 

before, on October 24,294 George A. Brubaker, Hayden’s aide, had advised him that 

Hillary Tolson, assistant director of the National Park Service, had announced that the 

“Proclamation” for the Coronado National Memorial had cleared the attorney general’s 

office and had been sent to the White House over the weekend.295 Closely watching the 

situation, Hayden had impressed on Brubaker the need to report immediately on any 

news related to the “Proclamation.” Others, including Hillory Tolson, were in 

communication with Hayden’s constituents. In his letter to Sparkes, Tolson wrote “This 

refers to your letter of September 11 acknowledging a copy of my memorandum of 

August 20 to Tillie [Tillotson] concerning the proclamation to establish the Coronado 

National Memorial. I know that you and the other members of your Commission are 

anxious to learn about its status.” As she had for S. 2909, Sparkes requested the 

Presidential pen for signing the Proclamation. On November 14, however, Hayden wrote 

Sparkes regretful that “it is not possible to produce the pen used in signing the 

 

293 George A. Brubaker, Assistant Sectetary to Senator Hayden to Senator Carl Hayden, Western Union Telegraph 

November 7 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 252 folder 38. 294 Note on desk calendar for October 24; also see, George Brubaker to Hayden, November 3, 1952, Hayden Papers, 

AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

295 Brubaker to Hayden, Washington, D.C. November 3, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 252, folder 39. 

105
Proclamation due to the lapse of time between the date of signing and receipt of your 

request here. It has not been possible to locate the particular pen used.”296

It was a fitting end to a process that would commemorate a historical moment. 

Earlier, when Sparkes led a tour to the site on July 25, 1952, she knew the place, the 

historical moment, and the panoramic view were right. In that tour were Conrad L. 

Wirth, Director of the National Park Service, R.L. Lee, Assistant Director, and M.R. 

Tillotson, Regional Director. As they wound their way down from Coronado Peak, 

Sparkes recollected later, “it was way beyond my expectations, for it goes beyond the 

thought of a place for an historical marker—there lies the route before you of 

Coronado—you actually feel it and see it.”297 Still, in her heart, she wished that one day 

Mexico would come around to make Coronado National Memorial an international area. 

 

296 Hayden to Sparkes, November 14, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 297 Sparkes to Hayden, July 28, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

106
 Chapter IV 

A Memorial to Mr. Coronado? A Monument to Misunderstanding: 

The View from Cananea 

...bringing good will and understanding between the two 

nations –- Mexico and the United States... –Grace Sparkes, 

Bisbee Daily Review, 1951. 

The Agrarian Reform represents raising to their ultimate 

culmination the principles of social justice...set forth in the 

supreme law of the republic. –- Mexican President Adolfo 

López Mateos. 

Polley denounced the drive to break up the huge Greene 

holdings as communist-inspired. —Attorney for the Greene 

family, Bisbee Daily Review, 1952.

 After the Coronado Commission decided to place a monument at the point where 

Coronado’s expedition crossed into what would become the United States, they had to 

determine exactly where to put it. First, a commission concluded that Coronado traveled 

through the border area going north along the San Pedro River. Then, the Huachuca 

Mountain site, which was not on the projected Coronado route but which did possess an 

impressive view of it and the surrounding countryside, was selected. The Huachucas had 

already been promoted as the site for an international monument for at least four years by 

local boosters.298 

 According to Senator Carl Hayden, the decision on the placement of the 

monument was made in consultation with officials of the Mexican government and the 

Cananea Cattle Company, which owned the land directly south of the border. Twelve 

thousand acres, half in each country, was designated for inclusion in the projected 

 

298 G.R. Michaels, Secretary, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, to Frank Pinkley, National Park Service, Bisbee, April 3, 

1936, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1939 F1. 

107
monument.299 Hayden was assured by Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico that no land 

within the United States would be taken from private hands. It would only be transferred 

from the Forest Service to the Park Service, from one federal agency to another.300 Even 

this, however, did not satisfy Hayden. He noted that the specified land contained 

“patented mining claims and patented private grazing holdings.” He “objected to its size 

suggesting that there was no necessity of including this much land in the American part 

of an international monument.”301

 Hayden claimed credit for instigating a new site evaluation by the National Forest 

Service and National Park Service. The new study concluded that some 2,960 acres 

should be set aside within the United States for the international monument. This parcel 

would be free of all patented mining claims. He noted that there was evidence of 

unpatented mining claims which, Park Service geologists assured him, did not show signs 

of mineral wealth. However, he intended to investigate further. Before he would 

“permit” the withdrawal of land, Hayden asked for comments from county and state 

officials as well as cattle raising and mining organizations.302 The Arizona Small Mine 

Operators Association approved of the land withdrawal after reassuring themselves that 

the area did not contain sufficient mineral resources to justify further development.303 

 The newly designated land also contained three grazing allotments, which Hayden 

set out to protect as well. In a letter to Alex D’Albini, a local rancher who owned one of 

the allotments, Hayden wrote that “Mr. Tolson (of the National Park Service) and I were 

 

299 Senator Carl Hayden to W.E. Clark, Clerk, Cochise County Board of Supervisors, April 22, 1940, WACC, Folder 

H 14: Area and Service History 1940 F2. 

300 Clinton P. Anderson to Hayden, Albuquerque, April 11, 1940, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, Folder 2. 301 Hayden to Clark, April 22, 1940. 302 Ibid. 303 M.A. Merrill, Chairman, Bisbee Council, Southern Cochise Council, Arizona Small Mine Operators Association, to 

Charles F. Willis, Bisbee, May 2, 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1940 F2. 

108
perfectly willing to so arrange the Monument bill that the improvements which might be 

undertaken by the Park Service would in no way interfere with” corrals and water which 

his ranching operation used within the National Forest. After further consultation with 

D’Albini and other local ranchers, the boundaries of the proposed monument were again 

revised to ensure that they would not disturb ranching operations on federal land. 

Hayden concluded “that the measure as it now stands fully protects all the rights of 

stockmen and miners.”304

 Hayden assured another rancher that the legislation written to establish the park 

would actually give him more protection than he currently had. It would stipulate that the 

Department of the Interior be required to issue grazing regulations which agreed with the 

rules already in affect on their National Forest grazing allotments. Adding that the 

legislation would guarantee that grazing would continue to be allowed just as it was, 

Hayden stressed that it could not, subsequently, be cut. Under Forest Service 

jurisdiction, grazing allotments could be adjusted. According to Hayden, such would not 

be possible once the proposed monument was established. “Your permits will be 

transferable since grazing is required to be permitted forever to the extent it is now 

practiced.”305 

 From another direction, the Coronado Commission, came the assertion that the 

reason that founding legislation was being passed by Congress, to augment the necessary 

Presidential proclamation, was to codify the rights of cattlemen and miners. The 

legislation would leave “no discretion in this matter in the hands of administrative 

 

304 Hayden to Alex D’Albini, June 13, 1940, Ibid. 305 Hayden to Henry Davis Lee, June 10, 1940, Ibid. 

109
officials.”306 Even that did not satisfy the Arizona Cattle Growers Association. They 

quickly fired back a letter opposing a monument any larger than one section confined to 

the highest part of the Huachuca Mountains which, they argued, Coronado had climbed 

in 1540.307 It went without saying that the highest part of the mountains was also the 

land least suitable for grazing. 

 True to Hayden’s word, the 1941 legislation authorizing Coronado International 

Memorial contained language specifically protecting the rights of ranchers and miners to 

pursue their vocations within the park. Of the two pages that made up the statute, one 

focused almost exclusively on the topic. Rights to water then used for stock were 

protected along with grazing privileges. Future road and fence construction would have 

to include access routes for cattle in order to ensure that development of the park did not 

threaten existing grazing and water rights.308

 The actual founding of the Memorial was made contingent upon the Mexican 

government setting aside “an area of similar type and size adjoining the area” designated 

by Congress in 1941.309 In 1952, the original legislation was amended to strike out the 

section stipulating Mexican participation and change the name to “Coronado National 

Memorial,” deleting the international concept along with the word. Subsequently, a 

presidential proclamation created the National Memorial amid disappointment at the 

inaction of Mexico.310 Even after 1952, efforts to expand the Memorial across the border 

 

306 Charles M. Morgan to Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Phoenix, May 8, 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and 

Service History 1940 F2. 

307 Mrs. J.M. Keith, Secretary, Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Phoenix, May 9, 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area 

and Service History 1940 F2. 

308 An Act to Provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Memorial, in the State of Arizona, approved 

August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 630). 

309 Ibid. 310 An Act to amend the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Memorial, 

in the State of Arizona,” approved August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 630), approved July 9, 1952 (66 Stat. 510); Establishment 

110
to the south continued. An often stated goal of these efforts, before and after 1952, was 

to increase cooperation and understanding between Mexico and the United States while 

recognizing a common history.311 However, from its conception through negotiations, 

involving public entities and private interests from both countries, the process highlighted 

misunderstandings and differing views of history. 

 The land proposed for the International Memorial within Mexico was, itself, the 

object of controversy at the time. One assessment was that “there is nothing in that flat 

country which is of any interest except to the people who are running cattle on it.”312 

The author was Charles E. Wiswall, the Vice President of the company that owned the 

land, Ranchos de Cananea, and not a disinterested observer. More importantly, whether 

or not he was correct in his physical description of it, Wiswall was well aware that there 

was a lot of interest in his land. In fact, the Ranchos de Cananea were at the heart of one 

of the most important political struggles of the time, as it had been in an earlier era. 

 The cattle operation that came to be known as Ranchos de Cananea had its origins 

in the controversial operations of William C. Greene around the turn of the twentieth 

century. Greene, who had bestowed upon himself the title of “Colonel,” was once 

toasted as “the Cecil Rhodes of America.”313 Rhodes was both admired and vilified for 

expanding the British Empire, and his own, in Africa through his own ambition and the 

exploitation of native labor. In like manner, Greene carved his own empire out of the 

mountains and desert of northern Sonora and southern Arizona. The copper mining 

 

of the Coronado National Memorial (Name change from International Memorial), Arizona, By the President of the 

United States, A Proclamation (No. 2995), November 5, 1952. 311 See, for example, Resolution of the Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission of Arizona, August 30, 1939, WACC, 

Folder H 14: Area and Services History 1939 F1. 

312 Charles E. Wiswall to J.H. Morgan, Cananea, July 11, 1950, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 41-52 

F3. 

111
complex in Cananea, Sonora, which profited from a labor system that discriminated 

against Mexican workers, was his greatest undertaking. 

 “Colonel” Greene’s accomplishments in Cananea have been viewed in conflicting 

manners. His biographer called Greene “a frontiersman to the end--a man looking for 

new country and new challenges, a lone fighter pitting his strength against nature and 

hostile human beings,” the soul of “honesty, responsibility, independence, labor, and 

dedication.”314 In Mexico, the “new” country in which Greene made his fortune, his 

legacy is less positive. It stems from the events of 1906, when the Cananea miners struck 

in protest of company policies toward them. They demanded higher pay and shorter 

hours. They were, moreover, angered by the control that Greene had over the region and 

their lives. His companies owned their houses and land, controlled roads and regulated 

transportation, and held the local water concession. They also ran the slaughterhouse and 

the company store that monopolized the retail market.315

 What was most often written of and shouted from the barricades, however, was 

the most galling affront of all to Mexican workers. Anglo-American miners were paid 

more for the same work and provided better housing than their Mexican counterparts. 

They also filled all supervisory positions in the mines. The strike quickly turned into a 

violent confrontation. Greene viewed the events as an affront to his authority and a threat 

to his operation. He sent to Arizona for armed “volunteers,” seventy-five of whom 

crossed the border from Bisbee and hurried to Cananea. The governor of Sonora, Rafael 

 

313 Charles Leland Sonnichsen, Colonel Greene and the Copper Skyrocket; The Spectacular Rise and Fall of William 

Cornell Greene: Copper King, Cattle Baron, and Promoter Extra-ordinary in Mexico, the American Southwest, and the 

New York Financial District (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1974), 4, 54. 314 Ibid, 268-269. As an interpreter of the region, Sonnichsen is described on the title page of his book on Greene as 

aiming “to express the attitudes and assumptions of his fellow Americans in their thinking about the Western 

experience.” 

315 Josiah McC. Heyman, Life and Labor on the Border: Working People of Northeastern Sonora, Mexico, 1886-1986

(Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991) 29-30. 

112
Izábal, saw the strike as a rebellion and allowed the vigilantes to cross. Taking further 

action himself, he sent for two thousand troops to quell the disturbances. According to a 

conservative estimate, between thirty and one hundred Mexicans and four United States 

citizens were killed during the Cananea strike.316

 The United States ambassador to Mexico was later told that the Mexican 

government viewed the 1906 events as an attempted revolution.317 That opinion would 

prove to be prescient. While it is doubtful that many of the miners in Cananea expected 

their actions to lead to the downfall of the autocratic, thirty-year old regime of Porfirio 

Díaz, a later historian summarized their meaning as follows: 

Cananea is famous in Mexican history because of a strike in 1906 that was 

one of the direct antecedents of the Mexican Revolution. The central issue 

in the strike was pay scales that gave Mexican workers less than 

comparable American employees. Because the Sonoran state governor 

allowed Greene to bring armed irregulars from Bisbee into Mexico, the 

strike focused nationalistic discontent against the United States on 

Mexico’s own subservient regime.318

Thus, in 1906, Cananea symbolized domination of the economy by foreigners and the 

Díaz government’s collaboration with them in impovershing the Mexican people. When 

Díaz was forced to flee Mexico in 1911, Cananea was seen as one of the opening salvos 

of the revolution. 

 Before the revolution began in 1910, Greene lost control of the mines of Cananea, 

and before the revolution ended, Greene was dead. Before he died, he owned an 

enormous amount of grazing land in both Mexico and the United States. In Mexico, his 

holdings were described as an irregularly shaped area extending forty-two miles from 

north and south; sixty-eight miles east to west; and two hundred miles in circumference. 

 

316 John Mason Hart, Revolutionary Mexico: The Coming and Process of the Mexican Revolution (Berkeley: University 

of California Press, 1987) 63-68; Sonnichsen, Colonel Greene and the Copper Skyrocket, 177-206. 

113
Some of the land, fully integrated into his ranching operation, was leased from two 

Mexican families. Still more was leased long-term from the Cananea Consolidated 

Copper Company for a nominal fee, a deal consummated by Greene before he lost 

control of the mining company. Eventually, in 1929, that land was sold to the cattle 

company.319 

 Along the border, the Greene ranch extended from east of Naco, Sonora, to west 

of the Huachuca Mountains. It fronted all of the land considered in the United States for 

designation as the Coronado Memorial. When Greene died in 1911 he left all of his 

holdings to his wife and children. Ranch manager Charles E. Wiswall continued to run 

the operation for the family. In 1918, Wiswall and Mary Proctor Greene, the Colonel’s 

widow, were married. They ran the cattle business until his death in 1953 and hers two 

years later.320 The Mexican property was officially separate from the Greene holdings in 

the United States and was broken up on paper into seven units in order to evade national 

laws that limited property size.321 It was said that Greene and his heirs never allowed 

Mexican nationals to work on the small part of the vast ranch dedicated to agriculture in 

order to avoid the establishment of a community that had the right to request its own 

common land.322

 Land was guaranteed to farmers by the post-revolutionary constitution of Mexico. 

Land reform was a centerpiece of the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas, 1934-1940. The 

 

317 Sonnichsen, Colonel Greene and the Copper Skyrocket, 206. 318 Heyman, Life and Labor on the Border, 29. 319 Sonnichsen, Colonel Greene and the Copper Skyrocket, 233-234. 320 Ibid, 272. 321 Ibid, 233-234; Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias, Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola, Estructura 

Agraria y Desarrollo Agrícola en México: Estudio sobre las Relaciones entre la Tenencia y uso de la Tierra y el 

Desarrollo Agrícola de México (México, D.F.: Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias, 1970), 220. 322 Elsa M.Peña y J. Trinidad Chávez, “Ganadería y agricultura en la sierra: 1929-1980,” Historia General de Sonora, 

Historia Contemporánea de Sonora 1929-1984, Segunda edición, edited by Gerardo Cornejo Murrieta (Hermosillo: 

Colegio de Sonora, 1988), 488-489. 

114
Cárdenas administration distributed some eighteen to twenty million hectares (nearly fifty 

million acres) of land, benefiting around 800,000 recipients.323 Cárdenas remains a 

controversial figure in the study of Mexican history to this day. Regardless of 

interpretation, though, all agree that his presidency was decisive in the development of 

modern Mexico.324 The events in Cananea in the 1930s, and after, must be seen in the 

context of these contemporary political upheavals throughout the state of Sonora and the 

nation of Mexico. Wiswall watched these events with keen and personal interest. 

 The state of Sonora, in particular, was affected by national influences during the 

Cárdenas era more profoundly than it had previously been. Though it provided many of 

the preeminent leaders of the 1910-1920 Mexican Revolution, Sonora was, itself, “largely 

untouched by revolutionary change.”325 The new Sonoran elite, while connected to the 

ruling clique in Mexico City by both factional and familial ties, was entrenched and 

independent in its power. Although Cárdenas ascended to the presidency at the 

sufferance of the Sonora faction presided over by Plutarco Elías Calles, he quickly 

established his own independence. After he forced Calles into exile, Cárdenas began to 

project his own modernizing program into all regions of Mexico. He then set into 

motion, or amplified, multiple conflicts in Sonora. 

 Mexico is a country known for its regionalism, for loyalty to patria chica above 

the nation-state. Sonora in the 1930s was no exception and its people, like those of many 

regions, were jealous of their local autonomy. Elites controlled the state though a 

 

323 Specific estimates vary, but fall into this range, Alan Knight, “The rise and fall of Cardenismo, c. 1930 – c. 1946,” 

Mexico Since Independence, edited by Leslie Bethell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 258; Steven E. 

Sanderson, Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State: The Struggle for Land in Sonora (Berkeley: University of 

California Press, 1981), 114-115. 

324 See Adrian A. Bantjes, As If Jesus Walked on Earth: Cardenismo, Sonora, and the Mexican Revolution

(Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Books, 1998), “Introduction,” for a summary of different views. 325 Ibid, xvi. 

115
combination of patronage and repression and did not appreciate what they perceived as 

meddling by outsiders. Popular organizations followed their lead in resisting interference 

by the central government. “But regionalist discourse was often less a defense of state 

autonomy against the center than veiled manipulation of chauvinism in defense of (upper) 

class interests.”326 The career of Román Yocupicio Valenzuela, governor of Sonora from 

1936 to 1939, illustrates the Byzantine character of Sonoran politics at the time. 

 As a partisan of President Alvaro Obregón, Yocupicio was marginalized by the 

regime of his rival, Calles. He was supported by the remnants of Obregón’s clique as 

well as by a large network of friends and cronies cultivated during years of fighting and 

politicking in the Obregón cause. Yet, even as Cárdenas was defeating Calles, Yocupicio 

appealed to interests opposed to Cárdenas and to important aspects of the revolution 

itself. His defense of the Catholic church, which had been at war with the Calles regime 

and the national government, won him support, including that of the majority of women 

in the first election in which they were allowed to vote. As a Mayo Indian and friend of a 

well-known Yaqui leader, Yocupicio gained access to indigenous groups which had only 

recently fought against the government. 

 Yocupicio represented local power over centralization, and had the threat of a 

regional revolt behind his election. However, he agreed to join the national party of 

Cárdenas, the National Revolutionary Party (Partido Nacional Revolucionario, PNR) and 

participate in its primary selection process. He openly championed the interests of 

merchants and landowners over peasants and workers. Despite this he garnered most of 

the miners’ votes. By cobbling together a diverse coalition of seemingly incompatible 

interests, Yocupicio was able to construct a base strong enough to defy the central 

 

326 Ibid, 225. 

116
government. Despite the open antagonism between them, neither Cárdenas nor 

Yocupicio was willing to risk any action that might precipitate open violence. From 

within the party, Yocupicio became “one of Cárdenas’s most stubborn opponents.”327

 Yocupicio exploited multiple conflicts to gain political power and maintain it 

through his term in office, as well as to set himself up in a lucrative business to enjoy in 

his retirement.328 The same diversity of antagonisms contributed to controversies 

surrounding the Greene land surrounding Cananea. In addition, interests in the United 

States played a major role. The Cárdenas reforms faced opposition from north of the 

border because of the massive amount of investment and land ownership in Mexico by 

U.S. citizens. In particular, Mexican expropriation of land, railroads, and oil from U.S. 

(and British in the latter case) companies threatened binational relations.329

 In 1935, the government moved against another bastion of foreign capital when it 

announced that it would place stringent limits on the size of cattle ranches in the north of 

Mexico. The Cananea Cattle Company took a leading role when the ranchers went to 

Mexico City to negotiate. Eventually, the government retreated from its original plan and 

multiplied the limit, setting it at 40,000 hectares (almost 100,000 acres). The Cananea 

Cattle Company lost some land in the settlement, most of which was returned two years 

later as part of decree that protected the cattle industry.330 It would not be the company’s 

last brush with expropriation. 

 Simultaneous with the Cárdenas administration’s land reform, another threat to 

the Greene empire appeared closer to home. Cananea had long been a stronghold of the 

 

327 Ibid, 67. 328 Ibid, 59-67, 210-211. 329 Knight, “The rise and fall of Cardenismo,” 285. 

117
miners’ unions. In the wake of the global crisis of 1929, as unemployment rose, new 

forms of organization emerged in the area. These included organizations of wood cutters, 

prospectors, and veterans of the revolution. Amid allegations of a deliberate strategy of 

dismissing workers who should have been paid compensation for contracting silicosis in 

the mines, these unions became more militant. Their efforts to gain access to firewood 

and gold placers brought them into conflict with the Cananea Cattle Company, which 

controlled virtually all the land around Cananea.331

 The Cananea unions drew support from fragments of a factionalized labor and 

peasant sector. Labor faced the same multiplicity of frictions as the rest of society and 

the same set of conflicts outlined above. It, too, became embroiled in the Sonora-Mexico 

City power struggle. In 1937, PNR organizers traveled to Hermosillo, the capital of 

Sonora, to organize and unify the peasants of the state under the Cardenista banner. They 

promised, much to the dismay of Governor Yocupicio, to distribute land in the fertile 

Yaqui Valley. The United States Vice-Consul on the scene complained about the antiimperialist rhetoric of the “outsiders” from Mexico City.332 

 Out of the process of regional organization, the National Peasant Confederation 

(Confederación Nacional Campesina, CNC), was founded in 1938 as an affiliate of the 

ruling party.333 In Sonora, the CNC came to be considered as too conservative and 

bureaucratic, perhaps more interested in channeling peasants into the ruling party than in 

representing them. More Sonoran peasants turned instead, to the Confederation of 

 

330 Manuel A. Machado Jr., The North Mexican Cattle Industry, 1910-1975: Ideology, Conflict, and Change (College 

Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1981), 52-54; Adrian A. Bantjes, As If Jesus Walked on Earth, 132. Machado 

and Bantjes, citing the same source, provide different figures for the original limit but agree on the final figure. 331 Heyman, Life and Labor on the Border, 37; Ismael Valencia Ortega, Cananea (Hermosillo: Centro Regional del 

Noroeste, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia – SEP, Secretaria de Fomento Educativo y Cultura, 1984), 85. 

332 Bantjes, As If Jesus Walked on Earth, 98-99. 333 Armando Bartra, Los Herederos de Zapata: Movimientos Campesinos Posrevoluciones en México. 1920-1980

(México: Ediciones Era, 1985), 22-24, 65. 

118
Mexican Workers (Confederación de Trabajadores de México, CTM), the workers union 

meant by the national government to complement rather than compete with the CNC. 

The CNC, in turn, became the champion of the more conservative peasants backed by 

anti-Cardenista forces at both the state and national levels.334

 Even before the end of the Cárdenas presidency, his government retreated from its 

more radical programs in what has been characterized as a counter-reformation.335 

Before long, the official labor and peasant organizations were pressured to endorse the 

party line of national development and private ownership over agrarian reform, and 

national unity over class struggle.336 By the late 1940s the CTM was purged of its more 

radical elements, especially those who promoted the formation of an independent and 

popular party of workers and peasants.337 A new organization, the General Union of 

Mexican Workers and Peasants (Unión General de Obreros y Campesinos Méxicanos, 

UGOCM), emerged to represent the interests of workers and peasants outside the ruling 

party.338

 Among the radical wing was a leader of a Sonoran affiliate of the CTM and 

longtime activist named Jacinto López. López had been jailed, with several other CTM 

leaders, by Governor Yocupicio in 1938 in a dispute involving the reformed lands, or 

ejidos, of the Yaqui and Mayo Valleys. He went on to found his own party, the Popular 

Socialist Party (Partido Popular Socialista, PPS) and, in 1949, appeared to win the 

governorship of Sonora. The ruling party, by then refounded as the Institutional 

 

334 Bantjes, As If Jesus Walked on Earth, 98-99; Gerrit Huizer, “Peasant Organization in the Process of Agrarian 

Reform in Mexico,” Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. IV, No. 6 (1968-1969), 129. 335 Bantjes, As If Jesus Walked on Earth, 224. 336 Knight, “The rise and fall of Cardenismo, 302. 337 Gerrit Huizer, La Lucha Campesina en México (México: Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias, 1970), 90-91. 338 Sanderson, Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State, 141. 

119
Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI), imposed its candidate 

and repression followed, focusing on the ejidos of Sonora.339

 In the meantime, agitation for, and opposition to, land reform continued. In 1945, 

the Secretary General of the CNC spoke of “white terror” and a “silent and bloody civil 

war” surrounding the ejidos.

340 A movement for expropriation and distribution of the 

lands of the Cananea Cattle Company was launched by the Federation of Workers of the 

State of Sonora (Federación de Trabajadores del Estado de Sonora) in January 1948. 

The action was spearheaded by the Committee of Veterans of the Revolution, peasants, 

and prospectors of Cananea (Comité de Veteranos de la Revolución, campesinos y 

gambusinos de Cananea). Soon, a popular organization in Naco and a miners union local 

in Cananea added their voices to the demand for expropriation. 

 A petition was presented to the Attorney General (Procuradía General de 

Justicia) and an investigation ensued, led by Abel Ortiz Noriega, of the Federal Office of 

the Treasury (Oficina Federal de Hacienda) and Public Ministry (Ministerio Público). It 

concluded that the ranches were illegal under Mexican law.341 Not only was the land 

holding too large, the Mexican Constitution of 1917 specified that no foreigners could 

own land within one hundred kilometers of the border.342 Nonetheless, the Secretary of 

Agriculture declared that the lands were immune to seizure due to their being completely 

and necessarily exploited. For his part in the controversy, Abel Ortiz Noriega was 

immediately relieved of his federal duties. The Cananea Cattle Company denounced the 

movement and its supporters as tools of the Communist Party.343

 

339 Ibid, 117, 139-140. 340 Huizer, “Peasant Organization in the Process of Agrarian Reform in Mexico,” 134. 341 Peña y Trinidad Chávez, “Ganadería y agricultura en la sierra: 1929-1980,” 491-492. 342 Huizer, “Peasant Organization in the Process of Agrarian Reform in Mexico,” 139. 343 Peña y Trinidad Chávez, “Ganadería y agricultura en la sierra: 1929-1980,” 492-493. 

120
 The government reportedly entered into negotiations with the land owners but 

nothing of note was accomplished. Through the middle of the 1950s, groups of 

prospectors, many of them former employees of the Cananea mines, were violently 

expelled from Cananea Cattle Company lands by company guards and the police. Some 

were jailed leading to demonstrations by the miners local and confrontations with 

officials in Cananea. In early 1957, the president announced that the land would be 

expropriated, but as the year ended nothing more of the plan had been revealed.344

 Neither government opposition nor company redbaiting slowed land activism in 

Sonora. In fact, going into the late 1950s petitions for distribution of land and peasant 

invasions of disputed estates followed one another at an accelerating pace. “As important 

as these conflicts were to the survival of agrarismo in Sonora during the counter-reform, 

the outstanding invasion of the period took place in Cananea.”345 In February 1958, one 

year after the presidential decree, the radio station in Cananea was seized by a group that 

included Jacinto López, representing the UGOCM, and Ramón Danzós Palomino, a local 

Communist Party leader. They declared their intention to invade the Cananea Cattle 

Company lands, announced that they had trucks to transport participants, and invited 

local peasants to join them. Estimates of the number of families that accepted the 

invitation vary widely, but rancho Cuitaca, of the Ranchos de Cananea, was invaded and 

construction of a settlement, including a school, began. 

 In a response redolent of the events of 1906, the army was called out, the new 

settlement destroyed, and its residents loaded onto military trucks. They were taken into 

Cananea and, initially, thrown out in the streets in weather remembered as cold, rainy, 

 

344 Ibid. 345 Sanderson, Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State, 156-157. 

121
and snowy. Later, the families were allowed to use the dubious shelter of the local 

baseball stadium. A witness to a contemporary land invasion elsewhere in Sonora 

described the army using tear gas against families in order to disperse and eject them. 

Despite such repression, agitation against the Greene latifundio continued. Another 

invasion was discussed but never carried out after the leadership was jailed, first in 

Cananea and later in Hermosillo. Jacinto López served a six month term on a charge of 

“social dissolution.”346

 Pressure was growing for the government to bring social peace to the region. In 

addition, the character of events were a direct assault on the explicit ideology, or 

mythology, of the PRI. After the 1910-1920 revolution, the winners, under the banner of 

a succession of official parties, wore the mantle of the guardian of the Mexican nation, 

and especially of its peasants and workers. Yet, in Cananea, again, the army had attacked 

those very groups in defense of the foreign owners of a constitutionally illegal property. 

As if to symbolize the conflict between the myth and the reality of the PRI, peasants in 

Ciudad Obregón, Sonora, wrapped themselves in flags as the police approached to evict 

them from land that they had occupied.347

 As the conflict over land escalated in Cananea, and across Sonora, it became 

evident that expropriation was inevitable. At least since the Cárdenas era, the 

government policy alternated between radical reform meant to satisfy the ruling party’s 

social base and a conservative program that promised stability to business owners and 

investors, domestic and foreign. The cycles of agrarian policy have been described as: 

 

346 Karl M. Schmitt, Communism in Mexico: A Study in Political Frustration (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1965), 

180; Ibid; Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias, Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola, Estructura Agraria y 

Desarrollo Agrícola en México, 220; Gerrit Huizer, La Lucha Campesina en México, 94; Huizer, “Peasant 

Organization in the Process of Agrarian Reform in Mexico,” 139; Peña y Trinidad Chávez, “Ganadería y agricultura en 

la sierra: 1929-1980,” 492-493. 

122
a pattern of pressure and government response, sometimes favorable to 

peasant interests, sometimes to private farmers. Land distribution has 

been intense during periods of political and economic crisis, as, for 

example, the period of political consolidation immediately following the 

Revolution of 1910, the depression of the late 1930s, and the recessions of 

the late 1950s and mid-1970s. 

Distribution of the Ranchos de Cananea lands would transform a large, vocal, and active 

population into clients, completely dependent upon the government for their homes and 

livelihoods.348

 The expropriation of Ranchos de Cananea was announced before the end of 1958. 

In February 1959 the president of Mexico, Adolfo López Mateos, came to Cananea to 

distribute the land in collective ejidos. In his speech he evoked the honor of the 

Revolution and referred to the opprobrious latifundio.

349 In typical style, the list of 

beneficiaries compiled by the UGOCM over a six year span was scrapped in favor of one 

submitted by the government’s own CNC. That increased the membership of the CNC 

and the PRI while ensuring a tractable ejido population. “Once again, the CNC 

‘carpetbagged’ at the expense of the UGOCM.”350

 The Cananea Cattle Company land, when seen in the context of the agrarian 

reform program of Mexico and of the politics of Sonora and Mexico, suddenly appears as 

more than an empty piece of desert. Charles E. Wiswall was quoted above stating that 

“there is nothing in that flat country which is of any interest except to the people who are 

running cattle on it.”351 It is now obvious that he was wrong, and knew so, when he 

wrote that to a Phoenix attorney involved in promoting the International Memorial. 

 

347 Schmitt, Communism in Mexico, 181. 348 Susan R. Walsh Sanderson, Land Reform in Mexico: 1910-1980 (Orlando: Academic Press, Inc., 1984) 149. 349 Lourdes Celis, Catherine Macotela, Rosario Rico, Victor M. Ruíz, and Elena Ulloa, historia de la acción pública: 

adolfo lópez mateos 1958-1964. I – las ideas (México: Fondo para la Historia de las ideas Revolucionarias en México, 

1978), 191. 

123
Elsewhere, Wiswall qualified his assessment somewhat, stating more than once that the 

land specified for the Memorial on the Mexican side of the border contained springs that 

were critical to the company’s cattle operation.352

 Wiswall pointed out that it was unlikely, at best, that Coronado or any member of 

his company ever went on the property delineated in plans for the Memorial. He added 

that he believed that historical places should be marked but went on to specify that a 

roadside plaque near the San Pedro River would be sufficient.353 When either Wiswall, 

or Frank Greene, son of the Colonel and part owner of the Cananea Cattle Company, 

expressed any specific opinion regarding the Memorial it was consistently negative, 

though the reasoning changed somewhat from time to time. 

 Besides the springs already mentioned by Wiswall, the company added that they 

could not afford to lose any grazing land. In a resolution by the owners of the Cananea 

Cattle Company that was forwarded to the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce on June 18, 

1951, the company expanded on its opposition to using any of its land for an international 

park. Not only was the land and water base already overtaxed by existing herds, but 

current company policy was to increase beef production for markets in Mexico and the 

United States. The resolution added that they considered that plan to be “a material 

contribution to the [Korean] war effort.” In addition, fencing was so scarce and 

expensive at the time that it was difficult to obtain enough to satisfy simple maintenance 

and repair needs. The planned international park would require more fencing at great 

cost. Finally, the resolution concluded, “in the present situation of international 

 

350 Sanderson, Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State, 157; Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias, Comite 

Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola, Estructura Agraria y Desarrollo Agrícola en México, 220. 351 Wiswall to J.H. Morgan, July 11, 1950. 352 Minutes of Meeting, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, National Parks and Monuments Committee, July 18, 1950, 

WACC, Folder H 14: Area Service and History 41-52 F3. 

124
emergency, the proposed spending of money and use of scarce materials, for recreational 

project purposes such as this, should at least be held in abeyance until the return of 

normal times.”354

 Along with the cattle company’s concern for the interests of the United States 

came a perceptible antipathy toward the citizens of Mexico. Also during 1951, Wiswall 

told the Assistant Director of the U.S. National Park Service, Hillary Tolson, that the 

company was opposed to anything, such as a park on the border, that would encourage 

Mexican nationals to cross company land. He expressed concern that they would engage 

in illegal wood cutting, hunting, and cattle rustling.355 Undoubtedly, he was also thinking 

about prospectors and squatters, but he did not mention them to Tolson. 

 Of course, the company’s greatest anxiety was over the prospect that the 

government might, as they eventually would, expropriate the land. Wiswall and Frank 

Greene said that if they agreed to release any property for the park it could lead the 

government to seize more. Perhaps they feared that by volunteering to relinquish land 

they would show that they didn’t need it all and undermine their claim, and the 

government ruling, that the land was being fully exploited. 

 If the company was unwilling to risk weakening its position for the sake of the 

Memorial, however, it was happy to use the Memorial to solidify its hold on Mexican 

land. Greene suggested to NPS officials that the company might be willing to negotiate 

an exchange of the land for a similar parcel elsewhere. Of course, if the Mexican 

government made such a deal they would be compelled to give the company a guarantee 

of ownership of the land that it would receive. In addition, by negotiating as equals with 

 

353 Wiswall to J.H. Morgan, July 11, 1950. 

125
the company, the Mexican government would grant a renewed legitimacy to its claim to 

its other lands as well. The Assistant Director of the Park Service suggested that U.S. 

officials might present Greene’s exchange proposal to their Mexican counterparts if talks 

took place.356

 Such a willingness by U.S. officials to negotiate on behalf of the Cananea Cattle 

Company or between it and the Mexican government raises an important issue. The 

Cananea Cattle Company operated in Mexican territory and under Mexican laws. The 

status of its land was a matter to be settled with the Mexican government, just as it was 

up to the United States government to deal with landowners on the north side of the 

border. It is doubtful whether U.S. officials would have looked kindly upon Mexican 

suggestions regarding property in their country. Yet, from the Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce to the U.S. Senate, suggestions of what Mexico should do regarding the 

Cananea Cattle Company flowed freely. 

 One factor that explains this proclivity for prescription is undoubtedly national 

chauvinism toward Mexico. Another is that as fellow U.S. citizens, and fellow elites, 

politicians, bureaucrats, and commission members felt far more in common with Greene 

and Wiswall than they did with Mexican officials or citizens. Colonel Greene, the 

founder of the Cananea Cattle is, after all, considered a pioneer and hero of Arizona 

history, though his image is much different in Mexico. The original location of the park 

was determined, at least in part, by the existence of a large tract of National Forest 

Service land near Coronado’s route. Protection of the private property and grazing rights 

of cattle ranchers was an integral component in drawing its boundaries. 

 

354 Emilio Segura, Jr., Secretary, Ranchos de Cananea, to Sparkes, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, Ranchos de 

Cananea, June 18, 1951, WACC, Folder H 14: Area Service and History 41-52 F3. 

126
 As it happened, the land across the international border belonged to icons of 

Arizona society and history. Officials and boosters in the U.S. simply assumed that the 

primary goals of the Mexican government in the area would be protection of the cattle 

company’s rights and founding of the park, in that order. The fact was that the citizens 

and government of Mexico, as well as the Cananea Cattle Company, were far more 

concerned with the expropriation issue than with the construction of a memorial to 

Coronado. Thus, statements by Greene, Wiswall, and the company as a whole regarding 

the Memorial, must be considered in the context of the expropriation struggle in Mexico. 

 Very early in the process, the Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission of 

Arizona used the certainty that the Cananea Cattle Company would donate land south of 

the border to assure the Arizona Cattle Growers Association that grazing rights would be 

protected in the Memorial’s design.357 Later, boosters on the U.S. side recalled that the 

“Greene cattle people” had initially agreed to donate land for the park “with the 

understanding that their stock interests should be protected. Through correspondence 

from various officials, the Mexican government did not wish to comply with those terms 

and we have been stymied.”358 Onus for the failure to create a park, in the view from the 

north, fell squarely on the Mexican government. 

 By that same thinking, the Mexican government could easily solve the problem 

by agreeing to the demands of the cattle company. At a 1950 meeting of the Bisbee, 

Arizona, Chamber of Commerce attended by Wiswall, M.R. Tillotson, Regional Director 

of the National Park Service, summarized the NPS position: “We would be agreeable to 

leaving the land unfenced except for a small area around the improvements that we would 

 

355 Hillary A. Tolson to Margaret Rockwell, Washington, D.C., February 1, 1951, Ibid. 356 Tolson to Grace M. Sparkes, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1951, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 

127
propose to build, the balance could be used for grazing land so far as we are 

concerned.”Grace Sparkes spoke for the Chamber of Commerce. 

Miss Sparkes remarked she discussed this with Senator Hayden and that 

we have taken a position here to go along friendly with the Greene Cattle 

Company to see that they are protected in their grazing and water rights in 

their area as people are on this side and, that is what we had hoped to 

achieve in meeting with Senator Hayden. The Senator said he would like 

to see the Greene people’s water and grazing rights protected and if they 

do give this land in the event it should never be used for this purpose it 

would revert to the original ownership. We hope through Senator Hayden 

in his high standing and the things he has done for Mexico that he could 

bring this about, legislation with Mexico, comparable to our own. 

Tillotson and Wiswall discussed potential compromises and agreed to visit the area 

together and “see what kind of deal they could make.”359

 Tillotson wasn’t the only U.S. official to consider negotiating with, and on behalf 

of, the Cananea Cattle Company about its land in Mexico. In a meeting of the 

“reactivated Coronado International Monument Commission of Arizona,” Chairperson 

Grace Sparkes appointed herself to handle negotiations with the “Green [sic] Cattle 

Company.”360 Assistant Director of the National Park Service Hillory Tolson suggested 

a meeting of officials from his agency, the Arizona Commission, the Mexican 

government, and the Cananea Cattle Company to work out the details of the park.361 

That would raise the company to an equal status with representatives of the two involved 

countries. 

 In the same letter, Tolson wrote that he and the Park Service supported the 

conditions under which the Cananea Cattle Company had first agreed to contribute land 

 

357 Charles M. Morgan to Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Phoenix, May 8, 1940. 358 Minutes of Meeting, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, National Parks and Monuments Committee, July 18, 1950. 359 Minutes of Meeting, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, National Parks and Monuments Committee, December 8, 1950, 

WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 

360 Minutes of the Arizona International Memorial Commission Meeting, February 24, 1951, WACC, Folder H 14: 

Area and Service History 41-52 F3. 

128
on the Mexican side of the border. He also disclosed that he had received information 

that Wiswall has protested creation of the Memorial to the U.S. State Department and the 

Mexican government. The State Department believed that because the financial interests 

of U.S. citizens were involved the Mexican government should not be pressed on the 

issue.362 

 Elsewhere, Tolson noted that the State Department was unwilling to involve itself 

“in view of the delicate situation which has developed along the border with respect to 

American interests in Mexico,” probably a reference to the expropriation issue.363 The 

U.S. Consul in Agua Prieta, Sonora, weighed in with his opposition to the Coronado 

project as well, giving the State Department, in Tolson’s words, “Wiswall’s point of 

view.”364 Even earlier, Tolson had been told by the State Department that it would not 

support either the Coronado International Memorial or a similar project planned at Big 

Bend because of the involvement of financial interests in the United States.365 

 Eventually, it became clear that the Cananea Cattle Company was not interested 

in cooperating in the creation of the Coronado Memorial. Even while Wiswall and 

Greene were discussing the project in reasonable terms with the National Park Service 

and Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, they were channeling their opposition to the highest 

levels of government in Mexico City and Washington, D.C. For almost a decade, 

Arizona boosters had taken the side of the Cattle Company and blamed the Mexican 

government for not acceding to its demands in order to expedite the development of the 

International Memorial. 

 

361 Tolson to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., July 18, 1951, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 362 Ibid. 363 Tolson to Paul A. Sexson, Executive, Office of the Governor, Washington, D.C., September 28, 1951, WACC, 

Folder H 14: Area and Service History 41-52 F3. 

364 Tolson to Rockwell, Washington, D.C., February 1, 1951, Ibid. 

129
 Wiswall told Tillotson in late 1950: “I don’t want you to think that we are 

obstructionists. I am sure that we can find some way to work this out.”366 Memorial 

promoters were only too willing to believe him. By the middle of 1951, Grace Sparkes 

recognized the truth of the matter. She concluded that Wiswall “could have given the 

‘go’ signal” on the Memorial had he so desired.367 Later, she added, “Many feel as I do, 

that Mr. Wiswall could have given the nod and the job there would be complete.”368 It 

was then, recalling her meetings with Wiswall, that Sparkes reacted angrily to the June 

18, 1951, Cananea Cattle Company resolution, “This letter disgusts me after our efforts & 

their supposedly desire to co-operate.”369

 In early 1952, Senator Hayden, too, realized the futility of the effort, recognizing 

that “so long as [Wiswall] has anything to say about it, there will be no Cananea Cattle 

Company land made available for a Mexican area as a part of a Coronado National 

Monument.”370 Hayden was correct, but he did not go far enough. Upon Wiswall’s 

death, both Greene and Emilio Segura, representing the Cananea Cattle Company, went 

out of their way to confirm that they were “unalterably opposed” to the International 

Memorial.371 It became obvious that the earlier appearance of cooperation was only 

constructed in the service of the company’s interests, not a manifestation of public spirit. 

 Undoubtedly, Wiswall and Greene would have been willing to donate a small 

parcel of their massive holdings in return for other land guaranteed by the Mexican 

government or for assurances that they could keep the remainder of the latifundio. 

 

365 Tolson to Assistant Secretary Davis, NPS, Washington, D.C., January 12, 1949, Ibid. 366 Tolson to Rockwell, February 1, 1951. 367 Sparkes to Hayden, Hereford, September 3, 1951, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 368 Sparkes to Hayden, State of Texas Mine, February 1952, ibid. 369 Copy of Segura to Sparkes, June 18, 1951, forwarded to Tolson, ibid. 370 Hayden to Sparkes, January 2, 1952, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 371 Letter, unidentified, NPS (probably Hillory Tolson), to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., March 19, 1952, Ibid. 

130
Failing that, however, they were perceived as a roadblock to development of the 

Memorial. For its part, the Mexican government had much larger concerns in the area. 

The Ranchos de Cananea were illegal, contrary in both the letter and spirit to the national 

constitution as well as to the legitimating mythology of the ruling party. Expropriation 

was coming, whether or not the government wanted it, and taking land from foreign 

citizens only to dedicate it to a joint project with a foreign government was not politically 

feasible. 

 In the middle 1960s, another serious attempt at an international memorial seemed 

to make more headway. This time, the ejidos and their residents were taken into account. 

Several factors could have contributed to the failure, among them the complex 

organization of the administration of Mexican ejidos. Each ejido had its own General 

Assembly as well as an Executive Committee. In the case of Cananea, the seven ejidos

operated as one unit in some areas, such as ranching, but separately in others. In 

addition, two federal agencies were also involved in running the ejidos. The Department 

of Agrarian Affairs and Colonization (Departamento de Asuntos Agrarias y 

Colonización) was responsible for protecting the rights of ejidatarios. The Ejidal Bank 

(Banco Nacional de Crédito Ejidal), part of the federal Department of Agriculture and 

Ranching (Secretaría de Agricultura y Ganadería) administered credit and offers 

technical advice. That may sound unobtrusive, but the Cananea branch had fifty 

employees who were deeply involved in the ejidos, in planning, finance, purchasing and 

sales, and more. Moreover, their yearly plan had to be approved at the national level.372

 

372 Alden Richard. Longwell, The Cananea Ejidos: From Private Ranch to Collective in Sonora (Ph.D. Dissertation: 

University of Nebraska, 1974), 141-145. 

131
 With so many national, state-level, and local interests to be satisfied, a change to 

the ejidos of the magnitude of the International Memorial was difficult to effect. The 

opening of Mexico’s democracy has created more opportunity for conflict by adding 

party politics to the mix. Finally, the neo-liberal assault on the collective ejidos during 

then last two PRI administrations (1988-2000) throws in yet another dynamic. It adds 

pressure for privatization, but not necessarily for nationalization, of the land. It may also 

place the ejidatarios in somewhat the same position that the owners of los Ranchos used 

to be – loath to give up control of anything lest they lose it all. 

 Although few of those in the United States who were involved in the creation of 

the Memorial seem to have bothered to learn about events south of the border, many of 

them were more than willing to involve themselves in affairs there more than was 

appropriate. One who noticed that unfortunate proclivity was Odd B. Halseth of the 

Arizona Coronado Commission. In July 1951, Halseth commented to Grace Sparkes, 

“From the beginning I have had the feeling that we neither had any business to negotiate 

with a Mexican company, nor that our good intentions necessarily would be considered 

so by the Mexican government. Reverse the situation and consider the possible reaction 

by our State Department.” He did not think that their actions had done real harm, but 

added that he could “only trust it has not been considered undue meddling in their own 

affairs.”373

 When Hayden referred, above, to a “Mexican area” of a “National Monument,” 

he was probably thinking of the upcoming founding of the Coronado National, rather 

than international, Memorial. However, in the way that the Memorial was 

conceptualized and promoted it was always a sort of United States “National Memorial” 

132
with a “Mexican area” instead of an equal partnership between Mexico and the United 

States. Boosters, both local and national, focused narrowly on extending the Memorial, 

as designed to please private interests in Arizona, into Mexico. They were happy to 

extend the same right to dictate national land policy in Mexico to the land owners south 

of the border, other U.S. citizens. They never appeared to take seriously any larger 

issues, particularly those south of the border. Worse, they assumed, cavalierly, that they 

could dictate policy to the Mexican government that was in line with their narrow 

concerns. 

 When the important events being played out in northern Sonora were noticed in 

the United States they were usually misunderstood because few cared to look closely 

enough to see them in their own context. Thus, one Arizona newspaper linked the 

expropriation to the famous Greene family. It described “a Moscow-trained Mexican 

labor leader” in threatening tones and quoted a Greene family lawyer who “denounced 

the drive to break up the huge Greene holdings as communist-inspired.”374 In the United 

States of the 1950s such activities could only be seen as a communist offensive in the 

Cold War. In Mexico, the expropriation signified a fulfillment of the highest “principles 

of social justice...set forth in the supreme law of the republic.”375

 At a higher level, the same conflict in interpretation plagued the concept of the 

Memorial itself. In 1980, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas, the son of Mexican President Lázaro 

Cárdenas, and then a government official in his own right, visited Coronado National 

Memorial. He told officials of the National Park Service and the Coronado International 

 

373 Odd B. Halseth, to Sparkes, Phoenix, July 21, 1951, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 374 “Last Testament Upheld Here, Suit to Break Will of Greene’s Wife Denied,” April 2, 1952. 375 Seis Años de Política Agraria del Presidente Adolfo López Mateos, 2. Mexican President Adolfo López Mateos, 

Seis Años de Política Agraria del Presidente Adolfo López Mateos (México: Departamento de Asuntos Agrarios y 

Colonización, 1964), 2. 

133
Memorial Commission that Mexico was not interested in building a monument to 

Coronado or to any other Spanish conquistador.

376 Mexico’s independence originated in 

a peasant and Indian revolt against Spain. Through its history as an independent nation, 

Mexico has suffered interventions and invasions by Spain, France, England, and the 

United States. Modern Mexico celebrates, at least symbolically, its Indian heritage rather 

than the arrival of European colonizers. The arrival of the Spanish Christian civilization 

is seen as having begun a process of pillage, plunder, and slavery. 

 As if to deliberately illuminate the difference between their view of history and 

that held by most citizens of Mexico, Memorial boosters in the United States added 

another facet to the purposed project in 1950. Grace Sparkes, of the Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce, raised the notion of “a monument established for Mr. Greene and Mr. 

Wiswall and the company they represent as they pioneered that country.” She added that 

the whole park project would be “a living memorial to the work of Mr. Wiswall and the 

man who established their company, Mr. Greene.”377 This idea was meant to win the 

support of Wiswall and his associates, and may have originated with Wiswall himself.378 

Two years later, Historian Aubrey Neasham of the Park Service was still pushing “a 

memorial room to the original Mr. Greene” as part of the International Memorial.379

 This, finally, may be the most potent symbol of why the International Memorial 

never took root. Intended to commemorate the shared history and common experiences 

of Mexico and the United States, it instead highlighted the divide between them. In its 

conception, the Memorial to Coronado takes a positive step to include a Spaniard among 

 

376 Larry Dale, “The Coronado International Memorial Project,” n.d., WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History, 

General F6. 

377 Minutes of Meeting, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, National Parks and Monuments Committee, December 8, 1950. 378 Regional Director, NPS, to Director, NPS, Santa Fe, December 14, 1950, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, 

folder 3. 

134
the pantheon of mostly Anglo-American explorers and pioneers celebrated by the United 

States. However, Mexico has too often suffered from European expansion to celebrate 

the conquest in any form. 

 A proposal to honor Francisco Vásquez de Coronado and William Cornell Greene 

in the same monument is an unwitting confirmation that the European conquest of 

Mexico continued from the arrival of Cortéz in 1519 through the U.S. invasion of 1846 to 

foreign ownership of the lands and mines of Sonora in the twentieth century. In the end, 

at the same time that the United States was building a monument to the men who 

“pioneered” the region, the Mexican public was demanding their exclusion from their 

history books. An invitation to celebrate the imposition of foreign domination appeared 

to have little interest to a society engaged in resistance to it. Despite that sentiment, the 

United States continued to pursue the development of Coronado National Memorial. 

 

379 Aubrey Neasham, to Tolson, San Francisco, March 26, 1952, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 

135
Chapter V 

From Master Plan to Mission 66 Accomplishments: Early Development of 

Coronado National Memorial, 1952-1966 

It would appear that Coronado National Memorial is 

in business at last. As you can imagine, we are exited 

[sic] about it and anxious to get started—Carroll A. 

Burroughs, Acting Superintendent to Grace Sparkes, 

November 5, 1955 

The outcome was the intention. And this was just at 

the end of an era of daydreaming for the National 

Park Service. Mission 66 was a time of great 

daydreaming and a time of great accomplishment—

John Cook, former Intermountain Regional Director, 

National Park Service, interviewed on his 

recollections of his role in Coronado National 

Memorial’s past, February 6, 2002 

For nearly fourteen years between 1940 and 1954, the land selected for the 

Coronado National Memorial lay fallow while the National Park Service and the Arizona 

Coronado International Memorial Commission attempted to meet the terms of the Act of 

August 18, 1941. During that time no development took place on the site. Following the 

amendment of the Act of August 18, 1941, which resulted in the creation of the Coronado 

National Memorial, the National Park Service moved forward with plans to develop the 

Memorial. Slowly, beginning in 1952, the National Park Service assessed ways to 

develop the area and make it accessible to visitors. The process by which Coronado 

National Memorial attained its identity had already developed a history of its own. In 

1952, the sun shown brightly on the Memorial as it changed from an abstract idea to an 

actual physical place. 

136
 On May 9, 1952, Tolson wrote to Governor Howard Pyle advising him that the 

time had come to discuss, in earnest, the development of Coronado National Memorial—

once legislation for its establishment had been completed. On April 14, the month prior, 

Sparkes, Rockwell, and Halseth of the Coronado International Monument Commission of 

Arizona met with Regional Director Tillotson in Phoenix to discuss the proposed 

legislation to create Coronado National Memorial. Among the matters reviewed was the 

“very general development plan” that had been discussed in the 1940s for the area. It 

involved the construction of an enclosed observation station on ‘Coronado Peak’; a 

parking area, and a trail from there to the contact station. The plan called for an 

administration-exhibit building; a utility area; a superintendent’s residence; and a road 

leading from the main highway into the developed area.380 As much time had elapsed 

since any initial planning had been discussed, and as the plan for an international 

memorial had been dropped, Tolson felt it was time for a formal, official plan to be 

drawn for implementation purposes. Given the lack of a budget, a Master Plan for 

Coronado National Memorial, however, was still off in the future. Urging Hayden to 

assure proper funding, Sparkes on August 20, 1952, wrote to him saying “we must look 

to you for action to get some of the important things moving—the trail to the Peak, the 

observation tower—the road and parking space and utility facilities.381

Two years later on June 3, 1954, Hayden submitted one of the first requests for 

funding for the Memorial. In the Committee report on the Interior Department 

appropriation bill for the next fiscal year, Hayden marked $65,000 for Coronado National 

 

380 Tolson to Pyle, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 381 Sparkes to Hayden, Prescott, August 20, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3. 

137
Memorial.382 The appropriation broke down as follows: $9,000 were requested for 

management and protection services and 56,000 for construction of minimum roads and 

trails to accommodate visitors to the Memorial.383 

Meanwhile, Sparkes took the opportunity to explore avenues for other 

developments in the area of the Memorial. Reporting to Hayden, she wrote that 

The County is paving a few miles of the road from the entrance at 92 

highway. This will help. I sincerely hope you will be able to induce the 

Forest Service to improve their section of the road. It is down to rocks. 

With Fort Huachuca declared ‘permanent’—the great industrial work at 

Bisbee (an outstanding tourist attraction) and now some definite action on 

our Memorial, there is every reason why more attention should be paid to 

the Montezuma Canyon road linking Bisbee and Nogales. In fact, I 

marvel it has not been given more attention,--certainly the travel merits 

improvement—ranchers, miners, cattle people use it in numbers, as do 

discriminating tourists.”384 

Indeed, Sparkes had pointed to outside-the-park interests that could futuristically be 

helpful. 

Counting his votes, Hayden remarked that he already had secured Senate approval 

for funding, and was confident that the House of Representatives would follow suit. 

“Once work is started,” he wrote, “it is not likely that the Congress will fail to appropriate 

additional funds as needed.”385 On June 29, 1954, Hayden announced that the funding 

for Coronado National Memorial had been approved by Congress.386 This action was the 

first Congressional appropriation made specifically for Coronado National Memorial. 

As soon as funding was secured in 1954, Luis Gastellum, Assistant General 

Supterintendent, Southwestern National Monuments (SWNM), in Globe, Arizona, able, 

knowledgeable and experienced, was assigned to oversee the initial development 

 

382 Hayden to Sparkes, Washington, D.C., June 3, 1954, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 383 Hayden to Folson Moore, Editor Bisbee Daily Review, June 3, 1954, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 384 Sparkes to Hayden, June 5, 1954, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 385 Hayden to Sparkes, June 9, 1954, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 

138
planning of Coronado National Memorial. On October 15, 1954, he wrote to Grace 

Sparkes informing her of the progress made to date on the Memorial. That summer, three 

separate groups had been at the Memorial to study the area in preparation for a General 

Master Plan for the eventual development of the area. First, “one of the principal things 

we require,” he wrote, “before we proceed with the development of a road and trail at the 

pass point is a formal boundary survey.” To that end, the Bureau of Land Management 

had been contacted to make the boundary survey after January 1. Gastellum explained 

that “As soon as the boundary survey is completed, we expect to make certain 

improvements on the road within the area at the point at the top of the pass, and then we 

expect to develop a footpath to the overlook, where we hope to construct an exhibit as 

indicated in the next paragraph.”387 Additionally, Gastellum reported that orientation 

devices would be placed at the edge of the parking area, at the trail head, and at the 

overlook for visitors to acquire information about the Memorial. Numbered stakes would 

be set along the trail to identify plants of interest and correspond to a self-guiding 

pamphlet. In his letter, Gastellum indicated that the program would, “barring unforeseen 

obstacles”, be up an running by April 1954.388 In all, Gastellum had provided a 

thumbnail sketch of the Master Plan to Sparkes. The plan so far was simple. Except for 

the Wayside Exhibit plan described, and possibly a temporary shelter for contacting 

visitors near the parking area, Gastellum informed Sparkes that “no funds have been 

provided during the current year for the erection of any buildings.”389

 As Gastellum wrote his letter, Carroll A. Burroughs,, the acting Superintendent 

at Wupatki National Monument, had been selected as acting Superintendent of Coronado 

 

386 Hayden to Sparkes, June 29, 1954, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 387 Luis A. Gastellum to Sparkes, October 15, 1954, D18, Master Plans [1954] F2.pdf, WACC, Archives CD Box 3. 

139
National Memorial. Gastellum shared some personal biographical information about 

Burroughs with Sparkes. Married, without children, Burroughs and his wife were 

expected to move to Coronado sometime in late November or early December 1954. Of 

the talented Burroughs, Gastellum wrote: 

You may be interested to know that Mr. Burroughs specialized, in his 

post-graduate study, in early Spanish contact with the aboriginal 

inhabitants of the Southwest. He possesses an unusually fine personality 

and has a strong interest in administration. He will have a very keen 

interest in the early Spanish history, and we feel indeed fortunate to be 

able to appoint this very outstanding man as Acting Superintendent of 

Coronado. 

Mr. Burroughs has a degree in anthropology and he has completed all 

work for a Ph.D. except for writing his thesis. His post-graduate work was 

at the University of New Mexico. He served during World War II in the 

U.S. Navy in the South Pacific. He attained the rank of LieutenantCommander in the Navy. Prior to going to work for the National Park 

Service approximately three years ago, he was an instructor in the 

Department of Anthroplogy at the University of Washington.390

Undoubtedly, Sparkes was pleased with Gastellum’s glowing report about 

Burroughs. 

 From his office in Flagstaff, Burroughs wasted no time in responding to an earlier 

letter from Sparkes. On November 5, he enthusiastically announced to Sparkes, “It 

would appear that Coronado National Memorial is in business at last.” As for his move 

to the Memorial, Burroughs outlined his plans to move there. However, he wrote: 

Our first move will be to Globe, probably shortly after the first of 

December. As now planned, several of us will come down to Coronado 

on an extended reconnaissance trip about the middle of December to work 

out the details for development. Most of the research and fabrication of 

exhibits must be done in Globe. Before actual construction can begin, it 

will be necessary for the Bureau of Land Management to run a boundary 

survey; this will probably be done in January while we are getting our 

 

388 Ibid. 389 Ibid. 390 Ibid. 

140
research and exhibit detail worked out. When we are cleared for 

construction, we will move down and go to work on the ground.391

Those plans would be altered before the week was out. 

On November 9, Burroughs received a memorandum regarding changes to his 

assignment to Coronado from Gastellum. Slightly modifying Burroughs plans, 

Gastellum informed him that it would be necessary for him to spend two days in Globe 

before proceeding to Coronado where, beginning December 1, he would spend three to 

four weeks supervising the construction of the trail. During that time he could better 

acquaint himself with the local people. After winter set in between January and 

February, Burroughs would report to Globe to participate on exhibit and trail planning 

with “the headquarters personnel.” His entrance on duty date was backdated to 

November 7, although he would still be at Wupatki. 

Meanwhile, Gastellum told him that a trailer house would be set up for him at 

Coronado. “Incidentally,” wrote Gastellum ever conscious of cost effective management, 

“as you will recall, the couch in the trailer is not in too good shape and would require a 

major overhaul, perhaps even replacement, if you plan to use it while at Coronado. If 

you do not have a couch that you plan to move into the trailer, please let us know and we 

will see what we can do about repairing the one there now. If you plan to use your own 

furniture there would be no point in spending money on this unit.”392

 Sparkes took a liking to the amiable Burroughs and immediately made plans to 

introduce him to supporters of the Memorial—including the influential Margaret 

 

391 Burroughs to Sparkes, Flagstaff, November 5, 1954, D18, Master Plans [1954] F2.pdf, WACC, Archives CD Box 

3. 

392 Gastellum to Burroughs, Memorandum, Globe, November 9, 1954, D18, Master Plans [1954] F2.pdf, WACC, 

Archives CD Box 3. 

141
Rockwell, owner of the Adams Hotel in Phoenix.393 Apparently, Burroughs had been to 

Bisbee during the first week in November to survey the work ahead of him. In her letter 

to Tolson, Sparkes stated that “Considerable publicity has been given to Mr. Burroughs 

appointment but I shall issue the releases where I feel they will do the most good.”394 

Banking on the good relations between Sparkes and Burroughs, Tolson informed her that 

when Burroughs returned in the springtime that NPS would take up her offer adding, 

“We will want to rent one of your cabins for use as an office.”395

 Tolson also noted a setback due to restrictions in the disbursement of next fiscal 

year monies. “We had hoped,” he began, “To be able to construct a trail and parking area 

at Montezuma Pass during this winter but because half of the funds allotted to 

Southwestern National Monuments for such work cannot be disbursed until next fiscal 

year, it will not be possible to carry out this plan.” Tolson had hoped that engineering 

plans for the trail and contract for construction would have been awarded soon, but were 

now postponed to June as they could not be used until after July 1. The good news, he 

wrote, would be that a “low standard trail to Coronado Peak” would serve in the interim 

until the better one could be constructed.396

 The Master Plan for Coronado National Memorial provided a general schemata 

for future development of the then 2,745 acres397 set aside for that purpose. Aside from 

trails, roads, interpretive and exhibit facilities, the plan announced that the Memorial was 

devoid of any such facilities and projected a futuristic view of the planning to make the 

 

393 Sparkes to Burroughs, Hereford, November 12, 1954, D18, Master Plans [1954] F2.pdf, WACC, Archives CD Box 

3. 

394 Sparkes to Tolson, November 10, 1954, D18, Master Plans [1954] F2.pdf, WACC, Archives CD Box 3. 395 Tolson to Sparkes, November 17, 1954, D18, Master Plans [1954] F3.pdf, WACC, Archives CD Box 3. 396 Ibid. 397 Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, General Information Section, p. 3, D 18 Master 

Plans [1954] F3.pdf, WACC, Archives CD Box 3. 

142
area accessible to visitors. Prepared by Al Schroeder, Luis Gastellum, and Harold 

A.Marsh, Landscape Architect, in consultation with others, the Master Plan of 1954, 

although subject to later revisions, formed the basic interpretation and development plan 

for the Memorial. Two features stood out under a topic “Special Problems”. First and far 

reaching in its concept, the planners for the Coronado Memorial were mindful of making 

the area accessible on a linguistic basis. True to their concern to encourage good 

relations with Mexico, the planners provided the following statement: “No special 

problems exist at present, though future use by Mexican nationals will necessitate a 

bilingual interpretive program, and possibly even personnel who can speak Spanish as 

well as English.”398 Another important feature of the Master Plan was the recognition 

that continuous research would be needed to “determine whether the San Pedro or Santa 

Cruz Valley side of the Memorial was the most probable one of travel taken by 

Coronado. Data on later Spanish and Indian trails in this vicinity also must be examined 

in this context.” Research pertinent to flora and fauna of the region was also highly 

recommended as was additional research to “determine the location of San Heronimo, the 

site founded for the main portion of Coronado’s army, believed to have been located 

close to or on the San Pedro river near the International Border.” The writers of the 

Master Plan believed that the location and identification of that site would “have a direct 

bearing on the location of Coronado’s route across the present international border.”399

 The interpretive program, a prerequisite for a successful memorial, would be 

developed. At that point, no reception facilities existed. The plan proposed a contact 

station at the projected parking area or near there on a small flat above the parking area. 

 

398 Ibid., Interpretation Section, p. 7. 399 Ibid., Interpretation Section, p. 2. 

143
The building would also serve as an administrative center for the Superintendent and a 

Ranger. In it exhibits would be placed either in the lobby or along the walls of the 

assembly room. Their primary focus would be the expeditions that passed across the 

International Border in the vicinity of the Memorial with special emphasis given the 

Coronado Expedition of 1540-42. Another function of the building would be to host 

periodic lecturers who would present on “various phases of Spanish expansion or events 

regarding the exploration of the Southwest.” Such lectures would round out the 

significance of Coronado National Memorial.400 In future anticipation that Mexico 

would one day reciprocate its commitment to an “international” memorial, the Master 

Plan provided that then “it will be necessary to correlate exhibits and lectures accordingly 

and perhaps handle the bilingual aspects of the interpretative program in a different 

fashion.”401

One of the drawbacks to the development of the contact-comfort-administrative 

structures at the Memorial was that electrical power “ended one mile east at the Sparkes’ 

ranch.” Still, the writers of the Master Plan stated that “This proposed location has been 

selected because the Mexican government may yet set aside land immediately to the 

south, and assist in making this an international memorial.”402 The Master Plan did 

explicitly warn that “Any future action by the Mexican government concerning an 

addition to the area on the south side may affect the location and operation of the 

proposed headquarters area.”403 The development of the parking area and its facilities 

was pivotal for from there “all traffic to the proposed overlook and interpretive devices 

 

400 Ibid., Interpretation Section, p. 6. 401 Ibid. 402 Ibid., Interpretation Section, p. 5. 403 Ibid., Interpretation Section, p. 6. 

144
will be controlled.”404 To facilitate the visitor experience two-fold leaflets and selfguiding pamphlets would be provided to visitors at that point. 

 From the parking lot, the new Master Plan called for a small structure for use as a 

public contact and comfort station along with a small office space which would be 

temporarily used for operations purposes whilst the headquarters area was developed. 

Admittedly, the Master Plan did not propose workrooms, facilities for study, collections, 

library, storage rooms, or darkroom, although they were contemplated. In time, however, 

the proposed headquarters area and contact building near the east end of the Memorial 

would become “the primary interpretive center.” Graphic exhibits, a large assembly 

room for orientation talks, meetings, and film projection as well as an information booth, 

library, comfort station, and administrative offices would be a part of this structure.405

Development of Coronado National Memorial featured the parking area with a 

contact station; the overlook; the residential-utility area; and, the headquarters area. At 

that point, none of the facilities existed even though a “previous Master Plan proposed a 

short road to be constructed up the backbone of the ridge from the present forest service 

road for a distance of approximately 1000 feet terminating in a parking area where a 

contact comfort station was proposed and from which two trails would continue to the 

proposed Coronado Peak Overlook and interpretive exhibit.”406 The reason this proposal 

was eliminated was because the 12% grade was too steep to reduce; construction of it 

would leave “a very noticeable scar on the ridge visible for many miles;” and, its 

development as proposed would destroy or cause the removal of certain “species of 

 

404 Ibid., Interpretation Section, p. 4. 405 Ibid., Interpretation Section, p. 5. 406 Ibid., Development Section 4a2, p. 1. 

145
nature, shrubs, and flora” which could be used on the self-guiding nature trail.407 

Nonetheless, a trail to the Coronado Peak overlook would start at the parking lot.408

Meanwhile, identification of local plants was being done by Leslie P. Arnberger, 

an NPS Naturalist; and, Al Shroeder, an NPS Archeologist, had begun work on the 

historical research regarding the Coronado Expedition.409 In the midst of the writing of 

the Master Plan, Gastellum’s boss, John M. Davis, General Superintendent, inspected the 

Memorial site and drew some conclusions. “Any master plan prepared for Coronado 

National Memorial can at best be only guesswork until such time as a boundary survey of 

this new area has been made. A boundary survey was scheduled as of the spring of 1953, 

but apparently it has not been possible to have this work done.”410 Additionally, Davis, 

accompanied by Howard Marsh, a certain O’Neil from the Washington Office, and a 

certain Allman, from the Western Office, visited the site and matched the draft master 

plan to the terrain. They all agreed that “it would be practicable to build a road to the 

proposed residential and utility area as now shown.”411 In later correspondence, 

reviewers of the draft Master Plan could not envision sufficient space for the 

development of a residential and administrative area. Once convinced that space existed 

and that it did lay within the boundary, all disagreements on that issue disappeared. 

The Overlook, on the other hand, would be reached, according to the Plan, 

through a self-guiding foot trail from the picnic area above the parking lot.412 It would 

include trailside exhibits and/or a small building to facilitate interpretation. As no 

 

407 Ibid. 408 Ibid. 409 Ibid. 410 General Superintendent, SWNM to Chief, Western Office, Division of Design and Construction, August 10, 1954, 

D18, Master Plans [1954] F2.pdf, WACC, Archives CD Box 3. 

411 Ibid. 412 Ibid. 

146
personnel was planned to man the Overlook area, it would remain unattended and 

interpreted through interpretive devices explaining the significance of the area. Once the 

orientation structure was in place, small “pertinent” exhibits could be added “to round out 

the story presented.” Otherwise, publications and library facilities would be housed in 

the contact station below. The Overlook, itself, the highest point on the Memorial from 

where the Coronado Expedition story could be told and the topographic features of the 

land in all directions could be explained, tied the area together internationally. The 

Residential and Utility Area was chosen “primarily because this is the only portion of the 

area where the ground is relatively sloping or flat and where there is an assurance of 

obtaining a sufficient water supply.”413

 Burroughs had his work cut out for him. His job, as soon as fiscal monies became 

available, would be to implement the Master Plan. By late April, General Superintendent 

Davis had received word that within 30 days, electrical power would be available to the 

Memorial.414

 In the midst of establishing the Memorial, the National Park Service had to 

contend with an old wound that everyone thought had disappeared over the years. 

Sometime in late spring and early summer of 1955, two petitions, which included very 

similar letters, arrived at the offices of Senators Carl Hayden and Barry Goldwater.415 

Subsequently, Hayden sent a copy to Tolson writing, “There is attached a letter addressed 

to me on May 24, by several residents of Nogales protesting appropriations of funds for 

 

413 Ibid., Development, p. 5 414 Ray B. Ringenbach, Superintendent, Tumacacori to John M. Davis, General Superintendent, Tumacacori, April 27, 

1954, D18, Master Plans [1954] F2.pdf, WACC, Archives CD Box 3. 

415 Hillory A. Tolson, Acting Director, NPS, to Senator Barry Goldwater, Washington, D.C., September 6, 1955; 

Tolson to Hayden August 26, 1955, WACC, Folder H 14: Area & Service History 50s F5. 

147
the Coronado National Memorial.”416 The Senator asked him to write a reply to it. Part 

of the problem stemmed from the rejection of Nogales as a place for the Memorial, for 

historians could not conclude that the Coronado Expedition entered Arizona through 

there. The people of Nogales were apparently resentful that the Memorial was placed in 

an out-of-the-way site near Bisbee. Signed by eighteen petitioners, the Nogales letter 

read: 

We feel that the expenditure of these funds for improvements to the 

‘Coronado National Memorial’ is extremely wasteful. The doubtful 

benefits that might be derived from this in no way justify the expense 

involved in the improvements. First, there is nothing of historical value 

that would attract the public. Second, it is rather doubtful whether 

Coronado chose a mountain to cross over when there were valleys on 

either side. Third, there is nothing of natural beauty, no trees with 

exception of scrub brush. Fourth, even though used for camp sites or 

picnic grounds, the cost of establishing such and the developing of water 

would be far too excessive, and this particular spot is hot in summer and 

cold in winter. There is just nothing there to warrant such expenditure.417

The Nogales protestors wondered why a “monument” could not be established on the 

border instead of a “memorial” at the chosen site. 

In his response to the Congressional request, Tolson rebutted the Nogales claim. 

He did, moreover, pen an interesting comment regarding the decision for a memorial on 

the site chosen for the Coronado National Memorial versus a monument anywhere along 

the border. He wrote: 

When the plan to commemorate the Coronado expedition was first 

discussed in 1939 and 1940, the idea of constructing a monument on the 

international boundary, where the expedition entered what is now the 

United States, was considered and abandoned in favor of setting aside the 

above-mentioned land area. It was hoped that Mexico would set aside a 

companion area in Sonora, to constitute an international memorial, which 

 

416 Hayden to Tolson, August 1, 1955, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 417 Nogales Petitioners to Hayden, Nogales, May 24, 1955, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. Among the signers were 

Ross Middleton, J.E. McDonald, Sr., E.H. McClanahan, Arnold Arvizu, Howard Morgan, H.J. Brunswicker, Mrs. 

Jeanne Immoff, Mrs. Ross Middleton, Mr. Paige B. Forman, Jr., E. Burger, F.C. Stephenson, Mr. and Mrs. Robert 

Henley, Betty Rae Hart, Joe D. Warren, Mrs. E.W. Siddell, Ernest Morton, and N. Chamberlain. 

148
would, it was believed, assist in maintaining good relationships between 

Mexico and United States . The Mexican Government, however, after 

many years of consideration, failed to establish its portion of the 

international memorial....418

Between the lines, Tolson was saying that neither had the people of Nogales 

responded for twenty-five years. 

Yet, in 1939 when the question was raised about how to commemorate the 400th

anniversary of the Coronado entrada, the people of Nogales felt that the $10,000 

appropriation would be suitable for the erection of a monument in their city. In his 

support of the Nogales proposal, Clinton P.Anderson, then the managing director of the 

Coronado Exposition Commission, defied historical correctness when he, in 1939 wrote: 

In this particular instance I think the people of Nogales are very anxious 

for the monument to be erected where tourists passing to and from Mexico 

will see it, and they believe, and I am inclined to agree with them, that the 

museum ought to be built, if it is built, where someone will see it, and not 

off in a ravine which Coronado may have followed, and hence is bound to 

become inaccessible, unproductive, and, therefore, a temptation to those 

people who did want to pass into disuse and eventually into 

abandonment.419

Thus, the Nogales proposal was not new and, indeed, their protest was based on the 

resurrection of an old idea. The idea of a monument to commemorate the event, 

however, had been, as Congressman John P. Morgan had stated to Anderson, replaced by 

the proposal to establish an international memorial and a museum.420 One would have 

thought, especially after the passage of the Act of August 18, 1941, that the issue had 

long been settled. 

Hoping to soothe the Nogales protestors, Hayden pointed out that the members of 

the 1949 commission appointed by Governor Garvey included James V. Robbins, Mayor 

 

418 Tolson to Hayden, Washington, D.C., August 25, 1955, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 419 Anderson to Congressman John R. Murdock, October 10, 1939, University of New Mexico Archives, Box 1. 

149
of Nogales.421 If the Nogales taxpayers hoped to make money an issue, Hayden pointed 

out that the Memorial “does not anticipate the expenditures of a ‘vast sum of money’ 

either in the immediate future or at a later date.”422

 On the heels of the Nogales protest, came another, which did make taxpayer 

money an issue. Twenty-eight residents from Tucson, Elgin, Tumacacori, Wilcox, 

Amado, Hereford, Patagonia, Dougles, Santa Cruz River, inclusive of two from Los 

Angeles and Rivera, California, wrote to Senator Barry Goldwater protesting the 

appropriation of taxpayers’ money for Coronado National Memorial. One of the signers 

was Fred d’Albini. They wrote: 

One newspaper article states ‘that the creation of the ‘Coronado National 

Memorial’ symbolizes the importance of the Spanish background of the 

history and culture of the entire Southwest, from Texas to California and 

the close relationship still existing today between Arizona and the adjacent 

states of the Union and the neighboring states of the Republico [sic] of 

Mexico to the south’. We cannot see that justification. The State of the 

Union should have close relationship, and we have seen no evidence to the 

contrary, and we do not see the necessity of setting aside a piece of ground 

miles away from any bordering state to symbolize a unity that is a natural 

one. It is our understanding when this project first originated, it was with 

the idea of Mexico also contributing an adjacent piece of ground, which 

they have evidently declined to do, we therefore so not see that it 

symbolizes the close relationship between Arizona and the Republico [sic] 

of Mexico to the south.423

This strongly worded protest seemed aimed at the people of Bisbee. “We feel,” they 

added, “that there are undoubtedly some selfish individual interests connected with the 

pushing of this project, and any historical value is very questionable. We, as taxpayers, 

 

420 Murdock to Anderson, Washington, D.C., October 6, 1939, University of New Mexico Archives, Box 1. 421 Hayden to Mr. And Mrs. Ross Middleton, Washington, D.C., September 2, 1955, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 

537, folder 30. 

422 Hayden to Mrs. Jeanne Imhoff, September 2, 1955, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 423 Twenty eight petitioners to Barry Goldwater, June 6, 1955, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 

150
do object to throwing money into the improvement of a project like this without some 

real reason for it.”424 The reply was the same penned by Tolson to the people of Nogales. 

 Halseth, of course, quipped, in a letter to Hayden, “I was as much surprised as 

you were at this late objection to the ‘Coronado National Memorial’ by the Nogales 

group; but a recent talk with Margaret Rockwell confirmed my suspicion that the action 

was motivated by a self-interest in grazing permits.”425 His comment may just as well 

have been suited to the other protestors as well. 

 Meanwhile, Grace Sparkes, while visiting in Prescott, smelt a rat. She contacted 

Folsom Moore and Mrs. James Allison to “investigate and take what action they might 

feel would be necessary.”426 She also instructed them to speak with Superintendent C.A. 

Burroughs, at his temporary headquarters427 to inform him of the protest. A month later, 

Moore reported his conclusions to Hayden. He wrote: 

I spent yesterday afternoon in Nogales checking the names on the 

petition sent you regarding the Coronado National Memorial. Frankly, 

the names of the petition are of little consequence, since evidently all 

were obtained as a favor to some one individual trading with the 

various individuals. I have caused an investigation to be started to find 

just who the party or parties might be who circulated the petition. 

My guess is that a Chochise [sic] county cow man named d’Albini is 

the gentleman, but must reserve judgment until I am certain. I know 

that d’Albini had such a petition in Cochise county asking signatures, 

but evidently failed to receive proper cooperation, so has let the matter 

rest.428

The matter seems to have been dropped. The allegations against d’Albini were never 

substantiated beyond Moore’s and Sparkes’ suspicions. 

 

424 Ibid. 425 Halseth to Hayden, Phoenix, October 7, 1955, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 426 Sparkes to Tolson, Hereford, September 12, 1955, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 427 Ibid. 428 Moore to Hayden, Bisbee, October 12, 1955, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 

151
Meanwhile, Coronado Superintendent Carroll Burroughs expressed his confusion 

at that news. He knew that local ranchers were generally opposed to the Memorial but 

thought that the Memorial staff had managed to maintain “cordial” relations with 

D’Albini and the other local cattlemen. In addition, they had consulted with D’Albini 

“provided for cattle guards, trails, driveways and fencing which will, in fact, make his 

operation there easier than at present.” When they had last spoken with him, D’Albini 

“was quite in agreement with the whole thing.”429

Burroughs speculated on other factors that may have been present, including 

general opposition to any improvement of roads that would bring additional visitors to 

the area. He also thought it possible that there was some sort of alliance between 

ranchers on the U.S. side and the Cananea Cattle Company in Mexico. He pointed out 

that the planned development reintroduced the international concept and visualized a 

visitor center on the border, which could exert new pressure on the Greenes to give up 

land for the Memorial. If the proposal was defeated within the United States it would 

lessen the likelihood that the Memorial would again be brought up in Mexico. Finally, 

Burroughs summarized the “personal antagonisms” and “long-standing feuds” that may 

have contributed to the petitions. Evidently D’Albini was antagonistic toward the 

Memorial because of a personal dislike for Grace Sparkes, who was deeply involved in 

the Memorial as a promoter, landlord, and part-time employee. He also had a grudge 

against his neighbor, and fellow rancher, Joe Zaleski, whose land NPS was negotiating to 

buy as part of the planned development.430

 

429 Carroll A. Burroughs, Acting Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to General Superintendent, July 21, 

1955, WACC, Folder H 14: Area & Service History 50s F5. 

