Indian Garden • Grand Canyon National Park 

Grand Canyon, Arizona

Cultural Landscape Report 

Contract No. 1443-C2000020300

June 2005
Notice: This manuscript has been authored by John Milner Associates, Inc. under Contract Number 1443-

C2000020300 with the NPS. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for

publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States

Government purposes.
prepared by

John Milner Associates, Inc.

103 West Main Street

Charlottesville, Virginia 22902

with

Rivanna Archaeology

Consulting Historians

Charlottesville, Virginia

History Matters

Consulting Historians

Washington, DC

SWCA, Inc. 

Environmental Consultants/Consulting Historians

Flagstaff, Arizona

in association with

van Dijk Westlake Reed Leskosky Architects

Phoenix, Arizona

Contract No. 1443-C2000020300

June 2005

Indian Garden • Grand Canyon National Park 

Cultural Landscape Report 

Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

i

Table of Contents 

List of Figures......................................................................................................... iii 

List of Photographs................................................................................................ vi 

List of Maps............................................................................................................ ix

Chapter I • Introduction 

Management Summary.................................................................................................. I - 1 

Historical Overview..................................................................................................... I - 2 

Scope of Work and Methodology.................................................................................... I - 3 

Description of Study Boundaries.................................................................................... I - 8 

Recommendations for Future Research............................................................................ I - 9 

Summary of Findings................................................................................................... I - 11 

Chapter II • Landscape Physical History 

Introduction................................................................................................................ II - 1 

Non-European History of the Grand Canyon..................................................................... II - 2 

European Narrative History of the Indian Garden Region..................................................... II - 7 

• Spanish Colonization and European Exploration of the Grand Canyon Vicinity: 1540-

1821............................................................ II - 25 

• Mexican Independence and Administration: 1821-1848................................................ II - 32 

• Early American Exploration and the Territory of Arizona: 1848-1880.............................. II - 37 

• Early Anglo Settlement, Mining Claims, and Pioneer Tourist 

Development on the South Rim: 1880-1901............................................................... II - 43 

• Arrival of the Railroad and Private Development of Indian Garden: 1901-1928.................. II - 51 

• National Park Service Tenure and the Civilian Conservation Corps Era: 1928-1945............ II - 85 

• Post-War Indian Garden: Mission 66 and the Development of a 

New Water System: 1945-1970................................................................................ II - 105 

• Late Twentieth-Century Development and Early Twenty-First-Century 

Improvements: 1970-2002.......................................................................................II - 121 

Chapter III • Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation 

Introduction................................................................................................................ III - 1 

Overview of the Grand Canyon National Park Landscape..................................................... III - 3 

Overview of Indian Garden............................................................................................ III - 4 

Description of Existing Conditions by Landscape Character Area.......................................... III - 17 

• Bright Angel Trail Corridor (North and South)............................................................III - 17 

• Administration Area............................................................................................. III - 29 

• Campground Area................................................................................................ III - 43 

• Day Use Area...................................................................................................... III - 51 

• Pump Station and Corral Area................................................................................. III - 63 

• North Indian Garden Area....................................................................................... III - 79 

Condition Assessments................................................................................................. III - 87 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

ii

Chapter IV • Landscape Analysis and Evaluation 

Introduction................................................................................................................ IV - 1 

Existing International and National Recognition................................................................. IV - 2 

Preliminary Statement of Significance.............................................................................. IV - 4 

Comparative Analysis of Historic and Existing Conditions................................................... IV - 8 

Identification of Contributing, Non-Contributing, and Supporting Features.............................. IV - 23 

Integrity Assessment................................................................................................... IV - 33 

Chapter V • Landscape Treatment and Design Recommendations 

Introduction ............................................................................................................... V - 1 

Management Issues, Goals, and Objectives........................................................................ V - 2 

Recommended Landscape Treatment Approach................................................................. V - 6 

Treatment Concept...................................................................................................... V - 9 

Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines.......................................................... V - 10 

• Design Guidelines................................................................................................... V - 10 

• General Treatment Recommendations....................................................................... V - 15 

• Recommendations by Landscape Character Area......................................................... V - 21 

• Specific Project Recommendations........................................................................... V – 29 

References 

General Sources...................................................................................................... R - 1 

Federal Reports and Documents...................................................................................... R - 6 

Newspapers............................................................................................................... R - 8 

Unpublished Documents............................................................................................... R - 8 

Maps and Drawings..................................................................................................... R - 9 

Appendix A 

Inventory of Landscape Features.................................................................................... A – 1 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

iii

List of Figures 

Chapter I – Introduction 

Figure 1. Location Map. 

Figure 2. Context Map.

Chapter II – Landscape Physical History 

Figure 3. “Prospecting for Gold, Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon of Arizona,” ca. 1901. 

Figure 4. “Indian Gardens,”...workers clearing vegetation, ca. 1902. 

Figure 5. Cameron’s Indian Garden, view to south, 1906. 

Figure 6. View of Indian Garden, ca. 1906. 

Figure 7. Close-up view of Indian Garden, ca. 1906. 

Figure 8. Burro trains packing provisions at Indian Garden, ca. 1906. 

Figure 9. Tourist Camp at Indian Garden, ca. 1907. 

Figure 10. Mule train at Indian Garden, ca 1910. 

Figure 11. Indian Garden looking southwest, showing Kolb Studio, ca. 1916. 

Figure 12. Indian Garden looking south, showing Kolb Studio and tents, ca. 1916. 

Figure 13. Indian Garden looking southwest at Kolb Studio, ca. 1916. 

Figure 14. Indian Garden looking west at Kolb Studio, ca. 1916. 

Figure 15. Conceptual site plans for Indian Garden, 1916. 

Figure 16. Mary Colter’s conceptual drawing of proposed guest house, 1916. 

Figure 17. Mary Colter’s conceptual drawing of proposed “typical stone cottage,” 1916. 

Figure 18. Mary Colter’s conceptual drawing of proposed two-person cabin, 1916. 

Figure 19. Mary Colter’s conceptual “Floor Plans for Stone Cottages,” 1916. 

Figure 20. Detail of 1917 Working Plan Map, showing Indian Garden. 

Figure 21. Ruins of Daniel L. Hogan’s winter cabin at Indian Garden, 1921. 

Figure 22. Ruins of Cameron tent cabins, 1921. 

Figure 23. Ruins of Cameron tent cabins, 1921. 

Figure 24. Pipeline tram gondola with ten people near Indian Garden, ca. 1931. 

Figure 25. Ian Campbell in front of cabin at Indian Garden, ca. 1933. 

Figure 26. Partial plan of Indian Garden sewer improvements, ca. 1935. 

Figure 27. Erosion control and planting plan, 1935. 

Figure 28. “Topographical Map of Indian Gardens Area,” January 1936. 

Figure 29. “Details of Santa Fe Water System at Indian Gardens...” February 1936. 

Figure 30. Building #143, Trail Shelter at Indian Garden, ca. 1936.Figure 32. 

Figure 31. NP-4 unit of CCC constructing Indian Garden Mule Barn, 1936. 

Figure 32. NP-4 unit of CCC constructing Indian Garden Mule Barn, 1936 (Image #2) 

Figure 33. West view of Mule Barn at Indian Garden, ca. 1936. 

Figure 34. Northwest view of Indian Garden Mule Barn, ca. 1936. 

Figure 35. “Detail, Inner Canyon Developed Areas, Region 3...” 1952. 

Figure 36. “Indian Garden Topo,” 1959. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

iv

Figure 37. “Campground – Picnic Area, Indian Gardens,” ca. 1960s. 

Figure 38. “Sewage Disposal System, Indian Gardens,” September 1960. 

Figure 39. “Indian Gardens Topo,” 1963. 

Figure 40. Scene after flash flood below Indian Garden, 1963. 

Figure 41. Former ranger station and NPS Caretaker’s Residence (now SAR Cache), 1978. 

Figure 42. Topographic map of Indian Garden, September 1971. 

Figure 43. “Indian Gardens Sewage System,” January 1985. 

Figure 44. Indian Garden floodplain map, February 1986. 

Figure 45. “Demolition Plan” Sheet D-1 of 1989 As-Constructed drawings. 

Figure 46. “Housing Area Layout/Grading Plan” Sheet L-2 of 1989 As-Constructed drawings. 

Figure 47. “Campground Layout Plan” Sheet L-4 of 1989 As-Constructed drawings. 

Figure 48. “Mule Corral Layout Plan” Sheet L-10 of 1989 As-Constructed drawings. 

Figure 49. “Housing Area Planting/Irrigation Plan” Sheet L-3 of 1989 As-Constructed drawings. 

Figure 50. “Campground Planting Plan” Sheet L-6 of 1989 As-Constructed drawings. 

Chapter IV – Landscape Analysis and Evaluation 

Figure 51. View of Cameron’s stone house and auxiliary buildings, 1920. 

Figure 51a. View of 1989 mule barn and corral in approximate location of stone house, 2002. 

Figure 52. View of Cameron’s tent camp and cottonwood trees, 1907. 

Figure 52a. View of current Day Use Area in former location of tent camp, 2002. 

Figure 53. View showing new concrete slab at lower Rehandling Pump House, 1965. 

Figure 53a. View of lower Rehandling Pump House, 2002. 

Figure 54. View of rock masonry wall at Rehandling Pump House, 1965. 

Figure 54a. Same view of rock masonry wall at Rehandling Pump House, 2002. 

Figure 55. SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence, looking south, 1932. 

Figure 55a. SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence, 2002. 

Figure 56. Trailside Shelter, looking east, 1937. 

Figure 56a. Trailside Shelter, looking east, 2002. 

Figure 57. Rock House/Pump Caretaker’s Residence, circa 1970s. 

Figure 57a. Rock House/Pump Caretaker’s Residence, 2002. 

Chapter V – Landscape Treatment and Design Recommendations 

Figure 58. Examples of eroded banks and flood debris in Garden Creek. 

Figure 59. Fill holes on trail during maintenance. 

Figure 60. Fill low spots in trail during maintenance. 

Figure 61. Eroded log risers should be backfilled. 

Figure 62. Remove vegetation that is dead, dying, or hazardous. 

Figure 63. Remove vegetation that grows over and between stone edging. 

Figure 64. Undertake archeological surveys. 

Figure 65. Retain and maintain all archeological features. 

Figure 66. Maintain the linear corridor of Bright Angel Trail. 

Figure 67. Undertake methods to reduce mule and hiker conflicts. 

Figure 68. Assess the stability of the vertical slope on Bright Angel Trail. 

Figure 69. Coordinate with natural resource staff regarding Day Use Area. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

v

Figure 70. Remove excess vegetation that is obscuring spaces. 

Figure 71. Repair the Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache terrace. 

Figure 72. Repair and maintain the concrete sidewalk and stone steps. 

Figure 73. Determine the original purpose of the foundation. 

Figure 74. Survey potential archeological sites. 

Figure 75. Retain and maintain the Rehandling Pump House. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

vi

List of Photographs 

All photographs are located in Chapter III, Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation. 

Overview 

Photograph 1. A linear oasis of riparian vegetation along Garden Creek. 

Photograph 2. Riparian vegetation, showing cottonwood and seep willow. 

Photograph 3. The desertscrub community above Indian Garden. 

Photograph 4. Historic telephone pole. 

Photograph 5. Site No. Ariz. B:16:140, dry-laid stone masonry structures. 

Photograph 6. Site No. Ariz. B:16:165, “Cooler” or latrine. 

Photograph 7. Site No. Ariz. B:16:165, tent platform with stone retaining wall. 

Bright Angel Trail Corridor (North and south) 

Photograph 8. Bright Angel Trail Corridor. 

Photograph 9. Bright Angel Trail Corridor with stone water bar and signage. 

Photograph 10. Node at junction of Bright Angel Trail and Garden Creek. 

Photograph 11. Informal spur/social trail. 

Photograph 12. Formal spur trail to Comfort Station. 

Photograph 13. Mule-worn depressions in Bright Angel Trail. 

Photograph 14. Erosion around Bright Angel Trail log risers. 

Photograph 15. Trail-edge vegetation. 

Photograph 16. Northern portion of Bright Angel Trail. 

Photograph 17. Row of cottonwood trees with stumps. 

Photograph 18. Large redbud tree. 

Photograph 19. Trailside Shelter, built in 1937. 

Photograph 20. Stone steps to Trailside Shelter. 

Photograph 21. Mortared stone protective wall. 

Photograph 22. Wood post-and-rail fencing and wooden signage... 

Photograph 23. Log risers and stone water bars. 

Photograph 24. Thermometer. 

Photograph 25. Bench with cottonwood stumps. 

Photograph 26. Hitching bar. 

Administration Area 

Photograph 27. Wood deck and stone walls defining communal space. 

Photograph 28. Courtyard with concrete sidewalk, hitching bar. 

Photograph 29. Backyard space south of Ranger Residence. 

Photograph 30. Ranger Residence and public front porch. 

Photograph 31. Formal spur trail to buildings, campground. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

vii

Photograph 32. Informal spur trail to helispot. 

Photograph 33. Native vegetation in planting beds. 

Photograph 34. Pump Operator’s Residence. 

Photograph 35. Storage/Laundry/First Aid Building. 

Photograph 36. Trash Compactor Shed. 

Photograph 37. Sand filter bed. 

Photograph 38. Helispot. 

Photograph 39. Wooden stairs (typical). 

Photograph 40. Horseshoes court. 

Photograph 41. Hose house. 

Photograph 42. Drainfield (structure underground). 

Photograph 43. View from Administration Area to surrounding canyon. 

Photograph 44. View to north from helispot. 

Photograph 45. Stone edging, stone walls, and wire mesh tree cages. 

Photograph 46. Hitching bar and stone wall. 

Photograph 47. Windsock to rear of Bunkhouse. 

Campground Area 

Photograph 48. Semi-private camping sites. 

Photograph 49. Central public space in campground. 

Photograph 50. Public space at south comfort station. 

Photograph 51. Central campground trail. 

Photograph 52. Formal spur trail to camping area (typical). 

Photograph 53. Northern comfort station 

Photograph 54. Typical camp site with shade structure and small-scale features. 

Photograph 55. Stone walls west of north comfort station. 

Photograph 56. Drinking fountain. 

Day Use Area 

Photograph 57. View of picnic areas within wet area. 

Photograph 58. Spur trail east of Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache. 

Photograph 59. Stone steps, concrete sidewalk at Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache. 

Photograph 60. Cottonwoods with dieback. 

Photograph 61. Remains of large cottonwood near Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache. 

Photograph 62. Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache, 1932. 

Photograph 63. Rock House (former Pump Caretaker’s Residence), 1943. 

Photograph 64. Air Quality Monitoring Station. 

Photograph 65. Gabion walls. 

Photograph 66. Channelized section of Garden Creek. 

Photograph 67. Concrete footbridge abutment on trail in picnic area. 

Photograph 68. Concrete foundation and picnic table. 

Photograph 69. Stone retaining wall. 