430 Ibid. 

152
The following year, the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, still under Sparkes, 

reported that “Preliminary plans and studies of the entire area are being made; also, a 

boundary survey of the area, made by the Bureau of Land management, and a 

topographic survey of the area. Need for improvement of the road is stressed. An ever 

increasing number of tourists, interested students and scientists from many states visit the 

Memorial.”431

On February 11, 1957, Sparkes wrote to Hayden saying that “Something must be 

done on the Montezuma Canyon road—travel has increased since the park improvements 

at the pass, Coronado Peak Trail, etc., the use by the Ft. Huachuca Military,and general 

travel between Santa Cruz and Cochise counties to such an extent that the road merits 

widening, surfacing and sudt palative of some kind laid....Surely between the Forest, the 

Park, the Army something should be done. So far it has been a ‘ring around the rosy.”432 

To that, NPS Director Wirth stated that the “road is, I believe, a part of the State or 

Federal Aid Highway system and its reconstruction would, therefore, be handled by the 

State Highway Commission.”433 

Events moved quietly in the late 1950s regarding the Memorial’s development. 

On February 27, 1957, Superintendent Philip Welles, reported on what appeared to be a 

surprise visit to his office. Of the visit he wrote: 

This afternoon Mr. Galvn [sic] Wilkins, Division Engineer, Bureau 

of Public Roads, Phoenix, Mr. Jacob Erickson, District Engineer, Bureau 

of Public Roads, Mr. William E.Willey, State Highway Engineer, Phoenix 

and Mr. Folsom Moore of Cochise County dropped in to inspect the 

Montezuma Canyon Road, check our travel figures and to see about how 

to go about getting an improved road to the pass and beyond. 

 

431 Chamber of Commerce Newsletter, Bisbee, May 31, 1955, Hayden Papers , AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 432 Sparkes to Hayden, Bisbee, February 11, 1957, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 433 Wirth to Hayden, Washington, D.C., March 1, 1957, Hayden Papers AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 

153
I showed them your letter of September 26 and explained that our 

policy was as much as possible to avoid responsibility for the maintenance 

of this or other through roads. 

After some discussion it was agreed that in any case a survey was 

necessary in order to make estimates on the cost of improvement. During 

the conversation one of the engineers remarked that an air survey showing 

contours and at a fairly large scale would be invaluable. 

I mentioned that we were to have one of the lands presently being 

acquired at the East end of the memorial. Mr. Moore wanted to know if 

we could extend the survey to include the road at least as far as the pass. 

Since the bids will be opened on March 17, I felt there was hardly 

time to re-write them even if the Service should wish to extend the survey 

but I did think that perhaps the company winning the contract should be 

open for a dicker.434

Conscious of informing his superiors, Welles obviously documented the meeting 

in case repercussions would result later. 

Interestingly, the visitors had a slightly different view of the same meeting. As a 

result of the visit with Welles, nonetheless, Moore requested that the Park Service extend 

the aerial survey to cover the canyon from the Forest Boundary to the western end of the 

Memorial limits on the west slope of Huachuca Mountains. Welles appeared 

uncomfortable with the request explaining that he doubted that the Park Service would 

want to spend more money for the survey of the ground where the construction would 

take place. To that, Moore asked Welles to write the Regional Director “at Albuquerque” 

(meaning Santa Fe) about the matter, and to send him a copy of his letter. Moore felt that 

as the Park Service was going to bring in an aerial survey party for the small survey 

outlined in the call for bids, it seemed to him that they could make the survey of the 

road—at least to the Pass—for but little more cost. In his letter to Hayden in which he 

discussed his meeting with Welles, he asked: 

 

434 Memorandum, Superintendent, CORO to Regional Director, SWR, Hereford, February 27, 1958, Hayden Papers, 

AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. 

154
.....Would you be good enough to contact the Park Service immediately, 

asking that they obtain the services of the successful bidder at the March 

17 opening....It will speed the possibility of road construction at least five 

years. And it should be of material benefit in the laying out of trails, a 

labor which is now being done by Memorial personnel on foot.435

Moore, wisely, felt that a better survey could be made with a combination aerialand-on-the-ground effort. 

As the Coronado International Memorial formed its administration, the first order 

of business, then, called for the creation of its boundaries. The enabling legislation 

provided that the President of the United States would declare, by proclamation, any 

lands within the dedicated area for the Memorial’s use. Although the Memorial was 

restricted from causing any recreational or other development within a sixty-foot strip 

north of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico, a basic 

description of the Memorial’s holdings were presented in the legislation. Based on the 

 

435 Folsom Moore to Hayden, Bisbee, February 28, 1958, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 537, folder 30. The text of 

his letter is as follows: Yesterday, I went with Wilkins of the Phoenix office, Bureau of Public Roads, Jacob Erickson 

of the same office and Bill Willey, to the Coronado National Memorial. 

After we had gone to the top, we stopped at the Superintendent’s office and had a look at his maps, and discussed with 

him the plans of the Park Service pertaining to the Memorial. My purpose in taking these men to the Memorial was to 

give them an idea of the urgent necessity of road construction form the Forest Boundary to the parking area in 

Montezuma Pass. 

Mr. Philip Welles, the Superintendent of the Memorial, showed us the land recently acquired by the Park Service for 

the erection of permanent buildings, and told us that contracts were called for opening on March 17th, for an aerial 

survey of that particular ground. 

I asked Mr. Welles if it would be possible to have the park Service extend the aerial survey to cover the canon from the 

Forest Boundary to the western end of the Memorial limits on the west slope of Huachuca mountains. He demurred, 

saying that he doubted seriously whether the Park Service would want to spend more money that for the survey of the 

ground on which it is planned to begin erection of permanent buildings. 

Then, I asked that he write the Regional Director at Albuquerque about the matter, and that he send me a copy of his 

letter. 

Since the Park Service is bringing in an aerial survey party for the small survey outlined in the call for bids, it would 

seem to me that the same survey party could make the survey of the road—at least to the Pass—for but little more 

expenditure. 

.....Would you be good enough to contact the Park Service immediately, asking that they obtain the services of the 

successful bidder at the March 17 opening....It will speed the possibility of road construction at least five years. And it 

should be of material benefit in the laying out of trails, a labor which is now being done by Memorial personnel on 

foot. 

155
Gila and Salt River meridian, the original boundaries totaled two thousand eight hundred 

and eighty acres.436 The basic grant of land that would establish Coronado International 

Memorial would be the start of a land acquisitions history filled with turns and twists. 

In reviewing the establishment of the Memorial, Richard E. Klinck, writing in 

Arizona Highways in 1957, noted that the creation of Coronado National Memorial was 

accomplished without fanfare. “The memorial itself,” he wrote, 

has but a short history. The establishment of Coronado National 

Memorial was done quietly and there were few who were aware of the 

addition of this newest of Arizona’s many and varied national park units, 

which include a park, 16 monuments and a recreational area. It entered 

the national park registry just four years ago, approved by an Act of 

Congress on July 9, 1952, and officially signed into being by presidential 

proclamation on November 9 of that year. Previous to this the lands 

contained within the memorial had all been a part of Coronado National 

Forest. Units of this forest are spread across southern Arizona and edge 

over into New Mexico. One unit of the forest still surrounds the 

memorial.”437

Klinck, furthermore, noted that C.A. Burroughs was the Memorial’s first and only 

permanent ranger. His previous assignment has been at Wupatki National Monument 

near Flagstaff. Anecdotally, Klinck wryly commented that when Burroughs reached 

Coronado National Memorial, “he found he was thus superintendent of no one other than 

himself, and he had arrived just in time to really go to work.”438 Undoubtedly an oft 

quoted remark by Burroughs himself. As an observer, Klinck wrote of Burroughs’s plans 

 

436 Township 24 south, range 20 east, section 10, south half southwest quarter, south half southeast quarter; section 11, 

south half, southwest quarter; section 13, southwest quarter northwest quarter, south half; section 14, northwest quarter, 

south half, northwest quarter northeast quarter, south half northeast quarter; section 15, all; section 23, all; section 24, 

all; township 24 south, range 21 east, section 17, south half southwest quarter; section 18, southwest quarter, south half 

southeast quarter; section 19, all; section 20, lots 3 and 4; aggregating approximately two thousand eight hundred and 

eighty acres. 

437 Rickard E. Klinck, “In the Land of Coronado,” Arizona Highways (September 1957), p. 35. 438 Ibid. p. 35-36. 

156
as a work in progress, for he “found himself with his hands full of a variety of major 

tasks, plus the initiation of the fulfullment of a grand and glorious ideal.”439 

Burroughs’s administration pointed to things to come inclusive of developments 

that were already underway. Among them were Mission 66 planning, the widening of the 

road through Montezuma Pass for additional parking at the summit, and a newly built 

half-mile Coronado Mountain Trail that would take visitors to the crest of the Huachucas 

to a view shed of the wide valley below where Coronado presumably passed. “This 

peak” wrote Klinck, “ is about to be christened Coronado Peak.”440 Additionally, 

Superintendent Burroughs hoped to get Coronado National Memorial’s first publication. 

Of it Klinck wrote, “A Southwestern national monuments booklet will soon be available 

in printed form which will provide a silent, though well-versed, guide for those who 

follow this fascinating trail.”441

 As a forward looking program for the National Park Service, Mission 66 was 

intended to develop and staff National Park Service areas for the wisest possible use, the 

maximum enjoyment of visitors, and the greatest protection of the cultural and natural 

resources within the system. Construction, therefore, formed an important element of the 

program. Calling for modern roads, well-planned trails, utilities, camp and picnic 

grounds, and the structures needed to support administrative and public uses, Congress, 

in the mid-1950s, instituted the Mission 66 program in the National Park Service to meet 

the requirements of an expected 80 million visitors in 1966. As a long-range program, 

the plan recognized that it would take ten years to accomplish the goal in time for the 

 

439 Ibid. p. 36. 440 Ibid. p. 37. 441 Ibid, p. 37. 

157
National Park Service’s 50th year anniversary. The plan was timely for the needs of 

Coronado National Memorial. 

Almost from the very beginning, the role of the superintendent was clear. The 

1961 “Master Plan for the Conservation and Use of Coronado National Memorial: 

Mission 66 Edition” presented a clear statement that reflected the direction planning 

documents would assume regarding the role of key park personnel in implementing the 

approved programs. By all means, the superintendent would bear sole responsibility in 

directing all operations in the Memorial to accomplish the Park Mission and to assure 

efficient operation of the entire park organization. Under his direction, interpretation, 

ranger services, and maintenance and operation of the physical facilities would be 

delegated to appropriate members of his staff. The declarative statements for each one 

was as follows: 

Interpretation: Acquire, assemble and present knowledge about the 

Memorial for the protection of park resources and the enriching of visitor. 

Ranger Services: Protect park resources and facilities and the welfare of 

Memorial visitors. 

Maintenance & Operation of Physical Facilities: Operate and maintain the 

physical plant in the manner contributing to the efficient functioning of the 

Memorial staff, to the welfare of visitors and to preservation of park 

resources.

442

Thus, the pattern for the accomplishment of park objectives that had evolved in 

previous planning documents during the 1950s, was, by 1961 solidly, established. 

 In the mid-1950s, the Memorial, despite its long history dating to 1940, was 

basically only three years old! Its development had been sparse, its staff skeletal, its 

funding minimal, and its identity incipient. The Memorial lacked administrative and 

158
visitor facilities. Interpretation services could not be carried out without an interpretive 

center. The limited recreational facilities, such as picnic areas, needed to be raised to a 

level of compatibility seen in other parks. On the eve of Mission 66 development at 

Cornado National Memorial, the superintendent was still living in a trailer house and his 

office was a small shed, both on rented ground. As a boon, Mission 66 responded to the 

need to develop the required buildings to house the staff and provide administrative and 

interpretive facilities at Coronado National Memorial. 

The development of a contact station at Montezuma Pass was also among the 

priorities. The plan called for exhibits there to complement those in the visitor center and 

the trailside exhibits on Coronado Peak. The purpose of the combined exhibits would be 

to stress the importance of the Memorial in commemorating “the Coronado expedition 

and the effect of Spanish explorations and colonization upon the history and development 

of this section of the United States.”443 Beyond enhancing the visitor experience, the 

Mission 66 planners hoped that the NPS visitor center would encourage the Mexican 

Government “in the establishment of the international aspect of the Memorial which was 

the original plan.”444

Aside from the referenced exhibits, the development of picnic and recreational 

sites had been on the discussion table since the 1940s. Mission 66 would provide picnic 

areas for daytime use. Such areas would encourage visitors and local residents to make 

use of them. The controlled environment would be used for educational purposes as “the 

 

442 Master Plan for the Conservation and Use of Coronado National Memorial (1961), “Park Organization Brief,” Vol. 

I, Chapter 3, p. 3, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1. 443 Mission 66 for Coronado National Memorial, National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior 

(1957), p. 2, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1. 

444 Ibid. 

159
area abounds in plant and animal life.”445 It was also hoped that the regulated picnic 

areas at the Memorial would encourage people to use them instead of other uncontrolled 

sites, thus preventing “the possibility of fires spreading from undeveloped sites.”446

The cost of the Mission 66 Program at Coronado National Memorial in 1957 was 

calculated to be $603,200. Roads and trails would cost $98,000; and buildings and 

utilities would run $505,200.447 Given the fact that the facilities were entirely lacking at 

the Memorial, the planners stressed the necessity of providing administrative facilities to 

protect and maintain the area and the desire to make the Memorial an attraction for visitor 

enjoyment. Aware of the deficiencies, the planners realized that the entire project would 

not be completed for several years, although some of the work could commence soon. 

Field surveys and detailed construction plans had yet to be developed; they would take 

time. In the end, the planners were confident that “the area will remain a day-use area, 

but will provide picnic or lunch areas for those who enjoy a few hours in the open and 

appreciate the beauties of the woodland in which the area is located.”448 

By October 1, 1957, the Prospectus for Coronado National Memorial was 

approved.449 That meant that the Prospectus would spell the direction to be taken in the 

Mission 66 developments. In all actuality, the Master Plan and its development outline 

would have to be brought in line with the approved Prospectus. In that regard, Director 

Conrad Wirth wrote the Regional Director in Santa Fe saying, portentously, that as 

regards the review of the Prospectus, “numerous suggestions and opinions were 

 

445 Ibid. 446 Ibid. 447 Ibid., p. 3. 448 Ibid., p. 3. 449 Memorandum from W.G. Carnes, Chief, Mission 66 Staff to Regional Director, Region Three, Washington, D.C., 

October 1, 1957, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1. 

160
advanced, many of them on matters that we believe will automatically resolve themselves 

in the normal course of events.”450

Wirth’s transmittal included a “Notice of Approval: Coronado National Memorial 

Prospectus.” The approval included additions to the Prospectus inclusive of needed 

basic scientific data aimed at assisting park management in the areas of protection and 

interpretation of park resources. Specifically, the recommendation was made for 

archeological data that would identify the prehistory of the area. 

Other recommendations concerned grazing privileges and the related issue 

regarding fencing. The reviewers stated that “The proposals for the purchase of grazing 

permits are not feasible as appropriations for such purchase are not obtainable. The 

statements concerning such elimination by purchase, pages 6 and 24, should be revised to 

indicate elimination or reduction by negotiation.”451 As regards fencing, it was 

recommended that “the fencing along the summit of Montezuma Peak, which bisects the 

trail from the parking area to the peak, be relocated to exclude all of the public use 

area.”452

The reviewers postponed their comments on the section on Park Organization 

pending further review and over-all evaluation of all planning documents for Coronado 

National Memorial to better determine the progress and requirements necessary. Thus, 

staffing and operating costs were established only as a guide for future planning. The 

recurring costs for operations called for nine employees--five permanent and four 

seasonal employees at the cost of $53,790 per year. The breakdown was as follows: four 

 

450 Wirth to Regional Director, Region Three, Memorandum, May 15, 1957, Washington, D.C., WACC, Folder D 18: 

Master Plans (Mission 66) F1. 

451 Notice of Approval Coronado National Memorial signed by Conrad Wirth, Washington, D.C., May 15, 1957, p. 1. 

WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1. 452 Ibid., p. 2. 

161
permanent employees were slotted for Management and Protection. They would be aided 

by three seasonals. The total cost for the seven employees would be $36,390 per year. 

In the area of Maintenance and Rehabilitation, one permanent and one seasonal would be 

hired at the annual cost of $17,400. Still, Wirth agreed with reviewers that the program 

staffing needs needed to be “more definitely defined.”453

The two areas of development were reviewed: public use facilities and service 

facilities. In the area of public use facilities, Wirth noted that the structures required for 

the Memorial were the visitor center, contact station, administration building, 

improvement of roads and trails, comfort station, picnic area, and partial fencing.454

Indeed, the subject Mission 66 Prospectus stated that the day-use area by visitors would 

average from 2 to 4 hours per visit.455 The service facilities would, of course, include the 

extension of utility systems, employee housing, utility building, and partial area fencing. 

The cost for both categories, as stipulated earlier, totaled $603,200. The review 

comments, beyond giving direction through recommendations, were aimed at controlling 

the development of the Memorial. Although the costs were estimates, based on available 

schedules, Wirth clearly stated that “Acceptance of the development schedule is not to be 

construed as a final approval of each specific item or a firm estimate of cost as such is 

dependent on further refinement of the proposals, to be accomplished through established 

planning and estimating procedures.”456 That principle was accepted as standard 

operating procedures generally function. Wirth, however, went further, when he wrote 

“Any deviations from the intent of the principles and proposals set forth in the approved 

prospectus shall constitute a revision of the prospectus and will require the clearance of 

 

453 Ibid., p. 2. 454 Ibid., p. 2. 

162
the Regional and Design and construction Offices, and approval by the Washington 

Office.”457

 In the months preceding the approved Prospectus, much discussion and planning 

had occurred in which many ideas and concepts as well as wishes were discussed 

regarding the development of Coronado National Memorial. Everyone recognized that 

the Memorial would commemorate the pioneering efforts of the Coronado Expedition as 

well as the importance of continually celebrating positive relationships between the 

United States and Mexico by featuring the common history between the two nations. 

Hope remained that Mexico would eventually join in commemorating the ideals for 

which the Memorial was established. 

Beginning in March 1957, planning documents that were being simultaneously 

developed provided necessary data for the Prospectus. The Land Status report indicated 

that the Federal acreage for the Memorial totaled 2,745.33 acres. Additionally, the 

boundary status report proposed that “in order to provide a desirable area for the 

development of a headquarters site, and picnic area,” it would be necessary to “include 

approximately 75.33 acres of Forest Service land and 100 acres of privately owned land 

belonging to Mr. Joe Zaleski.”458 Although it was felt that the Forest Service land could 

be acquired by transfer from the Coronado National Forest, Zaleski’s land would have to 

be purchased at the cost of $100 to $200 per acre. The cost of land had risen because 

vacation homesites in the area were being subdivided and sold at that competitive cost.459 

 

455 Mission 66 Prospectus, Coronado National Memorial, April 1956, p. 2. 456 Ibid., p. 3. 457 Ibid., p. 3. 458 Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, Arizona, Land Status, March 1957, WACC, 

Folder D 18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1. 

459 Ibid. 

163
Moreover, it was felt that the reactivation of “Fort Huachuca and Atomic Energy” 

accounted for the increased land activity in the general area.460

 The “Buildings” section of the Master Plan Development Outline for the 

Memorial drawn in May 1957, contained information related to climate, temperature, 

prevailing winds, altitude, latitude, topography, vegetation, soil data, snake and insect 

considerations such as scorpions, cone-nose bugs, “numerous flies,” and rattlesnakes. 

The Plan offered its recommendations for construction plans and their attendant 

architectural influences. 

At the time, it was felt that the architectural design would be based, not on 

Spanish Colonial influences, but on the fact that the architectural styles of the area were 

“non-descript.” So, it was decided to adopt “a simple, functional, contemporary design 

best suited to the landscape [rather] than to emphasize the historical aspect.”461 In time, 

that sentiment would change and a style would be adopted “reminiscent of the early 

Spanish-Mexican ranch type buildings, still to be seen in modern buildings along the 

route taken by Coronado through the Mexican west coast states. The burnt adobe walls, 

red tiled roofs and general architectural theme used in the present administration building 

and contact station,” completed in 1960, would be carried on in the public buildings of 

the Memorial.462 Indeed, the Construction Data report of 1963 stated that “Residences 

should conform to the general pattern of the recently constructed residences with burnt 

adobe wall, low pitched roofs, wide overhangs on porches and adjacent terraces.”463

 

460 Ibid., see marginal noted signed by Reshoft dated 5-1-57. 461 Master Plan, May 1957, Buildings, p. 2, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1.. 462 Master Plan for Preservation and Use of Coronado National Memorial, Volume III—General Park Information 

Section G—Construction Data, May 1963, p. 3, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1. Also see 

Completion Report of Construction Project, Contract 14-10-333-509, Signed by Philip Welles, Superintendent, 

Coronado National Memorial, n.d., WACC, Folder D 3415: Buildings Constructon and Maintenance 1960 F25. 463 Ibid. 

164
 In 1957, however, building materials dominated a great deal of discussions 

regarding construction plans. A long list of building stones, for example, was assembled 

and sources were identified in Naco, Douglas, and an entity, that sold coarse rock, called 

Paul Spur between Bisbee and Douglas. Sand and concrete could be found in Douglas; 

Western Yellow Pine logs in Bisbee; lumber in Tucson and Bisbee; concrete blocks in 

Tucson and Bisbee; brick and tile, mixed concrete, and plaster in Tucson and Bisbee; 

reinforcing steel in Bisbee; and adobe bricks in Naco. Later, in 2002, John Cook, former 

Intermountain Regional Director, commented on the origins of the adobe bricks used in 

some of the structures at Coronado National Memorial. The bricks, he waid were the 

“burnt bricks that Phil Welles got out of Mexico,”464 meaning in the Cananea vicinity. 

The full range of materials could obviously be found in Tucson which is about 100 miles 

away, but many of the items could be found in Bisbee.465 Therefore, the list 

demonstrated that construction at the Memorial could commence as soon as contracts 

were released for that purpose. 

 The report also included a report on soils for conservation purposes. The Soil and 

Moisture Conservation segment of the Master Plan Development Outline compiled in 

July 1955 specified that the soils of the Memorial were largely clay loam. On ridges and 

rock, the soil was reported as thin and close to the surface. Given that the topography is 

mountainous with steep slopes with some cliffs of conglomerate and limestone, the 

planners figured that runoff from rainfall during the late summer could cause a drainage 

problem in the area. Even though soil erosion was classed as slight on 90% of the 

Memorial and “moderate in the remainder,” much of the erosion had been caused by 

 

464 Telephone interview with former NPS Intermountain Regional Director John Cook, Page, Arizona, by 

Joseph P. Sánchez, Jerry L. Gurulé, and Bruce Erickson, February 6, 2002. 

165
grazing. It was therefore agreed that fencing to exclude livestock would be enough of a 

measure to restore the vegetation, that is brush, grass, and woodland, and ultimately 

return the area to its natural state. As the Memorial area fell within the Hereford Soil 

Conservation District, the park’s efforts would certainly benefit the watershed of the San 

Pedro Valley.466 

 Years later in 1961, after the Memorial had been firmly established and 

construction programs were underway did Park personnel begin to realize the park’s 

identity and place within the National Park Service. After several revisions in 1962 and 

1963, the Design Analysis and Construction Data reports for the Master Plan for the 

Preservation and Use of Coronado National Memorial dated “rev. March 1964” 

demonstrated the progress that had been made. xxx 

 The Memorial’s experience over the years since 1952 showed that visitation was 

relatively light without marked seasonal peaks. One new boon appeared on the horizon 

with the anticipated construction of a reservoir to the “westward in Parker Canyon” 

raised anticipatory hope that it would cause “an increase in visitation and through traffic 

via Montezuma Pass.”467 It was hoped that the hazardous and unimproved NogalesBisbee Road would be improved “in the immediate future” so that access from the East 

Entrance to Montezuma Pass would be facilitated.468 Meanwhile, the Memorial was 

accessible from Nogales, Tucson, and Bisbee via State Highways 82 and 92. 

 Once on the Memorial, a Residential-Utility Spur Road led to the management, 

residential, and maintenance areas. At that time, a primitive Maintenance Road extended 

 

465 Master Plan, May 1957, p. 4. 466 Ibid., Soil and Moister Conservation (S&MC) section, p. 2 467 Master Plan for the Preservation and Use of Coronado National Memorial, Arizona, Chapter 5 Design Analysis, 

General Development and Developed Areas, Revised 1964 (from 1961, 1962 and 1963 plans), p. 2, WACC, Folder D 

18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1. 

166
from the Residential-Utility Spur Road by way of a 25 foot easement through Coronado 

National Forest land for some 300 feet to the NPS water storage tank on the slope above 

the headquarters area.469

 Near the administrative building, constructed in 1959, which also housed the main 

visitor contact station and public restrooms, a visitor parking area had been laid out. 

Another contact station, the Montezuma Pass Contact Station would eventually serve as 

the beginning point of the then proposed “nature trail” which would originate at the 

contact station.470 The then existing pit toilets were expected to be replaced by a comfort 

station served by a septic tank in the future.471

 Not far from there, a Lunch Area Spur Road provided access to a 21-site lunch 

area for those who would bring their own lunches. In that same paragraph, the Design 

Analysis report mentioned a proposed spur road that would lead to an unmanned 

interpretive shelter at the International Border.472 

 In 1964, water was secured from a drilled well immmediately soutwest of the 

Residential area. Water from there was pumped to a 50,000 gallon storage tank on the 

mountainside north of the headquarters. A gravity flow system from the tank to the entire 

headquarters development supplied water for park needs. Water continued to be a 

problem for the Montezuma Pass development. There, the planners, hoped that water 

would be collected in a catchment from the parking area run-off, or, at very least, it 

would be hauled up from the headquarters area.473 Similarly, sewage was handled by a 

 

468 Ibid. 469 Ibid. 470 Ibid., p. 2; also see p. 5. 471 Ibid., p. 4. 472 Ibid., p. 2. 473 Ibid., p. 4. 

167
gravity collection system, septic tank, and the drain field in the administrative area. The 

lunch area was then serviced through a comfort station with a separate septic system.474

 As regards other utilities, electric power was delivered by an REA power line, 

although no power was then available at Montezuma Pass. Electricity provided fuel for 

heating and cooking. Heat for residential areas was augmented by fireplaces. Although 

commercial telephone service sprang from the electrical power system, communications 

through the Globe network by radio facilitated contact with the General Superintendent’s 

Office in Globe.475 By 1964, the Memorial was serviced by a 12-party line telephone 

system.476

 Fencing continued to be an issue for park planners at the Memorial. Although by 

1964 the residential-administrative-maintenance complex had been fenced thwarting 

further trespass by cattle, it was felt that additional fencing could be required in the 

future.477 The Memorial’s policy regarding grazing, however, had been clearly stated. 

Principally, “there should be no objection to moderate grazing so long as other biological 

factors are not upset.” Although park planners had noted that the range livestock industry 

was indeed a significant and important part of the Spanish heritage in the region, grazing 

would be interpreted in the park as “an aspect of Spanish culture.”478 In some circles, it 

appeared that it was felt that grazing was incompatible with the park theme because 

Coronado “did not actually introduce livestock grazing as an industry in the 

southwest.”479 Nonetheless, it was recognized that he was, in fact, the first European to 

 

474 Ibid. 475 Ibid. 476 Construction Data report, Volume III, Section G, p. 3, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (Mission 66) F1.. 477Ibid., p. 5. 478 Master Plan for the Conservation and Use of Coronado National Memorial (1961), “Objectives and Policies”, Vol. I, 

Chapter 1, p. 6. 

479 Ibid., p. 6. 

168
introduce horses, cattle, goats, and sheep into the region. Still, through Spanish-Mexican 

settlers, the cattle industry, of great importance to the west, had been firmly established. 

At that time, Mission 66 planners felt that it was logical to interpret the cattle industry 

from its earliest Iberian times to the present.480 

In the interim, the Memorial went ahead with its plans to implement the fencing 

and construction programs that would include all facets of park administration and visitor 

use. It was during those years that all plans came to fruition and Coronado National 

Memorial came into being with an evolving identity as a National Park Service unit. 

Nothwithstanding the National Park Service’s planning processes, public support was 

vital to the effort, particularly in the early days of the Memorial’s founding. 

 

480 Ibid., p. 6. 

169
Chapter VI 

 “...keen interest of...the people of Cochise County and elsewhere:”481 Grassroots 

Support for the Memorial

I have done a good deal of work also to protect the claims against the 

Coronado Exposition idea...This has meant work with the Arizona 

Commission, The Forestry, U.S., Park and other officials. -– Grace M. 

Sparkes to Burdett Moody, 1940. 

This area is truly a wonderland and I am most anxious to see it given 

the recognition it deserves by both Mexico and the United States. –- 

Grace M. Sparkes to Senator Carl Hayden, 1947 

 Official planning for the Memorial was long standing, albeit informal at times, 

and involved a number of individuals who gave of their time toward this worthy effort. 

On March 10, 1936, Frank “Boss” Pinkley of the National Park Service wrote to Gus R. 

Michaels of Bisbee, Arizona regarding a proposed International Park to be located at the 

south end of the Huachuca Mountains. Michaels replied that he had spoken with several 

people, all of whom were enthused with the idea but were not entirely certain what the 

idea entailed from the government’s side. Michaels added that “the area we had in mind 

on the American side of the line, is at present all within the National Forest, and can 

possibly be made as extensive as desired, extending over through Santa Cruz County and 

north as far as Fort Huachuca.”482

 Pinkley’s letter was a response to one sent by Michaels after he and his colleagues 

had seen newspaper articles about the possibility of a park on both sides of the 

international boundary where it runs through the Huachucas. The movement for 

commemoration of the four hundredth anniversary of Coronado’s expedition had already 

 

481 Hillary A. Tolson, Assistant Director, NPS, to Mrs. Margaret Rockwell, Washigton, D.C., February 1, 1951, 

WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 41-52 F3. 

170
begun by then in New Mexico, and it soon spread to Arizona through the efforts of local 

and state boosters.483 Michaels and friends had discussed it and then contacted Pinkley, 

even at this early date. As the longtime Executive Secretary of the Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce, Michaels’s name appeared early in the story of Coronado Memorial. He, and 

the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, would remain involved with the planning and 

promotion of the Memorial for some time. 

 Michaels and the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce also got involved in another, 

contemporary, project commemorating the early Spanish colonial heritage in southeastern 

Arizona. In early 1938, plans were hatched to celebrate the four-hundredth anniversary 

of the arrival of Coronado’s predecessor, Fray Marcos de Niza, in the modern state of 

Arizona. To mark the place where the friar entered the state, the Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce was invited to participate in the effort and formed a committee as a result.484

F.C. Bledsoe, President of the Chamber, contacted many of the same people who would 

become involved in the Coronado Memorial. Among them were M.J. Cunningham, 

Chair of the Committee; John Wood, Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce, ViceChair; S.S. Shattuck, also a Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce; Reverend 

James P. Davis; Folsom Moore; and John Ball. Mrs. J.H. Macia, of Tombstone, was also 

written in on the first list.485

 

482 Gus R. Michaels to Frank Pinkley, Bisbee, April 3, 1936, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1939 F1. 483 Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission of Arizona, Secretary’s Report of Progress, Phoenix, February 17, 1940, 

WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1940 F2. 484 Mrs. Clyda F. Markhama and Fr. Martin Knauf, O.F.M., Director, Third Order of St. Francis, to Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce, c/o F.C. Bledsoe, Phoenix, February 1, 1938, WACC, Folder H 14: Area History de Niza F8. 485 Bledsoe to M.J. Cunningham, John Wood, Rev. J. Davis, S.S. Shattuck, Folsom Moore, John Ball, Mrs. Macia, 

Bisbee, March 28, 1938, ibid. 

171
 When the Fray Marco de Niza Association of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce 

met in early April, Harlie Cox had replaced Mrs. Macia.486 A few days after the meeting, 

Gus Michaels wrote to Arizona state officials to ask their help in the planning of a one 

hundred foot high pyramid topped by a larger than life statue to be placed in the vicinity 

of Palominas.487 In August 1938, the “Four Hundredth Anniversary Committee” met 

again. They now had a plan to build their monument in a roadside park to be located two 

and one-half miles west of Palominas. The land was to be owned by the state Highway 

Department and the monument itself was to be constructed by the Works Progress 

Administration.488 In November, sketches were considered and a design in the shape of a 

cross was approved by the Bisbee Committee.489

 The monument to Fray Marcos was never built at Palominas. Instead, a 

monument was erected at Lochiel, some twenty miles, as the crow flies, west of the 

eventual site of Coronado Memorial, and further from the San Pedro River Valley. It is 

not entirely clear from available evidence why the Lochiel site was selected, but the 

choice may have been the result of a struggle between Bisbee and Nogales. Father 

Bonaventure Oblasser, O.F.M., a leading booster of the Fray Marcos Monument, later 

wrote that he did not blame Bisbee or Nogales for the isolated location of the Monument, 

implying that their efforts had something to do with the decision. Instead, he criticized 

“those who took me from Arizona, in the midst of my efforts for this cause.”490 He was, 

evidently, referring to his superiors in the Franciscan order. 

 

486 Minutes of the “Meeting of the Fray Marco de Niza Association Held in Bisbee Chamber of Commerce on April 

Fourth at 10:00 A.M.,” ibid. 

487 Michaels to Plans and Designs Division, State Parks, Tucson, Bisbee, April 8, 1938, ibid. 488 Minutes of the “Meeting of Four Hundredth Anniversary Committee, Held August Ninth, Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce Office, at 10:30 P.M.,” ibid. 

489 Minutes of the “Meeting of the Marco de Niza Monument Committee, November 3, at 9:30 A.M.,” ibid. 490 Fr. Bonaventure Oblasser, O.F.M., Executive Secretary, Fray Marcos de Niza Monument Association, Mission San 

Antonio de Pala, March 3, 1941, to Michaels, ibid. 

172
 The two cities of Bisbee and Nogales were then disputing which should be 

honored as the site of the entrada of Coronado. They seem to have clashed over the route 

of Fray Marcos as well. Oblasser, a Franciscan priest, recalled later that only after he had 

been informed that the Bisbee plan could not be carried out did he support the Lochiel 

site. In the end, his Niza project received financial support from Nogales and probably 

some help in locating the Monument as well. 

 In 1941, Oblasser hoped to combine the Niza Monument at Lochiel with the 

Coronado Memorial. Oblasser offered two reasons for his desire to do so. One was that 

the Niza effort was a thousand dollars in debt after the Monument was constructed and 

Oblasser hoped that the debt would be assimilated by the Coronado Memorial along with 

the Monument.491 The other was that the Niza Monument was located on a little used 

dirt road in an out of the way small town. Lochiel was, by that time, in terminal decline 

from its heyday as a border crossing for both legal and illegal products.492 Connecting it 

to the larger, better funded, and more accessible Coronado Memorial then being planned 

would certainly increase its visibility. 

 In return, Oblasser offered to approach prominent friends in Mexico, who held a 

higher opinion of Niza than of Coronado, to urge them to cooperate in the International 

Memorial.493 Gus Michaels responded to Oblasser that it was impossible to change the 

Coronado legislation. He held out the hope that the establishment of the Coronado 

Memorial would lead to the construction of a highway from Montezuma Canyon to 

Nogales via Lochiel. That highway would connect the Niza Monument to the Coronado 

 

491 Oblasser to The Secretary, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, Komatke, February 27, 1941, ibid. 492 George Brown, interview by Thomas B. Carroll, September 20, 1974, CORO Files; Byrd Howell Granger, 

Arizona’s Names (X Marks the Place) (The Falconer Publishing Company, 1983), 367-368. 493 Oblasser to The Secretary, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, Komatke, February 27, 1941. 

173
Memorial in both concrete and conceptual terms.494 Michaels did not even mention the 

outstanding debt of the Niza Monument promoters. The Coronado Memorial was, of 

course, developed, but the highway was never built and the Monument to Fray Marcos de 

Niza languishes in the obscurity of the ghost town of Lochiel. 

 Executive Secretary Gus Michaels, of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, was 

later named as a member of the first two official delegations to the Huachucas during the 

site selection process, in 1939 and 1940. Sparkes noted that the Arizona’s Coronado 

Cuarto Centennial Commission visited the Huachucas in 1939 with historian Herbert 

Bolton, who was involved in the government sponsored study that decided on 

Coronado’s route through the area, and Park Service officials. Also in the party were 

several local supporters, including Bisbee representatives Gus Michaels, John Wood, 

W.E. Clark, and R.E. Souers.495 W.E. Clark of the Bisbee delegation was also the Clerk 

of the Cochise County Board of Supervisors. He was involved in the effort to get the 

Memorial founded as a Bisbee booster and also corresponded with Senator Hayden on 

behalf of the Cochise County Board of Supervisors.496

 The first Arizona Coronado Cuarto Centennial Commission was named in July 

1939 by a proclamation of Governor R.T. “Bob” Jones. Its chair was Stuart M. Bailey. 

Other members were Charles M. Morgan, Executive Secretary; Odd S. Halseth, 

Treasurer; Mrs. Foster Rockwell, Vice-Chair; Frank Sufea; Julius Becker; and Rev. 

Emmett McLoughlin.497 Halseth was identified a few years later as the Superintendent of 

 

494 Michaels to Oblasser, Bisbee, March 26, 1941, ibid. 495 Grace M. Sparkes to Arthur R. Williams, American Consul, Agua Prieta, Hereford, March 19, 1951, WACC, Folder 

H 14: Area and Service History 41-52 F3. 

496 Hayden to W.E. Clark, Clerk, Cochise County Board of Supervisors, April 22, 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area 

and Service History 1940 F2. 

497 “Cuarto Centennial Commission Named By Governor Jones,” Arizona Republic, July 27, 1939; Charles M. 

Morgan’s Autobiographical Notes, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1939 F1. 

174
Parks and Recreation for the city of Phoenix.498 Morgan and Bailey’s new positions were 

the same as those that that held in the Arizona Historic Memorials Association, whose 

work the Cuarto Centennial Commission was to continue, according to a Commission 

press release.499 Morgan claimed credit for the founding of both the Historic Memorials 

Association and the Cuarto Centennial Commission.500 He later called himself “the 

person responsible for the very existence of the Coronado Memorial.”501

 Morgan may have exaggerated his role a bit, but he was certainly in the middle of 

Memorial efforts for many years. Like most members of the Arizona Commission, 

Morgan was not from Cochise County, nor did he often visit.502 The Cuarto Centennial 

Commission members were all from Phoenix except Frank Sufea and Julius Becker, of 

Flagstaff and Springerville, respectively.503 A State Advisory Board was named in 1939 

as well. It included one member from each county plus several At Large and Ex-Officio 

members. Like the Commission, none of the At Large and Ex-Officio Members were 

from the Cochise County area and most were from Phoenix.504 Before the end of 1940, 

turnover on the Commission brought some new members. Among those listed in a few 

sources were Leo Weaver of Flagstaff; Mrs. T.C. O’Connell, identified as a special 

 

498 Tolson, Acting Director, NPS, to Hayden, Chicago, September 6, 1944, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service 

History 41-52 F3. 

499 “State Advisory Board Selected for Coronado Anniversary,” Press Release, Coronado Cuarto Centennial 

Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, August 11, 1939, ibid. 

500 “Charles M. Morgan Interview, May 14, 1974, Phoenix, AZ,” by Tom White, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and 

Service History F7. 

501 Charles M. Morgan to Superintendent, Coronado National Monument, Tucson, December 11, 1975, WACC, Folder 

L 76: Environmental Impact/Assessment – Public Response 1975 F53. 502 “Charles M. Morgan Interview, May 14, 1974, Phoenix, AZ.” 503 “Cuarto Centennial Commission Named By Governor Jones,” July 27, 1939. 504 “State Advisory Board Selected for Coronado Anniversary,” August 11, 1939. 

175
representative;505 Nick Hall, Tucson; Peter Riley, Clifton; Andy Matson, Flagstaff; 

Walter R. Bimson, Phoenix; Miss Georgia Thomas of Ray.506

 The Cochise County member of the State Advisory Board was listed as Mrs. J.H. 

Macia.507 Ethel M. Macia operated the Rose Tree Inn in Tombstone.508 She was part of 

the first delegation to the Huachuca site in 1939.509 In February 1940, Mrs. Macia wrote 

to Gus Michaels to let him know how pleased she was with the conclusion that Coronado 

had followed the San Pedro River north across the modern international boundary. She 

added that she would not be able to contribute much to the effort to choose a site for the 

Memorial because she was so busy with her business.510 However, just over three weeks 

later, Macia was in the Huachucas with the second official delegation.511 Most of the 

same people who were in the first group, in 1939, returned to visit the proposed site with 

Mrs. Macia. Again, Gus Michaels was present along with a “Bisbee Committee” that 

also included “John Ball, John Wood, W.E. Clark, R.E. Souers, and a representative of 

the ‘Bisbee Review.’”512

 After the decision to commemorate the San Pedro route was made, Gus Michaels 

wrote to NPS historian Aubrey Neasham asking when the decision would be made on the 

site of the Memorial, within or adjacent to the San Pedro Valley.513 On the same day, 

February 29, 1940, a letter went out from the Arizona Commission to the Chambers of 

Commerce of Bisbee, Douglas, Nogales, Tombstone, and Tucson. It invited each 

 

505 “Notes for the Gazette,” n.d. (seems to go with “Secretary’s Report of Progress,” Coronado Cuarto Centennial 

Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, February 17, 1940), WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1940 F2. 

506 “Coronado Events in Arizona,” dated 1540-1940 (can also be identified as no later than 1940 by some of the 

officials listed in United States Coronado Exposition Commission), ibid. 507 Ibid. 508 Ethel M. Macia to Gus Michaels, February 11, 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1940 F2. 509 Sparkes to Williams, March 19, 1951. 510 Macia to Michaels, February 11, 1940. 511 Sparkes to Williams, March 19, 1951. 512 Sparkes to Williams, March 19, 1951. 

176
Chamber to send a representative to meet with state and federal officials in Bisbee on the 

morning of March 5. From there, the delegation would go to inspect an unnamed 

memorial site.514 

 Michaels sent the letter on to a “committee” that included M.J. Cunningham 

(Chair), John Wood, Rev. James P. Davis, S.S. Shattuck, Folsom Moore, John Ball and 

Mrs. J.H. Macia, along with his urging that they be on hand to greet the guests on March 

5.515 The committee that Michaels summoned, of which Cunningham was chair, was the 

Coronado Monument Committee of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce. S.S. Shattuck 

was a member, and was also the President of the Chamber of Commerce.516 It was this 

group that made up the second party to the Montezuma Canyon site, on March 5, 

1940.517 W.K. Caley, the Mayor of Bisbee, evidently could not make the trip that day, 

but he was otherwise as deeply involved as any of his colleagues.518

 On March 6, Gus Michaels wrote to Fred Guirey of the Arizona Highway 

Department notifying him that “the site of the Coronado National Monument and 

Museum has received the approval of Coronado Commission both National and State and 

the Park Service. The official announcement of course will have to come from 

Washington, and should be received within the next week or 10 days.” He asked that at 

least one sign commemorating the actual anniversary of Coronado’s passage be ready for 

 

513 Michaels to Aubrey Neasham, Bisbee, February 29, 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1940 F2. 514 Morgan to Secretaries, Chambers of Commerce, Bisbee, Douglas, Nogales, Tombstone, Tucson, Phoenix, February 

29, 1940, ibid. 

515 Michaels to M.J. Cunningham, John Wood, Rev. James P. Davis, S.S. Shattuck, Folsom Moore, John Ball and Mrs. 

J.H. Macia, Bisbee, March 1, 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1940 F2. 516 Telegram, W.K. Caley, S.S. Shattuck, M.J. Cunningham, to Hayden, n.d., ibid. 517 Sparkes gave the date of this delegation as March 6, but the evidence suggests that it visited on March 5. Sparkes to 

Williams, March 19, 1951. 

518 Caley, Shattuck, Cunningham, to Hayden, n.d. 

177
display by its date, April 14. He also suggested several places where signs could be 

placed.519

 There was obviously much going on behind the scenes that does not show up in 

these documents. Correspondence dating back to 1936 confirms that the Montezuma 

Canyon site was considered long before it was visited by delegations, and even before the 

San Pedro route was confirmed by Bolton and his committee. Local boosters, like Gus 

Michaels, involved themselves with state and national efforts to promote their region, and 

directed them to the Huachuca Mountains. 

 Michaels was involved in other projects connected with the Coronado Memorial 

as well. In the spring of 1940, right after the decision on the Huachuca site became 

official, Morgan approached Michaels with an idea to commemorate the Mormon 

Battalion’s travels through the San Pedro Valley in 1846 with an event and a marker. 

Morgan concluded that “the result will be – besides publicity and a good stunt, another 

permanent attraction, spang alongside the road to the Fort and the Coronado Museum.”520 

Michaels agreed to work for the cooperation of Fort Huachuca in the plan.521

 Michaels also communicated with local and state interests that were opposed to 

the Coronado Memorial. In a 1940 exchange with the Arizona Cattle Growers’ 

Association, he defended the project as positive for tourism, which would expand the tax 

base of the state and reduce the burden on ranchers and miners. One of its members, 

Henry D. Lee, who grazed cattle on some of the National Forest land proposed for the 

Memorial, was against the memorial despite the founding legislation specifically 

guaranteeing his grazing rights. According to Michaels, Lee “made a ride to every ranch 

 

519 Michaels to Fred Guirey, Arizona Highway Department, March 6, 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service 

History 1940 F2. 

178
house in southern Arizona and has conveyed the impression to everyone he has met that 

he is being robbed and put out of business.” An editorial that reflected Lee’s opinion in 

the Arizona Daily Star demonstrated that he had lobbied its editor as well.522

 Michaels added that he had consulted “Long established conservative cattlemen 

who make up your Association,” who could not see how Lee could possibly be hurt. 

Michaels ended his letter by noting that the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce had always 

consulted the cattlemen on any matter that concerned them. “We would appreciate if the 

cattlemen would sit down with us and go over this situation in its entirety before sending 

a barrage of telegrams to our Senators in Washington on a matter which has only been 

brought to their attention by one individual.”523 Clearly, Michaels was willing to go toe 

to toe, even with the most powerful interest groups, in defense of the Coronado National 

Memorial. 

 Mrs. J.M. Keith’s name is also prominent in the documents, but on the other side 

of the issue from Michaels, the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, and the Cuarto Centennial 

Commission. As secretary and spokesperson for the Arizona Cattle Growers’ 

Association, Keith wrote letters defending the rights of ranchers from both real and 

imagined threats posed by the Coronado Memorial. Keith and the Association pressured 

Senator Hayden to push for a smaller memorial, and he responded that he had raised its 

concerns and those of two of its members, Henry Lee and Alex D’Albini, in talks with 

the Park Service.524 

 

520 Morgan to Michaels, Phoenix, April 30, 1940, ibid. 521 Michaels to Morgan, Bisbee, May 7, 1940, ibid. 522 Michaels to Mrs. J.M. Keith, Secretary, Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, Bisbee, May 7, 1940, ibid. Michaels 

addressed his letter to “Mrs. A. Keith” and signed his letter “G.R. Michaels,” Mrs. J.M. Keith’s reply was addressed to 

“J.R. Michaels,” Keith to Michaels, Phoenix, May 11, 1940, ibid. 523 Michaels to Keith, May 7, 1940. 524 Senator Carl Hayden to Keith, May 16, 1940, ibid. 

179
 Keith asserted that the Cattle Growers’ Association was not, “(c)ontrary to the 

belief which has gotten about,” opposed to the memorial idea.525 However, its first 

concern was the cattle industry and its success. She thought that parks were “desirable 

when and where there is any particular person or thing to commemorate.” However, she 

did “not believe the National Monuments and parks would be so attractive if it were not 

for the stock industry surrounding them.” Ranchers, then, were of equal tourism value to 

historical or natural resources. Keith also disputed the argument that tourism would help 

to ease the tax burden felt by ranchers.526

 Thus, Keith defended the cattle growers from memorial plans from the standpoint 

of tourism as well as economics. She was also willing to adopt a historical tone if the 

need should arise, as when she suggested that the memorial be restricted to the top of the 

Huachuca Range, steep terrain less suited to grazing. As if daring anyone to disagree 

with her, she began her argument with the words, “We know, of course, that Coronado 

climbed the highest peak...nothing lower than the highest vantage point would have 

satisfied him.” She ended by saying that the memorial should be built at the point that 

was “actually hallowed by his footsteps.” 527

As has already been discussed above, there is little primary data on Coronado’s 

trip through the San Pedro Valley and no evidence that he approached the Huachuca 

Mountains or climbed a particular peak. Mrs. Keith and the Arizona Cattle Growers’ 

Association, however, were willing to use any argument available to them to defend their 

interests; and they saw their interests threatened by the Coronado Memorial. 

 

525 Keith to Morgan, May 9, 1940, ibid. 526 Keith to Michaels, Phoenix, May 11, 1940, ibid. 527 Keith to Morgan, May 9, 1940, ibid. 

180
 Local interests, lined up on both sides of the Coronado Memorial issues, waited to 

hear from Washington as the haggling continued at home. In late June 1940, Senator 

Hayden’s Secretary, Paul Roca, wrote to Folsom Moore, of the Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce and its Coronado Monument Committee, to tell him that Hayden had changed 

the founding legislation to satisfy all the concerns of rancher Henry Lee.528 During the 

same week, W.E. Clark, sounding quite exasperated, wrote to Hayden, “Your bill to 

establish Coronado Monument should meet all objections valid or otherwise...We trust 

same will be enacted shortly.”529 On July 31, 1940, Hayden’s office wrote to Caley, 

Cunningham, and Shattuck as it became clear that the legislation would not be passed in 

1940.530

 In August 1941, the legislation was passed by Congress. Shortly thereafter, 

sketches of the proposed memorial were circulated to supporters. Gus Michaels wrote to 

Margaret Rockwell of the Arizona Cuarto Centennial Commission. He told her that he 

had looked at the sketches, as had M.J. Cunningham, Folsom Moore, S.S. Shattuck, J.T. 

Gentry, John Wood, Reverend James Davis, and John Ball, among others.531 All of these 

men are mentioned above as Bisbee boosters and longtime supporters of the Coronado 

Memorial. Little was accomplished toward establishing the Memorial on the ground 

during World War II. However, the Bisbee contingent continued to correspond with Park 

Service officials. In 1944, a delegation from the Park Service took a tour of southern 

Arizona that included a visit to Bisbee and a discussion of the Coronado Memorial. In 

 

528 Paul Roca to Folsom Moore, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1940, ibid. 529 Italics added, Clark to Hayden, Bisbee, June 21, 1970, ibid. 530 Hayden to Cunningham, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1940; Hayden to Caley, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1940; 

Hayden to Shattuck, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1940, ibid. 

531 Michaels to Rockwell, Bisbee, October 26, 1941, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 41-52 F3. 

181
Bisbee, the group was hosted by Michaels, Shattuck, Wood, and Ball.532 Shortly after the 

war, Michaels disappeared from the Bisbee scene and from the historical record 

concerning the Coronado National Memorial.533

 It was during World War II that the name of Grace Sparkes first surfaced in 

connection with the Memorial in a big way, though she had shown interest at an earlier 

date. Sparkes first became involved as part-owner of the State of Texas mining 

properties, in Montezuma Canyon. Upon her father’s death, Grace Sparkes became the 

partner of Burdett Moody of Los Angeles, California. When she wrote to Moody early in 

1939 to inform him of her father’s death, Sparkes told Moody that she had not visited the 

property in two years.534 From her home in Prescott, Arizona, she attempted to reopen 

the mine while Moody was only interested in divesting of his share of the State of Texas 

properties.535 

 As Sparkes tried to convince Moody to invest in the State of Texas, she told him 

how she was defending their property. “I have done a good deal of work,” Sparkes wrote 

in April 1940, “to protect the claims against the Coronado Exposition idea.” She 

continued that this “has meant work with the Arizona Commission, The Forestry, U.S., 

Park and other officials.”536 During the same month, Sparkes wrote to Margaret 

Rockwell of the Arizona Cuarto Centennial Commission. While she assured Mrs. 

Rockwell of her support for the Memorial, her primary concern was that it not threaten 

her mine holdings.537 Sparkes thought she had good reason to fear federal projects on her 

 

532 E.T. Scoyen Acting Regional Director, NPS, to Michaels, Santa Fe, June 8, 1944, ibid. 533 Sparkes to Hayden, State of Texas Mine, October 25, 1947, ibid. 534 Sparkes to Moody, Prescott, January 30, 1939, Sparkes Collection, Arizona Historical Society (AHS), Box 7, Folder 

294. 

535 Moody to Sparkes, Los Angeles, August 1, 1941, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 7, Folder 296, and others in the 

same folder. 

536 Sparkes to Moody, April 22, 1940, Sparkes Collection AHS, Box 7 Folder 295, and others in the same folder. 537 Sparkes, to Rockwell, Prescott, April 11, 1940, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 23, Folder 956. 

182
land. She later informed Moody that the “entire camp was stolen when the CCC 

[Civilian Conservation Corps] constructed the road through the canyon.”538

 Grace Sparkes had long been involved in tourism and community service in 

Prescott, serving, for example, as secretary of the Prescott Frontier Days Rodeo from 

1915 until 1945.539 In her book Our Southwest, published in 1940, New Mexico author 

Erna Fergusson described a Prescott Chamber of Commerce representative as a 

quintessential booster.540 Sparkes’s biographer, Mona Lange McCroskey, identifies this 

character as Sparkes. Unhappy with the portrayal, Sparkes complained to Clinton P. 

Anderson of New Mexico. According to McCroskey, Anderson was a friend and coworker on the Coronado Commission.541 Sparkes was not listed as a member of the 

Coronado Commission at the time; nor did she seem to be a very solid supporter. 

However, as an Arizona booster, Sparkes probably was connected to the Coronado effort. 

 In May 1944, Sparkes wrote to Senator Hayden, as President of the Arizona 

Chamber of Commerce Secretaries Association, to inquire about the status of the 

Coronado project.542 Hayden addressed letters about the Memorial to Sparkes at Yavapai 

Associates in Prescott in 1944 and 1945.543 Yavapai Associates was a non-profit tourist 

promotion group established by Sparkes and her associates that included civic groups 

around Yavapai County.544 Before the end of 1945, Yavapai Associates lost its funding 

 

538 Sparkes to Moody, April 7, 1942, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 7, Folder 297. The Montezuma Canyon Road was 

built from 1933 to 1935, Laurel Dale, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Thomas Mulhern, Historic 

Preservation, Western Regional Office, Hereford, February 23, 1976, Re: Historic Structures at Coronado National 

Memorial, CORO Files. George Brown is given as the main source of information for this report. 539 Danny Freeman, Chairman, Centennial Book, Prescott, to Laurel Bale [sic - Dale], Prescott, August 20, 1985, 

WACC, Folder K 14: Information Requests F1. 

540 Erna Fergusson, Our Southwest (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1940), 181-188. 541 Mona Lange McCroskey, Grace Marion Sparkes: Matriarch of the Early Arizona Tourist Industry (M.A. Thesis, 

Arizona State University, 1987), 66-67. 

542 Tolson to Hayden, Chicago, May 27, 1944, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 41-52 F3. 543 Hayden to Sparkes, September 9, 1944, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11; Hayden to Sparkes, 

Washington, D.C., January 2, 1945, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 41-52 F3. 544 McCroskey, Grace Marion Sparkes, 116-117. 

183
to political infighting and Grace found herself unemployed as of August 1.545 Shortly 

thereafter, she left Prescott and moved to the State of Texas mine in Montezuma 

Canyon.546 The end of World War II in the same year led to the cessation of mineral 

production at the mine in 1946.547 With the help of her brother-in-law, Perry Bones, 

Sparkes tried to turn the mine into a tourist attraction, “Montezuma Canyon Mineral 

Village.”548

 Once she lived in Montezuma Canyon, Sparkes became more involved in the 

Coronado Memorial project as a supporter, soon making contact with both Senator 

Hayden and the Park Service.549 In late 1947, Sparkes wrote to Hayden, urging him to 

take action to make the Memorial a reality. She told Hayden that 

Frankly, this section of Arizona needs your earnest action. The loss of Ft. 

Huachuca has been a big loss; small mines are hopeful that you will still 

convince the President of his error in vetoing the premium price plan and 

that they will be given a chance to live; ranchers and resorts look to this 

Park for the stimulant they need to induce travel; Bisbee has organized a 

Sunshine Club to advertise its marvelous climate...550

It is interesting to note that Sparkes assumed, at least in her letter, that everyone in the 

area supported the Memorial. She even invoked the ranchers, whose interest can, at best, 

be described as tepid.551

It is also noteworthy that Sparkes focused on the economic benefits that the 

Memorial would provide for all of southeastern Arizona, except the miners, among whom 

Sparkes counted herself. She made a different request, that did not involve the Memorial, 

 

545 Ibid, 136-137. 546 Ibid, 139. 547 Peter M. Van Cleve, “History of Mining in the Coronado National Memorial” (1997), pp. 2-8, Coronado National 

Memorial Files. 

548 McCroskey, Grace Marion Sparkes, 140. 549 Hayden to Sparkes, January 3, 1946; Tolson to Sparkes, Chicago, October 25, 1946, WACC, Folder H 18: 

Biographical Data F11. 

550 Sparkes to Hayden, October 25, 1947. 551 Ibid. 

184
to make on their behalf. Sparkes concluded, “I am greatly interested and enthusiastic to 

see something accomplished.”552 In another 1947 letter to Hayden, Sparkes wrote 

enthusiastically about the beauty and resources of Montezuma Canyon. She also 

mentioned that she hoped to get some benefits, such as utilities and a good road, out of 

the project.553

In 1949, with the International Memorial still pending, Governor Dan E. Garvey 

of Arizona reactivated the state’s Coronado Commission. Odd Halseth returned along 

with new members Ray Busey, former mayor of Phoenix; John Howard Pyle, radio 

commentator and soon-to-be governor; William R. Mathews, Tucson newspaper 

publisher; and Nogales mayor James V. Robins.554 Halseth, whose involvement in the 

Memorial had continued during the Commission’s interregnum, was still in Phoenix, now 

occupying the post of “City Archaeologist” and an office at the Pueblo Grande 

Museum.555 

 By the end of 1950, Sparkes was the Chair of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce 

National Parks and Monuments Committee. On behalf of the Committee, she wrote to 

the governor of Arizona urging him to name Margaret Rockwell to the state Coronado 

Commission.556 She was supported by M.R. Tillotson of the National Park Service. 

Tillotson also hoped that someone from the Bisbee Committee would soon join the 

Arizona Commission. Sparkes suggested members James Brophy and John Wood as 

 

552 Ibid. 553 Sparkes to Hayden, State of Texas Mine, June 28, 1947, ibid. 554 Tolson to Hayden, Washington, D.C., March 11, 1949, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 555 Odd S. Halseth to Sparkes, Phoenix, July 21, 1951,ibid. 556 Governor Dan E. Garvey to Sparkes, Phoenix, December 9, 1950, ibid. 

185
likely candidates. Brophy, a former President of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, 

responded by nominating Sparkes.557

 In December 1950, just before he left office, Governor Garvey named Ben 

Arnold, the mayor of Coolidge, to the Commission. A month later, in January 1951, 

Margaret Rockwell was again named to the Commission, along with Grace Sparkes, by 

the new governor, John Howard Pyle.558 The appointment of Sparkes marked the first 

time that a person from the area of the Memorial was chosen for the Arizona 

Commission. Sparkes was soon elected Chair of the Commission.559 

 In 1952, the other members of the Bisbee Chamber of Commerce National Parks 

and Monuments Committee were listed as Reverend Father John Howard, M.J. 

Cunningham, George B. Smith, Arthur Blunt, Nancy Nelms, James Allison, Robert 

Hargis, Joe Zaleski, Fred McKinney, David Ruth, R.O. Owens, and Charles A. Smith. 

The Committee had been appointed by Brophy when he was the president of the 

Chamber of Commerce and was then resolutely supported by his successor, John 

Caldwell. John Wood and Spencer S. Shattuck were also past presidents of the Chamber 

who continued to contribute to the Memorial effort.560 

 With Sparkes on the Bisbee Committee were two others who resided closer to the 

Memorial than to Bisbee. Nancy Carter Nelms bought the Montezuma Ranch in 1949 

and, along with manager Don Brooks, ran it as a dude ranch and summer camp for young 

girls until 1955.561 Joe Zaleski and his son, Frank, at one time owned most of the land at 

 

557 Minutes of Meeting, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, National Parks and Monuments Committee, December 8, 1950, 

ibid; “After Many Years of Effort, Coronado National Memorial Becomes Reality Long Dreamed,” Bisbee Daily 

Review, July 20, 1952, n.p., Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, Folder 3. 558 M.R. Tillotson, Regional Director, NPS, to Governor Howard Pyle, Santa Fe, February 6, 1951, ibid. 559 Pyle to Sparkes, Phoenix, March 9, 1951, ibid. 560 “After Many Years of Effort, Coronado National Memorial Becomes Reality Long Dreamed.” 561 George Brown, interview by Barbara Alberti, August 18, 1998; Bart Barbour, “Dude Ranches at Coronado National 

Memorial: A Brief History,” n.d., CORO Files. 

186
the mouth of Montezuma Canyon. In 1952, they had sold the Montezuma Ranch but still 

owned considerable land there.562 Zaleski soon offered to sell a small tract to the 

Memorial to be used for a proposed road construction project. 

 That sale, and other planned development, sparked a new round of opposition 

from other locals. Contributing to the dissension, according to Carroll Burroughs, the 

Memorial’s first superintendent, were “personal antagonisms” between neighbors. Alex 

D’Albini, who had opposed the Memorial from the beginning, was said to have “longstanding feuds” with Joe Zaleski as well as with Grace Sparkes.563 Their support may 

have spurred him to again stir up protests. Thus, even those local landowners who 

supported the Memorial could unwittingly contribute to controversy and friction. 

 The Arizona Commission continued during the 1950s, with some turnover. John 

McCarroll of Wickenburg was appointed in 1954 and reappointed in 1957. Odd Halseth 

and Margaret Rockwell remained on the Commission, both were reappointed in 1954. 

Harry Saxon of Willcox was named to the commission in 1955. Grace Sparkes remained 

as chair to round out the commission as constituted in 1957. The Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce National Parks and Monuments Committee of 1957 was still chaired by Grace 

Sparkes as well. It also included James Allison, Arthur Blunt, James C. McPhee, Folsom 

Moore, Reverend John Howard, Austin Jay, and Fred McKinney, of Bisbee; Carl W. 

Morris and James E. Brophy, of Lowell; and Sparkes, Zaleski, Colonel E.N. Hardy, and 

W. Foy Herschede, of Hereford.564

 

562 Barbour, “Dude Ranches,” from Tracking Book, Cochise County Assessor’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona; Quit-Claim 

Deed, Frank Zaleski to Jose Zaleski, Signed January 3, 1956, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 142, pages 239-241. 563 Carroll A. Burroughs, Acting Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to General Superintendent, July 21, 

1955, WACC, Folder L 14: Area & Service History 50s F5. 

564 Grace Sparkes, “Coronado National Memorial Report,” Feruary 13, 1957, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service 

History 1940 F2. 

187
 Once Coronado National Memorial was established, in 1952, Sparkes became 

deeply involved in its development and operation. The 1952 bill that created the 

Memorial appropriated no money and its Congressional supporters assured their 

colleagues that no funds were then needed.565 Funding was, in fact, not approved until 

July of 1954.566 In the interim, periodic patrols were carried out from other parks in the 

region.567 Even after the Memorial was funded, it still lacked a Master Plan, structures, 

and personnel.568 As soon as she heard of the 1954 appropriation, Sparkes came to the 

rescue with an offer of shelter. She wrote to NPS, “I want to cooperate and would like to 

have your Park official quartered at our camp,” meaning the State of Texas mine.569

 The Park Service soon responded positively to the idea of renting her cabin for 

use as an office.570 A house trailer, with the necessary electric and plumbing hook-ups, 

was also placed on the property.571 Before the end of 1954, a temporary agreement was 

worked out and a series of more permanent leases commenced at the beginning of 

1955.572 They covered an expanded area as the Memorial’s needs increased.573 The 

State of Texas Mine remained the home of Coronado Memorial facilities and personnel 

until early in 1960.574 The last lease ran until June of that year.575 

 

565 Untitled, undated, copy of Congressional debate on bill, H.R. 7553, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data, 

General F11. 

566 Senator Carl Hayden to Grace Sparkes, Washington, D.C., July 2, 1954, ibid. 567 Ray Ringenbach, Superintendent, Tumacacori National Monument, to Grace Sparkes, October 24, 1954, 

Tumacacori; Sparkes to Ringenbach, November 16, 1954, ibid 

568 Ray B. Ringenbach, Superintendent, Tumacacori National Monument, to Grace Sparkes, Tumacacori, August 10, 

1954, ibid. 

569 Sparkes to Ringenbach, Prescott, July 7, 1954, ibid. 570 John M. Davis, General Superintendent, Southwestern National Monuments, NPS, to Sparkes, Globe, November 17, 

1954, ibid. 

571 Davis to Sparkes, Globe, November 23, 1954, ibid. 572 D.D. Crumley, Chief Clerk, Southwestern National Monuments, NPS, to Sparkes, Globe, December 7, 1954; Lease 

between Grace M. Sparkes and the United States of America, January 1, 1955, ibid. 573 Purchase Order, July 12, 1957, ibid. 574 Memorandums to Acting Superintendent Don Jackson, Coronado National Memorial, February 13 to March 6, 

1960, WACC, Folder A 26: Reports, daily logs 1960 F3. 

575 Philip Welles, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Sparkes, Hereford, May 15, 1959, WACC, Folder 

H 18: Biographical Data, General F11. 

188
 During this same period, Sparkes was also hired by NPS as a seasonal caretaker, 

beginning in September 1955.576 She was later promoted to the full time position of 

Ranger/Historian.577 McCroskey’s biography of Sparkes notes that she worked at the 

Memorial until January 1963, when she reached the mandatory retirement age of seventy. 

She died in October of the same year.578 Memorial records, however, indicate that 

Sparkes was furloughed early in September 1963 and expected to return to work on 

October 26.579 Her death on October 22 came as a shock to her fellow employees, who 

still identified her as “Ranger/Historian Grace Sparkes.”580

 Over the last two decades of her life, Grace Sparkes was closely associated with 

Coronado National Memorial. She served on, and chaired, both state and local 

promotional bodies. She was the only member of the state Commission from 

southeastern Arizona and the first member of the Bisbee Committee from the Hereford 

area. As a local landowner, she battled with the Memorial over its boundaries and road 

construction; but she also was, in the early years, the Memorial’s landlord, and later 

attempted to sell her property to the park. She hoped, it seemed, to profit from the 

development of the Memorial by gaining utilities and a better road. When Sparkes was 

hired as caretaker, and later Ranger/Historian, she finally attained the same position 

which she had enjoyed in Prescott: being paid to promote the Memorial and her home, 

both of which she loved. 

 

576 Department of the Interior, Notice of Appointment, Grace M. Sparkes, Effective 9/11/55, ibid. 577 Daily Report, Sparkes to Welles, Coronado National Memorial, March 30, 1958, WACC, Folder A 26: Reports, 

Daily Logs 57,58 F1. 

578 McCroskey, Grace Marion Sparkes, 144. 579 Superintendent, Coronado, to Director, NPS, Narrative Report for September 1963, Hereford, October 1, 1973, 

WACC, Folder A 2615: Monthly Reports F6. 

580 Superintendent, Coronado, to Director, NPS, Narrative Report for October 1963, Hereford, October 28, 1973, ibid. 

189
 When Sparkes died, the Memorial lost one of its most energetic supporters and 

the state Commission, it seems, went dormant. In 1965, both the state Commission and 

the international memorial idea got another boost when Philip Welles was named to the 

Coronado International Monument Commission of Arizona.581 Welles had served as the 

Superintendent at the Memorial for seven years before his retirement. His enthusiasm for 

Coronado was amply demonstrated during his tenure when he vacationed to Compostela, 

Nayarit, Mexico, the starting point for the Coronado expedition.582 He visited the State 

Historian to discuss Coronado, then traced his route back to Arizona, taking photographs 

along the way.583

 Welles was eager to reinvigorate the movement toward extending Coronado 

Memorial south of the border. He had been acquainted with some Mexican officials who 

had sounded positive about the notion and also had contacts in the ejidos that occupied 

the land formerly owned by the Cananea Cattle Company. Throughout his tenure, Welles 

used letterhead that listed Grace Sparkes as the Commission Chair. At some point 

Bassett T. Wright of Mesa had replaced Odd Halseth. Old stationery being used in 1967, 

four years after Grace’s death, served as a reminder of that Commission.584

 Welles thought that “if the commission is to be anything but a somewhat vague 

‘honor,’” it needed to formulate a plan to present to the governor of Arizona and Mexican 

officials. He quickly found that the other members of the Commission did not share his 

enthusiasm. He wrote to another member that “I am a bit discouraged by the general 

 

581 Notice of Appointment, Philip Welles, as member of the Coronado International Monument Commission of 

Arizona, March 15, 1965, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 50-69 F4. 582 George P. Hammond and Agapito Rey (eds.), Narratives of the Coronado Expedition 1540-1542 (Albuquerque: 

University of New Mexico Press, 1940), 7. 

583 Superintendent, Coronado, to Director, NPS, February, 1962, Monthly Narrative Report, Hereford, February 27, 

1962, WACC, Folder A 2615: Monthly Reports F6. 

584 Letterhead of “The Coronado International Monument Commission of Arizona,” dated March 15, 1967, WACC, 

Folder H 14: Area and Service History 50-69 F4. 

190
apathy; maybe it would be just as well to say ‘the hell with it’ and let it go at that.”585 

His blunt approach soon got most of the members to a meeting, at which Welles was 

elected the Chair of the Commission. At that point the Arizona Commission consisted of 

Welles; longtime member Margaret Rockwell; D. Tenny Lamoreaux of Chandler; 

Thomas H. Peterson of Tucson; and John H. McCarroll, editor and publisher of the 

Wickenburg Sun.

586

 Welles, in the name of the Arizona Commission, promoted the international 

memorial concept on both sides of the border. Shortly after his appointment, Welles 

wrote that “most of the San Pedro [ejido] people are in favor of an international 

monument and many were frequent visitors at our memorial.”587 He immediately invited 

representatives of the Mexican government and the ejidos to begin discussions.588 Since 

the expropriation of the Ranchos de Cananea, he wrote, the proposed memorial site was 

on “federal land assigned to the Ejido Jose Maria Morelos.” It would not require the 

participation of private owners or the withdrawal of grazing land. The ejido could benefit 

from running “small concessions such as a cafe, curio shop, and riding stables.”589

 Welles succeeded in building consensus in Arizona, at least from his own 

Commission and the governor. He received supportive correspondence from officials in 

Mexico, including the Governor and Director of Tourism for the State of Sonora. 

Meetings were scheduled with leaders of the affected ejido and the Ejidal Bank, which 

handles much of the administration of the collectives.590 Despite these positive steps, the 

 

585 Unsigned letter, Welles to D. Tenny Lemoreaux, Bisbee, September 20, 1965, ibid. 586 “Plan Memorial with Mexico,” unidentified newspaper clipping, ca. October 14, 1965; John H. McCarroll to 

Welles, Wickenburg, August 16, 1965, ibid. 

587 Philip Welles to Mrs. Margaret Adams Rockwell, Bisbee, August 12, 1965, ibid. 588 Welles to Rockwell, September 23, 1965, ibid. 589 Welles to Governor Samuel P. Goddard, Bisbee, October 18, 1965, ibid. 590 Fernando Pesqueira to Welles, Hermosillo, November 24, 1965; Héctor Sánchez Encinas to Welles, Hermosillo, 

October 21, 1966, ibid. 

191
international memorial effort soon disappeared from the radar again. Changes in 

administration on both sides of the border may have contributed to the decline in interest. 

Welles later explained that a meeting and barbecue had been scheduled for state and 

federal officials and other interested parties from both sides of the border in 1967. 

According to his recollection, when tear gas bombs given by the Arizona police to their 

counterparts in Sonora were used against University of Sonora students, international 

cooperation ground to a halt.591 Undoubtedly, the resignation of Philip Welles in 1969 

was a major factor in the advent of another period of dormancy for both the Arizona 

Commission and the idea of an international memorial.592 The energy level of the State 

Commission tended to follow that of its most active members and, usually, of its Chair. 

In any case, the Commission disappeared, to be reactivated several years later.593

 In late 1975, the Arizona Commission again began to round into action. During 

the first days of 1976, Coronado Memorial Superintendent Laurel Dale responded to a 

request by Ben Avery for recommendations for members of a new Commission. Avery 

was a former outdoor writer for the Arizona Republic of Phoenix and a member of the 

NPS Western Region Advisory Board. He was also the first name on Dale’s list of 

potential members.594 Two months later, a new “Revived Coronado Memorial 

Commission” was named by Governor Raul H. Castro of Arizona. The first four 

members were Ben Avery, again the first name on the list; Gilbert Ronstadt of Tucson; 

Bernard Fontana, of the Arizona Museum on the University of Arizona campus in 

 

591 Welles to Governor Raul H. Castro, Tucson, January 20, 1976, WACC, Folder L 62: International Parks F51. 592 Welles to Governor Jack Williams, December 12, 1969, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 50-69 F4. 593 Dale to Ben Avery, Hereford, January 2, 1976, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History General F6. 594 Ibid. 

192
Tucson; and James Officer of the University of Arizona.595 An editorial in the Bisbee 

Review noted that none of the members of the new Commission were from Cochise, or 

even Santa Cruz, County in southeastern Arizona. The slight was especially galling 

given that Governor Castro had been born in Cananea and grew up in Cochise County.596

 Considering his early activity and prominent place on the listings of potential and 

then appointed Commission members, Ben Avery may be seen as a driving force behind 

the new Commission. At its founding and in its earliest days, Charles Morgan had 

provided much of the impetus for the Arizona Commission. Later Grace Sparkes kept 

the dream of an international memorial alive through her leadership of the state 

Commission as well as the Bisbee Committee. Philip Welles restarted effort in the 1960s 

and operated under the auspices of the Arizona Commission until he was forced to resign 

for health reasons. In 1975 and 1976, Ben Avery’s name was prominent in the unfolding 

of the newest Arizona Commission. 

 This Arizona Commission found counterparts in Mexico who shared their vision 

and commitment to the cause of the international memorial. Sergio Bribiesca, the State 

Director of Tourism for Sonora, worked with the National Park Service staff on special 

events at the Memorial. At the September 1976 Borderlands Symposium, at Coronado 

National Memorial, Bribiesca announced that the government of Sonora was about to set 

aside three areas for international parks on its border with Arizona. An international 

Coronado Memorial would be joined by a new binational cultural center near Nogales 

 

595 John Clay, General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, 

Phoenix, March 24, 1976, ibid. 

596 “Cochise County overlooked,” Bisbee Review, March 18, 1976, 2, WACC, Folder L 62: International Parks F51; 

John L. Myers, The Arizona Governors 1912-1990 (Phoenix: Heritage Publishers, Inc., 1989), 139. 

193
and a cooperative effort at Organ Pipe and Pinacate.597 That initiative never took place. 

Those involved blamed officials higher up in both national governments for their lack of 

support. 

 Within the National Park Service, Chief of the International Park Affairs Division 

Robert C. Milne encouraged his colleagues to drop the Coronado issue in talks with 

Mexico lest they torpedo other plans. Milne wrote that Mexican officials had “strongly 

and emotionally” expressed their opposition to commemoration of Spanish 

conquistadores in binational talks. Other projected cooperative plans, such as Organ Pipe 

and Big Bend, were much more promising, especially if the controversial topic of 

Coronado was taken off the agenda.598 Arizona Commission Chair, Bernard Fontana 

suggested that Coronado’s name be dropped from the Memorial in favor of “Pimería 

Alta,” the Spanish colonial name for the region, if that would improve the prospects of 

the international project.599 After almost four decades, such a change of name and theme 

was most unlikely. Several months later, Fontana resigned from the Commission, saying 

that he felt that the international memorial could only be accomplished at the federal 

level. Despite “tremendous cooperation and support” from Sonorans, nothing had been 

done by the national governments of either country. He added that Ben Avery favored 

abolishing the Commission until such time as it had more likelihood of success.600 

 During the same time, state commission members took another approach to 

gaining federal backing for the international memorial. In 1977, they seized on a 

 

597 Thomas B. Carroll, Interpretative Specialist, to Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, Hereford, October 3, 

1976, WACC, Folder L 62: International Parks F51. 

598 Robert C. Milne, Chief, International Park Affairs Division, NPS, to Associate Regional Director, Operations, 

Western Region, NPS, October 28, 1977, ibid. 

599 Bernard L. Fontana, Chairman, Coronado International Monument Commission , to Sergio Bribiesca E., Phoenix, 

November 18, 1977, ibid. 

600 Fontana to Governor Bruce Babbit, Phoenix, June 2, 1978, ibid. 

194
statement by the first lady, Rosalynn Carter, that she would be interested in working with 

her counterpart in Mexico to establish international cultural centers in the border area.601 

The Commission invited Mrs. Carter to attend the next year’s annual Historical 

Pageant.602 The letterhead of a follow-up to this invitation shows that the Commission in 

1978 was made up of Bernard Fontana, of the Arizona State Museum in Tucson, Chair; 

along with Avery as Secretary, Officer, Ronstadt, and Dr. Alfred R. French of 

Phoenix.603 Mrs. Carter did not attend, or at least there was no mention of it in 

descriptions of the 1978 event. 

 Thus, another period of state activity failed to bear fruit in the form of an 

international memorial. In October 1982, James Officer reported that the governor “has 

reappointed me to the Commission, but I can’t imagine we will begin to function until 

after Mexico installs the new president.”604 He could have gone further, as Fontana and 

Avery had, and recognized that no state commissions, in either Sonora or Arizona, was 

likely to succeed without the energetic cooperation of both national governments. 

According to Charles Morgan, the Commission was at some point “legitimized by a 

legislative act,” as a permanent entity.605 It had long been more a front organization for 

particular energetic promoters than an enduring structure. As the story of the land 

acquisition of 1978 demonstrates, Coronado National Memorial had, by that time, 

garnered support, as well as opposition, from a number of groups and individuals. With 

its future existence much more certain, the energy of its allies could be expended on site 

rather than in the political arena. 

 

601 Fontana to Rosalynn Carter, February 21, 1978, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F9. 602 Fontana to Dale, Tucson, August 24, 1977, ibid. 603 Ibid; Fontana to Carter, February 21, 1978. 604 James Officer to Dale, Tucson, October 3, 1982, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F15. 605 “Charles M. Morgan Interview, May 14, 1974, Phoenix, AZ,” by Tom White 

195
196
Part II—Land Acquisition 

Chapter VII 

Early Peoples, Settlers, and Speculators: The Land before the Memorial 

Nothing Ever Happens in Cochise County—Al Arrowhood, 

local historian 

...there is nothing in that flat country which is of any interest 

except to the people who are running cattle on it. -- Charles 

Wiswall, Cananea Cattle Company, 1950 

Romance, history, buried treasure, gold mines, camping, and 

picnic areas and soul-restoring scenery are offered by our 

beautiful Huachuca Mountains. –- Grace McCool, Tombstone 

Epitaph, 1967. 

 Coronado National Memorial commemorates the arrival of the first Europeans in 

southeastern Arizona. Human habitation in the area dates to a far earlier period. Long 

before the Spanish imagined golden cities to the north of Mexico, hunter gatherer groups 

had developed into agricultural communities along the river basins of southern Arizona. 

Later, invaders and settlers raised crops and livestock, cut timber, mined ores, built forts, 

homesteads, and, eventually, retirement villages. In the twentieth century, recreation and 

tourism drew more people to the Southwest than tales of gold and silver or grants of 

public land. Parks like the Coronado National Memorial are a recent but important part 

of the story of land use. 

 In the early 1950s, as the Coronado Memorial dream finally became reality, 

archeologists unearthed intermingled bones from humans and mammoths in the San 

Pedro and Sulphur Springs valleys just to the east. When tested, those artifacts proved to 

197
be some 11,000 years old.606 The prehistoric culture that developed in the area was given 

the name “Cochise” by archeologists for the county in which they found many of the sites 

that defined it. Stages within the Cochise culture, which lasted from about 10,000 to 

2,500 years ago, were taken from local geography as well. The ultimate stage of Cochise 

Culture is named “San Pedro” in honor of archeological finds in the valley adjacent to the 

Coronado Memorial.607 Several Cochise Culture sites, primarily from the Chiricahua 

Stage (8,000 to 3,000 B.C.), have been found in Montezuma Canyon.608

 Over time, through the movement of people and ideas, various regional cultures 

developed, among them the Mogollon, Hohokam, and Salado. The San Pedro River lay 

at the margins of these cultures. Ruins within the valley and its tributaries exhibit 

mixtures of characteristics and influences, and scholars disagree as to the exact 

relationship between the groups in the area or cultural affiliations of each site.609 The 

exact relationship between the prehistoric cultures studied by archeologists and the 

groups first met by the Spanish in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is also less than 

certain. 

 It appears that several sites in the San Pedro Valley were settled during the few 

centuries preceding the arrival of the Spanish. Evidence of human occupation during that 

 

606 E.B. Sayles, The San Simon Branch: Excavations at Cave Creek in the San Simon Valley. I. Material Culture, 

Medallion Papers, No. XXXIV (Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo, 1945), iv; Jay J. Wagoner, Early Arizona: Prehistory to 

Civil War (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1975), 11-13. 607 Harold Sterling Gladwin, Excavations at Snaketown. IV. Reviews and Conclusions, Medallion Papers, No. XXXVIII 

(Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo, 1948), 127-131. 

608 Yvonne G. Stewart, “Montane Cochise Culture Sites in Coronado National Memorial,” Proceedings of the First 

Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, Volume II, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 9-12, 1976, 

Edited by Robert M. Linn; Sponsored by National Park Service and American Institute of Biological Sciences. 

Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings 

Series, Number 5, 1979, CORO MAX 1 - Archeology, Folder 75a: Archeological Survey, CORO Files. 609 Carr Tuthill, The Tres Alamos Site on the San Pedro River, Southeastern Arizona (Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind 

Foundation, Inc., 1947), 15,83-86; Charles C. Di Peso, The Babocomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, 

Southeastern Arizona (Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind Foundation, Inc., 1951), 224-241; Charles C. Di Peso, The 

Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley, Southeastern Arizona (Dragoon: The Amerind Foundation, 

Inc., 1953), 1-4. 

198
period has been found within the boundaries of Coronado National Memorial.610 

According to scholar Harold Sterling Gladwin, the San Pedro Valley was one of only a 

few centers of the great sedentary cultures to survive in the Southwest as late as 1400.611 

At that time there were pueblos on the San Pedro and Babocomari rivers and at the 

mouths of the major canyons along the eastern edge of the Huachuca Mountains.612 

Despite the existence of apparent archeological gaps, Charles Di Peso concludes that the 

residents of the San Pedro Valley had a continuous heritage from the mammoth hunters 

of the distant past to the residents of the rancherías found by the first Spaniards to enter 

Arizona.613

 The journals of Coronado and his immediate predecessor, Fray Marcos de Niza, 

only add confusion to the task of describing the San Pedro River valley of their time. 

Fray Marcos evidently described places that he never saw and was not universally 

believed by his own peers. In addition, his account is so sketchy as to be nearly 

impossible to match to specific locales. The San Pedro Valley in the vicinity of the 

Memorial is one of the more controversial areas in the debates concerning Coronado’s 

route. The historiographical debate surrounding that topic was covered in Chapter 2, 

above. One disputed issue involved the description of the native population in areas 

thought to be the San Pedro Valley. 

 It seems, following Di Peso, that sixteenth-century Spanish expeditions should 

have encountered settled farming communities if or when they passed through the San 

 

610 Archeologist, Division of Archeology, Western Archeological and Conservation Center (WACC), to Chief, Division 

of Archeology, WACC, Tucson, December 10, 1990, CORO MAX 1 - Archeology, Folder 90a: Montezuma Cave 

Artifacts, CORO Files. 

611 Harold Sterling Gladwin, A History of the Ancient Southwest (Portland, Maine: The Bond Wheelwright Company, 

1957), 337. 

612 Di Peso, The Babocomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, 5,239. 613 Di Peso, The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley, 263-268. 

199
Pedro River Valley. Certainly, that was the character of the archeological sites from a 

century before Coronado. More than another century would pass after Coronado before 

another Spanish chronicle described the area’s natives. However, during that time, 

Spanish settlers and settlements drew ever closer. 

 In the middle of the seventeenth century, the hacienda, later town, of Bacanuchi 

was founded south of Cananea by José Romo de Vivar. At various times, Romo de Vivar 

had several native rancherías under his jurisdiction, including some in the San Pedro 

Valley north of the later international border. One village under his administration was 

San Joachín de Huachuca, on the Babocomari River north of the Huachuca Mountains.614 

Father Eusebio Francisco Kino described a trail from Quiburi, a few miles north of 

Fairbank, going west to Huachuca.615 According to James Officer, Romo de Vivar “had 

property in Cananea and at the south end of the Huachuca Mountains as early as 

1680.”616 Officer’s citations do not bear him out on that particular point, but certainly 

Romo de Vivar was no stranger to the Huachuca Mountains. 

 Before the Spanish became established on the San Pedro, they already had 

conflicts with the resident Sobaipuri Pima Indians and knew them as fierce fighters. The 

Sobaipuri were long suspected of stealing horses from the Spanish. According to Spanish 

Captain Juan Mateo Manje, that suspicion was tempered by the results of a battle in 

which the Pima, evidently those known as Sobaipuri, killed sixty Apaches and captured 

 

614 Francisco R. Almada, Diccionario de historia, geografia y biografia sonorense (Hermosillo: Instituto Sonorense de 

Cultura, 1990), 612. 

615 Herbert Eugene Bolton, Rim of Christendom: a Biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino, Pacific Coast Pioneer (New 

York: The MacMillan Company, 1936), 248,n.2; 269. There has been inconsistency between authors in the placement of 

accents in the name of the Sobaipuri and their village, Quiburi; following Di Peso, neither name is accented here. 616 James E. Officer, Hispanic Arizona, 1536-1856 (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1987), 31. 

200
seventy horses.617 A military expedition was mounted against the Indians of the San 

Pedro in 1692. Rather than bloodshed, however, it led to the beginning of a long and 

friendly relationship. Soon thereafter, the famous Jesuit priest, Father Kino, visited the 

Sobaipuri on the San Pedro River for the first time. He referred to the river as the Río de 

San Joseph de Terrenate, or de Quiburi.618

 A few years later, in late 1697, Captain Manje accompanied Kino to the San 

Pedro and described the country and its people. At Santa Cruz de Gaybanipitea, on the 

west side of the river near Fairbank, Manje saw a hilltop town surrounded by irrigated 

farmland. He counted about one hundred people living in twenty five houses. The 

Spaniards were put up in a flat roofed adobe house that, recounted Manje, had been built 

for a missionary that the Indians had requested. The village had one hundred cows, 

which had earlier been brought by Father Kino. 

 The next morning, Kino and Manje traveled one league north, downstream along 

the San Pedro River, to the village of Quiburi, where they stayed in another adobe house. 

Manje described pasturelands and irrigated fields of corn, beans, and cotton. He counted 

one hundred dwellings and five hundred residents. The Indians wore cotton clothing. 

Quiburi was the home of a celebrated Sobaipuri chief the Spanish called Captain Coro. 

Coro and his people displayed trophies from their battles with the Apaches, including 

scalps.619 Di Peso notes that Quiburi had only been settled in the few years prior to 

Manje’s visit though Indians had lived on the site, at least intermittently, for centuries.620 

 

617 Harry J. Karns (trans.), Unknown Arizona and Sonora 1693-1721: From the Francisco Fernández del Castillo 

version of Luz de Tierra Incógnita by Captain Juan Mateo Manje. An English Translation of Part II (Tucson: Arizona 

Silhouettes, 1954), 74-75. 

618 Herbert Eugene Bolton, Rim of Christendom, 266-269. 619 Karns, Unknown Arizona and Sonora 1693-1721, 77-79. 620 Di Peso, The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley, 26,55-63. 

201
From, Quiburi, Kino and Manje continued downstream, passing other villages along the 

way, some of which were deserted.621

 Manje’s description is of, perhaps, the golden age of the Sobaipuri of the San 

Pedro River. The Spanish desired to use the Sobaipuri as a bulwark against the Apache 

and their allies to the east. They purposely forced a break in relations between the groups 

and isolated the San Pedro villages from their neighbors, then proved unable to provide 

the support essential for carrying on the incessant warfare that they had provoked. 

Within a year of Manje’s visit, in 1698, a large battle on the San Pedro, though won by 

the Sobaipuri, proved that the area had become too dangerous, and Quiburi was 

abandoned. It was later resettled, but the Sobaipuri finally deserted the San Pedro for 

good during the 1760s.622 Father Kino often expressed the hope that missions would be 

established along the San Pedro River, but his dream never came to fruition. The area 

was to be the site of Spain’s imperial wars but not peaceful settlement. 

 A presidio occupied the site of Quiburi for a short time after the departure of the 

Sobaipuri but its existence, too, was brief and contingent. The Presidio San Phelipe de 

Guevavi, or Terrenate, was located west of the San Pedro River and south of the present 

international border from 1742-1775. In 1774, work began on a new site only a few 

leagues to the east, on the Arroyo de las Nutrias. Within a year, both the old presidio and 

the las Nutrias site were abandoned and the company moved to Quiburi in 1775. The 

presidio was called Santa Cruz, Kino’s name for the village where the 1698 battle had 

taken place. The “presidio of Santa Cruz, formerly of Terrenate,” lasted only five years. 

It was abandoned after much of its company, including two captains, had died at the 

 

621 Karns, Unknown Arizona and Sonora 1693-1721, 79-83. 622 Di Peso, The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley, 32,41. 

202
hands of the Chiricahua Apaches. In 1780, the company was moved back to las Nutrias, 

but only stayed there until 1787, when it moved again, this time to Soamca, south of 

Lochiel, Arizona. That presidio site survived well into the Mexican period.623

 In December 1766, an official expedition stopped at the Paraje de las Nutrias, then a 

well-known but undeveloped camping stop. Engineer Nicolás de Lafora described a laguna

(small lake), into which ran a creek that came from a mountain three leagues, somewhat less 

than eight miles, to the north. He called the mountain “Guachuca,” or Huachuca, and wrote 

that it contained an abundance of silver. He added that it was yielding ore despite the lack 

of men to work it due to danger from Indians.624 Lafora’s commander, the Marqués de 

Rubí, however, specified that only in more peaceful times was the “Sierra de Guachuca” a 

rich source of ores.625 Unfortunately, that is the only known reference to Spanish mining in 

the Huachuca Mountains. Obviously, they faced the same problem with hostile natives that 

later miners of the Southwest would. Also like later miners, rich strikes yielding “consistent 

large operations” eluded the Spanish miners.626

 A new era in the history of settlement in the San Pedro Valley began during the 

early nineteenth century when land was granted by the Mexican government to private 

landowners. The legal process of making the first grant in the vicinity of the Memorial 

was under way as Mexico’s struggle for independence neared its end in 1821. José Jesus 

Pérez, a soldier from Arispe, Sonora, requested four leagues of land in the vicinity of the 

abandoned town of Las Nutrias on which to graze livestock. Local officials negotiated 

 

623 John L. Kessell, “The Puzzling Presidio: San Phelipe de Guevavi, Alias Terrenate,” New Mexico Historical Review, 

XLI:1 (January 1966):38-39; Di Peso, The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley, 35. 624 Vito Alessio Robles (ed.), Nicolás de Lafora, relación del viaje que hizo a los presidios internos situados en la frontera 

de la América septentrional (México D.F.: Editorial Pedro Robredo, 1939), 124-125. 625 “Itinerario de el sr. Marques de Rubi Mariscal de Campo de los exercitos de S.M. en la Inspeccion que de Su Rl. 

orden hizo de los Presidios internos de esta Nva. españa en 1766 hasta 1768,” Thorn Family Spanish Colonial 

Documents Collection, The Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin. 

203
with Pérez and another citizen who was already grazing stock along the river and a tract 

was surveyed. At issue was a ciénaga, or marsh, which both considered the most 

significant source of water in the area. The ciénaga described in the documents may 

have been in the same place where Lafora earlier described a laguna, only during a drier 

time. 

 The San Pedro Grant was measured northward from a house known as San Pedro, 

evidently within the town of the same name, about seven miles south of the present 

international border. The line passed “the foot of Huachuca Mountain” just north of the 

mid-point of the grant. The granting process continued with Pérez paying stipulated fees 

for the land and papers being forwarded to the proper authorities to be approved. At that 

point Mexico gained its independence and the procedure was, as far as can be told, never 

completed. In 1832, the land was transferred to Rafael Elías and a legal title was issued. 

However, subsequent to the United States-Mexican War of 1846-1848 and the Gadsden 

Purchase of 1853 much of the San Pedro Valley belonged to the United States and all 

land titles had to be confirmed by the new rulers. The San Pedro Grant was rejected by 

the United States, mainly on the basis of government evidence that supported a 

contention that the grant was wholly within the new boundaries of Mexico.627

 The disputed boundary of the San Pedro Grant, in turn, affected the eventual 

disposition of two grants directly to its north along the San Pedro River. In 1827, the San 

Rafael del Valle Grant was measured from the north line of the San Pedro Grant and the 

San Juan de las Boquillas y Nogales Grant north from it. During its confirmation, the 

case of the San Rafael del Valle Grant had the distinction of being appealed to the United 

 

626 John P. Wilson, Islands in the Desert: A History of the Uplands of Southeastern Arizona (Albuquerque: University 

of New Mexico Press, in cooperation with the Historical Society of New Mexico, 1995), 158. 

204
States Supreme Court twice, for different issues, once by the government and once by the 

petitioners. In the end, both grants were confirmed, though neither ended up being nearly 

as large as the petitioners thought. Though they were all originally surveyed, as noted, 

with common boundaries, the resulting grants did not come near touching one another.628

 Members of the same family, named Elías, were involved in both the San Pedro 

and the San Juan de las Boquillas y Nogales grants but the family had transferred its 

interests before the confirmation process. The Elías clan had other interests in the area as 

well, being the original claimants to the massive San Ignacio del Babocomari Grant, 

north of the Huachuca Mountains on Babocomari Creek.629 The San Rafael del Valle 

grant had been sold to members of the Camou family of Hermosillo, Sonora, before it 

was confirmed.630 In 1905, copper and cattle baron William Cornell Greene added it to 

his transnational empire. Greene already owned the San Rafael de la Zanja Grant, 

directly west of the Huachuca Mountains, at that time. In 1912, after Greene’s death, his 

family sold San Rafael del Valle to the Boquillas Land and Cattle Company along with 

over fifty smaller ranches in Arizona and Sonora.631

 The Boquillas Land and Cattle Company owed its name to the San Juan de las 

Boquillas y Nogales Grant, which it had purchased in 1901 from the famous Hearst 

newspaper family of California. Senator George Hearst, the father of William Randolph 

Hearst, had been a partner of George Hill Howard, who had bought up the grant from the 

original heirs. The Boquillas Company eventually became a subsidiary of the Kern 

 

627 J.J. Bowden, Private Land Claims in the Southwest, (Thesis for degree of Master of Laws in Oil and Gas, Southern 

Methodist University, 1969), II:1927-1937. 

628 Ibid, 1910-1926. 629 Ibid, 1881-1898. 630 Ibid, 1917-1926. 631 Jay J. Wagoner, Early Arizona, 192-197; Sonnichsen, Colonel Greene and the Copper Skyrocket, 237-239;290,n.14. 

The complex saga of San Rafael de la Zanja Grant is worthy of a chapter of its own; for a summary, see Bowden, 

Private Land Claims in the Southwest, 1819-1830. 

205
County Land and Cattle Company, one of the largest landowners in the United States 

through its ranching and farming interests all over the west. In 1967, the Kern Company 

merged with Tenneco, Inc., which has developed some of its land in the San Pedro 

Valley.632

 The tale of the San Pedro Valley grants, with featured roles played by such largescale landowners, and prominent families, as the Elíases, Greenes, and Hearsts, illustrates 

one aspect of the region in the nineteenth century. Mixed in among the giants, however, 

were many small operations run by poor families just trying to survive the arid climate on 

the bounty of their land. When settlement increased in southeastern Arizona after the 

Gadsden Treaty, the newcomers, like their predecessors, sought the water necessary to 

survival in the desert. Much of the land along the San Pedro River was controlled by the 

Mexican grants and then by their successors. The earliest homesteads in the valley were 

founded in the early 1880s along the river’s tributaries and at nearby springs. Among the 

existing water courses that drew early settlers to the area was Montezuma Creek. 

 William Ratliff, originally of the Big Bend country of Texas, was the first AngloAmerican settler in Montezuma Canyon. He moved his family from the Gila River 

Valley in New Mexico to the Huachucas by covered wagon in the 1880s or 1890s.633 

Ratliff chose Montezuma Canyon because it had a permanent stream at that time and he 

planned to do some farming. To provide immediate income, the Ratliff family began to 

log in the Huachuca Mountains, delivering the wood to Naco.634 They brought some 

horses and a small herd of cattle to the area at the same time.635 The Ratliff family is 

 

632 Wagoner, Early Arizona, 192-197. 633 One local source recalled that Ratliff arrived in the late 1890s, George Brown, interview by Thomas B. Carroll, 

September 20, 1974; another thought it was about 1885, Buck D’Albini, “Presentation,” n.d., CORO Files. 634 George Brown, 1974. 635 Buck D’Albini, “Presentation” 

206
thought to have begun building a residence on Montezuma Creek in 1902.636 At the very 

least, the residence, later known to locals as Baumkirchner’s adobe house, was built prior 

to 1916.637 

According to documents filed by the Surveyor General’s office in 1917, William 

Ratliff officially applied for his 160 acre claim on October 22, 1911. The survey was 

executed March 12-13, 1914, and approved August 8, 1917 for 158.23 acres. Ratliff’s 

Homestead Entry Survey 311 consisted of the south half of the northwest quarter and 

north half of the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, 

Gila and Salt River Meridian. Montezuma Wash ran through the southwest corner of the 

property from northwest to southeast.638

Ed Ratliff, William’s oldest son, made a homestead claim directly west of 

William’s place. Papers filed in 1917 show that Ed Ratliff applied for his 160 acre claim 

on February 3, 1911. The survey was executed March 11-12, 1915, and approved August 

8, 1917, with 157.72 acres. Ed Ratliff’s homestead consisted of the south half of the 

northeast quarter and north half of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 24 

South, Range 21 East. Montezuma Wash ran through it from northwest to southeast as 

well.639

Another son, named William, came to own claims to the east and southeast of his 

father’s land.640 The younger William’s property was, according to a later family 

 

636 Cochise Chapter of The Arizona Archeological Society, “The Ratliff Ranch: A Chronology,” n.d., CORO Files. 637 Laurel Dale, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Thomas Mulhern, Historic Preservation, Western 

Regional Office, Hereford, February 23, 1976, Re: Historic Structures at Coronado National Memorial, Ibid; George 

Brown is given as the main source of information for this report. 638 Approval of field notes of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, Office of the U.S. Surveyor General, Phoenix, 

Arizona, August 8, 1917, Ibid. 

639 Approval of field notes of Homestead Entry Survey No. 310, Office of the U.S. Surveyor General, Phoenix, Az., 

August 8, 1917, Ibid. 

640 Sketch map of homestead claims, n.d., Ibid. 

207
member, sold to George Brown.641 In addition, an adopted daughter named Inez, but 

called “Tiny,” married John Pyeatt, who owned the claim directly east of the original 

Ratliff homestead. Pyeatt’s claim, later known as the Montezuma Ranch, is discussed 

below. By the middle of the second decade of the twentieth century, then, the Ratliff 

family was settled all around the base of the Huachuca Mountains along Montezuma 

Creek. 

William Ratliff died in 1917, leaving the land to be split among his heirs. At the 

time he was also grazing cattle on National Forest land. Ed Ratliff was the executor of 

his father’s will and representative of the heirs. In 1932, nine Ratliffs by name or 

marriage transmitted their claims to George Ratliff, another son of the elder William. Ed 

and his wife, Ira, quit claimed an unspecified tract, evidently Homestead Entry Survey 

310, to George in a separate transaction. On 30 September 1933, George and Annie 

Ratliff conveyed both Homestead Entry Surveys, 310 and 311, to Marko Vucinich. On 

21 November 1933, Vucinich, in turn, transferred both homesteads to Joe Zaleski.642 

Zaleski came to own at least four homestead entry surveys at the mouth of 

Montezuma Canyon. Another was the Homestead of John Pyeatt. Pyeatt first took up a 

claim in Cochise County under the Homestead Act in 1909. His first claim was on the 

east side of the San Pedro River, northeast of Coronado National Memorial. He built a 

small house and repaired an already existing structure, strung fence, and put in a crop on 

five or six acres. Later in the same year a flood destroyed or damaged all of the 

improvements that he had made on the land. Deciding that he could not afford to start 

 

641 Jack Ratliff, interview by Sandra Tate and Ellen Bolduc, n.d., Ibid. 642 Cochise Chapter of The Arizona Archeological Society, “The Ratliff Ranch,” n.d. 

208
over again, Pyeatt abandoned the entry. He was able to sell the vestiges of his 

improvements on the land to Rufus M. Thompson for $250.00 before the end of 1909.643

In November 1915, Pyeatt settled on the Montezuma Ranch site. He applied for a 

homestead claim in June 1917.644 That tract had also been claimed and relinquished 

previously. Cornelius N. Driscoll had first claimed the Montezuma Ranch land in July 

1913.645 By the middle of 1914, as Pyeatt was migrating west, Driscoll moved east 

across the San Pedro River and made a new claim under the Homestead Act. Driscoll 

explained that he had relinquished his first claim because the road to it had washed out. 

In addition, he had learned from neighbors that water was a problem as the creek was 

then dry and wells needed to be drilled to a depth of 200 feet.646

Pyeatt’s claim to the Montezuma Ranch property was approved and a deed was 

granted in July 1921. Pyeatt’s patent was recorded, having “been established and duly 

consummated, in conformity to law,” on December 4, 1925. The 160 acre property was 

described as the south half of northeast quarter and north half of the southeast quarter of 

Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and 

Meridian, Arizona.647 John Pyeatt, as already mentioned, married Inez “Tiny” Ratliff, 

the adopted daughter of the family that owned the two claims west of his new homestead 

and probably more. According to local lore, Inez’s parents worked for the Ratliffs. They 

 

643 Application for Second Entry, John Pyeatt, U.S. Land Office, Phoenix, Arizona, June 4, 1917, WACC, Folder L 

1425: Land Holdings – Pyeatt F6; Bart Barbour, “Dude Ranches at Coronado National Memorial: A Brief History,” 

n.d., CORO Files. 

644 Testimonies of Witnesses Zeno Aston and Robert Fourr, Homestead Entry, Final Proof, April 14, 1921, WACC, 

Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Pyeatt F6; Homestead Entry Application, John Pyeatt, Received U.S. Land Office, 

Phoenix, Arizona, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Pyeatt F6. 

645 Office of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture to Office of the Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D.C., December 

27, 1913, Ibid. 

646 Application for Amendment, Cornelius N. Driscoll, September 23, 1914, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – 

Driscoll F7. 

647 Final Certificate, Homestead, John Pyeatt, Approved June 29, 1921, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Pyeatt 

F6; Barbour, “Dude Ranches.” 

209
suddenly left one night, leaving their daughter behind with the Ratliffs, who adopted 

her.648

 As John and Tiny were filing their homestead claim, around 1917, they 

built a small house on the property. It was remodeled and added to over the years, but 

remains as the center of a ranch house that exists today. That house is the furthest west 

of the two large buildings still standing on the Montezuma Ranch.649 John Pyeatt was 

dead within four years of his receiving final approval for his second homestead. His 

widow moved to Paso Robles, California, and in March 1929 she sold the lot to Joseph 

Zaleski.650 Joe Zaleski’s granddaughter, Betty Peterson-Stowe, added that Zaleski was 

approached by the president of the Miners and Merchants Bank which, evidently, held a 

loan on the property, about buying it from Tiny Pyeatt. The Zaleski family then lived on 

a homestead in the Hereford area.651 According to one source, they owned other land in 

Cochise County as well, some of it located within what would eventually become the 

town of Sierra Vista.652

 A few years after he bought the Pyeatt homestead, Zaleski also bought the Ratliff 

properties, to the west, as described above. Filling out Zaleski’s small empire was the 

Kudzmi claim to the south. The Kudzmi Homestead was made up of the South half of 

the Southeast quarter of Section 17 and Lots 1 and 2 of Section 20, Township 24 South, 

Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian. It was first claimed within the 

160 acre homestead claim of Elmer L. Hertel, as reflected in field notes dated March 3, 

 

648 Jack Ratliff, interview by Sandra Tate and Ellen Bolduc, n.d., CORO Files 649 Rufus D’Albini, interview by Peter Van Cleve, December 3, 1997; Buck D’Albini, “Presentation;” Jack Ratliff, n.d.; 

Barbour, “Dude Ranches;” George Brown, interview by Barbara Alberti, August 18, 1998, Ibid. 650 Barbour, “Dude Ranches;” George Brown 1998. 651 Betty Peterson-Stowe and Frank Peterson, interview by Donna B. Bertolini and Scott Sticha, July 16, 1999, CORO 

Files. 

652 Barbour, “Dude Ranches.” 

210
1915.653 Simon Kudzmi, a naturalized immigrant from Russia and veteran of World War 

I, settled on the same land in October 1928 and built a house in February 1929. Joe 

Zaleski was one of the witnesses for Kudzmi when he filed the final proofs for his 

homestead, which was approved at 133.67 acre.654 Eventually, Zaleski bought the claim 

from Kudzmi. 

About 1935 or 1936, Zaleski, with a partner named Rudy Becker, converted his 

property into a dude, or guest, ranch. They called it the Border Ranch and later 

Montezuma Ranch. When they opened Border Ranch, Zaleski and Becker built another 

house, originally one story with a basement, to the east of the original cabin. The house 

contained common rooms as well as guest rooms. Guests also stayed in small cabins. 

The Border Ranch was run as a family business and was frequented by locals as well. A 

1937 feature article named Rudy Becker’s son Wes as one of the “top wranglers” and 

Frank Zaleski, Joe’s son, as a “top cowhand.” Neighbor George Brown was described as 

“one of the most interesting and up-to-date ranchers in the state.”655

Guests at the ranch enjoyed many activities, including participation in seasonal 

round-ups, watching rodeos in which local cowboys competed, and western dances in 

Hereford. Most of the pastimes, according to descriptions, centered on horseback riding. 

Among the destinations were local landmarks such as Smuggler’s Pass and “the Caves.” 

One could also ride into the mountains to fish for trout, pan for gold, visit nearby gold 

 

653 Field Notes, Coronado National Forest, Elmer L. Hertel, March 3, 1915, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – 

Kudzmi F8. 

654 Notice of Publication, Simon Kudzmi, August 29, 1929; Testimony of Claimant, Simon Kudzmi, Final Proof, 

December 28, 1929; Testimonies of Witnesses William Norick and Joseph Zaleski, Homestead Entry, Final Proof, 

December 28, 1929, Ibid. 

655 Barbour, “Dude Ranches;” George Brown 1998; Betty Peterson-Stowe and Frank Peterson 1999; Tyne Turrie, 

“Riding the Range at Border Ranch,” Highway Traveler (June/July 1937), 12-13,40-44, CORO Files. 

211
mine shafts, and take in the now famous views. Across the plains, guests were 

encouraged to visit neighboring ranches and cross the border into Mexico. 

Naco, Arizona, offered golf, while the Sonora side featured shopping for 

souvenirs and the “thrill in visiting a foreign country.” Also across the border was the 

possibility of “a fiesta in one of the neighboring Mexican villages where you can enjoy 

watching the people from another land.” At the border crossing were “dashing, colorful 

Mexican vaqueros herding the cattle through the disinfectant vats.” Dude ranches were 

marketed to an urban audience as relaxation in a rustic setting, and the Montezuma Ranch 

was no exception. As an added attraction, the Montezuma Ranch also offered the exotica 

of ready access to a romanticized vision of Mexico.656 World War II cut into the tourist 

business but occasioned the expansion of Fort Huachuca. For a time, the Army used the 

guest ranch to house officers.657

The Zaleski and Becker names both remained associated with the ranch for more 

than a decade. Neighbor George Brown thought that Becker bought Zaleski out. Becker 

was sometimes listed as the manager of the dude ranch, as was Frank Zaleski. Frank 

Zaleski came to own the property and he kept it until the end of 1949. After World War 

II, around 1946 or 1947, Harry H. and Ruth Ethlyn Petersen began to manage the 

Montezuma Ranch.658 Citing a source from the Cochise County Assessor’s office, one 

author asserts that the Petersens purchased the ranch from Frank Zaleski on December 

13, 1949.659 However, in a June 1947 letter, Mr. Petersen described his wife and himself 

 

656 Turrie, “Riding the Range at Border Ranch.” 657 George Brown 1998. 658 George Brown 1998; Barbour, “Dude Ranches.” 659 Barbour, “Dude Ranches.” 

212
as the owners of the Montezuma Ranch.660 Very likely, the Petersens bought the 

property earlier, but paid off the property in 1949 when they sold it. On the same day 

that the Petersens completed their purchase in 1949, they transferred title to the property 

to Nancy Carter Nelms.661 In October 1950, Joe Zaleski transferred ownership of the rest 

of his property to his son Frank by way of a Gift Deed.662 

 Nancy Nelms, along with managers Don Brooks, Jean Faye, and Rex Watts ran 

Montezuma as a dude ranch and a summer camp for young girls for a few years. The 

summer camp taught horseback riding among other things. During that time a concrete 

swimming pool was installed near the original ranch house. A 1950 newspaper article 

described the 80,000 gallon, 30 foot by 60 foot, pool as a Christmas gift from Nelms’s 

mother. Guests at Montezuma Ranch continued to go on cattle round ups on the adjacent 

Zaleski ranch. Frank Zaleski still owned over 400 acres around the mouth of Montezuma 

Canyon as Coronado National Memorial prepared to open in 1952.663

 Aside from the 1766 remarks by Spanish observers Rubí and Lafora noted above, 

nothing is known of early mining in the area. In virtually every place where the Spanish 

trod in the Southwest there are stories of lost mines and hidden riches; the Huachucas are 

no different. Substantial mining came to the San Pedro Valley and surrounding 

mountains in the late 1870s.664 The original papers of the Lena Claim, the “oldest 

historic mine claim in Montezuma Canyon,” located it next to evidence of older mines. 

The origins of the older workings are unknown, but they are assumed to date from the 

 

660 H.H. Petersen to Sidney P. Osborn, Governor of Arizona, June 28, 1947, WACC, H 14: Area and Service History 

41-52 F3. 

661 George Brown 1998; Barbour, “Dude Ranches.” 662 Barbour, “Dude Ranches,” from Tracking Book, Cochise County Assessor’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona. 663 Barbour, “Dude Ranches;” George Brown 1998; Grace Sparkes, “Huachuca Area,” Bisbee Daily Review, June 18, 

1950, n.p.; Pete Van Cleve, “List of Classified Structures, CCC/WPA, Coronado Establishment and Land 

Acquisitions,” 1996, CORO Files. The names Jean Faye and Rex Watts were supplied by CORO staff, personal 

communication, July 2001. 

213
Spanish or Mexican periods and are often thought to represent workings from Lafora’s 

day or even earlier.665 In is study, Islands in the Desert, John Wilson, parenthetically, 

declared that Lafora was describing workings in Cave Creek Canyon, on the south side of 

the Huachuca Mountains.666

 The last mine in the canyon to produce in a big way, the State of Texas, occupied 

the same site as the Lena. The Lena was located in May 1878 by George J. Rasking and 

John L. Harris and recorded the next month by D.B. Ren. An 1880 newspaper article 

noted that there were then nine mines working in Montezuma Canyon. The Lena was 

renamed the Chicago Mine in 1885 under the ownership of Peter Connor and A.W. 

Emanuel.667 Connor (sometimes spelled Conner) and his partners filed several claims in 

Montezuma Canyon in 1879, among which was the Lookout, also thought to be on land 

later occupied by the State of Texas and its companion claims.668

 The State of Texas Mine itself was founded in the same location in 1889. Writers 

disagree as to the exact ownership of the State of Texas during its first few years of 

operation. Geoffrey T. Bohrer cites an 1889 claim by August Baron that reported a find 

of “mineral bearing quartz.”669 However, Peter M. Van Cleve, using Deeds of Mines in 

the Cochise County Recorders Office in Bisbee, Arizona, writes that Richard C. Van 

Dorn made the first State of Texas claim in 1889. According to Van Cleve, Van Dorn 

soon sold a one-third share of the mine to Peter Connor, who, in turn, sold it and other 

local mine interests to William Graf in 1892. In the meantime, in 1891, August Baron, 

 

664 Wilson Islands in the Desert, 158. 665 Peter M. Van Cleve, “History of Mining in the Coronado National Memorial” (1997), pp. 2-8, CORO Files. 666 Wilson, Islands in the Desert, 43,158. 667 Van Cleve, “History of Mining in the Coronado National Memorial,” 2-8. 668 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) on the Coronado National Memorial,” April 19, 1996, 

CORO Files. 

669 Baron claim, 1/1/1889, and Baron claim papers, 4/4/1898, from Geoffrey T. Bohrer, “Siamese Triplets: Grace 

Sparkes, The State of Texas Mine, and the Coronado National Memorial,” (National Park Service, 1993), pp. 1-2. 

214
exercising power of attorney for Van Dorn, sold the remaining two-thirds share of the 

State of Texas Mine and another mine to Graf. Then, in 1893, Baron purchased all of 

Graf’s interests, including the State of Texas.670

 In any case, by the middle of the 1890s, the State of Texas Mine belonged to 

August Baron, a banker and miner from Tombstone. Baron had the claim surveyed in 

1897 and the plat was approved in 1898.671 Some time later, Charles Gerdes, then of 

Gleeson, Arizona, stated that he had been Baron’s partner and “did the greater part of the 

development work on the claim” at that time.672 According to reports, twenty-five tons 

of high grade lead-silver-zinc ores were shipped to Canon City, Colorado, in 1897. 

Forty-two tons were shipped in 1898-1899.673

 In 1902, over forty mines in Montezuma and Copper canyons, including the State 

of Texas, were leased by the Mitchell Mining Company of Ishpeming, Michigan. The 

Mitchell Company mined copper at the site for a few years before relinquishing the leases 

to their former owners in 1906.674 Almost immediately, the Gray Metals Company began 

to operate the State of Texas, which was still owned by Baron. By 1914, the State of 

Texas No. Two, Extension, Bonita, Josephine, and New York mines had been added to 

the operation.675 A new 350-foot vertical shaft was dug near the main workings around 

the same time. Records indicate that ore was cut at varying depths, but do not indicate 

the quality of ore. That shaft has now been caved in for many years. The Arizona 

 

670 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 3-4. 671 Bohrer, “Siamese Triplets,” pp. 1-2. 672 Gerdes identified his former partner as “August Barron of Tombstone.” Charles Gerdes to Mssrs. Sparks [sic] and 

Moody, Gleeson, April 15, 1939, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 7, Folder 294. 

673 Robert D. O’Brien, “Appraisal of Mineral Interests Inherent in the State of Texas Mine Tracts No. 101-06, 101-07, 

101-08 Coronado National Monument,” (San Francisco: National Park Service, Western Region, 1979), p. 3. 674 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 5; Bohrer calls it the Mitchell Development Company, Bohrer, “Siamese 

Triplets, p. 2. 

675 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 5-6. 

215
Mining Journal of 1920 reported that ore containing silver, lead, and zinc was shipped by 

Gray Metals Company.676 

 August Baron died in 1913 and his mine properties were passed on to his wife, 

Christine. She promptly sold them to Douglas Gray of Tombstone, the owner of Gray 

Metals Company. In 1920, Gray took on two partners, Maurice Clark, of Douglas, and 

William H. Stilwell, of Phoenix, and incorporated a new incarnation of the Gray Metals 

Company as a publicly owned corporation. Gray sold his mines to the new corporation in 

1920 for $20,000. Only two years later, the State of Texas, Texas No. Two, Extension, 

Bonita, Josephine, and New York mines were sold at public auction as part of a court 

judgement against Gray. Nathan L. Amster bought them in August 1922 for 

$9,370.90.677

 In September 1926, T.J. Sparkes of Prescott, Arizona, and Burdett Moody of Los 

Angeles, California, purchased several mining claims in the Hartford Mining District 

from Nathan L. and Estelle D. Amster for $5,000. The purchase included the State of 

Texas, State of Texas No. Two, Extension, Bonita, Josephine, and New York mines.678 

The partners did little or no mining over the next fifteen years.679 In a January 1939 

letter, Grace Sparkes told Burdett Moody that her father, T.J. Sparkes, had recently died 

and discussed her family’s efforts to reopen the State of Texas Mine. She added that she 

had not visited the property in two years.680

 

676 O’Brien, “Appraisal of Mineral Interests,” p. 4. 677 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 6-7. 678 Sale Agreement, Nathan L. and Estelle D. Amster to T.J. Sparkes and Burdett Moody, September 1, 1926, Sparkes 

Collection, AHS, Box 12, Folder 464, Arizona Historical Society; Mining Deed, Nathan L. and Estelle D. Amster to 

T.J. Sparkes and Burdett Moody, September 27, 1926, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 12, Folder 470. 679 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 8. 680 Grace Sparkes Burdett Moody, c/o The Bureau Light, Water and Power, Los Angeles, Ca., Prescott, January 30, 

1939, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 7, Folder 294. 

216
 Moody replied that he and T.J. Sparkes had been hoping to sell the property and 

that he still wished to do so. He estimated that he had $8,000 to $9,000 invested in the 

mine property. A few months later he wrote that he was “in around $5000 to $6000 

altogether.”681 Given that the property had only cost $5,000 and had not been operated 

since its purchase, it can be surmised that Moody had put up the vast majority of the 

partners’ investment. T.J. Sparkes, a mining engineer, supplied expertise for the 

moribund enterprise.682

 Over the next few years, Grace Sparkes continued to pursue loans to reopen the 

mine and encouraged Moody to support her. She shared ownership of a half interest in 

the State of Texas property with her siblings as joint heirs to their father, T.J. However, 

she seemed to be the most active partner. Meanwhile, Moody persisted in his desire to 

divest of the State of Texas properties.683 Grace Sparkes was not alone in seeing the 

potential for turning a profit from the State of Texas. She and Moody received many 

offers from miners wishing to lease the property. None were accepted, as Sparkes was 

determined to keep the property and make it pay off for her rather than have others make 

money off her claim.684

 Sparkes saw threats to the property from other sources as well, including the then 

new idea of the Coronado National Memorial. In April 1940, Sparkes wrote to Moody, 

“I have done a good deal of work also to protect the claims against the Coronado 

Exposition idea,” meaning the Memorial. She continued that this “has meant work with 

 

681 Burdett Moody to Grace M. Sparkes, Los Angeles, February 1, 1939; Burdett Moody to Grace M. Sparkes, Los 

Angeles, May 4, 1939, Ibid. The Sparkes papers contain sales contracts, never executed, from this period that confirm 

that the property was in negotiation for sale. See especially Box 12, Folders 465-467. 682 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 7. 683 Burdett Moody to Grace M. Sparkes, Los Angeles, August 1, 1941, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 7, Folder 296, 

and others in the same folder. 

684 See, in particular, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 7, Folder 294. 

217
the Arizona Commission, The Forestry, U.S., Park and other officials.”685 During the 

same month, Sparkes wrote to Margaret Rockwell of the Arizona Commission, Coronado 

Cuarto Centennial Exposition. While she assured Mrs. Rockwell of her support for the 

Memorial, her primary concern was that it not threaten her mine holdings.686 Two years 

later, she informed Moody that the “entire camp was stolen when the CCC [Civilian 

Conservation Corps] constructed the road through the canyon.”687

 In 1942, Grace Sparkes was given total control of the State of Texas mine 

property. In June, Moody quit-claimed his share with the stipulation that he would 

receive half of future net profits or half of the net proceeds of any future sale.688 In 

September, the other Sparkes heirs quit-claimed their shares to Grace as well.689 She 

finally obtained a loan from the federal government in connection with the World War II 

effort, also in 1942, and the mine produced zinc from 1943-1946.690 Burdett Moody died 

in 1946. It is unclear what the relationship between he and Sparkes was at the time and 

whether his widow retained an interest in the property.691 As the 1950s began, Grace 

Sparkes controlled the State of Texas property and was also active in promoting the 

Memorial.

 The Huachuca Mountains and Montezuma Canyon were full of mining claims 

during the early decades of the twentieth century. A complete description of them could 

fill a book by itself. By 1978, when the Memorial expanded to the north side of 

 

685 Grace M. Sparkes to Burdett Moody, April 22, 1940, Sparkes Collection AHS, Box 7 Folder 295, and others in the 

same folder. 

686 Letter, Grace M. Sparkes, to Mrs. Foster Rockwell (Margaret), Vice Chairman, Arizona Commission, Coronado 

Cuarto Centennial Exposition, Prescott, April 11, 1940, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 23, Folder 956. 687 Grace M. Sparkes to Burdett Moody, April 7, 1942, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 7, Folder 297. 688 Mining Deed, Burdett and Sarah C. Moody sell and quit claim to Grace Sparkes, June 9, 1942, Sparkes Collection, 

AHS, Box 12, Folder 470; also see Folder 468. 

689 Mining Deed, Thomas J. Sparkes Jr. and wife Maybelle; Charity S. and Perry L. Bones; and Genevieve Sparkes, 

widow of John G. Sparkes; all of Yavapai County, sell and quit claim all of the mine claims to Grace Sparkes, 

September 21, 1942, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 12, Folder 470. 

218
Montezuma Canyon, thirteen claims had come to be owned by the Victorio Company. 

They became an issue for the Memorial and the National Park Service. Most of the 

claims eventually controlled by the Victorio Company had once been owned by Bruce 

Doredor. Doredor is thought to have immigrated from Italy.692 The claims were in two 

groups separated by the State of Texas mine properties. To the east were Doredor, Paring 

No. One, Paring No. Two, Paring No. Three, and Paring No. Four. To the west were Z.T. 

Parker, Chief, Fraction, Rubio, Tunnelsite, Miss Stake, Grub Stake No. Two, and Grub 

Stake No. Three. 

 According to a summary of mine claims compiled at Coronado National 

Memorial, the Miss Stake, Grub Stake No. Two, and Grub Stake No. Three mine claims, 

along with three others in their immediate vicinity, were claimed by Felix Livercio in 

March 1899. The Doredor, Paring No. One, Paring No. Two, Paring No. Three, Paring 

No. Four, Z.T. Parker, Chief, Fraction, Rubio, and Tunnelsite were claimed by Bruce 

Doredor. The four Paring mines were claimed in 1901 and the Doredor claim in 1920. 

The western group are said to have been claimed in 1909.693 All thirteen claims were 

patented by Bruce Doredor on April 10, 1920.694 One source placed Doredor in the 

canyon and on those claims much earlier, probably before 1900.695

 The same summary of mine claims cited above lists purchase of Z.T. Parker, 

Chief, Fraction, Rubio, Tunnelsite, Grub Stake No. Two, and Miss Stake by 

“Clark/Smith” in 1938.696 Bill Clark was on the Board of Supervisors and was said to 

 

690 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 8. 691 Sarah Moody to Grace Sparkes, Los Angeles, 1946, Sparkes Collection, AHS, Box 7, Folder 299. 692 George Brown 1998. 693 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands;” “Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) and Related List of Classified 

Structure (LCS),” n.d., CORO Files. 

694 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands.” 695 Dale to Mulhern, Hereford, February 23, 1976. 696 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands.” 

219
have purchased the property for back taxes.697 Clark and Smith owned the claims 

through the 1950s but did little or nothing to exploit them. 

 As Coronado National Memorial was being designed during the 1940s, mining 

property within its eventual boundaries was largely limited to two owners. The State of 

Texas claims were owned, or at least managed, by Grace Sparkes, while two groups of 

claims surrounding the Sparkes lands were owned by Clark and Smith. The same was 

true of the lands formerly contained in four homesteads at the mouth of Montezuma 

Canyon on the east side of the Huachuca Mountains. The Zaleski family still owned 

three and had just sold the forth. The Montezuma Ranch was still being run as a camp 

and tourist ranch. 

 The physical design of the Memorial was explicitly shaped by a desire to avoid 

mineral deposits and protect the grazing rights of a few local ranchers within the area. 

The outcome was the Memorial that was proclaimed by the President on November 5, 

1952, its specifications were based upon “section 1 of the act of August 18, 1941, 55 Stat. 

630 (16 U.S.C. 450 y) as amended by Public Law 478, 82nd Congress, approved July 9, 

1952.” 

 The Memorial was originally located in Township 24 South, Range 20 East: 

Section 10, Section 11, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 22, Section 23, and 

Section 24; and Township 24 South, Range 21 East: Section 17, Section 18, Section 19, 

and Section 20.698 Those sections are along the international boundary, in the south end 

of the Huachuca Mountains, both east and west of Montezuma Pass, and generally south 

of an unpaved road that became the main road through the Memorial.

 

697 Dale to Mulhern, February 23, 1976. 

220
 The seemingly neverending story of the Memorial’s land took on a history of its 

own. In the next decades, as the Memorial expanded its protective boundary, other 

adjacent lands came into play. 

 

698 Establishment of the Coronado National Memorial (Name change from International Memorial), Arizona, By the 

President of the United States, A Proclamation (No. 2995), November 5, 1952, ILRPC Files. 

221
Chapter VIII 

Private Development and “Boundary Adjustment - a Radical Proposal,”6991952-

1978

Although CORO has been set aside as a historical area, its 

primary use is by those interested in the wildlife and scenery. –

- Coronado Superintendent Hugo Huntzinger, 1970.

 Coronado National Memorial was founded in 1952 through a land transfer from 

the National Forest Service to the National Park Service. The Memorial’s configuration 

was shaped through a process that focused more on domestic political concerns, mostly 

the protection of private property and mining and grazing rights, than on natural 

resources or historical commemoration. The Park Service and Memorial staff would 

soon find that the land they had been given charge of was not conducive to preservation 

or development as either a historical or environmental entity, let alone as both. That 

realization, recognized in stages, led to two major boundary adjustments, in 1960 and 

1978. The second change would bring sizable private inholdings within the Memorial. 

That private land went through changes in ownership and status over the decades before 

it was brought into the Memorial that would create problems for the future acquisition 

program. 

Nancy Nelms owned the Montezuma Ranch in the late 1940s and early 1950s, as 

the Memorial was opening, and ran it as a summer camp and dude ranch. By 1951, 

Nelms cut back operations, in line with the general decline of the market for such 

operations. In 1955, she listed the Montezuma Ranch for sale with realtor George Howe 

of Tucson. Howe went for a visit, reportedly so that he could better describe it in sales 

222
materials, and was impressed with the property. Howe was so impressed that, on 

November 21, 1955, he and his wife, Martha, purchased Montezuma Ranch themselves. 

With the departure of Nancy Nelms, the dude ranch period came to an end. The Howes 

earned some income on the ranch by renting apartments to people from Fort Huachuca 

but could not make it profitable. Nonetheless, they held onto it for nearly two decades.700

At that time, much of the rest of the property at the mouth of Montezuma Canyon 

belonged to the Zaleski family. The Zaleskis owned the former Ratliff Homestead Entry 

Surveys, numbered 310 and 311, west of Montezuma Ranch. Both contained just less 

than 160 acres. They also owned the 133.67 acre Kudzmi homestead, south of 

Montezuma Ranch. Joe Zaleski had ceded the three homesteads to his son, Frank, by 

way of a Gift Deed in October 1950. In 1956, Frank quit-claimed it all back to Joe.701 

The next year, in April 1957, Joe Zaleski sold the same property to John A. and Inez Z. 

Jones. Included in the sale were over one hundred head of cattle, a few horses, 

“miscellaneous tools, equipment, and furniture,” and a stock brand.702

 After Coronado National Memorial was founded, in 1952, the National Park 

Service plotted its development. However, the 1952 bill specified that no money would 

be appropriated for the Memorial.703 It was not until July of 1954 that funding was 

finally approved for the Memorial.704 Shortly thereafter, the Memorial still had no 

money, no Master Plan, and no permanently assigned personnel. Nor was it known 

 

699 “Boundary Adjustment – a Radical Proposal,” n.d., WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – Surveys & 

Reports F1. 

700 George Brown 1998; Bart Barbour, “Dude Ranches.” 701 Barbour, “Dude Ranches,” from Tracking Book, Cochise County Assessor’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona; Quit-Claim 

Deed, Frank Zaleski to Jose Zaleski, Signed January 3, 1956, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 142, pages 239-241. 702 Warranty Deed, Joe Zaleski, aka José, and wife Lucy, to John A. and Inez Z. Jones, Signed April 19, 1957, CCR, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 166, pages 587-588. 

703 Untitled, undated, copy of Congressional debate on bill, H.R. 7553, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data, 

General F11. 

704 Senator Carl Hayden to Grace Sparkes, Washington, D.C., July 2, 1954, Ibid. 

223
where personnel would stay once they were assigned to the Memorial.705 Upon hearing 

that funds had been appropriated, Grace Sparkes, owner and resident of the State of 

Texas mine, immediately contacted NPS. She wrote: “I want to cooperate and would like 

to have your Park official quartered at our camp.”706 Sparkes, a member of the Coronado 

Commission, had already proven herself a supporter when she signed a right of way 

agreement in June 1951, before the Memorial was actually established.707

 In the fall of 1954, Sparkes received a response from NPS, saying that they 

would, indeed, like to rent her cabin for use as an office.708 They asked how much rent 

she would charge on the cabin and added that they would also like to put a house trailer 

on the property and hook it up to water and electricity. The trailer would require 

installation of a septic tank as well.709 Within a couple weeks, a purchase order was sent 

to Sparkes to cover rent for twenty-six days in December 1954. Meanwhile, a more 

permanent lease agreement was worked out to start at the beginning of 1955.710 In 

January 1955, the first of a series of leases took effect, covering a cabin, space for a 

trailer, and electricity and water. The cabin rented for thirty dollars per month, trailer 

space for five dollars per month, and water and electricity for another five dollars.711 An 

annual lease commenced in July of 1955 which specified that eight dollars a month 

would be charged for electricity and two dollars for water, while the cost of the cabin and 

 

705 Ray B. Ringenbach, Superintendent, Tumacacori National Monument, to Grace Sparkes, Tumacacori, August 10, 

1954, Ibid. 

706 Sparkes to Ringenbach, Prescott, July 7, 1954, Ibid. 707 Recognition of Right of Way, Signed by Grace M. Sparkes, June 15, 1951, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings 

– Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

708 John M. Davis, General Superintendent, Southwestern National Monuments, NPS, to Sparkes, Globe, November 17, 

1954, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data, General F11. 

709 Davis to Sparkes, Globe, November 23, 1954, Ibid. 710 D.D. Crumley, Chief Clerk, Southwestern National Monuments, NPS, to Sparkes, Globe, December 7, 1954, Ibid. 711 Lease between Grace M. Sparkes and the United States of America, January 1, 1955, Ibid. 

224
the trailer space remained the same.712 During this same period, Sparkes was also hired 

by NPS as a seasonal caretaker, beginning in September 1955.713 The July 1956 lease 

raised the price of the trailer space to ten dollars per month.714 In 1957, a 1500 square 

foot storage lot and space for another trailer were added to the lease. The charge for each 

trailer space was fifteen dollars per month; each month’s electricity was ten dollars per 

trailer; water was four dollars per trailer; and the storage lot was six dollars a month.715 

The annual leases of 1958 and 1959 retained the same prices, for total yearly prices of 

$1128.716

 In the meantime, immediate plans were formulated for two residences for 

Memorial staff and a building containing a visitor center and administrative facilities. In 

February 1960, the Memorial took possession of the two residences and the new 

administration and visitor center.717 Memorial staff moved into the new, permanent, 

facilities during the same month.718 The last lease agreement between Grace Sparkes and 

NPS ran out in June 1960.719 That ended the use of the State of Texas land for Memorial 

administration and housing. The land on which these new buildings were placed did not 

yet belong to the Memorial. However, NPS had already reached an agreement with the 

Forest Service to make an exchange that would bring it into the Memorial.720 Further, 

legislation was in the works to make the agreement a reality. 

 

712 Lease between Grace M. Sparkes and the United States of America, July 1, 1955, Ibid. 713 Department of the Interior, Notice of Appointment, Grace M. Sparkes, Effective 9/11/55, Ibid. 714 Lease between Grace M. Sparkes and the United States of America, July 1, 1956, Ibid. 715 Purchase Order, July 12, 1957, Ibid. 716 Purchase Order, July 24, 1958; Purchase Order, July 23, 1959, ibid. 717 Completion Report of Construction Project, Contract 14-10-333-509, Signed by Philip Welles, Superintendent, 

Coronado National Memorial, n.d., WACC, Folder D 3415: Buildings Construction and Maintenance 1960 F25. 718 Memorandums to Acting Superintendent Don Jackson, Coronado National Memorial, February 13 to March 6, 

1960, WACC, Folder A 26: Reports, daily logs 1960 F3. 

719 Welles to Sparkes, Hereford, May 15, 1959, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data, General F11. 720 William H. Woods, Jr., Forest Supervisor, National Forest Service, to Director, National Park Service, Tucson, July 

26, 1956, WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – Surveys & Reports F1. 

225
The plan for the International Memorial, to the extent that it was developed, had 

called for a museum and visitor center to be located on the south flank of the Huachuca 

Mountains. Such a location was more accessible from the Mexican side of the 

international border than from the north. A 1940 study indicated that a proposed 

“borderline parkway” connecting Douglas and Nogales, Arizona, which would traverse 

an international memorial south of the border, would offer the best access. The same 

document recognized that “heavy road construction” would be required to create an 

approach to a high elevation lookout.721

Before long, it was realized that the land that had been set aside for the Memorial 

within the United States did not contain suitable sites for visitor facilities. In 1954, 

several boundary adjustments were suggested by the first officials to consider the 

development prospects of the Memorial.722 One acquisition was explained by the need 

“to develop a desirable headquarters and residential area” within the park. Another 

addition was “required for picnic area development and a construction of a road to the 

proposed public use area at the International Boundary.”723 Note that, at the time, a 

visitor center was still planned for a site on the international boundary, on the south flank 

of the Huachuca Mountains, on the southwest side of Montezuma Canyon. Such a 

center would, of course, require the participation of the Mexican government and 

dedication to the Memorial of the land south of the border. 

 

721 “Report of Jerome C. Miller, Associate Landscape Architect,” Special Report Covering the Proposed Coronado 

International Monument, Submitted by Region III Headquarters, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 

Santa Fe, February 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History, General F6. 722 Regional Chief, Cooperative Activities Division, NPS, to Acting Regional Director, NPS, Santa Fe, October 14, 

1954, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (1954) F2. 

723 National Park Service Boundary Status Report, August 7, 1956, WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – 

Surveys & Reports F1. 

226
It was during this time that the Nogales protest took place. Upon the first 

published rumors that the Park Service intended to develop Coronado Memorial, the 

same opposition excited by the Memorial’s founding immediately resurfaced. The issue, 

however, slowly dissipated. 

Meanwhile, the National Park Service continued its efforts to acquire a portion of 

Homestead Entry Survey 310 for road right of way. It then belonged to Frank Zaleski, 

but soon passed to his father, Joe Zaleski, and then to John A. Jones. Jones indicated that 

he was willing to sell the land for inclusion in Coronado Memorial. However, he insisted 

that he would transfer only the amount absolutely necessary, after which the acquisition 

proposal was scaled down from about one hundred acres to around fifty.724 The National 

Park Service could not acquire the land until after legislation had been passed and 

funding specifically targeted for the purchase. In the interim, officials were concerned 

over Jones’s physical and mental health. He had suffered two heart attacks and, in late 

1958, was being treated for “for a mental illness.” Superintendent Welles at Coronado 

worried that if Jones died or became permanently incapacitated the land could be held up 

in probate or other legal complications. Finally, though he was sure that one of Jones’s 

sons would carry out the sale of the property, he had doubts about the other.725

The Park Service had two options for securing the land before the money was 

allocated for its purchase. It could have attempted to negotiate a long-term option that 

would have been contingent on enactment of the legislation. The other alternative, which 

was pursued, was to approach the Southwestern Monuments Association, a nongovernmental entity, to purchase the property for eventual resale to the Memorial once 

 

724 National Park Service Boundary Status Report, August 7, 1956. 

227
the legislation was passed.726 In May 1959, a 49.856 acre portion of Homestead Entry 

Survey 310 was purchased by Southwest Monuments Association (SMA)—the 

predecessor to Southwest Parks and Monuments Association (SPMA)—from the Jones 

family for a total cost of $3,000. The property was a roughly triangular tract of land, 

most of which was in the south half H.E.S. 310; a small portion extended into the 

southwest corner of the north half 310. It was in the North Half of the Southeast Quarter 

of Section 18, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Base and 

Meridian.727

The Southwestern Monuments Association purchase paved the way for a 

boundary adjustment that was approved on September 2, 1960. It altered the Memorial 

boundary in four ways, adding three tracts and withdrawing one. The 49.856 acre 

triangular tract bought by S.M.A. from the Jones’s was purchased by the Park Service for 

the Memorial. Just to the northwest of the triangle, 75.33 acres were transferred from 

Coronado National Forest, a unit of the National Forest Service, to the Memorial. It 

comprised lots 2 and 7 of Section 18, Township 24 South, Range 21 East. This was 

where the visitor center, staff housing, and picnic area had already been located. 

 Some mining land was excluded from the Memorial by the 1960 legislation, 

including the Billy Boy claim in the State of Texas group of claims and the Z.T. Parker 

claim, later of the Victorio Company properties. The land reverted from the Memorial to 

Coronado National Forest, National Forest Service. The mining claims remained with 

their owners. This property was described as the north half of the southwest quarter of 

 

725 Welles to Earl Jackson, Executive Secretary, Southwestern Monuments Association, Hereford, December 8, 1958, 

WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – “Jones Property” & Acquisition of (SWPM Association) F12. 726 A.M. Koehler, Acting Regional Chief of Operations, NPS, to Earl Jackson, Santa Fe, December 4, 1958, Ibid. 727 Deed, John A. and Inez Z. Jones to Southwestern Monuments Association, Signed and recorded May 22, 1959, 

CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 217, pages 129-130. 

228
the northwest corner of Section 13, and the north half of the southeast quarter of the 

northeast quarter of Section 14, Township 24 South, Range 20 East. Each section 

contained twenty acres, for a total deletion of forty acres.728

Another small segment was also added by the 1960 legislation. It was a sixty foot 

wide strip along the border in the southeast corner of the Memorial, lots 5 and 6 of 

Section 20, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, comprising 3.6 acres. In correspondence 

preparatory to the adjustment, it was depicted as an inadvertent exclusion from the 

original Memorial boundaries.729 Considerable confusion surrounded the status of this 

strip. For one thing, it did not appear to exist, according to most maps. Sections 19 

through 24 of Township 24 South, Range 21 East, and the same sections to the east and 

west, began just north of the border. As they were abbreviated by their proximity to the 

border, they were shown on some maps as including only four lots, numbered 1 through 

4, each comprising 27 acres. 

Bureau of Land Management plats depicted lots 1 through 4 as extending only 

from the north boundary of the section to the north side of a sixty foot strip along the 

international border. The sixty foot strip itself was split into four more, very small, lots. 

Lots 5 and 6 of Section 20 should have been within the boundaries of the Memorial.730 It 

was noted that the rest of the strip had been included within the original boundaries of the 

 

728 An Act to Revise the Boundaries of the Coronado National Memorial and to Authorize the Repair and Maintenance 

of an Access Road Thereto, in the State of Arizona, and for Other Purposes, Approved September 2, 1960 (74 Stat 

736). (Public Law 86-689), CORO Files. 

729 Acting Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Region Three, NPS, Washington, D.C., August 22, 1958, WACC, 

Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – Proposed/Enacted Legislation F2. 

730 Regional Chief, NPS Planning, Region Three, to Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, Santa Fe, n.d. 

(possibly September 12, 1958), Ibid. 

229
Memorial.731 Interestingly, later descriptions of the strip did not refer to any lot numbers 

above the number four.732

There was also doubt as to what agency administered the sixty foot strip. The 

1941 legislation that created the Memorial specified that the National Park Service would 

be restricted in its activities within sixty feet of the border. As that strip had been 

“withdrawn” in 1907 by Presidential proclamation, the Secretary of State had to be 

consulted prior to “any recreational or other development” within it.733 The legislation 

which revised the Memorial in 1960 was written to transfer the boundary strip from the 

National Forest Service. During consultation, the question was raised whether the 

Department of State actually controlled the land.734 

The issue of the sixty foot strip on the border would be revisited in just a few 

years. In the early 1960s, the United States Section of the International Boundary and 

Water Commission in El Paso, Texas, acted to divest itself of land within a 60 foot wide 

strip running along the border. The National Park Service moved to obtain those portions 

within the Coronado National Memorial and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, 

both in Arizona. Evidently, after a considerable amount of paper was shuffled, the land 

did change from one federal agency to another, though with little effect since it was 

already considered part of the Memorial. 

The description of the border strip within Coronado National Memorial is 

interesting in the wake of the 1960 transfer: 

 

731 Acting Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Region Three, NPS, Washington, D.C., August 22, 1958. 732 Request for Transfer of Excess Real Property and Related Personal Property, from Director, NPS, to Commissioner, 

United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, Washington, D.C., February 1964, WACC, 

Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – Proposed/Enacted Legislation F2. 

733 An Act to Provide for the Establishment of the Coronado International Memorial, in the State of Arizona, Approved 

August 18, 1941 (55 Stat) 630), CORO Files. 

734 Acting Regional Director, Region Three, NPS, to Director, NPS, Santa Fe, n.d. (possibly October 8, 1958), WACC, 

Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – Proposed/Enacted Legislation F2. 

230
the southerly 60 feet of the following subdivisions: 

Township 24 South, Range 20 East (Gila and Salt River Meridian) 

Section 22, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4; 

Section 23, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4; 

Section 24, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4; 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East (Gila and Salt River Meridian) 

Section 19, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4; 

Section 20, Lots 3 and 4; 

Totaling 32.504 acres more or less.735

That includes land which was already defined as within the Memorial in 1941 as well that 

added in 1960. The 1960 addition is here shown as being within lots 3 and 4 of Section 

20. In none of these sections is there a hint of lots 5 through 8. That, taken with the 

correspondence leading up to the 1960 addition, might suggest that the “sections 5 and 6” 

did not actually exist, and were, in fact, added unnecessarily in 1960. The point was 

moot. No matter how the maps were marked, or when the land was acquired, it all 

belonged to the Memorial. 

 As the Park Service worked to rectify problems of development and control of the 

Memorial through small boundary adjustments, private lands that would one day belong 

to the Memorial were also in flux. The mining claims on the north side of Montezuma 

Canyon had just gained security from the 1960 adjustment. It had transferred forty acres 

from the Memorial to Coronado National Forest in order to keep the mining claims and 

potential development out of the Memorial and in the National Forest. 

 Part of that land belonged to the State of Texas mining properties belonging to 

Grace Sparkes. During the 1950s, Sparkes had become interested in selling the State of 

Texas property. She improved the property and upped her asking price from thirty 

 

735 Request for Transfer of Excess Real Property and Related Personal Property, February 1964. See also, Donald E. 

Lee, Chief, Division of Land and Water Rights, NPS, to Bernard L. Boutin, Administrator, General Services 

Administration, March 5, 1964, and Boundary Status Map, October 1958, Ibid; Alphabetical listing by landowner’s 

name, NPS Division of Land Acquisitions, July 10, 1979; Land Acquisition Plan, Coronado National Memorial, 

231
thousand dollars to $32,500, though it was said that she had not formally listed it. 

Supposedly, potential buyers had approached her about the property in 1957. 

Superintendent Philip Welles opined that Sparkes was asking more than the land was 

worth. However, he also recognized that the land had value to NPS over and above its 

monetary worth. It had a water source that was estimated as sufficient for the Memorial’s 

future development needs and contained structures that could be, and were at the time, 

used by the Memorial. Its location, right on the main road through the Memorial, 

probably increased its market value; it certainly made it more consequential to the 

Memorial as well. Welles recognized a “nuisance” factor in the event that “persons 

unfriendly to the area or to the service” should buy the land.736

 Sparkes preferred the idea of selling the land to the Park Service for inclusion in 

Coronado Memorial. In 1958, she wrote that NPS had earlier expressed interest in some 

of the land, but she had then thought that she might return to mining. Her circumstances, 

as well as mineral prices, had changed, and Sparkes was determined to sell, preferably to 

NPS.737 She mentioned its water resource and hoped that the buildings, still being 

remodeled, could become a ranger station. Sparkes hoped that in an upcoming 

“expansion” of the Memorial, NPS could “take over” her land.738 By then, the land and 

buildings that were added in 1960 had already been planned. During her lifetime, Grace 

Sparkes never did sell to NPS or anyone else. She died in 1963, leaving the State of 

Texas mine property to her four nephews. 739

 

January 18, 1980 (and attached maps), ILRPC Files; Land Ownership Record, NPS, September 2, 1960, WACC, 

Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

736 Welles to Regional Director, NPS, Hereford, September 15, 1957, Ibid. 737 Sparkes to Senator Barry Goldwater, Hereford, September 11, 1958, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – 

Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

738 Sparkes to Welles, Hereford, March 1950, Ibid. 739 Gentry, McNulty & Tori, Attorneys at Law, to Acting Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, Bisbee, 

October 14, 1965, Ibid; also see other memos and letters in the same folder for improvements and sales prospects. 

232
 In July 1970, Ruth M. Clark, a widow, and Charles A. and Paquita C. Smith, sold 

several mining properties, including the thirteen Doredor claims in the Hartford Mining 

District of the Huachuca Mountains that fell within the eventual boundaries of Coronado 

National Memorial. Evidently, the sellers were Bill Clark’s widow and his partner. The 

buyers were Coronado Investment Company, a partnership comprised of Peter G. Wray 

and H. Wayne Pruett.740 In 1973, the properties were transferred to Pruett-Wray Cattle 

Company, made up of the same partners.741 By 1979, Pruett-Wray had changed its name 

to “Victorio Land and Cattle Company” and then to “The Victorio Company.”742

 Back at the mouth of Montezuma Canyon, land was changing hands and 

developments occurring, some of which would one day be problematical for the 

Memorial. The remainder of Homestead Entry Survey 310, all of Homestead Entry 

Survey 311, and the Kudzmi Homestead, were given by John A. and Inez Z. Jones to 

John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones “for and in consideration of the love and affection” of 

parents for their children in 1962.743 The Jones brothers sold the total amount to Everett 

and Fred Baumkirchner and their respective wives, Margaret E. and Mary Ann, in 1965. 

The purchase price was not recorded, but John and Lawrence Jones carried a $45,000 

mortgage on the property.744

 

740 Warranty Deed, Ruth M. Clark, a widow, and Charles A. Smith and Paquita C. Smith, his wife, to Coronado 

Investment Company, a partnership comprised of Peter G. Wray and H. Wayne Pruett, co-partners, Recorded July 2, 

1970, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 645, pages 543-545. 

741 Warranty Deed, Coronado Investment Company to Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, Signed May 1, 1973, CCR, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 871, pages 481-483. 

742 Deed (Joint Tenancy), The Victorio Company, an Arizona Corporation; formerly Victorio Land and Cattle 

Company, an Arizona Corporation; formerly Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, an Arizona Corporation, to James J. Wardle 

and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, Signed December 18, 1979, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1388, 

pages 333-334. 

743 Deed of Gift, John A. and Inez Z. Jones, of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, to John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones, Signed 

April 24, 1962, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 300, pages 406-407. 744 Joint Tenancy Deed, John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. Jones to Everett Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, 

husband and wife, an undivided half interest, Signed May 26, 1965, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, page 21; 

Joint Tenancy Deed, John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. Jones to Fred and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, an 

undivided half interest, Signed May 26, 1965, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, page 22; Realty Mortgage, 

Everett Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, and Fred Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, 

233
 The Baumkirchner brothers grew up in Miller and Hunter canyons of the 

Huachuca Mountains, the sons of a university educated German immigrant who mined in 

the area. Over the years they owned several local businesses and built up a substantial 

ranching operation stretched along the east side of the Huachuca Mountains.745 The 

Baumkirchners evidently obtained the Jones property for the purpose of speculation. 

They soon subdivided it and put portions on the market. The first tract was sold in 

September 1966. The Baumkirchners sold one acre, that was later labeled Tract 101-15, 

to Calvin R. and Esther Teague.746 The Teagues sold it to William L. Cashman and 

Ramona E. Cashman in April 1971.747 By 2001, William and Jean Cashman continued to 

reside in this house and property, an inholding of Coronado National Memorial. 

 On July 21, 1967, two more small parcels were sold by the Baumkirchners. On 

that date, the Baumkirchners sold the one acre portion of H.E.S. 311 later known as Tract 

101-13 to William and Eloise Archie.748 The Archies held the land until November 1972 

and then sold it to Robert G. and Betty J. Chavez.749 They, in turn, sold the property to 

Eileen Owens in April 1978.750

 

his wife, with John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. Jones, Signed June 1, 1965, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, 

page 23. 

745 Jac Hein, Sierra Vista: its people and neighbors: a narrative history (Sierra Vista, Az.: Banner Printing Center, 

1983), unidentified photocopied pages, CORO Files. 746 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to 

Calvin R. and Esther Teague, Signed September 30, 1966, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 456, page 215. 747 Warranty Deed, Calvin R. Teague and Esther Teague, his wife, to William L. Cashman and Ramona E. Cashman, 

his wife, Signed April 29, 1971, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 767, page 168. 748 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to William Arthur Archie and Eloise Archie, husband 

and wife, Signed July 21, 1967, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 493, page 280. 749 Warranty Deed, William A. Archie and Eloise Archie, his wife, to Robert G. Chavez and Betty J. Chavez, his wife, 

Signed November 17, 1972, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 831, page 427. 750 Warranty Deed, Robert G. Chavez and Betty J. Chavez, husband and wife, to Eileen G. Owens, an unmarried 

woman, Signed April 28, 1978, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1250, page 147. 

234
 Also on July 21, 1967, the Baumkirchners sold two acres to Lawrence Edward 

Ray.751 Ray borrowed $14,400 from the Farmers Home Administration of the United 

States Department of Agriculture for the purchase. F.H.A. held the deed to the property 

as collateral.752 Next, Ray sold the property to James M. and Billie Jean Tyra in August 

1971.753 After NPS acquired the surrounding property, this parcel became known as 

Tract 101-11, Parcel 1. A month after the Tyras purchased Parcel 1 from Ray, the 

Baumkirchners sold two acres, a tract that came to be known as Parcel 2 of Tract 101-11, 

to the Tyras.754 The Tyras seem to have borrowed money for both purchases from the 

Baumkirchners which they repaid when they sold Tract 101-11 to NPS in 1980.755 Those 

two purchases placed the Tyras in possession of four acres, which came to be labeled 

Tract 101-11. 

 In 1971, there were two more sales of land within H.E.S. 311. In August, the 

Baumkirchner brothers and their wives sold two one-acre lots to Dewitt and Doretta Ruth 

Green.756 These two parcels became Tracts 101-12 and 101-14. The Baumkirchners also 

sold a six-acre tract to a son of one of the brothers, Everett M. Baumkirchner, Jr. In 

October 1971 the property was transferred pending payments totaling $6,000.757 In 1980, 

 

751 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Lawrence Edward Ray, an unmarried man, Signed 

July 21, 1967, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 491, page 525. 

752 Real Estate Mortgage for Arizona, Lawrence Edward Ray and Farmers Home Administration of the United States 

Department of Agriculture, September 27, 1967, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 502, pages 478-479. 753 Joint Tenancy Deed, Lawrence Edward Ray, husband of Maria T. Ray, as his sole and separate property, to James 

M. Tyra and Billie Jean Tyra, his wife, Signed August 13, 1971, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 713, page 392. 754 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, his wife, an undivided half interest, and 

Everett M. Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, an undivided half interest, to James M. Tyra and 

Billie Jean Tyra, his wife, Signed September 30, 1971, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1221, page 457. 755 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to James M. 

and Billie Jean Tyra, March 25, 1980, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1413, pages 456-457. 756 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to 

Dewitt and Doretta Ruth Green, August 23, 1971, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 862, pages 10-11. 757 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Everett M. Baumkirchner, Jr., Signed October 11, 

1971, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 940, page 71; Agreement, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann 

Baumkirchner, his wife, as to an undivided 1⁄2 interest; and Everett M. Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, 

235
when the younger Everett sold the land to the Park Service, another Warranty Deed for 

Tract 101-16 was transferred from the elder Baumkirchners to him. It was probably 

given after the last money owed on the property was paid to the sellers and cleared the 

title for ownership by NPS and inclusion into Coronado National Memorial.758

 In 1973, the Baumkirchners traded 541.43 acres to the National Forest Service 

“for and in consideration of...certain national forest land, which does not exceed in value 

the land herein conveyed.” Included in the land exchange was most of their land in the 

area of the Memorial. The National Forest Service acquired the entire Kudzmi 

Homestead, the remainder of H.E.S. 310 not already within the Memorial, and a 50 acre

portion of the southwest corner of H.E.S. 311.759 After the Baumkirchners sold fifty 

acres of H.E.S. 311 and subdivided they rest, they kept the biggest piece, later called tract 

101-10. That property was sometimes listed as two separate parcels although they were 

transferred together. A 1979 appraisal described 94.23 acres. The described property 

contained several building improvements, including rental units, residences, barns, and 

sheds. Access was by paved highway. The property was generally located in Section 17, 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian.760

 The old Pyeatt homestead also changed hands around the same time. In April 

1973, according to a Joint Tenancy Deed filed at the time, the Montezuma Ranch was 

 

his wife, as to an undivided 1⁄2 interest, and Everett M. Baumkirchner, Jr., a single man, Signed October 11, 1971, CCR, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 732, page 107. 

758 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to Everett M. 

Baumkirchner, Jr., Signed March 19, 1980, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1410, page 2. 759 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Transamerica Title Insurance Company, as 

Trustee, Signed March 11, 1972, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 841, pages 215-216; Warranty Deed, 

Transamerica Title Insurance Company to United States of America, Signed March 1, 1973, CCR, Deeds of Real 

Estate, Docket 841, page 218. 

760 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, Division of Land Acquisition, Western Region, NPS, 

May 4, 1979, ILRPC Files. 

236
sold to George F. and Elsie R. Weick of Illinois.761 The Weicks would sell the property 

within a few years. After Richard Richards bought it in 1979, Elsie Weick would again 

become involved, as Richards’s mother and creditor and, again, as a landowner. Weick’s 

interest and involvement in the Montezuma Ranch would continue for the next few 

decades, at least. 

 All of the privately owned land discussed above was within the original 

homesteads at the mouth of Montezuma Canyon and on the north side of the canyon 

further up into the Huachuca Mountains. The issue over its status came to a head at 

Coronado National Memorial in 1978. An anonymous, undated, memo entitled 

“Boundary Adjustment–a Radical Proposal” discussed reasons for making significant 

adjustments to the boundaries of the Memorial. It discussed reasons for additions to and 

withdrawals from the Memorial. The portion of the Memorial west of Montezuma Pass, 

according to the memo, was not really enjoyed by the visiting public except as a scenic 

backdrop in any case. In addition, it represented seventy percent of the grazing land 

within the Memorial. Both land and water resources had been damaged by overgrazing. 

Withdrawal of that land would relieve NPS personnel of the headache of patrolling and 

administering the overgrazing of the unused land. 

 All of Montezuma Canyon was, said the memo, already thought of by the public 

as part of the Memorial.762 It could be managed efficiently only if all of it was brought 

within the Memorial. These concerns can be seen as addressing a changing vision of the 

Memorial. First promoted as an overlook of the valley through which Coronado entered 

the United States, the pristine character of the view needed to be maintained if the 

 

761 Joint Tenancy Deed, George H. Howe and Martha J. Howe, his wife, to George F. Weick and Elsie R. Weick, his 

wife, Wood Dale, Illinois, Recorded April 27, 1973, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 853, page 84. 

237
Memorial was to be worthwhile. Set aside to be enjoyed by the public for its natural 

beauty and resources, it would become a multiple use area. 

 In a 1970 memorandum, Coronado Superintendent Huntzinger of was more 

explicit regarding the purpose and needs of the Memorial. He wrote “Although CORO 

has been set aside as a historical area, its primary use is by those interested in the wildlife 

and scenery.” He went on to point out that the Memorial did “not at present exist as an 

ecological entity.” He specified that most of Montezuma Canyon, the heart of the 

Memorial, was not within the Memorial. In addition, a “rather shoddy county estate 

subdivision is developing immediately to the east of the Memorial.”763 Such a 

development would destroy the view and the visitor experience. 

 A letter from a planning team member summarized its feelings about the 

importance of maintaining the viewshed of the Memorial. “Certainly the entire historic 

scene of the San Pedro Valley cannot all be protected but this segment of 270 acres 

pointing at the heart of the Memorial must be acquired to prevent obnoxious 

developments which would detract from the visitors park experience.”764 Thus, a plan to 

adjust the Memorial began to emerge. The proposal spelled out the problem: 

“Because the Memorial lacks visible remains and is not the site of any 

dramatic occurrence, its historical value lies in the fact that it is able to set 

a reflective mood suitable for contemplation of the Coronado Entrada. 

Retention of the pastoral grassland scene of the distant San Pedro Valley is 

important if this area is to fulfill its purpose and effectively Memorialize 

and interpret history. This historic scene lies largely outside the current 

park boundaries and therefore is subject to adverse use and esthetic 

 

762 “Boundary Adjustment – a Radical Proposal,” n.d. 763 Hugo H. Huntzinger, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Director, Southwest Region, Subject: 

Boundary Changes for Existing NPS Areas, Hereford, August 31, 1970, WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary 

Adjustments – Surveys & Reports F1. 

764 Frederick J. Brower, Acting Team Manager, Western Team, Denver Service Center, to Regional Director, Western 

Region, February 19, 1974, WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – Surveys & Reports F1. 

238
deterioration that will seriously compromise the park’s efforts to provide a 

quality visitor experience.”765

 According to the idea under consideration, land additions would bring all of the 

Montezuma Canyon watershed into the Memorial. The Park Service staff already had 

responsibility for maintaining the road through the canyon. Control of the entire canyon 

would enable the Memorial to open more trails, expand opportunities for environmental 

study programs, provide a better water source, and aid in environmental protection. It 

would also allow the Memorial to control existing and potential development in areas 

then immediately adjacent to the Memorial. All of the land west of Montezuma Pass was 

to be removed from the Memorial and reclaimed by Coronado National Forest. It was 

unlikely that sufficient development would occur in that area, so far from pavement and 

services, to seriously affect the viewshed from Montezuma Pass. 

 The new Memorial lands would also include National Forest Service lands that 

had been part of the Kudzmi Homestead and Homestead Entry Surveys 310 and 311. In 

the extreme southeast corner of the Memorial, and making up the southeast corner of the 

land transferred in 1978, was a square tract labeled 101-19, 137.31 acres in size. It 

included the 133.67 acre Kudzmi Homestead plus 3.64 acres. That 3.64 acres was very 

likely a strip directly along the international border, much like the 3.6 acre border strip in 

the 1960 land transfer. That land was relinquished by the United States Section of the 

International Boundary and Water Commission [see above]. Also added to the Memorial 

was a 1.03 acre strip running the length of the boundary between Homestead Entry 

 

765 Environmental Review Proposal, General Management Plan, Coronado National Memorial, Initial Draft, n.d., 

WACC, Folder L 7617: Environmental Review Study/Statement 1976 F55. 

239
Survey No. 311 and the Pyeatt Homestead. These small additions filled in between lands 

claimed earlier in the century.766

 Another element that was central to discussions of a potential boundary 

adjustment to the Memorial in the late 1970s was the siting and construction of an 

outdoor amphitheatre north of the road. It would require an access road and parking lot 

and would include another scenic overlook. The size and location of the amphitheatre, 

meant to hold at least two thousand people, varied through different plans and 

alternatives. It was thought necessary because an annual historical pageant, begun a few 

years earlier, had outgrown the picnic area and required a permanent home.767 The 

amphitheatre was never constructed and the pageant itself was soon discontinued, but the 

remainder of the adjustment process continued.768

 Public comments on the adjustment proposal were solicited, eliciting both support 

and opposition. Opposition centered around several themes.769 The Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, for example, represented the interests of hunters who utilized the land 

slated for acquisition and opposed a change in status. The Department’s major concern 

 

766 Boundary Status Map, October 1958; Alphabetical listing by landowner’s name, July 10, 1979; Land Acquisition 

Plan, January 18, 1980 (and attached maps). 

767 Several descriptions can be found scattered through WACC, Folder L 76: Environmental Impact/Assessment – 

Public Response 1975 F53; Folder L 76: Environmental Impact/Assessment – Public Response 1976 F54; Folder L 

7617: Environmental Review Study/Statement 1976 F55; Folder L 7617: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) F56. 768 It should be noted that there was also more than one adjustment package considered. One particularly interesting 

plan offered the following alternatives: 

1. Transfer all of the Memorial’s land, except part of Section 18 (T24S R21E), to the National Forest Service in return 

for Sections 1 and 12 (R20E) and 6 and 7 (R21E), surrounding Montezuma Peak. Ash Canyon Road would be paved to 

provide primary access. A chair lift to Montezuma Peak or Ash Peak would be installed and visitor facilities 

constructed at the parking lot below the tram. 

2. All land would revert to the Forest Service and a new site would be selected. Possible site suggestions included 

“Hawikuh, Acoma, Tiguex, and Pecos in Arizona [sic, all are in New Mexico] and other locations as far north as 

Kansas.” 

3. Status quo would be maintained, but the international angle would be pursued with Mexico. 

4. No Action. “This action would negate all impacts associated with implementing the proposal. No effort would be 

expended to exemplify the implications of the Coronado Expedition and its influence on our Hispanic heritage. In 

essence, this alternative would question the worthiness of the Memorial being represented within the system.” 

5. Return the area west of Montezuma Pass to the Forest Service with no land being returned in exchange. 

WACC, Folder L 7617: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) F56. 

240
was that the land slated for addition to the Memorial was “preferred by deer, quail, and 

javelina hunters.” According to their letter: “The actual exchange would not benefit 

range or wildlife management since cattle grazing allotments would remain as they 

are.”770 Evidently, the hunters, and the state agency that undertook to represent them, 

would have preferred that land be withdrawn from grazing rather than hunting. 