Photograph 70. Utility pole west of Rock House/Pump Caretaker’s Residence. 

Photograph 71. Rough stone edging, picnic tables, and bench in picnic area. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

viii

Photograph 72. Benches and drinking fountain north of Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache. 

Photograph 73. Wood bench seating on terrace. 

Photograph 74. Electrical distribution box. 

Photograph 75. Wood and wire mesh fence west of Rock House/Pump Caretaker’s Residence. 

Photograph 76. PVC pipe along trail, removed in 2004. 

Pump Station and Corral Area 

Photograph 77. Spring with cottonwood trees. 

Photograph 78. Visitor rest area. 

Photograph 79. Pump Station node. 

Photograph 80. Helispot. 

Photograph 81. Informal earthen path to top of reservoir 

Photograph 82. Ramp-like trail to comfort station. 

Photograph 83. North Pump House, 1967, with concrete sidewalk. 

Photograph 84. Cottonwood trees near visitor rest area. 

Photograph 85. Redbud shade tree with benches, at mule hitching area. 

Photograph 86. South Pump House, 1932. 

Photograph 87. Pump House Reservoir, 1932. 

Photograph 88. Mule Barn, 1989. 

Photograph 89. Corral with wooden troughs. 

Photograph 90. Comfort station, 1987. 

Photograph 91. Concrete cistern located at site of perennial spring. 

Photograph 92. Stone retaining wall in background. 

Photograph 93. Boulder and log edging at hitching area. 

Photograph 94. Wooden cabinet, stone edging near helispot. 

Photograph 95. Wood gate between pump houses. 

Photograph 96. Water trough at mule hitching area. 

Photograph 97. Mule hitching bars. 

Photograph 98. Interpretive wayside at North Pump House. 

Photograph 99. Utility structures. 

North Indian Garden Area 

Photograph 100. Garden Creek with eroded bank and seep willows. 

Photograph 101. Garden Creek through North Indian Garden. 

Photograph 102. Cleared area of floodplain with stone remnants and Himalaya Blackberry. 

Photograph 103. Tonto East Trail forking off to right (east). 

Photograph 104. Cottonwood trees in rows. 

Photograph 105. Rehandling Pump House, 1932. 

Photograph 106. Flood walls around Rehandling Pump House. 

Photograph 107. View to south from North Indian Garden Areas. 

Photograph 108. Stone-edged around level ground. 

Photograph 109. Debris piles with wheelbarrow. 

Photograph 110. Site of former Kolb Studio. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

ix

List of Maps 

Each map sheet is labeled with a sub-sheet code that represents the type of information being 

portrayed; “H” represents maps with historical information, “I” represents maps with existing 

conditions inventory information, “P” represents maps with photographic station-point 

information, and “T” represents maps with treatment information. 

Chapter II – Landscape Physical History 

Sheet 1. Landscape Features circa 1916. 

Sheet 2. Landscape Features circa 1943. 

Sheet 3. Landscape Features circa 1966. 

Sheet 4. Landscape Features circa 1988. 

Sheet 5. Landscape Features 2002. 

Chapter III – Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation 

Overview 

Sheet 6. Location and Project Area Maps 

Sheet 7. Landscape Character Areas 

Sheet 8. Vegetation 

Sheet 9. Buildings & Structures; Archeological Sites 

Bright Angel Trail Corridor (South) 

Sheet 10. Natural Systems & Features; Spatial Organization; Circulation; Vegetation 

Sheet 11. Buildings & Structures; Views & Vistas; Small-scale Features 

Bright Angel Trail Corridor (North) 

Sheet 12. All Features 

Sheet 13. Small-scale Features 

Administration Area 

Sheet 14. Natural Systems & Features; Vegetation; Views & Vistas 

Sheet 15. Spatial Organization; Buildings & Structures 

Sheet 16. Circulation; Small-scale Features 

Campground Area 

Sheet 17. Spatial Organization; Circulation 

Sheet 18. Vegetation; Buildings & Structures 

Sheet 19. Views & Vistas; Small-scale Features 

Day Use Area 

Sheet 20. Natural Systems & Features; Spatial Organization; Vegetation 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

x

Sheet 21. Circulation; Buildings & Structures 

Sheet 22. Small-scale Features 

Pump Station and Corral Area 

Sheet 23. Natural Systems & Features; Circulation; Vegetation 

Sheet 24. Spatial Organization; Views & Vistas 

Sheet 25. Buildings & Structures 

Sheet 26. Small-scale Features 

North Indian Garden Area 

Sheet 27. Natural Systems & Features; Vegetation; Views & Vistas 

Sheet 28. Spatial Organization; Circulation; Buildings & Structures 

Photographic Station-Point Maps 

Sheet 29. Photographic Station-Points

Sheet 30. Photographic Station-Points 

Sheet 31. Photographic Station-Points 

Chapter IV – Landscape Analysis and Evaluation 

Sheet 32. Overview of Contributing, Non-Contributing, and Supporting Features 

Sheet 33. Overview of Missing Features 

Sheet 34. Recommended National Register of Historic Places Boundary 

Chapter V – Landscape Treatment and Design Recommendations 

Sheet 35. Potential Locations for New Development 

Sheet 36. Rehabilitate Historic Indian Garden Ranger Station 

Sub-sheet L-20. Shade Structure (1989 As-Constructed Drawings) 

Sub-sheet L-16. Site Details (1989 As-Constructed Drawings) 

Sub-sheet C-16. Water System Details (1989 As-Constructed Drawings) 

Sub-sheet C-6. Indian Garden Site Plan (Environmental Assessment – Upgrade Corridor Area 

Fire Protection Systems) 
Chapter I • Introduction

Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 1 

Chapter I • Introduction 

Management Summary 

The following constitutes a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) that has been prepared by John 

Milner Associates, Inc. (JMA) for the Grand Canyon National Park’s Indian Garden, a rest stop 

and campground along the Bright Angel Trail and approximately 3,200 feet below the South 

Rim. The site has been continually used as a stopping point for hikers, campers, and mule riders 

for over 100 years, although the fertile landscape of water-bearing creeks, springs, and seeps was 

used by American Indians and miners for many years prior to the beginning of tourism. 

Although prior studies and reports have evaluated Indian Garden as part of the Bright Angel 

Trail, this CLR focuses specifically on the Indian Garden landscape, whose study boundary is 

described later in this chapter. 

Included in this CLR are descriptions of the physical development of the Indian Garden 

landscape—from the time of American Indian involvement to contemporary changes to the 

site—and of the existing conditions of the project area as observed in 2002. Also provided is a 

preliminary statement of significance; a comparative analysis of existing and historic conditions; 

an evaluation of the landscape’s integrity; and treatment recommendations and guidelines that 

propose management strategies for the project area’s cultural, historic, and natural resources. 

The need for this CLR arose from the identification of management issues and proposed projects 

that could affect the existing landscape and its associated cultural and natural resources. The 

Grand Canyon National Park’s (GRCA) 1995 General Management Plan (GMP) addressed the 

need for interpretative programs, enhanced visitor services, and building rehabilitation projects 

in Indian Garden. The information contained within this report is intended to be used by the 

National Park Service (NPS) in the development of appropriate proposed actions for Indian 

Garden, during NEPA/NHPA compliance processes, and to aid with the determination of the 

effects of alterations to the cultural landscape. 

This CLR was developed by JMA and its consultants, Rivanna Archaeology and History 

Matters, LLC, and in conjunction with SWCA, Inc., under the guidance of NPS park and 

regional personnel. Numerous individuals from the NPS and GRCA were involved in the 

development of this report by supplying critical information, documents requested by JMA, and 

detailed reviews of draft versions of this report. These persons include Denver Service Center 

AE Manager/Contracting Officer’s Representative Karen Vaage, LA/RLA; Fee Demo Program 

Manager Victoria Stinson; Inter-Mountain Region Historical Landscape Architect Jill Cowley; 

GRCA Chief of Cultural Resources Jan Balsom; Cultural Resource Specialists Susan Weaver, 

Norah Martinez, and Michael Anderson; Denver Service Center Project Manager Paul Cloyd, 

PE/RA; GRCA Project Manager Michael Leary, RLA; and GRCA Museum Technician Colleen 

Hyde. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 2 

Historical Overview 

Because of its reliable supply of water from Garden Creek, Indian Garden has attracted people 

for hundreds of years. American Indians, such as the Havasupai, Ancestral Puebloan, and 

Cohonina people, occupied the area to take advantage of Garden Creek. Miners discovered the 

region in the late 1800s, beginning an era of consistent and permanent white occupation. In the 

late 1880s, Ralph Cameron and his colleagues filed mining claims in the Grand Canyon, 

including Indian Garden, and began to erect buildings and structures to protect these claims. 

Cameron and his group built the Bright Angel Trail by improving an American Indian route. 

Cameron operated the trail as a toll road after 1903 to allow tourists a more accessible means of 

reaching Indian Garden than was afforded by the earlier, aboriginal trail. 

Between 1901 and 1903, Cameron began a tourist camp at Indian Garden consisting of tent 

cabins, meal service, and a telephone line to the rim. He also planted cottonwood trees and 

dammed Garden Creek to irrigate a garden and orchard. Over the next decade, Cameron 

performed little maintenance at the camp and reports written in 1916 referred to Indian Garden 

as filthy and disgraceful. The Fred Harvey Company prepared plans to create a more substantial 

camp with permanent buildings, livestock, gardens, and other facilities to serve up to sixty guests 

per day. Mary Colter contributed architectural renderings of potential buildings for the project. 

These plans were never implemented, however, due to Ralph Cameron’s influence in the region 

and resistance to the project. 

After numerous and prominent legal battles, Ralph Cameron was relieved of his claims to Indian 

Garden and Bright Angel Trail by the Federal government. In 1927, the NPS took legal 

possession of Indian Garden and began to revitalize the site. NPS crews improved trails, built 

buildings, erected a trans-canyon telephone line, and made several other improvements. 

To take advantage of the prodigious supply of water in Indian Garden, the Santa Fe Railway 

built a water pumping system in 1932 that included a pipeline, two pump houses, and a water 

reservoir. Concurrently, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) crews were stationed in the Grand 

Canyon and Indian Garden, beginning in 1933. The crews planted vegetation and implemented 

new construction during their tenure at Indian Garden. The CCC left Grand Canyon National 

Park in 1942 when the Corps was officially disbanded due to the onset of World War II. Over the 

next two decades, Indian Garden’s landscape changed very little. 

The 1960s saw a number of improvements that catered to the increasing number of park visitors 

and day-trippers. In the late 1980s, the NPS carried out plans for extensive rehabilitation of 

Indian Garden that were prompted by the need to control heavy flooding in the site and prevent 

flood damage, and for increased amenities for visitors and personnel. The plans created new use 

areas and relocated or demolished certain existing buildings and structures. Much of the work, 

however, was done using Rustic Revival design principles that were compatible with the 

aesthetic character of the site and inner canyon. Indian Garden appears today much as it did after 

the 1989 rehabilitation efforts. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 3 

Scope of Work and Methodology 

Project Scope 

In April of 2002, the NPS developed a scope of work for the Indian Garden CLR that delineated 

the following tasks: 

Administrative Data 

• preparation of an administrative data report section in consultation with the NPS. 

Landscape History 

• conducting historical research of primary source materials relating to all cultural 

landscape elements within the project area; 

• studying the evolution of the landscape, including a review of historic maps, 

photographs, oral history transcripts, site records, and written records with an emphasis 

on known resources; 

• review of all secondary source materials relating to the study area including natural and 

cultural resource documents; 

• preparation of an annotated cultural landscape chronology outlining notable periods of 

the landscape development and key characteristics and components of the landscapes 

during the historic period(s) and preparation of a narrative physical history; and 

• preparation of graphic landscape chronology maps with one graphic for each notable 

period of landscape development. Key characteristics and components of the landscapes 

present during the historic period(s) will be identified on the maps. 

Existing Conditions Documentation 

• conducting field surveys to inventory and document existing conditions in the project 

area; 

• where existing base maps are inadequate, conducting additional fieldwork in the study 

area and preparation of an accurate planning-level base map indicating existing 

topography and all built and natural features including, but not limited to, key landscape 

features such as property lines, structures, vegetation, walks, drives, views, and 

viewsheds; 

• photographic documentation of the site including representative features. Incorporate 

selected existing conditions photographs into the report; 

• undertaking, when practicable, existing conditions photography in locations of historic 

ground photographs for the purpose of comparative analysis; 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 4 

• preparation of an existing conditions photographic station point map documenting the 

location and orientation of photographs. 

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation 

• identification of characteristics that are significant and contribute to the integrity of the 

cultural landscape; identification of characteristics that contribute to the cultural 

landscape and why they are contributing; identification of characteristics and elements 

that are supporting and non-contributing; and location and labeling of contributing, 

supporting, and non-contributing features on a site plan; 

• analysis and evaluation using landscape characteristics identified by the National 

Register of Historic Places and in the Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports; 

• preparation of graphic analyses to clearly identify these elements. 

Landscape Significance, Integrity, and Condition Assessment 

• completion of a draft integrity assessment of the resource, using National Register 

criteria and guidance in the Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports; 

• assessment of the condition of the landscape as a whole and of each subsection of the 

landscape; 

• identification and description of existing and potential threats to the integrity of the 

cultural landscape; 

• identification of the historical context of the cultural landscape, preparation of a 

statement of significance, and identification of periods of significance using National 

Register and National Historic Landmark criteria. 

Landscape Treatment Recommendations and Design Criteria 

• development of suggestions for management goals based on the park’s GMP and 

objectives to meet these goals, including goals for an interpretive program; 

• determination of an overall treatment for Indian Garden, using the Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes for guidance; 

• preparation of more detailed recommendations beyond overall recommendations that 

address surviving historic landscape features and systems; 

• development of specific landscape treatments for component landscape areas within 

Indian Garden while providing justifications for recommended treatments; 

• preparation of a landscape treatment plan that outlines any recommended 

seasonal/annual/periodic landscape treatments to direct future site maintenance; 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 5 

• preparation of design criteria recommendations that identify the types and degree of 

changes that can occur without adversely affecting the landscape’s physical and visual 

character-defining features; 

• development of specific project recommendations that will support park projects, 

specifically those features within proposed project areas and those mentioned in the 

GMP; and 

• preparation of Class C cost estimates for specific project recommended treatments. 

Project Methodology 

The JMA team provided all necessary services and supporting activities in the fields of 

landscape architecture, historical landscape architecture, historical research, historic architecture, 

archeology, ethnography, and natural resources to prepare this CLR. The primary standard for 

this effort was A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process and Technologies

published in 1998 by the NPS. This document detailed the content, format, and methodologies 

appropriate for a CLR. Recommendations arising from this CLR comply with pertinent Federal 

standards, policies, and regulations, as well as all applicable state, local and national building 

and life safety codes including, but not limited to, the following: 

1. NPS Management Policies (2001) 

2. NPS Director’s Order #28, Chapter 7 

3. Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques (1998)

4. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996) 

5. The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines and Standards for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation

Other documents used include National Register of Historic Places Bulletin #15: How to Apply 

the National Register Criteria for Evaluation and The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th edition. 