 Given the historic identification of the Huachuca Mountains and Montezuma 

Canyon with mining, it is not surprising that there was concerted opposition to adding 

land to the park from mining interests. Some groups and individuals were against any 

action that would might remove mineral lands from potential exploitation. The 

Southwestern Minerals Exploration Association opposed any change, stressing that 

“under no circumstances should any additional potentially mineral bearing lands be 

withdrawn. Withdrawals to date have already diminished our resource base to the point 

that the United States will be unable to maintain current living standards.”771 

 One citizen of Tucson, John Kinnison, opposed the withdrawal of any land until a 

thorough study of its mineral potential could be undertaken; and he also opposed 

spending the money to conduct such a study. In fact, he was generally averse to any 

enlargement of the Park Service or the expansion of its personnel base.772 Similarly, 

D.A. Heatwole, a geologist for the Anaconda mining company, weighed in, on company 

letterhead, with the certainty that it was only a matter of time before large lodes, probably 

 

769 For comments, see WACC, Folder L 76: Environmental Impact/Assessment – Public Response 1975 F53; Folder L 

76: Environmental Impact/Assessment – Public Response 1976 F54. 770 Robert A. Jantzen, Director, Arizona Game and Fish Department, to Laurel Dale, Superintendent, Coronado 

National Memorial, Phoenix, December 17, 1975, WACC, Folder L 76: Environmental Impact/Assessment – Public 

Response 1975 F53. 

771 Comments by Mr. Ted H. Eyde, Secretary, Southwestern Minerals Explorations Association, Tucson, October 29, 

1975, ibid. 

772 John E. Kinnison to Superintendent, Coronado National Monument, Tucson, December 8, 1975, ibid. 

241
of copper, would be found in the area under consideration.773 Charles Morgan, who had 

been deeply involved in the creation of the Memorial commented more specifically on 

the mineral issue. Identifying himself as “the person responsible for the very existence of 

the Coronado Memorial,” Morgan expressed the opinion that the State of Texas mine 

had the potential to be developed into “another big copper mine.” He thought that 

possibility should not be “foreclosed by its inclusion in the Memorial.”774 The National 

Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) disagreed, specifying that such a possibility, 

anyplace within view of Coronado Peak, should be averted through legislation.775

 The issue of including more mining lands within the Memorial took on additonal 

importance, and dissension, with an act passed by Congress late in 1976, while the 

adjustment process was being debated. One section of this act applied directly and solely 

to Coronado National Memorial. It repealed the section of the original act of 1941 that 

permitted mining within the Memorial. More generally, the 1976 act gave the Secretary 

of the Interior the right to regulate mining within the National Park System “In order to 

preserve for the benefit of present and future generations the pristine beauty of” the 

parks.776 By the 1976 act, the protection previously guaranteed to miners took a back 

seat to protection of the Memorial’s resources. 

 The only other patented claims besides the State of Texas known to be directly 

affected were those owned by the Victorio Company. At the time the land adjustment 

was under consideration, the Victorio Company was negotiating a land swap, which 

 

773 D.A. Heatwole, Regional Project Geologist, The Anaconda Company, to Superintendent, Coronado National 

Monument, Tucson, December 9, 1975, ibid. 

774 Charles M. Morgan to Superintendent, Coronado National Monument, Tucson, December 11, 1975, ibid. 775 Robert L. Coshland, Southwest Representative, National Parks and Conservatioon Association, to Superintendent, 

Coronado National Memorial, Tucson, December 3, 1975, WACC, Folder L 76: Environmental Impact/Assessment – 

Public Response 1976 F54. 

242
would never be consummated, with the Forest Service.777 In 1978, although as yet 

unable to actually purchase the land, the Park Service entered into discussions with the 

landowners regarding the Victorio property. The two parties disagreed over the value of 

the land and it was listed with several local brokers.778 Before the end of 1979, NPS was 

informed that the Victorio property had been divided and the sale of a portion of it was 

imminent. A.W. Gray, of the NPS Division of Land Acquisition, requested that the sale 

be delayed to allow the Park Service, which by then had the necessary funds 

appropriated, to approve an appraisal and bid on the land.779 However, the sale was 

consummated, leaving NPS to negotiate with other owners as well as the Victorio 

Company. 

 Some opposed any expansion of Park Service lands even if it only came at the 

expense of the Forest Service. Their concerns were with big government in general. 

Others generally shared the same feelings, but phrased their opposition in terms of 

concern for property rights, sometimes mentioning the loss of tax base that would occur 

if the private inholdings were later acquired by the Memorial. One representative 

comment was “We need private property;”780 another: “We do not have the right to 

impose anything on private property owners...This is a free(?) country yet.”781

 Others supported the adjustment, including environmental groups and assorted 

citizens and scientists who had visited the Memorial and enjoyed its resources. The 

 

776 An Act to Provide for the Regulation of Mining Activity Within, and to Repeal the Application of Mining Laws to 

Areas of the National Park System, and for Other Purposes. (90 Stat 1342) (Public Law 94-429) Approved September 

28, 1976, CORO Files. 

777 Laurel Dale to Regional Director, Western Regional Office, NPS, Hereford, June 13, 1977, WACC, Folder L 1425: 

Land Holdings – Pruett-Wray/Victorio (LaFevre) F13. 

778 A.P. LeFevre, Vice President, Land Resources, The Victorio Company, to A.W. Gray, Phoenix, September 27, 

1978, ibid. 

779 Gray to Wayne Pruett, The Victorio Company, December 19, 1979, ibid. 780 Constance M. Dochas to Coronado Memorial, Bisbee, December 20, 1975, WACC, Folder L 76: Environmental 

Impact/Assessment – Public Response 1975 F53. 

243
Baumkirchner brothers, who had owned a lot of land in the Montezuma Canyon area and 

still retained a sizeable tract, were in favor of the swap. They pointed out that land in the 

area was being bought up quickly. If public entities did not act quickly it would be too 

late to set aside much needed space for recreation, public use, and sanctuary for 

wildlife.782 The transfer was approved in 1978. The land acquired by the Memorial 

encompassed private land within Homestead Entry Surveys 310 and 311 along with the 

State of Texas and the Victorio mining properties. They would have to be added through 

purchase, which would excite more opposition to the Memorial as it grew to its present 

size and shape. 

 

781 Bessie J. Payne to Coronado National Memorial, Hereford, December 15, 1975, ibid. 782 Comments by Fred E. and Everett M. Baumkirchner, November 24, 1975, ibid. 

244
Chapter IX 

Resources Made Available for the Enjoyment of the Public783: 1978 to the Present

The beauty, purpose and setting of the park should not be 

destroyed by an urban development within the very scenic 

heart of this Park. –- Coronado supporter Gordon Douglas to 

Secretary of Interior James Watt, 1981. 

We feel you have abundant land to serve your purpose and 

that this is just another land grab. -– Coronado opponent 

William P. Ullrich, 1980.

 The 1978 adjustment brought Coronado National Memorial into line with a 

workable version of the original vision behind its founding. It was now contained within, 

and confined to, the watershed of Montezuma Canyon. The expanse of land that spread 

out through the Huachuca Mountains west of the Montezuma Pass, used more by cattle 

than Memorial visitors, was gone. Montezuma Canyon was entirely under the control of 

the National Park Service. And it had all been accomplished by a simple exchange with 

the National Forest Service, a deal between two federal agencies. On paper, the swap 

seemed to solve many problems for the Park Service and Coronado National Memorial. 

However, on the ground were several tracts that were still in private hands. In order to 

fulfill the goal of the 1978 adjustment, these lands needed to be acquired. That action 

would open a new can of worms. 

 Land acquisition policy regarding inholdings at Coronado was confusing within 

the Park Service and controversial without. In 1978, as the swap was heading toward 

completion, General Superintendent John Clay of the Southern Arizona Group of the 

Park Service wrote to the Regional Director of the Western Region. He recalled that, as 

he was preparing to hold public meetings regarding potential acquisition of inholdings at 

245
Coronado, he had asked the appropriate official for a clarification of policy. He was told 

that “the policy was the Service acquired land on a willing buyer/willing seller basis and 

not by condemnation. Therefore, this is what Supt. Dale and I told members of the public 

at the several meetings held relative to the Coronado plan, and what appeared in the 

master plan approved by” the Regional Director.784

 Subsequent communications had established that, while negotiated sales were the 

preferred alternative, “it may be necessary to resort to eminent domain proceedings in 

some instances to establish the fair market value.” Further, “What was purportedly stated 

at public meetings was done so [sic] without full knowledge of the normal acquisition 

processes and at best was an erroneous statement.”785 Clay wondered if the policy had 

changed since that time, if the changes would be retroactive, and if they would reverse 

commitments already made to the public. If so, Clay continued, it placed “an agent or 

officer of the Service in the untenable position of having his statements or committments 

[sic], that were made in honesty and candor, nullified by subsequent administrative 

policies. On a personal level, it abrogates the integrity of the manager.”786 At issue was 

the need for policies to be consistent and officials to be able to keep promises to a 

suspicious public in a tense situation. 

 Some of the public was already hostile to the Park Service and the Memorial’s 

plans. The State of Texas Mine had been a specific concern of the “Radical Proposal,” 

discussed in the last chapter, that became the new Memorial.787 It became the immediate 

target of the same forces opposed to the 1978 boundary adjustment. In September 1979, 

 

783 From the introduction to Land Acquisition Plan, Coronado National Memorial, April 15, 1980, ILRPC Files. 784 John H. Clay, General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, 

Phoenix, July 25, 1978, ibid. 

785 Acting Deputy Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1978, ibid. 786 Clay, to Regional Director, Western Region, Phoenix, July 25, 1978. 

246
well after the Park Service had entered into negotiations with William Sparkes, Grace’s 

nephew, an article appeared in a Tucson newspaper, entitled “His aunt helped build park 

that could dispossess him.” It reported Sparkes’s determination to retain ownership of 

the land and his rejection of a compromise that would have allowed him to stay on the 

land after acquisition by the Memorial. Sparkes recounted the promise made a few years 

earlier, probably by Clay and Dale, that private landowners would not be forced to sell 

and threatened to launch a petition campaign.788

 Several months later, in the spring of 1980, a petition against acquisition of the 

State of Texas Mine arrived bearing 448 signatures.789 It was accompanied by a letter 

from William P. Ullrich, of Hereford, that summarized the feelings of the signers: “We 

feel you have abundant land to serve your purpose and that this is just another land 

grab.”790 Just a few weeks earlier, the Huachuca Conservation Council had forwarded a 

resolution urging acquisition. It singled out the State of Texas Mine as “an unattractive 

inholding,” and the only exception to the “exquisite scenic setting” of the Memorial.791 

A letter from the same organization also favored “quick acquisition of all other 

inholdings.”792

 The superintendent of the Memorial at that time, Laurel W. Dale, agreed that the 

Sparkes property presented “a cluttered appearance.” He explained that the owner was a 

general contractor who, lacking other storage facilities, kept his equipment parked along 

 

787 “Boundary Adjustment – a Radical Proposal,” n.d. 788 Howard Fischer, “His aunt helped build park that could dispossess him,” The Arizona Daily Star, September 13, 

1979, D:1, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

789 “We, the undersigned, do hereby protest the acquisition by the National Park Service of that property owned by 

William J. Sparkes, which property is situated in Montezuma Canyon, Coronadom National Memorial, Cochise 

County, Arizona, and which property is commonly referred to as the State of Texas Mine,” received, Coronado 

National Memorial, April 1, 1980, ibid. 

790 Ullrich to Dale, March 27, 1980. 791 Huachuca Conservation Council, Resolution, Coronado National Memorial, Adopted March 5, 1980, ILRPC Files. 

247
the main road through the Memorial. However, Dale also recalled the key role of 

Sparkes’s aunt, Grace, in the establishment of the Memorial. He concluded by urging 

“that the Service refrain from any actions that would seriously undermine the very good 

relationship that we now have with the Sparkes family.”793 There was also a professional 

relationship between William Sparkes and the Memorial. Sparkes and his contracting 

company, Payne & Sparkes, used the equipment to provide maintenance services for the 

Montezuma Pass Road under contract with Coronado National Memorial.794

 Sparkes was a supportive neighbor in emergency situations as well. In December 

1974, the Memorial thanked him for his help in a recent rescue effort.795 Superintendent 

Dale also supported Sparkes when Sparkes planned to remodel his house on the State of 

Texas mine. He thought that the remodeling might improve the appearance of the 

property. He added that “They have been really good neighbors and have always lent a 

helping hand when needed. If we do all that can be done legally and in the process help 

our neighbors and keep their friendship, then we have half the battle won already.”796 

Apparently, the relationship between Sparkes and the Memorial was more cordial in 

person than it was in local politics and newspapers. 

 The State of Texas properties were designated as three separate tracts, numbered 

101-06, 101-07, and 101-08. Tract 101-06, 20.59 acres, consisted of one patented mining 

claim, the State of Texas No. Two, and was vacant of building improvements. It was 

located in the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 24 

 

792 Jerome J. Pratt, Secretary-Treasurer, Huachuca Conservation Council to Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, 

Sierra Vista, March 10, 1980, ibid. 

793 Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, Hereford, March 17, 1980, ibid. 794 Paul R. Thompson, Supervisory Park Technician, Maintenance Supervisor, to Registrar of Contractors, Hereford, 

October 5, 1976, WACC, Folder K 14: Information Requests F1. 

795 Dale to Will Sparkes, Hereford, December 27, 1974, WACC, Folder A 34: Commendations F13. 796 Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, Hereford, February 5, 1980, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – 

Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

248
South, Range 20 East.797 Tract 101-07 was the State of Texas Lode Mining Claim.798 

This property was 20.66 acres, generally bisected by the section line between Sections 12 

and 13, Township 24 South, Range 20 East. It contained a small unoccupied wood 

cabin.799 Tract 101-08 was the ten acres patented mining claim, “State of Texas No. Two 

Millsite,” in the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 

13. It was improved with several residential cabins, utility buildings, and other 

miscellaneous improvements and was bisected by the paved Coronado Memorial 

Highway. All three were described in National Park Service records as in mountainous 

terrain.800

 The State of Texas Lode Mining Claim, Tract 101-07, was shared by four heirs of 

Grace Sparkes until spring 1980. Charles J. Sparkes, Jack M. Sparkes, Thomas Frederick 

Sparkes, and William J. Sparkes each held a quarter interest.801 They transferred it to 

William J. Sparkes in April 1980. Thomas F. Sparkes acknowledged the quit claim 

before a notary on the same day, Charles and Jack did so in 1986.802 Ownership of 

Tracts 101-06 and 101-08 was described in 1979 as belonging to William J. Sparkes, with 

a part being shared by Patricia Sparkes, as William’s spouse on July 18, 1974. “Spouse 

failed to disclaim at time of acquisition of an interest in the property by instrument 

recorded in Docket 948, page 457 to 460.”803 Parenthetically, the September 1979 

Arizona Daily Star article identified Sparkes’s wife at that time as “Dean.”804 It was later 

recalled that Will Sparkes had vowed that NPS would never get the land while he was 

 

797 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 798 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d., ILRPC Files. 799 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 800 Ibid. 801 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 802 Quit Claim Deed, Charles J. Sparkes, Jack M. Sparkes, and Thomas F. Sparkes, to William J. Sparkes, Dated April 

9, 1980, ILRPC Files. 

803 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 

249
alive. However, after he suffered a stroke and had some financial problems in early 

1986, he contacted the National Park Service and a deal was eventually consummated.805

 Tracts 101-06 and 101-07 were appraised for mineral value together. “Appraiser 

Robert F. Temple included within the Sparkes appraisals (Tracts 101-06 and 101-07) a 

mineral value of $119,540 as furnished by the Division of Mining and Minerals.” He 

mentioned a very unstable silver market and added that, with the exceptions of lead and 

zinc, the precious metal market was expected to remain volatile.806 On December 29, 

1986, William J. and Patricia M. Sparkes sold 51.25 acres to NPS for $540,000 plus 

relocation expenses. The sale included all three tracts, 101-06, 101-07, and 101-08, and 

brought all of the State of Texas land into the Memorial.”807

 When the boundary adjustment of 1978 occurred, lands on both sides of the State 

of Texas mine properties were also in private hands. The Victorio properties were 

considered as two separate tracts, above and below the State of Texas. The westernmost 

parcel, identified as Tract 101-05, consisted of the Z.T. Parker, Chief, Fraction, Rubio, 

Tunnelsite, Miss Stake, Grub Stake No. Two, and Grub Stake No. Three claims. It held a 

total area of 154.54 acres.808 It was improved with three structures, an approximately 

756 square foot frame building, a rock house about 590 feet square, and a corrugated 

metal shed estimated to be 280 square feet in area. All were believed to be unoccupied. 

Access to the property was difficult.809

 

804 Fischer “His aunt helped build park that could dispossess him.” 805 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services, Coronado National Memorial, 1988, WACC, Folder K 

1817: Annual Statement For Interpretation F9. 

806 Regional Director, Western Region, to Associate Director, Management and Operations, NPS, Subject: Legislative 

Cost Estimate, Coronado National Memorial, April 1, 1980, ILRPC Files. 807 Grant Deed, William J. and Patricia M. Sparkes, to NPS, Signed December 29, 1986, ibid. 808 Grant Deed, The Victorio Company, an Arizona Corporation which acquired title as Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, 

an Arizona Corporation, to NPS, Executed March 26, 1980, ibid. 

809 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 

250
 The eastern properties, the Doredor, Paring No. One, Paring No. Two, Paring No. 

Three, and Paring No. Four claims, made up Tract 101-09, 84.31 acres in size. Tract 

101-09 was further divided by sale in 1979. The western half of that property was sold to 

James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle and became known as Tract 101-22.810 The eastern 

half of Tract 101-09, which continued to be owned by the Victorio company, was 

designated Tract 101-21. Tract 101-21 was 42.16 acres and made up of portions of the 

Doredor, Paring No. One, Paring No. Two, Paring No. Three, and Paring No. Four lode 

mining claims. On March 26, 1980, The Victorio Company sold 196.73 acres to NPS for 

$340,000. That sale comprised Tracts 101-05 and 101-21.”811

 After the Wardles, and their Wardle Realty business of Sierra Vista, obtained 

Tract 101-22, they quickly moved to develop and market it. Evidently, negotiations with 

the National Park Service began almost immediately. Near the end of December 1979, 

an appraisal of $101,200 was approved as a base for negotiations by the government. 

The owners countered with a figure of $160,000. In March, the Wardles lowered their 

asking price to $125,000, “provided the transaction could be promptly consummated.” 

Unfortunately, it could not be consummated for quite some time due to budgetary 

constraints. So, the Wardles set about dividing and developing the property.812

 Already, in January 1980, Jacques and Audrey C. O’Keefe bought the western 

portion of Tract 101-22 in a deal financed By the Wardles under an All-Inclusive 

Agreement that scheduled payments from the O’Keefes. This property, including just 

 

810 Joint Tenancy Deed, The Victorio Company, an Arizona Corporation; formerly Victorio Land and Cattle Company, 

an Arizona Corporation; formerly Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, an Arizona Corporation, to James J. Wardle and 

Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, Signed December 18, 1979, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1388, pages 

333-334. 

811 Grant Deed, The Victorio Company, to NPS, Executed March 26, 1980. 812 Howard Chapman, Regional Director, Western Region, to Associate Director, Management and Operations, NPS, 

July 10, 1980, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Wardle & Acquisition F14. 

251
over twelve acres, was split into three tracts, numbered 101-34, 101-35, and 101-36.813 

The Memorial petitioned for condemnation to head off further development of the 

Wardle property and continued to do so for the next few years. In May 1980, the major 

concern of the Superintendent was that one or more roads would be built into the lands 

owned by Wardle and O’Keefe.814

 Going into 1981, it was reported that Wardle was cutting trees to clear access for 

a road into a portion of the property that he had recently sold. Wardle told an NPS 

official, Bob Cousins, that the new owner intended to build a single family residence. 

Cousins reported that, due to the site’s high visibility from the main road, 

“Superintendent Dale feels it is of highest priority to acquire this parcel by a Declaration 

of Taking.” Therefore, Cousins continued, it would be monitored closely for evidence of 

building activity so that such action could be taken.815 In April, a road was bulldozed 

into the Wardle property.816

 As the National Park Service continued to worry about development of the 

Wardle and O’Keefe properties, Wardle was expressing equal concern about the actions 

of the Memorial staff. An exchange of letters in 1982 resulted from Wardle’s complaint 

to his political representatives that federal officials had interfered with his attempts to sell 

his land. Wardle asserted that potential buyers had been told that “The Forest Service 

[sic] is in the process of buying up (taking over) all of that property,” and “There isn’t 

 

813 All-Inclusive Agreement, James J. Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, to Jacques O’Keefe and 

Audrey C. O’Keefe, husband and wife, Signed January 5, 1980, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1395, pages 484-

487. 

814 Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, Hereford, May 27, 1980, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – 

Wardle & Acquisition F14. 

815 Bob Cousins, Realty Specialist, Division of Land Acquisition, Western Region, to Acting Chief, Division of Land 

Acquisition, Western Region, March 10, 1981, ILRPC Files. 

816 Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, Hereford, March 22, 1983, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – 

Wardle & Acquisition F14. 

252
any water up there.”817 National Park Service officials, the actual targets of Wardle’s 

complaint, replied that their only mention of water was a statement that there was no 

surface water on the land. They admitted that “Superintendent Dale mistakenly informed 

one individual that a Declaration of Taking had been filed against the Wardle property.” 

In the future, promised NPS Acting Director Ira Hutchison, interested parties would be 

referred directly to the owner.818

 In March 1983, rock was blasted on the road that had been bulldozed in 1981. 

Wardle Realty said that more roadwork was planned, and the Memorial staff braced for 

residential development.819 In 1983, the O’Keefe’s subdivided and sold their land. With 

the Wardles also selling some of their holdings in the same year, most of the property 

bought from the Victorio Company by Wardle was transferred during that year. The first 

parcel to go was Tract 101-35, the southwest section of Tract 101-22, which included 

portions of the Paring No. Two and Paring No. Three mining claims.820 It was sold by 

the O’Keefes to Paul E. and Laurel A. Froelich in April 1983. A Joint Tenancy Deed was 

signed naming the Froelichs as tenants and the O’Keefes as “Grantor, Mortgagor or 

Trustor.”821 On the same day, a Warranty Deed transferring the property from the 

Wardles to the O’Keefes was also signed, showing that the O’Keefes still owed money to 

the Wardles as part of the 1980 All-Inclusive Agreement.822

 

817 Bill English, State Representative, to U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, June 29, 1982, ibid. 818 Ira J. Hutchison, Director, Acting, NPS, to Barry Goldwater, Washington, D.C., November 4, 1982, ibid. 819 Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, Hereford, March 22, 1983. 820 Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Minerals Overview Report and Map, Hereford, March 20, 

1986; Grant Deed, Paul E. Froelich and Laurel A. Froelich, his wife, to NPS, Signed July 5, 1985, ILRPC Files. 821 Joint Tenancy Deed, Jacques O’Keefe and Audrey C. O’Keefe, husband and wife, to Paul E. Froelich and Laurel A. 

Froelich, husband and wife, Signed April 8, 1983, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1671, pages 164-166. 822 Warranty Deed, James J. Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, to Jacques O’Keefe and Audrey C. 

O’Keefe, husband and wife, Signed April 8, 1983, and recorded April 29, 1983, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 

1671, page 162. 

253
 On August 29, 1983, the O’Keefes sold Tract 101-36, the western section of Tract 

101-22, and made up of portions of the Doredor, Paring No. Two, and Paring No. Three 

mining claims.823 It was purchased by Valentin Castro III and Deborah Castro in August 

1983.824 On the same day, the Wardles sold Tract 101-33 to Richard D. and Judy L. 

Compton.825 Tract 101-33 was made up of the southeast section of Tract 101-22, 

portions of the Paring No. Two and Paring No. Three mining claims.826 The Comptons 

also bought a tract, called Tract 101-34, from the O’Keefes.827 Tract 101-34 was made 

up of a portion of the Doredor claim, in the northwest section of Tract 101-22.828

 As the year 1983 came toward an end, Superintendent Dale summarized what was 

occurring to the land that had formerly made up Tract 101-22: 

Instead of having one owner as we did in early 1980, we now have five 

owners and potential private homes – a small subdivision in the heart of 

the Memorial. This parcel of land is highly visible and any building of 

private homes and roads would be very noticeable and obtrusive – 

especially from the Montezuma Pass area. The beauty, purpose, and 

setting of the Memorial should not be destroyed by an urban development 

within the scenic heart of this Park.829

Dale closed with yet another plea for acquisition: “In view of the high visibility of this 

land, the imminent threat of construction and the adverse impact this construction would 

 

823 Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Hereford, March 20, 1986; Grant Deed, Valentin Castro III 

and Deborah Castro, husband and wife, to NPS, Signed February 25, 1985, ILRPC Files. 824 Joint Tenancy Deed, Jacques O’Keefe and Audrey C. O’Keefe, husband and wife, to Valentin Castro III and 

Deborah Castro, husband and wife, Signed August 29, 1983, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1708, pages 40-43. 825 Joint Tenancy Deed, James J. Wardle and Jacqueline Wardle (aka Jacqueline S. Wardle), husband and wife, to 

Richard D. Compton and Judy L. Compton, husband and wife, Signed August 29, 1983, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, 

Docket 1700, pages 285-286. 

826 Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Hereford, March 20, 1986; Grant Deed, Richard D. Compton 

and Judy L. Compton, husband and wife, to NPS, February 12, 1985, ILRPC Files. 827 Joint Tenancy Deed, Jacques O’Keefe and Audrey O’Keefe, husband and wife, to Richard D. Compton and Judy L. 

Compton, husband and wife, Signed December 28, 1983, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1730, pages 579-580. 828 Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Hereford, March 20, 1986; Grant Deed, Richard D. Compton 

and Judy L. Compton, husband and wife, to NPS, Signed February 12, 1985, ILRPC Files. 829 Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, November 9, 1983, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Wardle & 

Acquisition F14. 

254
have on the natural features of the Park, the acquisition of this parcel should be given 

immediate emergency attention.”830

 Soon thereafter, in early 1984, the Huachuca Audubon Society weighed in on the 

side of NPS acquisition of the Wardle property. A letter from its president to Senator 

Barry Goldwater, however, criticized NPS inaction on the issue, suggesting that the slow 

moving Park Service did not fully grasp “the true ecological and historical significance of 

this unique bit of real estate.” In fact, it went on, “key personnel...may not be well 

acquainted with the fact that Coronado National Memorial was established as both a 

natural and historical site.”831 A February 1984 summary of inholdings in the Memorial 

concluded by making one exception to its opposition to acquisition by condemnation. 

The property still identified with Wardle, despite the fact that it had multiple owners, was 

deemed a “new and blatant intrusion and disregard of the natural resources of the area,” 

which should be condemned before further damage could be done.832

 Thus, the battle lines seemed to be drawn and interests lined up for and against 

acquisition. The Wardles had been willing to sell the property that then made up Tract 

101-22 to the Memorial and, in early 1980, had compromised on price, offering it for 

$125,000. Aware that the money for purchase was unlikely to be made available any 

time soon, they had moved to subdivide and develop the property. NPS officials, at the 

Memorial and elsewhere, continued to petition for acquisition, by sale or by 

condemnation. As the process dragged on, state and federal representatives responded to 

Wardle’s concerns that his private property rights were being infringed upon, while 

environmentalists and park supporters sought to expedite the acquisition. At one point in 

 

830 Ibid. 831 Anna Hirst, President, Huachuca Audubon Society, to Barry Goldwater, January 10, 1984, ibid. 

255
1981, it was explained that acquisition funds were limited “to assist President Reagan in 

his efforts to reduce the Federal budget.”833

 Eventually, funding was made available. In 1985, the Memorial finally acquired 

the remainder of the lands that had once made up the Doredor/Victorio mining claims. 

On February 6, 1985, James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle sold Tract 101-37, 16.75 acres, 

to NPS for $120,600.834 On February 12, the Comptons sold Tract 101-33, 13.05 acres, 

in three parcels, to the Park Service for $118,750. On the same day, the Comptons also 

sold the 4.02 acre Tract 101-34 to NPS for $33,400.835 On February 25, Valentin Castro 

III and his wife, Deborah, sold Tract 101-36, 4.04 acres, to NPS for $33,400.836 To 

complete the series of sales, on July 5, Paul E. and Laurel A. Froelich sold the 4.03 acre 

Tract 101-35 to NPS for $32,250.837 In the four years that elapsed between 1980, when 

the Wardles offered Tract 101-22 for $125,000 and 1985, when the sales were completed, 

the price of the property had jumped to $338,400. 

 As a result of the 1978 boundary adjustment and the 1976 “Act to Provide for the 

Regulation of Mining Activity,” one other set of properties came into dispute, though 

they were not purchased or condemned by the Park Service. The dispute itself is 

somewhat confused, but concerned several unpatented claims worked by W.P. Witkopp 

of Sierra Vista and his partner, John T. Porter. Witkopp was involved in thirty-two 

claims north of Montezuma Pass, in Coronado National Forest, with his company, Tako 

Mining.838 Porter was a partner in some of his operations, including five claims, all or 

 

832 Clay to Regional Director, Western Region, February 2, 1984, ILRPC Files. 833 Chapman to Gordon Douglas, Coronado Resource Conservation and Development, November 19, 1981, WACC, 

Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Wardle & Acquisition F14. 

834 Grant Deed, James J. Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, his wife, to NPS, Signed February 6, 1985, ILRPC Files. 835 Grant Deed, Richard D. and Judy L. Compton, to NPS, Signed February 12, 1985. 836 Grant Deed, Valentin Castro III and Deborah Castro, to NPS, Signed February 25, 1985. 837 Grant Deed, Paul E. and Laurel A. Froelich, to NPS, Signed July 5, 1985. 838 Wilbert P. Witkopp to Unknown, July 26, 1979, ILRPC Files. 

256
part of which were brought within the boundaries of the Memorial as a result of the 1978 

adjustment.839

 Exactly what happened to Witkopp’s claims is unclear from the various accounts 

of his story to be found in extant documents. In February 1982, the Bureau of Land 

Management ruled that a total of nine claims, including those that extended into the 

Memorial, were abandoned and void due to failure to file appropriate paperwork before a 

deadline in late 1980. Samuel Riley, who leased the claims and acted as Witkopp’s agent 

at the time of the missed filing, appealed the ruling unsuccessfully in April 1982. He 

offered, according to the decision, no new evidence, but stated that he was still working 

the claims.840 Witkopp, himself, appealed in October 1983. He testified that Riley had 

been dealing with family illness at the time of the original problem and had only missed 

the deadline by days, that they had since lost contact , and that he, Witkopp, had not been 

informed of subsequent decisions.841

 In a letter which he wrote to President Reagan in 1984, Witkopp added that Riley 

“had taken the liberty to assume authorization to file the affidavits” that had not been 

filed. This time he also added that, even before the deadline for filing, the disputed 

claims had been confiscated by the Park Service. He recalled that he had heard rumors of 

the land exchange in 1978 and approached Memorial staff. They responded, according to 

Witkopp, “that as far as NPS was concerned that I had no mineral rights within the area 

whatsoever and that the NPS and USFS were Federal agencies, and as such could do 

 

839 Witkopp to Unknown, November 7, 1983, ILRPC Files. 840 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Land Appeals, Ruling, Tako 

Mining, Arlington, April 9, 1982, ILRPC Files. 

841 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Land Appeals, Ruling, Tako 

Mining, Arlington, October 31, 1983, ILRPC Files. 

257
whatever they wished at any time they wished.”842 Elsewhere, he wrote that he first 

heard about the exchange from a Park Service employee in July 1979. He was, according 

to this telling, told that as soon as the legislation was read into the Federal Register the 

claims would become NPS property and he could no longer work on them.843

 Immediately after the exchange, the Park Service agreed that Witkopp would be 

owed compensation for his claims provided that they proved valid and after their value 

was appraised.844 A preliminary examination of the claims was conducted and Witkopp 

was notified that a survey would follow. However, he was soon told that there would be 

no survey or settlement because the claims were void, based upon the BLM ruling.845 

The Park Service informed Mr. Witkopp that it had no basis for acquiring his claims 

unless they were properly filed. Since he had failed to file in a timely fashion in 1980, 

the claims were null and void as ruled by BLM and on subsequent appeals. In addition, it 

was pointed out that BLM was responsible for making the ruling regardless of what 

federal agency actually controlled the land on which the claims were located.846

 While the whole tale of W.P. Witkopp’s claims is not entirely comprehensible 

from the documents, it seems that he may have been caught in a confusing tangle of 

agency overlaps and bureaucratic rulings as well as by his own undoing. Through it all, 

though, he continued to profit from his claims, and his bad experience, up to the last 

possible minute. Well after the 1978 or 1979 date when he later said that he understood 

that he had been dispossessed of his claims by the Park Service, he continued to lease 

them, first to Samuel Riley and later to Wayne Jeppson. In 1983, he asserted that he was 

 

842 Witkopp to President Reagan, Sierra Vista, July 13, 1984, ILRPC Files. 843 Witkopp to Unknown, July 26, 1979. 844 Chapman to Congressman Morris K. Udall, San Francisco, September 25, 1979, ILRPC Files. 845 Witkopp to Reagan, Sierra Vista, July 13, 1984. 846 Chapman to Witkopp, Draft, September 17, 1984, ILRPC Files. 

258
facing fraud charges for the latter lease because BLM had ruled against him but failed to 

notify him that he no longer owned, or could lease, the claims.847 However, as noted, he 

later claimed that his responsibility for the claims ended four to five years earlier. Most 

probably, Witkopp, like most people would in his position, changed tactics and stories 

based on what seemed most likely to work. It also seems that NPS officials were not 

totally clear about what was occurring on every front while they were trying to sort out 

the extent of Witkopp’s rights and their responsibilities. In that, the Witkopp case was 

far from unique in the annals of Coronado National Memorial. 

 The 1978 boundary adjustment also brought several inholdings at the mouth of 

Montezuma Canyon into Coronado National Memorial. The bulk of both Ratliff 

homesteads, Homestead Entry Surveys (H.E.S.) 310 and 311, as well as the Kudzmi 

homestead, had been acquired by the National Forest Service before 1978. That land 

became part of the Memorial as part of the exchange. Part of Homestead Entry Survey 

311 was still in private hands as was all of the Pyeatt homestead, known as Montezuma 

Ranch. 

 The Baumkirchner brothers, as mentioned in the last chapter, had subdivided the 

portion of H.E.S. 311 that they had not traded to the Forest Service and begun to sell it in 

small lots. These were fairly quickly acquired by the Memorial. On March 19, 1980, 

Everett M. Baumkirchner Jr. sold 101-16, six acres, to NPS for $36,000.848 On the same 

day, another Warranty Deed for Tract 101-16 was transferred from the Baumkirchner 

brothers and their wives to Everett Jr. The second Warranty Deed was probably given 

after the last money owed on the property was paid to the sellers, which cleared the title 

 

847 Witkopp to Unknown, November 7, 1983. 848 Grant Deed, Everett M. Baumkirchner Jr., to NPS, Signed March 19, 1980, ILRPC Files. 

259
for ownership by NPS and inclusion into Coronado National Memorial.849 At about the 

same time, on March 20, 1980, the Baumkirchner brothers and their wives sold the 

remainder of their holdings, 94.23 acres, to NPS for $471,200. The deed listed and 

described the two separate parcels that made up Tract 101-10.850

 By the end of 1971, James M. Tyra and Billie Jean Tyra owned four acres of 

H.E.S. 311. They had purchased half of it from the Baumkirchners and the other half 

from Lawrence Edward Ray, but seem to have borrowed the money for all of it from the 

Baumkirchners. They held the land in Joint Tenancy Deeds until they sold it to NPS on 

March 25, 1980. The Tyras received $62,000 for the two parcels, which totaled four 

acres, called Tract 101-11.851 On the same day, a Warranty Deed for both parcels of 

Tract 101-11 was transferred from the Baumkirchners to the Tyras, signifying that the 

mortgage on the property had been paid and the title cleared.852

 On April 3, 1980, Dewitt and Doretta Ruth Green sold two acres to NPS for 

$19,000. That sale included Tracts 101-12 and 101-14.853 Tract 101-13 had been bought 

by Eileen Owens in April 1978.854 In January 1985, Owens sold it to Allan and Leona 

Cerkowniak.855 As of the summer of 2000, the Allan Cerkowniak still resides in this 

house and property. William and Jean Cashman also remained as a private holding in the 

summer of 2000. 

 

849 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to Everett M. 

Baumkirchner Jr., Signed March 19, 1980, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1410, page 2. 850 Grant Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, his wife, as joint tenants, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, as joint tenants, to NPS, Signed March 20, 1980, ILRPC Files. 851 Grant Deed, James M. Tyra and Billie Jean Tyra, his wife, as joint tenants, to NPS, March 25, 1980, ILRPC Files. 852 Warranty Deed, Payoff Deed for Agreement recorded in Docket 726 page 258. Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary 

Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and 

wife, to James M. Tyra and Billie Jean Tyra, Husband and Wife. Signed March 25, 1980, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, 

Docket 1413, pages 456-457 

853 Grant Deed, Dewitt Green and Doretta Ruth Green, his wife, as joint tenants, to NPS, April 3, 1980, ILRPC Files. 854 Warranty Deed, Robert G. and Betty J. Chavez to Eileen G. Owens, Signed April 28, 1978, CCR, Deeds of Real 

Estate, Docket 1250, page 147. 

260
 The other private inholding at the mouth of Montezuma Canyon, the Montezuma 

Ranch, was to cause considerably more problems for the Coronado National Memorial. 

To reprise the recent ownership of the Montezuma Ranch, George F. and Elsie R. Weick 

of Illinois had purchased the property from George and Martha Howe in April 1973. 

They sold the ranch to Patricia H. Hughes in 1975 and she sold it to Richard B. Richards 

and his wife, Cheryl in March 1979.856 However, Weick’s interest and involvement in 

the Montezuma Ranch would continue for the next two decades, at least. 

 A 1979 appraisal described Montezuma Ranch as Tract 101-18, 160 acres. The 

appraisal specified that the tract was improved with several buildings, including 

residences, barns, sheds, a swimming pool, and miscellaneous outbuildings. There was 

excellent access to the property. Its location was described as the west half of Section 17, 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona.857

 The subdivision of the Montezuma Ranch began in late 1979. The first hint that 

Memorial staff had came with a phone call on September 24, 1979. Bob Gibbons, of the 

Western Regional office, was told by Leland Auslender, of Los Angeles, that he had 

bought twenty-five acres of Tract 101-18 from Richard Richards. Auslender hinted that 

he would be interested in selling the land. An appraiser should contact Richards, who 

would continue to be Auslender’s agent, for an appointment.858

 At this point Tract 101-18 was divided into two tracts. At first, they were labeled 

Tracts 101-23, 165 acres, and 101-24, twenty-five acres.859 There was some confusion 

on everyone’s part regarding the actual size of the property which Auslender bought from 

 

855 Joint Tenancy Deed, Eileen G. Owens, an unmarried woman, to Allan Cerkowniak and Leona Cerkowniak, husband 

and wife, Signed January 4, 1985, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Listing number 860406690. 856 Barbour, “Dude Ranching”. 857 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 858 Handwritten note re: telephone call, Leland Auslander (sic) to Bob Gibbons, September 24, 1979, ILRPC Files. 

261
Richards. In May 1980, Tracts 101-23 and 101-24 were deleted because they had been 

“listed with erroneous acreages.” In their place were Tract 101-25, ninety-five acres, 

belonging to Richards, and Tract 101-26, sixty-five acres, owned by Auslender.860 By 

that time, on April 21, 1980, Auslender had sold his land, sixty-five acres, to the NPS for 

$325,000.861 

 Tract 101-25 was subsequently subdivided into Tracts 101-27, 101-28, 101-29, 

and 101-30, all of which remained in the possession of Richard Richards and his wife, 

Cheryl. Tract 101-27 was formerly the northeast corner of 101-25; Tract 101-28 was the 

southeast corner; and Tract 101-30 was made up of land on the north side of Tract 101-

25.862 Before long, the Richards’s sold all three tracts to the National Park Service for 

inclusion in Coronado National Memorial. On December 15, 1981, they sold ten acres to 

NPS for $50,000. That sale comprised Tracts 101-27 and 101-28, each containing five 

acres.863 On August 3, 1982, the Richards’s sold Tract 101-30, 2.5 acres, to NPS for 

$12,500.864

 When the ninety-five acre Tract 101-25 was divided, 82.5 acre Tract 101-29 

retained most of its land.865 Tract 101-29 was christened Sunrise Farms and operated by 

Richards as an organic farm. Among other things, Sunrise Farms produced fruit, 

broccoli, garlic, and carrots. Richards also made and marketed carrot juice from the crop. 

Montezuma Ranch was also host to other enterprises, at least one of which, it would turn 

out, was illegal. Richards raised turkeys, horses, and ostriches, and sold satellite 

 

859 NPS Division of Land Acquisition Master Deed Listing, May 31, 1980, ibid. 860 Division of Land Acquisition, Western Region, NPS, to Chief, Coordination and Control Branch, NPS, May 12, 

1980, ibid. 

861 Grant Deed, Leland I. Auslender to NPS, April 21, 1980, ibid. 862 Untitled map of Coronado National Memorial, July 1982; Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, 

March 20, 1986, ibid. 

863 Grant Deed, Richards and Richards to NPS, December 15, 1981, ibid. 864 Grant Deed, Richard B. Richards and Cheryl Richards to NPS, August 3, 1982, ibid. 

262
television dishes. At one time, he sold foam roof covering, with which he coated an 

entire house, “(f)rom the foundation up to the peak.”866

 On 4 February 1985 Richard Richards and Cheryl Richards, husband and wife, 

sold a scenic easement to NPS for $549,000. The conditions were spelled out in 

attachments. They were aimed at “preserving and protecting the scenic value of the said 

lands” by limiting construction, landscaping, and land use. Some Arizona Cypress trees 

were to be planted to screen the property and park personnel were to be permitted limited 

access.867

 Despite the restrictions contained in the scenic easement agreement signed by 

NPS and Mr. and Ms. Richards, the landowners soon floated several development 

schemes for Tract 101-29. They included fee sale of twenty-five acres, including all 

structures; contracting with the state to run a half-way house for paroled felons; operating 

a nursing home; developing a mini-RV park; and sub-dividing the property into five new 

building sites. Richards also proposed selling the property to NPS with the stipulation 

that he be allowed to remain.868 

 Another issue involving the scenic easement on Tract 101-29 and relations 

between Richards and the Memorial was waste disposal on the property. In May 1990, 

new superintendent Edward Lopez conducted a hazardous waste survey of the Richards 

property and submitted a report expressing concern about the dump sites and 

recommending that a more thorough inspection be performed.869 On the request of NPS, 

 

865 Untitled map of Coronado National Memorial, July 1982. 866 Henry Ruiz, Chief of Maintenance, Coronado National Memorial, interview by Jerry G. Gurulé and Bruce A. 

Erickson, May 4, 2000. 

867 Grant Deed, Richard Richards and Cheryl Richards to NPS, scenic easement, February 4, 1985, ILRPC Files. 868 Memorandum, Joseph L. Sewell, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Regional Director, Western 

Region, NPS, May 3, 1988; Memorandum, Joseph L. Sewell, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to 

Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, March 7, 1989, CORO Files. 

869 Ed Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d., ibid. 

263
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality inspected Richards’s 82.5 acre 

property on June 19, 1990. They issued a report in August identifying “Several Solid 

Waste issues” including “three unapproved refuse landfills, diesel fuel leaks, fiberglass 

resin discharges, and various waste containers of oil and paint, and waste batteries.”870 

While some dump sites, litter, and abandoned vehicles were present before the easement 

agreement, it was clear that the property had deteriorated since it was signed.871 

 Subsequent to the easement agreement, Richards began attempting to sell Tract 

101-29. He claimed financial hardship, partly due to the restrictions in the easement, 

adding in 1990 that he was by then divorced and otherwise in debt as well. In 1988, 

Richards first suggested that NPS purchase the property, stipulating that he wanted to 

continue living there and using the land for agriculture. Given his ongoing circumvention 

of the scenic easement and degeneration of Tract 101-29, some NPS officials supported 

the idea. Superintendent Joseph L. Sewell recommended fee acquisition by NPS and 

renewable one-year special use permits that allowed Richards to stay on the land.872

 It was, belatedly, recognized by NPS officials that the scenic easement was 

ineffective as written. There seemed to be no enforcement mechanisms which specified 

consequences for violations. In addition, NPS had no pictures or descriptions of the 

property to document the appearance of the property at the time of the agreement in order 

to prove that violations had occurred. Obvious violations of specific items in the 

easement agreement had already taken place without retribution. One example was the 

granting of right-of-way to the Sulfur Springs Valley Electrical Cooperative. Now, 

 

870 Dale A. Anderson, Manager, Hazardous Waste Inspection Unit, Office of Waste Programs, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Bob Cousins, Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, Phoenix, August 16, 1990, ibid. 871 Clay Cunningham, General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, 

NPS, Phoenix, July 31, 1990, ibid. 

264
Richards was prepared to pursue further development, unconcerned about the seemingly 

unenforceable easement. In addition, stipulated screening efforts had been ineffective 

and would likely continue to be so. Finally, Richards was determined to sell the property, 

and probably subdivide it. If NPS did not acquire it, the same problems were likely to 

continue with the new owners.873

 Requests to Washington, D.C., for acquisition funding raised concerns. The 

Director’s office noted that the landowner was claiming a hardship based upon an 

easement for which he had already been paid. Fee acquisition would then be used as a 

remedy for repeated violations of the easement. Even after acquisition, the violator 

would remain on the property under a special use permit. In effect, NPS would pay for 

the land twice and it would still be under the control of a private landowner who had 

proven uncooperative in the past. Such a course would be inconsistent with existing 

policy and set a dangerous precedent for future acquisitions.874 When hardship funds 

were requested to allow immediate acquisition, a Congressional Subcommittee also 

expressed concern that purchase was proposed as a means of preventing development that 

was specifically prohibited by the already purchased easement.875

 When Edward Lopez met him in December 1989, Richards introduced himself as 

“the person that ‘had taken the NPS for over $500,000 and was in the process of taking 

another one half million from them again.’”876 Thereafter, Richards continued his 

attempts to subdivide and sell Tract 101-29, promising prospective buyers that they could 

 

872 Addendum to the Land Protection Plan for Coronado national Memorial, October 26, 1988, ILRPC Files; 

Cunningham to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, July 18, 1990, CORO Files. 873 Cunningham to Regional Director, Western Region, July 18, 1990; Edward Lopez, Superintendent, Coronado 

National Memorial, to Regional Director, Western Region, August 15, 1990, CORO Files. 874 Draft Memorandum, Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, Washington, D.C., n.d., ILRPC 

Files. 

875 Acting Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, Washington, D.C., October 31, 1990, CORO 

Files. 

265
build as long as they were replacing one of the many buildings already on the property. 

He also continued to plead hardship to NPS On October 16, 1990, Acting Western 

Regional Director, Lewis S. Albert explained that the Richards family was losing all their 

equity through possible bankruptcy and had not marketed the property because they were 

counting on NPS to buy it. He went on to discuss the insufficient regulation that allowed 

Richards to the violate easement and the mess that he had already created and would 

likely exacerbate.877 By early 1991, NPS was negotiating purchase with a Chapter 13 

Trustee, suggesting that the property had been foreclosed. However, funding was not 

then available and was not thought likely to be until after October 1, 1992.878

On the evening of July 25, 1991, the status and fate of the Richards property was 

suddenly changed. As Superintendent Lopez was leaving the Memorial he was flagged 

down by Linda Sorenson, who lived with Richards on the property. At her request, 

Lopez contacted the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department. Sorenson had been assaulted 

by Richards and said that she wanted to retaliate by turning him in for marijuana 

cultivation. However, she had, evidently, already been in contact with the Sheriff’s 

Department regarding the matter. Together, Sheriff’s deputies and Park Rangers 

searched the Richards property and the adjacent area of the Memorial. They found 

marijuana growing within the house as well as thirty- eight marijuana plants on NPS 

land.879

 

876 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d. 877 Lewis S. Albert, Acting Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, to Associate Director, Operations, NPS, 

September 28, 1990, CORO Files; Lopez to Regional Director, Western Region, August 15, 1990; Lopez, “Montezuma 

Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d. 878 Edward R. Haberlin, Chief, Division of Land Resources, Western Region, NPS, to Margo Martin, Chapter 13 

Trustee, San Francisco, January 14, 1991, CORO Files. 879 Criminal Incident Record, Case/Incident Number 910056, filed by William R. Smith, July 29, 1991; Supplemental 

Criminal Incident Record, Case/Incident Number 910056, filed by Edward Lopez, July 29, 1991; Supplemental 

Criminal Incident Record, Case/Incident Number 910056, filed by William R. Smith, July 27, 1991; Supplemental 

Criminal Incident Record, Case/Incident Number 910056, filed by Michael D. Walden, July 26, 1991, ibid. 

266
 According to Superintendent Lopez, the Department of Justice, United States 

Attorney’s Office, and Drug Enforcement Agency approached him shortly after the drug 

bust to assess NPS interest in obtaining the property through the seizure process. NPS 

officials discussed the offer and responded that they would indeed be interested in 

acquisition.880 In August 1991, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed for seizure of Tract 101-

29 in its entirety.881 Subsequently, Richards pled guilty to domestic violence. As part of 

his plea bargain, Richards agreed not to contest the seizure. As part of the forfeiture he 

also agreed not to have any later interest in the land. Richards continued to live on the 

property until April 1993, paying rent to the U.S. Marshal Service.882

 Lopez recalled that the property came under the custodial ownership of the 

Department of Justice, U.S. Marshal Service, some six weeks after the arrest.883 In May 

1992, NPS was informed by the U.S. Attorney’s office that the land had been seized as 

part of the plea bargain with Richards. The U.S. Attorney offered the National Park 

Service the opportunity to acquire it for the price of all existing liens plus interest, taxes, 

and expenses incurred by the Marshal’s Service. Agreeing to a stipulated total, projected 

for August 5, 1992, of $227,016.34, the National Park Service wanted a guarantee that 

Richards and certain property, including trees and a carrot harvest but not fencing, would 

be off the property before the Memorial took possession.884

 However, between his arrest and seizure of his land by the Department of Justice, 

Richards’s mother, Elsie Weick, the former owner of the Montezuma Ranch, had filed a 

 

880 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d. 881 Complaint for Forfeiture, United States District Court, District of Arizona, United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 

82.5 acres of real property located in Cochise County, Arizona and known as the Montezuma Ranch, DBA The Sunrise 

Farms, Inc. with all improvements, fixtures and appurtenances thereto and thereon; Defendant, August 16, 1991, 

CORO Files. 

882 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d. 883 Ibid. 

267
lien on a portion of the property for money owed to her. The Department of Justice 

contested the Weick lien. According to NPS employees, the general feeling was that Ms. 

Weick filed the lien so that her son would come out of the process without losing 

everything. An eventual settlement provided for Ms. Weick and the Department of 

Justice to split the proceeds from the sale of the parcel determined to be covered by the 

lien.885 Because of uncertainty about the outcome of the Weick lien and its value, NPS 

could not guarantee payment of outstanding claims and expenses previously agreed upon. 

Therefore, the Asset Forfeiture Office of the Department of Justice could not continue its 

efforts to transfer Tract 101-29 to NPS.886

 There were two other outstanding liens on Tract 101-29 as well, belonging to 

Western Farm Credit Bank and Citibank. There was some confusion regarding exactly 

what land secured what loan. That confusion stemmed from the legal descriptions 

defining the land base of the collateral.887 One property, 56.91 acres in size, which 

became known as Tract 101-39, was eventually connected to a lien held by Western Farm 

Credit Bank. The remaining 25.59 acres of the original 82.5 were eventually assigned to 

lien-holders as well. Elsie Weick and the Department of Justice were to split the 

proceeds from the sale of 20.47 acres, while Citibank was assigned 5.12 acres; both 

contained residential structures. 

 From that point on, the 82.5 acre Tract 101-29 was usually considered as three 

separate tracts numbered 101-39 (56.91 acres), 101-40 (5.12 acres), and 101-41 (20.47 

 

884 Haberlin to Linda A. Akers, United States Attorney, Department of Justice, District of Arizona, San Francisco, May 

26, 1992, CORO Files. 

885 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d.; c.c. mail, Bob Cousins to Harlan Hobbs, 

Edward A. Lopez, and Sondra S. Humphries, Subject: CORO acquisitions, August 12, 1996, ibid. 886 Cindy K. Jorgenson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice, District of Arizona, to Melinda S. Barnett of 

James S. Marlar, P.C., and Jeffrey A. Bernick of Ridenour, Swenson, Cleer & Evans, Tucson, August 16, 1993, ibid. 887 Cousins to Hobbs, Lopez, and Humphries, August 12, 1996. 

268
acres). For the next few years, however, it was still, sometimes, discussed and dealt with 

as one large lot, particularly when the issue was hazardous waste. During 1996, NPS 

conducted a “Level I Survey: Contaminant Survey Checklist of Proposed Real Estate 

Acquisition” inspection on all of the 82.5 acres which formerly made up tract 101-29.888 

Subsequently, in 1997, Coronado National Memorial took bids for clean-up of the 

properties that had made up Tract 101-29 as part of the process of acquiring all of 

them.889

 The origin of Tract 101-39 was in a $120,000 loan to Richards from Western 

Farm Credit Bank on December 9, 1988. According to Bob Cousins, there was some 

confusion regarding the land base used as collateral for this and another loan from United 

Bank of Arizona. After that conundrum was sorted out, Western Farm Credit Bank was 

able to foreclose on 56.91 acres, which became Tract 101-39. In September 1992, it was 

the subject of a notice of impending Trustee’s Sale.890

 In November 1994, NPS was contacted by an agent for Western Farm Credit 

Bank regarding the sale of Tract 101-39. In December, Sondra S. Humphries, Chief, 

Division of Land Resources for the Western Region, responded with an offer for $24,000. 

Her letter detailed some intermediate steps which would have to precede.891 It took until 

April 1996 for the property to be cleared by a hazardous waste inspection and in May an 

 

888 Jim Walters, Southwest Hazardous Waste Program Agent, to Southwest Land Resources Program Center, April 3, 

1997, CORO Files. 

889 Montezuma Ranch Update, probably written by Edward Lopez, July 1, 1997; Proposal for Clean-up, Eads 

Construction Redi-Mix, Inc., Bisbee, September 16, 1997; Proposal for Clean-up, B-R Constructors, Inc., Huachuca 

City, September 18, 1997, ibid. 

890 Notice of Trustee’s Sale, filed by Melinda S. Barnett of James S. Marlar, P.C., Phoenix, September 30, 1992, ibid; 

Cousins to Hobbs, Lopez, and Humphries, August 12, 1996. 891 Sondra S. Humphries, Chief, Division of Land Resources, Western Region, NPS, to Gary L. Buntrock, Garmar 

Enterprises, Inc., San Francisco, December 13, 1994, CORO Files. 

269
official “Offer to Sell” was transmitted to the bank.892 On June 17, 1996, Superintendent 

Lopez made final inspection and took possession of Tract 101-39.893 The sale was 

recorded the next day.894 Finally, Tract 101-39 had been purchased, 56.91 acres for 

$24,000.895 That left two tracts of Montezuma Ranch in private hands. 

 Tract 101-40 was collateral for a $26,500 loan to Richard Richards by United 

Bank of Arizona in July 1988, which came due June 7, 1989. Like the loan by Western 

Farm Credit Bank, this one did not have a well-defined piece of property assigned as 

collateral. Eventually, as the lien morass was sorted out, Citibank, as successor to the 

United Bank of Arizona, was able to foreclose on 5.12 acres, which became Tract 101-

40. In April 1994, Citibank made notice of a Trustee’s Sale to be held the following 

July.896

 On March 26, 1997, Elsie Weick bought Tract 101-40 from Citibank for an 

undisclosed price. Weick thus became at least part owner of two of the three lienencumbered tracts formerly owned by her son. Tract 101-40 was held under a deed of 

trust.897 Within a few months, Richards was acting as an agent for Weick in marketing 

Tract 101-40, which NPS opposed, considering it a violation of the plea agreement in 

which Richards was prohibited from acquiring interest in the property.898 Late in 1997, 

 

892 c.c. mail, Jim Walters to Edward A. Lopez and Bob Cousins, April 22, 1996; Sondra S. Humphries, Chief, Pacific 

Land Resources Program Center, NPS, to Michael Morris, Western Farm Credit Bank, San Francisco, May 22, 1996, 

ibid. 

893 U.S. Department of the Interior Certificate of Inspection and Possession, Tract 101-39, filed by Edward Lopez, June 

17, 1996, ibid. 

894 Grant Deed, Western Farm Credit Bank to NPS, June 3, 1996, ILRPC Files. 895 Notification of Closing, Tract 101-39, May 22, 1997, CORO Files. 896 Notice of Trustee’s Sale, filed by Ronald M. Horowitz of Anderson, Brody, Levinson, Weiser & Horwitz, P.A., 

Phoenix, April 21, 1994, Cochise County, Arizona, CORO Files; Cousins to Hobbs, Lopez, and Humphries, August 12, 

1996. 

897 Assignment of Beneficial Interest Under Deed of Trust to Elsie Weick, from Citibank (Arizona), Trustee, as 

successor to United Bank of Arizona, March 26, 1997, CORO Files. 898 Ethan Steele, Attorney at Law for Richard Richards, to Janet Martin, Office of United States Attorney, Tucson, June 

23, 1997, ibid. 

270
NPS was still working to acquire the remainder of the Montezuma Ranch properties and 

was accepting bids for clean-up as part of the appraisal process.899 

 On February 5, 1998, Tract 101-40 was transferred from Elsie Weick to “Sunrise, 

A Trust,” which shared Weick’s Wood Dale, Illinois, address, for the sum of ten dollars. 

Weick was the only “co-trustee” listed on the document.900 The title company did not 

show a change in the ownership of the property and Weick and her representatives 

continued to act as they had before the transfer.901 Negotiations dragged on through 1998 

and 1999. Weick’s representatives tried to drive the price up and NPS countered by 

promising condemnation.902

 In 1999, NPS continued to address other issues, like clean-up, that arose from 

violations of the scenic easement agreement. In February, an administrative waiver was 

signed by Memorial Superintendent Jim Bellamy which would allow NPS acquisition in 

spite of the existence of an easement for power lines.903 In May, Bellamy filed a 

complaint with the Cochise County Planning Department, Building & Zoning Division. 

It reported extensive renovation to the two story house without a permit.904 Bellamy was 

concerned that such improvements would increase the price which NPS would eventually 

pay for the property, after which the buildings would likely be demolished.905 The 

 

899 Description of Tract No. 101-40, November 19, 1997, ibid; Montezuma Ranch Update, July 1, 1997; Proposal for 

Clean-up, Eads Construction Redi-Mix, Inc., September 16, 1997; Proposal for Clean-up, B-R Constructors, Inc., 

September 18, 1997. 

900 Grant Deed, Elsie Weick to Sunrise, A Trust, February 5, 1998, CORO Files. 901 Handwritten note, re: Tract 101-40, September 13, 1999, ibid. 902 c.c.mail, Julian Trujillo, Southwest Regional Office, NPS, to William Smith, Coronado National Memorial, June 9, 

1998, ibid. 

903 Administrative Waiver, signed by Jim Bellamy, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, February 17, 1999, 

ibid. 

904 Complaint Form, Cochise County Zoning Regulations, Cochise County Planning Department, Building & Zoning 

Division, Sierra Vista, filed by Jim Bellamy, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, May 25, 1999, ibid. 905 Bellamy to Regional Director, Intermountain Region, NPS, Hereford, May 27, 1999, ibid. 

271
Cochise County Planning Department investigated and agreed that the work was in 

violation of Zoning Regulations.906

 As 1999 came to an end, Tract 101-40 was still for sale, as was demonstrated 

when a potential buyer contacted Coronado National Memorial for information about 

NPS acquisition plans and existing easements. Meanwhile, condemnation proceedings 

were instituted against the property by NPS after they were unable agree with the owners 

on a fair price. NPS offered $41,000 and Weick made no counter-offer. The final price 

was to be decided by an administrative court.907 In July 2001, Superintendent Bellamy 

was able to report that “a settlement has been reached on the remaining 5.12 acres of the 

old Montezuma Ranch property, and it looks like we will receive title very soon.”908

 Negotiations over the sale of Tract 101-41 also dragged on through the late 1990s. 

April 1996 found Richards’s attorney, Ethan Steele, trying to list the property for sale by 

the Marshal’s Service. Steele described three appraisals of $80,000, $220,000, and 

$60,000 and expressed his opinion that the last was the most accurate. He also 

mentioned the scenic easement, deteriorated structures, and approximately $20,000 in 

back taxes as liabilities to the tract. Finally, Steele stated that the U.S. Forest Service was 

then offering $60,000 for the property.909

 Finally, in January 1998, the acquisition of Tract 101-41 moved forward when 

Superintendent Lopez signed a Department of the Interior Certificate of Inspection and 

 

906 Ann MacNeill, Zoning Enforcement Officer, Cochise County Planning Department, Building and Zoning Division, 

to Sunrise-A Trust, Wooddale [sic], Il., Sierra Vista, August 12, 1999, Copy, ibid. 907 Robert Wierzal to Bellamy, Scottsdale, October 7, 1999; Bellamy to Wierzal, Hereford, October 18, 1999; Barbara 

A. Sulhoff, Chief, Land Resources Program Center, Intermountain Region, NPS, to Field Solicitor, NPS, Santa Fe, 

November 30, 1999, ibid. 

908 Bellamy to Joseph P. Sánchez, Spanish Colonial Research Center (SPCO), NPS, Hereford, July 27, 2001, SPCO 

Files. 

909 Steele to Paul Tatham, I.R.P. District Headquarters, Tucson, April 19, 1996, ibid. 

272
Possession.910 On January 23, 1998, Alfred W. Madrid, United States Marshall for the 

District of Arizona, sold 20.47 acres of described land to NPS for $56,500. According to 

the deed, the land was forfeited by Richards on December 21, 1992. On January 8, 1996, 

“a Forfeiture Judgement was entered pursuant to written stipulation by the parties as to 

claimant Elsie Weick, declaring the interest of Weick, in the above described real estate, 

was forfeited to the United States of America.” The United States Marshall was then 

charged with the duty to dispose of the property.”911 On February 2, 1998, the title was 

officially passed to the National Park Service.912

 As the new century began, all but three of the inholdings within Coronado 

National Memorial, as defined in 1978, had been acquired by the Park Service. The 

unobtrusive single-family dwellings of the Cerkowniaks and Cashmans, near the east 

entrance, caused no worries. The residents remained good neighbors who created no 

problems for the Memorial or its staff. Their land could eventually be acquired. 

 If the process of creating the Memorial had taught anything it was not to assume 

that any acquisition would ever be completely trouble free. The last tract of the 

Montezuma Ranch was still owned by Elsie Weick. Her son, Richard, no longer lived 

there but still came regularly to work on the large house.913 After sometimes 

acrimonious negotiations, it seemed likely that the property would be condemned and its 

value judged by an arbitrator. In a May 1999 request for condemnation, Memorial 

Superintendent Jim Bellamy noted that, since the structure would be demolished after 

 

910 U.S. Department of the Interior Certificate of Inspection and Possession, Tract 101-40, signed by Edward Lopez, 

January 13, 1998, ibid. 

911 United States Marshal’s Special Warranty Deed, Alfred E. Madrid, United States Marshal for the District of 

Arizona, to The United States of America for the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

January 3, 1998, ILRPCenter Files. 

912 Notification of Closing, Tract 101-41, February 2, 1998, CORO Files. 913 Henry Ruiz, May 4, 2000. 

273
acquisition, the only point of Richards’s renovation work was to drive up the value of the 

land. Richards told Bellamy that money was the only issue, and the parties were far apart 

in their estimates of the land’s value. NPS had offered $41,000 for the property, while 

Richards informed Bellamy that his mother wanted $150,000.914

 The overly long, drawn-out, process of acquisition of the Montezuma Ranch, as 

well as of the other inholdings in Coronado National Memorial, seems from a distance to 

be a matter of poor planning. More accurately, it is a consequence of an evolving vision 

of the Memorial. In its original form, the entire Memorial was, by design, made up of 

land already owned by the federal government. Little consideration was given to the 

resource itself, or to its viability as an ecological entity. It was, in addition, envisioned as 

an international park with its visitor facilities located on the border, and more accessible 

from the Mexican side than from the north. 

 In 1960, the boundary was adjusted to bring in suitable land for a road to a visitor 

center, still projected for construction on the border, and also to construct facilities 

adjacent to the road through the Memorial within the United States. As far as private 

interests were concerned, the only effect of the 1960 legislation was to transfer two small 

pieces of mining land from the Memorial back to the Forest Service. The mining claims 

remained with their owners. 

 The 1960 boundary change made the existing land base more manageable, but it 

did not make of the Memorial a coherent and cohesive unit. Coronado National 

Memorial was originally dedicated to the commemoration of a historic event that did not 

occur on its property. Its value was as a viewpoint, a place to reflect on the Coronado 

 

914 Bellamy to Regional Director, Intermountain Region, Subject: Condemnation of Montezuma Ranch, Hereford, May 

27, 1999, CORO Files. 

274
entrada, which required a vista that looked much as it did when the event took place 

centuries earlier. The ecosystem of the southeastern Huachuca Mountains, itself, was the 

resource, a seemingly obvious fact that was not explicitly recognized in the founding of 

the Memorial. With the recognition that the Memorial’s value lay at least as much in its 

natural as its historical resources came the need to again change the boundary. 

 The boundary adjustment of 1978 had brought all of Montezuma Canyon into the 

Memorial and excluded all other land. The Park Service would now be able to 

concentrate on a manageable unit and to develop it in an appropriate manner. To do so 

would require, by necessity, acquisition of several private inholdings that the adjustment 

brought within the Memorial. Given that the Memorial was expressly designed forty 

years earlier to avoid conflict with private property, the new direction represented an 

about face. 

 Moreover, circumstances had changed over the course of the Memorial’s 

existence, for the worse as far as acquisition was concerned. Subdivision of grazing and 

mining land multiplied the number of landowners in the area, and the total was increasing 

by the year. The local population was expanding rapidly, driving up land prices and 

bringing developers into the picture. Finally, as the 1970s wound to a close, the country 

was moving to the social and political right, producing a climate hostile to “big 

government” and a Republican administration intent upon slashing domestic spending. 

All these circumstances conspired to make the acquisition prolonged, arduous, and 

expensive. 

 In the end, as the final result comes into clearer focus, Coronado National 

Memorial is emerging as a valuable resource for recreation as well as for environmental 

275
study and preservation. The vaunted views of the San Pedro Valley remain relatively 

pristine, even as urban development approaches from the northeast. They still evoke 

reflection on the rich history of the region, a history interpreted by the Memorial staff and 

facilities. Coronado National Memorial, however, has become more. Through the course 

of boundary adjustments and land acquisitions on a domestic level, the Memorial has 

fulfilled the dreams of its creators and has far surpassed them. 

276
Part III—Contemporary Issues 

Chapter X 

The Border: Mexican and American Issues, 1940—present

A binational, bicultural, bilingual, regional 

complex or entity is emerging in the borderlands. 

Nothing quite like this zone of interlocking 

economic, social, and cultural interests can be 

found along any other border of comparable 

length in the world. 

—Carey McWilliams in Joel Garreau’s The Nine 

Nations of North America, 1981 

The establishment and development of Coronado National Memorial occurred 

against an international backdrop which continues to influence the Memorial’s planning. 

Border issues are important and salient factors in the administration of Coronado 

National Memorial. To understand them, the recent past must be constantly revisited. 

The early 30’s brought the economic disruption of the Great Depression, which 

greatly affected the border cities of Ciudad Juarez, Agua Prieta, Nogales, and Tijuana. 

These and other border cities expressed concern over the economic losses during this 

period because they depended heavily on tourism from the United States. From 1933 to 

1939, these cities were able to convince the Mexican central government that free trade 

zones were needed to avoid population and capital decreases in the area. The free trade 

zones would allow them to import tariff-free products from the United States and, thus, 

stimulate the economy across the length of the border regions. 

In the area near present-day Coronado National Memorial in Arizona, cattle 

ranching was still very important on both sides of the border. This was especially true of 

William Greene’s cattle empire which owned and controlled properties on both sides of 

277
the border, including lands along the Río San Pedro and Río Santa Cruz which lay astride 

both countries.

In 1934, Lázaro Cárdenas was elected president of Mexico and dramatically 

brought about agrarian reform to the country. The apportioning of land into ejidos was 

the result of the expropriation of millions of hectares. In his book, The U.S.—Mexican 

Border in the Twentieth Century: A History of Economic and Social Transformation, 

David E. Lorey writes: “By 1935 more than 181,000 ejidatarios worked in communal 

agriculture throughout northern Mexico.”915 The president of Mexico, some thought, 

would also divide large estates across the country. The huge cattle ranches owned by 

U.S. citizens felt particularly vulnerable to expropriation. In fact, the Cananea Cattle 

Company of Sonora, with lands bordering on southern Arizona near present-day 

Coronado National Memorial, lost some acreage to early expropriation. They were quick 

to plead their case in Mexico City on behalf of all cattlemen. They convinced Cárdenas 

to raise the land limits from approximately 12,000 to 100,000 acres. In 1937, Cárdenas 

declared the cattle industry to be immune from expropriation for 25 years if these lands 

carried 500 beef animals or 300 dairy cows. By the end of the year, the Cananea Cattle 

Company had about half of their expropriated land returned.916

 Needless to say, the threat of expropriation made some foreign cattle enterprises 

nervous and many began to sell out. Others like the Cananea Cattle Company were more 

permanent, and the increased demand for beef in the U.S. brought more dollars into 

northern Mexico. Both Mexico and the U.S. tried to control the amount of cattle that was 

permitted to enter into the United States. While Mexico wished to improve the diet of 

 

915 David E. Lorey, The U.S.—Mexican Border in the Twentieth Century: A History of Economic and Social 

Transformation, (Wilmington, Del.:SR Books, 1999), 80. 

278
Mexicans and wanted less beef to be exported, the U.S. imposed quotas on the amount of 

cattle crossing into the United States. Cattlemen north of the border complained about 

the drop in beef prices due to the influx of Mexican beef. Both governments fluctuated in 

the numbers they imposed. World War II increased the demand for beef in the U.S. and 

the quotas were eased temporarily. In the end, both governments were only partially 

successful in their attempts. Cattle outfits like the Cananea Cattle Company were caught 

in the middle of these disputes because they owned land and cattle on both sides of the 

border. Hereford, Arizona, was approximately nine miles from the border, and in the 

1940’s, was considered to be the largest rural shipping point in the United States. It was 

reported that 40,000 head of cattle were sent out of Hereford each year, all of which 

originated in Mexico.917

 Hereford, Arizona is nearly the same distance to the border as it is from the area 

that would eventually be called Coronado National Memorial. On June 12th 1940, 

Senator Hayden introduced Senate Bill 4130 for the establishment of the Memorial. The 

Board of Supervisors of Cochise County, the State Land Department of Arizona, the 

Arizona Small Mine Operators Association and the Arizona Cattle Growers Association 

had approved it. 

 In a letter dated January 29, 1944, National Park Service, Assistant Director 

Hillory Tolson indicated to Secretary G. R. Micheaels of the Bisbee Chamber of 

Commerce, that by 1942, the Mexican government had began to work on a proposal to 

set aside 2,880 acres of land in Sonora. The land they proposed belonged to the Cananea 

Cattle Company, which they offered to place at the disposal of the Director General of 

 

916 Manuel A. Machado, Jr., The North Mexican Cattle Industry, 1910-1975: Ideology, Conflict, and Change (College 

Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1981), 49-55. 

279
Forests and Game for an indefinite period. The conditions were that the Company be 

allowed “to graze cattle on it and to terminate the grant at such time as the land is no 

longer used as an international park.”918 Things changed dramatically through the course 

of the years as the initial optimism of the early 40’s diminished and moved away from the 

idea of Coronado International Memorial and evolved into what is today Coronado 

National Memorial. The 1940’s brought the beginning of World War II which influenced 

the movement of people across the border. 

 The war brought a large demand for workers, especially in the area of agriculture, 

inaugerating a large migration of Mexican workers to the United States. Agricultural 

employers wanted low-wage imported Mexican laborers, which resulted in the Bracero 

program that began in 1942 and ended in 1964. Under the program, large numbers of 

Mexican workers under government supervision were brought into the United States on 

temporary contracts. The program lasted well after World War II and was formally 

instituted in 1951 as Public Law 78 reflecting the labor shortage during the Korean 

Conflict. The great majority of workers were in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, 

Arizona, and California. The number of braceros fluctuated from 4,203 in 1942 to a 

peak 450,422 in 1957. In 1964, the last year of the program, the number of braceros

reached 181,738.919 At least one half of the Mexican laborers that came across the border 

worked as farm laborers in California. Over the years these immigrants profoundly 

changed the make-up of these border areas. It was World War II that provided the 

impetus for the movement of workers to the large binational region of the border. As 

 

917 George Brown, interview by Thomas B. Carrol, September, 20, 1974. CORO Files. 918 Letter from Hillory A. Tolson, Assistant Director, National Park Service to G. R. Michaels, Secretary, Bisbee 

Chamber of Commerce, Bisbee Arizona, January 29, 1944. WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 41-52 F3. 919 Mario Barrera, Race and Class in the Southwest: A Theory of Racial Inequality, (Notre Dame: University of Notre 

Dame Press, 1979), 116-118. 

280
Mexicans moved north, they would provided a source of cheap labor for agriculture. 

Eventually, they would be included and would reflect the society and economy of the 

United States on the verge of the 21 century.920

Federal spending in the border regions during World War II transformed the 

economy of these areas. Some reports mention federal expenditures in the western states 

to be approximately 40 billion dollars, a great part of which was military in nature. 

Similarly, companies like Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, Rockwell International, 

Motorola, Sperry Corporation, Hughes Aircraft, and General Dynamics invested in the 

borderland region to become large technological leaders, often with the help of federal 

dollars. The completion of Hoover Dam in 1936 provided low cost electricity to growing 

cities and military production projects. 

Mexico also invested federal funds into the northern part of the country, which 

helped change the area. This resulted in large areas of industrial influence and the 

expanding growth of cities in the 40’s and 50’s. By 1940, irrigation projects in Mexico 

had created 370,000 acres of irrigated land that included, to a great extent, the northern 

arid regions of the country. The Mexican State of Sonora, bordering on Arizona, 

received one fourth of the funds spent on irrigation from the late 40’s to the early 60’s. 

The boom in regional agriculture would eventually lead the border states of New Mexico, 

Arizona, Texas and California to yield one-fifth of the farm production in the United 

States. As agriculture grew, so did the businesses. They expanded to cover large areas of 

farmlands. By the 1970’s, the majority of Sonoran ejidos rented their land to larger 

private agricultural businesses. 

 

920 Lorey, The U.S.—Mexican Border in the Twentieth Century..., 90. 

281
 In traditional areas of importance such as mining, there was a general decline in 

production after the 1950’s. However before this decline, Arizona and Sonora were 

important in their supply of copper. Coincidentally, discoveries of natural gas in areas of 

Taumalipas brought new wealth to that region. In the oil industry, the Mexican State of 

Taumalipas and Texas in the United States exploited the wealth from the same oil 

reserves. 

Tourism has always been important to the economy of the border regions. It is 

estimated that U.S. tourists driving across the border in the 40’s reached as many as eight 

million.921 This was made possible by the interconnecting system of roads toward the 

interior of Mexico. Additionally, there was an influx of Mexican tourists visiting the 

border-states of the U.S., but in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, their spending decreased, 

diminished through the devaluation of the Mexican peso. Between 1935 and 1970 

increased numbers of Americans traveled to Mexico for entertainment and visits to places 

like the mercados where they could bargain for lower prices on goods they brought 

across the border. 

In 1961, Mexico established a program called Programa Nacional Fronterizo 

(PRONAF) or “National Border Program.” Its goals were to boost tourism, raise the 

standard of living along the border, replace Mexican manufactured goods with imported 

ones, and to promote the sale of Mexican manufactured items to foreigners. During this 

same period and into the later 60’s, large numbers of Mexicans along the border were 

shopping in border cities like El Paso. PRONAF recognized this as an inadequacy on the 

part of Mexican border cities like Ciudad Juárez and supported the construction of 

 

921 Ibid, 88. 

282
shopping complexes on the Mexican side that would supply the same goods. The result 

of their efforts was shopping centers like Rio Grande Mall in Ciudad Juárez. 

The Bracero program ended in 1964 and displaced many of the Mexican workers 

on the program. This coincided with another large migration which began about 1965.922 

Mexican illegal immigrants apprehended in 1965 rose to 55,000 and to 265, 000 in 1970. 

Since businesses in the United States lost the workers that were earlier provided by the 

Bracero program, they had to rely on illegal immigrants to fill their labor shortages. 

As a way of partially dealing with the displacement of Mexican workers and in 

efforts to support the manufacturing industry of the northern border-states, Mexico 

established the Border Industrialization Program (BIP) in 1965. The maquiladoras were 

an important aspect of the program. These maquiladoras were Mexican assembly plants 

that imported parts from the U.S., assembled them, then shipped the finished products 

back to the United States. The creation of the maquiladora was an outgrowth of a 

mutually dependent relationship between Mexican and U.S. businesses along the border. 

There were certain restrictions placed on these types of enterprises. The sale of the 

individual components, the machinery used in the assembly, and the final manufacturing 

of the products were banned in Mexico, as was the sale of the final product. The goods 

were destined for reexport and final sale in the U.S. and other countries. The Mexican 

manufacturers only paid tariffs on the added value of the finished product. The 

maquiladoras were also the only companies that did not require majority Mexican 

ownership. 

 

922 Walter Fogel, “Twentieth-Century Mexican Migration to the United States,” in The Gateway: U.S. Immigration 

Issues and Policies ed. Barry R. Chiswick (Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 

1982), 193-197. 

283
Investments were slow at first, but between 1965 and 1970 maquiladoras became 

more widespread along the border in cities like Nogales, Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana, and 

Matamoros. Soon these areas had developed a twin plant system of operation. The 

majority of the labor intensive work was done on the Mexican side while the U.S. side 

supplied the capital and worked on development. In 1972 the maquiladoras were 

allowed to move away from the border area, though the great majority remained there. 

The maquiladoras soon became an important source of Mexico’s manufactured products 

for export. In 1965 there were approximately 12 of these plants in Mexico. By 1996, the 

number had grown to 2200. By the year 2000, the projected number of workers had 

surpassed one million. 

The types of items most often manufactured by the maquiladoras were clothing, 

furniture, toys, electronic equipment, processed food, tools and other equipment. By the 

1980’s Lorey writes that most of the television sets, refrigerators, and computer 

keyboards sold in the U.S. were assembled at or near the border.923 There was a move in 

the 80’s to locate some of these plants further from the border as in the case of Cananea 

where several maquiladoras were built. By the early 1980’s these plants were allowed to 

sell a portion of their goods within the country. The number of products allowed for sale 

in Mexico grew from 20% in 1983 to 50% in 1989. 

The maquiladoras were successful because of the basic economic disparities 

between Mexico and the United States. Even though these maquiladoras were physically 

located in Mexico, they were still owned by U.S. and other foreign companies. The 

wages paid to Mexican workers in these plants were generally much higher than in other 

 

923 Lorey, The U.S.—Mexican Border in the Twentieth Century..., 107-108. 

284
areas of Mexico yet much lower than any wage earner in the United States. In the midto late 1980’s, workers were receiving approximately three dollars a day. 

An important aspect of the maquiladoras was that their success was contingent on 

low wages for workers. This meant that the owners of these concerns discouraged the 

presence of labor unions. Consequently, women were favored over men because it was 

thought that they were less likely to be union organized. It was also argued that manual 

dexterity was higher in women than in men for these types of jobs. The result was that 

women were in the majority in the maquiladora work force. Although no one denied the 

economic benefit of these plants for both countries, the inherent disparities were cause for 

concern. 

 These plants were criticized for operating as if they were businesses within the 

United States and not subject to Mexican intervention. Moreover, the low wages paid at 

these sites was seen as exploitation of Mexican labor for the benefit of the U.S. 

consumer. A major concern in Mexico was that there was little sharing of technology 

with Mexican industries. Another important consideration was the effect of these 

maquiladoras on the health of Mexican workers and on the environment. It was difficult 

to deny that the revenues generated by these maquiladoras were destined for the U.S., 

very little of which filtered back into Mexico. 

After 1969, the U.S. economy went into a slow decline, which also affected the 

economies of the border states and was accelerated by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 

1989. Since the 1940’s, western states, including those along the border, benefited 

greatly from federal funds related to defense spending. Needless to say, the demise of the 

Soviet Union also meant a decline in federal spending for military purposes. 

285
Unemployment began to take its toll in the four U.S. border states led by Arizona at a rate 

of 7.7 per cent. It was not until the mid- to late 90’s that the trend seemed to reverse 

itself. California, as expected, was the quickest to recover. 

For many observers on both sides of the international boundary, the economies of 

the two countries at the border were now more closely linked than at any other time in 

history. It was no surprise then that the North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA), which was passed by Congress at the end of 1993, was cause for such intense 

debate. In fact, the agreement did little to change or add to what was already in place. 

Trade, for example, had been relatively free before NAFTA and more importantly it did 

little to change the economic disparity between both nations. What it did manage to do 

was to create a framework from which future trade and commerce in North America 

could be regulated and facilitated. The more recent Mexican presidencies had made free 

trade part of their economic policies due in part to the economic crisis of the 1980’s. 

During this period Mexico reduced its tariffs through constitutional changes meant to 

spark foreign investment. In an important move that committed Mexico to a freer world 

trade environment, it joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). These 

Mexican government free trade initiatives were driven by their domestic economic 

policy. 

There were fears from U.S. companies that through NAFTA jobs would be lost 

and that manufacturing companies would relocate south of the border. The fears proved 

to be generally unfounded. Most of the effects of NAFTA were felt in the service sector, 

which was an area of new U.S. capital investment, and thus, had little influence on jobs 

lost in the United States. Areas such as retailing, banking, communications, 

286
transportation, insurance, publishing, tourism, film distribution, educational civil 

engineering, software design, natural gas, and electric-power distribution were of prime 

importance during the first few years of NAFTA.924

The early period of the agreement also brought a free exchange of goods at the 

industry level of business. Companies from both countries were interested in trading 

items such as electrical machinery, telecommunication equipment, automatic data 

processing equipment, office machinery parts, and furniture. 