Background Research and Data Collection 

A substantial amount of information and resources were provided to JMA by the NPS prior to 

the initiation of research. This information included a base map for Indian Garden prepared by 

the Denver Service Center, the 1992 draft Bright Angel Trail National Register Nomination 

form, a list of existing buildings, and the 1995 General Management Plan for Grand Canyon 

National Park. Additional materials, including information on archeological sites and prehistory 

of the Grand Canyon region, were collected by SWCA, Inc. and distributed to other team 

members. The methodology for all directed research was based on review of this preliminary 

body of collected primary and secondary data sources. 

Directed research was conducted in three stages. The first stage involved a review of the material 

received from the NPS, SWCA, Inc., and secondary sources relating to the history of GRCA. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 6 

The result of this review was the construction of a draft chronology for the project area and the 

creation of a short list of sources to request or locate. 

The second stage of research involved visiting selected regional repositories in northern Arizona. 

Several research trips were made by SWCA, Inc. in the late summer and early fall of 2002 to 

gather and copy primary and secondary sources relevant to the project area and its regional and 

national contexts. Three repositories were visited during this trip: the Cline Library at Northern 

Arizona University in Flagstaff, the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff, and the Grand 

Canyon National Park Museum Collection at Grand Canyon Village on the South Rim. Historic 

maps and photographs, books, reports, documents, subject and clippings files, and microfilm 

records were reviewed and copied where possible. Digitized historic photographs of Indian 

Garden were requested and received from Northern Arizona University’s Cline Library and the 

Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection. 

During a visit to the project area to document existing conditions in September of 2002, team 

historians examined subject files kept in a filing cabinet in the Storage/Laundry/First Aid 

building in Indian Garden. Copies of important documents from these files were made on site. 

Additional research trips to the University of Virginia Library were conducted by Rivanna 

Archaeology to investigate appropriate local, state, and national contexts related to Arizona and 

the Grand Canyon. Records reviewed during these trips included early twentieth-century guide 

books for the Grand Canyon and Southwest regional and early twentieth-century Congressional 

Records. 

Field Investigation 

A fieldwork trip was conducted in September 2002 by JMA, Rivanna Archaeology, History 

Matters, LLC, and SWCA, Inc. The focus of the field investigation included ground-level 

reconnaissance of the Indian Garden project area and documentation of existing landscape 

conditions and features. Prior to fieldwork, NPS Ranger Chuck Sypher provided the team with a 

general overview and walking tour of the site. 

Fieldwork efforts included ground-truthing base map data and photographic documentation of 

landscape features. JMA, with the assistance of Rivanna Archaeology, completed general 

existing conditions fieldwork and condition assessments. An architectural historian from History 

Matters, LLC conducted on-site investigations and condition assessments of existing buildings 

and structures within the project area. SWCA, Inc. completed a vegetation analysis of Indian 

Garden as well as identification of archeological sites. 

Site Physical History 

The site physical history (Chapter II of this CLR) was organized chronologically within two 

sections: a non-European History of the Grand Canyon and a history of human occupation from 

a European viewpoint. These sections are further divided into separate periods. Each period is 

introduced by a narrative summary outlining the physical landscape developments known to 

have occurred during that period; these narratives are followed by an annotated chronology of 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 7 

events organized by landscape characteristic. Graphic illustrations are interleaved within the text 

and depict important events or concepts. 

Graphic chronologies were prepared to illustrate change over time in the Indian Garden 

landscape. These period plans were based on review, evaluation, and comparison of primary 

resources including photographs, historic maps, historic narratives, and information provided in 

the narrative history text. All maps were hand-drawn and imported into AutoCAD, then overlaid 

onto digital topography from existing base map data. Features appearing over multiple periods 

were consistently located. Vegetative change over time is only representative and incorporates 

educated assumptions. 

Evaluation of Significance 

Preliminary significance evaluations were undertaken using data from the site physical history 

chapter of this report; National Register of Historic Places nominations; Teri Cleeland’s thesis 

“The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District in Grand Canyon National Park: A Model for 

Historic Preservation;” and guidance from National Register Bulletins #15 and #18. The 

evaluation of significance included a review of the physical history to determine potential 

significance associated with all National Register criteria, an identification of potential historic 

contexts associated with the site, and identification of periods of significance. 

Comparative Analysis of Historic and Existing Conditions 

The comparative analysis in Chapter IV was completed for the entire project area and then for 

each landscape characteristic. The analysis was based on information gathered during existing 

conditions fieldwork and mapping, from the physical history prepared by Rivanna Archaeology, 

and from numerous historic images, maps, and plans. Comparative photograph pairs illustrated 

the changes that occurred over time in Indian Garden. 

Integrity Assessment 

The integrity assessment was based on the findings of the significance evaluation, the 

comparative analysis, and the seven aspects of historic integrity as defined by the National 

Register of Historic Places (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association). Integrity was assessed for the Ralph Cameron sub-period of significance (1903-

1927) and for the NPS sub-period of significance (1927-1943). Threats to integrity were also 

identified by determining which factors that influence the Indian Garden landscape could 

diminish its integrity. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 8 

Identification of Contributing, Non-Contributing, Supporting, and Missing Resources 

After the completion of the comparative analysis, landscape features were placed into one of four 

categories: 

• Contributing features (surviving from the period of significance) 

• Non-contributing features (post-dating the period of significance, or without integrity) 

• Supporting features (post-dating the period of significance, yet constructed with the same 

or similar design intent) 

• Missing features (features from the period of significance that are no longer extant) 

Each existing categorized feature was listed in Chapter IV, labeled on the corresponding existing 

conditions map in Chapter III, and listed in Appendix A. Missing features were identified on a 

map in Chapter IV. 

Treatment Recommendations and Guidelines 

JMA followed the guidance presented in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes 

when preparing treatment recommendations and guidelines for this CLR. The treatment chapter 

was written using the findings of existing conditions and condition assessment documentation, 

the assessment of integrity from Chapter IV, and were based on actions proposed by GRCA 

managers. 

The treatment chapter includes a recommended treatment approach, an overarching treatment 

concept that provides the philosophical basis for the guidance offered in the chapter, 

recommendations and guidelines for the treatment of Indian Garden’s cultural landscape, and 

recommendations for specific projects selected by the park. The chapter parses the six landscape 

character areas into two sections: historic (Bright Angel Trail Corridor, Day Use Area, Pump 

Station and Corral Area, and North Indian Garden Area) and non-historic (Administration Area 

and Campground Area). Guidelines for new development and compatibility of new features are 

offered for all six character areas, while more directed recommendations for mitigation of 

condition issues, maintenance, and repair are offered only for the four historic areas. 

Description of Study Boundaries 

Indian Garden is located within Grand Canyon National Park in northern Arizona (Figure 1). It 

is north of Grand Canyon Village and within the inner canyon, resting 3,200 feet below the edge 

of the South Rim and approximately 3,700 feet above sea level (Figure 2). Indian Garden lies 

approximately one and one-half miles south of Plateau Point and is part of the Tonto Platform, a 

geomorphological feature of the Grand Canyon. 

The scope of work for this CLR states that the project boundary should be based on the boundary 

in Section 10 of the draft 1992 Bright Angel Trail National Register nomination form. The 

boundary in this nomination was based on Teri Cleeland’s 1986 thesis, “The Cross Canyon 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 9 

Corridor Historic District in Grand Canyon National Park,” which was delineated prior to the 

extensive 1989 rehabilitation. The 1989 rehabilitation created additional use areas to the south of 

Indian Garden’s historic core, as well as relocating or demolishing other features. This CLR uses 

a boundary for the Indian Garden project area that differs from existing documents by including 

all historic and non-historic cultural and archeological landscape features present in 2002. The 

revised CLR boundary was accepted by NPS and GRCA staff in September of 2002 and is 

described in the following paragraph. 

Indian Garden is located nearly four and one-half miles along the Bright Angel Trail and can 

also be accessed by the Tonto Trail. The CLR project area boundary begins approximately 170 

feet south of the Bunkhouse and includes the southern helispot. The boundary runs along the 

western edge of the Indian Garden development and floodplain; roughly paralleling the Bright 

Angel Trail, and between 150 and 225 feet west of the trail corridor. The boundary turns south at 

the site of the Kolb Studio ruin to form Indian Garden’s northern edge. This northern edge is 

approximately 3,400 feet north of the southern helispot. The eastern edge boundary of the project 

area parallels the Bright Angel Trail, and includes the Pump Station and northern helispot as well 

as the Cameron-era ruins located in the far northern portion of the boundary. The width of the 

linear corridor created by the project boundary ranges from 250 feet to 420 feet. 

This CLR study area also includes part of the trans-canyon telephone line, which is listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places. The remnants of this system in this location include three 

telephone poles located east of, but in close proximity to, Indian Garden. The poles are included 

with the project area as a discontiguous boundary. 

Recommendations for Future Research 

The preparation of this CLR raised questions that merit further investigation. Resolution of these 

issues may potentially yield information that will aid interpretation activities and future 

management efforts. 

Archeological Surveys 

Additional archeological surveys and research should be undertaken to uncover any remaining 

unknown information relating to Ralph Cameron’s occupation and use of Indian Garden. Any 

new information uncovered may enhance interpretation efforts along with the visitors’ 

understanding of the evolution of Indian Garden. 

Water Pumping System and Engineering Significance 

At present, it is not known how the design and complexity of the historic 1930s water system—

that pumped water from Indian Garden to the South Rim—compares to other systems built 

during the same era. Additional engineering-related research and comparison should be done to 

determine whether the pipeline embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction; in other words, whether the water pumping system was innovative or 

unusual for its time, or if its method of construction was once widely practiced but is now 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 10 

represented in only a few locations. Research must also be done to assess the integrity of the 

water system and whether it exists much as it did during the period of significance or if it has 

undergone enough changes so that few historic aspects remain. 

Additionally, a water supply improvement project was undertaken in 1985 that may eventually 

be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The directional drill hole project allowed 

a new water line to run up the south face of the canyon, underneath the rock. This project made 

use of pioneering oil field technology in order to combat the extremely challenging technical and 

aesthetic requirements inherent to construction of the water line. The project has already 

received recognition of its technical significance. In the future, the water line project may be 

considered for inclusion on the National Register under Criterion C after fifty years have passed, 

or Under Criterion Consideration G, for properties that achieve significance before they have 

reached fifty years of age. The project may also be considered for Historic American 

Engineering Record (HAER) documentation. 

Addition of Indian Garden to Management Documents 

During the process of preparing this CLR, JMA recognized a lack of management information 

and data directly related to Indian Garden and its resources. Within the GMP, for example, 

Indian Garden was treated as part of the Corridor Trails Area, rather than an individual entity. 

JMA recommends that future management documents identify and treat Indian Garden as an 

individual resource. Future documents should create goals and objectives, plans, drawings, and 

recommendations specifically concerning Indian Garden in order to protect the site’s remaining 

historic fabric and prevent incompatible design from occurring. 

Mission 66 Development 

A number of features were constructed in Indian Garden during the Mission 66 era, which 

extended from 1956 until 1966. These features include an addition to the NPS Caretaker’s 

Residence in the 1960s; a 1963 comfort station; a 1965 bunkhouse; retaining walls; a sewage 

pump station; a campground and picnic area around 1963; and a footbridge. Plans from the 

1950s also show that the 1967 North Pump House was conceived during Mission 66, although it 

was constructed shortly after the end of the Mission 66 program. Of these features, only the NPS 

Caretaker’s Residence, the North Pump House, and possibly portions of the old campground are 

still extant. 

With an understanding that landscape architectural context for Mission 66 design and planning 

efforts in the National Park system is pending, the CLR team determined that an evaluation of 

any Mission 66 planning, design, and construction was not warranted as part of the CLR scope 

of work. The CLR team recommends that after a Mission 66 planning and design context has 

been written and approved, the extant Mission 66 features within Indian Garden should be reevaluated regarding their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. If these resources 

are found to be significant and eligible, they should be included on the Bright Angel Trail 

National Register of Historic Places nomination form. Additionally, the end-date of the period of 

significance, now ending at 1943, would need to be reconsidered and possibly revised to reflect 

the inclusion of Mission 66 features. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 11 

The CLR team recommends that all surviving Mission 66 features, thought assessed as noncontributing in this CLR, should be retained and maintained until they can be evaluated within a 

completed national planning and design context for the Mission 66 program. 

Niobrara ambersnail 

Protection of the Niobrara ambersnail, which inhabits much of the Day Use Area, must be 

mitigated with the need to reclaim overgrown and waterlogged facilities in the same area. 

Although the snail deserves adequate protection, additional research must be undertaken that will 

find a balance between creating an acceptable habitat for the snail while allowing visitors and 

staff to use and manage the Day Use Area. 

Summary of Findings 

Indian Garden is a palimpsest whose earlier traces of history are still faintly visible in today’s 

multi-layered landscape. Whether ensuing generations of management and design were based on 

hand-over of legal control, the need to rebuild due to flood damage, or the necessity of 

enhancing facilities for an ever-growing number of visitors, Indian Garden has been a model of 

how to keep pace with change. The issues that face Indian Garden most often are those that 

involve mitigation of water—this element is both welcome as a source of cool and refreshment, 

yet is also a source of apprehension when flash floods rush through the landscape. Throughout 

history, it is water that has both drawn people to this site and shaped the form and appearance of 

the cultural landscape we see today. 

The CLR team identified the period of significance for Indian Garden to be from 1903 until 

1943. The earlier date marks the year when Ralph Cameron began his tourism facilities at Indian 

Garden in earnest. The latter year marks the end of CCC involvement in Indian Garden and the 

final implementation of NPS Rustic-style design aesthetics within the landscape. Within this 

overall period of significance exist two sub-periods: from 1903 until 1927, marking the years of 

Ralph Cameron’s influence upon the site, and 1927 until 1943, marking the years of NPS and 

CCC influence on Indian Garden. 

After evaluating the Indian Garden landscape according to the National Register of Historic 

Places’ seven aspects of historic integrity, the CLR team found that Indian Garden does not 

retain integrity for the period of significance. This finding was based on the fact that Indian 

Garden has undergone considerable alterations since the period of significance—changes that 

have impeded Indian Garden’s ability to convey its historical significance and importance within 

American history. For this reason, Indian Garden is not individually eligible to the National 

Register of Historic Places as a district or a site. Portions of the landscape, however, including 

all contributing resources, should be included in the Bright Angel Trail National Register 

nomination and should be preserved and protected as part of the park’s management plans. These 

portions are the historic character areas within the CLR project boundary and consist of the 

Bright Angel Trail Corridor, Day Use Area, Pump Station and Corral Area, and North Indian 

Garden Area. The remaining non-historic character areas—the Administration and Campground 

Areas—should not be included in the Bright Angel Trail nomination at this time. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Introduction I - 12 

Although Indian Garden does not retain integrity, it is still a significant historic landscape. 

According to guidelines provided by the National Register of Historic Places, Indian Garden is 

important within American history under Criteria A, C, and possibly D. Under Criterion A, 

Indian Garden is significant within the areas of Recreation, for the landscape’s association with 

tourism-related activities, and Politics/Government, for the landscape’s association with the 

CCC. Under Criterion C, Indian Garden is significant within the area of Architecture, for its 

collection of Rustic-style buildings. Under Criterion D, Indian Garden may be significant within 

the area of Ethnic Heritage for the landscape’s potential to yield important information about 

American Indian groups that historically and prehistorically used and inhabited the site. Indian 

Garden may also be significant under this criterion within the area of Recreation, for the site’s 

potential to yield information about Cameron-era activities. 

Because Indian Garden does not retain integrity as an individual entity, and park managers have 

outlined plans to make alterations and upgrades to the landscape, rehabilitation is the 

recommended overall treatment approach for the four historic character areas. Treatment for the 

non-historic Administration and Campground Areas consists of adequate maintenance of 

existing features and the acceptance of necessary new development. Rehabilitation is defined as 

“the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, 

and additions while preserving those portions or features [of the landscape] which convey its 

historical, cultural, or architectural values.”1 As described in the definition, an emphasis must be 

placed on the preservation of contributing historic resources. The CLR team feels that this 

approach will allow park managers and personnel to protect significant cultural resources while 

implementing necessary new features and services. 

Treatment recommendations and guidelines in Chapter V of this report focus primarily on the 

need for continual maintenance of all features, the necessity of preserving remaining 

contributing features, the need to control flooding and excess water in Indian Garden, and the 

compatibility and proper placement of new features. 

 

1

 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Washington, D.C.: Heritage 

Preservation Services, 1996), 48. 


Chapter II • Landscape Physical History

Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 1 

Chapter II • Landscape Physical History 

Introduction 

This Site Physical History chapter is divided into two sections: a non-European history of the 

Grand Canyon and a history of human occupation from a European viewpoint. The nonEuropean section includes a brief summary of the beliefs as to the creation and human history of 

the area for six of the seven American Indian groups that claim association with the Grand 

Canyon. The European historical narrative is broken down into twelve separate chronological 

periods. These periods are defined both by documented changes to the landscape and the cultural 

contexts of their occupation. Each period is preceded by a brief introduction. The periods are as 

follows: 

 

• Paleo-Indian Period: 11,500-8,500 BP; 

• Archaic Period: 8,500-1,700 BP; 

• Formative Period: 1,700-700 BP; 

• Protohistoric Period: 700-460 BP; 

 

• Spanish Colonization and European 

Exploration of the Grand Canyon 

Vicinity: 1540-1821 AD; 

• Mexican Independence and 

Administration: 1821-1848; 

 

• Early American Exploration and the 

Territory of Arizona: 1848-1880; 

• Early Anglo Settlement, Mining Claims, 

and Pioneer Tourist Development on the 

South Rim: 1880-1901; 

• Arrival of the Railroad and Private 

Development of Indian Garden: 1901-

1928; 

• National Park Service Tenure and the 

Civilian Conservation Corps Era: 1928-

1945; 

• Post-War Indian Garden: Mission 66 and 

the Development of a New Water 

System: 1945-1970; and 

• Late Twentieth-Century and Early 

Twenty-First-Century Improvements: 

1970-2002. 

For this Cultural Landscape Report (CLR), the chronological periods referring to non-European, 

prehistoric cultures are referred to in “years before present,” or BP. European occupation and 

settlement periods are referred to as AD, or “anno domini.” Beginning with the section entitled 

“Spanish Colonization and European Exploration of the Grand Canyon Vicinity, 1540-1821” and 

all subsequent chapters, the given dates should be treated as AD, although they will not be 

labeled as such. Photographs and graphic chronology drawings, used to illustrate historical 

concepts and landscape evolution within Indian Garden, are located within the chapter. The 

illustrations are located at the end of each historical period to which they correspond. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 2 

Non-European History of the Grand Canyon 

Introduction 

The Grand Canyon plays a tremendous role in the traditions, religions, myths, and legends of 

American Indians that inhabit the region. Ten American Indian groups—the Kaibab Band of 

Paiute Indians, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Hualapai, the 

Havasupai, the Navajo, the Hopi, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Yavapai Apache and the White 

Mountain Apache—claim traditional use of the Grand Canyon and/or have religious beliefs 

about the canyon and the Colorado River.1 This section discusses American Indian views, human 

history, and occupation of the Grand Canyon region. It is important to note that most American 

Indian narratives of the Grand Canyon have no time scale that can be compared with a European 

understanding of time. Wherever possible in this CLR, American Indian histories were obtained 

from tribal authored or authorized oral histories and ethnographic accounts. 

Southern Paiute 2

During Protohistoric times (700-460 BP) sixteen subgroups of Southern Paiute occupied a large 

area north and west of the Colorado River, extending from northwestern Arizona and 

southwestern Utah to southeastern Nevada and southern California. Of the Southern Paiute 

subgroups, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, and the San Juan 

Southern Paiute occupied lands in and near the Grand Canyon from the fourteenth century to the 

late 1800s, when they were moved to reservations. 

According to oral tradition, Southern Paiute peoples were created by supernatural forces at a site 

called Nuvagantu, near Charleston Peak in the Spring Mountains. This site is the singular 

creation place for the Southern Paiute peoples and, as such, is their most sacred place. Religious 

knowledge states that all of Southern Paiute traditional ethnic territory is sacred. 

Southern Paiute peoples believe that, as a result of their creation, they are charged with a special 

responsibility to protect and manage the land and its cultural, mineral, floral and faunal resources 

within their traditional ethnic territory. This relationship is engendered in a philosophy of how to 

live with and act towards the land, animals, plants, artifacts, and human interment. For example, 

a prayer requesting that medicinal or nutritional needs are met is said before picking a plant. 

Likewise, similar prayers are said before embarking on a hunt or taking an animal’s life. Water 

 

1

 The Yavapai and White Mountain Apache have recently claimed ties to the Grand Canyon and the nature and 

extent of the ties are currently being reviewed by the National Park Service. Their histories are not included in this 

section. 

2

 General information contained in this section is derived from Richard B. Stoffle et al., “Pia ‘Paxa ‘Huipi (Big 

River Canyon): Ethnographic Resource Inventory and Assessment for the Colorado River Corridor, Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area, Utah and Arizona, GRCA, Arizona, Second Preliminary Draft” (Bureau of Applied 

Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, July 15, 1993, photocopy); and Isabel T. Kelly and 

Catherine S. Fowler, “Southern Paiute,” in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11 Great Basin, ed. Warren 

L. D’Azevedo (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1986), 368-397. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 3 

resources are honored and respected because of their life sustaining importance while rocks and 

minerals are considered to have special powers. 

Human burial sites are the most sensitive of traditional cultural resources to the Southern Paiute. 

Burial is an important cultural and ceremonial event in traditional Southern Paiute culture; burial 

sites contain “power” and have the potential to harm people who disturb them or even go near 

them. Southern Paiute consider material culture on archeological sites to be the property of the 

people who left them there. Consequently, they believe that archeological sites and the material 

culture they contain should be left undisturbed wherever found. Material culture is also 

considered a political resource with the potential to tie the Southern Paiute peoples to a specific 

site or region. 

Although there is no documentary or archeological evidence to support that Southern Paiute 

groups specifically used Indian Garden, they did use the land, plants, and animals of the greater 

Grand Canyon region for subsistence purposes through hunting, gathering, and farming.3

Furthermore, a Paiute legend about the Grand Canyon clearly indicates its importance in their 

belief system: 

...the canyon came into existence when Umbah, a chieftain, grieved at the 

door of his house over the loss of his wife. Taavotz, a god, appeared to him and 

told Umbah that his wife was in another land and he would lead him there. Before 

taking him, the god made Umbah promise that he would never mourn again after 

his return. Umbah agreed and Taavotz led him as he cut a trail through the 

mountain that guarded the western spirit land. Umbah saw his wife and was 

happy. After they returned through the great gorge cut by Taavotz, the god told 

the chief to tell no one of the spirit land or its great beauty. Then Taavotz rolled 

the river into the gorge which he had made, and that is the raging torrent which 

flows through the Grand Canyon today. It is believed by the Paiutes to swallow 

anyone who attempts to follow it west.4

Hualapai 5

The Hualapai Reservation adjoins the Grand Canyon National Park for 108 miles along the 

Colorado River. Hualapai ancestral lands originally extended from the Colorado River on the 

north and west, south to the Bill Williams and Santa Maria Mountains, and east to the San 

Francisco Peaks. 

 

3

 Richard V.N. Ahlstrom, David E. Purcell, M. Zyniecki, Dennis A. Gilpin, and Virginia L. Newton, “An 

Archaeological Overview of Grand Canyon National Park” (Flagstaff: SWCA, Inc., 1993), 82. 

4

 Richard Van Valkenburg, “Diné Bikéyah,” (Window Rock, Arizona: United States Department of the Interior, 

Office of Indian Affairs, Navajo Service, 1941), 67. 

5

 The information contained in this section is derived from Hualapai Cultural Resources Division, Hualapai Wildlife 

Management Department, “Hualapai Tribe Ethnographic and Oral History Survey for Glen Canyon Environmental 

Studies and the Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement” (Hualapai Tribe, Peach Springs, Arizona, 

1993, photocopy); NPS, “Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement: Grand Canyon 

National Park” (Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 1995, photocopy), 143; Thomas R. McGuire, “Walapai,” in 

Handbook of North American Indian, Vol. 10 Southwest, ed. Alfonzo Ortiz (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution, 1983), 25-26. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 4 

The Hualapai peoples have a particularly strong tie to the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River 

because it is where the original Hualapai tribes emerged into the world. According to oral 

traditions, god made the land and the Colorado River for the Hualapai tribes, and the Hualapai 

peoples were created from the mud and sand of the Colorado River. Because of this intimate 

connection to the Grand Canyon, traditional Hualapai lifeways require stewardship of all natural 

resources within their ancestral territory. 

In one origin story, Turcupa, an older twin, was directed by the Great Spirit to a place on the 

west bank of the Colorado River where a bed of canes grew. The canes were cut and laid to the 

east. During the night, the Great Spirit created humans from the canes. Turcupa showed the 

humans how to live and led them to Meriwhitica Canyon, the territory of the historic Hualapai. 

They were taught to hunt, gather, and farm by irrigation. Out of these original peoples, the 

Mohave, Paiutes, Navajos, Hopi and Havasupai eventually left the Hualapai and migrated to the 

areas they now occupy. 

The Hualapai engaged in extensive trade, social, and ceremonial interactions with other 

American Indian groups—both before and during the period of European contact. This 

interaction occurred both along the south rim and across the Colorado River in the Diamond 

Creek, Granite Park, Lava Falls, Parashant Wash, Quarter Master Canyon, Separation Canyon, 

and Spencer Canyon areas. Although there is no specific evidence that the Hualapai occupied the 

CLR project area or its vicinity, it is possible that they had contact with groups like the 

Havasupai at Indian Garden. 

Havasupai 6

The Havasupai Reservation consists of 185,000 acres in Havasu Canyon and the surrounding 

uplands and are the only American Indians that actually live in the Grand Canyon today. An 

additional 95,300 acres of GRCA has been designated as Havasupai Traditional Use Lands. 

Havasupai ancestral lands originally extended from the Colorado River south to the Bill 

Williams Mountains and San Francisco Peaks, west to the Aubrey Cliffs, and east to the Little 

Colorado River gorge. 

The Havasupai believe that Red Butte, located outside of GRCA, is the birthplace of the 

Havasupai peoples, and that the Grand Canyon was created by the receding waters of a flood. 

According to oral traditions, the daughter of a Havasupai god survived the flood and came to rest 

on the south rim of the Grand Canyon. Her children were the ancestors of the Havasupai, 

Apache, Hualapai, Hopi, Paiute and Navajo peoples. These people were told that the land was 

theirs for the rest of time. The Havasupai were given particular responsibility to protect and 

guard the south rim and the Grand Canyon. 

Havasupai traditional cultural ties to the Grand Canyon are well documented. Many Havasupai 

myths and beliefs include stories about the Grand Canyon. There is documentation of subsistence 

use of the canyon country for grazing, hunting, and gathering of edible plants (especially agave). 

 

6

 General information contained in this section is derived from NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 142-143; 

Douglas W. Schwartz, “Havasupai,” in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10 Southwest, ed. Alfonso Ortiz 

(Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1983), 13-24. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 5 

Pictographs are located along the Bright Angel Trail below the south rim that have been 

attributed to the Havasupai.7

 Furthermore, Indian Garden was given its name because of the 

Havasupai horticulturalists documented by Spier and other ethnographers as living in the vicinity 

around the turn of the nineteenth century.8

 The Havasupai continued to use the Indian Garden 

vicinity well into the twentieth century. Havasupai habitation sites were still present at Indian 

Garden in 1916, although beginning in 1924, the National Park Service (NPS) removed 

Havasupai cultural remains from Indian Garden.9

Navajo 10

The Navajo Nation is another American Indian group that shares a boundary with GRCA. 

Traditionally, Navajo ancestral lands stretched between four sacred mountains: Blanca Peak near 

Alamosa, Colorado; Mount Taylor near Grants, New Mexico; the San Francisco Peaks near 

Flagstaff, Arizona; and the La Plata Mountains near Durango, Colorado. Archeological evidence 

indicates that the Navajo came to the Grand Canyon/Coconino Plateau region by at least the late 

1600s. 

The Navajo believe that they emerged from a previous world into this, the fifth world, and were 

given a mandate to take care of it through ceremonial practices and stewardship of the land. The 

Navajo also believe that they were present during the creation of the Grand Canyon and 

Colorado River. The Colorado River is considered sacred and to possess a life force. The river is 

also viewed as a protector of the Navajo peoples and, as such, it is prayed to and given offerings. 

The Grand Canyon and other minor canyons are also home to many Navajo deities and are 

affiliated with clan origins and migrations. 

Salt, and the mines it is obtained from, are considered particularly sacred to the Navajo peoples. 

The Grand Canyon and its floral, faunal and mineral resources cannot be visited without a 

specific purpose, and special ceremonies must be conducted before sacred sites in the canyon are 

visited. Many sacred places pre-date European contact, but several are also tied to specific events 

that occurred between 100 and 200 years ago, many of which were the result of hostile 

interactions. 