The new regulations implemented by NAFTA did cause some disagreements 

along the border. In 1995, a chain of stores in Tijuana began to import milk from 

producers in Yuma, Arizona. Local producers in Baja California complained that they 

had enough milk to supply the regional demand. They explained that this action would 

hurt the milk industry in Mexico as well as put people out of work. The Ministry of 

Agriculture ordered a ban on imported milk from the United States. U.S. officials 

quickly complained that these actions constituted a violation of the NAFTA agreement, 

which brought the intervention of the Mexican federal government. Within a short time 

milk produced in Yuma was again being sold to Mexican clients. Similar disagreements 

would involve products like corn, tomatoes, avocados, green peppers, oranges, 

strawberries, and grapes. 

There were other disagreements over NAFTA from both sides of the border, and 

the disparities between the two economies were quite evident. NAFTA did little to 

change this. In some instances, implementation of certain aspects of the free trade 

agreement were blocked by one nation or another. In 1995, the Clinton Administration 

delayed the implementation of NAFTA by stopping the free movement of Mexican trucks 

 

924 Ibid, 170-171. 

287
across the border, citing safety and other issues. Another impediment to the agreement 

was the halting of 800 million dollars worth of tomatoes from Mexico to appease Florida 

growers. Mexico also chose methods to impede the progress of the free trade agreement. 

In certain industries it implemented non-tariff barriers to limit imports and protect 

domestic business interests. For example, Mexico created standards that obstructed the 

importation of such products as cherries, peaches, and grains. 

Today, despite the difficulties in the implementation of the North American Free 

Trade Agreement, the border area continues to be in the forefront in the active exchange 

of materials and products of all kinds. Suffice it to say that on the threshold of the new 

millennium, Mexico remains one of the United State’s most important trading partners. 

However, there is another exchange that continues to heighten the apprehension of both 

countries. 

Immigration issues in the United States continue to be in the forefront of our 

contemporary thinking. Indeed immigration issues have always been a national concern 

since we remain, as in the beginning, a nation of immigrants. It should not be surprising 

since this phenomenon continuously affects the makeup of the labor force and the 

population. For many Americans, especially those living along the border, these issues 

are topics of constant discussion. As Vernon M. Briggs aptly writes: 

No subject touches the essence of the American experience more 

fundamentally than immigration, for our history is that of a heterogeneous 

people in quest of a homogeneous national identity. In its evolving and 

often controversial role, immigration policy has served as a foundation 

stone for numerous components of public policy, family reunification, 

agricultural policy, national security, and racial policy.925

 

925 Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. Immigration Policy and the American Labor Force (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins 

University Press, 1984), 1. 

288
Much of the critical debate in the U.S. has focused on setting and enforcing 

immigration limits. The borders of a nation are set by a number of factors, such as 

geographical features and treaties that presuppose a historical evolution to the delineation 

of territory. Most often, as in the case of Mexico and the United States, these borders are 

a result of negotiation or exercise of military power. Often, the immediate and continued 

effect is the alienation between groups of people. Along the Mexico-U.S. border, 

immigration is a constant concern, which for some residents along the border escalates 

into a constant threat. 

Recent immigration research revealed its beneficial effect on both Mexico and the 

United States.926 Many immigrants received benefits through various public services in 

the U.S., such as primary and secondary education. But the benefits were equally, if not 

more valuable, to employers through low employee wages, and to consumers through the 

low cost of goods. As long as the situation is beneficial to both, it seems unlikely that the 

United States will be able to stop Mexican migration north. 

Along the border in southern Arizona, immigration is a constant concern for both 

Mexicans and U.S. citizens alike. It has heightened the awareness and concern of many 

Americans across the nation. Coronado National Memorial has become one of the major 

thoroughfares for illegal border crossings and drug trafficking as have other nearby towns 

in Cochise County such as Douglas, Naco, and Sierra Vista. 

The Arizona Republic dated January 17, 2000 carried the headline “State is 

pipeline for illegal drugs.” No part of the state is unaffected by the “pot, 

methamphetamine, and heroin [that] roll across the southern border,” the paper suggests. 

289
In Nogales, storm drains provide a smuggling superhighway, with traffickers 

parking over sewer grates to load cars through holes in the floorboards. A barrio on the 

east side of town has begun to empty because of the violence wrought by a narco-gang 

whose leader lives just across the fence in Sonora on a hill overlooking town.927

Other cities such as Tucson and Phoenix have emerged as important in their drug 

trafficking connections. The newspaper cites that, “according to the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy, 11 major drug trafficking organizations are based in Arizona 

working directly with Mexican cartels.” As a result U.S. and Mexican relations have 

been strained. The U.S. has blamed Mexico as the source of the illegal drugs coming 

across the border and for its inability to stop the drug trafficking. In the 1980’s, however, 

Mexico replaced Colombia in the drug trade distribution and marketing to the United 

States. Regarding cocaine, for example, the Andean countries controlled the production 

of the drug while Colombia was responsible for its refinement. Even though they were 

extremely concerned and well involved in an extensive drug interdiction program, 

Mexican officials were quick to charge that they could not stop the high demand in the 

U.S. for such drugs. One estimate charged that the U.S. spends more that 50 billion 

dollars a year on illegal drugs. 

In this environment filled with a heightened sense of awareness and frustration, it 

is never quite clear how to solve some of these problems. It is clear that the problem is 

broad and many will deal with their entanglements as they see fit, be it legally or 

illegally. 

 

926 Migration Between Mexico & the United States, México—Estados Unidos Sobre Migración: A Report of the 

Binational Study on Migration, vii. This report and other papers accessible at: http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/binpapv.html. 

927 The Arizona Republic, “State is pipeline for illegal drugs,” Monday, January 17, 2000. CORO Files. 

290
Both sides [law enforcement and drug smugglers] use quasimilitary 

tactics. Undercover narcs set up stings. Smugglers use illegal immigrants 

as decoys. Customs agents call in air support. Smugglers pay bribes to 

inspectors. The game has created human logjams in small towns on both 

sides of the border, prompting public outcries over federal tactics. 

Southeastern Arizona ranchers have taken up rifles and formed makeshift 

posses to patrol their lands against the invasion of smugglers and illegal 

immigrants. 

‘These people cut fences (urinate) in their water tanks, leave trash 

everywhere and don’t ever close a gate.’ complained Bill Wendt, a 

businessman in Douglas. ‘I tell you what, if you live in this part of the 

country and you go out in the country, you’d better have a gun.’ 

Others, such as Raul Enriquez owner of the T-Bone restaurant in Douglas, 

view the drug war as a charade that keeps border towns thriving. 

‘Legalize?’ Enriquez says with horror. ‘We’d have a ...depression. Do 

you know how many people would lose their jobs?’928 

There seems to be little that is not touched in some way by the immigrant and drug 

conduit through southern Arizona. Alarming as the constant flow of people and drugs is, 

more alarming still are the transboundry economical dependencies they create. 

Despite the influx of agents and other law enforcement personnel brought to the 

area, no one envisions a foreseeable end to the dilemma, and the danger is amplified by a 

general escalation from all sides. Some dangerous attitudes may make things worse as 

another article on the same page carries the headline, “U.S. Customs official lives for the 

thrill of the chase.” The content of the article underscores the atmosphere of antagonism 

and confrontation: 

On the wall of his office are images of John Wayne, a rattlesnake skin and 

‘trophy pictures’ of [Lee] Morgan at a big drug bust. Morgan was an 

Army sniper in Vietnam for 11 months, working mostly with spooks on 

secret operations. Then he came home and got a job fighting America’s 

other war. He started with the Border Patrol in Douglas and Naco a quarter 

of a century ago, then joined Customs in 1987. After 25 years on the job, 

his eyes still brighten at the memory –the legal high—of his first drug 

bust... ‘I think everybody loves the chase,’ Morgan says with a slight 

Texas drawl. ‘The day you don’t get that feeling when you’re got a load of 

 

928 Ibid. 

291
dope, you need to go look for another job. You lose your edge’... From a 

bluff he looks down on the San Bernardino Valley. Only a barbed-wire 

fence marks the border. It is a barren place of prickly pear and rocks. 

Radios and cell phones are beyond range in the badlands. ‘You’re on your 

own,” Morgan says. ‘Out here, you’re all the law there is.’929 

When custom officials live for the thrill of the chase and display ‘trophy’ pictures on the 

wall next to those of John Wayne, the portrayal comunicates a sense of fulfullment mixed 

with hostile attitudes and behavior that can pervade this broad expanse of land between 

Mexico and the United States. 

In a newspaper article in the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review, the 

headlines read, “Flow of illegal immigrants wearing down park land.” The article tells of 

the problems faced by the National Park Service’s Coronado National Memorial. As a 

border park at the southern end of the Huachuca Mountains, the continuous flow of 

immigrants through the area has had a profound effect on the Memorial. The trampled 

high grass pointing northward forms a broad path through the park and testifies to the 

many who have crossed. Clothes, blankets, water jugs, children’s toys, a piggy bank, 

diapers, feces, and toilet paper are among the items left behind. Fred Moosman, Chief 

Ranger at Coronado National Memorial has encountered many of these items in various 

places in a spiderweb of trails across the Memorial. 

The park has nearly 90,000 visitors a year, most of them unaware of the 

immigrant presence in the area. In the newspaper article mentioned above, Chief Ranger 

Fred Moosman and Superintendent Jim Bellamy relate some of the difficulties faced by 

the illegal migration through the park: 

“These people do not realize they are destroying the environment...” 

While Moosman said he understands most are trying to seek a better life 

 

929 Ibid. 

292
they are doing it “at nature’s expense in the United States.” What bothers 

him most is that illegal immigrants are victims of unscrupulous people on 

both sides of the border. “They are preyed upon, they are attacked” 

Moosman said. But still “wave after wave” continues coming north, which 

is evident by the huge amount of grassland crushed by the footprints of the 

illegal immigrants... Jim Bellamy, the memorial’s superintendent, said 

the goal of his staff is to ensure the natural resources are protected and the 

visitors’ security and safety are ensured.930

In this tense and dangerous transboundry atmosphere, the staff at Coronado National 

Memorial continues to struggle with issues of safety and protection of resources in one of 

the primary immigrant crossing points along the Arizona-Mexico border. 

One of area’s heaviest crossing points is through Cochise County which means 

that immigrants must travel through properties in the care of the National Park Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. To the east about five 

miles away is the San Pedro River near where it is thought the Spanish explorer, 

Francisco Vásquez de Coronado once traveled on his trek northward. Today that corridor 

is a pathway for many immigrants moving northward to other areas of the United States. 

Carey McWilliams’ words in the beginning of this chapter were looking into the future 

with its predictions of what this border region would become. David Lorey’s words 

today seem to echo those of McWilliams and similarly projects into the future when he 

writes: 

The impact of century-long migratory trends and economic integration 

resulted in a true Mex-America along the international boundary. The 

U.S.-Mexican border region is expected to be the most populous region in 

North America in the beginning of the twenty-first century. The sheer 

number of people is certain to place the social evolution of the border onto 

both domestic and bilateral agendas. With its social complexities and 

challenges, life in the region is a portent of future life in the Americas.931

 

930 Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review, “Flow of illegal immigrants wearing down park land” no date.CORO 

Files. 

931 Lorey, The U.S.—Mexican Border in the Twentieth Century..., 117-118. 

293
The realities of the border area today are only indicators of the future. It will be difficult 

to fathom or predict what the intricate framework of the complex region will be. 

Certainly though, the area will present significant transboundry challenges. 

One can only hope that the changes that do occur will benefit those living on both 

sides of the border, and that Coronado National Memorial will be a place where people of 

two great nations can come together to share in the valued natural resources of the region 

and join together in appreciation of their mutual cultural heritage. 

294
Chapter XI 

The Memorial’s New Direction: Ecology and Biodiversity along the U.S. and 

Mexican Border 

Along the border, our two countries share ecosystems 

that do not recognize political boundaries. Thus it is 

necessary to recognize that the tasks completed by the 

governments for conservation, preservation and 

maintenance of the biodiversity found in their 

respective territories can be developed in a 

coordinated and harmonious manner in accordance 

with the policies of each country in order to use 

human and economic resources in the 

accomplishment of that common objective. 

—Proposal for the Establishment of Protected Natural 

Areas of Bi-national Ecosystems, Mexico-United States 

Protected Area for Flora and Fauna Maderas del 

Carmen/Santa Elena Canyon-Big Bend National Park, 

February 1997. 

 Located on the U.S.-Mexican border, Coronado National Memorial shares many 

ecological concerns with its neighbors in Sonora. Like other parks along this corridor, 

Coronado is an integral part of this vast region with their numerous transboundry 

ecosystems. This large expanse is often seen as a largely inhospitable land that 

constantly challenges anything living. Of the hostile environment, John Steinbeck wrote, 

“In the war of sun and dryness against living things, life has its secrets of survival. Life, 

no matter on what level, must be moist or it will disappear.”932 The physical 

environment of the broad borderland region is most often dominated by varying degrees 

of aridity that is reflected in the vegetation and topography. 

From the mouth of the Rio Grande to Baja California the area moves 

progressively from east to west from a semiarid region to the extreme aridity of the 

desert. There are two prominent breaks in the progressive pattern from steppe to desert. 

295
High elevation forests in mountainous regions of both the United States and Mexico 

typify these distinct areas. In the U.S. the southern portion of the Rocky Mountains 

demonstrates this topographical characteristic. The Sierra Madre Occidental and the 

Sierra Madre Oriental represent the high elevation forests in Mexico. But these examples 

are more the exception than the rule. In his article regarding historical settlement patterns 

in the region, “Environmental Overview,” Alvar W. Carlson remarks that “Aridity is a 

fact in the Borderlands, and man’s perception of how to cope with it has largely 

determined his settlement locations and land use patterns.”933 

 Water looms important and its management is a primary concern on both sides of 

the border. Despite the difficulties in water management between the two countries, they 

have nonetheless addressed critical issues of use and conservation and continue to 

develop new ways to deal with these water issues. Beyond these water management 

issues both governments have entered into other multilateral agreements dealing with 

preservation, conservation, and use of the natural resources of the region. 

 Binational cooperation between the United States and Mexico has had some 

important milestones. In 1936 both countries signed the Convention for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds and Mammals and in 1972 it was supplemented with a further 

agreement. The agreements dealt with migratory bird species and mammals used for 

game that often crossed the border. This also included the establishment of refuges and 

the regulatory measures in the transport of various species. In 1940 representatives of 

both countries signed the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in 

the Western Hemisphere in which similar concepts were established with respect to 

 

932 John Steinbeck, Travels with Charley: In Search of America. (New York: Bantam Books, 1963), 214. 

296
parks, reserves, national monuments, and migratory species. In this agreement only 

migratory species were regarded as genuine transboundry resources. The participants 

agreed to adopt the necessary measures to protect these resources. 

 Other important agreements followed such as, the International Plant Protection 

Convention in 1951, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially 

as Waterfowl Habitat in 1971 and the La Paz Agreement on Cooperation for the 

Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, 1983. In 1975 

Mexico and the United States created the México-U.S. Joint Committee on Wildlife and 

Plant Conservation. This committee was established to facilitate cooperation between the 

current Dirección General de Conservación y Aprovechamiento Ecológico de México, 

(formerly within SEDUE and SEDESOL) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. On 

December 5, 1984 a meeting at Clairmont, California marked the beginning of a series of 

meetings between Mexico and the United States in which the two countries revised and 

expanded on the Mexico—U.S. Joint Committee on Wildlife and Plant Conservation. 

This joint committee was a body composed of members of the Mexican Flora and Fauna 

Division of the Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology (Secretaría de Desarrollo 

Urbano y Ecología) and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The committee met again in 1987 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where they 

adopted two new cooperative agreements. The first of these was the Control of Traffic in 

Wild Species of Flora and Fauna, the second was titled Research, Studies and Scientific 

Collection of Territorial and Aquatic Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. Apart from their 

obvious intent, these agreements also helped broaden the dialogue on conservation issues 

 

933 Alvar W. Carlson, “Environmental Overview,” Borderlands Sourcebook: A Guide to the Literature on Northern 

Mexico and the American Southwest, (Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 1983), 75-80. 

297
between both countries. In 1988 for example, the Joint Committee further identified and 

classified four categories of cooperative projects in this field which involved protected 

areas, endangered species, migratory bird management and administration and law 

enforcement.934

On March 16, 1988, Mexico, the United States and Canada adopted a 

Memorandum of Understanding in which the three countries agreed to analyze the 

existing agreements between the U.S. and Mexico as well as those between the U.S. and 

Canada. “This examination,” writes Alberto Szekely in 1989, “could create the prospect 

of establishing trilateral cooperation for the conservation of natural resources, resources 

for which the three countries may have ecological responsibility.”935 

Eight months later, in Mexico City on November 30, 1988 Mexico and the United 

States ultimately signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the National Park 

Service and the Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología (Secretariat of Urban 

Development and Ecology) on Cooperation in the Management and Protection of 

National Parks and Other Protected Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites. In general the 

objective of the memorandum was to establish a framework for binational cooperation 

concerning the conservation of protected natural areas and their biodiversity and the 

preservation of cultural heritage and natural resources. It is important to note the 

agreement’s willingness to recognize, when possible, the sustainable development 

alternatives for rural Mexican communities located in those areas.936 

 

934 Alberto Szekely, “The Development of Mexico-U.S. Cooperation: The Conservation of Wildlife Transboundary 

Resources,” Transboundry Resources Report, 3:1, (1989), 5-6 935 Ibid, 5 936 Memorandum of Understanding Between National Park Servcie of the Department of the Interior, United States of 

America and Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology, United Mexican States on Cooperation in Management 

and Protection of National Parks and Other Protected Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites. Signed at Mexico and 

Washington, November 30, 1988 and January 24, 1989, (TIAS 11599). An update to this agreement was signed on 

May 18, 2000 between the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America and 

298
Binational environmental cooperation provides a necessary means of responding 

to the concerns of two nations. An example of such an agreement is the United StatesMexico Integrated Border Environmental Plan, (1992-1994). Through this plan, it was 

important to develop an environmental infrastructure to deal with pollution. The North 

American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1993 also provided funding for clean up of 

toxic wastes, the enforcement of pollution standards and for the construction of sewage 

treatment plants in Mexican twin cities. 

Despite the many agreements signed between the United States and Mexico, there 

are many differences that complicate the implementation of many of these accords. To 

begin with, Mexico has at least 30,000 species of vascular plants while the larger United 

States has as many as 18,000 species of plants of this type. With respect to conservation 

and nature-protected areas, in the U.S., Harold Eidsvik reported in 1989 that it had more 

than 250 protected areas, which covered about ten percent of its territory.937 On the other 

hand, Mexico’s protected areas fluctuated between 0.8 and 1.6 percent of its territory. 

The use of the land in the border region has grown tremendously through the 

years. Historically, indigenous people were the first to begin exerting their influence 

over these areas through their use of grasslands, forests, native flora and fauna, and also 

through the use of fire. Europeans came later with the introduction of various types of 

grazing livestock that had a profound effect on grasslands. Their agricultural techniques 

and the growth of population centers also influenced and changed the nature of much of 

the border area. Since then there have been progressive developmental differences 

between both countries. 

 

the Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries of the United Mexican States through its National 

Institute of Ecology. 

299
Within the last forty years Mexico’s ecosystems along the border have 

deteriorated greatly often due to the regional activities that linked these border regions 

very closely to the food requirements in the United States. These comestibles have 

largely been meat items but have also included dairy and agricultural goods as well. 

Across Mexico’s northern border, land use has generally been divided into four 

categories: 

1. Agriculture based on irrigation and what the topography will allow. 

2. High-risk seasonal agriculture based on the availability of precipitation. 

3. Land used for raising livestock for export. 

4. Land used in the exploitation of economically beneficial species of plants. 

The last category includes new and traditional uses. In Sonora the Seri tribe has 

traditionally used at least 70 species of plants as nutritive food items. Throughout the 

desert ecosystem of the region 40 plant species have been identified for their exploitative 

potential in terms of food, forage, medicine and industry. Some of the representative 

plants are the candelilla, lechugilla, guayule and jojoba. Although these type of plants 

represent a great economic potential some are already endangered because of 

overexploitation, lack of knowledge, and illegal trafficking. 

It has been the cattle and livestock industry that has had the most widespread 

effects on the land. In areas adjacent to and near Coronado National Memorial there 

were thousands of acres on both sides of the border, formerly owned by the Cananea 

Cattle Company and the Greene Cattle Company that were used for cattle grazing. The 

northern Mexican regions incorporated the agricultural techniques of the U.S., which 

 

937 H. K. Eidsvik, “The Status of Wilderness: An International Overview,” Natural Resources Journal, 29:1, (1989), 

57-82. 

300
resulted in the loss of much of the original ground cover. A single type of pasture usually 

replaced the endemic flora of the region. These new plants were dependent on fertilizers, 

herbicides and pesticides, many of which are now considered toxic. Also over-grazing 

has also had such a profound effect on many northern Mexican areas by eliminating the 

ground cover to the extent of not permitting its regeneration. The area just south of the 

Memorial and in lands surrounding Canenea exemplifies this process.938 

Organized and regulated land use in agriculture, cattle ranching, urban and 

industrial development balanced with high productivity and environmental policies has 

led to a high degree of nature conservation in the United States. But the U.S. has not 

been immune to the loss or transformation of ecosystems. There are some areas where 

the natural habitat has been completely changed and new exotic species have been 

introduced. 

 There are distinct ways in which both countries can approach similar problems 

along the border; and there are important differences that need to be considered. Both 

Mexico and the U.S. share ecosystems with a tremendously rich ecological diversity. 

They possess a great number of endemic plants and animals that need to be protected but 

these areas also contain plants and animals that hold a great economic potential. 

 As some of the early agreements demonstrate, both countries have tended to 

approach the problems of conservation from generally two perspectives. Environmental 

pollution, a common concern, is one perspective that is continuously addressed by both 

nations. The other perspective involves the protection of migratory birds and mammals. 

Both approaches inherently contain a recurring problem. It is difficult to effectively 

 

938 Ibid, 22, 41. 

301
consider the two perspectives if we do not first consider them within the ecosystem of 

which they are a part. 

It is important to first consider the loss of habitat, which precipitates the loss of 

endemic flora and fauna. From a binational perspective, the environmental impact on 

these ecosystems is inextricably linked to the flora and fauna and should be considered 

together in conservation and preservation efforts. The detrimental effects on these shared 

ecosystems is often influenced in a broader sense by what occurs in the areas surrounding 

these ecosystems. In a report titled State of the Environment: An Assessment at MidDecade the study explains: 

Protected land, whether in private or public ownership, is subject to 

pressures from the development of nearby areas. The extent and severity 

of the problem is difficult to quantify. One indication that it may be quite 

significant, however, was provided by a recent survey of National Wildlife 

Refuge managers. Seven of the 14 most frequently reported management 

problems related, at least in part, to land-use practices outside the refuges 

themselves. Similarly, the National Park Service found that a majority of 

the pressures on natural resources inside the National Parks come from 

activities on lands outside them.939

The seven problems referred to above are soil erosion/sediment, wildlife disturbance, 

flow decrease, wildfires, land development, flow increase/floods, and fertilizer runoff. A 

1984 National Park Service publication recognized similar external threats to protected 

areas citing them as: “Industrial and commercial development projects on adjacent lands: 

air pollutant emissions, often associated with facilities located considerable distances 

from the affected parks; urban encroachment; and roads and railroads.”940 

 On the Mexican side of the shared ecosystems, the adverse external effects are 

often quite high. In more recent years these detrimental effects have been caused by farm 

 

939 State of the Environment: An Assessment at Mid-Decade, (Washington D.C.:The Conservation Foundation, 1984), 

190. 

302
and livestock businesses and new industries along the border region together with larger 

increases in population in border cities. In the municipios (Mexico) and counties (United 

States) that surround an area like Coronado National Memorial, population increases on 

both sides of the border demonstrate the potential impact these populations pose: 

Population of Mexico and U.S. Border Municipios and Counties941

(Population in the thousands) 

Municipios/ Counties 1960 1990 

San Luis R.C. (Sonora) 42.1 111.5 

Puerto Peñasco (Sonora) 5.7 35.9 

Caborca (Sonora) 12.4 58.5 

Altar (Sonora) 3.0 6.4 

Sáric (Sonora) 1.8 2.1 

Nogales (Sonora) 39.8 107.1 

Santa Cruz (Sonora) 1.3 1.5 

Cananea (Sonora) 21.0 27.0 

Naco (Sonora) 3.6 4.6 

Agua Prieta (Sonora) 17.2 39.0 

Yuma (Arizona) 46.2 106.9 

Pima (Arizona) 265.7 666.9 

Santa Cruz (Arizona) 10.8 29.7 

Cochise (Arizona) 55.0 97.6 

 

If the growth in these areas continues and is unregulated it will affect drastically the 

protected areas already established on both sides. 

 Mutual cooperation is necessary to establish binational mechanisms to 

realistically accomplish the conservation of these ecosystems with the broadest diversity 

possible. This includes ways to reduce the adverse effects generated from areas outside 

these protected zones. The mutual cooperation should also extend to the selection of 

 

940 Office of Science and Technology, National Park Service, State of the Parks, 1980: A Report to the Congress, ( 

Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980), viii. 

941 Glen Kaye, “The Mexico-U.S.A. Border Region: The Filling of an Empty Land,” Transboundry Resources Report, 

9:1, (Spring, 1995), 4-7 

303
protected areas. The selection of protected areas should be based on biological and 

geographic criteria in which there is a continuity between regions without large breaks 

between them. There are two possible ways to deal with this potential problem. One 

way to deal with possible breaks in continuity of ecosystems across borders is to establish 

corridors that link protected areas on both sides, the other way would be to establish 

shared binational reserves. These binational reserves could possibly allow for the 

increase and better preservation of diverse flora and fauna across the borders of both 

nations. 

 Adjacent border parks and protected areas experience special problems. Park and 

protected area protection and enforcement of regulations is often easier in the United 

States than in Mexico. For example, the enforcement of protection laws at Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Monument is effective but often drives visitors across the border to the 

Sierra del Pinacate where fewer personnel try to accomplish the same tasks but with less 

success. Illegal fires, trespassing in restricted areas, and the extraction of wild species is 

often the result. Shared resources and frequent communication might be a partial 

solution. 

 It is important from a U.S. perspective to note that although goals may be the 

same or similar, the Mexican point of view is often different. Since U.S. laws concerning 

protection and conservation are influenced by our history and political system, they do 

not always address problems faced by Mexicans in their own protected areas. The 

Wilderness Act of 1962 demonstrates the difficulty beginning with its definition. The 

word “wilderness” here means “the preservation of an area in its natural condition.” In 

countries like Mexico the inhabitants of an area are often considered part of the 

304
“wilderness” and as such are an integral part of its resources development and 

management. 

 The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere program is one attempt to integrate 

local populations, use and conservation of natural resources: 

The concept of biosphere reserves as originated by a Task Force of 

UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme in 1974. The 

biosphere reserve network was launched in 1976 and, as of March 1995, 

had grown to include 324 reserves in 82 countries. The network is a key 

component in MAB’s objective of achieving a sustainable balance 

between the sometimes-conflicting goals of conserving biological 

diversity, promoting economic development, and maintaining associated 

cultural values. Biosphere reserves are sites where this objective is tested, 

refined, demonstrated and implemented.942 

In short, the Man in the Biosphere Programme attempts to strike a balance between 

preservation issues which include the cultural values of a region and the sustainable use 

of the area resources. 

 Various biosphere reserve programs of this type have been developed in Mexico. 

Apart from the ecological benefits that these programs generate, it has been discovered 

that any real local involvement and exploitation of the natural resources has been 

minimal. Another factor has been the lack of or poor communication between the local 

or resident population and various entities such as government offices, ecologists, 

scientific institutions, and universities. In Mexico particularly, it is important to include 

the participation of the local users in the planning, implementation and development of 

these protected areas. By accentuating the local management of these protected areas, it 

would be easier to meet the needs of users and also it would make for a more viable and 

lasting relationship in the protection of these resources. 

 

942 UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. More information on this subject is accessible at: http://consdev.univ-lyon1.fr/madagascar/MANANARA/mamanet/TEXTE/annexes/mab/home.htm 

305
When Mexico develops proposals about conservation areas, ideas on sustainable 

development could include the interests and needs of local residents and users. As is 

mentioned in the Biosphere Reserve Concept, these types of conservation areas are 

divided into three primary types of functions: conservation, development, and logistic 

support. In conservation it is important to preserve the resources, ecosystems and the 

landscapes. It is in the developmental function where ideas of sustainable economic and 

human development can be incorporated. Finally in the logistical support function, 

environmental education, training, and research would be principle areas of concern, 

especially in how they relate to broader issues of conservation and sustainable 

development.943 Some of the same theory and ideas incorporated in the Biosphere 

Reserve Concept are also included in other types of conservation efforts by federal, state 

and private entities interested in preserving the resources of this border region. Some 

areas surrounding Coronado National Memorial exemplify some of the concentrated 

efforts along the border. 

On May 27, 1997, José María Guerra Limón, director of the Mexican National 

Forest Reserve, Sierras Los Ajos, Buenos Aires, y La Púrica, wrote to Regional Director 

John Cook, National Park Service, Denver, proposing to establish a close relationship 

between his unit and Coronado National Memorial and Chiricahua National Monument. 

Guerra Limón mentioned that because of the involvement of the Secretariat of 

Environmental Natural Resources and Fisheries (Secretaría de México, Ambiente, 

Recursos, Naturales y Pesca, often called by their acronym SEMARNAP) the area could 

now be managed and administered. He wrote, 

 

943 UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves. The Biosphere 

Reserve Concept. at: 

306
 The National Forest Reserve and Wildlife Refuge known as “Sierra Los 

Ajos, Buenos Aires y La Púrica” in Sonora, México, are part of an 

important biological corridor along the border with Arizona, in the United 

States. This includes forest areas of great ecological importance such as 

“Coronado National Memorial,” “Chiricahua National Monument” as well 

as “Coronado National Forest”... The reserve is interested in promoting a 

cordial relationship in the collaboration and exchange of technical and 

operational support through the following: 

1. Exchange of training programs 

2. Develop a collaborative educational program on the 

environment. 

3. Develop a collaborative program on ecological tourist 

attractions. 

Lastly we would like to thank your courtesy and interest in promoting an 

exchange program of scientific and technical support, by allowing your 

personnel to visit.944

Cook responded positively to Guerra Limón’s letter. He was delighted at the initiation of 

a collaborative program with the National Park Service and wholeheartedly encouraged 

the formation of binational conservation partnerships between the two countries. What 

followed was an increase in correspondence, which led to extended binational 

involvement.945 

Although collaborative efforts between Coronado National Memorial, Chiricahua 

National Monument, and the Mexican National Forest Reserve of Sierra Los Ajos, 

Buenas Aires and La Púrica were already underway, it was formalized in a Letter of 

Agreement signed on February 3, 1998.946 As was stated in the letter “The primary goal 

between all three areas is the conservation of natural and cultural resources across 

 

http://cons-dev.univ-lyon1.fr/madagascar/MANANARA/mamanet/TEXTE/annexes/mab/stry_1.htm 944 Letter from Director José María Guerra Limón of the Reserva Forestal Nacional y Refugio de Fauna Silvestre Sierra 

Los Ajos, Buenas Aires y La Púrica, to Regional Director John Cook, National Park Service, Mountain Region, May 

27, 1997. CORO Files. 

945 Letter from Regional Director John Cook, National Park Service, Intermountain Region to Director José María 

Guerra Limón, Reserva Forestal Nacional y Refugio de Fauna Silvestre Sierra Los Ajos, Buenas Aires y La Púrica, 

June 9, 1997. CORO Files. 

307
borders.” This relationship began as a way to gain important information about natural 

wildfires in “sky island” ecosystems. 

In the U.S., wildfire suppression has had over a 100-year history, which makes it 

difficult to understand and know what areas would look like in their more natural state. 

The Mexican Sierra de los Ajos National Forest Reserve provided the perfect opportunity 

to study what the flora and fauna might be like in regions with regular wildfires. The 

collaborative program between the three areas grew and in October of 1997 managers 

from the Sierra de los Ajos National Forest Reserve visited Coronado National Memorial 

and Chiricahua National Monument where they agreed to work together to benefit public 

lands on both sides of the United States-Mexico border.947 One of Director José María 

Guerra Limón’s goals for the Sierra los Ajos, Buenas Aires, la Púrica, National Forest 

Reserve was to prepare a Management Plan, for which of his counterparts in the United 

States could supply their expertise. 

The sierras Ajos, Buenos Aires, la Púrica and the mountains of the Huachuca and 

the Chiricahua share many of the same characteristics. All of the sky islands form unique 

ecosystems that contain a wide array of plants and animals. These sky islands are not 

unlike islands in the sea. The forest covered mountains rise up from the arid Sonoran 

valleys of southern Arizona and northern Mexico to comprise some of the most 

ecologically diverse areas in the region. 

 As early as October of 1997, staff members from all three of these conservation 

areas met to devise long term plans with many objectives that also included outside 

participating interests. Some National Park Service units that were mentioned in this 

 

946 Letter of Agreement between Reserva Forestal Nacional y Refugio de Fauna Silvestre Sierra Los Ajos, Buenas Aires 

y La Púrica-Bavispe, Chiricahua National Monument, and Coronado National Memorial signed February 3, 1998. 

308
document were Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and Tumacacori National 

Historical Park. Some of the objectives included a contact station at Los Ajos with semipermanent housing, and an administration trailer. Objectives also included plans for 

management training for all three conservation areas, development of volunteer programs 

at Los Ajos, library resource development at Los Ajos, and workshops on Mexican 

conservation law.948 

 In a draft of another Letter of Agreement some of the objectives in the first letter 

were expanded upon and some new items were included. Although not signed, the draft 

was revealing in its refinement of objectives in the earlier agreement letter for these areas 

and its inclusion of new ideas and concerns. Important items considered were the 

temporary transfer of equipment and supplies to Los Ajos-Bavispe for operational 

support. Apart from important issues of environmental education and training programs 

for all areas, local communities were also included “to promote public awareness, 

understanding and participation in conservation and the sustainable use of border 

resources.”949 This type of cooperative sharing was promoted formally in agreements 

and letters broadening interest and involvement by stakeholders in the area which 

included a large number of public, and private organizations across southern Arizona and 

northern Mexico. These common interests are forming a large corridor of interconnected 

ecosystems at binational, federal, state and local levels. Areas along the San Pedro River 

demonstrate the concerted interests and involvement from many groups. 

 

CORO Files. 

947 Arizona Range News “Mexican Officials Study Local Monument” October 22, 1997. CORO Files. 948 “Three Year Plan (1997-2000) between Chiricahua National Monument, Coronado National Memorial, Reserva 

Nacional Forestal (National Forest Reserve) Sierra los Ajos, Buenos Aires, y la Púrica.” CORO Files 949 Draft of Letter of Agreement between Reserva Forestal Nacional y Refugio de Fauna Silvestre Ajos-Bavispe, 

Chiricahua National Monument, and Coronado National Memorial. CORO Files. 

309
 In a straight line from the eastern edge of Coronado National Memorial to the San 

Pedro River, it is about four to five miles. The river enters Arizona from Sonora, 

Mexico. It flows north between the Huachuca and Mule Mountains and connects to the 

Gila River about 100 miles downstream. Coronado lies within the Upper San Pedro 

River Basin. This large area is a series of connected ecosystems that also includes 

ecological systems in Mexico, such as those mentioned earlier, the Sierra los Ajos, 

Buenas Aires, la Púrica, National Forest Reserve and the Forest Reserve and Wildlife 

Refuge Ajos-Bavispe as well as the sierras La Elenita, La Mariquita and the San José. 

Within this larger ecosystem which extends north and south from the border is a 

smaller one, the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. This riparian 

conservation area contains about 58,000 acres of public land in Cochise County, Arizona. 

The area was designated a National Conservation Area (NCA) in 1988 and covers 40 

miles of the upper San Pedro River in Arizona. The area is notable as a rare remnant of a 

desert riparian ecosystem. 

 The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area abounds in flora and fauna. 

Various types of vegetation can be found in this riparian corridor such as the Fremont 

cottonwood and the Goodding willow as well as the Arizona ash and walnut, netleaf 

hackberry, and soapberry. Chihuahuan desert-scrub vegetation is common here as well 

and is typified by the tarbush, creosote and acacia. In areas near the corridor, plants such 

as mesquite and sacaton grass can be found. 

 An extensive wildlife population can be found alongside the vegetation in this 

riparian environment. The National Conservation Area provides sustenance for a variety 

of species of birds, which are more than 350 in number. Of these 350 species found in 

310
the area 100 are breeding birds, while 250 are migrant and wintering species. Of the 36 

species of raptors found in the area some of the most notable are the gray hawk, the 

Mississippi kite and the crested caracara. Other species include the green kingfisher, the 

northern beardless-tyrannulet and the yellow-billed cuckoo. 

Among the over 80 species of mammals identified in this area are the white-tailed 

deer, the mule deer, the javelina or peccary, the desert cottontail, and the black-tailed 

jackrabbit, not to mention mountain lions, bobcats and several species of bats. Of at least 

40 species of amphibians and reptiles some of the most notable are the Mexican garter 

snake, the Mojave green rattlesnake, and the Gila monster. Other species include the 

western diamondback rattlesnake, the desert grassland whiptail lizard, the Sonoran box 

turtle, and Couch’s spadefoot toad. Of the 14 original species of fish that once inhabited 

the waters of the San Pedro River, only two endemic species remain, the longfin dace and 

the desert sucker. Some of the more common non-native species of fish are the carp, the 

yellow bullhead and the mosquitofish.950

Nearby Coronado National Memorial shares some of the same species of flora 

and fauna but also contains some striking examples of other types of species. The natural 

environment of Coronado is typical of the transition zone between the Upper Sonoran 

Zone and the high Chihuahuan Desert which includes the mountains of southeastern 

Arizona. From the Memorial’s Montezuma Pass, at 6,575 feet, the scenic view is broad 

and sweeps across the San Pedro Valley to the east and the San Rafael Valley to the west. 

In the lower elevations of the Memorial the vegetation includes various desert 

grasses and shrubs including the honey mesquite and the desert willow. In the upper 

 

950 San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. (Washington D.C.:Bureau of Land Management, Safford District, 

Arizona;U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995). 

311
canyons, there are large amounts of oak, Mexican piñón pine and alligator juniper. 

Along the drainages, the sycamore and walnut can be found. There are a variety of other 

types of plants found in the Memorial such as the manzanita, the agave or century plant, 

Schott’s yucca, the sacahuista or beargrass, and the sotol or desert spoon. There are a 

variety of cacti found here as well, such as the pincushion and rainbow cacti, the prickly 

pear and also the cane cholla. 

Frequently seen mammals include the white-tailed deer, the javelina, the coyote, 

the coatimundi, the gray fox and various types of bats, including the endangered lesser 

long-nosed bat for which the mines of the Memorial offer a safe haven.951 There are also 

larger and more elusive types of mammals found at Coronado such as the bobcat, the 

black bear and the mountain lion. 

A wide variety of birds inhabit the Memorial and many of them have been seen at 

different times of the year. There are more than 140 species of birds that have been 

recorded at Coronado, which includes 50 resident birds. Some of the birds that can be 

seen here are the acorn woodpecker, the gray-breasted jay, the Gambel’s quail, the 

rufous-crowned sparrow, the painted redstart, white-winged dove, the Montezuma quail 

and a large variety of hummingbirds.952

Both Coronado National Memorial and San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area are integral parts of the Upper San Pedro River Basin and as such 

provide important habitats for the flora and fauna of the region. The broader ecosystem 

of the Upper San Pedro River Basin is particularly susceptible to the human influences on 

 

951 Connie Toops, “Going to Bat for Bats” National Parks: The Magazine of The National Parks Conservation 

Association 75:1-2, (January/February 2001), 29-31. 952 Coronado. (Washington D.C.:Coronado National Memorial, Arizona. National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior; U.S. Government Printing Office: 1994). 

312
its fragile environment. In the last few years the detrimental effects have been a constant 

cause for concern on both sides of the border. 

In a Mexican on-line newspaper, La Crónica de Hoy, Rigoberto Aranda writes 

about his Washington/Mexico teleconference interview with Secretary of the Interior 

Bruce Babbitt. The article also focuses on the environmental dangers to the San Pedro 

River and to the entire Upper San Pedro River Basin.953

Aranda quotes Bruce Babbit as saying that the San Pedro River runs the risk of 

drying up completely because the United States uses its waters for human consumption as 

well as for agricultural and livestock use. In the teleconference interview Secretary 

Bruce Babbitt spoke about an important agreement signed between the Mexican 

government, specifically the Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries 

(SEMARNAP) and the U.S. Secretary of the Department of the Interior.954 According to 

the newspaper article, the binational agreement recognizes the degradation of the San 

Pedro River due to human water consumption, agriculture, mining and contaminants 

poured into the riverbed by the United States. 

The piece describes the related section of the San Pedro River Basin as located in 

northeastern Sonora with a surface area of 107,000 hectares (approximately 264,397 

acres) in the municipalities of Cananea, Naco and Santa Cruz. On the Mexican side, it is 

described as a rich mountainous region of oak and pine forest. Some of the more 

 

953 La Crónica de Hoy, “El río San Pedro, entre Sonora y Arizona, corre el riesgo de secarse debido a la 

sobreexplotación a que lo somete EU” (translation: “The San Pedro River, between Sonora and Arizona, is in danger of 

drying up, due to overexploitation by the U.S.”) by Rigoberto Aranda. Wednesday, June 23, 1999, México. 

http://www.cronica.com.mx/cronica/1999/jun/23/. 954 Joint Declaration between the Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (SEMARNAP) of the 

United States of Mexico and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) of the United States of America, to 

work jointly in the Upper San Pedro River Basin. June 22, 1999. 

313
common species in the region are the tiger salamander, the prairie dog, the black bear, 

and the spotted owl. 

In the same article, Secretary Julia Carabias of SEMARNAP, explained that 

Mexico is in the process of redefining the Mexican boundaries to their Natural Protected 

Area which will extend to the parts that are of common interest to both nations. She 

explained that, for this purpose, 1.5 million dollars was earmarked to a binational nature 

conservation agency concerned with environmental stewardship. Carabias stated that the 

Mexican areas of the San Pedro River Basin were in good condition and well conserved. 

Furthermore she explained: 

Water is not extracted [from these areas] and there is very little pressure 

exerted from the population. This agreement is special because, for the 

first time, conservation actions are being considered that take the entire 

ecosystem into account. There is not a single resource, such as water, that 

is the central focus, as is the case for the Río Bravo.955

The ecosystem for the entire basin now becomes the focus of these binational efforts in 

which the flora and the fauna are as important as the ecological system that surrounds 

them. 

The Los Ajos area is encompassed by ejido956 lands and has a population of 

approximately 32,000 inhabitants. Some of the ejidos in this region are the Ejido 

Emiliano Zapata, Ejido Mututicachi and Ejido Cuquiarichi. In this area of the San Pedro 

River Basin the wildlife of the area is made up of 72 species of mammals, 102 species of 

birds, 51 reptiles, 15 amphibians, and two endemic species of fish. With the new 

 

955 La Crónica de Hoy, “El río San Pedro, entre Sonora y Arizona...” by Rigoberto Aranda. Wednesday, June 23, 

1999, México. http://www.cronica.com.mx/cronica/1999/jun/23/ . The quoted text above is a translation of the 

original which follows: “No se substrae el agua y hay poca presión de población. Este convenio es un caso especial, ya 

que por primera vez se toman acciones de conservación que consideran a los ecosistemas en su conjunto. No se 

enfocan a un sólo recurso, como el agua, que es el caso del río Bravo.” 

956 Ejidos are lands held in common by communities of an area, sometimes reapportioned to individuals for their use 

and sometimes worked by the communites as a whole. 

314
agreement between SEMARNAP and the Department of the Interior, the entire binational 

ecosystem known as the San Pedro River Basin becomes of common interest to both 

nations. 

Through this agreement both nations declared to “strengthen cooperative actions 

with a goal of establishing joint mechanism to improve and conserve the natural and 

cultural resources of the Upper San Pedro River Basin, including the river and riparian 

zone.”957 An important aspect of the agreement was in “recognizing the need to develop 

strategies that are balanced and respectful of national sovereignty and the particular 

economic and social characteristics of the inhabitants of the watershed.” Addressing the 

concerns in the article mentioned earlier, a segment of the agreement dealt with research 

plans to study the physical and hydrological conditions of the region and the coordination 

of policy related to the conservation of natural resources for the Upper San Pedro River 

Basin. 

Other important points mentioned dealt with the implementation of joint studies 

on transboundry species and biological resources. Migratory birds were especially 

emphasized in this portion of the agreement. Other areas of the accord dealt with the 

exchange of compatible information systems to assist policy makers, local land 

managers, and the public in general in making informed stewardship decisions. 

Environmental and natural resources management training was stressed as well as 

programs for public participation. Section 4 of the joint agreement outlined an important 

role SEMARNAP will play in the protection of the area, 

 

957 Joint Declaration between the Secretariat of Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (SEMARNAP) of the 

United States of Mexico and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) of the United States of America, to 

work jointly in the Upper San Pedro River Basin. June 22, 1999. 

315
In furtherance of the goals of this Joint Declaration, SEMARNAP intends 

to develop legal instruments that give the Upper San Pedro River Basin 

located within Mexico, some category of protection; for example, the 

Upper San Pedro River Basin could be included within the existing natural 

protected area and its respective management plan of the Sierra los AjosBavispe Natural Protected Area.958

The Upper San Pedro River Basin is a large area. Within the designated region there will 

be private lands, state lands, military reservations, lands managed by the National Park 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Forest Service and various 

agencies of the Mexican government. All of these areas contain important sections of the 

larger Upper San Pedro River Basin. The Arizona Trail that begins at the U.S.-Mexican 

border in Coronado National Memorial is an example of such a sub-section. There are 

many other sections on both sides of the border that could be mentioned. 

 In recognizing that funding is an important issue, the Department of the Interior 

intends to establish partnerships with private and public institutions that will provide 

economic support for the conservation activities began by SEMARNAP in the Mexican 

portion of the Upper San Pedro River Basin. On the U.S. portion of the Basin, the 

Interior Department will seek funds for land acquisition, and conservation easements. 

Some portions of this basin overlap into a portion of a large arid region known as the 

Sonoran Desert. 

The Sonoran Desert covers an area of approximately 120,000 square miles. In 

Mexico the desert covers a large portion of Baja California Norte as well as the western 

portion of the state of Sonora. In the United States the area includes the southeastern 

portion of California and southwestern part of Arizona. In both countries smaller deserts 

are subsumed within the larger Sonoran Desert such as the Yuma and Colorado deserts in 

 

958 Ibid. 

316
the U.S. and El Gran Desierto de Altar in Mexico. The landscape ranges from semi-arid 

to arid desert, which includes the Lower Colorado Valley Region, the hottest, driest and 

largest portion of the Sonoran Desert. The Sonoran Desert region also includes the 

Arizona Upland with the largest concentration of mountains in this desert. There are 

many indigenous groups living in this large region that include the Tohono O’odham, the 

Seri, and the Pima. 

In another event in May of 1997, the Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and 

Mexico’s Secretary of the Environment, Julia Carabias signed a letter of intent in which 

they pledged to work together to protect the natural resources along the border between 

Mexico and the United States. There are two National Park Service units in Arizona that 

can play a critical role because of their border park status: Coronado National Memorial 

and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Both parks have recently and continuously 

been involved in binational, national, and public inclusion in their conservation efforts. 

Using the instruments of national and international agreements these National Park 

Service units are important participants in the transboundry, inter-agency and cross-sector 

collaboration in the management of these important areas. 

 In a still broader sense Coronado National Memorial lies between two great 

ecological systems, the Chihuahuan Desert and the Sonoran Desert. Its active 

participation in conservation and preservation efforts in these two binationally, great, and 

distinct regions can reinforce and emphasize the need for partnerships. It can help lead to 

responsible stewardship at the international, national, state and community level. 

317
Chapter XII 

Epilogue: The Development of Coronado Memorial and its Interpretive Program

...at the present time it is simply a block of land lying along the 

border set aside from our public domain -- Congressional 

debate on 1952 bill. 

We want to assure you that the step-child attitude of the past 

toward Coronado has changed... – NPS Acting Regional 

Director E.W. Watkins, 1966. 

 I believe that Coronado, properly developed and interpreted, 

could become an unforgettable experience for visitors –- NPS 

Historian Bill Brown, 1967. 

 

When, on August 18, 1941, legislation was passed that would eventually lead to 

the creation of Coronado National Memorial, its framers clarified that it would be “for 

the purpose of permanently commemorating the explorations of Francisco Vásquez de 

Coronado.”959 In its nascent stages, the Memorial idea was, in the words of E.K. Burlew, 

acting Secretary of the Department of the Interior in 1940, conceived as “of value in 

advancing the relationship of the United States and Mexico upon a friendly basis of 

cultural understanding.” He went on: “Such a monument would stress the history and 

problems of the two countries and would encourage cooperation for the advancement of 

their common interests.”960 This aspect of the Coronado project was reflected in the 

original plan for an international memorial. 

 Also on the minds of promoters of the Memorial was the unique natural resource 

found in the southern Huachuca Mountains. In 1950, local resident and tourism booster 

 

959 An Act to Provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Memorial, in the State of Arizona, approved 

August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 630). 

318
Grace Sparkes wrote that it was important to move quickly to secure protection for the 

flora and fauna of the area. She went on to say that “(t)here isn’t a week that we do not 

meet interested people and scientists” doing research. Sparkes illustrated by describing 

researchers from the University of Arizona and from Mexico who had recently visited, 

both looking for specific plants said to be nearly unique to the area.961 

 The legislation and Presidential Proclamation that actually established the 

Memorial in 1952 did more than change the language of the 1941 bill. The 1941 bill was 

amended, dropping the word “International” and revoking the necessity of waiting for 

action on the part of Mexico. Thus, it established a national memorial in place of the 

original international concept. Groups opposed to the Memorial seized on the change to 

argue that the Memorial could not very well commemorate relations between Mexico and 

the United States if the two countries could not cooperate on the project itself.962

 The 1952 Presidential Proclamation established the Coronado Memorial and its 

boundaries that set aside the designated property, but it did not immediately lead to the 

appropriation of funds. In fact, during a short Congressional debate on the matter, two 

members asked specifically how a park could be created without any funding. They were 

assured that, while in the future, funding would be requested for construction at 

Coronado, “at the present time it is simply a block of land lying along the border set aside 

from our public domain.”963 Finally, in July 1954, money was appropriated for 

 

960 E.K. Burlew, Acting Secretary of the Interior, to Alva B. Adams, Chairman, Committee on Public Lands and 

Surveys, United States Senate, Washington, D.C., July 27, 1940, Report [To accompany S. 4130], 76th Congress, 3rd 

Session, Senate Report No. 2107, WACC, Folder H 14: Area & Service History 1940 F2. 961 Grace M. Sparkes to Hillory Tolson, Acting Director, NPS, State of Texas Mine, October 28, 1950, WACC, Folder 

H 18: Biographical Data F11. 

962 Letter from eighteen residents of Nogales to Hayden, Nogales, May 24, 1955; The same letter to Goldwater from 

twenty-eight residents of southern Arizona, June 6, 1955, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History 1940 F2. 963 Untitled, undated, copy of Congressional debate on bill, H.R. 7553, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data, 

General F11. 

319
Coronado Memorial.964 Shortly thereafter, a superintendent, Carroll Burroughs, was 

hired.965 But, as 1954 drew to a close, the Memorial still lacked a Master Plan, 

structures, and a staff.966 For five years, Coronado National Memorial was based in 

rented quarters at Grace Sparkes’s State of Texas Mine. Meanwhile, the NPS had to 

figure out how to develop the resource. 

 As a backdrop to the process, the region was undergoing a development process 

of its own. Grace Sparkes mused about the possible reactivation of Fort Huachuca in 

1950 and its effect on the Memorial area.967 Fort Huachuca was long the locus of great 

population change in the San Pedro Valley. Tombstone was a boom town that quickly 

declined along with its silver lodes. It lived on, and continues to exist, as a tourist 

attraction. The mines of Bisbee, across the San Pedro Valley in the Mule Mountains, 

grew and ebbed with the market for copper, and for tourism as well. In the immediate 

neighborhood of Coronado, increase and decrease in the population of the San Pedro 

Valley reflected the changing fortunes of Fort Huachuca. 

 Fort Huachuca was founded in 1877, but has since gone through a few apparent 

deaths and subsequent rebirths.968 Since the founding of Coronado National Memorial, 

its major turning points have, coincidentally, been concurrent with some of Fort 

Huachuca’s growth spurts. In 1941, as boosters and legislators were acting to make the 

Memorial a reality, on paper at least, Huachuca was changing from border outpost to 

modern military base. In that year, its population grew larger than it had ever previously 

 

964 Senator Carl Hayden to Grace Sparkes, Washington, D.C., July 2, 1954, ibid. 965 Luis A. Gastellum, Assistant General Superintendent, Southwestern National Mounuments (SWNM), NPS, to 

Sparkes, Globe, October 15, 1954, ibid. 

966 Ray B. Ringenbach, Superintendent, Tumacacori National Monument, to Grace Sparkes, Tumacacori, August 10, 

1954, ibid. 

967 Sparkes to Tolson State of Texas Mine, October 28, 1950. 968 Cornelius C. Smith, Jr. Fort Huachuca: The story of a frontier post (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 

United States Government Printing Office, 1981), 17-18. 

320
been. As the United States entered World War II, it continued to grow.969 In 1947, as 

the Memorial languished in the limbo of legislative existence, Fort Huachuca was 

deactivated.970

 In the early 1950s the fort and Memorial seemed to stumble together through an 

obstacle course of attempts at regeneration. In 1951, Fort Huachuca was reactivated as 

part of the Korean War effort, and, in 1952, legislation was passed to establish Coronado 

National Memorial in reality as well as on paper.971 Fort Huachuca closed briefly in 

1953 but again opened in 1954, just as Coronado Memorial received its first funding, 

named its first superintendent, and prepared to move into Montezuma Canyon.972 As the 

first Master Plan was being created, the Fort was undergoing considerable expansion.973 

In the late 1960s and 1970s, Fort Huachuca expanded exponentially as it became the 

army’s main center for electronic warfare.974

 As the base grew so did its surrounding community. Sierra Vista grew as home to 

the military personnel and civilian employees at the fort. To that number were added, in 

ever increasing numbers, military retirees who came to the area for the climate and for 

services that the base could provide. Finally, Arizona has become home to large number 

of retirees from all walks of life, many of whom settled in the San Pedro Valley. The 

ongoing influx of residents provided both a challenge and an opportunity to the staff of 

Coronado National Memorial as they worked to create a worthwhile and manageable 

park from their Congressional mandate. 

 

969 Ibid, 277-278. 970 Ibid, 311. 971 Ibid, 315; Establishment of the Coronado National Memorial (Name change from International Memorial), Arizona, 

By the President of the United States, A Proclamation (No. 2995), November 5, 1952, ILRPC Files. 972 Smith, Fort Huachuca, 315. 973 Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, November 1954, WACC, Folder D 18: Master 

Plans (1954) F2. 

974 Smith, Fort Huachuca, 318-332. 

321
 While the headquarters of the Memorial was based at the State of Texas Mine, 

NPS worked to create a manageable unit and an interpretive theme. An early planning 

document from that period asked “What are the significant values of Coronado National 

Memorial?”975 It answered: 

The establishment of Coronado National Memorial on the high ridges 

overlooking the San Pedro Valley, through which the Coronado expedition 

passed en route north from what is now Mexico, gives the visitor the 

opportunity to view the vast plains and mountains for a great distance into 

Mexico on one hand and the United States on the other. It also provides 

an opportunity to review the historic events following the Spanish 

occupation of the region, and the similar backgrounds of the two 

countries; and to remind the people of the United States and of Mexico of 

their mutual struggles and their continuing friendships. More important 

than the actual specific biological and scenic values of the area is this 

symbolic importance.976

It appears that almost the entire focus of interpretive planning was on the Coronado 

expedition and its legacy. The importance of the natural resource base was specifically 

denied, for it was considered less significant than the Coronado Expedition theme. 

 By 1961, a similar document still highlighted the Coronado expedition and the 

ongoing Hispanic legacy of the southwest but did not mention Mexico–U.S. relations, 

perhaps a result of the failure of the international memorial idea. However, more 

significance was placed on the natural resource, both as evocative of the historic scene 

and in its own right. The views were said to “offer solace and beauty to the civilizationharassed town and city dweller; the biology of the area, with its many forms of plant and 

animal life ordinarily not occurring in other portions of the nation, is of almost equal 

significance with the story.”977 The balance between the historical theme and natural 

 

975 Mission 66 for Coronado National Memorial, n.d. (filed among documents from 1956-1957), WACC, Folder D 18: 

Master Plan (Mission 66) F1. 

976 Ibid. 977 Master Plan for the Conservation and Use of Coronado National Memorial, March 12, 1961, ibid. 

322
resource would continue to trouble planners while it shaped the evolution of Coronado 

National Memorial. 

 While the importance of the natural environment grew in the minds of 

interpreters, it was, by necessity, central to park planning concerns from the beginning. 

The first NPS groups to survey the Memorial for planned development, in 1954, quickly 

saw that the area set aside by Congress was unsuited for visitor facilities or road 

improvement. Already, before any staff was in place, they suggested boundary 

adjustments to add land.978 One acquisition would “develop a desirable headquarters and 

residential area” within the park. Another was “required for picnic area development and 

a construction of a road to the proposed public use area at the International Boundary.”979 

This was the binational museum and visitor center planned for the border, on the south 

flank of the Huachuca Mountains. It would never be built because of the failure of the 

Mexican government to dedicate land south of the border to the project. 

 The first development plan for Coronado Memorial included the museum on the 

international border along with interpretive facilities in the area of Montezuma Pass and 

Coronado Peak. Both were envisioned in terms of interpreting the Coronado story: 

The development of a contact station at Montezuma Pass parking area and 

the supplementing of the exhibits in the building with trailside exhibits on 

Coronado Peak will give the visitors an insight into the historical 

significance of the area. These will provide a more effective realization of 

the importance of the Memorial in commemorating the Coronado 

expedition and the effect of Spanish explorations and colonization upon 

the history and development of this section of the United States.980

 

978 Regional Chief, Cooperative Activities Division, NPS, to Acting Regional Director, NPS, Santa Fe, October 14, 

1954, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans (1954) F2. 

979National Park Service Boundary Status Report, August 7, 1956, WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – 

Surveys & Reports F1. 

980Mission 66 for Coronado National Memorial, n.d. (ca. 1956-1957). 

323
Coronado Peak and Montezuma Pass were chosen as accessible viewpoints of 

Coronado’s route through the San Pedro Valley. The natural beauty of the area itself 

was, in the beginning, secondary at best. 

 Given the almost exclusive focus on the Coronado expedition in early planning 

and the possibility that Coronado passed near, but not through, the Memorial site, the 

view of the San Pedro Valley was of primary importance. Its command of the valley and 

convenience to the Montezuma Pass Road made Coronado Peak the logical place for 

viewing the Coronado route. An observation shelter on the peak was one of the first 

structures to be planned for the Memorial.981 It was, at one time, conceived as an 

enclosed building with a road extending from Montezuma Pass closer to Coronado 

Peak.982 Over time, there were a few different conceptions of exactly what would be 

built on Coronado Peak. By the summer of 1956, a sixty-five space parking lot was 

preparing to open adjacent to the road atop Montezuma Pass.983 The building that was 

placed there held little more than rest rooms. Trails to Coronado Peak were developed 

and supplied with interpretive materials and benches by the Memorial staff through the 

late 1950s.984

 The focus on the Montezuma Pass area necessitated an increase in traffic on the 

Montezuma Pass road. That road had only been built in the early 1930s. Before then, 

trips to the west side of the Huachuca Mountains had to be routed around the southern 

flank, through Mexican territory.985 Before, the Memorial was even established on paper 

 

981 Minutes of Meeting, Bisbee Chamber of Commerce, National Parks and Monuments Committee, December 8, 1950, 

WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 

982 Tolson to Governor Howard Pyle, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1952, Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 201, folder 3; 

Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, November 1954. 983 Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, March 1956, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plans 

(56,57,58) F4. 

984 Daily log, December 1, 1958, and passim, WACC, Folder A 26: Reports Daily logs 57,58 F1. 985 George Brown, interview by Thomas B. Carroll, September 20, 1974, CORO Files. 

324
it was recognized that “heavy road construction” would be required to create an approach 

to any high elevation lookout.986 As plans for developing the Memorial took shape, well 

before it existed on the ground, road improvement was on the minds of some planners 

and promoters. Grace Sparkes hoped to benefit personally from an improved road even 

as it brought visitors to the Memorial.987 However, the National Forest Service then 

administered the road. Its officials determined that the amount of work needed “to put 

the Montezuma Pass Road in good condition” was beyond its budgetary means. Like 

other roads in the region, it had been “built to a low standard” because of prevailing 

drainage patterns.988

 Grace Sparkes signed a right of way agreement in June 1951, before the Memorial 

was actually established.989 A decade later, she was negotiating a new agreement to 

expand the width of the right of way for the improvement of the road. In 1960, Congress 

passed legislation that appropriated funding for improvement of the road.990 Sparkes 

disagreed with the planned road improvement. She supported paving the existing road all 

the way to the facilities at the top of Montezuma Pass and adding some scenic turnouts 

along the way. What was projected, instead, was a widened road that was only paved 

about as far as her home. The result would be, according to Sparkes and her allies, 

unnecessary destruction of vegetation and faster traffic without the benefit of an 

 

986 “Report of Jerome C. Miller, Associate Landscape Architect,” Special Report Covering the Proposed Coronado 

International Monument, Submitted by Region III Headquarters, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 

Santa Fe, February 1940, WACC, Folder H 14: Area and Service History, General F6. 987 Sparkes to Hayden, State of Texas Mine, June 28, 1947, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 988 Rex King, Acting Regional Forester, NFS, to Carl Hayden, Albuquerque, March 2, 1948, ibid. 989 Recognition of Right of Way, Signed by Grace M. Sparkes, June 15, 1951, WACC, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – 

Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

990 An Act to Revise the Boundaries of the Coronado National Memorial and to Authorize the Repair and Maintenance 

of an Access Road Thereto, in the State of Arizona, and for Other Purposes, Approved September 2, 1960 (74 Stat. 

736). (Public Law 86-689), CORO Files. 

325
improved road all the way to the pass.991 Eventually, Sparkes came to an agreement with 

the Park Service and the road was improved, as planned.992

 The same 1960 legislation that allocated money for improvement of the 

Montezuma Pass Road also appropriated funding for land acquisition and authorized a 

boundary adjustment. This land acquisition had been envisioned, as described above, 

from the time that the Memorial became a reality. It made possible the construction of a 

building to house the visitor center and administrative offices as well as staff housing. It 

addition, it brought in land to be used for a picnic area and for the road to the ill-fated 

center at the border. 

 After 1960, Coronado Memorial began to look like a National Park Service unit, 

with its own visitor facilities and staff housing and an improved road. However, from the 

standpoint of protecting or interpreting the natural resource base of the Memorial, it was 

still unwieldly. In terms of the other themes present, the historical connection to the 

Coronado expedition and international relations, there were no tangible resources and 

limited opportunities for interpretation. The subsequent evolution of the Memorial would 

consist of efforts to improve interpretation and protection of both the natural resources 

and historical themes. 

 The natural resource of the southern Huachuca Mountains was originally 

conceptualized simply as a place from which to view the route of the Coronado 

expedition and the surrounding country. That resource was difficult to administer as it 

was created. The land west of Montezuma Pass was not, effectively, part of the 

Memorial. It was part of the viewshed, but, from the standpoint of interpreting the 

 

991 Sparkes to Thomas J. Allen, Director, Region III, NPS, State of Texas Mine, June 17, 1961; Sparkes to Allen, State 

of Texas Mine, June 27, 1961, WACC, Folder H 18: Biographical Data F11. 

326
Coronado expedition, the focus of the view was the San Pedro Valley, to the east. The 

western side of the Memorial was seldom visited by the public and there was no NPS 

development planned that would draw people to it.993

 On the other hand, there was little immediate expectation that real estate 

development would threaten the view westward if NPS protection was withdrawn. 

Meanwhile, seventy percent of the grazing land within the Memorial was west of the pass 

and both the land and water resources were threatened by overgrazing. If that land were 

to be withdrawn, it would relieve NPS personnel of the headache of patrolling and 

administering the overgrazing of the unused land. Montezuma Canyon, meanwhile, was 

a much more likely site for detrimental development and was not fully protected. 

Moreover, there were no distinct features marking NPS boundaries within Montezuma 

Canyon; it all seemed to the public to be inside the Memorial. The core area of the 

Memorial was Montezuma Canyon and it could be managed efficiently only if NPS 

acquired the entire watershed.994

 Even without taking resource protection as a primary mission of the Memorial, 

the issue was forced to the forefront by the grazing issue and potential development. It 

came to be acknowledged that the pristine character of the view must be maintained if the 

Memorial was to be worthwhile. From that point, it was a smaller step to conceptualizing 

the land as a resource in itself. As noted above, in 1970 Superintendent Hugo Huntzinger 

acknowledged that the Memorial’s “primary use is by those interested in the wildlife and 

scenery.” He also observed that the Memorial did “not at present exist as an ecological 

 

992 Easement and Recognition of Road Right-of-Way, Signed by Grace M. Sparkes, August 15, 1961, WACC, Folder L 

1425: Land Holdings – Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

993 “Boundary Adjustment – a Radical Proposal,” n.d., WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – Surveys & 

Reports F1. 

994 Ibid. 

327
entity. e.g., most of the Montezuma Canyon bottom (where the road is located), drainage, 

and scenery, is located outside of the Memorial boundaries (USFS land).” Moreover, a 

“rather shoddy county estate subdivision is developing immediately to the east of the 

Memorial” in Montezuma Canyon.995 That development made resource protection a 

necessity, even if only to protect the view. 

 A few years later, as boundary adjustments were being discussed, development 

and maintaining the view were considered together. Acquisition of more land was 

planned to “prevent obnoxious developments which would detract from the visitors park 

experience.”996 The importance of the environment to the mission of historical 

interpretation was detailed: 

Because the Memorial lacks visible remains and is not the site of any 

dramatic occurrence, its historical value lies in the fact that it is able to set 

a reflective mood suitable for contemplation of the Coronado Entrada. 

Retention of the pastoral grassland scene of the distant San Pedro Valley is 

important if this area is to fulfill its purpose and effectively Memorialize 

and interpret history. This historic scene lies largely outside the current 

park boundaries and therefore is subject to adverse use and esthetic 

deterioration that will seriously compromise the park’s efforts to provide a 

quality visitor experience.997

Thus, the natural resource was central to the Memorial’s ability to interpret the historic 

theme. Throughout the 1970s, disparate boundary modification and development 

proposals were suggested and discussed, leading eventually to a significant adjustment 

legislated in 1978. 

 At the same time that the future of the Memorial was being discussed in terms of 

its optimum shape and size, the interpretive program was also getting a close look. In 

 

995 Huntzinger to Director, Southwest Region, Subject: Boundary Changes for Existing NPS Areas, Hereford, August 

31, 1970. 

996 Frederick J. Brower, Acting Team Manager, Western Team, Denver Service Center, to Regional Director, Western 

Region, February 19, 1974, WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – Surveys & Reports F1. 

328
late 1965, Southwest Regional Historian Bill Brown visited Coronado Memorial to begin 

work on a new Interpretive Prospectus. Some months later, the Regional office wrote 

that, as a result of that visit, “we have done much thinking about the interpretive program 

at Coronado. In the past, no systematic approach to interpretation has been taken. As a 

result, a central interpretive theme, to which all interpretive efforts and media are directly 

related, has not been pressed.” The new Interpretive Prospectus, it was believed, would 

“be a beginning in changing present interpretive diffusion into a main-line interpretive 

experience of real significance for visitors.”998

 In closing, Acting Regional Director E.W. Watkins wrote: “We want to assure 

you that the step-child attitude of the past toward Coronado has changed. And, using the 

draft Prospectus as a start, we look forward to a creative dialogue with you on a revised 

and strengthened interpretive program for Coronado.”999 The confusion that was 

perceived as surrounding interpretation was, evidently, reflected in a lack of institutional 

support and, it turned out, ambivalence about its very existence. The 1967 Prospectus, 

written by Brown, began where Watkins left off, with previous neglect of the Memorial. 

It continued that “Coronado has been considered an area whose resources could not 

sustain the mission and the values for which the area was established.”1000

 Brown wrote: “I disagree with this judgement, and I believe that Coronado, 

properly developed and interpreted, could become an unforgettable experience for 

visitors.” As a result, he submitted “more than a prospectus. It is an essay and a 

 

997 Environmental Review Proposal, General Management Plan, Coronado National Memorial, Initial Draft, n.d., 

WACC, Folder L 7617: Environmental Review Study/Statement 1976 F55. 998 E.W. Watkins, Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, NPS, to Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, 

Santa Fe, February 11, 1966, WACC, Folder K 26: Interpretive Reports F10. 999 Ibid. 1000 William E. Brown, “Interpretive Prospectus for Coronado National Memorial,” Revised April 1967, WACC, 

Folder K 18: Interpretive Prospectus F2. 

329
plea...designed to arouse interest in this area.” Brown hoped that ensuing discussions 

would “result in a basic decision that Coronado National Memorial is worth the 

expenditure of time and money and imagination necessary to give it a systematic and 

inspiring interpretive program.”1001 Brown’s Prospective, then, as he and his superior 

described it, would clarify the interpretive program by giving it one organizing theme. 

 Brown again noted the problem facing him and his colleagues. “By legislative 

fiat, Coronado National Memorial, an area whose physical resources are natural and 

scenic, has been assigned the role of conveying historical values.” The natural resource 

had often “overwhelmed” the historic theme in past interpretation. Brown specified that 

the Huachuca Mountains themselves, “provide a viewing platform, which, through 

various interpretive approaches and media, can and must stir the visitor to a deep, 

essentially emotional realization of the import of the Coronado theme.” The natural 

resource would be interpreted independently on a separate return trail from Coronado 

Peak, “after the climax of the historical interpretation at the peak.”1002

 The 1967 Interpretive Prospectus was far from the last word on the subject. 

When, after the passage of a few years, Huntzinger wrote that Coronado’s “primary use is 

by those interested in the wildlife and scenery,”1003 the seeming contradiction was less 

between two visions of the Memorial than between Brown’s “legislative fiat” and the 

reality of visitor priorities. In 1974, another version of the Interpretive Prospectus was 

released. It, too, was written by Brown, but Memorial staff seem to have participated in 

its creation as well. That may have been, at least in part, because the staff was more 

 

1001 Ibid. 1002 Ibid, underlined in the original. 1003 Hugo H. Huntzinger, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Director, Southwest Region, Subject: 

Boundary Changes for Existing NPS Areas, Hereford, August 31, 1970, WACC, Folder L 1417: Boundary 

Adjustments – Surveys & Reports F1. 

330
stable and capable in 1974 than in 1967. The 1974 Prospectus was much like the 1967 

edition but it envisioned more interpretation of the natural resources of the Memorial. It 

pointed out that “the scenic resources and values of the Memorial are so intimately 

related to its historical purpose and values, there is no conflict between the scenery and 

the main historical interpretive theme.” The natural resources could be used to further 

interpretation of the historical theme. “But natural history interpretation for its own sake, 

as a sequel to added benefit beyond the main historical themes, is highly valid.”1004

 The interpretive program was still geared toward preparing the visitor for taking 

the right historical impression from the views from Coronado Peak: 

The culminating experience is at the Coronado Peak Overlook. All 

orientation and interpretation is designed to prepare the visitor for this 

experience. So that he may not only look but also see the historical and 

geographical panorama revealed to the perceptive viewer from this point. 

In the main, this viewer will be a product of the Memorial’s orientation 

and interpretive program. If the reasonably intelligent and interested 

viewer is not perceptive when he gets to this point, our interpretive 

program will have failed.1005

Thus, it was the task of the staff and interpretation to take visitors, most of whom came to 

see the scenery of the Huachuca Mountains and surrounding area, and to convince them 

to think about the historical importance of the views as well. 

 Visitation was then steadily increasing, according to reports filed by Coronado 

Memorial. In 1958, 12,982 visitors were reported; that number grew year by year, 

reaching 39,964 in 1964.1006 During the early 1970s, the population of southwestern 

Cochise County was growing rapidly. Expansion of Fort Huachuca sparked a boom in 

 

1004 William E. Brown, “Interpretive Prospectus Coronado National Memorial - Arizona,” March 1974, WACC, Folder 

K 18: Interpretive Prospectus F2. 

1005 Ibid, underlined in the original. 1006 Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to The Director, Report 10A2 – Annual Report on Information and 

Interpretive Services, Calendar Year 1958; Acting Superintendent, Coronado, to Director, Report NPS(CN)-1 - Annual 

Report on Information and Interpretive Services for 1964, WACC, Folder K 26: Interpretive Reports F10. 

331
Sierra Vista, and the population was expected to quadruple over the next twenty-five 

years. “Yet,” reads a 1974 Master Plan, “in spite of the large number of people living 

within an easy drive of the area visitation is relatively light, 61,000 in 1972. This is 

attributable to the area being located away from the main routes of travel (52 miles south 

of Interstate 10/US80), lack of general knowledge of the area, and lack of eye catching 

programs.”1007

 Interpretive programs would be expected to draw more visitors to the Memorial 

and then to put them in the mood to perceive the historical significance of the Coronado 

expedition and the Memorial’s connection to it. In the spring of 1972, a series of annual 

programs at the Memorial began with “a modest Art Festival in which local communities 

in Mexico and Arizona were involved.”1008 The 1972 Festival had its roots in the 

recommendations of a January 1971 Management Appraisal that contacts be made with 

academic, political, and civic leaders in Mexico; an annual commemorative celebration 

be inaugurated; and a Living History presentations begun.1009

 The International Art Festival was held May 13-14 at the Memorial Headquarters. 

It drew about eight hundred visitors, somewhat less than expected, and 325 entries into 

the art competitions, plus others artists whose work was displayed but not judged. The 

Art Festival enjoyed significant participation from Mexicans, including art entrants, 

entertainers, and a keynote speaker, Dr. Sergio Bribiesca of Agua Prieta, Sonora. In 

 

1007 Terry R. Carlstrom, “Coronado National Memorial Master Plan,” Draft, March 1974, 9, WACC, Folder D 18: 

Master Plan (1974) F10. 

1008 Brown, “Interpretive Prospectus Coronado National Memorial - Arizona,” March 1974. 1009 Huntzinger to General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group (SOAR), Completion Report, CORO Centennial 

Arts Festival, Hereford, May 23, 1972, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F1. 

332
addition, nearby Arizona communities such as Sierra Vista and Bisbee, and many arts 

and civic organizations took part in the festivities.1010

 Coronado Memorial staff’s in-house evaluation of the 1972 event concluded: 

CORO’s combined Centennial Art Festival and Living History program 

was a successful experience that will not soon be forgotten. They 

involved many people, both in-Service and from the local communities of 

Arizona and Mexico. They represent a new beginning – a new direction 

for the Memorial which will serve as a springboard to an annual historical 

event for Southern Cochise County.1011

The Art Festival also inaugurated the Memorial’s Living History program, in which 

employees dressed as members of the Coronado Expedition. That program was planned 

to continue on weekends and holidays and for special events.1012 Two years later it was 

handled by seasonal personnel and was undergoing “review and change as area staff 

attempt to interpret history in a more direct and vital manner.”1013 Later discussions of 

the Living History program focused on the need for sensitivity and delicacy, as well as 

for the accuracy and authenticity of the costumes.1014 

 In April 1973, the Art Festival of the year before was replaced by the 

International Historical Pageant. This one day event was conceived as a counterpart to 

such local annual celebrations as Tombstone’s “Helldorado Days,” the “Little Britches 

Rodeo” in Sierra Vista, and Bisbee’s “Brewery Gulch Days.” It featured Spanish and 

Mexican themed melodrama, music, and dance from both sides of the border as well as 

 

1010 Ibid. 1011 Ibid. 1012 Centennial Art Festival Program, May 13–14, 1972, ibid. 1013 Brown, “Interpretive Prospectus Coronado National Memorial - Arizona,” March 1974. 1014 Outline of Consolidated Comments by Staff on Coronado National Memorial Master Plan, January 31, 1974, 

WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plan (1974) F10. 

333
Papago and Apache Indian dancers.1015 The 1973 Historical Pageant drew 4,300 people 

to the Memorial, a success that ensured that it would become an annual April event.1016 

 Over the next two years, attendance at the Historical Pageant increased 

substantially. The 1974 event drew 7,600, leading Superintendent Laurel Dale to forecast 

that it would have a bright future.1017 Dale was not alone in his optimism for the future 

of the Pageant. The Southwest Mission Research Center Newsletter (SMRC) predicted 

that it “will surely become one of the most appreciated annual bi-cultural events along the 

entire United States and Mexican border.”1018 In addition, Dale thought that, with the 

success of the Historical Pageant, other annual celebrations were likely to follow.1019

 After the 1975 International Historical Pageant attracted 13,000 visitors, Dale 

proclaimed it “one of the finest bi-cultural events along the entire...border.” The SMRC 

declared that it had “become Arizona’s annual outstanding international cultural and 

historical event.”1020 The 1975 event represented the high water mark for attendance at 

the Historical Pageant. Dale’s prophecy about additional events, self-fulfilling though it 

may have been, proved true the next year. 

 In 1976, a more academically oriented Borderlands Symposium was scheduled 

along with the Historical Pageant. In addition, two Bicentennial programs visited 

Coronado Memorial. One, a touring play called “We’ve Come Back for a Little Look 

Around,” performed two shows for audiences of 250 and five hundred in May 1976. It 

 

1015 Huntzinger to George Hunter, President, Sierra Vista Exchange Club, Hereford, February 8, 1973, WACC, Folder 

A 82: Special Events F3. 

1016 Huntzinger to Director, Western Region, through General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group, Hereford, July 

2, 1973, ibid. 

1017 Coronado Superintendent Laurel W. Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, through General 

Superintendent, SOAR, NPS, Hereford, December 18, 1974, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F5. 

1018 Southwest Mission Research Center Newsletter, Vol. VIII, No. 23 (August 1974), 2, ibid. 1019 Dale to Regional Director, through General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, December 18, 1974. 1020 Dale to Mrs. Louise C. Tester, Executive Director, Arizona Commission on the Arts & Humanities, Hereford, 

August 25, 1975, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F6. 

334
had also visited in August 1975, playing two shows for a total of 550 spectators as part of 

a “pilot” tour.1021 The other, in August 1976, was a tour of Mexican folk musicians 

sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution and called “On Tour: Mexico.” “On Tour: 

Mexico” played a Concert performance at the Memorial for an audience estimated at 550. 

Coronado Memorial cooperated with other regional groups in coordinating the southern 

Arizona appearance segment of the Smithsonian tour. The group also appeared at 

Tumacacori National Monument and at Bisbee and Tucson.1022

 The Borderlands Symposium, in September 1976, featured four speakers from 

Mexico and three from the United States who addressed regional historical issues. In 

addition to the formal presentations, there was a “campfire round table” discussion with 

the participants, a barbecue, and a performance of Mexican folk dances. A summary of 

the event concluded “This is the first major symposium to be held at the Memorial, but 

with the enthusiasm which the event has already aroused it is very possible that this could 

become an annual event.”1023 In the long run that would not necessarily be the case. 

 The Historical Pageant in April 1976 drew a respectable crowd, 8,150 people, 

despite some evident problems with publicity.1024 In 1977 the attendance went down to 

five thousand.1025 Superintendent Dale felt that the size of the crowd “‘just right’ though 

less than for previous pageants.”1026 He suspected that the food vendors, whose 

businesses did poorly, might disagree. The timing and circumstances of the event may 

 

1021 Thomas B. Carroll, “Report on Bicentennial Activities at Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona,” 

September 23, 1976, 2; “Report on Bicentennial Activities, Western Region, National Park Service,” n.d., WACC, 

Folder A 82: Bicentennial F42. 

1022 Ibid, 7. 1023 “Report on Bicentennial Activities, Western Region, National Park Service,” n.d. 1024 Dale to Sergio Bribiesca Elvira, Hereford, June 14, 1976, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F7. 1025 Dale to Charles Polzer, Hereford, May 19, 1978, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F9. 1026 Dale to Earl Jackson, Hereford, May 16, 1978, ibid. 

335
have been responsible for the decline in both attendance and appetites. The Pageant was 

held on Mother’s Day and the temperature climbed to over ninety degrees.1027

 Beginning at roughly the same time period in the early 1970s, the Coronado staff 

began to frame and implement an Environmental Living, or “Live In,” program at the 

Memorial. It was described in 1974 as: 

an expanded role-playing situation which simulates historical reality. This 

has exciting potential for bringing the Park and the local classroom 

together in a learning situation where young people, living as closely as 

possible to the reality of the time and culture represented by the historic 

site, become more acutely aware of their heritage as well as of their 

present environment.1028

Environmental Living Programs began in National Park and State Parks as well as private 

sites in Arizona and California in 1969.1029 Teachers from both states helped to 

implement the program at Coronado Memorial in early 1974.1030 Before that time, 

Coronado National Memorial had initiated an “Environmental Study Areas-Workshop” 

program in conjunction with area schools. It was “designed to assist teachers develop 

environmental education activities for the classroom as well as for outside the 

classroom.” In addition, an “Environmental Study Area” was “planned for the Memorial 

where teachers can take students for nature field study experience.”1031

 Coronado’s Environmental Living Program began with a teacher workshop 

involving participants from southeastern Arizona as well as northeastern Sonora. The 

 

1027 Dale to Bernard Fontana, Hereford, May 17, 1978, ibid. 1028 Brown, “Interpretive Prospectus Coronado National Memorial - Arizona,” March 1974. 1029 Mary Lou Baldi, Untitled Environmental Living Handbook (probably December 1974), WACC, Folder A 98: 

Environmental Living Handbooks F50. 