Although Navajo traditional cultural ties to the Grand Canyon and Colorado River exist, there is 

little documented Navajo use of GRCA, and information on Navajo sacred places within the park 

 

7

 Carma Lee Smithson and Robert C. Euler, Havasupai Legends: Religion and Mythology of the Havasupai Indians 

of the Grand Canyon (Salt Lake: University of Utah, Press, 1994), vii-viii, 2; Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological 

Overview,” 80; Teri A. Cleeland, “The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District in GRCA: A Model for Historic 

Preservation” (Masters Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 1986), 13. 8 Leslie Spier, Havasupai Ethnography, (New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1928), 83-392. 9 Cleeland, “Cross Canyon Corridor,” 27; NPS, “Superintendent’s Annual Report [SAR], Grand Canyon National 

Park, 1925,” 6. Grand Canyon Museum Collection; Nancy J. Coulam, “An Archeological Survey of Indian Gardens, 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona” (MS on file at Grand Canyon National Park, 1986), 4.

10 General information contained in this section is derived from Alexa Roberts, Richard M. Begay, and Klara B. 

Kelley, “Bits’iis Nineezi (The River of Neverending Life): Navajo History and Cultural Resources of the Grand 

Canyon and the Colorado River” (Window Rock, Arizona: Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, 1995); 

NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 144. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 6 

is scarce.11 Nevertheless, there is some evidence that a few Navajo families were living in the 

vicinity of what is now GRCA during the late 1800s.12

Hopi 13

The Hopi have occupied the lands now recognized as the Hopi Reservation for about a thousand 

years, and most Hopi still live in pueblo villages scattered over the three Hopi Mesas which 

comprise the center of the reservation. At least one of the villages, Oraibi, has been occupied 

continuously since AD 1150.14 

Ethnographic and archeological evidence indicates that the Hopi and their Puebloan ancestors 

utilized the Grand Canyon and its resources for hundreds of years (evidence of Ancestral 

Puebloan occupation is present near Indian Garden). In addition, the Grand Canyon has profound 

sacred importance to the Hopi. Sipapuni, the Hopi place of origin, is located five miles south of 

the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers. Geologically speaking, Sipapuni is a 

travertine cone produced by an artesian spring. From Sipapuni, the Hopi spread to all parts of the 

Grand Canyon vicinity including both rims and the inner canyon until their eventual 

congregation at the Hopi Mesas. Devout Hopis believe that when they die, they return to the 

place of origin. Consequently, the Grand Canyon is a common reference in the daily prayers of 

many Hopi. It is also said that the Kohnina (or Cohonino) Kachina, who is believed to represent 

the Havasupai peoples, lives in the Grand Canyon during the winter months.15 Historically, a 

strong trade network existed between the Hopi and Havasupai.16

One of the best documented religious pilgrimages of any American Indian group is the Hopi salt 

pilgrimage to the Grand Canyon, which follows a sacred trail marked by important religious 

shrines.17 In addition to salt, other mineral resources and all archeological sites, including 

residential and religious structures, caves, and rock art, are significant to the Hopi. Each of these 

sites serves as a cultural marker of Hopi ancestral presence within the landscape. Furthermore, 

the Hopi consider Ancestral Puebloan archeological sites within the Grand Canyon vicinity 

sacred and spiritually active. 

 

11 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 83. 

12 Sallie Pierce Brewer, “The Long Walk to Bosque Redondo, as told by Peshlakai Etsedi,” Museum Notes Vol. 9, 

No. 11 (1937): 55-62. 

13 The information contained in this section is derived primarily from NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 143; 

Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 82-83. 14 P. Whiteley, Deliberate Acts: Changing Hopi Culture through the Oraibi Split (Tucson: University of Arizona 

Press, 1988), 13. 

15 Teri A. Cleeland, John A. Hanson, Lawrence M. Lesko, and Neil S. Weintraub, “American Indian Use of the 

South Kaibab National Forest: An Ethnographic Overview” (MS on file at Kaibab National Forest, Williams, 

Arizona, 1992), 34-35, 40-41. 

16 Frank H. Cushing, The Nation of the Willows (Flagstaff: Northland Press, 1965), 362-374, 541-549; Spier, 

Havasupai Ethnography, 83-392. 17 Mary Russell Colton and Harold S. Colton, “Petroglyphs: The Record of a Great Adventure,” American 

Anthropologist Vol. 33, No. 1 (1931): 32-37; Thomas G. Orr, “The Romance of Common Salt,” Science Monthly

Vol. 39 (Nov. 1934): 449-454; Helen Virginia Hunter, “Ethnography of Salt in North America” (Masters Thesis, 

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1940), 10-17; Harold Courlander, The Fourth World of the Hopis (New 

York: Crown Publishers, 1971), 116-117; Merwin Kooyahoema, “Pilgrimage to Shrines Returns” Uqa’Toqti (Oct. 

19, 1978): 1. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 7 

Zuni 18

The Zuni live on a small reservation in western New Mexico and eastern Arizona. Their 

traditional lands, however, extend northwest from the present-day Zuni, New Mexico to the San 

Francisco Peaks. Although their reservation and traditional lands are a fair distance from the 

Grand Canyon, the Zuni peoples believe that they entered this world through the Grand Canyon 

at the “origin place” before settling the city of Zuni. According to Zuni origin and migration 

narratives, the ultimate origin point of the Zuni peoples was at a place called Chimik’yana’kya 

dey’a—also known as Ribbon Falls on Bright Angel Creek, a major tributary of the Colorado 

River.19 As they migrated to New Mexico, they lived at sites along the Colorado and Little 

Colorado Rivers. Consequently, the Grand Canyon and Colorado River are sacred to the Zuni 

peoples. In addition, the Zuni peoples consider all archeological sites to be traditional cultural 

properties, and other sacred sites to be significant. The Zuni still utilize historic trails from Zuni, 

New Mexico to the Grand Canyon. 

European Narrative History of the Indian Garden Region: 

11,500 BP to 200220

Archeologists generally divide the 11,500 years of pre-European human history in the American 

Southwest into four broad periods: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Formative, and Protohistoric, all of 

which are represented at the Grand Canyon. The text describing the remaining eight periods 

discusses European human history at the Grand Canyon and in Indian Garden up until 2002. 

Paleo-Indian Period: 11,500-8,500 BP 

Introduction 

Although Paleo-Indian sites are rare, archeological evidence suggests that humans first occupied 

the Grand Canyon region approximately 10,500 years BP. Evidence of Paleo-Indian occupation 

of the Grand Canyon consists of a single pre-form Folsom point.

Brief Historical Context 

The earliest period recognized in the Southwest is the Paleo-Indian, generally accepted as lasting 

from at least 11,500 to 8,500 BP21 

 

18 The information contained in this section is derived primarily from NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 145; 

Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 83. 19 T. J. Ferguson and E. Richard Hart, A Zuni Atlas (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985), 51. 20 Throughout this text, BP will refer to “years before present.” 

21 Within the specific project area there is no material evidence for Paleo-Indian occupation. However within the 

larger Colorado Plateau region including the Grand Canyon itself, material evidence suggests that Paleo-Indians 

were present and thrived on the rich megafauna. Because of this, the discussion of the Paleo-Indian Period will 

necessarily focus on the larger region as it speaks to the specific project area 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 8 

Towards the end of the Pleistocene, a general global warming took place as glaciers retreated 

northward and melting of the expansive ice sheets created a wetter and cooler climate.22 As a 

result, water became plentiful and numerous lakes were created. Lush vegetation proliferated 

with the moist environment. Coniferous forests, composed of Douglas Fir, Rocky Mountain 

Juniper, Limber Pine and later the Ponderosa Pine, became more widespread and grew at much 

lower elevations. Valleys contained a rich mix of woodlands and savannas. The woodlands were 

dominated by pinyon and juniper, with shortgrass and sagebrush characterizing the savannas. 

The lush environment supported a diverse population of megafauna including mammoth, 

mastadon, giant sloth, and camel. Following the seasonal migrations of the megafauna were 

highly nomadic bands of humans that relied heavily on the mammals for subsistence. Distinctive, 

fluted, lanceolate projectile points (such as Clovis and Folsom points) often associated with kill 

and butchering sites indicate that the Paleo-Indian peoples were efficient big-game hunters. 

Although fluted projectile points are a continent-wide archeological phenomenon, Paleo-Indian 

sites are extremely rare, and evidence for the presence of these people in the Grand Canyon 

environs is limited to a single pre-form Folsom-style spear point found in Marble Canyon. The 

point, made from a chert source in the Little Colorado River Gorge, was apparently broken 

during manufacture.23 Elsewhere, Folsom points were used to kill long-horned bison in the 

period from about 10,800 to 10,000 BP.24

Towards the end of the Paleo-Indian Period, the region slowly became both warmer and dryer. 

Lake beds and rivers began to dry up. Native flora and fauna responded accordingly to this 

climatic change. As the region became drier, the variety of native flora diminished as the ranges 

of species moved upward and northward. This in turn drove some native fauna east towards the 

grassy savannas of the Plains, or in some cases, led to extinction.25 The changing environment 

and loss of the megafauna prompted people to become more efficient in utilizing specific 

ecological niches. 

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic: 11,500-8,500 BP: 

Land Use and Activities 

Hunting Paleo-Indians relied heavily on megafauna, 

including mammoth, mastodon, long-horned bison, 

giant sloth, camel and horse. 

 

22 The Pleistocene, commonly referred to as the Ice Age, began approximately two million years ago and gave way 

to the Holocene around 10,000 years BP; while glaciers did not formally extend as far south as the American 

Southwest and the Grand Canyon region, their presence directly impacted the entire Colorado Plateau region. 23 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 69. 

24 Lynn A. Neal, Dennis Gilpin, Lilian Jonas, and Jean H. Ballagh, “Cultural Resources Data Synthesis within the 

Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona” 

(Flagstaff: SWCA, Inc., 2000), xix. 

25 William W. Dunmire and Gail D. Tierney, Wild Plants and Native Peoples of the Four Corners (Santa Fe: 

Museum of New Mexico Press, 1997), 11- 14; Rose Houk, An Introduction to Grand Canyon Ecology (Grand 

Canyon: Grand Canyon Association, 1996), 14-15; J. Greer Price, An Introduction to Grand Canyon Geology

(Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Association, 1999), 41-43. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 9 

Gathering While regional evidence for the utilization of plant 

resources is not abundant, plants became an 

increasingly important resource towards the end of 

the Paleo-Indian Period. 

Response to Natural Environment 

 

Nomadic Practices Paleo-Indians were necessarily nomadic, following 

the migrations and habitat of native fauna and 

harvesting seasonally selected flora in a 

dramatically changing environment. 

Resource Identification Paleo-Indians appear to have targeted fauna at 

diminishing regional water sources such as springs 

and creeks. 

Shelter Paleo-Indian peoples camped in the open or 

temporarily occupied convenient caves and rock 

shelters. 

Circulation Networks 

Routes/Trails The pre-form Folsom point found in Marble 

Canyon indicates that early inhabitants of the area 

likely traveled from the canyon rim to the inner 

canyon and may have followed informal routes or 

trails tied to local topography. 

Boundary Demarcations 

 

Colorado River The Grand Canyon portion of the Colorado River 

may have served as a natural boundary during the 

Paleo-Indian Period. 

Vegetation 

Native Flora Towards the end of the Paleo-Indian Period and the 

extinction and migration of megafauna, humans 

came to depend more upon local vegetation. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 10 

Archaic Period: 8,500-1,700 BP 

Introduction 

Humans began to intensively utilize all areas of the Grand Canyon, including the inner canyon, 

during the Archaic Period. Archaic occupation of the Grand Canyon region is characterized by 

an increase in the quantity and diversity of flaked-stone tools, the use of processing tools such as 

milling stones to grind seeds and other vegetal matter, and the manufacture of woven implements 

such as baskets, mats, and sandals. Art and/or ritual beliefs also became more elaborate during 

the Archaic Period, as evidenced by the presence of petroglyphs, pictographs, and split-twig 

willow figurines.

Brief Historical Context 

The Archaic Period is the next prehistoric cultural period recognized in the Southwest. The 

Archaic Period extended from the end of the Paleo-Indian Period around 8,500 BP to 

approximately 1,700 BP. 

By the beginning of the Holocene, the environment of the greater Southwest had begun to 

stabilize, resembling the semi-arid or desert-like conditions present in the region today. Within 

this stable environment, however, short and long-term fluctuations in precipitation occurred.26

For example, between 7,500 and 6,500 BP, a long-term dry spell began within the greater 

Southwest that lasted nearly 2,000 years. 

The relatively stable environment enabled the Archaic peoples to pursue a different lifeway than 

their Paleo-Indian predecessors. Subsistence activities shifted from hunting megafauna to 

hunting smaller game such as deer, antelope, and rabbits. In addition, Archaic peoples placed 

greater reliance on plant foods. Many Archaic camps throughout the Southwest are found near 

springs, ponds, or other water sources that supported a great diversity of flora and fauna. Some 

of these camps indicated that they were used for intermittent periods, suggesting a semisedentary lifestyle. This greater reliance on plant foods may have led Archaic peoples to adopt a 

more structured seasonal migration between spring-summer and winter camps, utilizing a variety 

of flora in different environments. 

To more effectively exploit the range of resources, Archaic peoples adopted new material culture 

not seen during the Paleo-Indian Period. Milling stones (manos and metates) were used to grind 

seeds and spear throwers (atlatls) were developed to hunt game. Projectile points generally 

became smaller in a direct relationship with the game that was being hunted. Woven baskets, 

mats, and sandals also became more prevalent during the Archaic Period. 

Archaic Period sites that were identified in GRCA reflect this subsistence shift, and typically 

consist of fire pits, fire-cracked rock, grinding stones, dart points and other flaked stone tools, 

waste flakes from making tools, animal bones, and charred plant remains.27 Perhaps most 

interesting are those sites where the apparently rich intellectual and spiritual lives of the Archaic 

 

26 Dunmire and Tierney, Wild Plants and Native Peoples, 14. 27 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 69-72. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 11 

people are evident. For example, in ten caves within the Grand Canyon—where Archaic peoples 

found bones of then-extinct Ice Age bighorn sheep—they left offerings of split-twig figurines 

twisted into the shape of the animal.28 Elaborate pictographs known as the Shaman’s Gallery 

(Site AZ B:9:201), which is located north of the Colorado River below the Kanab Plateau, 

further attests to the artistic and spiritual sophistication of the canyon’s Archaic inhabitants.29

Although Archaic peoples appear to be the first humans to have inhabited the region 

encompassed by GRCA to any degree, this did not occur until approximately 4,000 BP. While 

many of the inner canyon Archaic Period sites identified are characterized by figurines and 

pictographs, several pre-ceramic Archaic Period site components have also been identified along 

the Colorado River corridor.30 None of the prehistoric sites that have been recorded in the 

vicinity of Indian Garden have been definitively attributed to Archaic Period occupation. 

Beginning at about 4,000 BP, and continuing for nearly 2,500 years to about 1,500 BP, there 

occurred another major subsistence change in which people began widely experimenting with 

maize agriculture while continuing to rely heavily on hunting game and gathering wild plants.31

On the Colorado Plateau, the adoption of agriculture is usually considered a diagnostic of 

Basketmaker II. Whether classified as a late Archaic or Basketmaker II trait, however, the 

practice of agriculture is a prerequisite for the development of a Formative lifeway in the 

American Southwest.32

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 8,500-1,700 BP: 

Land Use and Activities 

Hunting Archaic peoples hunted bighorn sheep, elk, deer, 

rabbit, turkey, and other local fauna. 

 Gathering Archaic peoples began to focus more intensively on 

utilizing local flora for diet, medicine, functional, 

and ceremonial uses. 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

 

Semi-sedentism The location of sites adjacent to specific ecological 

resources and evidence for their reuse suggests that 

a semi-sedentary lifestyle may have been adopted 

towards the Late Archaic Period. 

 Site Location Camp sites are frequently associated with a 

 

28 Steven D. Emslie, Robert C. Euler, and Jim I. Mead, “A Desert Culture Shrine in Grand Canyon, Arizona, and the 

Role of Split-twig Figurines” National Geographic Research Vol. 3, No. 4 (1987): Table 1. 29 NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 140; Christopher M. Coder, An Introduction to Grand Canyon 

Prehistory (Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Association, 2000), 17-21. 30 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 71-72; Fairley, et al. . 31 Neal et al., “Cultural Resources Data Synthesis,” xix. 

32 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 71. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 12 

seasonal or permanent water source. 

Response to Natural Environment 

 

Shelter Archaic peoples often utilized caves and rock 

shelters within and throughout the Grand Canyon as 

camp sites. 

Ceremonial The presence of split-twig figurines in some canyon 

sites suggests that caves may have also served as a 

location for certain ceremonial functions. 

Cultural Traditions 

Ritual Figurines Split-twig figurines have been found in caves within 

the inner canyon. These small figurines represent 

animals that were most likely hunted such as 

bighorn sheep or mountain goats. They may 

represent pre-hunt ritual practices carried out in 

sacred places. 

Rock Art The “Shaman’s Gallery” mural and other similar 

depictions may represent hundreds or thousands of 

years of anthropomorphic figures, and other designs 

and symbols including bighorn sheep, deer, 

carnivores, and snakes. Petroglyphs are abundant 

within the larger Grand Canyon region. In addition, 

a recent re-examination of images from Mallery’s 

Gallery, a grotto along the Bright Angel Trail below 

the south rim, suggests that several images may date 

to the Archaic Period. 

Circulation Networks 

 

Trails/Routes The location of Archaic Period sites within the 

Grand Canyon and along the Colorado River basin 

strongly suggests the presence of informal 

trails/routes along the canyon rim and down to the 

Colorado River. The presence of non-local trade 

goods at Late Archaic sites also suggests interregional trade and trails/routes to peoples outside of 

the larger Grand Canyon region. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 13 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

 

New Cultivars Although not widespread, botanical evidence from 

the Colorado Plateau suggests that maize, a cultivar 

from ancient Mexican cultures, may have been 

introduced into the Four Corners region around 

4,000 BP. 

Formative Period: 1,700-700 BP 

Introduction 

In the Grand Canyon region, the Formative Period is characterized by Ancestral Puebloan and 

Cohonina occupation. The Grand Canyon region experienced a dramatic increase in population 

during the Formative Period, and numerous Formative Period archeological sites contain 

extensive domestic complexes and technologically sophisticated agricultural features. Like their 

predecessors, the Ancestral Puebloan and Cohonina peoples utilized all areas of the Grand 

Canyon and exploited a wide variety of canyon resources.

Brief Historical Context 

The Formative Period in the western hemisphere is marked by the transition from a hunting and 

gathering economy to an economy based primarily on agriculture, the development of permanent 

villages, and the production of ceramics.33 Willey and Phillips define the Formative Period “by 

the presence of agriculture, or any other subsistence economy of comparable effectiveness, and 

by the successful integration of such an economy into well-established, sedentary village life.”34

In the Grand Canyon region, archeologists recognize two Formative cultures: the Cohonina and 

the Ancestral Puebloan or Anasazi. The Formative Period lasted from approximately 1,500 to 

700 BP. 

Ancestral Puebloan territory extended across much of the Colorado Plateau and included 

portions of southern Nevada, southern Utah, northern Arizona, southwestern Colorado, and 

northwestern New Mexico. Within this area, archeologists have recognized a number of distinct 

traditions or branches that are distinguished based on pottery technology and design styles, and 

on architecture. 

Between 1,300 and 950 BP, Ancestral Puebloan use of the Grand Canyon was apparently sparse 

and intermittent, focusing primarily on hunting game and wild plant gathering.35 By 1,000 BP, 

however, the climate became wetter due to increased precipitation, favoring an increase in the 

ability to expand cultivation in a greater range of places. By 950 BP, Ancestral Puebloan 

 

33 James A. Ford. A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas: Diffusion of the Psychic Unity of Man,

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 11 (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1969), 4-5. 34 Gordon R. Willey and Philip Phillips. Method and Theory in Archaeology, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 

1958), 146. 

35 Douglas W. Schwartz, On the Edge of Splendor: Exploring Grand Canyon’s Human Past (Santa Fe: Annual 

Bulletin of the School of American Research, 1989), 53. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 14 

occupation had expanded to the Kaibab Plateau and along the Colorado River basin. Agriculture 

was now being practiced within the canyon and along the canyon rim.36 Agricultural features 

associated with Ancestral Puebloan farming in the Grand Canyon vicinity include terraces, 

ditches, shallow clay-lined depressions, check dams, and garden plots with borders. Many of 

these features were constructed to channel and store water as well as to decrease the potential of 

erosion. Rock walls served as passive solar devices that prevented frost damage and allowed 

better retention of moisture.37 

The change in the size and complexity of habitation structures further attests to the increase of 

Ancestral Puebloan use of the region. Prior to 925 BP, residential structures consisted of small 

pithouses; surface masonry structures with multiple rooms and agricultural storage features 

became more prevalent after that date.38 The Ancestral Puebloans also began building kivas 

indicating a commitment to year-round communal occupation.39 Kivas have been recorded on 

the south rim—such as at Tusayan Ruin—and in the inner canyon on Unkar Delta and at Bright 

Angel Ruin. Conversely, kivas have not been identified on the north rim and appear to be absent 

in other areas with prehistoric pueblo sites, indicating that the extent of sedentism varied 

considerably across the canyon.40 

Archeological evidence indicates that the Cohonina inhabited the Coconino Plateau and the 

Grand Canyon vicinity from the 1,300 to 900 BP.41 Like their Ancestral Puebloan neighbors, the 

Cohonina practiced agriculture. However, the extent to which the Cohonina relied on agriculture 

for subsistence is debatable. Most researchers believe that the Cohonina relied on agriculture to 

some degree, but much less than the Ancestral Puebloans. Instead, the Cohonina obtained a fair 

amount of their subsistence from hunting and gathering.42 Furthermore, the Cohonina did not 

strictly follow a “sedentary village life,” but practiced a lifeway characterized more by seasonal 

movement among different sites. 43 They established residential complexes along the canyon rim 

and foraged in the inner canyon and Colorado River basin on seasonal rounds.44 

Because Cohonina occupation overlapped with the Puebloan peoples, it is believed that they 

interacted peacefully and pursued active trading. The Cohonina possessed unique ceramics and 

lithic technology that distinguished them from the neighboring Puebloans. Cohonina residential 

sites typically include features such as pithouses, masonry block rooms, walled compounds, 

interior hearths, and storage areas.45

 

36 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 74-76. 37 Coder, Grand Canyon Prehistory, 41. 38 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 74. 

39 Schwartz, On the Edge of Splendor, 56. 40 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 74. 

41 See Richard V. N. Ahlstrom, “Tree-Ring Dating the Cohonina,” (MS on file, Department of Anthropology, 

University of Arizona, Tucson, 1986); Thomas R. Cartledge, “Cohonina Adaptation to the Coconino Plateau: A Reevaluation,” The Kiva Vol. 44, No. 4 (1979): 297-317; John C. McGregor, The Cohonina Culture of Northwestern 

Arizona, (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1951), 20. 42 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 73 ; McGregor, Cohonina Culture, 145-146. 43 Willey and Phillips, Method and Theory, 146. 44 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 73. 

45 NPS, “Draft Environmental Assessment, Desert View Improvements,” (Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 

n.d. [2000?], photocopy), 22-23. ; NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 140; Coder, Grand Canyon Prehistory, 

24-29. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 15 

During the Formative Period, inhabitants living within the vicinity of the Grand Canyon utilized 

transportation routes that led down to natural resources within the inner canyon and between 

each rim. Trails and footpaths followed along the rims and utilized canyons that led down to the 

Colorado River. Remains of footbridges and ladders spanning gaps in canyon walls are still seen 

today. Non-local trade items including ceramic vessels from the east, shell bracelets and slate 

beads from the south, and shell beads from the Pacific Coast suggest intra-regional trade and 

continued contact with neighboring peoples.46 

The Formative Period was the most populous period of occupation within the Grand Canyon 

vicinity prior to European contact. Of more than 4,300 known archeological sites in GRCA, over 

70 percent were occupied between 950 and 850 BP.47 By 850 BP, however, the environment 

within the Grand Canyon region changed again and became increasingly drier. Over time, less 

rainfall occurred and erosion of alluvial terraces used for farming along the Colorado River 

increased. As a result, formerly dependable resources became scarce and the total amount of 

arable land decreased. While some Cohonina and Puebloan groups maintained their 

agriculturally dependent settlements, a majority of the occupants of the larger Grand Canyon 

region eventually abandoned the rims and moved east to the Hopi Mesas. Archeological 

evidence from some villages, such as Tusayan Ruins, suggests that the residents of the canyon 

rim may have remained until around 770 BP.48

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 1,700-700 BP: 

Land Uses and Activities 

Hunting During the Formative Period, inhabitants of the 

Grand Canyon area continued to hunt bighorn 

sheep, deer, bear, bobcat, mountain lion, rabbits, 

rock squirrel, mice, packrats, woodrats, eagles, 

hawks, waterfowl, and other local fauna. 

 

Gathering People who lived during the Formative Period 

continued to utilize and rely upon the local flora for 

diet, medicine, and functional use. 

Mining People who lived during the Formative Period 

mined mineral resources such as pigments and salt 

from within the inner canyon. 

Seasonal Migration The Cohonina practiced a lifeway characterized by 

seasonal movement among different locales, with 

residential complexes along the canyon rim and 

foraging sites in the inner canyon and Colorado 

 

46 Coder, Grand Canyon Prehistory, 42-43. 47 GRCA site files; NPS, “Draft Environmental Assessment,” 22-23; NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 140; 

Coder, Grand Canyon Prehistory, 24-29. 48 Coder, Grand Canyon Prehistory, 44-47; NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 140.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 16 

River basin. Ancestral Puebloans also took 

advantage of seasonal resources, but led a more 

sedentary lifeway than the Cohonina. 

Agriculture Puebloan peoples began to practice widespread 

agriculture, cultivating maize, squash and beans. 

Agricultural practices intensified and withdrew with 

the changing climate. The Cohonina practiced 

agriculture but to lesser extent than their Puebloan 

neighbors. 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

 

Sedentism Archeological sites during this period reflect the 

transition from semi-sedentism to sedentary villages 

with a significant increase in population during the 

period ca. 1,000 to 800 BP. The Cohonina are 

considered less sedentary than the Ancestral 

Puebloans. 

Site Location Archeological sites for this period are located 

throughout the Grand Canyon vicinity, along both 

rims, within the inner canyon, and Colorado River 

basin. Permanent and seasonal sites were frequently 

located adjacent to springs and/or other water 

resources, and arable lands. At Indian Garden, 

Formative Period sites are clustered on the terraces 

above Garden Creek. 

Response to Natural Environment 

 

Exploitation of Colorado River During milder, wetter years, Puebloan Basin 

peoples expanded to alluvial terraces along the 

Colorado River to take advantage of rich alluvial 

soils. 

Expansion and Contraction During milder, wetter years, the expansion of 

agriculture resulted in the exploitation of all 

habitable niches from the canyon rim to the 

Colorado River basin. However during periods of 

harsher, drier climates characterized by diminishing 

resources and a shrinking amount of arable land, the 

population contracted to canyon rim settlements and 

eventually left the region. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 17 

Cultural Traditions 

Rock Art Rock art is abundant within the larger Grand 

Canyon region. Furthermore, rock art styles 

indicative of Archaic through Protohistoric 

occupations are represented. Ancestral Puebloan 

motifs with anthropomorphic and zoomorphic 

figures tend to be most common.49 

 

Ceramics Both Cohonina and Ancestral Puebloan peoples 

produced distinctive ceramic vessels. Some of the 

vessels were plain and intended exclusively for 

utilitarian use. Other vessels, however, were highly 

decorated and indicative of artistic expression. 

Circulation Networks 

 

Trails/Routes The presence of Formative Period sites within the 

inner canyon and along the Colorado River basin 

suggest that formal trails/routes or drainages were 

utilized to link the canyon rims and Colorado River. 

The presence of non-local trade goods at these sites 

points to intra-regional trade and continuous 

interaction with peoples outside of the Grand 

Canyon region. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

New Cultivars Archeological evidence from Formative sites 

documents the presence of and reliance upon three 

main cultivars: maize, squash, and beans. Cotton 

was also grown along the Colorado River basin. 

Buildings and Structures 

Pithouses Pithouses are circular structures constructed of 

brush and mud, and entered through a hole in the 

roof. The Cohonina built pithouses and, prior to 925 

BP, Ancestral Puebloans constructed residential 

structures composed of small pithouses. No 

pithouse features have been identified in the Indian 

Garden project area, however. 

 

49 Peter W. Bungart, “Rock Art,” in The Grand Canyon River Corridor Survey Project: Archaeological Survey along 

the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Separation Canyon, Helen C. Fairly, Peter W. Bungart, 

Christopher M. Coder, Jim Huffman, Terry L. Samples, and Janet R. Balsom, eds., (NPS, prepared in cooperation 

with the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 1994), 91-94. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 18 

Pueblos After 925 BP, Puebloan peoples began building 

masonry structures of local stone. Often these small 

pueblos contained a kiva or circular ceremonial 

structure. Puebloan villages were located along the 

canyon rims and within the inner canyon. In 

canyons and drainages and where land was arable, 

Puebloan villages were located adjacent to 

agricultural fields. However, no pueblo structures 

have been identified within the Indian Garden 

project area. 

Temporary Camps Seasonal habitation structures typically consisted of 

a pole-and-brush superstructure supported by a drylaid masonry foundation. Ten of the fifteen 

prehistoric sites that have been identified in the 

Indian Garden vicinity have surface structures that 

likely served as seasonal habitation structures; they 

are all located on terraces and promontories 

overlooking Garden Creek. The expedient 

construction of these structures and the proximity to 

arable land and dependable water sources indicate 

that the structures were summer farm sites occupied 

by people that lived the remainder of the year on the 

canyon rim or down near the river. The simple 

structures at Indian Garden appear to have been 

constructed by Ancestral Puebloan peoples, as they 

are similar to Puebloan structures from the San Juan 

River area.50 However, the structures are not 

definitive of Puebloan construction, and could have 

been built by Cohonina or subsequent inhabitants.51

Ceramics tend to be most supportive of Puebloan 

occupation. 