1030 Environmental Living Agenda, Coronado National Memorial, March 1–3, 1974; Carroll to Coronado 

Superintendent, Hereford, March 4, 1974, WACC, Folder A 98: Environmental Living Program F48. 1031 Ben Salazar, Acting Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Clay Holland, Principal, Carmichael 

Elementary School, Sierra Vista, Az., Hereford, n.d., ibid. Ben Salazar wrote several similar, undated, letters; he also 

identified himself as Education Program Specialist/Historian, see the same file. “Staff Historian” Salazar left Coronado 

National Memorial in July 1973, so this program was obviously in the works before that date, WACC, Folder A 2621: 

Annual Reports F11. 

336
first group of students followed a few weeks later.1032 The program consisted of 

classroom preparation led, ideally, by teachers who had attended a workshop with 

Memorial staff and program coordinators; an introductory visit by students and teachers; 

classroom research and preparation; an overnight stay in various camps in the Memorial; 

and later follow-up and evaluation in the classroom.1033 Over time, local educators were 

recruited to implement and administer Environmental Living. 

 Environmental Living programs throughout the country featured diverse 

experience depending upon the region and character of the site. From a desert cabin in 

Utah to a ship moored in San Francisco Bay, the program tailored the educational 

curriculum to the material resources where it took place.1034 At Coronado National 

Memorial, theme camps interpreted the Coronado expedition; Mexican miners; the 

Papago; and Apache Indians. Participants camped, cooked, and participated in games 

and crafts reflecting the chosen culture and its environment. In addition, role-playing and 

problem solving exercises attempted to place the students within the history of the people 

whose lives they studied.1035

 Despite its promising start, Environmental Living at Coronado never seemed able 

to turn into a vital ongoing program. In March 1976, the Environmental Living 

Coordinator for the Western Region of NPS wrote to Coronado Memorial. He outlined 

four reasons for the “lack of activity” in the Environmental Living programs at Coronado 

and in southern Arizona in general. He named the “malaise” of local school systems due 

 

1032 Huntzinger to Jackson, Hereford, March 5, 1974, WACC, Folder A 98: Environmental Living Program F48. 1033 “The Environmental Living Program, Coronado National Memorial,” n.d. (probably written by Mary Lou Baldi), 3-

10, WACC, Folder A 98: Environmental Living Handbooks F50. 

1034 See WACC, Folder A 98: Environmental Living Program F49 and WACC, Folder A 98: Environmental Living 

Handbooks F50 for material from various programs. 1035 Laura Barry to Teachers, Environmental Living Program Coordinator, Hereford, September 9, 1976, WACC, Foler 

A 98: Environmental Living Program F49. 

337
to economic recession and, for some reason, “the rural nature of the communities.” In 

addition, the park was remote from potential partner schools and the campground lacked 

structures. Finally, the letter blamed “the lack of a concerted ‘sales program.’”1036

 In April, Superintendent Dale wrote to local school principals about the 

Environmental Living Program. Dale wrote that, because of “logistical difficulties 

related to school funding and the distances involved,” the Memorial “decided to make the 

program itself, not the specific site, the primary focus of the presentation.”1037 If the 

students could not go to the Memorial, the staff could go to the schools. That idea 

addressed the concern that schools’ unwillingness or inability to make one or more trips 

to the Memorial was at least partially to blame for their failure to participate in the 

program. Another problem faced by the Memorial in this as well as other programs was 

a constant lack of sufficient staff. 

 The decision was made to add a consultant to coordinate the program and make 

teacher contacts. Laura Barry, of Willcox, had previous experience with the same 

program at Fort Bowie National Historic Site.1038 She had participated at Fort Bowie as a 

teacher and it was thought that her connections as a teacher in Cochise County together 

with her enthusiasm for the Environmental Living Program would enable her to revitalize 

the program at Coronado for the 1976-1977 school year.1039 Mary Lou Baldi was 

contracted to write a handbook.1040 A Doctoral student at the University of Arizona at 

 

1036 Environmental Living Program Coordinator, Western Region, to Staff Historian, Coronado, San Francisco, March 

19, 1976, ibid. 

1037 Dale to unnamed principal, Hereford, April 22, 1976, ibid. 1038 Environmental Living Program Coordinator, Western Region, to Staff Historian, Coronado, San Francisco, March 

19, 1976. 

1039 Requisition to Vendor Laura Barry, Coronado National Memorial, July 1, 1977, WACC, Folder A 98: 

Environmental Living Program F49. 

1040 Requisition to Vendor Mary Lou Baldi, Coronado National Memorial, July 1, 1977; July 10, 1977 (apparently for 

the same contract), ibid. 

338
Tucson and Reading Specialist in the Sahuarita School District, south of Tucson, she had 

been involved in the first teacher workshop in 1974.1041

 In May 1977, Dale looked back on the school year as a success, writing to teacher 

Cecilia Gross of Sierra Vista, that it “has finally gotten off the ground.”1042 That same 

month, a newspaper article in the Fort Huachuca Scout followed Mrs. Gross and sixty 

Fort Huachuca through the program. According to the article, they were “among the first 

in southern Arizona to take advantage of a unique National Park Service program.”1043 

During the 1976-1977 school year, the Environmental Living Program at Coronado 

National Memorial was, according to these sources a success, and seemed to presage a 

bright future. However, after that period, it disappears from the record. 

 In the 1980s, other outreach programs continued to connect the Memorial to 

schools on both sides of the international boundary. In March 1988, for example, a pilot 

School Outreach Program was presented at Palominas Elementary School. Its purpose 

was to familiarize students at all grade levels with the Memorial and its significance. The 

“location of the Memorial, the Coronado expedition, the Spanish influence on the origin 

of southwestern Hispanic-American culture, and the role of Coronado National Memorial 

in preserving and protecting the natural resources of the region” were all discussed.1044 It 

seemed as if, as Dale had written in 1976, school outreach programs had outlasted the 

“Live-In” aspects of environmental and cultural education at the Memorial. 

 

1041 Baldi, Untitled Environmental Living Handbook (probably December 1974); Environmental Living Workshop 

Agenda, March 1-3, 1974, WACC, Folder A 98: Environmental Living Program F48. 1042 Dale to Mrs. Cecilia Gross, Smith Middle School, Hereford, May 17, 1977, WACC, Folder A 98: Environmental 

Living Program F49. 

1043 Peg White, “Unique program: Students reenact history, cultural environments,” Fort Huachuca Scout, pictures by 

Jim Gross, May 26, 1977, ibid. 

1044 Coronado National Memorial School Outreach Program overview, March 31, 1988, ibid. 

339
 The Environmental Living Program was more explicitly connected to an 

international Cultural Exchange Program involving schools in Palominas, Arizona, and 

Arizpe, Sonora. An undated budget for the program is labeled “Environmental Living 

Program.”1045 The program was also referred to as, among other things, the 

“Arizpe/Palominas Environmental Cultural Exchange Program.”1046 The Memorial staff 

continued to conceive of this project as an Environmental Living Program. 

Superintendent Dale described the May 1983 event as “An international/intercultural bilingual [sic], Environmental Living Program.” The Memorial’s major role that year was 

as the site of a campout for about eighty fifth graders from Palominas and Arizpe.1047 

However, NPS staff from Coronado and all over southern Arizona also provided 

translation, interpretive skills, and consultation on the program.1048 By 1985, the 

Memorial was no longer involved with the exchange program, possibly because of time 

constraints for a reduced staff.1049

 In the 1970s, a variety of interpretive programs, including the annual Historical 

Pageant and ongoing Environmental Living Program, began. They would continue for 

some time in various forms. In part, the expansion of programs reflected NPS 

determination to create better interpretation. That was certainly reflected in the 1967 

Interpretive Prospectus and its successors. Also a factor was the coincidental arrival of 

the Bicentennial with its touring programs and special funding. According to one 

participant, though, a major reason for the development of the early 1970s was the 

 

1045 Undated “Budget – Environmental Living Program,” filed with material from 1982-1984, WACC, Folder A 98: 

International Education Program F52. 1046 Arizpe/Palominas Environmental Cultural Exchange Program –- Tentative Agenda, May 11-12, 1984, ibid. 1047 Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, Hereford, May 10, 1983, ibid. 1048 John Clay, General Superintendent, SOAR, to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, Phoenix, April 6, 1984, 

ibid. 

1049 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services, July 23, 1985, WACC, Folder K 1817: Annual Statement 

for Interpretation F9. 

340
presence of one man, Hugo Huntzinger. Huntzinger served as Superintendent during the 

period and was, according to Historian and Interpretive Specialist Tom Carroll, 

responsible for the Historical Pageant. “The new programs...in Interpretation,” said 

Carroll, “are complementary and illustrate the direction that the Memorial is going.”1050

 The direction that the Memorial was going was a topic very much in doubt in the 

1970s. Coronado Memorial was a small park on a dirt road that had, and, seemingly 

needed, little in developed facilities. Its resource was, by design, an almost pristine 

environment from which the visitor could appreciate the historical landscape experienced 

over four centuries earlier by Coronado and his contemporaries. Interpretation, as 

defined in 1967, was aimed toward preparing the visitor for the view from Coronado 

Peak. As the interpretive program turned toward large events, however, access to the 

Memorial became an issue as well. 

 In the 1950s a proposal to build a road from Montezuma Pass toward the 

viewpoint on Coronado Peak had been discussed but not constructed because of the 

difficulty of the terrain. In the 1967 Interpretive Prospectus, the idea of an alternative 

“viewing platform” at the east end of the Memorial was raised. It would serve the 

elderly, the infirm, and those uncomfortable with the mountain driving required by a visit 

to Montezuma Pass.1051 By 1974, that idea was combined with a proposal for a four 

thousand capacity amphitheater which would be used for the annual Historical Pageant 

and other events.1052 The amphitheater -– viewpoint complex, including a large parking 

 

1050 Carroll to General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, June 27, 1974, WACC, Folder A 34: Commendations F13. 1051 Brown, “Interpretive Prospectus for Coronado National Memorial,” Revised April 1967. 1052 Brown, “Interpretive Prospectus Coronado National Memorial - Arizona,” March 1974. 

341
area, would be located “in the southeast benchlands” and would be accessible via a new 

access road.1053

 Other, even more grandiose, plans were also floated in advance of the 1978 

boundary adjustment. One, with two alternatives, involved construction of a tram, an 

idea that had been around since, at least, 1965.1054 It would run either to Montezuma 

Peak, northeast of Montezuma Pass, or to Ash Peak, also on the north rim of Montezuma 

Canyon. The Ash Peak tram would begin from Ash Canyon, necessitating a large 

exchange or addition of lands. These ideas carried radically contrasting alternatives, such 

as closure of the Memorial; turning it over to the Forest Service; or moving to another 

site in Arizona, New Mexico, or Kansas.1055 When it is remembered that all of these 

plans were contemporary with both the expansion of interpretive programs at Coronado 

and other proposals that led to the 1978 land swap it becomes obvious that the Memorial 

was suffering from an identity crisis. The Park Service was still uncertain as to the 

direction that Coronado Memorial should take in its development and, indeed, whether it 

should exist at all. 

 It is not clear how seriously the Park Service considered plans to close Coronado 

Memorial, but in the end it did not seem to be one of the alternatives presented to the 

public. Among the options that were circulated for comment, the aggregate of public 

opinion agreed with the fiscal concerns of NPS officials. The exchange with the Forest 

Service of the land west of Montezuma Pass for that within Montezuma Canyon was 

approved by a majority of respondents. However, the amphitheater complex met with 

 

1053 Carlstrom, “Coronado National Memorial Master Plan,” Draft, March 1974, 32-37. 1054 Master Plan of Coronado National Memorial, Chapter 3: Management Programs Narrative, 1965, WACC, Folder D 

18: Master Plans (65,66,72) F7. 

342
general disapproval.1056 A reading of responses of Memorial supporters again confirms 

that Coronado was at a turning point. Various people pointed to the excessive cost and 

intrusiveness of an amphitheater. Some thought that more events should be scheduled to 

justify the cost of the amphitheater while others worried about the adverse affect on the 

natural resource of construction and doubted the wisdom of encouraging large crowds. 

NPS officials, who had already expressed concerns with capital intensive projects, may 

have been happy to be able to take the proposal off the table.1057

 The fact was that in its first few years of existence, the Historical Pageant was 

already outgrowing the Memorial. If it continued to grow, as seemed likely at the time, a 

new site would have to be found. Laurel Dale felt strongly that a gravel pit just east of 

the Memorial, which belonged to the state of Arizona, had the potential to be the best site 

for it and other future events. Its location in the flats to the east made it less prone to high 

winds and extreme temperature fluctuations. Moreover, it was closer to the highway and 

already had sufficient parking.1058 Dale faced opposition from others in the Park Service 

and uncertainty as to the reaction of the state.1059 

 The gravel pit was never acquired or dedicated to Memorial events, but the state 

did cooperate in the staging of the pageant by allowing it to be used for parking.1060 The 

Historical Pageants continued through the 1980s. They continued to feature cultural acts 

from southeastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora. Food concessions were handled by 

 

1055 Philip S. Romigh, Denver Service Center, NPS, to Huntzinger, Denver, March 13, 1973, WACC, Folder D 18: 

Master Plan (1973) F8; Untitled Proposal for land exchange, n.d., 78-85, WACC, Folder L 7617: Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) F56. 

1056 Dale to “Friend of Coronado,” Hereford, n.d. (1976), WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plan (1976) F12; “Public favors 

larger Coronado Memorial; Nixes Amphitheatre,” Bisbee Review, March 25, 1976, WACC, Folder D 18: General 

Management Plan (1976) F17. 

1057 Romigh to Huntzinger, Denver, March 13, 1973. 1058 Dale to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, through General Superintendent, SOAR, NPS, Hereford, 

December 18, 1974. 

1059 Dale to General Superintendent, SOAR, December 18, 1974, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F5. 

343
local non-profit groups such as the Boy Scouts, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and a high 

school marching band from Sierra Vista. The event drew well, with attendance ranging 

from 3,000 to 7,000 depending upon the weather and competition from other local 

community events.1061

 There were ongoing problems with the pageant, which became the Coronado 

Borderlands Festival with the 1985 production.1062 Of course, the weather for the event 

changed from year to year, which affected the turnout and the experience for visitors. In 

1985, approximately 4,000 people turned out on a rainy, windy day.1063 About 3,000 

braved a chill wind in 1988. That year, the staff also had to deal with a rabies scare and 

confusion over the date of the event in the local papers.1064 Ongoing difficulties with 

staffing and funding plagued the annual festival in a variety of ways. A look through the 

collections of festival materials shows that the each year, the staff scrambled to cover all 

the tasks necessary to producing a successful event. Even with help from other parks in 

the region and volunteers, it is clear that there was seldom as many workers as jobs 

needing to be done. Further staff cutbacks in 1983 raised the specter of a cutback in 

services, including possible cancellation of the Pageant.1065

 

1060 David E. Gackenbach, Acting General Superintendent, SOAR, to Ronald Ruziska, Arizona State Land Department, 

Phoenix, January 25, 1989, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F21. 

1061 The Coronado National Memorial Administrative Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, 

National Park Service, Tucson, Arizona (WACC) collection contains twenty-one files coded A 82 and A 8215. These 

files comprise thousands of pages of material on the Historical Pageants, generally segregated by year. 1062 Coronado International Historical Pageant Meeting, May 16, 1984, Discussion Points and Resolutions, WACC, 

Folder A 8215: Special Events F16. 

1063 Theda Adcock, Festival Coordinator, to James E. Officer, Hereford, April 22, 1985, WACC, Folder A 8215: 

Special Events F17. 

1064 Coronado Superintendent Joseph L. Sewell to General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, April 18, 1988, WACC, 

Folder A 8215: Special Events F20. 

1065 Richard Byrd, “Coronado pageant may be in jeopardy due to personnel cuts,” Sierra Vista Daily Herald-Dispatch, 

January 13, 1983, 1, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F15; this articles says that these particular personnel cuts 

were the result of a request by an unnamed staff member that the Inspector General investigate Memorial staffing. In 

the same file is an unidentified, contemporary, editorial entitled “Get out, and enjoy,” which added that “the National 

Park Service’s budget is coming under close scrutiny. Without a good turn-out, this year’s pageant, the eleventh, could 

be the last.” 

344
 One particular staff-related issue seemed to raise a problem every year. That was 

the lack of a bilingual staffer to work on organizing and staging the Festival. Spanish 

language services had always been handled on an ad hoc basis. In 1982, James Officer of 

the University of Arizona Anthropology Department, who acted as Master of Ceremonies 

every year, was thanked for making announcements in Spanish as well as English. He 

also offered to translate Festival related correspondence that year.1066 The next year, the 

Buena High School, Sierra Vista, Spanish Club helped with translating letters and was 

asked to help at the event. The staff organizer, Theda Adcock, wrote that the Memorial 

“had requisitioned a language translator” but did not expect to get one soon, especially 

given that the staff had recently been cut.1067

 The language problem came to a head in the wake of the 1984 Festival. Master of 

Ceremonies James Officer submitted a list of criticisms of the show, which included the 

need for a bilingual staff person to make contact with Mexican communities and 

performers both personally and in writing. He also listed the need for a stage manager, 

preferable bilingual so that he or she could communicate with and coordinate acts from 

both sides of the border.1068 Officer’s comments were seconded, in a considerably more 

vitriolic tone, by Jim Griffith, Director of the Southwest Folklore Center in Tucson. 

Griffith accused the Coronado staff of treating “perceptive Hispanics and others” with 

“indifference and contempt.” He specified that there were “repeated refusals to take the 

same kind of pains with the linguistic and cultural aspects that are taken with, for 

instance, details of parking and sanitation.”1069

 

1066 Clay to Officer, Phoenix, April 29, 1981, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F14. 1067 Adcock to Ken Ramsay, Sierra Vista Public Schools, Hereford, February 2, 1983 1068 Comments Concerning Coronado Festival – Jim Officer, n.d., WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F16. 1069 Coronado Pageant Evaluation....Jim Griffith, April 25, 1984, ibid. 

345
 Griffith did not regularly attend the Festival, but was connected to its 

organization. In 1983, he booked a band for the event, but regretted having to miss it 

“once more.”1070 Griffith, like Officer, criticized other aspects of the Festival, 

particularly the seeming unfocused approach to booking and sloppy production. 

However, both seemed most concerned that the language problem caused the Memorial, 

and the National Park Service, needlessly to project an image of cultural insensitivity. 

NPS acted quickly to address all of the problems raised by Officer and Griffith. Cesar 

Flores, Equal Employment Opportunity Hispanic Coordinator for the Western Region, 

was assigned to help with translations and contacts and to act as stage manager for the 

event. Physical improvements to the stage area were also proposed along with ideas to 

tighten the focus and improve the production of the event.1071

 Unfortunately, the fine tuning of 1984 did not solve all the Borderlands Festival’s 

problems. In 1986, a supportive critique pointed to a lack of clear focus to the program 

and, again, shoddy production.1072 Also in 1986, an angry note pointed out fourteen 

errors in the Spanish version of the poster. It went on to blast the audience attracted by 

the Festival – as if the intended publicity was focused on a single group. The note read: 

As a dog and pony show for the rednecks of the area (no others need 

apply) this is a fine endeavor on the part of the US gummint. As an 

“entercultural” experience [referring to one of the errors] done with taste 

and empathy, forget it. If I were Jim Officer I’d boycott the bastards. Hell 

with ‘em.1073

Sadly, the best intentions, when faced with a lack of budget and qualified staff, were not 

enough to succeed in pulling off the kind of event that the Memorial was aiming for. 

 

1070 Griffith to Adcock, Tucson, March 14, 1983, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F15. 1071 Coronado International Historical Pageant Meeting, May 16, 1984, Discussion Points and Resolutions. 1072 Unidentified [illegible signature] to Ed Pilley, Interpretive Specialist, SOAR, April 21, 1986, WACC, Folder A 

8215: Special Events F18. 

1073 Typed note, signed by Nick(?), March 26, 1986, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F21. 

346
 Preparations for the 1987 Festival began with an attempt to go outside of NPS for 

help and ended, evidently, in a disaster. In the summer of 1986, the Memorial negotiated 

with Carlos Nagel of the Cultural Exchange Service of Tucson. Nagel offered to produce 

the show, translate all relevant materials, and stage manage for $4080, broken down into 

several individual tasks and charges.1074 Coronado proposed costs for the same list of 

tasks; they added up to $3580, but the Memorial rounded down to a total of three 

thousand dollars.1075 At around the same time, performers were already being told that 

the budget for 1987 was expected to be cut, necessitating lower payments than in the 

past.1076

 It appears that the Memorial and Nagel came to some sort of agreement, until 

early in 1987, just a few months before the April event. In January, Nagel was said to 

have agreed to a more limited menu of work for $950. The arrangement seems to have 

been tentative and involved a third party actually performing some of the services.1077 It 

fell completely apart over the next few weeks. On February 2, Nagel told Superintendent 

Joe Sewell and others that “he simply doesn’t have the time to do the legwork in No. 

Sonora.”1078 Two days later, James Officer was asked if he would emcee as in years past. 

Officer had made other plans after he had been told that “Nagel would be organizing the 

Festival,” but agreed to try to rearrange his schedule.1079

 

1074 Carlos Nagel to Pilley, Tucson, July 5, 1986, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F19. 1075 Proposal for Consultation Services to Carlos Nagel, n.d., ibid. 1076 Dale to Ms. Mercedes Guererro, Hereford, September 16, 1986; Generic letter, Dale to (Group), Hereford, n.d., 

ibid. 

1077 Interpretive Media Specialist, SOAR, to Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, Tucson, January 20, 1987, 

ibid. 

1078 Sewell to Acting General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, February 3, 1987, ibid. 1079 Handwritten note, February 4, 1987, ibid. 

347
 On February 6, Nagel pulled out altogether and the Memorial staff began looking 

for a new translator.1080 The next day he wrote a letter to the Acting General 

Superintendent of the Southern Arizona Group, NPS. He wrote: 

It is apparent to me that there needs to be an administrative decision and 

the political will to permit this Festival to develop its potential. Unless 

that decision is made and the necessary resources provided this cannot 

happen. The Festival should have the resources that are necessary or it 

should be discontinued. 

Nagel went on to describe his past involvement in events and activities meant to improve 

cross-border relations. He said their success depended upon the “a long-term personal 

relationship between individuals who would work on a given activity...The Festival must 

develop these relationships if it is to justify the effort and investment that is currently 

involved.” He concluded “Should the committment [sic] be made to transform the 

Festival into a meaningful borderlands activity I will be pleased to assist.”1081 Evidently, 

Nagel wanted to take over the production, and be paid a fair price for his services. 

 Nagel’s “quick about face” was discussed at the Memorial along with the question 

“could we have inadvertently hurt some feelings there?”1082 Whatever else may have 

been involved in the abortive attempt to involve Nagel, one of the issues was certainly the 

low budget available for the Festival. Theda Adcock, who was the main staff organizer 

before and after Nagel’s brief involvement, wrote later that “procurement regulations and 

other obstacles” were to blame for the decision to again handle the Festival in-house.1083 

It is certain that Nagel did not think that there was enough money available to do what he 

thought was necessary to do the job right. Nor was there sufficient money in 1987 to pay 

 

1080 Sewell to Superintendent, Tumacacori National Monument, Hereford, February 6, 1987, ibid. 1081 Nagel to William Paleck, Acting General Superintendent, SOAR, February 7, 1987, ibid. 1082 Typed note to Adcock, February 6, 1987, ibid. 1083 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services, July 8, 1987, WACC, Folder K 1817: Annual Statement 

for Interpretation F9. 

348
the acts what they had previously received for performances. Finally, by the time Nagel 

abandoned the effort altogether, there was less than three months to go before the event, 

and planning continued to fall apart. In the middle of March, the stage manager 

expressed his regrets that he had a scheduling conflict and could not be there.1084

 The day of the 1987 Borderlands Festival went no better than did the preparation. 

Adcock apologized to Officer after the event because, as had happened in years past, he 

was left alone on the stage. She was “so dismayed by all the behind-the-scenes foulups.” In addition, she had been told not to find extra Spanish speaking help for the stage 

area because of the planned presence of Nagel.1085 The only bilingual employee spent 

much of the day at the international border trying to solve a problem with crossings; and 

such difficulties were becoming more common.1086

 One of the acts that would have been trying to cross from Mexico cancelled 

without warning because some of the dance group had chicken-pox.1087 Things were 

grim at the parking area as well. “Because of liability insurance requirements with the 

Sierra Vista School District, we had to go another route this year.”1088 That route did 

work. Although a crowd of some 6,000 attended, “We lost a good portion of our 

audience because of a breakdown in the shuttle service.”1089 One of the three rented 

busses, driven by a driver from Tucson, got lost and then had a flat tire. A second spent 

most of the day waiting at the border for the act that never arrived; that left one working 

shuttle. Those who did arrive at the border were held up more than ever before filling out 

 

1084 Interpretive Media Specialist, SOAR, to Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, Tucson, March 15, 1987, 

ibid. 

1085 Adcock to Officer, Hereford, May 13, 1987, ibid. 1086 Sewell to General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, May 4, 1987, ibid. 1087 Profesor Ricardo Montijo Castro to Sewell, Naco, Sonora, April 29, 1987, ibid. 1088 Sewell to Richard Messick, Commander, Huachuca Company, Arizona Rangers, Hereford, April 28, 1987, ibid. 1089 Sewell to General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, May 4, 1987. 

349
paperwork, added because more people were crossing illegally than in the past.1090 In 

short, just about everything that could go wrong with a Borderlands Festival did go 

wrong in 1987. The attempt to get outside help had, as it worked out, made things worse. 

 The 1987 experience left the Memorial staff in doubt for the future of the event. 

Theda Adcock concluded that “there are many things that have to be resolved before we 

start to organize another Festival if there is to be one.”1091 Superintendent Sewell 

inventoried the ongoing problems, such as shortage of personnel, parking and shuttle 

difficulties, increased troubles at the border, and the language barrier. In frustration, he 

wrote: “Though the Borderlands Festival is the main interpretive program of the year for 

Coronado National Memorial, each year it becomes more difficult to justify the expense 

and effort.”1092

 In 1988, cold, windy, weather, a rabies scare, and confusion over the date of the 

event in the local papers kept the crowd down to about 3,000, probably a mixed blessing 

for the staff.1093 That was only the calm before the final storm. The first problem 

addressed by NPS was parking. Before the end of 1988, Sewell proposed parking within 

the east boundary of the Memorial. The site had been trampled by a firefighter’s camp 

the previous summer and was overgrown with an invasive exotic grass. In addition, it 

would not truly begin to recover until the rainy season later in the summer.1094 Sewell’s 

proposal was turned down because of concern for damage to vegetation.1095

 

1090 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services, July 8, 1987. 1091 Adcock to Officer, Hereford, May 13, 1987, ibid. 1092 Sewell to General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, May 4, 1987. 1093 Coronado Superintendent Joseph L. Sewell to General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, April 18, 1988, WACC, 

Folder A 8215: Special Events F20. 

1094 Sewell to Acting General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, November 17, 1988, ibid. 1095 Frank Sumrak, Interpretive Specialist, SOAR, through Operations Specialist, SOAR, to Acting General 

Superintendent, SOAR, December 8, 1988, WACC, Folder A 8215: Special Events F21. 

350
 That left two parking possibilities for the Festival. One was the state owned 

gravel pit just outside of the east boundary; the other was the nearby Palominas 

School.1096 In January, NPS wrote to the Arizona State Land Department to ask 

“permission to once again” use the gravel pit. The letter also asked that the site be 

improved by filling and leveling, at state expense. It also suggested an alternative site on 

state land, in the same area; it needed work as well, though less than the gravel pit 

did.1097 The state replied that fees in the amount of $375 would be required; a survey 

was needed, also to be paid by the permittee, NPS; and that they could not do 

improvements of any kind on the land.1098

 Faced with these roadblocks, in March the Festival was postponed until a 

tentative date in September. The reason given for the rescheduling was that roads and 

trails as well as picnic and parking areas needed repair after damage from the previous 

year’s fire and subsequent unusually heavy rains. The new date was contingent on those 

repairs being completed and propitious weather during the interim months. The public 

service announcement that revealed the postponement did not mention the parking 

dilemma.1099 In the meantime, efforts continued toward an eventual event. 

 The second parking option was Palominas School. However, the Superintendent 

was unable to convince the local school board to waive an insurance requirement in the 

amount of one million dollars. The nongovernmental support group, Southwest Parks 

and Monuments Association (SPMA), agreed to approach their insurer for a rider. They 

were not optimistic because the use was outside park boundaries and the insurance would 

need to cover the general public, performers, vendors, and crafts people as well as NPS 

 

1096 Ibid. 1097 Gackenbach to Ronald Ruziska, Arizona State Land Department, Phoenix, January 25, 1989, ibid. 

351
employees.1100 Eventually, the SPMA’s lawyers advised the group “not to get 

involved.”1101 Finally, the state of Arizona informed the Memorial at this point that 

parking would no longer be permitted on state road right of way, as it had been in the 

past.1102

 Insurance came up in another important way in 1989. Once the issue reared its 

head, the Southern Arizona Group office decided to investigate more thoroughly how all 

insurance needs should be handled for festivals at Tumacacori, Fort Bowie, and 

Coronado. Officials from other units of NPS who regularly handled such matters were 

contacted and a meeting was convened. The outcome was not positive for the future of 

the Borderlands Festival. The participants insisted, unanimously, that all outside groups 

who operated with NPS property must be insured. Because the small, informal, vendors, 

craftspeople, and performers who participated in the Festival were unlikely to conform to 

that requirement, “umbrella” coverage with the help of support groups was suggested. 

Unfortunately, SPMA had already explored that option and decided against it. In 

addition, the consultants strongly recommended that foreign nationals not be invited to 

participate, as in the event of a claim against them NPS was almost certain to end up 

holding the proverbial bag. For Tumacacori and Coronado such a policy would negate 

the very reason for their events.1103 

 It was finally suggested that an outside entity, such as a “friends” group or nearby 

town should be asked to sponsor the Festivals. On that subject, Interpretive Specialist 

Frank Sumrak wrote, “Of course, by doing so, the NPS might possibly lose its current 

 

1098 Ruziska to Gackenbach, February 6, 1989, ibid. 1099 Draft PSA, Rescheduling of the 1989 Coronado Borderlands Festival, March 15, 1989, ibid. 1100 Sewell to Chief of Operations, SOAR, Hereford, April 27, 1989, ibid. 1101 Sumrak to General Superintendent, SOAR, May 15, 1989, ibid. 1102 Sewell to Chief of Operations, SOAR, Hereford, April 27, 1989. 

352
control and the festival risks the possibility of taking on a frivolous, carnival 

atmosphere.”1104 A report on this meeting summarized its results thusly: 

It appears that seeking outside support is one way for our festivals to 

continue. We certainly cannot continue as we have in the past, with little 

or no thought given to the liability coverage our festival participants 

should “legally” be carrying. It’s only a matter of time before an 

unfortunate incident occurs and we find ourselves in a most uncomfortable 

and serious situation. 

I encourage the superintendents at festival park [sic] to discuss this matter 

in greater detail with their staff. We must give this matter considerable 

thought and think of ways in which we might overcome this problem. 

Otherwise the festival program in the Southern Arizona Group may come 

to a sudden halt.1105

Indeed, the overwhelming number of problems that arose in 1989 were enough to bring 

the program to a sudden halt. Scrawled in the margin of the file copy of the Draft Public 

Service Announcement postponing the 1989 event is the note “CANCEL FOR 89!”1106

 One more requirement was pointed out at the March 1989 meeting. Food vendors 

had to meet health codes and be licensed to serve the public. Other parks also maintained 

the right of approval of menus and prices.1107 The fact that Coronado Memorial and its 

fellow parks in southern Arizona were unaware of simple health code requirements for 

food vendors highlights the casual nature of Festival organization. Through seventeen 

years of the annual event, the Coronado staff never developed a formal procedure for 

putting the Borderlands Festival together that would address legal codes, liability, and 

other ongoing issues such as translation. Yet, the entire process was a learning 

experience. 

 

1103 Sumrak to General Superintendent, SOAR, May 15, 1989, ibid. 1104 Ibid. 1105 Ibid. 1106 Draft PSA, Rescheduling of the 1989 Coronado Borderlands Festival, March 15, 1989. 1107 Sumrak to General Superintendent, SOAR, May 15, 1989, ibid. 

353
 In part, the reason behind the failure to firmly resolve problems which continued 

year after year was simply that there was no staff and little budget dedicated solely to the 

Festival. Left to their own devices, with minimal budgetary and administrative support, 

the Coronado staff did their best to do what they could with the modest time and 

resources available. In a way, the unprofessional production values of the Festival are 

probably what ensured that it survived for as long as it did. If it had been approached 

professionally at an earlier date, the legal and liability requirements that were discussed 

in 1989 would have been discovered and, probably, would have spelled its doom at that 

time. Thus, there was, perhaps, an absolute contradiction between the Festival existing 

and it being done right. Nonetheless, the ongoing popularity of the event attests to the 

quality of the productions that the Memorial presented. 

 In 1989, Coronado’s era of big interpretive programs came to an end, but 

interpretive programs continued to develop, sometimes in concert with other Memorial 

projects. After mining property was acquired by the Memorial it had to cleaned and 

made safe. That created both responsibilities and opportunities. For example, the State 

of Texas property was acquired in late 1986. The next summer the old buildings were 

removed and trash cleaned up. In 1988, a mine safing team came from Death Valley to 

install safety netting across most of the openings, shafts, and adits. At that point, the 

property was considered “an excellent interpretive area and a detailed prospectus” was 

drafted.1108 A State of Texas Mine Trail was considered, which would provide new 

scenic vistas and highlight the historical role of mining in the region.1109

 

1108 Interpretive Prospectus, State of Texas Mine Site, Coronado National Memorial, 1988, WACC, Folder K 18: 

Interpretive Prospectus F2. 

1109 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services, Coronado National Memorial, 1988, WACC, Folder K 

1817: Annual Statement for Interpretation F2. 

354
 Defunct mines in Montezuma Canyon became habitat for bats. Throughout the 

National Park Service are more than ten thousand abandoned mines. Because of ongoing 

concern for public safety they are often sealed. Over the last decade, the nonprofit Bat 

Conservation International has held some twenty Bats and Mines Workshops with 

federal and state agencies in the west to help employees combine concerns for mine 

safety and bat conservation. It is estimated that three to thirty thousand long-nosed bats 

spend part of the year at Coronado National Memorial.1110 A study in cooperation with 

the National Forest Service and the University of Arizona Department of Ecology and 

Evolutionary Biology has monitored the use of gated mines on the Memorial by 

endangered long-nosed bats.1111

 The endangered status of the long-nosed bat came up at Coronado in another 

context as well. A new grazing management plan in 2000 expressed concern about the 

consumption of agave by cattle and its impact on nectar eating lesser long-nosed and 

Mexican long-tongued bats.1112 The grazing plan mentioned a few other affected species. 

Among them were the barking frog, loggerhead shrike, elegant trogon, Mexican spotted 

owl, and peregrine falcon.1113 At the founding of the Memorial, of course, the privileges 

of grazing allotment holders were protected above all else. However, recent 

environmental concerns have been added to the equation over the history of the 

Memorial. 

 

1110 Connie Toops, “Going to Bat for Bats,” National Parks: The Magazine of the National Parks and Conservation 

Association, Vol. 75, No. 1-2 (January-February 2001), 31. 1111 “Abandoned mines a danger to humans, a home to bats,” CNN.com nature, August 28, 2000, 

http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/08/28/mines.bats.ap/; David A. Saugey, “U.S. National Forests: Unsung Home to 

America’s Bats,” Bats, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Fall 1991), 3-6; National Park Service –- Mining and Minerals Branch, Coronado 

National Memorial, Abandoned Mine Closure project – Closure Proposals and Cost Estimates, March 1, 1993, CORO 

Files, provides some budgetary details on mine safing and bat habitat. 1112 Draft Livestock Management Plan, Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona, March 2000, II:14, 

CORO Files. 

1113 Ibid, IV:7. 

355
 When Coronado National Memorial was created in 1952, permanent grazing 

rights were included in the package as a legacy of the 1941 bill and Senator Hayden’s 

promises to the state’s ranchers. It was quickly determined that the best way to handle 

the matter was for the Forest Service to continue to administer grazing permits, as was 

done at Saguaro National Monument.1114 Of the three existing grazing allotments on the 

new Memorial, the vast majority of two, the Grubstake and the Lone Mountain, were still 

on National Forest land, while the third, the Montezuma, was split fifty-fifty between the 

Memorial and Forest Service lands. The Lone Mountain allotment was held by Henry D. 

Lee and the Grubstake by Alex D’Albini, neither of whom were friends of the 

Memorial.1115 However, they were reported to be in excellent condition in the early 

years of the Memorial’s existence. The Montezuma allotment seemed to be more prone 

to showing the effects of overuse.1116 It belonged to Joe Zaleski and later to John Jones, 

both of whom got along well with the new park and its staff. In 1961, Jones agreed 

voluntarily to cut back the number of his cattle grazed on the Memorial when drought 

conditions required it.1117

 By the 1970s, grazing was seen as a problem by NPS planners. Only minimal 

fencing had been constructed to protect specific areas, such as the picnic area and visitor 

center. Cattle were generally free to wander the Memorial grounds at will, posing 

sanitation problems and damaging the vegetation during the dry season. In addition, 

bulls and cows with calves could be a hazard to visitors as well as the staff and their 

 

1114 Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Region Three, NPS, n.d. (November-December 1952), WACC, Folder H 14: 

Area & Service History 41-52 F3. 

1115 Grazing Preferences Involving Use of National Park Lands – 1955, WACC, Folder A 44: Memo of Agreement 

F18. 

1116 Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, Arizona, Forestry, July 1955, WACC, Folder D 

18: Master Plan (Mission 66) F1. 

1117 Superintendent Philip Welles to Director, NPS, Hereford, July 30, 1961, WACC, Folder A 2615: Monthly Reports 

F6. 

356
families. Consultation between the Forest Service and Memorial superintendents was 

sporadic and the founding legislation gave neither sufficient leeway for making policy. 

In 1973, more fencing was planned to solve part of the problem.1118

 The grazing issue also contributed to planning for the boundary adjustment of 

1978. Most of the grazing within the Memorial took place west of Montezuma Pass.1119 

Of particular concern was the Yaqui Springs area, which had become damaged as the 

whole area had been overgrazed. Planners came to recognize that the formation of the 

Memorial, in extent, shape, and organization, had been shaped for concern for outside 

interests. By trading away the lands west of Montezuma Pass, the Memorial would give 

away much of the headache of grazing.1120 After 1978, the portions of the Grubstake and 

the Lone Mountain allotments still within the Memorial were retired. The Joe’s Spring 

allotment was brought into the Memorial’s boundaries with the addition of the north side 

of Montezuma Canyon.1121

 An agreement between the Forest Service and NPS in 1988 allowed the Memorial 

to control rotation of herds and to add fencing to protect vegetation and resources.1122 

The Montezuma allotment changed hands several times over the last few decades and 

became inactive in 1990. In 1992, the Park Service finally began to administer its 

grazing permits for itself. Following a new 1999 agreement with the National Forest 

Service, the two agencies share responsibility administering and monitoring the Joe’s 

Spring allotment, which extends across their boundary. They also share grazing fees 

 

1118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Resource Management Plan Applicable to Coronado National 

Memorial, September 10, 1973, WACC, Folder D 18: Resource Management Plan F13. 1119 Denver Service Center, Planning Directive for Coronado National Memorial, January 1973, WACC, Folder D 18: 

Planning Directives F14. 

1120 final general management plan, September 1976, WACC, Folder D 18: General Management Plans F15. 1121 Draft Livestock Management Plan, March 2000, I:4. 1122 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services, February 1988, WACC, Folder K 1817: Annual 

Statement for Interpretation F9. 

357
collected from the permit holder. Relying on the 1941 legislation’s wording that 

specified that grazing shall continue as long as it did not interfere with recreational 

development, NPS now is able to more stringently regulate grazing within the 

Memorial.1123 In addition, as noted above, other concerns, such as environmental 

protection, are now important issues, that were not even considered in 1941 or 1952. 

 Throughout this work, a tension in planning between the historical significance 

originally ascribed to the Memorial by Congress and its natural resource base has been an 

ongoing theme. The beauty of the Huachuca Mountains has been the primary attraction 

for many visitors. For them, hiking trails, which provide access to the outdoor 

experience have been of paramount importance. Hiking trails on Coronado Memorial 

began with the simple trail from the Montezuma Pass parking lot to the viewpoint on 

Coronado Peak. In 1963-64, a longer trail was cut through Joe’s Canyon to Coronado 

Peak, where it connected with the trail from the pass. In December 1961, it was 

projected for construction in fiscal year (FY) 1963.1124 In the objectives for FY 1964, 

stabilization of the trail was still to be accomplished.1125 

 A smaller spur trail, added much later, runs from Joe’s Canyon Trail and 

Coronado Peak, south down Yaqui Ridge to the border at International Boundary Marker 

Number 102. It was planned as a segment of the Arizona Trail which, when finished, 

will provide an unbroken trail between the north and south borders of the state. The 

Arizona Trail was first conceived in the mid-1980s. When it was proposed at Coronado, 

several alternatives were considered. It is interesting to note that one would have 

followed close to the alignment of the road once planned for ingress to the ill-fated 

 

1123 Draft Livestock Management Plan, March 2000, I:4-5. 

358
museum/visitor center on the international border.1126 A Heritage Grant, funded by the 

Arizona state lottery, was awarded to the Memorial for trail construction in 1995 and 

construction began. Crews from Saguaro National Park and the Huachuca Hiking Club 

continued work on the trail until 1997. The Yaqui Ridge Trail was officially dedicated 

on National Trails Day, June 6, of 1998.1127

 As the twenty-first century began, Coronado National Memorial had evolved into 

a multi-use area serving many recreational demands. The historical theme is still featured 

in the visitor center and other interpretive sites. The small network of hiking trails now 

includes a short trail to Coronado Cave, which can also be explored by any visitor with a 

permit and a flashlight. Bird watching is a rapidly growing diversion for which the 

Huachuca Mountains are appropriately famous. In addition, the Memorial staff and a 

crew of energetic and able volunteers are exploring the ranching and mining history of 

the Memorial and taking oral histories from residents throughout the local area. They are 

expanding the base of knowledge about the Memorial and of southeastern Arizona and 

northeastern Sonora in general. 

 The population of the region continues to expand, increasing demand for the 

kinds of recreational opportunity that the Memorial provides. In 1972, “a major urban 

development” was planned by the Prescott Valley Corporation.1128 In August 1973, the 

first phase of Prescott Valley’s Sierra Grande development, four miles northeast of the 

Memorial, consisting of 3,800 lots, was approved by the Cochise County Planning and 

 

1124 Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, Arizona, December 1961, WACC, Folder D 18: 

Master Plans (61,62,63) F5. 

1125 Narrative Operating Program, Objectives 1964 Fiscal Year, n.d., WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plan (1964) F6. 1126 Environmental Assessment, Extension of the Arizona Trail, Coronado National Memorial, NPS, Arizona, July 15, 

1994, CORO Files. 

1127 Fact Sheet, Yaqui Ridge Trail, n.d., CORO Files. 1128 Statement for Management, Coronado National Memorial, Arizona, November 1980, WACC, Folder D 18: 

Planning Directives F14. 

359
Zoning Board.1129 By 1976, Prescott Valley Development was marked on a map as an 

“Obsolete Proposal.” However, the Tenneco West Land Development, to the north of it, 

was still seen as viable.1130 As specific development schemes came and went, the local 

population grew steadily. Between 1980 and 1995, the population of Cochise County 

was estimated to have increased by thirty per cent, a trend that can be expected to 

continue. That growth is approaching the Memorial as the Sierra Vista area expands to 

the south. Visitation reflects regional population growth, going up by thirty per cent 

during the 1990s.1131 By the turn of the century, however, it was evident that the trend 

had reversed itself, for visitation had fallen in the few previous years. 

 As southwestern Cochise County grows and urbanizes, more people will continue 

to find their way to Coronado National Memorial. They will find a Memorial that is 

evolving to meet their needs. Beginning with a mission that was limited to the 

commemoration of Coronado’s 1540 expedition, the Memorial has expanded its focus, 

experimenting with various methods of interpretation along the way. The natural 

resource of the southern Huachuca Mountains has grown in importance as it becomes 

more important to an approaching urban sprawl. The effort to administer, preserve, and 

interpret the area of the Montezuma Canyon will, no doubt, continue to evolve to meet 

the challenges and opportunities presented in the future. Given its long, and sometimes 

slow history, Coronado National Memorial has come of age. It is hoped that this history 

will play a small part in that continuing process. 

 

1129 Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to General Superintendent, SOAR, Hereford, August 22, 1973, 

WACC, Folder A 2615: Monthly Reports Daily Events F7. 1130 Coronado National Memorial Draft General Management Plan, July 1976, WACC, Folder D 18: General 

Management Plans F15. 

1131 Draft Livestock Management Plan, March 2000, I:5. 

360
Appendix A 

Land Acquisitions and Transfers with references to Associated Structures

Appendix A Contents

1. Introduction 

2. Intra-Governmental Transfers 

3. Homestead Entry Survey 311 

4. Homestead Entry Survey 310 

5. Pyeatt Homestead (Montezuma Ranch) 

6. Kudzmi Homestead 

7. State of Texas mine property 

8. Victorio mine property 

1. Introduction

 The following appendix traces the ownership of the land that makes up Coronado National 

Memorial. Because its focus is the acquisition of land for the Memorial, the majority of the material is 

presented on the later transactions, during the period of the Memorial’s existence. However, land now 

within the Memorial is also traced through previous owners in summary form. Its history is discussed more 

fully in the pertinent chapters. 

 The appendix is organized topically. All transfers from other governmental agencies, primarily 

the National Forest Service, are included in the first section. The Homestead Entry Surveys are arranged in 

the order in which they were claimed. William Ratliff’s claim, H.E.S. 311, precedes his son’s claim, 

H.E.S. 310, because William was the first permanent settler in the area. The Pyeatt Homestead 

(Montezuma Ranch) and Kudzmi Homestead follow. 

 The larger blocks of mining land are separated into two sections, State of Texas Mine and Victorio 

Company property. The latter is so designated because that company had come to own all of the land 

before the creation of the Memorial. Other mine claims are not addressed because the land belonged to the 

Coronado National Forest even though others may have had rights to minerals on the properties. 

 Within each block of Homestead land the material is addressed chronologically until such time as 

it came to be assigned tract numbers (beginning with 101-). At that point it is organized numerically by 

tract number, and transfers of tracts are ordered in chronological sequence. 

2. Intra-Governmental Transfers 

Original Memorial Land – 1952

 A November 5, 1952, Proclamation by the President of the United States defined the original land 

included in Coronado National Memorial. The proclamation specified that it was based upon “section 1 of 

the act of August 18, 1941, 55 Stat. 630 (16 U.S.C. 450 y) as amended by Public Law 478, 82nd Congress, 

approved July 9, 1952.” The Memorial was described as follows: 

Township 24 South, Range 20 East, 

Section 10: South half of the Southwest quarter, and South half of the Southeast quarter; 

Section 11: South half of the Southwest quarter; 

Section 13: Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, and South half; 

Section 14: Northwest quarter of the South half, and Northwest quarter of the Northeast 

quarter, and South half of the Northeast quarter; 

all of Section 15; 

all of Section 22; 

all of Section 23; 

all of Section 24; 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East, 

Section 17: lots 5 and 6; 

Section 18:, lots 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter; 

all of Section 19; 

Section 20: lots 3 and 4. 

361
 The area described aggregate approximately 2,745.33 acres. The deed is marked “Deed No. 

1.”1132 A map that accompanied the proclamation illustrates the original boundaries of the Memorial. 

1960

 The boundaries of Coronado National Memorial changed in accordance with legislation passed in 

September 1960. Senate Bill 2806 of the 86th Congress, 2nd Session created Public Law 689, which 

adjusted the Memorial boundary in four ways. The legislation added 3.6 acres of National Forest Service 

land in lots 5 and 6 of Section 20, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, that were apparently intended to be 

included within the original boundaries but were inadvertently excluded. That land comprised a narrow 

strip along the international border in the southeast corner of the Memorial. It also transferred lots 2 and 7 

of Section 18, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, comprising 

75.33 acres, from Coronado National Forest, National Forest Service, to the Memorial. 

 Some mining land was excluded from the Memorial by the 1960 legislation, including the Billy 

Boy claim in the State of Texas group of claims and the Z.T. Parker claim, later of the Victorio Company 

properties. The land reverted to Coronado National Forest, National Forest Service. The mining claims 

remained with their owners. This property was described as the north half of the southwest quarter of the 

northwest corner of Section 13, and the north half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of 

Section 14, Township 24 South, Range 20 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian. Each section 

contained 20 acres, for a total deletion of 40 acres. 

 This legislation also authorized the purchase of a 49.856 acre portion of Homestead Entry Survey 

310 from Southwest Monuments Association.1133 [See Homestead Entry Survey 310 material for summary 

and citations.] 

1964

 In the early 1960s, the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission 

acted to divest itself of land within a 60 foot wide strip running along the border. The National Park 

Service moved to obtain those portions within the Coronado National Memorial and Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument, both in Arizona. The land within that strip was specifically included in the 

International Memorial by the 1941 act that established it. However, NPS was required to obtain 

authorization from the Secretary of State before initiating “recreational or other development” within the 

strip.1134 The affected land within Coronado National Memorial was: 

A strip 60 feet wide north of the International Boundary between the east and west boundaries of 

Coronado National Memorial, more particularly described as the southerly 60 feet of the following 

subdivisions: 

Township 24 South, Range 20 East (Gila and Salt River Meridian) 

 Section 22, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4; 

 Section 23, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4; 

 Section 24, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4; 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East (Gila and Salt River Meridian) 

 Section 19, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4; 

 Section 20, Lots 3 and 4; 

 

1132 Establishment of the Coronado National Memorial (Name change from International Memorial), Arizona, By the 

President of the United States, A Proclamation (No. 2995), November 5, 1952, Intermountain Land Resources Program 

Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1133 Summary of Federal Legeslation [sic] Which Amends the Establishment Act for Coronado National Memorial, 

n.d.; Senate Bill 2806, 86th Congress, 2nd Session (1960); Report No. 1654, to accompany Senate Bill 2806, 86th 

Congress, 2nd Session (1960); Memorandum, from Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Region Three, Subject: 

Proposed Legislation, Coronado National Memorial, August 20, 1958, Coronado National Memorial Administrative 

Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder H 1415: Legislative History; 

NPS Boundary Status Report, Prepared August 7, 1956, Coronado National Memorial Administrative Records, 

Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1417: Boundary Adjustments – 

Surveys & Reports. 

1134 An Act to Provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Memorial, in the State of Arizona, approved 

August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 630). 

362
Totaling 32.504 acres more or less.1135 

 Given that the described land is now within the boundaries of the Memorial, which extend to the 

International border, it appears that the transfer did take place. Note above and below that adjacent tracts 

of this border strip were transferred to the Memorial in 1960 and 1978. 

1978

 In 1978, federal legislation again altered the boundaries of Coronado National Memorial through 

an exchange with the National Forest Service. Public Law 95-625, created on November 10, 1978, by the 

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, revised the boundaries of many units of the National Park 

Service, including Coronado National Memorial. 

 Transferred from the Memorial to Coronado National Forest was 1,247 acres comprising: 

The South half of the South half of Section 10, the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of 

Section 11; the West half of the West half of Section 14; All of Sections 15 and 22; and the West 

half of the West half of Section 23, of Township 24 South, Range 20 East, Gila and Salt River 

Base and Meridian. 

 Added to the Memorial from the National Forest was approximately 3,326 acres, including 

approximately 569 acres of private land, were: 

portions of Sections 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Township 24 South, Range 20 East; and Sections 5, 6, 

7, 8, 17, 18, and 20 of Township 24 South, Range 21 East; Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian. 

It was more specifically described as follows: 

Beginning at a point on the northerly boundary of Coronado National Memorial, said point also 

being the northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 11, 

Township 24 South, Range 20 East; thence North, along the west line of the East half of the West 

half of said Section 11, to the northwest corner of said East half of the West half of Section 11; 

thence East, along the north line of said Section 11; to the northwest corner of the Northeast 

quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 11, thence southeasterly to the northwest corner of 

the North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12, said township and 

range; thence East, along the north line of said North half of the Southwest quarter of the 

Northwest quarter, to the northeast corner of said North half of the Southwest quarter of the 

Northwest quarter of Section 12; thence South, along the east line of said North half of the 

Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, to the southeast corner of said North half of the 

Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12; thence East, along the north line of the 

South half of the South half of the North half of said Section 12, to the southeast corner of the 

North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 12; thence North, 

along the North-South centerline of the Northeast quarter of Section 12, to the northwest corner of 

the South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 12; thence East, 

along the north line of said South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter, to the 

northeast corner of said South half of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 12; 

thence northeasterly, through Sections 7 and 6, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, to the 

northwest corner of the South half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 6; thence East, along 

the north line of said South half of the Southeast quarter, to the northeast corner of said South half 

of the Southeast quarter of Section 6; thence southeasterly, through Sections 5 and 8, said 

township and range, to the northeast corner of the South half of the Southeast quarter of said 

Section 8; thence South, along the east line of Sections 8, 17 and 20, said township and range, to 

the southeast corner of said Section 20; thence West, along the south line of said Section 20, to a 

point on the easterly boundary of Coronado National Memorial, said point also being the south 

 

1135 Request for Transfer of Excess Real Property and Related Personal Property, from Director, NPS, to 

Commissioner, United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, February 1964; Letter, Donald 

E. Lee, Chief, Division of Land and Water Rights, NPS, to Bernard L. Boutin, Administrator, General Services 

Administration, March 5, 1964; Boundary Status Map, October 1958, Coronado National Memorial Administrative 

Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1417: Boundary 

Adjustments – Proposed/Enacted Legislation; Alphabetical listing by landowner’s name, NPS Division of Land 

Acquisitions, July 10, 1979; Land Acquisition Plan, Coronado National Memorial, January 18, 1980 (and attached 

maps), Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M.; Land Ownership Record, NPS, 

September 2, 1960, Coronado National Memorial Administrative Records, Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Sparkes & Acquisition. 

363
quarter corner of said Section 20; thence northerly and westerly, along the existing boundary of 

Coronado National Memorial, to the point of beginning.1136

 The land excluded from the Memorial was all on the west side of Montezuma Pass. Added lands 

extended the Memorial to the north and to the east. It included National Forest Service lands that had been 

part of the Kudzmi Homestead and Homestead Entry Surveys 310 and 311. In the extreme southeast 

corner of the Memorial, and making up the southeast corner of the land transferred in 1978, was a square 

tract labeled 101-19, 137.31 acres in size. It included the 133.67 acre Kudzmi Homestead plus 3.64 acres. 

That 3.64 acres was very likely a strip directly along the international border, much like the 3.6 acre border 

strip in the 1960 land transfer. That land was relinquished by the United States Section of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission [see above]. Also added to the Memorial was a 1.03 acre strip running 

the length of the boundary between Homestead Entry Survey No. 311 and the Pyeatt Homestead. These 

small additions filled in between lands claimed earlier in the century.1137

 The transfer also encompassed private land within Homestead Entry Surveys 310 and 311, the 

State of Texas mine properties, and the Doredor/Victorio mining properties. Such lands would later be 

added by purchase. 

3. William Ratliff -- Homestead Entry Survey 311

According to documents filed by the Surveyor General’s office in 1917, William Ratliff officially 

applied for a 160 acre homestead claim on October 22, 1911. The survey was executed March 12-13, 1914 

and approved August 8, 1917 for 158.23 acres. Ratliff’s homestead consisted of the south half of the 

northwest quarter and north half of the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 

East, Gila and Salt River Meridian. Montezuma Wash ran through the southwest corner of property from 

northwest to southeast.1138

William Ratliff died in 1917, leaving the land to be split among his heirs. William’s son Ed was 

the executor of his will and representative of all the heirs. In 1932, nine Ratliffs by name or marriage 

transmitted their claims to George Ratliff, another son of the elder William. Ed and his wife Ira quit 

claimed an unspecified tract, evidently Homestead Entry Survey 310 to George in a separate transaction. 

On 30 September 1933, George and Annie Ratliff transferred both Homestead Entry Surveys, 310 and 311, 

to Marko Vucinich. On 21 November 1933, Vucinich transferred all of 310 and 311 to Joe Zaleski.1139 

Joe Zaleski also bought the Pyeatt Homestead and the Simon Kudzmi Homestead to the south. 

During the 1930s and 1940s, Zaleski operated a dude ranch with headquarters on the Pyeatt Homestead. In 

October 1950, Joe Zaleski transferred ownership of the ranch, not including the Pyeatt Homestead, to his 

son Frank by way of a Gift Deed. In 1956, Frank quit-claimed it back to Joe. Included in these two 

transfers were both Ratliff homesteads, numbered Homestead Entry Surveys 310 and 311, and the Kudzmi 

Homestead.1140 In April 1957, Joe Zaleski sold the same property to John A. and Inez Z. Jones along with 

some cattle and horses, “miscellaneous tools, equipment, and furniture,” and a stock brand.1141

In May 1959, a 49.856 acre portion of Homestead Entry Survey 310 was purchased by Southwest 

Monuments Association (now Southwest Parks and Monuments Association) from the Jones family.1142 

The remainder of Homestead Entry Survey 310, all of Homestead Entry Survey 311, and the Kudzmi 

Homestead, were given by John A. and Inez Z. Jones to John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones, “for and in 

 

1136 “Agreement: Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona, and Coronado National Forest, Cochise 

County, Arizona,” Signed October 16 and 19, 1979, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa 

Fe, N.M. 

Slightly different, but not conflicting versions in the same files were used to add details. 1137 Boundary Status Map, October 1958; Alphabetical listing by landowner’s name, July 10, 1979; Land Acquisition 

Plan, January 18, 1980 (and attached maps). 

1138 Approval of field notes of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, Office of the U.S. Surveyor General, Phoenix, 

Arizona, August 8, 1917, Coronado National Memorial Files 

1139 Cochise Chapter of The Arizona Archeological Society, n.d. 1140 Bart Barbour, “Dude Ranches at Coronado National Memorial: A Brief History,” Coronado National Memorial 

Files, from Tracking Book, Cochise County Assessor’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona; Quit-Claim Deed, Frank Zaleski to 

Jose Zaleski, Signed January 3, 1956, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, 

Docket 142, pages 239-241. 

1141 Warranty Deed, Joe Zaleski, aka José, and wife Lucy, to John A. and Inez Z. Jones, Signed April 19, 1957, 

Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 166, pages 587-588. 1142 Warranty Deed, Southwestern Monuments Association to United States of America, Recorded May 14, 1962, 

Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

364
consideration of the love and affection” of parents for their children, in 1962.1143 They sold the total 

amount to the Baumkirchner brothers, Everett and Fred, and their wives, Margaret E. and Mary Ann, 

respectively, in 1965. The purchase price was not recorded, but the Jones brothers carried a $45,000 

mortgage on the property.1144

 In 1973, the Baumkirchners traded 541.43 acres, including most of their land in the area of the 

Memorial, to the National Forest Service for other land of equal value. Included in the land exchange was 

the entire Kudzmi Homestead, the remainder of H.E.S. 310 not already within the Memorial, and a 50 acre

portion of the southwest corner of H.E.S. 311.1145 The remainder of H.E.S. 311 was subdivided, most into 

residential sized tracts. Those properties came to be known collectively as Montezuma Estates. They are 

examined individually below. 

Tract 101-10 94.23 acres 

 After the Baumkirchner’s sold 50 acres of H.E.S. 311 and subdivided they rest, they kept the 

biggest piece, tract 101-10. This property was sometimes listed as two separate parcels although they were 

transferred together. 

Description

 A 1979 appraisal listed 94.23 acres to be acquired in fee. The described property contained 

several building improvements, including rental units, residences, barns, sheds, etc. Access was by paved 

highway. The property was generally located in Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and 

Salt River Meridian.1146

Parcel 1 89.85 acres 

AKA Parcel No. 13. 

AKA P-2.1147

Description

Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management as granted by Patent recorded 

in Book 79 of Deeds, of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, Arizona; 

EXCEPT beginning at the Southwest corner of said survey; thence North along the West line of 

said survey, 1650 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of said survey, 

 1320 feet; 

thence South parallel with the West line of said survey; 

 1650 feet to point on the South line of said survey; 

thence West along the South line to the Point of Beginning; 

 and 

EXCEPT beginning at the Northwest corner of Homestead Entry 

 Survey No. 311; 

thence East along the North line of said Survey, 2022.20 feet 

 to the True Point of Beginning; 

thence South 56° 10’ 31” East 583.61 feet; 

 

1143 Deed of Gift, John A. and Inez Z. Jones, of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, to John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones, Signed 

April 24, 1962, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 300, pages 406-407. 1144 Joint Tenancy Deed, John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. Jones to Everett Baumkirchner and Margaret E. 

Baumkirchner, husband and wife, an undivided half interest, Signed May 26, 1965, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, 

Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, page 21; Joint Tenancy Deed, John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. 

Jones to Fred and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, an undivided half interest, Signed May 26, 1965, 

Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, page 22; Realty Mortgage, 

Everett Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, and Fred Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, 

his wife, with John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. Jones, Signed June 1, 1965, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, 

Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, page 23. 

1145 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Transamerica Title Insurance Company, as 

Trustee, Signed March 11, 1972, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 

841, pages 215-216; Warranty Deed, Transamerica Title Insurance Company to United States of America, Signed 

March 1, 1973, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 841, page 218. 1146 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, Division of Land Acquisition, Western Region, NPS, 

May 4, 1979, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1147 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d., Intermountain Land Resources Program Center 

Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

365
thence South 0° 13’ East 377.1 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West 483.6 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West 703.8 feet to the True Point of 

Beginning; and 

EXCEPT beginning at the Northwest corner of said Homestead 

 Entry Survey No. 311; 

thence North 89° 47’ East 1813.48 feet along the North line 

 of said survey to the True Point of Beginning; 

thence South 0° 13’ East 417.44 feet; 

thence North 89° 47’ East 208.72 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West 417.44 feet to a point on the North 

 line of said survey; 

thence West to the True Point of Beginning; and 

EXCEPT beginning at the Northwest corner of said Homestead 

 Entry Survey No. 311; 

thence East along the North line of said survey, 1773.48 feet 

 to the True Point of Beginning; 

thence South 0° 13’ East 417.44 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West 1083.6 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West 417.44 feet to the North line of 

 said survey; 

thence East along the North line to the True Point of Beginning, containing 89.85 acres more or 

less.1148

Parcel 2 4.38 acres 

AKA Parcel No. 12. 

AKA P-17.1149

Description

That portion of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management as granted by 

Patent recorded in Book 79 of Deeds of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, Arizona, 

described as follows: 

BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said survey; 

thence East 1147.32 feet along the North line of said 

survey to the True Point of Beginning. 

thence South 0° 13’ East 417.44; 

thence South 89° 47’ West 457.44 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West 417.44 feet to a point on the 

North line of said survey; 

thence East the True Point of Beginning, containing 4.38 acres, more or less.1150

Ownership/Disposition of Tract 101-10

An undated appraisal of property which NPS wished to acquire for Coronado National Memorial reflected 

the subdivision of H.E.S. 311, and of Tract 101-10, and continued ownership by the Baumkirchners. It 

listed Parcel Numbers 12 and 13, which together made up Tract 101-10, separately. The owners of both 

parcels were shown as Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, of Hereford, Arizona, as joint tenants with 

right of survivorship, as to an undivided 1⁄2 interest; and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, of 

Bisbee, Arizona, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, as to an undivided 1⁄2 interest.1151

 On 20 March 1980, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and 

Everett M. Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, sold 94.23 acres to NPS for 

$471,200. The deed listed and described the two separate parcels that made up Tract 101-10.1152

 

1148 Ibid. 1149 Ibid. 1150 Ibid. 1151 Ibid. 1152 Grant Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, his wife, as joint tenants, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, as joint tenants, to NPS, Signed March 20, 1980, 

Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

366
Tract 101-11 4 acres 

 Tract 101-11 was two separate land parcels that became a single tract when both came to be 

owned by the Tyras in 1971. They were later sold, together, to NPS. 

Description

 A 1979 appraisal described 4 acres to be acquired in fee. The property was improved with a single 

family residence and miscellaneous outbuildings. It was located in the North half of Section 17, Township 

24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian.1153

Parcel 1 2 acres 

AKA Parcel No. 6. 

AKA P-4.1154

Description

That portion of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as granted 

by Patent recorded in Book 79 of Deeds of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, Arizona, 

described as follows: 

BEGINNING at corner No. 2 of said survey; 

thence North 89° 47’ East a distance of 1356.04 feet along 

 the North line of said survey, to the true point of 

 beginning; 

thence North 89° 47’ East a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence South 0° 13’ East a distance of 417.44 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West a distance of 417.44 feet to the 

 True Point of Beginning.1155

Ownership of Parcel 1

 The Baumkirchners sold the two acre property that came to be known as Tract 101-11, Parcel 1, to 

Lawrence Edward Ray in July 1967. The deed marked the property as “Parcel No. 3.”1156 Ray borrowed 

$14,400 from the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture for the 

purchase and they held the deed to the property as collateral.1157 Ray sold the same property to James M. 

and Billie Jean Tyra in August 1971.1158 Evidently, the Tyras borrowed money from the Baumkirchners 

that was repaid in full when all of Tract 101-11 was sold to NPS in 1980.1159 [See Ownership/Disposition 

of Tract 101-11 below] 

Parcel 2 2 acres 

AKA Parcel No. 11.1160

Description

That portion of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as granted 

by Patent recorded in Book 79 of Deeds of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, Arizona, 

described as follows: 

BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said survey; 

thence East along the North line 1147.32 feet to the point 

 

1153 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1154 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1155 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, Husband and Wife; and Everett M 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, Husband and Wife, to James M. Tyra and Billie Jean Tyra, Husband and 

Wife, Signed March 25, 1980, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1413, 

pages 456-457. 

1156 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Lawrence Edward Ray, an unmarried man, Signed 

July 21, 1967, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 491, page 525. 1157 Real Estate Mortgage for Arizona, Lawrence Edward Ray and Farmers Home Administration of the United States 

Department of Agriculture, September 27, 1967, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real 

Estate, Docket 502, pages 478-479. 

1158 Joint Tenancy Deed, Lawrence Edward Ray, husband of Maria T. Ray, as his sole and separate property, to James 

M. Tyra and Billie Jean Tyra, his wife, Signed August 13, 1971, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 713, page 392. 

1159 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to James M. 

and Billie Jean Tyra, March 25, 1980. 1160 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 

367
of beginning. 

thence continuing East 208.72 feet; 

thence South 0° 13’ East 417.44 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West 208.72 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West 417.44 feet to the Point of Beginning.1161

Ownership of Parcel 2

 The Baumkirchners sold the two acre Parcel 2 of Tract 101-11 to the Tyras in September 1971, at 

about the same time that the Tyras purchased Parcel 1 from Ray.1162 The Tyras seem to have borrowed 

money from the Baumkirchners which they repaid when they sold Tract 101-11 to NPS in 1980.1163 Those 

two purchases placed the Tyras in possession of four acres, which came to be labeled Tract 101-11. 

Ownership/Disposition of Tract 101-11

 By the end of 1971 James M. Tyra and Billie Jean Tyra owned four acres of H.E.S. 311 that was 

called Tract 101-11. They purchased half of it from the Baumkirchners and the other half from Lawrence 

Edward Ray, but seem to have borrowed the money for all of it from the Baumkirchners. They held the 

land in Joint Tenancy Deeds until the time that they sold it to NPS. On 25 March 1980, the Tyras sold the 

four acres of Tract 101-11, in two parcels, to NPS for $62,000. A hand written note on the deed identified 

it as “DEED # 11.”1164 On the same day, a Warranty Deed for both parcels of Tract 101-11 was transferred 

from the Baumkirchners to the Tyras, signifying that the mortgage on the property had been paid and 

clearing the title for ownership by NPS and inclusion into Coronado National Memorial.1165

Tract 101-12 1 acre 

AKA #104-60-7 or #104-60-8.1166

AKA Parcel No. 9. 

AKA P-5.1167

Description

 That portion of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as 

granted by Patent recorded in Book 79 of Deeds of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, 

Arizona, described as follows: 

BEGINNING at Corner No. 2 of said Homestead Entry Survey; 

thence North 89° 47’ East, a distance of 1564.76 feet along 

the North line of said Homestead Entry Survey, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 

thence North 89° 47’ East, a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence South 0° 13’ East, a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West, a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West, a distance of 208.72 feet to the 

 TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.1168

 

1161 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to James M. 

and Billie Jean Tyra, March 25, 1980. 1162 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, his wife, an undivided half interest, and 

Everett M. Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, an undivided half interest, to James M. Tyra and 

Billie Jean Tyra, his wife, Signed September 30, 1971, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of 

Real Estate, Docket 1221, page 457. 1163 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to James M. 

and Billie Jean Tyra, March 25, 1980. 1164 Grant Deed, James M. Tyra and Billie Jean Tyra, his wife, as joint tenants, to NPS, March 25, 1980, Intermountain 

Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1165 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to James M. 

and Billie Jean Tyra, March 25, 1980. 1166 Listing shows two properties of equal value belonging to the Greens; Sam R. Clark, Assessor, Cochise County, 

Arizona, to Alvin H. Reynolds, Chief Appraiser, Western Region, NPS, March 18, 1974, Intermountain Land 

Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1167 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1168 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, his wife, an undivided 1⁄2 interest, and 

Everett M. Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, an undivided 1⁄2 interest, to Dewitt Green and 

Doretta Ruth Green, his wife, Signed August 23, 1971, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of 

Real Estate, Docket 862, pages 10-11. 

368
 A 1979 appraisal described one acre to be acquired in fee. It was a vacant 1-acre homesite with 

access on 1⁄4 mile dirt road off Coronado Memorial Highway, located in the North half of Section 17, 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian.1169

Ownership/Disposition

 In August 1971, the Baumkirchner brothers and their wives sold two one-acre parcels of land to 

Dewitt and Doretta Ruth Green.1170 These two parcels became Tracts 101-12 and 101-14. On 3 April 1980 

Dewitt Green and Doretta Ruth Green, husband and wife, sold 2 acres to NPS for $19,000. That sale 

included Tracts 101-12 and 101-14. A hand written note on the deed identified at as “DEED # 10.”1171 

Tract 101-13 1 acre 

AKA #104-60-6.1172

AKA Parcel No. 7. 

AKA P-6.1173 

Description

 That portion of the Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management, 

as granted by Patent recorded in Book 79 of Deeds of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, 

Arizona, described as follows: 

BEGINNING at Corner No. 2 of said Homestead Entry Survey; 

thence North 89° 47’ East, a distance of 1564.76 feet, along the North line of said Homestead 

Entry Survey; 

thence South 0° 13’ East a distance of 208.72 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

thence North 89° 47’ East, a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence South 0° 13’ East, a distance 208.72 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West, a distance 208.72 feet 

thence North 0° 13’ West, a distance of 208.72 feet to the 

TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.1174

 A 1979 appraisal described one acre to be acquired in fee. It was improved with an 1120 square 

foot residential structure and miscellaneous outbuildings. Access was off a dirt road, from Coronado 

Memorial Highway. The tract was located in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 17, 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian.1175

Ownership/Disposition

 The Baumkirchners sold the portion of H.E.S. 311 known as Tract 101-13 to William and Eloise 

Archie in July 1967. The deed for the sale was marked “Parcel No. 15.”1176 The Archies held the land 

until November 1972 and then sold it to Robert G. and Betty J. Chavez.1177 They, in turn, sold the property 

to Eileen Owens in April 1978.1178 In January 1985, Owens sold it to Allan and Leona Cerkowniak.1179 As 

of June 2000, the Cerkowniaks still reside in this house and property. 

 

1169 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1170 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to 

Dewitt and Doretta Ruth Green, August 23, 1971. 

1171 Grant Deed, Dewitt Green and Doretta Ruth Green, his wife, as joint tenants, to NPS, April 3, 1980, Intermountain 

Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1172 Sam R. Clark to Alvin H. Reynolds, March 18, 1974. 1173 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1174 Warranty Deed, Robert G. Chavez and Betty J. Chavez, husband and wife, to Eileen G. Owens, Signed April 28, 

1978, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1250, page 147. 1175 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1176 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to William Arthur Archie and Eloise Archie, husband 

and wife, Signed July 21, 1967, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 493, 

page 280. 

1177 Warranty Deed, William A. Archie and Eloise Archie, his wife, to Robert G. Chavez and Betty J. Chavez, his wife, 

Signed November 17, 1972, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 831, 

page 427. 

1178 Warranty Deed, Robert G. Chavez and Betty J. Chavez, husband and wife, to Eileen G. Owens, an unmarried 

woman, Signed April 28, 1978, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 

1250, page 147. 

369
Tract 101-14 1 acre 

AKA #104-60-7 or #104-60-8.1180

AKA Parcel No. 8. 

AKA P-7.1181

Description

 That portion of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as 

granted by Patent recorded in Book 79 of Deeds of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, 

Arizona, described as follows: 

BEGINNING at Corner No. 2 of said Homestead Entry Survey; 

thence North 89° 47’ East, a distance of 1813.48 feet along the North line of said Homestead 

Entry Survey, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 

thence North 89° 47’ East, a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence South 0° 13’ East, a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West, a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West, a distance of 208.72 feet to the 

TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.1182

 A 1979 appraisal listed one acre to be acquired in fee. This was a vacant rural one-acre homesite, 

with access from Coronado Memorial Highway on a 1⁄4 mile dedicated dirt road. The tract was located in 

the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and 

Salt River Meridian.1183

Ownership/Disposition

 In August 1971, the Baumkirchner brothers and their wives sold two one-acre parcels of land to 

Dewitt and Doretta Ruth Green.1184 These two parcels became Tracts 101-12 and 101-14. On 3 April 1980 

Dewitt Green and Doretta Ruth Green, husband and wife, sold 2 acres to NPS for $19,000. That sale 

included Tracts 101-12 and 101-14. A hand written note on the deed identified at as “DEED # 10.”1185 

Tract 101-15 1 acre 

AKA #104-60-3.1186

AKA Parcel No. 5. 

AKA P-8.1187

Description

 That portion of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as 

granted by Patent recorded in Book 79 of Deeds of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, 

Arizona, described as follows: 

BEGINNING at corner No. 2 of said Survey; 

thence North 89° 47’ East a distance of 1813.48 feet, along 

the North line of said survey; 

thence South 0° 13’ East a distance of 208.72 feet to the True Point of Beginning; 

thence North 89° 47’ East a distance of 208.72 feet; 

 

1179 Joint Tenancy Deed, Eileen G. Owens, an unmarried woman, to Allan Cerkowniak and Leona Cerkowniak, 

husband and wife, Signed January 4, 1985, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, 

Listing number 860406690. 

1180 Listing shows two properties of equal value belonging to the Greens; Sam R. Clark to Alvin H. Reynolds, March 

18, 1974. 

1181 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1182 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, his wife, an undivided 1⁄2 interest, and 

Everett M. Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, an undivided 1⁄2 interest, to Dewitt Green and 

Doretta Ruth Green, his wife, Signed August 23, 1971, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of 

Real Estate, Docket 862, pages 10-11. 

1183 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1184 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to 

Dewitt and Doretta Ruth Green, August 23, 1971. 

1185 Grant Deed, Dewitt Green and Doretta Ruth Green, his wife, as joint tenants, to NPS, April 3, 1980, Intermountain 

Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1186 Sam R. Clark to Alvin H. Reynolds, March 18, 1974. 1187 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 

370
thence South 0° 13’ East a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West a distance of 208.72 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West a distance of 208.72 feet to the 

True Point of Beginning.1188

 A 1979 appraisal described one acre to be acquired in fee. It was improved with a 1316 square 

foot residence and access was good. The tract was located in Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of 

Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian.1189

Ownership/Disposition

 The Baumkirchners sold Tract 101-15 to Calvin R. and Esther Teague in September 1966.1190 The 

Teagues sold it to William L. Cashman and Ramona E. Cashman in April 1971.1191 As of June 2000, the 

Cashmans still reside in this house and property. 

Tract 101-16 6 acres 

AKA Parcel No. 10. 

AKA P-9.1192

Description

 That portion of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311, on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as 

granted by Patent recorded in Book 79 of Deeds of Real Estate, page 54, records of Cochise County, 

Arizona, described as follows: 

BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of Homestead Entry Survey No. 311; 

thence East along the North line of said survey 2022.20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; 

thence South 56° 10’ 31” East 583.61 feet; 

thence South 0° 13’ East 377.10 feet; 

thence South 89° 47’ West 483.6 feet; 

thence North 0° 13’ West 703.8 feet to the True Point of Beginning.1193

 A 1979 appraisal described six vacant acres with good access to be acquired in fee. The property 

was located in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 

East, Gila and Salt River Meridian.1194

Ownership/Disposition

 The Baumkirchners sold this six-acre tract to a son of one of the brothers, Everett M. 

Baumkirchner Jr. In October 1971 the property was transferred pending payments totaling $6,000.1195 On 

19 March 1980 Everett M. Baumkirchner Jr. sold 6 acres to NPS for $36,000. A hand written note on the 

deed identified at as “DEED # 8.”1196 On the same day, another Warranty Deed for Tract 101-16 was 

transferred from the Baumkirchner brothers and their wives to Everett M. Baumkirchner Jr. The second 

 

1188 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Calvin R. Teague and Esther Teague, Signed 

September 30, 1966, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 456, page 215. 1189 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1190 Joint Tenancy Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to 

Calvin R. and Esther Teague, Signed September 30, 1966. 

1191 Warranty Deed, Calvin R. Teague and Esther Teague, his wife, to William L. Cashman and Ramona E. Cashman, 

his wife, Signed April 29, 1971, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 

767, page 168. 

1192 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1193 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Everett M. Baumkirchner Jr., a single man, Signed 

March 19, 1980, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1410, page 2. 1194 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1195 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Everett M. Baumkirchner Jr., Signed October 11, 

1971, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 940, page 71; Agreement, 

Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, his wife, as to an undivided 1⁄2 interest; and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, as to an undivided 1⁄2 interest, and Everett M. Baumkirchner 

Jr., a single man, Signed October 11, 1971, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, 

Docket 732, page 107. 

1196 Grant Deed, Everett M. Baumkirchner Jr., to NPS, Signed March 19, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program 

Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

371
Warranty Deed was probably given after the last money owed on the property was paid to the sellers and 

cleared the title for ownership by NPS and inclusion into Coronado National Memorial.1197 

 

4. Edward Ratliff -- Homestead Entry Survey 310

According to 1917 documents filed by the Surveyor General’s office, Ed Ratliff officially applied 

for his 160 acre homestead claim on February 3, 1911. The survey was executed March 11-12, 1915 and 

approved August 8, 1917 for 157.72 acres. Ed Ratliff’s homestead consisted of the south half of the 

northeast quarter and north half of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, 

Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian. Montezuma Wash ran through the property from northwest to 

southeast.1198

Ed and his wife, Ira, quit claimed an unspecified tract, evidently Homestead Entry Survey 310, to 

Ed’s brother, George, in 1932. At the same time, all of the heirs of William Ratliff transmitted their claims 

to Homestead Entry Survey 311 to George. On 30 September 1933, George and Annie Ratliff tranferred 

Homestead Entry Surveys 310 and 311 to Marko Vucinich. On 21 November 1933, Vucinich transferred 

both 310 and 311 to Joe Zaleski.1199 Zaleski owned at least four homestead entry surveys at the mouth of 

Montezuma Canyon. He operated the property as a dude ranch. Its center of operations was the Pyeatt 

homestead, later the Richards property. 

 In October 1950, Joe Zaleski transferred ownership of much of the property, not including the 

Pyeatt Homestead, to his son Frank by way of a Gift Deed. In 1956, Frank quit-claimed it back to Joe. 

Included in these two transfers were both Ratliff homesteads, numbered Homestead Entry Surveys 310 and 

311, and the 133.67 acre Kudzmi Homestead.1200 In April 1957, Joe Zaleski sold the same property to John 

A. and Inez Z. Jones along with some cattle and horses, “miscellaneous tools, equipment, and furniture,” 

and a stock brand.1201

 In May 1959, a 49.856 acre portion of Homestead Entry Survey 310 was purchased by Southwest 

Monuments Association (now Southwest Parks and Monuments Association) from the Jones family for a 

total cost of $3,000. The property was: 

A roughly triangular tract of land lying in the South Half (S1⁄2) of the tract currently or formerly 

known as Homestead Entry Survey 310 (H.E.S. 310) except for a small portion which lies in the 

Southwest (SW) corner of the North Half (N1⁄2) of said H.E.S. 310 in Cochise County, Arizona, in 

the North Half (N1⁄2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE1⁄4) of Section 18, Township 24 South, Range 21 

East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, and more particularly described as follows: 

BEGINNING at the Southwest corner (identified as corner number 1), of Homestead Entry Survey 

310, said point being located on the present boundary of Coronado National Memorial and marked 

by an iron pipe with a brass cap and a rock cairn placed by the United States Bureau of Land 

Management in 1955; thence North zero degrees thirty-three minutes west, one thousand twohundred ninety-four and twenty-six hundredths feet, more or less, along the west boundary of said 

tract, which line is also the present boundary of sadi Memorial, to the northwest corner of Lot 8, 

Section 18, said point being marked by an iron pipe with a brass cap and a rock cairn placed by the 

United States Bureau of Land Management in 1955; 

thence north zero degrees twenty-three minutes east, two hundred thirty and eight-tenths feet, 

more or less, along the west boundary of Homestead Entry Survey 310 to a point on a circular 

curve marked by an iron pipe with a National Park Service brass cap, said point being located 

south eight-one degrees forty-four minutes east, exactly one hundred forty feet from the point of 

curvature of said curve; 

thence southeasterly five hundred forty-eight and two-tenths feet along said circular curve to the 

right of radius one thousand seven-hundred thirty-two and four-tenths feet and having a beginning 

 

1197 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to Everett 

M. Baumkirchner Jr., Signed March 19, 1980, CCR, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1410, page 2. 1198 Approval of field notes of Homestead Entry Survey No. 310, Office of the U.S. Surveyor General, Phoenix, Az., 

August 8, 1917, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1199 Cochise Chapter of The Arizona Archeological Society, n.d. 1200 Barbour, “Dude Ranches,” from Tracking Book, Cochise County Assessor’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona; Quit-Claim 

Deed, Frank Zaleski to Jose Zaleski, Signed January 3, 1956, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 142, pages 239-241. 

1201 Warranty Deed, Joe Zaleski, aka José, and wife Lucy, to John A. and Inez Z. Jones, Signed April 19, 1957, 

Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 166, pages 587-588. 

372
tangent bearing of south eighty-four degrees three minutes east (from point of courvature to point 

of intersection) to the point of tangency of said curve; 

thence south sixty-one degrees sixteen minutes east, two hundred twenty-four and eight-tenths feet 

to the point of curvature of a circular curve to the right; 

thence southeasterly two hundre ninety-two and six-tenths feet along said circular curve to the 

right of radius six thousand twenty-nine and six-tenths feet to the point of tangency of said curve; 

thence south fifty-eight degrees twenty-nine minutes east, five hundred eighty-eight and seventenths feet to the point of curvature of a circular curve to the right; 

thence southeasterly two hundred twenty-five and nine-tenths feet along said circular curve to the 

right of radius two thousand two-hundred nine and nine-tenths feet to the point of tangency of said 

curve; 

thence south fifty-two degrees thirty-eight minutes east, twenty-eight and eight-tenths feet to the 

point of curvature of a circular curve to the left; 

thence southeasterly two hundred sixteen and nine-tenths feet along said circular curve to the left 

of radius one thousand six-hundred nine and nine-tenths feet to the point of tangency of said 

curve; 

thence south sixty degrees twenty-one minutes east, thirty and seven-tenths feet to the point of 

curvature of a circular curve to the right; 

thence southeasterly seven hundred thirteen and six-tenths feet, more or less, along said circular 

curve to the right of radius one thousand two-hundred fifty-four and nine-tenths feet to a point on 

the southern boundary line of Homestead Entry Survey 310 marked by an iron pipe with a 

National Park Service brass cap, said point also being located on the present northern boundar 

line of Coronado National Memorial; 

thence north eighty-nine degrees forty-nine minutes west two thousand three-hundred and sixtyone feet, more or less, along the southern boundary line of Homestead Entry Survey 310 which 

line is also the present northern boundary of the said Memorial, to the point of beginning (all 

bearings referred to the true meridian); 

containing 49-856 acres, more or less.1202

That tract was conveyed by Southwestern Monuments Association to NPS for inclusion in the Memorial in 

May 1962 for $3,000.1203

 The remainder of Homestead Entry Survey 310, all of Homestead Entry Survey 311, and the 

Kudzmi Homestead, were given by John A. and Inez Z. Jones to John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones “for and in 

consideration of the love and affection” of parents for their children in 1962.1204 They sold the total 

amount to the Baumkirchner brothers, Everett and Fred, and their wives, Margaret E. and Mary Ann, 

respectively, in 1965. The purchase price was not recorded, but the Jones brothers carried a $45,000 

mortgage on the property.1205

 In 1973, the Baumkirchners traded 541.43 acres, including most of their land in the area of the 

Memorial, to the National Forest Service for other land of equal value. Included in the land exchange was 

the entire Kudzmi Homestead, the remaining 107.864 acres of H.E.S. 310 not already within the Memorial, 

and an approximately 50 acre portion of the southwest corner of H.E.S. 311.1206 While negotiations were 

going on between the Baumkirchners and the National Forest Service, the Forest Service was also 

discussing the acquisition with the National Park Service and Coronado National Memorial. NPS lacked 

 

1202 Deed, John A. and Inez Z. Jones to Southwestern Monuments Association, Signed and recorded May 22, 1959, 

Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 217, pages 129-130. 1203 Warranty Deed, Southwestern Monuments Association to United States of America, Recorded May 14, 1962. 1204 Deed of Gift, John A. and Inez Z. Jones, of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, to John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones, Signed 

April 24, 1962. 

1205 Joint Tenancy Deed, John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones to Everett and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, Signed May 26, 

1965; Joint Tenancy Deed, John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones to Fred and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, Signed May 26, 

1965; Realty Mortgage, Everett and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, and Fred and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, with John Z. 

and Lawrence D. Jones, Signed June 1, 1965. 

1206 Warranty Deed, Fred E. and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, and Everett M. and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, to 

Transamerica Title Insurance Company, as Trustee, Signed March 11, 1972; Warranty Deed, Transamerica Title 

Insurance Company to United States of America, Signed March 1, 1973. 

373
the funding to purchase the land itself and supported Forest Service acquisition.1207 That land eventually 

entered the Memorial via exchange with the National Forest Service. [See National Forest Service Land 

section.] 

5. The Pyeatt Homestead

Cornelius N. Driscoll first claimed the Montezuma Ranch land in July 1913.1208 By the middle of 

1914, Driscoll had moved to another tract, east of the San Pedro River, which he claimed under the 

Homestead Act in September 1914.1209 John Pyeatt settled the later Montezuma Ranch in November 1915 

and applied for a claim in June 1917.1210 Pyeatt’s claim to the Montezuma Ranch property was eventually 

approved, and a deed was granted in July 1921, with final recording of Pyeatt’s patent number 814549 

having “been established and duly consummated, in conformity to law,” taking place on December 4, 1925. 

The 160 acre property was described as the south half of northeast quarter and north half of the southeast 

quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, 

Arizona.1211

John Pyeatt married Inez, “Tiny,” Ratliff, the adopted daughter of the family that owned, at least, 

two claims west of his new homestead. Pyeatt was dead within four years of his receiving final approval 

for his second homestead. His widow moved to Paso Robles, California, and in March 1929 she sold the 

lot to Joseph Zaleski.1212 During the 1930s and 1940s, Zaleski, who owned adjacent property as well, 

operated a dude ranch with its headquarters on the Pyeatt Homestead. Zaleski’s son, Frank, came to own 

the property and he kept it until the end of 1949. After World War II, around 1946 or 1947, Harry H. and 

Ruth Ethlyn Peterson began to manage the Montezuma Ranch. The Petersons purchased the ranch from 

Frank Zaleski, described as portions of Township 24, Range 21, Sections 17 and 18, on December 13, 

1949. On the same day they transferred title to the property to Nancy Carter Nelms.1213

Nancy Nelms and manager Don Brooks ran Montezuma as a dude ranch and a summer camp for 

young girls for a few years.1214 Nelms put Montezuma Ranch on the market in 1955, listing it with realtor 

George Howe of Tucson. On November 21, 1955, Howe himself purchased Montezuma Ranch from 

Nelms, thus ending the guest ranch period of its history. In April 1973, the ranch passed into the hands of 

George F. and Elsie R. Weick.1215 [See Tract 101-18 below.] 

Tract 101-18 160 acres 

AKA #104-60-2.1216

AKA Parcel No. 4. 

 

1207 Thomas J. Allen, Regional Director, Southwest Region, NPS, to Fred Kennedy, Regional Forester, U.S. Forest 

Service, February 18, 1963, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, Santa Fe, N.M. 1208 Letter, Office of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture to Office of the Secretary of the Interior, December 27, 1913, 

Coronado National Memorial Administrative Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, 

Arizona, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Pyeatt. 

1209 Application for Amendment, Cornelius N. Driscoll, September 23, 1914, Coronado National Memorial 

Administrative Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1425: Land 

Holdings – Driscoll. 

1210 Testimonies of Witnesses Zeno Aston and Robert Fourr, Homestead Entry, Final Proof, April 14, 1921, Coronado 

National Memorial Administrative Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona; 

Homestead Entry Application, John Pyeatt, Received U.S. Land Office, Phoenix, Arizona, Coronado National 

Memorial Administrative Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 

1425: Land Holdings – Pyeatt. 

1211 Final Certificate, Homestead, John Pyeatt, Approved June 29, 1921, Coronado National Memorial Administrative 

Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – 

Pyeatt; Barbour, “Dude Ranches.” 

1212 Barbour, “Dude Ranches;” George Brown 1998. 1213 George Brown 1998; Barbour, “Dude Ranches”. 1214 Barbour, “Dude Ranches”; George Brown 1998; Bisbee Daily Review on June 18, 1950, Coronado National 

Memorial Files; Pete Van Cleve, “List of Classified Structures, CCC/WPA, Coronado Establishment and Land 

Acquisitions,” 1996, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1215 Joint Tenancy Deed, George H. Howe and Martha J. Howe, his wife, to George F. Weick and Elsie R. Weick, his 

wife, Wood Dale, Illinois, Recorded April 27, 1973, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of 

Real Estate, Docket 853, page 84; George Brown 1998; Bart Barbour, “Dude Ranches”. 1216 Sam R. Clark to Alvin H. Reynolds, March 18, 1974. 

374
AKA P-10.1217 

Description

A 1979 appraisal described Tract 101-18 as 160 acres to be acquired in fee. The appraisal 

specified that the tract was improved with several buildings, including residences, barns, sheds, and 

miscellaneous outbuildings, including a pool. There was excellent access to the property. Its location was 

described as in the west half of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River 

Meridian, Arizona.1218

On 25 May 1979, new owner Richard Richards added that the land contained his permanent 

residence, three other houses, a swimming pool, a 48’x 100’ green house, a 35’x 40’ storage building, a 

35’x 36’ carrot juice factory, a 30 acre apple orchard containing approximately 5000 trees and a well, and a 

crop of carrots.1219 George Brown thought that Richard Richards added the second story to the house on 

the east.1220

A title insurance company report placed Tract 101-18 in the south half of the northeast quarter; 

and the north half of the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East of the Gila and 

Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona.1221

Ownership/Disposition

George and Martha Howe purchased the Pyeatt Homestead, then known as the Montezuma Ranch, 

in 1955 [see Pyeatt Homestead above]. A deed recorded on April 27, 1973 recorded the sale of the 

property to George F. and Elsie R. Weick, of Wood Dale, Illinois.1222 In March 18, 1974, the Weicks were 

listed as the owners of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, also known as Parcel #104-60-

2.1223

 According to information gleaned from real estate tracking books in the Cochise County 

Assessor’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, in 1975 the Weicks sold the property to Patricia H. Hughes, who, in 

turn, sold the ranch to Richard B. Richards and his wife, Cheryl, in March 1979.1224 The Transamerica 

Title Company Preliminary Report, one copy of which was filed with documents from 1980-1981, listed 

both Patricia H. Hughes, of Mesa, Arizona, and Richard Weick, of Hereford, Arizona, as owners of this 

tract, without details or explanation.1225 A May 1979 NPS list of land owners showed Tract 101-18 as 

owned by Patricia H. Hughes. That name was crossed out and written in was “Richard B. Richards (Ryan; 

Weick)”.1226 Given that Richard B. Richards is known to be the son of Elsie Weick, it is likely that both 

Weick and Ryan are other names used by the same man. 

On June 8, 1979, the owner of Tract 101-18 was shown as “Hughes/Richards.” The same letter 

went on to state that Tract 101-18 had been conveyed to Mr. Richard Richards of Hereford, Arizona, and 

was subsequently subdivided into three parcels. It was as yet unknown how the land was subdivided, the 

size of resultant tracts, or to whom two of the tracts were sold.1227 Even before then, on 25 May 1979, 

Richards gave oral permission for appraisal as owner of the property.1228 A July 1979 list of landowners 

shows Richards and his wife (et ux.) as owners Tract 101-18.1229

 

1217 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1218 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1219 NPS Property Inspection Certificate, ca. May 25, 1979, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, 

Santa Fe, N.M. 

1220 George Brown 1998. 1221 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1222 Joint Tenancy Deed, Howe to Weick, April 27, 1973. 1223 Clark to Reynolds, March 18, 1974. 1224 Barbour, “Dude Ranching”. 1225 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1226 Sample letter to landowners by A.W. Gray, Chief, Division of Land Acquisition, Western Region, NPS, re: 

appraisal and land acquisition, May 3, 1979, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, 

N.M. 

1227 A.W. Gray, Chief, Division of Land Acquisition, Western Region, NPS, to Robert F. Temple, June 8, 1979, 

Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1228 NPS Property Inspection Certificate, ca. May 25, 1979. 1229 Alphabetical listing by landowner’s name, NPS Division of Land Acquisitions, July 10, 1979, Intermountain Land 

Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

375
Some confusion remained as to the ownership of Tract 101-18, even after it was subdivided. A 

listing of the status of lands as of February 29, 1980, showed Hughes owner.1230 A similar listing one 

month later indicated that Richards was the owner.1231 A July 30, 1979, memorandum by Paul R. 

Thompson, Acting Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, discussed land owners within the 

proposed new boundaries of the Memorial. It listed Richard B. Richards among those agreeable to the land 

acquisition plan.1232

 A handwritten note describes a call from Leland Auslander (sic, proper spelling is Auslender) 

from Los Angeles, California, to Robert D. (Bob) Gibbons, Western Region, NPS. Auslender said that he 

had purchased 25 vacant acres of Tract 101-18, the deed being recorded one month earlier.1233 

At this point Tract 101-18 was divided into two tracts. At first, they were labeled Tracts 101-23 

and 101-24. Later, those designations were deleted and replaced by Tracts 101-25 and 101-26. [See Tracts 

101-23, 101-24, 101-25, and 101-26] 

Tract 101-23 deleted 

Leland Auslender of Los Angeles, California, called Bob Gibbons on September 24, 1979 to 

inform him that he had purchased 25 acres of Tract 101-18. He described the property as being in the south 

half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter, and the south half of the 

northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt 

River Base and Meridian, Arizona. Auslender assigned Richards as his agent.1234

A March 31, 1980, list of properties showed Tract 101-23, belonging to R. Richards, containing 

135 acres and Tract 101-24, belonging to L. Oslander (sic), with 25 acres.1235 A memo of May 12, 1980, 

deleted Tracts 101-18, 101-23, and 101-24. It noted that Tracts 101-23 and 101-24 “were listed with 

erroneous acreages so were deleted.” It also recorded the establishment of two parcels from Tract 101-18: 

Tract 101-25, with 95 acres, belonging to Richards and Tract 101-26, with 65 acres, belonging to 

Auslender.1236 [See Tract 101-25] 

Tract 101-24 deleted 

When Tract 101-18 was subdivided in late 1979, the resulting tracts were first recorded as 

numbers 101-23 and 101-24. A 31 March 1980 list of properties showed Tract 101-23 containing 135 

acres and belonging to Richard Richards, and Tract 101-24, with 25 acres, belonging to Leland 

Auslender.1237 A memo of 12 May 1980 recorded that Tracts 101-23 and 101-24 “were listed with 

erroneous acreages so were deleted.” It also noted the establishment two parcels from Tract 101-18: Tract 

101-25, with 95 acres, belonging to Richards and Tract 101-26, with 65 acres, belonging to Auslender.1238 

[See Tract 101-26] 

Tract 101-25 95 acres 

Description

When Tract 101-18 was subdivided, the northern part became Tract 101-25. 

Ownership/Disposition

 

1230 Master Deed Listing, NPS Division of Land Acquisitions, March 17, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program 

Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1231 Master Deed Listing, NPS Division of Land Acquisitions, April 11, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program 

Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1232 Paul R. Thompson, Acting Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Director, Washington Office, NPS, 

July 30, 1979, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1233 Handwritten note re: telephone call, Leland Auslander [sic] to Bob Gibbons, September 24, 1979, Intermountain 

Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1234 Handwritten note re: telephone call, Auslender to Bob Gibbons, September 24, 1979. 1235 Master Deed Listing, NPS Division of Land Acquisitions, March 31, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program 

Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1236 Memorandum, from Division of Land Acquisition, Western Region, to Chief, Coordination and Control Branch, 

Washington Office, NPS, May 12, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1237 Master Deed Listing, March 31, 1980. 1238 Memorandum, from Division of Land Acquisition, May 12, 1980. 

376
Richard B. Richards retained ownership of Tract 101-25 when Tract 101-18 was divided and Tract 

101-26 sold to Leland Auslender. Tract 101-15 was subsequently subdivided into Tracts 101-27, 101-28, 

101-29, and 101-30. [See Tracts 101-27, 101-28, 101-29, and 101-30] 

Tract 101-26 65 acres 

Description

Tract 101-26 was made up of the southern part of Tract 101-18. When Tract it was sold to NPS it 

was described as follows: 

The North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter; and 

The Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter; and 

The South half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter; and 

The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter; and 

The South half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter; and the 

South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, 

Range 21 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian.1239

Ownership/Disposition

A memo of May 12, 1980, recorded the creation of Tracts 101-25 and 101-26 from Tract 101-18. 

Tract 101-26 contained 65 acres and belonged to Leland I. Auslender.1240

On April 21, 1980, Auslender sold 65 acres to NPS for $325,000. The document notes that this 

was also known at one time as 101-24. A hand written note on the deed identified it as “DEED # 6”.1241

Tract 101-27 5 acres 

Description

Tract 101-27 was formerly the northeast corner of 101-25. It remained in the possession of 

Richard B. Richards and his wife when Tract 101-25 was subdivided.1242 Tract 101-27 was transferred to 

NPS together with Tract 101-28. [See Tract 101-28] 

Tract 101-28 5 acres 

Description

Tract 101-28 was formerly the southeast corner of 101-25.1243

When Tracts 101-27 and 101-28 were sold, together, to NPS, the deed described the combined property as: 

the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter and the 

south half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, Section 17, 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Arizona.1244

Ownership/Disposition of 101-27 and 101-28

On 15 December 1981 Richard B. Richards and Cheryl Richards (AKA Cheryl A. Richards), 

husband and wife, sold 10 acres to NPS for $50,000. That sale comprised Tracts 101-27 and 101-28 

combined. A hand written note on the deed identified it as “DEED # 9”.1245

Tract 101-29 82.5 acres 

Description

When 95 acre Tract 101-25 was divided, 82.5 acre Tract 101-29 retained most of its land.1246 It 

was the home of Sunrise Farm. Tract 101-29 was also listed once in 1982 as 85 acres.1247 It was described 

as:

 

1239 Grant Deed, Leland I. Auslender to NPS, April 21, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, 

NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1240 Memorandum, from Division of Land Acquisition, May 12, 1980. 1241 Grant Deed, Auslender to NPS, April 21, 1980. 1242 Untitled map of Coronado National Memorial, July 1982, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, 

NPS, Santa Fe, N.M.; Laurel W. Dale, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Chief, Energy, Mining and 

Minerals Division, NPS, Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 1986, Intermountain Land Resources Program 

Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1243 Untitled map of Coronado National Memorial, July 1982; Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 1986. 1244 Grant Deed, Richard B. Richards and Cheryl Richards to NPS, December 15, 1981, Intermountain Land Resources 

Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1245 Grant Deed, Richards and Richards to NPS, December 15, 1981. 

377
The southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of 

the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter; the south half of the north half of the southeast 

quarter of the northeast quarter; the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter; and 

the north half of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, Township 24 

South, Range 21 East, Section 17, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona.1248

Ownership/Disposition

On 4 February 1985 Richard Richards and Cheryl Richards, husband and wife, sold scenic 

easement to NPS for $549,000. The conditions are spelled out in attachments. A handwritten note on the 

deed identifies it as “DEED # 14.” The easement agreement read as follows: 

THE scenic easement granted to the United States of America of the above described land consists 

of a covenant on the part of the Grantors to refrain from doing, severally and collectively, on 

behalf of themselves, their heirs, executor and assigns, the various acts hereinafter mentioned, it 

being hereby agreed that these restrictions shall constitute a servitude upon said land and will be 

for the benefit of the Grantee through the preservation of the scenic values of the land controlled 

by this easement. 

THE RESTRICTIONS HEREBY IMPOSED ON THE LAND, THE ACTS WHICH THE 

GRANTOR PROMISES TO DO OR REFRAIN FROM DOING UPON THE LAND, AND THE 

RIGHTS IN AND TO THE LAND GRANTED TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

AND ITS ASSIGNS BY THE GRANTOR ARE AS FOLLOWS: There shall be no new 

construction of any improvements, as of the date of this easement. No additions or alterations 

shall be made on existing structures. Any building or structure damaged or destroyed by fire or 

other casualty or deteriorated by the elements or wear and tear may be maintained, repaired, 

renovated, remodeled or reconstructed so long as the basic character of the building or structure is 

not materially altered. 

The general topography of the landscape shall remain in its present condition. There shall be no 

cutting or permitting of cutting, destroying or removing any trees, brush or other flora, provided, 

however, that existing and seedling trees, shrubbery and other flora may be pruned or cut down to 

maintain the premises consistent with good management practices. Reserving, to the Grantor, 

herein, the right and privilege to clear and restore trees and shrubs that are damaged or disturbed 

by the forces of nature; the right and privilege to gather, remove and use dead wood. 

Grantors within 6 months shall purchase 100 five gallon Arizona Cypress trees. The Grantee will 

be responsible for the planting in locations which will be agreed upon by both parties. The 

Grantee shall be allowed to plant additional trees in the future if deemed necessary and appropriate 

by the Superintendent. 

Any additional trees beyond the original 100 shall be purchased by the Grantee. Maintenance of 

all trees will be the responsibility of the Grantor. 

No signs, billboards or advertisements shall be displayed or placed upon the property. 

Mobile homes or recreational vehicles over 20 feet in length shall only be allowed on the property 

if they do not remain longer than 90 days. 

At all times the property shall be kept in a neat and orderly condition and no trash or debris shall 

be placed upon the land or allowed to accumulate. 

All efforts shall be made to screen personal property from the park visitor. 

Park personnel shall be permitted, upon giving reasonable verbal or written notice to the 

landowner, to enter upon said property to ascertain compliance with the restrictions and covenants 

of this easement. Prior arrangement for entrance on said land is not necessary for reasons of 

emergency or safety. 

No additional easements or other rights of way of any kind shall be granted to any other party by 

the Grantor. 

There shall be no construction of new roadways or changing the course of existing roads on the 

property covered hereby. 

 

1246 Untitled map of Coronado National Memorial, July 1982. 1247 Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 1986. 1248 Grant Deed, Richard Richards and Cheryl Richards to NPS, scenic easement, February 4, 1985, Intermountain 

Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

378
This property shall not be used for any industrial, mining or similar use or for the accommodation 

of any paying guests for a period of less than 90 days. 

All animals must be adequately restrained and shall not be permitted to stray from the property. 

The Grantors in the use of this property shall conform to all applicable laws, ordinances, and 

regulations in effect in the area, including but not limited to all applicable general National Park 

Service regulations and general and special regulations for the area in particular. 

This grant of scenic easement is only for the purpose of preserving and protecting the scenic 

value of the said lands, and does not grant the general public any right of ingress or egress over 

or across said, or any other rights of usage. 

THESE INTERESTS in land are being acquired by the National Park Service of the United States 

Department of the Interior for the use and benefit of the Coronado National Memorial and are 

appurtenant to said park lands. 

SUBJECT to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and 

pipelines. 

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the herein-described estate in land unto the Grantee and its assigns 

forever.1249

 Despite the restrictions contained in the scenic easement agreement signed by NPS and Mr. and 

Ms. Richards, the landowners soon floated several development schemes for Tract 101-29. They included 

fee sale of 25 acres, including all structures; contracting with the state to run a half-way house for paroled 

felons; operating a nursing home; developing a mini-RV park; and sub-dividing the property into five new 

building sites. Richards also brought up selling the property to NPS with the stipulation that he be allowed 

to remain.1250 

 Another issue involving the scenic easement on Tract 101-29 and relations between Richards and 

the Memorial was waste disposal on the property. In May 1990, new superintendent Edward Lopez 

conducted a Level I Hazardous Waste Inspection Survey of the Richards property and submitted a report 

expressing concern about dumps and recommending that a Level II Hazardous Waste Survey be 

performed.1251 On the request of Bob Cousins, Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality inspected Richards’s 821⁄2 acre property on 19 June 1990. They 

issued a report on 16 August 1990. They identified “Several Solid Waste issues” including “three 

unapproved refuse landfills, diesel fuel leaks, fiberglass resin discharges, and various waste containers of 

oil and paint, and waste batteries."1252 While some dump sites, litter, and abandoned vehicles were present 

before the easement, it was clear that the property had deteriorated since it was signed.1253 

 Subsequent to the easement agreement, Richard Richards began attempting to sell Tract 101-29. 

He claimed financial hardship, partly due to the restrictions in the easement, adding in 1990 that he was by 

then divorced and otherwise in debt as well. In 1988, Richards first suggested that NPS purchase the 

property, stipulating that he wanted to continue living there and using the land for agriculture. Given his 

ongoing circumvention of the scenic easement and degeneration of Tract 101-29, some NPS officials 

supported the idea. Superintendent Joseph L. Sewell recommended fee acquisition by NPS and renewable 

one-year special use permits that allowed Richards to stay on the land.1254

 It was, belatedly, recognized by NPS officials that the scenic easement was ineffective as written. 

There seemed to be no enforcement mechanisms which specified consequences for violations. In addition, 

 

1249 Ibid. 1250 Memorandum, Joseph L. Sewell, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Regional Director, Western 

Region, NPS, May 3, 1988, Coronado National Memorial Files; Memorandum, Joseph L. Sewell, Superintendent, 

Coronado National Memorial, to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, March 7, 1989, Coronado National 

Memorial Files. 

1251 Ed Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d., Coronado National Memorial Files. 1252 Dale A. Anderson, Manager, Hazardous Waste Inspection Unit, Office of Waste Programs, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, to Bob Cousins, Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, August 16, 1990, Coronado 

National Memorial Files. 

1253 Memorandum, Clay Cunningham, General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group, NPS, to Regional Director, 

Western Region, NPS, July 31, 1990, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1254 Addendum to the Land Protection Plan for Coronado national Memorial, October 26, 1988, Intermountain Land 

Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M.; Memorandum, Clay Cunningham, General Superintendent, 

Southern Arizona Group, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, July 18, 1990, Coronado National 

Memorial Files. 

379
NPS had no pictures or descriptions of the property to document the appearance of the property at the time 

of the agreement in order to prove that violations had occurred. Obvious violations of specific items in the 

easement agreement had already taken place without retribution. One example was the granting of rightof-way to the Sulfur Springs Valley Electrical Cooperative. Now, Richards was prepared to pursue further 

development, unconcerned about the seemingly unenforceable easement. In addition, stipulated screening 

efforts had been ineffective and would likely continue to be so. Finally, Richards was determined to sell 

the property, and probably subdivide it. If NPS did not acquire it the same problems were likely to 

continue with the new owners.1255

 Requests to Washington, D.C., for acquisition funding raised concerns. The Director’s office 

noted that the landowner was claiming a hardship based upon an easement for which he had already been 

paid. Fee acquisition would then be used as a remedy for repeated violations of the easement. Even after 

acquisition, the violator would remain on the property under a special use permit. In effect, NPS would pay 

for the land twice and it would still be under the control of a private landowner who had proven 

uncooperative in the past. Such a course would be inconsistent with existing policy and set a dangerous 

precedent for future acquisitions.1256 When hardship funds were requested to allow immediate acquisition, 

a Congressional Subcommittee also expressed concern that purchase was proposed as a means of 

preventing development that was specifically prohibited by the already purchased easement.1257

 When Edward Lopez met Richard Richards in December 1989 Richards introduced himself as 

“the person that ‘had taken the NPS for over $500,000 and was in the process of taking another one half 

million from them again.’”1258 Thereafter, Richards continued his attempts to subdivide and sell Tract 101-

29, promising prospective buyers that they could build as long as they were replacing one of the many 

buildings already on the property. He also continued to plead hardship to NPS. On October 16, 1990, 

Acting Regional Director, Western Region, Lewis S. Albert explained that the Richards family was losing 

all their equity through possible bankruptcy and hadn’t marketed the property because they were counting 

on NPS to buy it. He went on to discuss the insufficient regulation that allowed Richards to violate 

easement and the mess that he has had already created and would likely exacerbate.1259 By early 1991, 

NPS was negotiating purchase with a Chapter 13 Trustee, suggesting that the property had been foreclosed. 

However, funding was not then available and was not thought likely to be until after October 1, 1992.1260

On the evening of 25 July 1991 the status and fate of the Richards property was suddenly changed. 

As Superintendent Edward Lopez was leaving the Memorial he was flagged down by Linda Sorenson, who 

lived with Richards on the property. At her request, Lopez contacted the Cochise County Sheriff’s 

Department. Sorenson had been assaulted by Richards and retaliated by turning him in for marijuana 

cultivation. Together, Sheriff’s deputies and Park Rangers searched the Richards property and the adjacent 

area of the Memorial. They found marijuana growing within the house as well as thirty- eight marijuana 

plants on NPS land.1261

 According to Coronado Superintendent Edward Lopez, the Department of Justice, United States 

Attorney’s Office, and Drug Enforcement Agency approached him shortly after the drug bust to assess NPS 

interest in obtaining the property through the seizure process. NPS discussed the offer and then responded 

 

1255 Clay Cunningham to Regional Director, Western Region, July 18, 1990; Memorandum, Edward Lopez, 

Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Regional Director, Western Region, August 15, 1990, Coronado 

National Memorial Files. 

1256 Draft Memorandum, Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, n.d., Intermountain Land 

Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1257 Memorandum, Acting Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, October 31, 1990, Coronado 

National Memorial Files. 

1258 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d. 1259 Memorandum, Lewis S. Albert, Acting Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, to Associate Director, 

Operations, NPS, September 28, 1990; Lopez to Regional Director, Western Region, August 15, 1990; Lopez, 

“Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d. 1260 Edward R. Haberlin, Chief, Division of Land Resources, Western Region, NPS, to Margo Martin, Chapter 13 

Trustee, 14 January 1991, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1261 Criminal Incident Record, Case/Incident Number 910056, filed by William R. Smith, July 29, 1991; Supplemental 

Criminal Incident Record, Case/Incident Number 910056, filed by Edward Lopez, July 29, 1991; Supplemental 

Criminal Incident Record, Case/Incident Number 910056, filed by William R. Smith, July 27, 1991; Supplemental 

Criminal Incident Record, Case/Incident Number 910056, filed by Michael D. Walden, July 26, 1991, Coronado 

National Memorial Files. 

380
that they would be interested in acquisition.1262 In August 1991, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed for 

seizure of Tract 101-29 in its entirety.1263 Subsequently, Richards pled guilty to domestic violence. As 

part of his plea bargain, Richards agreed not to contest the seizure. As part of the forfeiture he also agreed 

not to have any later interest in the land. Richards continued to live on the property until April 1993, 

paying rent to the U.S. Marshal Service.1264 

 Superintendent Lopez recalled that the property came under the custodial ownership of the 

Department of Justice, U.S. Marshal Service, some six weeks after the arrest.1265 In May 1992, NPS was 

informed by the U.S. Attorney’s office that the land had been seized as part of the plea bargain with 

Richards. NPS was offered the opportunity to acquire it for the price of all existing liens plus interest, 

taxes, and expenses incurred by the Marshal’s Service. NPS agreed to a stipulated total, projected for 

August 5, 1992, of $227,016.34. They wanted a guarantee that Richards and certain property, including 

trees and a carrot harvest but not fencing, would be off the property before the Memorial took 

possession.1266

 However, between the arrest and seizure of the land by the Department of Justice Richards’s 

mother, Elsie Weick, had filed a lien on a portion of the property for money owed to her. The Department 

of Justice contested the Weick lien. According to NPS employees, the general feeling was that Ms. Weick 

filed the lien so that her son would come out of the process without losing everything. The eventual 

settlement provided for Ms. Weick and the Department of Justice to split the proceeds from the sale of the 

parcel determined to be covered by the lien.1267 Because of uncertainty about the outcome of the Weick 

lien and its value, NPS could not guarantee payment of outstanding claims and expenses. Therefore, the 

Asset Forfeiture Office of the Department of Justice could not continue its efforts to transfer Tract 101-29 

to NPS.1268

 There were two other outstanding liens on Tract 101-29 as well, belonging to Western Farm 

Credit Bank and Citibank. There was some confusion regarding exactly what land secured what loan. That 

confusion stemmed from the legal descriptions defining the land base of the collateral.1269 A September 

1992 notice of impending Trustee’s Sale described one of the tracts. It specified that the land, Tax Parcel 

Number 104-60-002D-6, secured a principal amount of $120,000, as per agreement of 9 December 1988. 

The original Trustor was Richard Richards; the beneficiary was Western Farm Credit Bank; and the 

Successor Trustee was Melinda S. Barnett.1270 This property became known as Tract 101-39. The 

remaining 25.59 acres of the original 82.5 were eventually assigned to lien-holders as well. Elsie Weick 

and the Department of Justice were to split the proceeds from the sale of 20.47 acres, while Citibank was 

assigned 5.12 acres. Both properties contained residential structures. 

 From that point on, the 82.5 acre Tract 101-29, also labeled Tract 101-04 at times, was usually 

considered as three separate tracts numbered 101-39 (56.91 acres), 101-40 (5.12 acres), and 101-41 (20.47 

acres). For the next few years, however, it was still, sometimes, discussed and dealt with as one large lot, 

particularly when the issue was hazardous waste. During 1996, NPS conducted “Level I Survey: 

Contaminant Survey Checklist of Proposed Real Estate Acquisition” inspections on all of the 82.5 acres 

 

1262 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d. 1263 Complaint for Forfeiture, United States District Court, District of Arizona, United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 

82.5 acres of real property located in Cochise County, Arizona and known as the Montezuma Ranch, DBA The Sunrise 

Farms, Inc. with all improvements, fixtures and appurtenances thereto and thereon; Defendant, August 16, 1991, 

Coronado National Memorial Files. 

1264 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d. 1265 Ibid. 1266 Edward R. Haberlin, Chief, Division of Land Resources, Western Region, NPS, to Linda A. Akers, United States 

Attorney, Department of Justice, District of Arizona, May 26, 1992, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1267 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d.; c.c. mail, Bob Cousins to Harlan Hobbs, 

Edward A. Lopez, and Sondra S. Humphries, Subject: CORO acquisitions, August 12, 1996, Coronado National 

Memorial Files. 

1268 Cindy K. Jorgenson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice, District of Arizona, to Melinda S. Barnett of 

James S. Marlar, P.C., and Jeffrey A. Bernick of Ridenour, Swenson, Cleer & Evans, August 16, 1993, Coronado 

National Memorial Files. 

1269 Cousins to Hobbs, Lopez, and Humphries, August 12, 1996. 1270 Notice of Trustee’s Sale, filed by Melinda S. Barnett of James S. Marlar, P.C., September 30, 1992, Cochise 

County, Arizona, Coronado National Memorial Files. 

381
which formerly made up tract 101-29.1271 Subsequently, in 1997, Coronado National Memorial took bids 

for clean-up of the properties that had made up Tract 101-29 as part of the process of acquiring all of 

them.1272 

[See Tracts 101-39, 101-40, and 101-41] 

Tract 101-30 2.5 acres 

Description

 Tract 101-30 was made up of land formerly on the north side of Tract 101-25.1273

 When sold to NPS, Tract 101-30 was only described as follows: 

The east half of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast 

quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, 

Arizona.1274

Ownership/Disposition

 On 3 August 1982 Richard B. Richards and Cheryl Richards, husband and wife, sold 2.5 acres to 

NPS for $12,500. A hand written note identifies the deed as “DEED # 13”.1275

Tract 101-39 56.91 acres 

Description 

When it was sold to NPS, Tract 101-39 was described as: 

The Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; and the Southeast quarter 

of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; and the South half of the Southeast quarter of 

the Northeast quarter; and the South half of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the 

Northeast quarter; and the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of 

the Northeast quarter; and the North half of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the 

Southeast quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East of the Gila and Salt River 

Base and Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona; 

Except the following described parcels (A) and (B): 

Parcel (A): 

Beginning at the Northwest corner of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; 

Thence South 100.00 Feet; 

Thence East 100.00 Feet; 

Thence North 60.00Feet; 

Thence East 200.00 Feet; 

Thence South 260.00 Feet; 

Thence East 150.00 Feet; 

Thence North 200.00 Feet; 

Thence East 70.00 Feet; 

Thence South 35.00 Feet; 

Thence East 800.00 Feet to a point on the West line of 

the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter; 

Thence North along said West line, 135.00 Feet to a point on the North line of the South half of 

the Northeast quarter; 

Thence West along said North line of the South half of the Northeast quarter, 1,320.00 Feet, more 

or less, to the Point of Beginning. 

Parcel (B): 

Beginning at the Northwest corner of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; 

 

1271 Jim Walters, Southwest Hazardous Waste Program Agent, to Southwest Land Resources Program Center, April 3, 

1997, Coronado National Memorial Files. 

1272 Montezuma Ranch Update, probably written by Edward Lopez, July 1, 1997, Coronado National Memorial Files; 

Proposal for Clean-up, Eads Construction Redi-Mix, Inc., Bisbee, Arizona, September 16, 1997, Coronado National 

Memorial Files; Proposal for Clean-up, B-R Constructors, Inc., Huachuca City, Arizona, September 18, 1997, 

Coronado National Memorial Files. 

1273 Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 1986. 1274 Grant Deed, Richard B. Richards and Cheryl Richards to NPS, August 3, 1982, Intermountain Land Resources 

Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1275 Ibid. 

382
Thence South 100.00 Feet; 

Thence East 100.00 Feet; 

Thence North 60.00 Feet; 

Thence East 200.00 Feet; 

Thence South 260.00 Feet; 

Thence East 150.00 Feet; 

Thence North 200.00 Feet; To the True Point of Beginning; 

Thence East 70.00 Feet; 

Thence South 35.00 Feet; 

Thence East 630.00 Feet; 

Thence South 315.00 Feet; 

Thence West 700.00 Feet; 

Thence North 350.00 Feet to the True Point of Beginning; 

Excepting Therefrom any portion lying within the West half of the Southwest quarter of the 

Northeast quarter of said Section 17.1276

Ownership/Disposition

 The origin of Tract 101-39 was in a $120,000 loan to Richard Richards from Western Farm Credit 

Bank on 9 December 1988. According to Bob Cousins, there was some confusion regarding the land base 

used as collateral for this and another loan from United Bank of Arizona unspecified Western Farm Credit 

Bank. After that conundrum was sorted out, Western Farm Credit Bank was able to foreclose on 56.91 

acres, which became Tract 101-39.1277

 In November 1994, NPS was contacted by an agent for Western Farm Credit Bank regarding the 

sale of Tract 101-39. In December, Sondra S. Humphries, Chief, Division of Land Resources for the 

Western Region, responded with an offer for $24,000. Her letter detailed some intermediate steps which 

would have to precede.1278 It was not until April 22, 1996, that the property was cleared by a Level 1 

hazardous waste inspection.1279 Subsequently, in May 1996, an executed copy of an Offer to Sell was 

transmitted to Western Farm Credit Bank.1280

 On June 17, 1996, a DOI Certificate of Inspection and Possession for Tract 101-39, 56.91 acres, 

was signed by Ed Lopez, Park Superintendent.1281 The sale was recorded on 18 June 1996. At that time it 

was also identified as Coronado National Memorial Deed No. 20.1282 In May 1997 Notification of Closing 

for Tract 101-39 was received at CORO. It showed that the title for 56.91 acres passed from Western Farm 

Credit Bank to the United States Government on June 18, 1996. The purchase price was $24,000.1283 

Tract 101-40 5.12 acres

Description

Tract 101-40 was described in NPS correspondence as: 

PARCEL I: 

That portion of the South half of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 

21 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona, described as 

follows: 

BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 

17; 

thence South 100 feet; 

thence East 100 feet; 

thence North 60 feet; 

 

1276 Grant Deed, Western Farm Credit Bank to NPS, June 3, 1996, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1277 Notice of Trustee’s Sale, September 30, 1992; Cousins to Hobbs, Lopez, and Humphries, August 12, 1996. 1278 Sondra S. Humphries, Chief, Division of Land Resources, Western Region, NPS, to Gary L. Buntrock, Garmar 

Enterprises, Inc., December 13, 1994, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1279 c.c. mail, Jim Walters to Edward A. Lopez and Bob Cousins, April 22, 1996, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1280 Sondra S. Humphries, Chief, Pacific Land Resources Program Center, NPS, to Michael Morris, Western Farm 

Credit Bank, May 22, 1996, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1281 U.S. Department of the Interior Certificate of Inspection and Possession, Tract 101-39, filed by Edward Lopez, 

June 17, 1996, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1282 Grant Deed, Western Farm Credit Bank to NPS, June 3, 1996. 1283 Notification of Closing, Tract 101-39, May 22, 1997, Coronado National Memorial Files. 

383
thence East 200 feet; 

thence South 260 feet; 

thence East 150 feet; 

thence North 200 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

thence East 70 feet; 

thence South 35 feet; 

thence East 630 feet; 

thence South 315 feet; 

thence West 700 feet; 

thence North 350 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

Excepting therefrom any portion lying within the West half of the Southwest quarter of the 

Northeast quarter of said Section 17. 

PARCEL II: 

That portion of the following described Parcel A lying within the West half of the Southwest 

quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 21 East of the Gila and 

Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona; 

PARCEL A: 

Beginning at the Northwest corner of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17; 

thence South 100 feet; 

thence East 100 feet; 

thence North 60 feet; 

thence East 200 feet; 

thence South 260 feet; 

thence East 150 feet; 

thence North 200 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

thence East 70 feet; 

thence South 35 feet; 

thence East 630 feet; 

thence South 315 feet; 

thence West 700 feet; 

thence North 350 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 

PARCEL III: 

An easement for ingress and egress over the following described property; 

That portion of the South half of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 

21 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona, described as 

follows: 

BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 

17; 

thence South 100 feet; 

thence East 100 feet; 

thence North 60 feet; 

thence East 200 feet; 

thence South 260 feet; 

thence East 150 feet; 

thence North 200 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

thence West 75 feet; 

thence North 100 feet; 

thence West 10 feet; 

thence South 110 feet; 

thence East 85 feet; 

thence North 10 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.1284

Ownership/Disposition

 

1284 Description of Tract No. 101-40, Faxed from Julian Trujillo to Phil Young, November 19, 1997, Coronado 

National Memorial Files. 

384
 The origin of Tract 101-40 was in a Deed of Trust recorded July 11, 1988. It was collateral for a 

$26,500 loan to Richard Richards from United Bank of Arizona which came due June 7, 1989. According 

to Bob Cousins, there was some confusion regarding the land base used as collateral for this and another 

loan from Western Farm Credit Bank. Once that was sorted out, Citibank, the successor to the United Bank 

of Arizona was able to foreclose on 5.12 acres, which became Tract 101-40. In April 1994, Citibank made 

notice of a Trustee’s Sale to be held the following July. The Tax Parcel Number of the property was given 

as 104-60-002.1285

 On March 26, 1997, Citibank, as successor to United Bank of Arizona, conveyed a 5.12 acre 

property whose description fits Tract 101-40 to Elsie Weick, Richard Richards’s mother, for undisclosed 

considerations. The property was held under a deed of trust dated 8 July 1988 in which the Trustors were 

Richard and Cheryl Richards, the Trustee and Beneficiary was the United Bank of Arizona.1286 Within a 

few months, Richards was acting as an agent for Weick in marketing Tract 101-40, which NPS opposed, 

considering it a violation of the plea agreement in which Richards was prohibited from acquiring interest in 

the property.1287 Late in 1997, NPS was still working to acquire the remainder of the Montezuma Ranch 

properties and was accepting bids for clean-up as part of the appraisal process.1288 

 On February 5, 1998, Tract 101-40 was transferred from Elsie Weick to “Sunrise, A Trust,” which 

was located at Weick’s Wood Dale, Illinois, address, for the sum of ten dollars. Elsie Weick was the only 

“co-trustee” listed on the document.1289 The title company did not show a change in the ownership of the 

property and Elsie Weick and her representatives continued to act as they had before the transfer.1290 

Negotiations dragged on through 1998 and 1999. Weick’s representatives tried to drive the price up and 

NPS countered by promising condemnation.1291

 In 1999, NPS continued to address other issues, like clean-up, that arose from violations of the 

scenic easement agreement. In February, an administrative waiver was signed by Superintendent Jim 

Bellamy which would allow acquisition in spite of the existence of a competing easement for transmission 

lines.1292 In May, Bellamy filed a complaint with the Cochise County Planning Department, Building & 

Zoning Division. It reported extensive renovation to the two story house without a permit. The property 

was identified by Tax parcel identification number 104-60-2H.1293 Bellamy was concerned that such 

improvements would increase the price which NPS would eventually pay for the property, after which the 

buildings would likely be demolished.1294

 As 1999 came to an end, Tract 101-40 was still for sale. A potential buyer contacted Coronado 

National Memorial for information about NPS acqusition plans and existing easements. Meanwhile, 

condemnation proceedings were instituted against the property by NPS after they were unable agree with 

the owners on a fair price. NPS offered $41,000, which they considered a just value. Weick made no 

counter-offer. The final price was to be determined by an administrative court.1295 Superintendent 

 

1291 c.c.mail, Julian Trujillo, Southwest Regional Office, NPS, to William Smith, Coronado National Memorial, June 9, 

1998, Coronado National Memorial Files. 

1292 Administrative Waiver, signed by Jim Bellamy, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, February 17, 1999, 

Coronado National Memorial Files. 

1293 Complaint Form, Cochise County Zoning Regulations, Cochise County Planning Department, Building & Zoning 

Division, filed by Jim Bellamy, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, May 25, 1999, Coronado National 

Memorial Files. 

1294 Memorandum, Jim Bellamy, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Regional Director, Intermountain 

Region, NPS, May 27, 1999, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1295 Robert Wierzal, Scottsdale, Arizona, to Jim Bellamy, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, October 7, 

1999, Coronado National Memorial Files; Jim Bellamy, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Robert 

1285 Notice of Trustee’s Sale, filed by Ronald M. Horowitz of Anderson, Brody, Levinson, Weiser & Horwitz, P.A., 

April 21, 1994, Cochise County, Arizona, Coronado National Memorial Files; Cousins to Hobbs, Lopez, and 

Humphries, August 12, 1996. 

1286 Assignment of Beneficial Interest Under Deed of Trust to Elsie Weick, from Citibank (Arizona), Trustee, as 

successor to United Bank of Arizona, March 26, 1997, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1287 Ethan Steele, Attorney at Law for Richard Richards, to Janet Martin, Office of United States Attorney, June 23, 

1997, Coronado National Memorial Files. 

1288 Description of Tract No. 101-40, November 19, 1997; Montezuma Ranch Update, July 1, 1997; Proposal for Cleanup, Eads Construction Redi-Mix, Inc., September 16, 1997; Proposal for Clean-up, B-R Constructors, Inc., September 

18, 1997. 

1289 Grant Deed, Elsie Weick to Sunrise, A Trust, February 5, 1998, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1290 Handwritten note, re: Tract 101-40, September 13, 1999, Coronado National Memorial Files. 

385
Bellamy reported in July 2001 that “a settlement has been reached on the remaining 5.12 acres of the old 

Montezuma Ranch property, and it looks like we will receive title very soon.”1296

Tract 101-41 20.47 acres 

Description

 In a 1996 forfeiture judgement Tract 101-41 was described as follows: 

Parcel I: 

That portion of the South half of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 24 South, Range 

21 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona, described as 

follows: 

BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of the South half of the Northeast quarter of said Section 

17; 

thence South 100 feet; 

thence East 100 feet; 

thence North 60 feet; 

thence East 200 feet; 

thence South 260 feet; 

thence East 150 feet; 

thence North 200 feet; 

thence East 70 feet; 

thence South 35 feet; 

thence East 800 feet to a point on the West line of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter 

of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter; 

thence North along said West line 135 feet to a point on the North line of the South half of the 

Northeast quarter; thence West along said North line of the South half of the Northeast quarter, 

1320 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. 

Parcel II: 

That portion of the West half of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, 

Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County, 

Arizona, lying Southerly of the following described lines: 

Commencing at the Northwest corner of the South half of the Northeast quarter of Section 17; 

thence South 100 feet to the Point of Beginning; 

thence East 100 feet; 

thence North 60 feet; 

thence East 200 feet; 

thence South 260 feet; 

thence East 150 feet; 

thence South 150 feet; 

thence East to a point in the East line of the West half of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast 

quarter of said Section 17, being the point of terminus.1297

Ownership/Disposition

 When the owner of Tract 101-29, Richard Richards, was arrested in July 1991, the Department of 

Justice moved to seize his property. Within weeks, his mother, Elsie Weick, had filed a lien on a portion of 

the property for money owed to her. According to Coronado Superintendent Edward Lopez and Western 

Regional Director Bob Cousins, both NPS and the Justice Department doubted the validity of the Weick 

 

Wierzal, Scottsdale, Arizona, October 18, 1999, Coronado National Memorial Files; Memorandum, Barbara A. 

Sulhoff, Chief, Land Resources Program Center, Intermountain Region, NPS, to Field Solicitor, Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, NPS, November 30, 1999, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1296 Bellamy to Joseph P. Sánchez, Spanish Colonial Research Center (SPCO), NPS, Hereford, July 27, 2001, SPCO 

Files. 

1297 Forfeiture Judgement as to Claimant Elsie Weick, United States District Court, District of Arizona, United States of 

America, Plaintiff vs. 82.5 acres of real property located in Cochise County, Arizona and known as the Montezuma 

Ranch, DBA The Sunrise Farms, Inc., with all improvements, fixtures and appurtenances thereto and thereon; 

Defendant, January 6, 1996, Coronado National Memorial Files. 

386
lien but it was approved by the court.1298 The agreement between Weick and the Department of Justice was 

reflected in an order dated January 6, 1996. The U.S. Marshall’s office was directed to seize and sell the 

property; the proceeds, after expenses, were to be split between Weick and the U.S. Marshal’s Service.1299

 On April 19, 1996, Richard Richards’s attorney, Ethan Steele, wrote to Paul Tatham, I.R.P. 

District Headquarters, Sierra Vista, regarding his interest in listing the property for the Marshal’s Service. 

Steele described three appraisals of $80,000, $220,000, and $60,000 and expressed his opinion that the last 

was the most accurate. He also mentioned the scenic easement, deteriorated structures, and approximately 

$20,000 in back taxes as liabilities to the tract. The U.S. Forest Service was then offering $60,000 for the 

property.1300

 On 13 January 1998, Ed Lopez, Coronado National Memorial Superintendent, signed a 

Department of the Interior Certificate of Inspection and Possession for 20.47 acre Tract 101-41.1301 On 23 

January 1998 Alfred W. Madrid, United States Marshall for the District of Arizona, sold 20.47 acres of 

described land to DOI, NPS, for $56,500. According to the deed, the land was forfeited by Richard 

Richards on 21 December 1992. On 8 January 1996, “a Forfeiture Judgement was entered pursuant to 

written stipulation by the parties as to claimant Elsie Weick, declaring the interest of Elsie Weick, in the 

above described real estate, was forfeited to the United States of America.” The United Sates Marshall was 

then charged with the duty to dispose of the property. The deed was labeled “CORONADO NM DEED 

NO. 22.”1302 The title was officially passed on February 2, 1998.1303

6. Kudzmi Homestead

 The Kudzmi Homestead was made up of the South half of the Southeast quarter of Section 17 and 

Lots 1 and 2 of Section 20, Township 24 South, Range 21 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, 

Cochise County, Arizona. It was first claimed within the 160 acre homestead claim of Elmer L. Hertel, as 

reflected in field notes dated March 3, 1915. The map accompanying the claims shows that the Hertel 

claim extended further west than the later Kudzmi homestead and west of the mid-line of Sections 17 and 

20.1304 Simon Kudzmi, a naturalized immigrant from Russia, settled on the 133.67 acre claim in October 

1928 and built a house in February 1929. Joe Zaleski was one of the witnesses for Kudzmi when he filed 

his final proofs.1305 

 Evidently, Zaleski then bought the claim from Kudzmi at some point before 1950. In October 

1950, Joe Zaleski transferred ownership of all of his considerable property, except the Pyeatt Homestead, to 

his son Frank by way of a Gift Deed. In 1956, Frank quit-claimed it back to Joe. Included in these two 

transfers were Homestead Entry Surveys 310 and 311 and the Kudzmi Homestead.1306 In April 1957, Joe 

Zaleski sold the same property to John A. and Inez Z. Jones along with some cattle and horses, 

“miscellaneous tools, equipment, and furniture,” and a stock brand.1307

 

1298 Lopez, “Montezuma Ranch Acquisition Process Briefing Paper,” n.d.; Cousins to Hobbs, Lopez, and Humphries, 

August 12, 1996. 

1299 Forfeiture Judgement as to Claimant Elsie Weick, January 6, 1996. 1300 Ethan Steele, Attorney at Law, Tucson, Arizona, to Paul Tatham, I.R.P. District Headquarters, Sierra Vista, 

Arizona, April 19, 1996, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1301 U.S. Department of the Interior Certificate of Inspection and Possession, Tract 101-40, signed by Edward Lopez, 

January 13, 1998, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1302 United States Marshal’s Special Warranty Deed, Alfred E. Madrid, United States Marshal for the District of 

Arizona, to The United States of America for the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

January 3, 1998, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1303 Notification of Closing, Tract 101-41, February 2, 1998, Coronado National Memorial Files. 1304 Field Notes, Coronado National Forest, Elmer L. Hertel, March 3, 1915, Coronado National Memorial 

Administrative Records, Western Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1425: Land 

Holdings – Kudzmi. 

1305 Notice of Publication, Simon Kudzmi, August 29, 1929; Testimony of Claimant, Simon Kudzmi, Final Proof, 

December 28, 1929; Testimonies of Witnesses William Norick and Joseph Zaleski, Homestead Entry, Final Proof, 

December 28, 1929, Coronado National Memorial Administrative Records, Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Kudzmi. 

1306 Barbour, “Dude Ranches,” from Tracking Book, Cochise County Assessor’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona; Quit-Claim 

Deed, Frank Zaleski to Jose Zaleski, Signed January 3, 1956, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 142, pages 239-241. 

1307 Warranty Deed, Joe Zaleski, aka José, and wife Lucy, to John A. and Inez Z. Jones, Signed April 19, 1957, Cochise 

County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 166, pages 587-588. 

387
 The Kudzmi Homestead, along with some of of Homestead Entry Survey 310 and all of 

Homestead Entry Survey 311, was given by John A. and Inez Z. Jones to John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones 

“for and in consideration of the love and affection” of parents for their children in 1962.1308 They sold the 

total amount to the Baumkirchner brothers, Everett and Fred, and their wives, Margaret E. and Mary Ann, 

respectively, in 1965. The purchase price was not recorded, but the Jones brothers carried a $45,000 

mortgage on the property.1309 In 1973, the Baumkirchners traded 541.43 acres, including most of their land 

in the area of the Memorial, to the National Forest Service for other land of equal value. Included in the 

land exchange was the entire Kudzmi Homestead, the remainder of HES 310 not already within the 

Memorial, and a 50 acre portion of the southwest corner of HES 311.1310

7. The State of Texas Mine Property

 The State of Texas Mine occupies the site of the “oldest historic mine claim in Montezuma 

Canyon,” the Lena claim. The Lena mine was located in May 1878 by George J. Rasking and John L. 

Harris and recorded the next month by D.B. Ren. The Lena was renamed the Chicago Mine in 1885 under 

the ownership of Peter Connor and A.W. Emanuel.1311 Connor (or Conner) and his partners filed several 

claims in Montezuma Canyon in 1879, among which was the Lookout, also thought to be on land later 

occupied by the State of Texas and its companion claims.1312 The State of Texas Mine itself was founded 

in the same location in 1889. There is some disagreement as to the exact ownership of the State of Texas 

during its first few years of operation. Geoffrey T. Bohrer cites an 1889 claim by August Baron that 

reported a find of “mineral bearing quartz.”1313 However, Peter M. Van Cleve, using Deeds of Mines in the 

Cochise County Recorders Office in Bisbee, Arizona, writes that Richard C. Van Dorn made the first State 

of Texas claim in 1889. According to Van Cleve, Van Dorn soon sold a one-third share of the mine to 

Peter Connor, who, in turn, sold it and other local mine interests to William Graf in 1892. In the meantime, 

in 1891, August Baron, exercising Power of Attorney for Van Dorn, sold the remaining two-thirds share of 

the State of Texas Mine and another mine to Graf. Then, in 1893, Baron, a banker and miner from 

Tombstone, purchased all of Graf’s interests, including the State of Texas.1314

 In any case, by the middle of the 1890s, the State of Texas Mine belonged to August Baron. 

Baron had the claim surveyed in 1897 and the plat was approved in 1898.1315 In 1902, over forty mines in 

Montezuma and Copper canyons, including the State of Texas, were leased by the Mitchell Mining 

Company, of Ishpeming, Michigan, which mined copper at the site. Mitchell relinquished the leases in 

1906 and they reverted to their former owners.1316 Almost immediately, the Gray Metals Company began 

to operate the mine, which was still owned by Baron. By 1914, the Texas No. 2, Extension, Bonita, 

 

1308 Deed of Gift, John A. and Inez Z. Jones, of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, to John Z. and Lawrence D. Jones, Signed 

April 24, 1962, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 300, pages 406-407. 1309 Joint Tenancy Deed, John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. Jones to Everett Baumkirchner and Margaret E. 

Baumkirchner, husband and wife, an undivided half interest, Signed May 26, 1965, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, 

Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, page 21; Joint Tenancy Deed, John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. 

Jones to Fred and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, an undivided half interest, Signed May 26, 1965, 

Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, page 22; Realty Mortgage, 

Everett Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, his wife, and Fred Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, 

his wife, with John Z. Jones and Lawrence D. Jones, Signed June 1, 1965, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, 

Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 389, page 23. 

1310 Warranty Deed, Fred E. Baumkirchner and Mary Ann Baumkirchner, husband and wife, and Everett M. 

Baumkirchner and Margaret E. Baumkirchner, husband and wife, to Transamerica Title Insurance Company, as 

Trustee, Signed March 11, 1972, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 

841, pages 215-216; Warranty Deed, Transamerica Title Insurance Company to United States of America, Signed 

March 1, 1973, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 841, page 218. 1311 Peter M. Van Cleve, “History of Mining in the Coronado National Memorial” (1997), pp. 2-8, Coronado National 

Memorial Files. 

1312 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) on the Coronado National Memorial,” April 19, 1996, 

Coronado National Memorial Files. 

1313 Baron claim, 1/1/1889, and Baron claim papers, 4/4/1898, from Geoffrey T. Bohrer, “Siamese Triplets: Grace 

Sparkes, The State of Texas Mine, and the Coronado National Memorial,” (National Park Service, 1993), pp. 1-2. 1314 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 3-4. 1315 Bohrer, “Siamese Triplets,” pp. 1-2. 1316 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 5; Bohrer calls it the Mitchell Development Company, Bohrer, “Siamese 

Triplets, p. 2. 

388
Josephine, and New York mines had been added to the operation.1317 August Baron died in 1913 and his 

mine properties were passed on to his wife, Christine. She promptly sold them to Douglas Gray of 

Tombstone, the owner of Gray Metals Company. In 1920, Gray took on two partners, Maurice Clark, of 

Douglas, and William H. Stilwell, of Phoenix, and incorporated a new incarnation of the Gray Metals 

Company as a publicly owned corporation. Gray sold his mines to the new corporation in 1920 fo $20,000. 

Only two years later, the State of Texas, Texas No. 2, Extension, Bonita, Josephine, and New York mines 

were sold at public auction as part of a court judgement against Gray. Nathan L. Amster bought them in 

August 1922 for $9,370.90.1318

 In September 1926, T.J. Sparkes, of Prescott, Arizona, and Burdett Moody, of Los Angeles, 

California, purchased several mining claims in the Hartford Mining District from Nathan L. and Estelle D. 

Amster for $5,000. The purchase included the State of Texas, State of Texas No. 2, Extension, Bonita, 

Josephine, and New York mines.1319 In a January 1939 letter, Grace Sparkes told Burdett Moody that her 

father, T.J. Sparkes, had recently died, which left her in control of his portion.1320 She shared ownership of 

a half interest in the State of Texas property with her siblings as joint heirs to their father, T.J. Sparkes. 

However, she was the most active partner. In June 1942, Grace Sparkes was given total control of the State 

of Texas mine property when Moody quit-claimed his share with the stipulation that he would receive half 

of future net profits or half of the net proceeds of any future sale.1321 In September, the other Sparkes heirs 

quit-claimed their shares to Grace as well.1322 Burdett Moody died in 1946. It is unclear what the 

relationship between he and Sparkes was at the time and whether his widow retained an interest in the 

property.1323

 In 1960, forty acres were excluded from Coronado National Memorial and added to the Coronado 

National Forest. Half of that land made up the Billy Boy mine claim, owned by Grace Sparkes [see IntraGovernmental Transfers].1324 Grace Sparkes died in 1963, leaving the State of Texas mine property to her 

four nephews. During the previous few years she had improved the property and offered it for sale to NPS 

as well as on the open market.1325 The State of Texas properties were designated Tracts 101-06, 101-07, 

and 101-08. They were eventually sold together by William Sparkes. However, they were not consistently 

described as separate entities. The three tracts were combined in different ways in various documents. 

Therefore, each will be briefly described and transactions unique to each will be presented; then they will 

be dealt with as a group. 

Tract 101-06 20.59 acres 

Description

 A 1979 appraisal described 20.59 acres to be acquired by fee. This property consisted of one 

patented mining claim, State of Texas No. 2. The property was described in National Park Service records 

 

1317 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 5-6. 1318 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 6-7. 1319 Sale Agreement, Nathan L. and Estelle D. Amster to T.J. Sparkes and Burdett Moody, September 1, 1926, Sparkes 

Collection, Box 12, Folder 464, Arizona Historical Society; Mining Deed, Nathan L. and Estelle D. Amster to T.J. 

Sparkes and Burdett Moody, September 27, 1926, The Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona 

Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 12, Folder 470. 1320 Letter, Grace Sparkes, Prescott, Az., to Burdett Moody, c/o The Bureau Light, Water and Power, Los Angeles, Ca., 

January 30, 1939, The Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, 

Arizona, Box 7, Folder 294. 

1321 Mining Deed, Burdett and Sarah C. Moody sell and quit claim to Grace Sparkes, June 9, 1942, The Grace M. 

Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 12, Folder 470; also see 

Folder 468. 

1322 Mining Deed, Thomas J. Sparkes Jr. and wife Maybelle; Charity S. and Perry L. Bones; and Genevieve Sparkes, 

widow of John G. Sparkes; all of Yavapai County, sell and quit claim all of the mine claims to Grace Sparkes, 

September 21, 1942, The Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, 

Arizona, Box 12, Folder 470. 

1323 Letter, Sarah Moody to Grace Sparkes, 1946, The Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona 

Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 7, Folder 299. 1324 Land Ownership Record, NPS, September 2, 1960. 1325 Gentry, McNulty & Tori, Attorneys at Law, Bisbee, Arizona, to Acting Superintendent, Coronado National 

Memorial, October 14, 1965, Coronado National Memorial Administrative Records, Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Sparkes & Acquisition; also see other 

memos and letters in the same folder for improvements and sales prospects. 

389
as vacant of building improvements. The property was generally located in the Southwest quarter of the 

Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 24 South, Range 20 East, Gila and Salt River Base and 

Meridian. The terrain was mountainous.1326

Tract 101-07 20.66 acres 

AKA Parcel No. 14. 

AKA P-12.1327 

Description

 Tract 101-07 was the State of Texas Lode Mining Claim in the Hartford Mining District, being 

shown on Mineral Survey No. 1280 on file in the Bureau of land Management, as granted by Patent 

recorded in Book 14 of Deeds of Mines, page 481, records of Cochise County, Arizona.1328

 In a 1979 appraisal it was described as 20.66 acres to be acquired by fee. The property contained 

a 10’ x 18’ unoccupied wood cabin. The property was mountainous terrain, generally bisected by the 

section line between Sections 12 and 13, Township 24 South, Range 20 East, Gila and Salt River Base and 

Meridian.1329

Ownership/Disposition 

 Tract 101-07, the State of Texas Lode Mining Claim, was shared by four heirs of Grace Sparkes 

until 1980. Charles J. Sparkes, Jack M. Sparkes, Thomas Frederick Sparkes, and William J. Sparkes each 

held an undivided quarter interest as their sole and separate property.1330

 In April 1980 the State of Texas Lode, encompassing 20.66 acres, was transferred by Charles J. 

Sparkes, Jack M. Sparkes, and Thomas F. Sparkes, to William J. Sparkes. Thomas F. Sparkes 

acknowledged the quit claim before a notary on the same day, the other two did so in 1986.1331 

Tract 101-08 10 acres 

Description

 Tract 101-08 was described in 1979 as 10 acres to be acquired by fee. This property consists of 

one patented mining claim, “State of Texas No. 2 Millsite.” According to National Park Service records, 

the property was improved with several residential/cabin structures, utility buildings, and other 

miscellaneous improvements. The property was generally located in the South half of the Northwest 

quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 13, Township 24 South, Range 20 East, Gila and Salt River 

Base and Meridian. It was bisected by the paved Coronado Memorial Highway (62).1332

Tracts 101-06 and 101-08 

AKA Parcel No. 1. 

AKA P-11.1333

 These two tracts were often consolidated because of common ownership although they are not 

directly adjacent. 

Description

 Appraisal documents described Tracts 101-06 and 101-08 together as Parcel No. 1: 

 The State of Texas No. 2 Lode Mining Claim; and The State of Texas Mill Site; and The 

State of Texas No. 2 Mill Site Millsite Claims in the Hartford Mining District, being shown on 

Mineral Survey Nos. 4335A and 4335B on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as granted by 

Patent recorded in Docket 71, page 181 to 184, records of Cochise County, Arizona; 

 Except all that portion within the boundaries of the property shown on Mineral Survey 

No. 3642, and all veins, lodes and ledges, throughout their entire depth, the tops or apexes of 

which be inside of said excluded portion, as set forth in said Patent; and 

 

1326 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1327 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1328 Ibid. 1329 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1330 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1331 Quit Claim Deed, Charles J. Sparkes, Jack M. Sparkes, and Thomas F. Sparkes, to William J. Sparkes, Dated April 

9, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1332 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1333 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 

390
 Except from the State of Texas No. 2 Mill Site, Millsite Claim, all uranium, thorium or 

any other material which is or may be determined to be peculiarly essential to the production of 

fissionable materials, whether or not of commercial value, as reserved in Patent from the United 

States of America.1334

Ownership/Disposition

 Ownership of this parcel was described as divided between William J. Sparkes, of Hereford, 

Arizona, a married man, as his sole and separate property, as to an undivided 1⁄4 interest; and William J. 

Sparkes, a married man as to an undivided 3⁄4 interest. The rights of Patricia, as the spouse of William J. 

Sparkes on July 18, 1974, to an undivided 3⁄4 interest were protected. “Spouse failed to disclaim at time of 

acquisition of an interest in the property by instrument recorded in Docket 948, page 457 to 460).”1335 

Parenthetically, a September 1979 newspaper article identified Sparkes’s wife at that time as “Dean.”1336

Tracts 101-06 and 101-07. 

 These two tracts of the State of Texas Mine property were appraised for mineral value together. 

An April 1980 memorandum reported that appraisers of the Western Regional Office had prepared an 

estimate “for the purpose of providing a basis for ceiling increase for the 1982 fiscal year. Appraiser 

Robert F. Temple included within the Sparkes appraisals (Tracts 101-06 and 101-07) a mineral value of 

$119,540 as furnished by the Division of Mining and Minerals.” The letter mentions a very unstable silver 

market and added that, with the exceptions of lead and zinc, the precious metal market was expected to 

remain volatile.1337

Tracts 101-06, 101-07, and 101-08

Ownership/Disposition 

 On 29 December 1986, William J. and Patricia M. Sparkes sold 51.25 acres to NPS for $540,000. 

The land was described as Tract Numbers 101-06, 101-07, and 101-08. The deed was labeled 

“CORONADO NM DEED NO. 21.”1338

8. Victorio Company mining property

 In 1978, the date that the Memorial expanded to the north side of Montezuma Canyon via a land 

exchange with the National Forest Service, thirteen claims were owned by The Victorio Company. Most of 

them had once been owned by Bruce Doredor. The claims were in two groups separated by the State of 

Texas mine properties. To the east were Doredor, Paring No. 1, Paring No. 2, Paring No. 3, and Paring No. 

4. To the west were Z.T. Parker, Chief, Fraction, Rubio, Tunnelsite, Miss Stake, Grub Stake No. 2, and 

Grub Stake No. 3. 

 According to a summary of mine claims compiled at Coronado National Memorial, the Miss 

Stake, Grub Stake No. 2, and Grub Stake No. 3 mine claims, along with three others in their immediate 

vicinity, were claimed by Felix Livercio in March 1899. The Doredor, Paring No. 1, Paring No. 2, Paring 

No. 3, Paring No. 4, Z.T. Parker, Chief, Fraction, Rubio, and Tunnelsite were claimed by Bruce Doredor. 

The four Paring mines were claimed in 1901 and the Doredor in 1920. The western group are said to have 

been claimed in 1909.1339 All thirteen claims were patented by Bruce Doredor on April 10, 1920.1340

 The same summary of mine claims cited above lists purchase of Z.T. Parker, Chief, Fraction, 

Rubio, Tunnelsite, Grub Stake No. 2, and Miss Stake by “Clark/Smith” in 1938.1341 Bill Clark was on the 

Board of Supervisors and was said to have purchased the property for back taxes.1342 In 1960, forty acres 

 

1334 Ibid. 1335 Ibid. 1336 “His aunt helped build park that could dispossess him,” The Arizona Daily Star, September 13, 1979, D:1. 1337 Memorandum, Regional Director, Western Region, to Associate Director, Management and Operations, NPS, 

Subject: Legislative Cost Estimate, Coronado National Memorial, April 1, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources 

Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1338 Grant Deed, William J. and Patricia M. Sparkes, to NPS, Signed December 29, 1986, Intermountain Land 

Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1339 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands;” “Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) and Related List of Classified 

Structure (LCS),” n.d., Coronado National Memorial Files. 1340 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands.” 1341 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands.” 1342 Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Thomas Mulhern, February 23, 1976. 

391
were removed from Coronado National Memorial and added to the Coronado National Forest in order to 

exclude current mining claims from the Memorial. Half of that land was on and around the Z.T. Parker 

claim [see Intra-Governmental Transfers]. 

 In July 1970, Ruth M. Clark, a widow, and Charles A. and Paquita C. Smith, sold several mining 

properties, including the thirteen Doredor claims in the Hartford Mining District of the Montezuma 

Mountains that fell within the eventual boundaries of Coronado National Memorial. The sellers were, 

evidently, Bill Clark’s widow and his partner. The buyers were Coronado Investment Company, a 

partnership comprised of Peter G. Wray and H. Wayne Pruett.1343 In 1973, the properties were transferred 

to Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, made up of the same partners.1344 By 1979, Pruett-Wray had changed its 

name to “Victorio Land and Cattle Company” and then to “The Victorio Company.”1345

 In 1979, the Victorio properties were considered as two separate tracts, which were separated by 

the State of Texas mine properties. The westernmost tract, called Tract 101-05, consisted of the Z.T. 

Parker, Chief, Fraction, Rubio, Tunnelsite, Miss Stake, Grub Stake No. 2, and Grub Stake No. 3 claims. It 

held a total area of 154.54 acres [See Tract 101-05]. The eastern properties, Doredor, Paring No. 1, Paring 

No. 2, Paring No. 3, and Paring No. 4, made up Tract 101-09, 84.31 acres. Tract 101-09 was further 

divided by sale in 1979. The western half of that property was sold to James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle 

and became known as Tract 101-22.1346 The remaining property was designated Tract 101-21. [See Tracts 

101-21 and 101-22 below.] 

Tract 101-05 154.54 acres 

AKA Parcel No. 3. 

AKA P-14.1347 

Description 

 A 1979 appraisal described 154.54 acres to be acquired by fee. It was improved with an 

approximately 756 square foot frame building, an approximately 590 square foot rock building, and an 

approximately 280 square foot corrigated metal shed, all of which were believed to be unoccupied. Access 

to the property was judged difficult.1348

 When Tract 101-05 was sold to NPS in 1980, it was described as follows: 

THE Z.T. PARKER, CHIEF, FRACTION, RUBIO, TUNNELSITE, MISS TAKE, GRUB STAKE 

NO. 2 and GRUB STAKE NO. 3 LODE MINING CLAIMS in the Hartford Mining District, being 

shown on Mineral Survey No. 3642, on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as granted by Patent 

recorded in Book 30 of Deeds of Mines, page 326, records of Cochise County, Arizona.1349

Ownership/Disposition 

 Tract 101-05 was purchased by ownership that became the Victorio Company in 1970 [See 

above]. On 26 March 1980, The Victorio Company sold 196.73 acres to NPS for $340,000. That sale 

comprised Tracts 101-05 and 101-21 [See Tract 101-21 below]. A hand written note identified the deed as 

“DEED # 5.”1350 

Tract 101-09 84.31 acres 

AKA Parcel No. 2. 

 

1343 Warranty Deed, Ruth M. Clark, a widow, and Charles A. Smith and Paquita C. Smith, his wife, to Coronado 

Investment Company, a partnership comprised of Peter G. Wray and H. Wayne Pruett, co-partners, Recorded July 2, 

1970, Deeds of Real Estate, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Docket 645, pages 543-545. 1344 Warranty Deed, Coronado Investment Company to Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, Signed May 1, 1973, Deeds of 

Real Estate, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Docket 871, pages 481-483. 1345 Deed (Joint Tenancy), The Victorio Company, an Arizona Corporation; formerly Victorio Land and Cattle 

Company, an Arizona Corporation; formerly Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, an Arizona Corporation, to James J. Wardle 

and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, Signed December 18, 1979, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, 

Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1388, pages 333-334. 

1346 Ibid. 1347 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1348 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1349 Grant Deed, The Victorio Company, an Arizona Corporation which acquired title as Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, 

an Arizona Corporation, to NPS, Executed March 26, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, 

Santa Fe, N.M. 

1350 Ibid. 

392
AKA P-13.1351

Description: 

 Tract 101-09 was made up of the eastern bloc of mining properties owned by the Victorio 

Company, including the Doredor, Paring No. 1, Paring No. 2, Paring No. 3, and Paring No. 4 Lode Mining 

Claims in Hartford Mining District, being shown on Mineral Survey No. 3641 on file in the Bureau of Land 

Management, as granted by Patent recorded in Book 30 of Deeds of Mines, page 332, records of Cochise 

County, Arizona.1352

 A 1979 appraisal described it as 84.31 acres to be acquired in fee. According to National Park 

Service records, the property was vacant and unimproved of structures. Access was by an undescribed jeep 

road. The property was generally located in Northeast quarter of Section 13, and South half of the 

Southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 24 South, Range 20 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian.1353

Ownership/Disposition

 Tract 101-09 was purchased by ownership that became the Victorio Company in 1970 [See 

above]. It was split into Tracts 101-21 and 101-22 in 1979. [See Tracts 101-21 and 101-22 below.] 

Tract 101-21 42.16 acres 

Description

 Tract 101-21 was made up of the eastern part of 101-09. When it was sold to NPS in 1980, it was 

described as follows: 

THE DOREDOR, PARING NO. ONE, PARING NO. 2, PARING NO. THREE and PARING NO. 4 

LODE MINING CLAIMS, in Hartford Mining District, being shown on Mineral Survey No. 3641 on 

file in the Bureau of Land Management, as granted by Patent recorded in Book 30 of Deeds of Mines, 

page 332, records of Cochise County, Arizona; 

 EXCEPT those portions of PARING NO. 1, PARING NO. 2, and PARING NO. 3 and all of THE 

DOREDOR MINING CLAIMS, located in the Hartford Mining District and situated in portions of 

Sections 12 and 13, Township 24 South, Range 20 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, 

Cochise County, Arizona, being shown on mineral survey No. 3641 on file in the Bureau of Land 

Management as granted by Patent recorded June 10, 1922 in Book 30 of Deeds of Mines, page 332, 

records of Cochise County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows: 

BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of PARING NO. 3 LODE; 

thence North 01° 32’ 00” East coincident with the Westerly line of PARING NO. 3 LODE, a 

distance of 617.40 feet to a point on the Southerly line of PARING NO. 2 LODE; 

thence North 74° 47’ 00” West coincident with said line, a distance of 500.00 feet to the 

Southwest corner of PARING NO. 2 LODE: 

thence North 01° 32’ 00” East coincident with the Westerly line of PARING NO. 2 LODE, a 

distance of 617.40 feet to the Southwest corner of DOREDOR LODE; 

thence North 00° 11’ 00” West coincident with the Westerly line of THE DOREDOR LODE, a 

distance of 622.20 feet to the Northwest corner of THE DOREDOR LODE; 

thence South 74° 47’ 00” East coincident with the Northerly line of THE DOREDOR LODE, a 

distance of 881.00 feet to the Northeast corner of PARING NO. 1 LODE; 

thence continuing South 74° 47’ 00” East coincident with the Northerly line of PARING NO. 1 

LODE, a distance of 254.60 feet; 

thence South 02° 24’ 29” East a distance of 1883.25 feet to a point on the South line of PARING 

NO. 3 LODE; 

thence North 74° 47’ 00” West coincident with the South line of PARING NO. 3 LODE, a 

distance of 750.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.1354

Ownership/Disposition

 The Victorio Company retained ownership of Tract 101-21 when Tract 101-09 was subdivided. 

On 26 March 1980, The Victorio Company sold 196.73 acres to NPS for $340,000. That sale comprised 

Tracts 101-05 and 101-21. A hand written note identified the deed as “DEED # 5.”1355

 

1351 Transamerica Title Insurance Company Preliminary Report, n.d. 1352 Ibid. 1353 Request for bids for appraisal of properties by A.W. Gray, May 4, 1979. 1354 Grant Deed, The Victorio Company, to NPS, Executed March 26, 1980. 1355 Ibid. 

393
Tract 101-22 42.15 acres 

AKA Parcel A of the Doredor Claim.1356

Description

 Tract 101-22 was the western part of Tract 101-09. When it was sold to James J. and Jacqueline 

S. Wardle, it was described as follows: 

Those portions of Paring No. 1, Paring No. 2 and Paring No. 3 and all of the Doredor Mining 

Claims, located in the Hartford Mining District, and situated in portions of Sections 12 and 13 

Township 24 South, Range 20 East of the G. & S. R. B. & M., Cochise County, Arizona, being 

shown on Mineral Survey No. 3641 on file in the Bureau of Land Management as granted by 

patent recorded June 10, 1922, in Book 30 of Deeds of Mines, at Page 332, more particularly 

described as follows: 

Beginning at the Southwest corner of Paring No. 3 lode, Thence North 01 Degrees 32’ 00” 

East coincident with the Westerly line of Paring No. 3 Lode a distance of 617.40 feet to a point on 

the Southerly line of Paring No. 2 Lode; 

 Thence North 74 Degrees 47’ 00” West coincident with said line a distance of 500.00 feet 

to the Southwest corner of Paring No. 2 Lode; 

 Thence North 01 Degrees 32’ 00” East coincident with the Westerly line of Paring No. 2 

Lode a distance of 617.40 feet to the Southwest corner of Doredor Lode; 

 Thence North 00 Degrees 11’ 00” West coincident with the Westerly line of the Doredor 

Lode a distance of 622.20 feet to the Northwest corner of the Doredor Lode; 

 Thence South 74 Degrees 47’ 00” East coincident with the Northerly line of the Doredor 

Lode a distance of 881.00 feet to the Northeast corner of Paring No. 1 Lode; 

 Thence continuing South 74 Degrees 47’ 00” East coincident with the Northerly line of 

Paring No. 1 Lode a distance of 254.60 feet; 

 Thence South 02 Degrees 24’ 29” East a distance of 1883.25 feet to a point on the South 

line of Paring No. 3 Lode; 

 Thence North 74 Degrees 47’ 00” West coincident with the South line of Paring No. 3 

Lode a distance of 750.00 feet to the point of beginning. 