Small-scale Features 

Granaries Puebloan and Cohonina peoples built masonry, 

wood and mud storage structures. These structures 

were utilized exclusively as storage units for surplus 

grain. They were either attached to residences or 

located on isolated canyon precipices. Two sites in 

the vicinity of Indian Garden possess granary 

 

50 William Y. Adams and Nettie K. Adams, “An Inventory of Prehistoric Sites on the Lower San Juan River, Utah,” 

Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 31, Glen Canyon Series No. 1, (Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona, 

1959), 12; Coulam, “Archeological Survey,” 16. 51 Coulam, “Archeological Survey,” 16.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 19 

features. At both sites the granaries are tucked 

under ledges of canyon walls. 

Terraces Puebloan peoples constructed artificial terraces out 

of stone and soil to create productive agricultural 

fields reducing the potential for erosion and 

increasing agricultural yields. 

Check Dams Puebloan peoples constructed small rock walls out 

of stone. These stone walls served as check dams to 

control the erosion of soils in canyons and 

drainages. The rock walls also may have served as 

passive solar devices by storing heat and preventing 

frost damage to spring seedlings. A few of the 

habitation sites near Indian Garden are associated 

with small rock walls that may have served as check 

dams. 

 Irrigation Ditches Puebloan peoples constructed shallow, clay-lined 

depressions or canals to funnel water to agricultural 

fields and garden plots. 

Garden Plots The construction of low rock walls defined garden 

plots within canyons and drainages. The size of 

garden plots was based on the topography and 

drainage of the land 

Protohistoric Period: 700-460 BP

Introduction 

During the Protohistoric Period, Pai and Paiute peoples moved into the Grand Canyon region. 

They occupied the north and south rims, sometimes utilizing pueblos abandoned by Ancestral 

Puebloan and Cohonina groups, and the inner canyon where springs and agriculturally suitable 

lands were located. In addition, groups like the Hopi used the Grand Canyon and surrounding 

area intermittently during the late Protohistoric Period, maintaining trade relationships with the 

Pai and Paiute.

Brief Historical Context 

At about the same time the Ancestral Puebloan and Cohonina were abandoning the Grand 

Canyon vicinity, the Pai and Paiute were starting to move into northern and western Arizona. 

The Pai, a Yuman-speaking group represented prehistorically by the Cerbat tradition, came from 

the Mojave Desert and occupied the western end of the Grand Canyon, primarily along the south 

rim. The Paiute entered the Grand Canyon region from the Great Basin of Nevada and Utah to 

the north, the southern most bands originally occupying the Kaibab Plateau along the north rim. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 20 

Some of the earliest radiocarbon-dated Pai and Paiute sites in Arizona are those obtained in the 

Grand Canyon, which indicate that the Pai and Paiute probably began moving into the Grand 

Canyon region around 700 BP.52 In contrast to Formative Period cultural trajectories, in which 

increasing dependence on agriculture apparently led to colonization and ultimately abandonment 

of the Grand Canyon, the Pai and Paiute practiced a subsistence strategy less reliant on 

agriculture and apparently far more stable, as evidenced by Pai and Paiute use of the Grand 

Canyon lasting from circa 700 BP into the twentieth century.53 They sometimes used abandoned 

Formative Period sites on the north and south rims, but eventually moved to the inner canyon 

where springs and agriculturally suitable lands were located. 

The Pai began to reoccupy much of the lower canyon by 675 BP, crossing the Colorado River to 

the north rim when necessary. They practiced a form of seasonal migration, wintering in the 

uplands and migrating to the canyon bottom for planting and harvesting in the spring. Pai 

occupation of archeological sites in the Grand Canyon vicinity are distinguished from earlier 

periods by the presence of characteristic Tizon Brownware ceramics. Archeological evidence 

suggests that the Pai hunted deer, bighorn sheep, and other local game, as well as gathered 

mesquite, prickly pear, and agave. 

The Pai constructed less permanent shelters than their Puebloan predecessors, living in rock 

shelters and brush wickiups. In addition, they practiced a limited horticulture. Because of this, 

the material culture remains of their occupation are somewhat more ephemeral than earlier 

Puebloan and Cohonina sites.54

The Havasupai and Hualapai tribes are two of fourteen Pai groups that share a similar cultural 

heritage and language. Schwartz hypothesized that between 1,000 and 900 BP, population 

pressures forced some of the Cohonina to move from the canyon rim and establish defensive 

locations along the cliffs around Havasu Canyon. After about 200 years, the people abandoned 

the cliffs and began occupying the canyon bottom, apparently because the need for defensive 

postures no longer existed. By 700 BP, these people—who may now be called the Havasupai— 

also found it safe to live on the plateau. However, the increased aridity made farming on the 

plateau difficult. As a result, a pattern of seasonal residence was established where winters were 

spent on the plateau of the south rim hunting and gathering, and spring and summer months were 

spent in Havasu Canyon growing crops using the perennial water sources along Cataract Creek.55 

Within the last ten years, however, Schwartz reversed his position on the Cohonina-Havasupai 

relationship, stating that “...after a century or more when there were no settlements in the region, 

the Cohonina were replaced by a new people, the Cerbat, who moved into the area from the west, 

 

52 Neal et al., “Cultural Resources Data Synthesis,” xxi; Robert L. Bettinger and Martin A. Baumhoff, “The Numic 

Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition,” American Antiquity Vol. 47, No. 3 (1982): 485-503; Robert C. Euler, 

“Walapai Culture History,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 

Albuquerque, 1958), 71. 

53 Neal et al., “Cultural Resources Data Synthesis,” xxi.

54 NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 140; Coder, Grand Canyon Prehistory, 49-50. 55 Schwartz, “Havasupai,” 13-14: Richard A. Brooks and Peter J. Pilles, Jr., “Final Report for the Cultural Resources 

of the Grand Canyon Cross Canyon Corridor Survey” (Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona, Department of 

Anthropology, 1974), 16-17.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 21 

and it was they who eventually became the Havasupais.”56 Schwartz's latest position is more in 

line with Euler, who suggests that between 850 and 800 BP the Cohonina population declined 

and the plateau area was abandoned. Concurrent with this period of abandonment, the Pai began 

moving into the area. The Pai lifestyle of hunting and gathering, supplemented by farming near 

permanent springs and streams, was similar to that proposed for the Cohonino. However, Pai 

pottery, grinding stones, and projectile points are different from those of the Cohonino and 

Ancestral Puebloans. Consequently, it is Euler’s belief that some of the early Pai inhabitants 

became the historic Havasupai and Hualapai.57 

Like the Pai along the south rim, the Southern Paiute led a semi-sedentary lifestyle characterized 

by hunting and gathering. The Paiute occasionally occupied abandoned pueblos and also 

constructed temporary camps near subsistence resources. As agricultural lands in canyon 

bottoms were farmed, more permanent camps were established. The Paiute interacted peacefully 

with the Hopi to the east, with trade being the major stimulus for contact.58 Southern Paiute 

occupation of archeological sites within the Grand Canyon vicinity is distinguished from earlier 

periods by the presence of characteristic Brownware ceramics and twined basketry.59

In addition to the Pai and Paiute, the Hopi and Zuni used the Grand Canyon intermittently during 

the late Protohistoric Period and early historic times. Archeological and ethnographic data 

indicate that the Hopi and their ancestors have utilized Grand Canyon resources for hundreds of 

years.60 A strong trade network existed between the Hopi and Havasupai as early as the 1300s.61

The Hopi utilized the salt deposits found along the Colorado River near its confluence with the 

Little Colorado River as recently as the 1960s.62 The salt mines are sacred to the Hopi and the 

trail to the salt-gathering place is marked by shrines that are of religious importance.63 The Grand 

Canyon is sacred to the Hopi in other ways as well. To the Hopi, the Grand Canyon is where 

humans and animals emerged from the underworld and it is where the dead return. The Sipapu, 

or place of origin, is located within the Grand Canyon. According to Hopi belief, the Hopi lived 

in a number of worlds below this one. They emerged from the Sipapu into this world and spread 

to all parts of the Grand Canyon vicinity including both rims, the inner canyon, and the larger 

Southwestern United States, until their eventual congregation at the Hopi Mesas. 64

Opinions vary as to when the Navajo migrated to the Grand Canyon/Coconino Plateau region; 

the earliest suggested dates are around 1000 AD and later dates are around 1525 AD. 65

 

56 Schwartz, On the Edge of Splendor, 38; Euler, “Walapai Culture History”, 1958; Robert C. Euler, “Archaeological 

Problems in Western and Northwestern Arizona, 1962,” Plateau, Vol. 35, No. 3 (1963): 78-85. 57 Euler, “Walapai Culture History”, 1958; Euler, “Archaeological Problems,” 78-85. 

58 Bertha P. Dutton, American Indians of the Southwest (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1983), 157-

161. 

59 Kelly and Fowler, “Southern Paiute,” 386. 

60 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 82; Janet R. Balsom, “Native Americans of the Grand Canyon” in 

Hiking the Grand Canyon, ed. John Annerino (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1993), 12. 61 Balsom, “Native Americans of the Grand Canyon,” 13; Cushing, “The Nation of the Willows, ” 362-374, 541-549; 

Spier, “Havasupai Ethnography, ” 83-392.

62 Balsom, “Native Americans of the Grand Canyon,” 12. 63 Ahlstrom et al., “Archaeological Overview,” 82; Balsom, “Native Americans of the Grand Canyon,” 12. 64 Balsom, “Native Americans of the Grand Canyon,” 12; Cushing, The Nation of the Willows, 362-374, 541-549; 

Spier, Havasupai Ethnography, 83-392. 65 Balsom, “Native Americans of the Grand Canyon,” 12. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 22 

However, historical evidence indicates that the Navajo were well established in the region by at 

least 1680 AD.66 Although there is little documented Navajo use of the Grand Canyon during the 

Protohistoric Period, there is evidence that the Navajo gathered pinyon nuts near the Grand 

Canyon during historic times, and a few Navajo families were living in the vicinity of GRCA 

during the late 1800s.67 Nevertheless, Navajo traditional cultural ties to the Grand Canyon and 

Colorado River are strong. For example, the Navajo believe that they were present during the 

creation of the Grand Canyon and Colorado River, and the Grand Canyon and other minor 

canyons are home to many Navajo deities affiliated with clan origins and migrations. 68

Although their reservation and traditional lands are far from the Grand Canyon, the Zuni believe 

that they too entered this world through the Grand Canyon. The origin point of the Zuni was at a 

place called Chimik’yana’kya dey’a, also known as Ribbon Falls on Bright Angel Creek, a major 

tributary of the Colorado River, west of the mouth of the Little Colorado River in the Grand 

Canyon.69 As they migrated to Zuni, they lived at sites along the Colorado and Little Colorado 

Rivers. 

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 700- 460 BP: 

Land Use and Activities 

 

Hunting Protohistoric peoples hunted both large and small 

fauna, utilizing the resources from both canyon and 

rim habitats. 

Gathering Protohistoric inhabitants of the region gathered a 

wide variety of local flora, utilizing the resources 

unique to mountain, rim, and inner canyon habitats. 

 Mining Protohistoric peoples mined mineral resources such 

as pigments and salt from within the inner canyon. 

Seasonal Migration The historic Havasupai, and to a lesser degree the 

Hualapai and Southern Paiute, practiced semisedentism, wintering at more permanent sites on or 

adjacent to the rim and spending planting and 

harvesting seasons within the Grand Canyon and 

tributary canyon bottomlands. 

Agriculture The Pai and Paiute depended on agricultural fields 

generally located in canyon bottoms adjacent to 

water resources. 

 

66 Balsom, “Native Americans of the Grand Canyon,” 12. 67 Brewer, “Long Walk,” 55-62; Cleeland et al., “American Indian Use,” 34-35, 40-41. 68 Roberts et al., “Bits’iis Nineezi,” 144. 

69 Ferguson and Hart, A Zuni Atlas, 51. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 23 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

Semi-Sedentism Pai and Paiute archeological sites are more 

ephemeral, reflecting their practice of seasonal 

migration patterns tuned to the utilization of 

regional resources. 

Site Location Archeological sites dating to the early Protohistoric 

indicate that Pai and Paiute occupation of the Grand 

Canyon vicinity focused primarily on the north and 

south rims. After adopting the agricultural practices 

of their predecessors, Pai and Paiute peoples began 

to seasonally occupy the canyon bottomlands 

adjacent to water resources. 

Response to Natural Environment 

 

Exploitation of Colorado River After adopting the agricultural practices of their 

predecessors, the Pai and Paiute peoples began to 

exploit the tributary canyon bottoms adjacent to 

springs. 

Shelter Protohistoric inhabitants utilized caves and rock 

shelters within and throughout the Grand Canyon as 

temporary camp sites. 

Salt mines Because of its value for subsistence and trade, 

Protohistoric peoples continued to utilize important 

salt mines within the inner canyon. Despite their 

distance from the Grand Canyon, the Hopi and Zuni 

also continued to make regular trips to the salt 

mines within the inner canyon. 

Cultural Traditions 

Rock Art Mallery’s Gallery, a grotto along the Bright Angel 

Trail below the south rim, contains pictographs 

representing successful hunting activities. Near the 

two mile point of the Bright Angel Trail, south of 

Indian Garden, is another set of pictographs. Both 

of these pictograph panels have been attributed to 

the Havasupai however a recent re-examination of 

Mallery’s Gallery suggests that several images may 

also date to the Archaic Period.70

 

70 Cleeland, “Cross Canyon Corridor,” 13; Mark Sinclair to Inner Canyon Personnel. “Euler’s Visit to Indian 

Gardens,” May 16, 1978 (Indian Garden Ranger Station files, Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National Park), 1. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 24 

Circulation Networks 

Trails/Routes Protohistoric inhabitants of the Grand Canyon 

region used formal routes and trails that linked the 

canyon rims with the Colorado River. For example, 

the Havasupai, and possibly earlier inhabitants, used 

the route availed by the Bright Angel Fault to 

access the Indian Garden area. The trails and routes 

led to natural resources and to irrigated gardens and 

fields in minor canyons. The trails also enabled 

different groups to interact regularly with one 

another. For example, the Hopi maintained active 

trade relationships with both the Paiute and 

Havasupai. 

Boundary Demarcations 

Colorado River The Colorado River was a porous boundary that 

served to generally delineate the Pai on the south 

from the Paiute on the north. However, the 

Colorado River was frequently crossed and trade 

and interaction was actively pursued from both 

sides. In addition, native fauna and flora resources 

on both sides of the Colorado River were utilized by 

all groups. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

Cultivars Pai and Paiute peoples adopted some of the 

cultivars and agricultural practices of their Puebloan 

and Cohonina predecessors through trade and 

interaction with the Hopi and Zuni to the east. 