Reserving unto the Grantors herein an Easement for Ingress, Egress and Utility purposes in and over a strip 

of land 50 feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: 

Beginning at a point on the South line of Paring No. 3 Lode, being also the South line of Parcel A 

from which the Southwest corner of said Paring No. 3 Lode, being also the Soutwest corner of 

Parcel A, Bears North 74 Degrees 47 Minutes 00 Seconds West 454.21 Feet distant, Thence North 

30 Degrees 20 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 161.06 Feet, Thence North 19 Degrees 43 

Minutes 15 Seconds East a distance of 72.89 Feet, Thence South 57 Degrees 59 Minutes 52 

Seconds East a distance of 108.84 Feet, Thence North 89 Degrees 53 Minutes 03 Seconds East a 

distance of 77.61 Feet to its Point of Termination being also a point on the East line of said Parcel 

A from which the Southwest corner of said Paring No.3 Lode bears South 02 Degrees 24 Minutes 

29 Seconds East 227.94 Feet distant and North 74 Degrees 47 Minutes 00 Seconds West 750.00 

Feet distant the Side Lines of said 50 Foot Easement to be extended or shortened to meet at Angle 

points and to Terminate at the East line of said Parcel A.1357

Ownership/Disposition

The Victorio Company, an Arizona Corporation; formerly Victorio Land and Cattle Company, an 

Arizona Corporation; formerly Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, an Arizona Corporation, divided Tract 101-

09 and sold half, consisting of Tract 101-22, to James J. Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and 

wife, in December 1979.1358 Tract 101-22 was subdivided to create Tracts 101-33 through 101-37 [see 

below]. 

Tract 101-33 13.05 acres 

Description

 

1356 Memorandum, Division of Land Acquisitioin, Western Region, NPS, to Chief, Coordination and Control Branch, 

Washington Office, NPS, May 12, 1980, Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1357 Deed (Joint Tenancy), The Victorio Company, to James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle, Signed December 18, 1979. 1358 Ibid. 

394
 Tract 101-33 was made up of the southeast section of Tract 101-22.1359 In August 1983, James J. 

and Jacqueline Wardle sold a property, which came to be known as Tract 101-33, to Richard D. and Judy 

L. Compton. It was described as: 

Those portions of the Paring No. 2 and No. 3 Mining Claims, located in the Hartford Mining 

District, and situated in Portions of Sections 12 and 13, Township 24 South, Range 20 East, of the 

G. & S. R. B & M., Cochise County, Arizona, being shown on Mineral Survey No. 3641 on file in 

the Bureau of Land Management as granted by patent recorded June 10, 1922, in Book 30 of 

Deeds of Mines at Page 332, more particularly described as follows: 

Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 13; 

Thence South 6 Degrees 40 Minutes 10 Seconds East, a distance of 351.84 feet to the Beginning 

of an access easement as described in Docket 1671 at Page 161, Cochise County Records; 

Thence North 75 Degrees 13 Minutes 06 Seconds West, a distance of 15.09 feet; 

Thence South 8 Degrees 25 Minutes 14 Seconds West, a distance of 59.00 feet being on the 

Westerly side line of said access easement, also being the True Point of Beginning; 

Thence South 75 Degrees 13 Minutes 06 Seconds East, a distance of 776.69 feet to a point being 

on the Easterly line of that parcel as described in Docket 1388 at Page 333, Cochise County 

Records; 

Thence South 3 Degrees 01 Minutes 10 Seconds East along said Easterly line, a distance of 885.08 

feet to a half inch rebar capped L.S. 9086 being the Southeast corner of said parcel as recorded in 

Docket 1388 at Page 333, Cochise County Records; 

Thence North 75 Degrees 13 Minutes 06 Seconds West, a distance of 747.31 feet (whose record is 

750.00 feet) to a half inch rebar capped L.S. 9086 being the Southwest corner of said parcel as 

recorded in Docket 1388 at Page 333, Cochise County Records; 

Thence North 0 Degrees 50 Minutes 28 Seconds East along the Westerly line of said Paring No. 3, 

a distance of 471.01 feet; 

Thence South 75 Degrees 13 Minutes 06 Seconds East, a distance of 78.80 feet to an angle point 

on the Westerly side line of said access easement; 

Thence North 26 Degrees 08 Minutes 24 Seconds East, a distance of 177.00 feet; 

Thence North 15 Degrees 30 Minutes 04 Seconds West, a distance of 120.28 feet; 

Thence North 68 Degrees 18 Minutes 58 Seconds West, a distance of 170.87 feet; 

Thence North 30 Degrees 21 Minutes 04 Seconds West, a distance of 95.37 feet; 

Thence North 8 Degrees 25 Minutes 14 Seconds East, a distance of 20.48 feet to the True Point of 

Beginning.1360 Tract 101-33 was sold to NPS in 1984 as three parcels and an access easement. They were 

described as follows: 

PARCEL 1 

A metes and bounds description of a parcel of land being a portion of the Paring Number 3 Mining 

Claim, Mineral Survey No. 3641, in Section 13, T24S, R20E, Gila and Salt Meridian, Cochise County, 

Arizona and more specifically described as follows: 

 BEGINNING at the North 1⁄4 corner of said Section 13; thence S 4° 05’ 29” E a distance of 

1298.63 feet to a 1⁄2” rebar capped L.S. 9086, being the Southwest corner of that parcel as described in 

Docket 1388, Page 337, Cochise County Records, also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

thence N 0° 50’ 28” E along the Westerly line of said Paring No. 3 a distance of 471.01 feet; thence S 

75° 13’ 06” E a distance of 78.80 feet to an angle point on the Westerly side line of an access easement 

as described in Docket 1671, Page 161, Cochise County Records; thence N 26° 08’ 24” E along said 

Westerly side line a distance of 36.47 feet; thence N 81° 28’ 45” E a distance of 122.74 feet to an angle 

point on the Northerly side line of said access easement; thence S 72° 44’ 18” E a distance of 82.69 

feet to an angle point on said Northerly side line; thence S 75° 13’ 06” E a distance of 76.75 feet; 

thence S 3° 01’ 10” E a distance of 564.92 feet to the South line of said parcel as described in Docket 

1388, Page 337, Cochise County Records; thence N 75° 13’ 06” W a distance of 417.31 feet to the 

TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 

 

1359 Laurel W. Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 

1986. 

1360 Joint Tenancy Deed, James J. Wardle and Jacqueline Wardle (aka Jacqueline S. Wardle), husband and wife, to 

Richard D. Compton and Judy L. Compton, husband and wife, Signed August 29, 1983, Cochise County Recorder’s 

Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1700, pages 285-286. 

395
Containing 4.69 Acres more or less. 

 Included in the above described parcel is a portion of an access easement recorded in Docket 

1671, Page 161, Cochise County Records, leaving a net Acreage of 4.02 Acres more or less. 

PARCEL 2

 A metes and bounds description of a parcel of land being a portion of the Paring Number 3 Mining 

Claim, Mineral Survey No. 3641, in Section 13, T24S, R20E, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Cochise 

County, Arizona and more specifically described as follows: 

 BEGINNING at the North 1⁄4 corner of said Section 13; thence S 4° 05’ 29” E a distance of 

1298.63 feet to a 1⁄2” rebar capped L.S. 9086, being the Southwest corner of that parcel as described in 

Docket 1388, Page 337, Cochise County Records; thence S 75° 13’ 06” E along the South line of said 

Parcel as described in Docket 1388, Page 337, Cochise County Records a distance of 417.31 feet to the 

TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 3° 01’ 10” W a distance of 564.92 thence S 75° 13’ 06” E 

a distance of 330.00 feet to the Easterly line of said parcel as described in Docket 1388, Page 337, 

Cochise County Records; thence S 3° 01’ 10” E a distance of 564.92 feet to a 1⁄2” rebar capped L.S. 

9086 being the Southeast corner of said parcel as described in Docket 1388, Page 337, Cochise County 

Records; thence N 75° 13’ 06” W a distance of 330.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 

Containing 4.07 Acres more or less. 

 Included in the above described parcel is a portion of an access easement recorded in Docket 

1671, Page 161, Cochise County Records. Leaving a net acreage of 4.04 Acres more or less. 

PARCEL 3

 A metes and bounds description of a parcel of land being portions of the Paring Numbers 2 and 3 

Mining Claims, Mineral Survey No. 3641, in Section 13, T24S, R20E, Gila and Salt River Meridian, 

Cochise County, Arizona and more specifically described as follows: 

 BEGINNING at the North 1⁄4 corner of said Section 13; thence S 6° 40’ 10” E at a distance of 

351.84 feet to the beginning of an acess (sic) easement as described in Docket 1671, Page 161, Cochise 

County Records; 

thence N 75° 13’ 06” W a distance of 15.09 feet; 

thence S 8° 25’ 14” W a distance of 59.00 feet being on the Westerly side line of said access easement, 

also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

thence S 75° 13’ 06” E a distance of 776.69 feet to a point being on the Easterly line of that parcel as 

described in Docket 1388, Page 337, Cochise County Records; 

thence S 3° 01’ 10” E along said Easterly line a distance of 320.16 feet; 

thence N 75° 13’ 06” W a distance of 406.75 feet to an angle point on the Northerly side line of said 

access easement; thence N 72° 44’ 18” W a distance of 82.69 feet to an angle point on said Northerly 

side line; 

thence S 81° 28’ 45” W a distance of 122.74 feet to the Westerly side line of said access easement; 

thence along said side line the following courses and distances: N 26° 08’ 24” E a distance of 140.53 

feet; thence N 15° 30’ 04” W a distance of 120.28 feet; 

thence N 68° 18’ 58” W a distance of 170.87 feet; 

thence N 30° 21’ 04” W a distance of 95.37 feet; 

thence N 8° 25’ 14” E a distance of 20.48 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 

Containing 4.29 Acres more or less. 

 Included in the above described parcel is a portion of an access easement recorded in Docket 

1671, Page 161, Cochise County Records, leaving a net acreage of 4.06 Acres more or less. 

ACCESS EASEMENT

 A metes and bounds description of an access easement being portions of the Paring No. 2 and 

Doredor Mining Claims, Mineral Survey No. 3641 in Sections 12 and 13, T24S, R20E, Gila and Salt 

River Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona, said access easement being 30.00 feet wide and more 

specifically described as follows: 

 BEGINNING at the North 1⁄4 corner of said Section 13 being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING 

of said access easement; thence N 85° 39’ 12” E a distance of 30.00 feet; thence S 4° 20’ 48” E a 

distance of 349.93 feet; thence S 8° 25’ 14” W a distance of 6.73 feet to the beginning of the Easterly 

side line of an access easement as described in Docket 1671, Page 161, Cochise County Records; 

thence N 75° 13’ 06” W a distance of 30.18 feet to the beginning of the Westerly side line of said 

396
easement as described in Docket 1671, Page 161, Cochise County Records; thence N 4° 20’ 48” W a 

distance of 346.61 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.1361

Ownership/Disposition

 In August 1983, James J. and Jacqueline Wardle sold Tract 101-33 to Richard D. and Judy L. 

Compton.1362 On 12 February 1985, the Comptons sold 13.05 acres in three parcels to NPS for 

$118,750.1363

Tracts 101-34, 101-35, and 101-36

Description

 In January 1980, James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle entered into an agreement with Jacques and 

Audrey C. O’Keefe which transferred the western 456.82 feet of the Wardles’ property, Tract 101-22, to 

the O’Keefes. The description was as follows: 

The most Westerly 456.82 feet of the following described property; 

Those portions of Paring No. 1, Paring No. 2 and Paring No. 3 and all of the Doredor Mining 

Claims, located in the Hartford Mining District, and situated in portions of Sections 12 and 13, 

Township 24 South, Range 20 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County, 

Arizona, being shown on Mineral Survey Number 3641 on file in the Bureau of Land 

Management as granted by Patent recorded June 10, 1922, in Book 30 of Deeds of Mines, at page 

332, more particularly described as follows: 

Beginning at the Southwest corner of Paring No. 3 Lode; 

Thence North 01 Degrees 32 Minutes 00 Seconds East, coincident with the Westerly line of 

Paring No. 3 Lode, a distance of 617.40 feet to a point on the Southerly line of Paring No. 2 Lode; 

Thence North 74 Degrees 47 Minutes 00 Seconds West, coincident with said line , a distance of 

500.00 feet to the Southwest corner of Paring No. 2 Lode; 

Thence North 01 Degrees 32 Minutes 00 Seconds East, coincident with the Westerly line of 

Paring No. 2 Lode, a distance of 617.40 feet to the Southwest corner of Doredor Lode; 

Thence North 00 Degrees 11 Minutes 00 Seconds West, coincident with the Westerly line of the 

Doredor Lode, a distance of 622.20 feet to the Northwest corner of the Doredor Lode; 

Thence South 74 Degrees 47 Minutes 00 Seconds East, coincident with the Northerly line of the 

Doredor Lode, a distance of 881.00 feet to the Northeast corner of Paring No. 1 Lode; 

Thence continuing South 74 Degrees 47 Minutes 00 Seconds East, coincident with the Northerly 

line of Paring No. 1 Lode, a distance of 254.60 feet; 

Thence South 02 Degrees 24 Minutes 29 Seconds East, a distance of 1888.25 feet to a point on the 

South line of Paring No. 3 Lode; 

Thence North 74 Degrees 47 Minutes 00 Seconds West, coincident with the South line of Paring 

No. 3 Lode, a distance of 750.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. 

Ownership/Disposition

 In January 1980, James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle entered into an agreement with Jacques and 

Audrey C. O’Keefe transferring this property. It became Tracts 101-34, 101-35, and 101-36.1364 [See 

Tracts 101-34, 101-35, and 101-36]. 

Tract 101-34 4.02 acres 

Description

 Tract 101-34 was made up of the northwest section of Tract 101-22.1365 It was divided out of the 

property sold by Wardle to O’Keefe. It was described as follows: 

 

1361 Grant Deed, Richard D. Compton and Judy L. Compton, husband and wife, to NPS, February 12, 1985, 

Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1362 Joint Tenancy Deed, James J. and Jacqueline Wardle, to Richard D. and Judy L. Compton, Signed August 29, 

1983. 

1363 Grant Deed, Richard D. and Judy L. Compton, to NPS, February 12, 1985. 1364 All-Inclusive Agreement, James J. Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, to Jacques O’Keefe and 

Audrey C. O’Keefe, husband and wife, Signed January 5, 1980, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1395, pages 484-487. 

1365 Laurel W. Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 

1986. 

397
That portion of the DOREDOR MINING CLAIM, located in the Hartford Mining District, and 

situated in portions of Section 12, Township 24 South, Range 20 East of the Gila and Salt River 

Base and Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona, being shown on Mineral Survey Number 3641, on 

file in the Bureau of Land Management, as granted by Patent recorded June 10, 1922, in Book 30 

of Deeds of Mines, at page 332, more particularly described as follows: 

BEGINNING at the South quarter corner of said Section 12; 

thence North 00° 52’ 32” East parallel with the West line of said Doredor, a distance of 118.53 

feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

thence North 75° 13’ 06” West parallel with the North line of said Doredor, a distance of 385.95 

feet to the West line of said Doredor; 

thence North 00° 52’ 32” West, a distance of 471.41 feet to Corner No. 3 of said Doredor; 

thence South 75° 13’ 06” East along the North line of said Doredor, a distance of 385.95 feet; 

thence South 00° 52’ 32” East parallel with said West line of the Doredor, a distance of 471.41 

feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.1366

Ownership/Disposition

 The Wardles sold a property that included Tract 101-34 to Jacques and Audrey O’Keefe in 

January 1980 as part of an All-Inclusive Agreement.1367 The O’Keefe’s sold it to Richard D. and Judy L. 

Compton in December 1983.1368 On 12 February 1985 Richard D. Compton and Judy L. Compton, 

husband and wife, sold the 4.02 acre Tract 101-34 to NPS for $33,400.1369

Tract 101-35 4.03 acres 

Description

 Tract 101-35 was the southwest section of Tract 101-22.1370 It was described as follows when 

sold to NPS: 

Those portions of the PARING NOS. 2 and 3 MINING CLAIMS, Hartford Mining District, in Section 

13, Township 24 South, Range 20 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County 

of Arizona, being shown on Mineral Survey No. 3641 on file in the Bureau of Land Management as 

granted by patent recorded in Book 30 Deeds of Mines page 332, more specifically described as 

follows: 

BEGINNING at the North one-quarter corner of said Section 13; thence South 04° 20’ 48” East, a 

distance of 346.61 feet to the 

beginning of the Westerly side line of an access easement as recorded in Docket 1671 at page 161, 

Cochise County Records, being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

thence South 08° 25’ 14” West, a distance of 79.48 feet; 

thence South 30° 21’ 04” East, a distance of 95.37 feet; 

thence South 68° 18’ 58” East, a distance of 170.87 feet; 

thence South 15° 30’ 04” East, a distance of 120.28 feet; 

thence South 26° 08’ 24” West, a distance of 177.00 feet; 

thence North 75° 13’ 06” West, a distance of 78.80 feet to the 

West line of said PARING No. 3; 

thence North 00° 50’ 28” East, a distance of 145.69 feet to the 

Corner No. 3 of said PARING NO. 3; 

thence North 75° 13’ 06” West, a distance of 500.00 feet to 

Corner No. 2 of said PARING NO. 2; 

thence North 00° 50’ 28” East along the West line of said PARING 

NO. 2, a distance of 312.00 feet; 

 

1366 Grant Deed, Richard D. Compton and Judy L. Compton, husband and wife, to NPS, Signed February 12, 1985, 

Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1367 All-Inclusive Agreement, James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle, to Jacques and Audrey C. O’Keefe, Signed January 5, 

1980. 

1368 Joint Tenancy Deed, Jacques O’Keefe and Audrey O’Keefe, husband and wife, to Richard D. Compton and Judy L. 

Compton, husband and wife, Signed December 28, 1983, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds 

of Real Estate, Docket 1730, pages 579-580. 

1369 Grant Deed, Richard D. and Judy L. Compton, to NPS, Signed February 12, 1985. 1370 Laurel W. Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 

1986. 

398
thence South 75° 13’ 06” East parallel with the South line of 

said PARING NO. 2, a distance of 417.24 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.1371

Ownership/Disposition

 The Wardles sold a property that included Tract 101-35 to Jacques and Audrey O’Keefe in 

January 1980 as part of an All-Inclusive Agreement.1372 Tract 101-35 was sold to Paul E. and Laurel A. 

Froelich in April 1983. A Joint Tenancy Deed was signed naming the Froelichs as tenants and the 

O’Keefe’s as “Grantor, Mortgagor or Trustor.” On the same day, a Warranty Deed transferring the 

property from the Wardles to the O’Keefes was also signed. These linked transactions imply that the 

O’Keefes had still owed the Wardles as part of the 1980 All-Inclusive Agreement.1373 

 On 5 July 1985 Paul E. Froelich and Laurel A. Froelich, husband and wife, sold the 4.03 acre 

Tract 101-35 to NPS for $32,250. The deed was labeled “CORONADO N.M. DEED NO. 19.”1374

Tract 101-36 4.04 acres 

Description

 Tract 101-36 was the western section of Tract 101-22.1375 The tract was described as follows: 

Those portions of the Doredor, PARING NO. 2 and 3 MINING CLAIMS, located in the Hartford 

Mining District, and situated in portions of Section 12 and 13, Township 24 South, Range 20 East of 

the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Cochise County, Arizona, being shown on Mineral Survey 

No. 3641 on file in the Bureau of Land Management as granted by patent recorded June 10, 1922, in 

Book 30 of Deeds of Mines at page 332, more particularly described as follows: 

BEGINNING at the North quarter corner of said Section 13, being the TRUE POINT OF 

BEGINNING; 

thence South 4° 20’ 48” East, a distance of 346.61 feet to the beginning of the Westerly side line of an 

access easement as recorded in Docket 1700 at page 292, Cochise County Records; 

thence North 75° 13’ 06” West parallel with the South line of said Paring No. 2, a distance of 417.24 

feet to the West line of said Paring No. 2; 

thence North 0° 50’ 28” East, a distance of 305.40 feet to corner No. 3 of said Paring No. 2; 

thence North 0° 52’ 32” West along the West line of said DOREDOR, a distance of 150.79 feet; 

thence South 75° 13’ 06” East parallel with the North line of said DOREDOR, a distance of 385.95 

feet; 

thence South 0° 52’ 32” East parallel with said West line of the DOREDOR, a distance of 118.53 feet 

to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 

Except one half of all the mineral rights as reserved in Deed recorded in Docket 1708 page 40, records 

of Cochise County, Arizona.1376

Ownership/Disposition

 The Wardles sold a property that included Tract 101-36 to Jacques and Audrey O’Keefe in 

January 1980 as part of an All-Inclusive Agreement.1377 The O’Keefes sold Tract 101-36 to Valentin 

 

1371 Grant Deed, Paul E. Froelich and Laurel A. Froelich, his wife, to NPS, Signed July 5, 1985, Intermountain Land 

Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 

1372 All-Inclusive Agreement, James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle, to Jacques and Audrey C. O’Keefe, Signed January 5, 

1980. 

1373 Warranty Deed, James J. Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, to Jacques O’Keefe and Audrey C. 

O’Keefe, husband and wife, Signed April 8, 1983, and recorded April 29, 1983, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, 

Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1671, page 162; Joint Tenancy Deed, Jacques O’Keefe and Audrey C. 

O’Keefe, husband and wife, to Paul E. Froelich and Laurel A. Froelich, husband and wife, Signed April 8, 1983, 

Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1671, pages 164-166. 1374 Grant Deed, Paul E. and Laurel A. Froelich, to NPS, Signed July 5, 1985. 1375 Laurel W. Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 

1986. 

1376 Grant Deed, Valentin Castro III and Deborah Castro, husband and wife, to NPS, Signed February 25, 1985, 

Intermountain Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1377 All-Inclusive Agreement, James J. and Jacqueline S. Wardle, to Jacques and Audrey C. O’Keefe, Signed January 5, 

1980. 

399
Castro III and Deborah Castro in August 1983.1378 On 25 February 1985 Valentin Castro III and Deborah 

Castro, husband and wife, sold Tract 101-36, 4.04 acres. to NPS for $33,400.1379

 

Tract 101-37 16.75 acres 

Description

 Tract 101-37 was formerly the northeast section of Tract 101-22.1380 When it was sold to NPS it 

was described as follows: 

That portion of THE DOREDOR, PARING NO. ONE, PARING NO. 2, PARING NO. THREE and 

PARING NO. 4 LODE MINING CLAIMS, in Hartford Mining District, being shown on Mineral 

Survey No. 3641 on file in the Bureau of Land Management, as granted by Patent recorded in Book 30 

of Deeds of Mines, page 332, records of Cochise County, Arizona, described as follows: 

BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of PARING NO. 3 LODE; 

thence North 01° 32’ 00” East coincident with the Westerly line of PARING NO. 3 LODE, a distance 

of 617.40 feet to a point on the Southerly line of PARING NO. 2 LODE; 

thence North 74° 47’ 00” West coincident with said line, a distance of 500.00 feet to the Southwest 

corner of PARING NO. 2 LODE; 

thence North 01° 32’ 00” East coincident with the Westerly line of PARING NO. 2 LODE, a distance 

of 617.40 feet to the Southwest corner of DOREDOR LODE; 

thence North 00° 11’ 00” West coincident with the Westerly line of THE DOREDOR LODE, a 

distance of 622.20 feet to the Northwest corner of THE DOREDOR LODE; 

thence South 74° 47’ 00” East coincident with the Northerly line of THE DOREDOR LODE, a 

distance of 881.00 feet to the Northeast corner of PARING NO. 1 LODE; 

thence continuing South 74° 47’ 00” East coincident with the Northerly line of PARING NO. 1 LODE, 

a distance of 254.60 feet; 

thence South 02° 24’ 29” East a distance of 1883.25 feet to a point on the South line of PARING NO. 

3 LODE; 

thence North 74° 47’ 00” West coincident with the South line of PARING NO. 3 LODE, a distance of 

750.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 

EXCEPT those portions conveyed in Deeds recorded in Docket 1667, page 419 and in Docket 1700, 

page 285, records of Cochise County, Arizona.1381

Ownership/Disposition

 The NPS purchased all the tracts subdivided from 101-22 in 1985. On 6 February 1985 James J. 

Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, sold Tract 101-37, 16.75 acres, to NPS for $120,600. 

A handwritten note on the deed identifies it as “DEED # 15.”1382

 

1378 Joint Tenancy Deed, Jacques O’Keefe and Audrey C. O’Keefe, husband and wife, to Valentin Castro III and 

Deborah Castro, husband and wife, Signed August 29, 1983, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1708, pages 40-43. 

1379 Grant Deed, Valentin Castro III and Deborah Castro, to NPS, Signed February 25, 1985. 1380 Laurel W. Dale to Chief, Energy, Mining and Minerals Division, Minerals Overview Report and Map, March 20, 

1986. 

1381 Grant Deed, James J. Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, his wife, to NPS, Signed February 6, 1985, Intermountain 

Land Resources Program Center Files, NPS, Santa Fe, N.M. 1382 Ibid. 

400
Appendix B 

GRAZING

1940: Three grazing allotments within the area being considered for Coronado National Memorial were 

described in 1940: 

H.D. Lee, who had a yearlong term permit to graze 650 head of cattle as well as a temporary permit that 

covered a short period for any natural increase to his herd. 

Alex D’Albini had a yearlong term permit for 88 head of stock and a yearlong term permit for 42 cattle on 

the Grubstake allotment. D’Albini declared a short drift fence of 31 chains in Section 13, and another drift 

fence of one and a half mile in sections 11 and 4 as well as a 500 foot pipeline from a spring that flowed in 

Section 13. 

Joe Zaleski had a yearlong term permit on the Montezuma allotment for 30 head of cattle. 

The National Park Service planned to interfere with the continued use of the range only on “the two small 

fenced areas surrounding the observation point and the Museum site.”1383

1941: The 1941 legislation authorizing Coronado International Memorial contained language specifically 

protecting the rights of ranchers and miners to pursue their vocations within the park. Of the two pages that 

made up the statute, one focused almost exclusively on the topic. Rights to water then used for stock were 

protected along with grazing privileges. Future road and fence construction would have to include access 

routes for cattle in order to ensure that development of the park did not threaten existing grazing and water 

rights.1384

1952: The Memorial that was proclaimed by the President on November 5, 1952, was based upon the act 

of August 18, 1941, 55 Stat. 630 (16 U.S.C. 450 y) as amended by Public Law 478, 82nd Congress, 

approved July 9, 1952, which did nothing more than change the Memorial from international to 

national.1385 Thus, grazing privileges were still protected. It was quickly determined that the best way to 

handle the administration of grazing permits was for the Forest Service to continue to handle it within the 

Memorial as well as in the surrounding Forest Service lands. This was the same procedure used at Saguaro 

National Monument.1386

1953: In 1953, the National Park Service and National Forest Service signed a Memorandum of 

Agreement regarding grazing permits.1387

 

1383 Frank C.W. Pooler to Chief, Forest Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 5, 

1940. Hayden Papers, AC, ASU, Box 591, folder 2., p. 2. 

1384 An Act to Provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Memorial, in 

the State of Arizona, approved August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 630), ILRPC Files. 

1385 An Act To amend the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the establishment of the 

Coronado International Memorial, in the State of Arizona,” approved August 18, 1941 

(55 Stat. 630), approved July 9, 1952 (66 Stat. 510. Establishment of the Coronado 

National Memorial (Name change from International Memorial), Arizona, By the 

President of the United States, A Proclamation (No. 2995), November 5, 1952, ILRPC 

Files. 

1386 Director, NPS, to Regional Director, Region Three, NPS, n.d. (November-December 

1952), WACC, Folder H 14: Area & Service History 41-52 F 3, and other letters in the 

same folder. 

1387 WACC, Folder A 44: Memo of Agreement F 18. Other agreemwnts in this file relate 

to recreational development, a water transmission line for CORO, fire control, and the Hereford Soil 

Conservation District.

401
1955: The Soil and Moisture Conservation segment of a Master Plan Development Outline compiled in 

July 1955 discussed erosion. Even though soil erosion was classed as slight on 90% of the Memorial and 

“moderate in the remainder,” much of the erosion had been caused by grazing. It was therefore agreed that 

fencing to exclude livestock would be enough of a measure to restore the brush, grass, and woodland 

vegetation and ultimately return the area to its natural state.1388 

Grazing Preferences Involving Use of National Park Lands in 1955:1389

Preference 

 Yearlong 

Percent National 

Forest 

Percent National 

Park 

Total Livestock 

Total 

Total Livestock 

N.P.S. 

Lone Mountain

Henry Lee 650 94.5 5.5 614 36 

Grubstake

Alex D’Albini 133 

 

 83.5 16.5 111 22 

Montezuma

Frank Zaleski 

11/15 to 4/30 

 44 

 50 

 

 50 22 22 

Of the three existing grazing allotments on the Memorial in 1955, the vast majority of two, the Grubstake 

and the Lone Mountain, were still on National Forest land, while the third, the Montezuma, was split fiftyfifty between the Memorial and Forest Service lands. The Lone Mountain allotment was owned by Henry 

D. Lee and the Grubstake by Alex D’Albini, neither of whom were friends of the Memorial.1390 However, 

they were reported to be in excellent condition in the early years of the Memorial’s existence. The 

Montezuma allotment seemed to be more prone to showing the effects of overuse.1391

1961: Mission 66 planners discussed livestock and the cattle industry as an interpretive issue, because it 

was “an aspect of Spanish culture” and Coronado was the first European to introduce horses, cattle, goats, 

and sheep into the region.1392 

A Monthly Report for July 1961 discussed grazing and current drought conditions: “The drought 

conditions have made it most evident that the Jones joint Park -- forest allotment has been over-grazed. 

Since there is no fence between the private and state leased land and the federal lands, it is difficult to 

control the numbers of cattle on Park-Forest lands. The superintendent talked the matter over with Mr. 

Jones who has agreed to cut down the present numbers as soon as his old and dry cows are marketable. 

Meanwhile the range is greening up well and providing good ground cover. Since we have no gullywashers, no dangerous signs of erosion have been observed.”1393

1965: In 1965, three grazing allotments were described: 

 Permittee No. of Cattle 

 Animals Unit 

 Months Allotment Name 

Henry D. Lee 36 430 Lone Mountain 

 

1388 Master Plan, May 1957, p. 4. Soil and Moister Conservation (S&MC) section, p. 2 

1389 WACC, Folder A 44: Memo of Agreement F 18. 

1390 Grazing Preferences Involving Use of National Park Lands – 1955, WACC, Folder A 

44: Memo of Agreement F 18. 

1391 Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, Arizona, Forestry, 

July 1955, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plan (Mission 66) F 1. 

1392 Master Plan for the Conservation and Use of Coronado National Memorial (1961), 

“Objectives and Policies”, Vol. I, Chapter 1, p. 6. 

1393 Superintendent Philip Welles, Coronado National Memorial, to Director, NPS, Subject: July 1961, 

Monthly Narrative Report for Coronado National Memorial, Hereford, July 30, 1961, WACC, Folder A 

2615: Monthly Reports F 6. 

402
Alex D’Albini 22 264 Grub Stake 

Frank Zaleski 22 121 Montezuma 

The same document continued that Frank Zaleski’s allotment was grazed from November 15 to April 30 

and was the one most heavily utilized and prone to overgrazing. Fences separated the three allotments. 

More fencing was planned to keep cattle out of trails and facilities. After those areas were fenced, it was 

thought that allotments might have to be reduced.1394 

1969: A 1969 letter from NPS to Fred Baumkirchner gave him permission to run a temporary water line 

from State of Texas mine to Baumkirchner lands, through the Memorial. A subsequent Memorandum Of 

Agreement between the National Park Service, National Forest Service, and Baumkirchner set conditions 

for agreeing to allow him to use water from the NPS tank to water his cattle.1395

1973: In 1973, more fencing was planned to solve part of the grazing problem. Only minimal fencing had 

been constructed to protect specific areas, such as the picnic area and visitor center. Cattle were generally 

free to wander the Memorial grounds at will, posing sanitation problems and damaging the vegetation 

during the dry season. In addition, bulls and cows with calves could be a hazard to visitors as well as the 

staff and their families. Consultation between the Forest Service and Memorial superintendents was 

sporadic and the founding legislation gave neither sufficient leeway for making policy.1396

The grazing issue also contributed to planning for the boundary adjustment of 1978. A planning document 

specified that most of the grazing within the Memorial took place in the western, west of Montezuma Pass, 

and eastern portions of the Memorial; it itemized that it was in Sections 10, 15, and 22, and Sections 17-

20.1397 

The Annual Report for 1993 stated: “Grazing continues to be a spotty problem. As a result of substantial 

range damage on the west side the Forest Service has reduced the allottees AUM’s by 20% for the next five 

years. 

 “Location of a cattle feeding station in the canyon bottom 1,000 feet from CORO’s well has 

caused concern for contamination of the area water supply. The 1973 U.S. Public Health Survey backed 

this concern up. Thus, through the assistance of the Forest Service, the allottee was required to move the 

site an additional 1,000 feet upstream. The problem may still exist.”1398

 

1394 Master Plan Development Outline, Coronado National Memorial, Arizona, Forestry, 

July 1955, pp. 4-5, WACC, Folder D 18: Master Plan (Mission 66) F 1. Each Master Plan 

has sections on resource management, including grazing and mining. 

1395 Superintendent Lawrewnce D. Roush and Supervisory Park Ranger Ernest W. Kuncl, 

Coronado National Memorial, to Fred E. Baumkirchner; Memorandum of Understanding, 

signed by Superintendent Hugo Huntzinger, Coronado National Memorial 2-25-72, a 

representative of Coronado National Forest (signature illegible) 3-6-72, and Fred E. 

Baumkirchner, Permittee, Montezuma Grazing Allotment 3-16-72, WACC, Folder A 44: 

Memo of Agreement F 18. 

1396 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Resource Management Plan 

Applicable to Coronado National Memorial, September 10, 1973, WACC, Folder D 18: 

Resource Management Plan F 13. 

1397 Denver Service Center, Planning Directive for Coronado National Memorial, January 

1973, WACC, Folder D 18: Planning Directives F 14. 

1398 Superintendent, CORO, to Deputy Director, NPS, Subject: Superintendent’s Annual 

Report for Calendar Year 1773, Hereford, January 23, 1974, WACC, Folder A 2621: 

Annual Reports F 11. 

403
1974: The 1974 Annual Report said that grazing inside the Memorial continued to be a spotty problem; 

particularly west of Montezuma Pass in the Yaqui Springs area. The U.S. Forest Service, which managed 

the grazing, instituted a new management program with the permittee in 1973 – which entailed reductions 

in animal units per month.1399

1976: The Final general management plan of September 1976 highlighted a particular concern with the 

Yaqui Springs area, which had become damaged as the whole area had been overgrazed.1400 It also 

included maps of current grazing allotments.1401

A 1976 Environmental Review discussed grazing: “All alternatives considered will allow continued 

grazing under Forest Service jurisdiction. The objective of their range management is to maintain or 

restore excellent range condition while properly harvesting and utilizing the optimum amount of high 

quality forage (Arizona Inter-Agency Range Committee, 1972). Within limits imposed by soil and climatic 

conditions, improvements in the range resource at Coronado National Memorial will be directed toward 

maximum production of desirable forage species, optimum plant density and vigor, adequate mulch cover, 

greater water infiltration, reduced soil-surface evaporation, minimum soil erosion, and reduction of 

sediment pollution.”1402

ca. 1978: The anonymous, undated, memo entitled “Boundary Adjustment–a Radical Proposal” discussed 

reasons for making significant adjustments to the boundaries of the Memorial. The portion of the 

Memorial west of Montezuma Pass, according to the memo, was not really enjoyed by the visiting public 

except as a scenic backdrop in any case. In addition, it represented seventy percent of the grazing land 

within the Memorial. Both land and water resources had been damaged by overgrazing. Withdrawal of 

that land would relieve NPS personnel of the duty of patrolling and administering the overgrazing of the 

unused land.1403

1978: The 1978 boundary adjustment which reconfigured the Memorial also changed the shape of grazing 

allotments within the Memorial.1404

1986: A briefing statement on grazing management of October 1986 summarized grazing privileges: “The 

latest Memorandum of Agreement on file was written in 1955 and established that the US Forest Service 

would continue 1) to issue permits and 2) to receive and account for grazing within the Memorial, the 

National Park Service to receive its proportionate part of fees collected. No increase of livestock number is 

permitted with concurrence of NPS.” It went on, “There are two [sic] allotments in the park. Past records 

show a history of overgrazing, continued yearlong grazing for decades, and large AUM’s. No longterm 

 

1399 Superintendent, CORO, to Regional Director, Western Region, Subject: Superintendents’ Annual 

Report for Calendar Year 1974, Hereford, February 20, 1975, WACC, Folder A 2621: Annual 

Reports F 11 

1400 Final general management plan, September 1976, p. 10, WACC, Folder D 18: 

General Management Plans F 15. 

1401 Ibid, following p. 20. 

1402 Environmental Review, Final General Management Plan, September 1976, p. 7, 

WACC, Folder D 18: Resource Management Plan F 13. 

1403 “Boundary Adjustment – a Radical Proposal,” n.d., WACC, Folder L 1417: 

Boundary Adjustments – Surveys & Reports F 1. 

1404 “Agreement: Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona, and Coronado 

National Forest, Cochise County, Arizona,” Signed October 16 and 19, 1979, ILRPC 

Files, 

404
(five years) or annual operating plans have been done for either allotment. Portions of both allotments are 

overgrazed. No record has been found of NPS receiving a proportion of the grazing fees.”1405

 

The 1986 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services said that two grazing allotments were 

actively using Memorial lands and only the Montezuma allotment used the “developed and heaviest public 

use areas.” It went on: “Livestock now graze freely throughout this allotment and could present a safety 

and sanitation problem in these high visitor use areas as well as damage vegetation and landscaping around 

the picnic area and visitor center.” It continued with specific recommendations to end grazing in some 

areas and limit and control it in others.1406

According to the Annual Report for 1986: “During 1986, one hundred twenty-eight cattle were grazed on 

2,495 acres of Memorial lands on three separate allotments. The U.S. Forest Service administers the 

grazing permits through a cooperative agreement. There are indications (erosion, loss of native grasses and 

intrusion of exotic species) of deterioration of the resource from overgrazing, especially on the 

southwestern portion of the Memorial. The Superintendent and SOAR Resource Management Specialist 

worked closely with the U.S. Forest Service District Ranger in documenting the damage to the resource and 

attempting to improve range management. In March, 1986, the U.S. Forest Service notified the permittee 

of a proposed reduction of the 40% in the grazing capacity on the Montezuma allotment. The permittee has 

filed an appeal which was denied by the Coronado National Forest Supervisor in Tucson and is now under 

consideration at the regional level in Albuquerque, N.M.”1407

1987: A January 1987 situation report: “During 1986, one hundred and twenty eight head of cattle were 

grazed on 2,495 acres of Memorial lands on three separate allotments. The U.S. Forest Service administers 

the grazing permits through a cooperative agreement. There are indications (loss of native grasses and 

encroachment of exotic species) of deterioration of the resource from over-grazing on nearly half of the 

area grazed, especially on the southeastern portion of the Memorial. A range analysis study will be 

initiated this year in order to properly document the extent of the problem. A new grazing plan which will 

include pasture rotation will require the construction of nearly two miles of drift fence to implement.”1408

In the summer of 1987 a new Interagency Agreement regarding grazing was negotiated between the 

National Park Service and the National Forest Service under which the Forest Service would continue to 

issue permits for existing allotments. A new interagency agreement and memoranda of understandings for 

grazing allotments, individually and collectively, were signed in the summer of 1987.1409

 

1405 General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group, to Associate Regional Director, 

Management and Operations, Western Region, Subject: Meeting With Southwest 

Regional Forester, Phoenix, October 6, 1986, WACC, Folder A 40: Conferences F 16. 1406 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services, 1986, , pp. 14-16, WACC, Folder K 1817: 

Annual Statement Interpretation F 9. 

1407 Superintendent, CORO, to Regional Director, Western Region, Subject: 

Superintendent’s Annual Report for Calendar Year 1986, Hereford, February 23, 1987, 

WACC, Folder A 2621: Annual Reports F 11. 

1408 Superintendent, CORO, to General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group, 

Subject: Briefing Statements FY 88 Congressional Hearings, Hereford, January 14, 1987, 

Issue: Grazing Management, WACC, Folder A 2623: Situation Reports F 12. 

1409 WACC, Folder A 44: Memo of Agreement F 18. This file also includes several 

letters, aggreements, and other assorted documentation regarding recreational 

development, a water transmission line for CORO, fire control, and the Hereford Soil 

Conservation District. 

405
 In the process, a letter stated that the National Forest Service had conducted a production 

utilization study for one allotment in 1985 and planned to do the same for the others within a year. In 

addition, an ongoing vegetation study covered long-term trends.1410

1988: According to the Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services of February 1988, an 

agreement between the Forest Service and NPS in 1988 allowed the Memorial to control rotation of herds 

and to add fencing to protect vegetation and resources. In general it improved Memorial control of grazing 

and increased its share of fees collected.1411 

1990s: According to a summary provided in a Draft Livestock Management Plan, the Montezuma 

allotment changed hands several times and then became inactive in 1990. In 1992, the Park Service finally 

began to administer its grazing permits for itself. Following a new 1999 agreement with the National 

Forest Service, the two agencies share responsibility administering and monitoring the Joe’s Spring 

allotment, which extends across their boundary. They also share grazing fees collected from the permit 

holder. Relying on the 1941 legislation’s wording that specified that grazing could continue as long as it 

did not interfere with recreational development, NPS now is able to more stringently regulate grazing 

within the Memorial. 

 A new grazing management plan in 2000 expressed concern about the consumption of agave by 

cattle and its impact on nectar eating lesser long-nosed and Mexican long-tongued bats. The grazing plan 

mentioned a few other affected species. Among them were the barking frog, loggerhead shrike, elegant 

trogon, Mexican spotted owl, and peregrine falcon. At the founding of the Memorial, of course, the rights 

of grazing allotment holders were protected above all else. However, recent environmental concerns have 

been added to the equation over the history of the Memorial.1412

All of the WACC Folders which carry the number L 3019 contain data on grazing, most separated by 

allotment and owner. They include: 

WACC Folder L 3019: Grazing D’Albini F 28 

WACC Folder L 3019: Grazing Joe’s Spring F 29 

WACC Folder L 3019: Baumkirchner F 30 

WACC Folder L 3019: Baumkirchner F 31 

WACC Folder L 3019: Logan F 32 

WACC Folder L 3019: Marco F 33 

WACC Folder L 3019: Marco F 34 

WACC Folder L 3019: Watkins Sierra Vista Realty F 35 

WACC Folder L 3019: Grazing Control F 36 

WACC Folder L 3019: Annual Graze Reports F 37 

 

1410 Freeman L. Nelson, Acting General Superintendent, Southern Arizona Group, to 

Regional Director, Western Region, NPS, Phoenix, September 21, 1987, ibid. 

1411 Annual Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services, February 1988, pp. 16-17, 

WACC, Folder K 1817: Annual Statement for Interpretation F 9. 

1412 Draft Livestock Management Plan, Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, 

Arizona, March 2000, pp. I:4-5, II:14, IV:7, CORO Files. 

406
Appendix C 

MINING

General 

1940: In 1940, as the Memorial was under consideration, the Arizona Small Miners Association approved 

of the project because there was little evidence of valuable minerals.1413

1941: The 1941 legislation authorizing Coronado International Memorial contained language specifically 

protecting the rights of ranchers and miners to pursue their vocations within the park. Of the two pages that 

made up the statute, one focused almost exclusively on the topic.1414

1953: In 1953, NPS considered limiting future mining from parts of Coronado National Memorial in 

consideration of possible development plans.1415

1966: In 1966, it was noted that there was then no mining occurring with the Memorial, although the 

possibility of such activity existed because of the language of the founding legislation. There were claims 

nearby and had been discussions of building access roads which could affect the Memorial.1416

1969: In 1969, a mining claim within Memorial boundaries in the Montezuma Pass area raised fears 

regarding environmental destruction and road maintenance.1417

1970: In 1970, exploratory drilling was, at least, planned, within Memorial boundaries west of Montezuma 

Pass.1418

1971: In 1971, an effort was conceived to acquire all outstanding mining claims within Coronado National 

Memorial by whatever means possible.1419

1973: In the early 1970s, NPS considered pending actions to end the possibility of further mining within 

Coronado National Memorial.1420 Meanwhile, several, evidently short-lived, claims were filed to the west 

of Montezuma Pass.1421

 

1413 M.W. Merrill, Arizona Small Miners Association, to Charles F. Willis, Bisbee, May 2, 1940, WACC, 

Folder H 14: Area & Service History 1940 F 2. 

1414 An Act to Provide for the establishment of the Coronado International Memorial, in the State of 

Arizona, approved August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 630), ILRPC Files. 

1415 Acting Regional Director, Region Three P.P. Patraw, to Director, NPS, Subject: Proposed Grazing and 

Mining Regulations, Santa Fe, March 5, 1953, WACC, Folder L 3023: Mining General F 39. 

1416 Superintendent Jack E. Stark, CORO, to Director, Southwest Region, NPS, Hereford, October 2, 1966, 

Subject: Report on Mining Activity in the United States, Mining. Mining Activities at Coronado National 

Memorial, ibid. 

1417 Superintendent Lawrence D. Roush, CORO, to Regional Director, Southwest Region, Hereford, May 

15, 1969, and related letters and maps, ibid. 

1418 CORO Memorandum, Erny to Hugo [Huntzinger], Hereford, April 14, 1970, ibid. This file contains 

documents relating to mine claims around the Memorial. 

1419 Acting Director Carl O. Walker, Southwest Region, to Southwest Region Superintendents, Santa Fe, 

June 1971, ibid. 

1420 Department of the Interior, Draft Environmental Statement, Proposed Amendment of Act of August 18, 

1941, Coronado National Memorial, Arizona, Prepared by Western Region, NPS (Handwritten: 

Preliminary Draft 1-8-73), WACC, Folder L 3023: Mining State of Texas F 41. 

1421 Acting Director John E. Cook, Western Region, to State Director, Arizona, Subject: Mining Claims 

within Coronado National Memorial, San Francisco, February 15, 1973, and related letters, etc., WACC, 

Folder L 3023: Mining General F 39. 

407
According to the 1973 Annual Report, no mining activity existed within the Memorial; however, at least 

one new claim was established one mile northeast of park headquarters during January.1422

1976: In 1976, Congress changed the law which allowed mining with NPS lands.1423 In a note included 

with material related to this legislation, it was stated that there had been no mining activity with Coronado 

National Memorial since it opened in 1952.1424

 Elimination of mining from the memorial would preclude future exploration and discovery of 

minerals. However, a document concluded, there was no indication that future mining ventures would have 

been any more productive than those in the past, which have been of little economic significance. 

Therefore, very little adverse impact to the mining industry or area economy should result from excluding 

mining.1425

1978: The 1978 Boundary Adjustment excluded land which had been claimed and explored for mineral 

resources while including some other such lands.1426

1979-1984: From 1979 to 1984, Wilbert P. Witkopp of Sierra Vista, Arizona, disputed with the National 

Park Service, National Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management over the status and fate of several 

claims which he had filed in 1971. After the Boundary Adjustment of 1978, some of them came within 

Coronado National Memorial.1427

1988: Beginning in 1987, a mine-safing project was begun with the help of a team from Death Valley 

National Monument. Subsequently, an inspection and mapping trip was conducted to Coronado 

Memorial.1428 During September 1988, ten openings were covered at Coronado National Memorial. 

Further recommendations were made for additional mine safing at the Memorial.1429

State of Texas Mine

The Lena mine, the “oldest historic mine claim in Montezuma Canyon,” was located in May 1878 by 

George J. Rasking and John L. Harris and recorded the next month by D.B. Ren. The original papers 

located the Lena next to older mine workings whose origins were unknown. An 1880 newspaper article 

noted that there were then nine mines working in Montezuma Canyon. The Lena was renamed the Chicago 

Mine in 1885 under the ownership of Peter Connor and A.W. Emanuel.1430 Connor (or Conner) and his 

 

1422 Superintendent Hugo Huntzinger, Coronado National Memorial, to Deputy Director, NPS, Subject: 

Superintendent’s Annual Report for Calendar Year 1773, Hereford, January 23, 1974, WACC Folder A 

2621: Annual Reports F 11. 

1423 An Act to provide for the regulation of mining activity within, and to repeal the application of mining 

laws to, areas of the National Park System, and for other purposes. P.L. 94-429, September 28, 1976, 

WACC, Folder L 3023: Witkopp Tako F 40. 

1424 Unidentified memo, no names or dates attached, WACC, Folder L 3023: Mining General F 39. 1425 Environmental Review, Final General Management Plan, September 1976, p. 32, WACC, Folder D 18: 

Resource Management Plan F 13. 

1426 “Agreement: Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona, and Coronado National Forest, 

Cochise County, Arizona,” Signed October 16 and 19, 1979, ILRPC Files. 

1427 See Chapter IX for narrative and sources; and WACC, Folder L 3023: Witkopp Tako F 40, passim. 1428 Superintendent Joseph L. Sewell to Superintendent, Death Valley National Monument, Subject: Mine 

Closures, Hereford, November 17, 1987; Archeologist, Division of Archeology, WACC, Subject: Trip 

Report, Coronado Mine Safety Project, Tucson, January 12, 1988, WACC, Folder L 3023: Mining General 

F 39. 

1429 Ron Cron, Resource Maintenance Work Leader, Death Valley National Monument, to Superintendent, 

Coronado National Memorial, Subject: Coronado Mine Safing Project – 9/12/88 – 10/1/88, Death Valley, 

November 21, 1988; David L. Sharrow, Environmental Protection Specialist, Mining and Minerals Branch, 

to Chief, Environmental Assessment Section, Mining and Minerals Branch, Land Resources Division, 

Subject: Trip Report for Abandoned Mineral Lands Trip to Arizona, Denver, November 29, 1988, ibid. 

Also see associated letters and maps in the same file. 

1430 Peter M. Van Cleve, “History of Mining in the Coronado National Memorial” (1997), pp. 2-8, CORO 

Files. 

408
partners filed several claims in Montezuma Canyon in 1879, among which was the Lookout, also thought 

to be on land later occupied by the State of Texas and its companion claims.1431

The State of Texas Mine was founded in the same location as the Lena in 1889. There is some 

disagreement as to the exact ownership of the State of Texas during its first few years of operation. 

Geoffrey T. Bohrer cites an 1889 claim by August Baron that reported a find of “mineral bearing 

quartz.”1432 However, Peter M. Van Cleve, using Deeds of Mines in the Cochise County Recorders Office 

in Bisbee, Arizona, writes that Richard C. Van Dorn made the first State of Texas claim in 1889. 

According to Van Cleve, Van Dorn soon sold a one-third share of the mine to Peter Connor, who, in turn, 

sold it and other local mine interests to William Graf in 1892. In the meantime, in 1891, August Baron, 

exercising Power of Attorney for Van Dorn, sold the remaining two-thirds share of the State of Texas Mine 

and another mine to Graf. Then, in 1893, Baron, a banker and miner from Tombstone, purchased all of 

Graf’s interests, including the State of Texas.1433

By the middle of the 1890s, the State of Texas Mine belonged to August Baron. Baron had the claim 

surveyed in 1897 and the plat was approved in 1898.1434 Some time later, Charles Gerdes, then of Gleeson, 

Arizona, stated that he had been Baron’s partner and “did the greater part of the development work on the 

claim” at some time.1435 According to reports, twenty-five tons of high grade lead-silver-zinc ores were 

shipped to Canon City, Colorado, in 1897. Forty-two tons were shipped in 1898-1899.1436

In 1902, over forty mines in Montezuma and Copper canyons, including the State of Texas, were leased by 

the Mitchell Mining Company, of Ishpeming, Michigan, which mined copper at the site. Mitchell 

relinquished the leases in 1906 and they reverted to their former owners.1437 Almost immediately, the Gray 

Metals Company began to operate the mine, which was still owned by Baron. By 1914, the Texas No. 2, 

Extension, Bonita, Josephine, and New York mines had been added to the operation.1438 A new 350-foot 

vertical shaft near the main workings around the same time. Records indicate that ore was cut at varying 

depths, but do not indicate the quality of ore. This shaft has been caved in for many years. The Arizona 

Mining Journal of 1920 reported that ore containing silver, lead, and zinc was shipped by Gray Metals 

Company.1439 

August Baron died in 1913 and his mine properties were passed on to his wife, Christine. She promptly 

sold them to Douglas Gray of Tombstone, the owner of Gray Metals Company. In 1920, Gray took on two 

partners, Maurice Clark, of Douglas, and William H. Stilwell, of Phoenix, and incorporated a new 

incarnation of the Gray Metals Company as a publicly owned corporation. Gray sold his mines to the new 

corporation in 1920 fo $20,000. Only two years later, the State of Texas, Texas No. 2, Extension, Bonita, 

Josephine, and New York mines were sold at public auction as part of a court judgement against Gray. 

Nathan L. Amster bought them in August 1922 for $9,370.90.1440

 

1431 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) on the Coronado National Memorial,” April 19, 

1996, CORO Files. 

1432 Baron claim, 1/1/1889, and Baron claim papers, 4/4/1898, from Geoffrey T. Bohrer, “Siamese Triplets: 

Grace Sparkes, The State of Texas Mine, and the Coronado National Monument,” (National Park Service, 

1993), pp. 1-2. 

1433 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 3-4. 1434 Bohrer, “Siamese Triplets,” pp. 1-2. 1435 Gerdes identified his former partner as “August Barron of Tombstone.” Letter, Charles Gerdes, 

Gleeson, Arizona, to Mssrs. Sparks (sic) and Moody, Los Angeles, California, 4/15/39, The Grace M. 

Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 7, Folder 294. 

1436 Robert D. O’Brien, “Appraisal of Mineral Interests Inherent in the State of Texas Mine Tracts No. 101-

06, 101-07, 101-08 Coronado National Monument,” (San Francisco: National Park Service, Western 

Region, 1979), p. 3, ILRPC Files. 

1437 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 5; Bohrer calls it the Mitchell Development Company, Bohrer, 

“Siamese Triplets, p. 2. 

1438 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 5-6. 

1439 O’Brien, “Appraisal of Mineral Interests,” p. 4. 1440 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” pp. 6-7. 

409
In September 1926, T.J. Sparkes, of Prescott, Arizona, and Burdett Moody, of Los Angeles, California, 

purchased several mining claims in the Hartford Mining District from Nathan L. and Estelle D. Amster for 

$5,000. The purchase included the State of Texas, State of Texas No. 2, Extension, Bonita, Josephine, and 

New York mines.1441 The partners did little or no mining over the next fifteen years.1442 

In a January 1939 letter, Grace Sparkes told Burdett Moody that her father, T.J. Sparkes, had recently died 

and discussed her family’s efforts to reopen the State of Texas Mine. She added that she had not visited the 

property in two years.1443 Moody replied that he and T.J. Sparkes had been hoping to sell the property and 

that he still wished to do so. He estimated that he had $8,000 to $9,000 invested in the mine property, 

though he also wrote a few months later that he was “in around $5000 to $6000 altogether.”1444 Given that 

the property had only cost $5,000 and had not been operated since its purchase, it can be guessed that 

Moody had put up the vast majority of the partners’ investment. T.J. Sparkes, a mining engineer, supplied 

expertise for the moribund enterprise.1445

Over the next few years, Grace Sparkes continued to pursue loans to reopen the mine and encouraged 

Moody to support her. She shared ownership of a half interest in the State of Texas property with her 

siblings as joint heirs to their father, T.J. Sparkes. However, she seemed to be the most active partner. 

Meanwhile, Moody persisted in his desire to divest of the State of Texas properties.1446 Others saw the 

potential for turning a profit from the State of Texas as did Sparkes, and she and Moody received many 

offers from miners wishing to lease the property. None were accepted, as Sparkes was determined to keep 

the property and make it pay off.1447 

In 1942, Grace Sparkes was given total control of the State of Texas mine property. In June, Moody quitclaimed his share with the stipulation that he would receive half of future net profits or half of the net 

proceeds of any future sale.1448 In September, the other Sparkes heirs quit-claimed their shares to Grace as 

well.1449 She finally obtained a loan from the federal government in connection with the World War II 

effort, also in 1942, and the mine produced zinc from 1943-1946.1450 Burdett Moody died in 1946. It is 

 

1441 Sale Agreement, Nathan L. and Estelle D. Amster to T.J. Sparkes and Burdett Moody, September 1, 

1926, Sparkes Collection, Box 12, Folder 464, Arizona Historical Society; Mining Deed, Nathan L. and 

Estelle D. Amster to T.J. Sparkes and Burdett Moody, September 27, 1926, The Grace M. Sparkes 

Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 12, Folder 470. 

1442 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 8. 1443 Letter, Grace Sparkes, Prescott, Az., to Burdett Moody, c/o The Bureau Light, Water and Power, Los 

Angeles, Ca., January 30, 1939, The Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona 

Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 7, Folder 294. 

1444 Burdett Moody to Grace M. Sparkes, February 1, 1939, Burdett Moody to Grace M. Sparkes, May 4, 

1939, Ibid. The Sparkes papers contain sales contracts, never executed, from this period that confirm that 

the property was in negotiation for sale. See especially Box 12, Folders 465-467. 

1445 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 7. 1446 Burdett Moody to Grace M. Sparkes, August 1, 1941, The Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. 

Collection 0752), Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 7, Folder 296, and others in the same 

folder. 

1447 See, in particular, Sparkes Collection, Box 7, Folder 294, Arizona Historical Society. 1448 Mining Deed, Burdett and Sarah C. Moody sell and quit claim to Grace Sparkes, June 9, 1942, The 

Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 12, 

Folder 470; also see Folder 468. 

1449 Mining Deed, Thomas J. Sparkes Jr. and wife Maybelle; Charity S. and Perry L. Bones; and Genevieve 

Sparkes, widow of John G. Sparkes; all of Yavapai County, sell and quit claim all of the mine claims to 

Grace Sparkes, September 21, 1942, The Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), Arizona 

Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 12, Folder 470. 1450 Van Cleve, “History of Mining,” p. 8. 

410
unclear what the relationship between he and Sparkes was at the time and whether his widow retained an 

interest in the property.1451

In 1960, forty acres were excluded from Coronado National Memorial and added to the Coronado National 

Forest. Half of that land made up the Billy Boy mine claim, owned by Grace Sparkes. The land reverted to 

Coronado National Forest, National Forest Service while the mine claims remained with Sparkes.1452

Grace Sparkes died in 1963, leaving the State of Texas mine property to her four nephews. During the 

previous few years she had improved the property and offered it for sale to NPS as well as on the open 

market.1453 The State of Texas properties were designated Tracts 101-06, 101-07, and 101-08. For details 

of the sale of those tracts and other related transactions, see the Land Appendix and Chapters VIII and IX. 

A 1988 Interpretive Prospectus included a history of the State of Texas property. Itstated that in 1987, the 

property was cleared, old buildings torn down, and trash removed. In 1988, it was mine-safed. It was, at 

the time, considered an excellent interpretive area, for which a prospectus had been drafted.1454

Victorio Properties

According to a summary of mine claims compiled at Coronado National Memorial, the Miss Stake, Grub 

Stake No. 2, and Grub Stake No. 3 mine claims, along with three others in their immediate vicinity, were 

claimed by Felix Livercio in March 1899. The Doredor, Paring No. 1, Paring No. 2, Paring No. 3, Paring 

No. 4, Z.T. Parker, Chief, Fraction, Rubio, and Tunnelsite were claimed by Bruce Doredor. The four 

Paring mines were claimed in 1901 and the Doredor in 1920. The western group are said to have been 

claimed in 1909.1455 All thirteen claims were patented by Bruce Doredor on April 10, 1920.1456 One 

source placed Doredor in the canyon and on those claims much earlier, probably before 1900.1457

According to an 1979 NPS appraisal report on the properties, then owned by the Victorio Company, there 

had “been no recorded production from any of the claims.”1458

The same summary of mine claims cited above lists purchase of Z.T. Parker, Chief, Fraction, Rubio, 

Tunnelsite, Grub Stake No. 2, and Miss Stake by “Clark/Smith” in 1938.1459 Bill Clark was on the Board 

of Supervisors and was said to have purchased the property for back taxes.1460 

 

1451 Letter, Sarah Moody to Grace Sparkes, 1946, The Grace M. Sparkes Collection (Ms. Collection 0752), 

Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona, Box 7, Folder 299. 1452 Land Ownership Record, NPS, September 2, 1960, NPS, September 2, 1960, WACC, Folder L 1425: 

Land Holdings – Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

1453 Gentry, McNulty & Tori, Attorneys at Law, Bisbee, Arizona, to Acting Superintendent, Coronado 

National Memorial, October 14, 1965, Coronado National Memorial Administrative Records, Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center, NPS, Tucson, Arizona, Folder L 1425: Land Holdings – Sparkes 

& Acquisition; also see other memos and letters in the same folder for improvements and sales prospects. 

1454 Interpretive Prospectus, State of Texas Mine Site, prepared by Theda Adcock, Park Ranger, Coronado 

National Memorial, Hereford, February 16, 1988, WACC Folder K 18: Interpretive Prospectus F 2. 1455 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands;” “Abandoned Mineral Lands (AML) and Related List 

of Classified Structure (LCS),” n.d., Coronado National Memorial Files. 

1456 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands.” 1457 Memorandum, Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Thomas Mulhern, Historic 

Preservation, Western Regional Office, Subject: Historic Structures at Coronado National Memorial, 

February 23, 1976, Coronado National Memorial Files. George Brown is given as the main source for this 

report. 

1458 Robert D. O’Brien, “Mineral Tract No. 101-05 and 101-09, Coronado National Monument, Cochise 

County, Arizona” (San Francisco: National Park Service, Western Region, 1979), p. 2, WACC, Folder L 

3023: Mining Minerals F 38. 

1459 “A Summary of the Abandoned Mineral Lands.” 1460 Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, to Thomas Mulhern, February 23, 1976. 

411
In 1960, forty acres were removed from Coronado National Memorial and added to the Coronado National 

Forest in order to exclude current mining claims from the Memorial. Half of that land was on and around 

the Z.T. Parker claim. The land reverted to Coronado National Forest, National Forest Service. The 

mining claims remained with their owners.1461

In July 1970, Ruth M. Clark, a widow, and Charles A. and Paquita C. Smith, sold several mining 

properties, including the thirteen Doredor claims in the Hartford Mining District of the Montezuma 

Mountains that fell within the eventual boundaries of Coronado National Memorial. The sellers were 

evidently Bill Clark’s widow and his partner. The buyers were Coronado Investment Company, a 

partnership comprised of Peter G. Wray and H. Wayne Pruett.1462 In 1973, the properties were transferred 

to Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, made up of the same partners.1463 By 1979, Pruett-Wray had changed its 

name to “Victorio Land and Cattle Company” and then to “The Victorio Company.”1464

In 1979, the Victorio properties were considered as two separate tracts, which were separated by the State 

of Texas mine properties. The westernmost tract, called Tract 101-05, consisted of the Z.T. Parker, Chief, 

Fraction, Rubio, Tunnelsite, Miss Stake, Grub Stake No. 2, and Grub Stake No. 3 claims. It held a total 

area of 154.54 acres [See Tract 101-05]. The eastern properties, Doredor, Paring No. 1, Paring No. 2, 

Paring No. 3, and Paring No. 4, made up Tract 101-09, 84.31 acres. For details of the sale of those tracts 

and other related transactions, see the Land Appendix and Chapters VIII and IX. 

 

1461 Land Ownership Record, NPS, September 2, 1960, NPS, September 2, 1960, WACC, Folder L 1425: 

Land Holdings – Sparkes & Acquisition F17. 

1462 Warranty Deed, Ruth M. Clark, a widow, and Charles A. Smith and Paquita C. Smith, his wife, to 

Coronado Investment Company, a partnership comprised of Peter G. Wray and H. Wayne Pruett, copartners, Recorded July 2, 1970, Deeds of Real Estate, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, 

Docket 645, pages 543-545. 

1463 Warranty Deed, Coronado Investment Company to Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, Signed May 1, 1973, 

Deeds of Real Estate, Cochise County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Docket 871, pages 481-483. 1464 Deed (Joint Tenancy), The Victorio Company, an Arizona Corporation; formerly Victorio Land and 

Cattle Company, an Arizona Corporation; formerly Pruett-Wray Cattle Company, an Arizona Corporation, 

to James J. Wardle and Jacqueline S. Wardle, husband and wife, Signed December 18, 1979, Cochise 

County Recorder’s Office, Bisbee, Arizona, Deeds of Real Estate, Docket 1388, pages 333-334. 

412
Bibliography of Published Sources

“Abandoned mines a danger to humans, a home to bats,” CNN.com nature, August 28, 

2000, http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/08/28/mines.bats.ap/. 

Alessio Robles, Vito (ed.). Nicolás de Lafora, relación del viaje que hizo a los presidios 

internos situados en la frontera de la América septentrional. México D.F.: Editorial 

Pedro Robredo, 1939. 

Almada, Francisco R. Diccionario de historia, geografia y biografia sonorense. 

Hermosillo: Instituto Sonorense de Cultura, 1990. 

Anderson, Clinton P., with Milton Viorst. Outsider in the Senate: Senator Clinton 

Anderson’s Memoirs. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1970. 

Aranda, Rigoberto. “El río San Pedro, entre Sonora y Arizona, corre el riesgo de secarse 

debido a la sobreexplotación a que lo somete EU,” La Crónica de Hoy, June 23, 

1999, http://www.cronica.com.mx/cronica/1999/jun/23/. 

August, Jack L., Jr. Vision in the Desert: Carl Hayden and Hydropolitics in the American 

Southwest. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1999. 

Bakker, Elna and Richard G. Lillard. The Great Southwest: The Story of a Land and Its 

People. Palo Alto: American West Publishing Company, 1972. 

Bancroft, Hubert Howe. History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888. San Francisco: 

The History Company, Publishers, 1890. 

Bantjes, Adrian A. As If Jesus Walked on Earth: Cardenismo, Sonora, and the Mexican 

Revolution. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources Books, 1998. 

Barkan, Elliot. “New Origins, New Homeland, New Region: American Immigration and 

the Emergence of the Sunbelt, 1955-1985,” Searching for the Sunbelt: Historical 

Perspectives on a Region, edited by Raymond A. Mohl. Knoxville: The 

University of Tennessee Press, 1990, pp. 124-148. 

Barrera, Mario. Race and Class in the Southwest: A Theory of Racial Inequality. Notre 

Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979. 

Bartra, Armando. Los Herederos de Zapata: Movimientos Campesinos 

Posrevolucionarios en México. 1920-1980. México, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 1985. 

Bassols Batalla, Angel. El Noroeste de México: Un estudio geográfico-económico. 

México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1972. 

413
Bohrer, Geoffrey T. “Siamese Triplets: Grace Sparkes, The State of Texas Mine, and the 

Coronado National Memorial,” National Park Service, 1993. 

Bolton, Herbert E. Coronado on the Turquoise Trail: Knight of Pueblos and Plains. 

Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press, 1949. 

Bolton, Herbert Eugene. Rim of Christendom: a Biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino, 

Pacific Coast Pioneer. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1936. 

Bowden, J.J. Private Land Claims in the Southwest. Master’s Thesis: Southern Methodist 

University, 1969. 

Briggs, Vernon M., Jr. Immigration Policy and the American Labor Force. Baltimore: 

The John Hopkins University Press, 1984. 

Burgess, Opie Rundle. “Bisbee: Portrait of a Copper Camp, Proud Queen City of County of 

Cochise,” Arizona Highways, photography by Esther Henderson and Chuck 

Abbott, Vol. 28, No. 2 (February 1952), pp. 12-13, 32-35. 

Carlson, Alvar W. “Environmental Overview,” Borderlands Sourcebook: A Guide to the 

Literature on Northern Mexico and the American Southwest. Norman, University 

of Oklahoma Press, 1983, pp. 75-80. 

Celis, Lourdes, Catherine Macotela, Rosario Rico, Victor M. Ruíz, and Elena Ulloa. 

historia de la acción pública: adolfo lópez mateos 1958-1964. I – las ideas. 

México, D.F.: Fondo para la Historia de las ideas Revolucionarias en México, 

1978. 

Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias, Comite Interamericano de Desarrollo Agricola. 

Estructura Agraria y Desarrollo Agrícola en México: Estudio sobre las Relaciones 

entre la Tenencia y uso de la Tierra y el Desarrollo Agrícola de México. México, 

D.F.: Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias, 1970. 

Day, Arthur Grove. Coronado's Quest: The Discovery of the Southwestern States. Berkeley: 

University of California Press, 1940. 

Di Peso, Charles C. The Babocomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, Southeastern 

Arizona. Dragooon: The Amerind Foundation, Inc., 1951. 

Di Peso, Charles C. The Sobaipuri Indians of the Upper San Pedro River Valley, 

Southeastern Arizona. Dragoon: The Amerind Foundation, Inc., 1953. 

Di Peso, Charles C., John B. Rinaldo, and Gloria J. Fenner. Casas Grandes: A Fallen 

Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca. Dragoon, Arizona: The Amerind 

Foundation, Inc., 1974. 

414
Eckstein, Salomón. El ejido colectivo en México. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura 

Económica, 1966. 

Eidsvik, H. K. “The Status of Wilderness: An International Overview” Natural Resources 

Journal, vol. 29, No. 1 (1989), pp. 57-82. 

Emory, William H. Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey: Made 

Under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. 

Nicholson, 1857-1859. 

Faulk, Odie B. Tombstone: Myth and Reality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. 

Fergusson, Erna. Our Southwest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1940. 

Fogel, Walter. “Twentieth-Century Mexican Migration to the United States,” The 

Gateway: U.S. Immigration Issues and Policies, edited by Barry R. Chiswick. 

Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1982. 

Garreau, Joel. The Nine Nations of North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 

1981. 

Garza Salazar, Florentino. Propuesta al Ejecutivo del Estado para Decretar la Zona de 

Amortiguamiento de la Actual Reserva Forestal Nacional y Refugio de Fauna 

Silvestre, de las Sierras los Ajos, Buenos Aires y la Púrica con la Categoría de 

Zona Sujeta a Conservación Ecológica, en los Municipios de Cananea, Bacoachi, 

Fronteras, Naco y Nacozari, Sonora, México. Hermosillo: Gobierno del Estado de 

Sonora; Centro de Ecológico de Sonora, 1993. 

Gladwin, Harold Sterling. Excavations at Snaketown. IV. Reviews and Conclusions. 

Medallion Papers, No. XXXVIII. Globe, Arizona: Gila Pueblo, 1948. 

Gladwin, Harold Sterling. A History of the Ancient Southwest. Portland, Maine: The 

Bond Wheelwright Company, 1957. 

Granger, Byrd Howell. Arizona’s Names (X Marks the Place). The Falconer Publishing 

Company, 1983. 

Hadley, Diana and Thomas E. Sheridan. Land Use History of the San Rafael Valley, 

Arizona (1540-1960). Fort Collins: National Forest Service, 1995. 

Hammond, George P. and Agapito Rey (trans. and eds.). Narratives of the Coronado 

Expedition 1540-1542. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1940. 

Hart, John Mason. Revolutionary Mexico: The Coming and Process of the Mexican 

Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. 

415
Haury, Emil W. “The Search for Chichilticale,” Arizona Highways, Vol. 60, No. 4 (April 

1984), pp. 14-19. 

Heald, Phyllis W. “Coronado National Memorial,” Desert Magazine, Vol. 22, No. 3 

(March 1959), pp. 13-15. 

Heyman, Josiah McC. Life and Labor on the Border: Working People of Northeastern 

Sonora, Mexico, 1886-1986. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991. 

Hodge, Frederick Webb. “The First Discovered City of Cibola,” American 

Anthropologist, Vol.8 

Huizer, Gerrit. La Lucha Campesina en México. México, D.F.: Centro de Investigaciones 

Agrarias, 1970. 

Huizer, Gerrit. “Peasant Organization in the Process of Agrarian Reform in Mexico,” 

Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. IV, No. 6 (1968-1969), 

pp. 115-145. 

Humphrey, Robert R. 90 Years and 535 Miles: Vegetation Changes Along the Mexican 

Border. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1987. 

International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico. Boundary 

between the United States and Mexico, as surveyed and marked by the 

International Boundary Commission under the Convention of July 29th, 1882: 

revived February 18th, 1899. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 

1899. 

International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico. Report of the 

Boundary Commission upon the survey and re-marking of the boundary between 

the United States and Mexico west of the Rio Grande, aka: Views of the 

monuments and characteristic scenes along the boundary between the United 

States and Mexico west of the Rio Grande. Washington, D.C.: Government 

Printing Office, 1899. 

Karns, Harry J. (trans.). Unknown Arizona and Sonora 1693-1721: From the Francisco 

Fernández del Castillo version of Luz de Tierra Incógnita by Captain Juan Mateo 

Manje. An English Translation of Part II. Tucson: Arizona Silhouettes, 1954. 

Kaye, Glen. “The Mexico-U.S.A. Border Region: The Filling of an Empty Land,” 

Transboundary Resources Report, Vol. 9, no. 1, (1995), pp. 1-8. 

Kessell, John L. Friars, Soldiers, and Reformers: Hispanic Arizona and the Sonora 

Mission Frontier 1767-1856. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1976. 

416
Kessell, John L. Mission of Sorrows: Jesuit Guevavi and the Pimas, 1671-1767. Tucson: 

The University of Arizona Press, 1970. 

Kessell, John L. “The Puzzling Presidio: San Phelipe de Guevavi, Alias Terrenate,” New 

Mexico Historical Review, Vol. XLI, No. 1 (January 1966), pp. 21-39. 

Kinnaird, Lawrence (trans. and ed.). The Frontiers of New Spain: Nicolas de Lafora's 

Description, 1766-1768. Berkeley: The Quivira Society, 1958. 

Knight, Alan. “The rise and fall of Cardenismo, c. 1930 – c. 1946,” Mexico Since 

Independence, edited by Leslie Bethell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

1994. 

Laird, Wendy, Joaquin Murrieta-Saldivar, and John Shepard, “Cooperation across 

Borders: A Brief History of Biosphere reserves in the Sonoran Desert” Journal of 

the Southwest, Vol. 39, Nos. 3-4 (1997), pp. 307-313. 

Longwell, Alden Richard. The Cananea Ejidos: From Private Ranch to Collective in 

Sonora. Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Nebraska, 1974. 

Lorey, David E. The U.S.—Mexican Border in the Twentieth Century: A History of 

Economic and Social Transformation. Wilmington, Del.:SR Books, 1999. 

Machado, Manuel A., Jr. The North Mexican Cattle Industry, 1910-1975: Ideology, 

Conflict, and Change. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1981. 

McCroskey, Mona Lange. Grace Marion Sparkes: Matriarch of the Early Arizona Tourist 

Industry. M.A. Thesis, Arizona State University, 1987. 

Memorandum of Understanding Between National Park Service of the Department of the 

Interior, United States of America and Secretariat of Urban Development and 

Ecology, United Mexican States on Cooperation in Management and Protection 

of National Parks and Other Protected Natural and Cultural Heritage Sites. Signed 

at Mexico and Washington, November 30, 1988 and January 24, 1989 (TIAS 

11599). 

Migration Between Mexico & the United States, México—Estados Unidos Sobre 

Migración: A Report of the Binational Study on Migration, vii, 

http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/binpap-v.html. 

Myers, John L. The Arizona Governors 1912-1990. Phoenix: Heritage Publishers, Inc., 

1989. 

Naylor, Thomas H. and Charles W. Poltzer (eds.). The Presidio and Militia on the Northern 

Frontier of New Spain, Volume I, A Documentary History: 1570-1700. Tucson: 

The University of Arizona Press, 1986. 

417
Office of Science and Technology, National Park Service. State of the Parks, 1980: A 

Report to the Congress. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980. 

Officer, James E. Hispanic Arizona, 1536-1856. Tucson: The University of Arizona 

Press, 1987. 

Officer, James E. “Yanqui Forty-Niners in Hispanic Arizona: Interethnic Relations on the 

Sonora Frontier,” Journal of Arizona History, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Summer 1987), pp. 

101-134. 

Peña, Elsa M. y J. Trinidad Chávez. “Ganadería y agricultura en la sierra: 1929-1980,” 

Historia General de Sonora, Historia Contemporánea de Sonora 1929-1984, 

Segunda edición, edited by Gerardo Cornejo Murrieta. Hermosillo: Colegio de 

Sonora, 1988, pp. 469-504. 

Riley, Carroll L. “The Location of Chichilticale,” Southwestern Culture History: 

Collected Papers in Honor of Albert H. Schroeder, edited by Charles H. Lange. 

Santa Fe: Ancient City Press, 1985, pp.145-161. 

Riley, Carroll L. and Joni L. Manson. “The Cíbola-Tiguex Route: Continuity and Change 

in the Southwest,” New Mexico Historical Review, Vol. 58, No. 4 (October 

1983), pp. 347-368. 

Ruiz, Ramón Eduardo. The People of Sonora and Yankee Capitalists. Tucson: The 

University of Arizona Press, 1988. 

Sánchez, George J. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture and Identity in 

Chicano Los Angeles, 1900-1945. New York, Oxford University Press, 1993. 

Sánchez, Joseph P. Sánchez, “The Route of the Expedition of Francisco Vázquez de 

Coronado: A Historiographical Overview,” Spanish Colonial Research Center, 

National Park Service, Albuquerque (Unpublished Ms., 1990). 

 

Sanderson, Steven E. Agrarian Populism and the Mexican State: The Struggle for Land in 

Sonora. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. 

Sanderson, Susan R. Walsh. Land Reform in Mexico: 1910-1980. Orlando: Academic 

Press, Inc., 1984. 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Land 

Management, Safford District, Arizona; U.S. Government Printing Office: 1995. 

Sauer, Carl. “The Road to Cibola,” University of California Publications IberoAmericana, Vol. 3 (1932). 

418
Saugey, David A. “U.S. National Forests: Unsung Home to America’s Bats,” Bats, Vol. 

9, No. 3 (Fall 1991), pp. 3-6. 

Sayles, E.B. The San Simon Branch: Excavations at Cave Creek in the San Simon 

Valley. I. Material Culture. Medallion Papers, No. XXXIV. Globe, Arizona: Gila 

Pueblo, 1945. 

Schmitt, Karl M. Communism in Mexico: A Study in Political Frustration. Austin: 

University of Texas Press, 1965. 

Schroeder, Albert H. “Fray Marcos de Niza, Coronado and the Yavapai,” New Mexico 

Historical Review, Vol. XXX, No. 4 (October 1955), pp. 265-296; Vol. XXXI, 

No. 1 (January 1956), pp. 24-37. 

Seis Años de Política Agraria del Presidente Adolfo López Mateos. México, D.F.: 

Departamento de Asuntos Agrarios y Colonización, 1964. 

Simpson, James H. “Coronado’s march in search of the ‘Seven Cities of Cibola’ and 

discussion of their probable location,” Annual Report of the Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 

1872. 

Smith, Cornelius C., Jr. Fort Huachuca: The story of a frontier post. Washington, D.C.: 

Department of the Army, United States Government Printing Office, 1981. 

Sonnichsen, Charles Leland. Colonel Greene and the Copper Skyrocket; The Spectacular 

Rise and Fall of William Cornell Greene: Copper King, Cattle Baron, and 

Promoter Extra-ordinary in Mexico, the American Southwest, and the New York 

Financial District. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1974. 

State of the Environment: An Assessment at Mid-Decade. Washington D.C.: The 

Conservation Foundation, 1984. 

Steinbeck, John. Travels with Charley: In Search of America. New York: Bantam Books, 

1963. 

Stewart, Yvonne G. “Montane Cochise Culture Sites in Coronado National Memorial,” 

Proceedings of the First Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, 

Volume II, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 9-12, 1976, edited by Robert M. 

Linn; Sponsored by National Park Service and American Institute of Biological 

Sciences. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, National 

Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series, Number 5, 1979. 

Szekely, Alberto. “The Development of Mexico-U.S. Cooperation: The Conservation of 

Wildlife Transboundary Resources” Transboundary Resources Report, Vol 3, no. 

1, (1989), pp. 1-8. 

419
Toops, Connie “Going to Bat for Bats,” National Parks: The Magazine of the National 

Parks and Conservation Association, Vol. 75, No. 1-2 (January-February 2001), 

pp. 28-31. 

Tucker, Edwin A. and George Fitzpatrick. Men Who Matched the Mountains: The Forest 

Service in the Southwest. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southwest Region; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972 

Tuthill, Carr. The Tres Alamos Site on the San Pedro River, Southeastern Arizona. 

Dragooon, Arizona: The Amerind Foundation, Inc., 1947. 

Udall, Stewart L. “In Coronado’s Footsteps,” Arizona Highways, photography by Jerry 

Jacka, Vol. 60, No. 4 (April 1984), pp. 3-13, 20-45. 

Udall, Stewart L. Majestic Journey: Coronado’s Inland Empire, photography by Jerry 

Jacka. Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press, 1987. 

UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, http://cons-dev.univlyon1.fr/madagascar/MANANARA/mamanet/TEXTE/annexes/mab/home.htm. 

UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. The Seville Strategy for 

Biosphere Reserves. The Biosphere Reserve Concept, http://cons-dev.univlyon1.fr/madagascar/MANANARA/mamanet/TEXTE/annexes/mab/stry_1.htm.

Valencia Ortega, Ismael. Cananea. Hermosillo: Centro Regional del Noroeste, Instituto 

Nacional de Antropología e Historia – SEP, Secretaria de Fomento Educativo y 

Cultura, 1984. 

Wagoner, Jay J. Early Arizona: Prehistory to Civil War. Tucson: The University of 

Arizona Press, 1975. 

“What is Your Favorite Park Doing for Bats,” Bats, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Spring 1995), p. 10. 

Wilson, John P. Islands in the Desert: A History of the Uplands of Southeastern Arizona. 

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, in cooperation with the Historical 

Society of New Mexico, 1995. 

Winship, George P. The Coronado Expedition, 1540-1542. Washington, D.C.: Fourteenth 

Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1896. 

420