Buildings and Structures 

Pueblo Reoccupation Both Pai and Paiute peoples often reoccupied earlier 

pueblo sites. 

 

Wickiups Wickiups were temporary conical shelters 

constructed from locally available resources. A 

circular framework of poles was weaved with 

willow branches and leafy bushes. These shelters 

served as temporary camps and seasonal respite 

from the sun. The Havasupai are known to have 

lived intermittently at Indian Garden into the 

twentieth century, and their habitation structures 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 25 

were still present at Indian Garden when GRCA 

was established. However, beginning in 1924, the 

NPS removed Havasupai cultural remains from 

Indian Garden. 

Sweathouse Pai frequently constructed wood and earth saunas or 

sweathouses. 

Small-scale Features 

Terraces Pai and Paiute peoples constructed artificial terraces 

out of stone and soil to create productive 

agricultural fields, reducing the potential for erosion 

and increasing agricultural yields. 

Check Dams Pai and Paiute peoples increased their agricultural 

yields with the construction of check dams to 

control flooding and erosional processes. 

Irrigation Ditches Pai and Paiute peoples artificially irrigated their 

agricultural fields where possible by constructing 

ditches to control the course and direction of water 

flow. 

 

Roasting Pits Pai peoples constructed pits to roast pinyon nuts 

and agave (mescal). The pits usually consisted of a 

shallow circular hole lined with stone, which was 

constructed close to the resources harvested. Two 

such roasting pits have been identified along the 

Bright Angel Trail, south of Indian Garden. Both of 

these pits were apparently used to roast agave.71 

Spanish Colonization and European Exploration of the Grand Canyon 

Vicinity: 1540-1821 AD

Introduction 

As historian Stephen Pyne has noted, the Grand Canyon, despite its monumentality and vastness, 

remained largely unexplored by European military expeditions and settlers until the nineteenth 

century. Of those parties that saw the Grand Canyon and recorded their experiences, many 

perceived it as an obstacle of vast barrenness. Only one documented party ever attempted to 

descend to the Colorado River. Maps produced during this nearly three hundred year period 

 

71 Sinclair, “Euler’s Visit,” 1. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 26 

focus exclusively on the larger Southwest region, further documenting the peripheral nature 

ascribed to the Grand Canyon and its inhabitants.72

Brief Historic Context 

In 1540, Francisco Vasquez de Coronado led an exploration party north from Mexico to locate 

the fabled Seven Cities of Cibola, most likely the villages of the Zuni peoples. Coronado 

eventually reached Zuni Pueblo, but found no riches. A contingent led by Pedro de Tovar was 

led to the Hopi pueblos which were again found to contain no gold or mineral wealth. The Hopis 

led a detachment headed by Garcia Lopez de Cardenas to the Grand Canyon. In September of 

1540, Cardenas’ party approached the south rim—likely in the area between present day Desert 

View and Moran Point—becoming the first Europeans to see the canyon. Other sixteenthcentury Spanish explorers to travel through the region included Marcos Farfan in 1578 and Fray 

Esteban de Perea in 1598. Although disappointed at the lack of riches, the Spanish decided to 

establish missionaries at the Hopi and Zuni Pueblos, leaving behind several Franciscan friars. 

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, missionary work and religious conversion 

was actively pursued in northern New Spain.73

Early Spanish description of the Grand Canyon was not very detailed. The Grand Canyon 

environment was described as arid and covered with low-growing pinyon and juniper. The 

Spaniards’ only view of the Colorado River was from far above on the south rim. A small party 

from Garcia Lopez de Cardenas’ contingent attempted to descend to the river but failed. In doing 

so, however, they realized that the Colorado River was broader than they had originally thought 

and contained large boulders. Once the Grand Canyon was perceived as an impenetrable barrier, 

the Spanish avoided it for nearly 250 years.74

Between 1598 and 1760, the mission system was promoted by individuals under license from the 

Spanish Crown. By 1610, the town of Santa Fe was settled as the new capital for the province of 

New Mexico. Slowly, Spanish missions moved northward from Santa Fe, eventually reaching 

the Hopi pueblos by 1629. Part of the Spanish-Puebloan interaction included forced relationships 

such as the encomienda, or annual tribute, and the repartimiento, or forced labor system. The 

encomienda was officially extended to favored individuals of the colonial administration. Those 

individuals in turn collected an annual tribute from the Pueblos in the form of maize and cotton 

blankets. The repartimiento used conscripted labor to work government farms and build both 

public and private structures. Lastly, disease introduced by Europeans devastated the Puebloan 

peoples.75

During the 1760s, New Spain initiated a general rehabilitation of its northern frontier as threats 

from Britain and Russia, troubles with the Apache, and problems with colonial administration 

persisted. As a result, new routes of communication were proposed and a stronger cordon of 

 

72 Stephen J. Pyne, How the Canyon Became Grand: A Short History (New York: Penguin Group, 1998), 6. 73 “Draft General Management Plan,” 145; Marc Simmons, “History of Pueblo-Spanish Relations to 1821,” in 

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9 Southwest, ed. Alfonso Ortiz (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution Press, 1979), 178. 

74 Pyne, How the Canyon Became Grand, 6. 75 Simmons, “Pueblo-Spanish Relations,” 179-183. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 27 

presidios recommended. A direct result of the rehabilitation effort was a second period of 

exploration and survey during the early fourth quarter of the eighteenth century.76 

The following decade saw a number of the provincial proposals carried out. In 1776, the Jesuit 

priest Francisco Tomas Garces traveled north from the Tucson vicinity to visit the Hualapais, 

Havasupais, and Hopis. He followed the Colorado north to the “Rio Jabesua,” or Havasu 

Canyon, and then traveled east to visit the Hopi Pueblos. Garces was “astonished at the 

roughness of this country and at the barrier which nature had fixed,” literally “a prison of cliffs 

and canyon.” He noted that the lush environment of Havasu Canyon and Havasupai irrigation 

system of dams and ditches yielded trees, grass, and crops. They also possessed both horses and 

cattle that they had received in trade with the Hopi. Also in the same year, the Franciscan fathers 

Silvestre Velez de Escalante and Francisco Atanasio Dominguez traveled through present-day 

northern Arizona to seek a route between Santa Fe and Monterey (what would become the Old 

Spanish Trail). They traveled through House Rock Valley and crossed the Colorado River at a 

spot they named El Vado de los Padres, the Crossing of the Fathers, in present-day Glen Canyon. 

The Escalante and Dominguez party passed just to the north of the Grand Canyon but made no 

attempt to view or inspect it. As they traveled along the north rim of the Grand Canyon, they 

reported on the character of the tribes and the natural environment. They encountered what 

appeared to be a group of Paiutes in the vicinity of the Kaibab Plateau in October of 1777. The 

exploration party was told that the Paiutes did not plant corn, but noted that their food consisted 

of gathering prickly pear, seeds, and pine nuts, and hunting rabbits and goats. Other Paiute 

peoples, most likely in southern Utah, were noted to cultivate corn and squash and use irrigation 

ditches. Few additional explorations were made to the Grand Canyon vicinity by the Spanish 

after 1777.77 

In late 1660, a well-coordinated Puebloan revolt led by several individuals evicted the Spanish 

and culminated with the capture of Santa Fe. The Spanish reconquest of the Puebloan peoples 

began in 1692 and was led by the new governor, Diego de Vargas. Five years later, the Puebloan 

peoples were mostly subsumed within the colonial administration.78 

Historic accounts document ancestral Navajo interactions with the Havasupai by the late 1600s. 

By the mid-nineteenth century, the Navajo made extensive use of canyon resources for 

subsistence and religious purposes, and continued to graze sheep, goats and horses in the vicinity 

into the 1930s and 1940s. The Hopi and Zuni have also at various times either occupied the 

Grand Canyon, procured and utilized canyon resources, and/or traded with the Havasupai and 

other groups.79 Between 1810 and 1821, Mexico and much of New Spain was in revolt from the 

Spanish Crown. As a result, formal state sponsored exploration and activity in the province of 

New Mexico ceased. 

 

76 Pyne, How the Canyon Became Grand, 16. 77 NPS, “Draft General Management Plan,” 145; Pyne, How the Canyon Became Grand, 17-18; J. Donald Hughes, 

In the House of Stone and Light: An Introduction to the Human History of Grand Canyon (Denver: University of 

Denver, 1978), 17-22; Douglas W. Schwartz, “A Historical Analysis and Synthesis of Grand Canyon Archaeology,” 

American Antiquity Vol. 31, No. 4 (April 1966): 471; Kelly and Fowler, “Southern Paiute,” 368-397. 78 The Hopi pueblos, due to their isolation, remained independent for nearly a century after the revolt. 79 NPS, “Draft Environmental Assessment,” 22-23. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 28 

Unlike the Hopi and Zuni peoples, many of the Hualapai, Havasupai and Southern Paiute 

peoples occupying the Grand Canyon vicinity escaped direct control and administration under 

Spanish colonization. The Spanish presence, however, indirectly impacted the Grand Canyon 

region: during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Spanish slave traders abducted 

American Indians living within the Colorado Plateau to work in Mexican mines and regional 

ranches. Where Spanish slave traders could not venture, neighboring tribes conducted slave raids 

in exchange for trade items. The Shivwits band of Southern Paiute were devastated by slave 

traders.80

Due to nearly 300 years of Spanish interaction and trade within the northern Arizona region, 

many new cultivars and plant and animal species were introduced to the Grand Canyon vicinity. 

These included wheat, figs, lima beans, chile peppers, domestic onions, watermelons, and peach 

trees. Animal husbandry was also introduced to the region, a practice that required extensive 

rangeland and one that dramatically impacted the natural environment and agricultural 

production. Cattle was the common domesticate within the Grand Canyon vicinity. In particular, 

the introduction of the horse impacted trade and the ability of neighboring cultures such as the 

Apache and Navajo to conduct long-reaching raids into the Grand Canyon region.81

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 1540-1821: 

Land Uses and Activities 

Hunting Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute, and Navajo 

peoples hunted both large and small fauna, utilizing 

the resources from both canyon and rim habitats. 

The Kaibab Paiutes also fished from the Colorado 

River. 

 Gathering Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute, and Navajo 

peoples gathered a wide variety of local flora 

utilizing the resources unique to the rim and inner 

canyon habitats. 

 

Seasonal Migration The Havasupai, and to a lesser degree, the Hualapai 

and Southern Paiute peoples practiced a semisedentism, wintering at more permanent sites on or 

adjacent to the rim and spending planting and 

harvesting seasons within the canyon bottomlands. 

 Agriculture Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

 

80 Carling I. Malouf and John M. Findlay, “Euro-American Impact Before 1870,” in Handbook of North American 

Indians, Vol. 11 Great Basin, ed. Warren L. D’Azevedo (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1986), 501, 

503; Simmons, “Pueblo-Spanish relations,” 184. 

81 Simmons, “Pueblo-Spanish relations,” 181; Demitri B. Shimkin, “The Introduction of the Horse,” in Handbook of 

North American Indians, Vol. 11 Great Basin, ed. Warren L. D’Azevedo (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution, 1986), 519.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 29 

peoples depended upon agricultural fields generally 

located in canyon bottoms adjacent to water 

resources. 

Animal Husbandry The introduction of domestic animals throughout 

the seventeenth, eighteenth, and early nineteenth 

centuries led to the practice of animal husbandry, 

particularly focusing on cattle. 

 Mining Red ochre, a mineral used for painting and 

adornment of the body, was mined from sites within 

the inner canyon. Copper and rock salt were also 

mined from sites within the inner canyon. Red 

ochre, copper and salt were important trade items 

for the Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute, Hopi, 

Zuni and Navajo peoples. 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

 

 Semi-Sedentism Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute and Navajo 

practiced seasonal migration patterns that were 

attuned to the availability of regional flora and 

fauna resources. 

 Site Location Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute and Navajo 

occupation of the Grand Canyon region are 

generally divided into winter camps or settlements 

along the rim, and seasonal camps and settlements 

along the inner canyon during planting and 

harvesting season adjacent to water resources. 

Response to Natural Environment 

 

Exploitation of Colorado River Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute and Navajo 

peoples continued to agriculturally exploit the 

minor canyon bottoms adjacent to springs. 

Shelter Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute and Navajo 

peoples utilized caves and rock shelters within and 

throughout the Grand Canyon as temporary camp 

sites. 

 Range Land Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute and Navajo 

 peoples utilized prime range land for grazing cattle, 

 sheep and goats. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 30 

Cultural Traditions 

 Taboos Fish, lizards, and reptiles were avoided by 

the Havasupai. 

Circulation Networks 

 

Trails/Routes Formal routes and trails that linked the 

canyon rims with the Colorado River continued to 

be utilized. These trails led to natural resources and 

to irrigated gardens and fields in minor canyons. 

The Havasupai and Hualapai traded and interacted 

regularly with one another, with the Hopi, and 

eventually with the Navajo. The Southern Paiute 

also traded and interacted with the Hopi and 

Navajo. 

Boundary Demarcations 

Colorado River The Colorado River was a porous boundary 

that served to generally delineate the Hualapai and 

Havasupai on the south from the Southern Paiute on 

the north. It must be understood that the Colorado 

River was frequently crossed and that trade and 

interaction was actively pursued from both sides. In 

addition, native fauna and flora resources on both 

sides of the Colorado River were utilized by all 

groups. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

Maize, Squash, and Beans Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute peoples 

continued to plant and rely upon the triumvirate 

staples of maize, squash, and beans. 

Peach Trees By the eighteenth century, peach trees, originally 

introduced by the Spanish and obtained through 

trade with the Hopi, were growing within the inner 

canyon agricultural fields. 

Lima Beans By the eighteenth century, lima beans were 

regularly planted by the Hualapai and Havasupai 

and later Southern Paiute peoples. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 31 

Buildings and Structures 

 

Wickiups Wickiups, or brush wickiups, were temporary 

conical shelters constructed of locally abundant 

resources. A circular framework of poles was 

woven with willow branches and leafy bushes. 

These shelters served as temporary camps and 

seasonal respite from the sun. 

Granaries Stone granaries were constructed within the inner 

canyon and sealed for long-term preservation of 

stores. 

Sweathouse Hualapai and Havasupai frequently constructed 

wood and earth saunas or sweathouses. 

 Terraces Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples constructed artificial terraces out of stone 

and soil to create productive agricultural fields, 

reducing the potential for erosion and increasing 

agricultural yields. 

 

Check Dams Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples increased their agricultural yields with the 

construction of check dams to control flooding and 

erosion processes. 

Irrigation Ditches Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples artificially irrigated their agricultural fields 

where possible by constructing ditches to control 

the course and direction of water flow. 

Small-scale Features 

 

Bridges/Ladders Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples constructed new—and used existing— 

wooden footbridges and ladders to aid in crossing 

chasms and accessing ledges and benches ultimately 

increasing transportation efficiency. 

Roasting Pits Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples constructed pits for roasting pinyon nuts 

and agave, usually shallow subterranean holes 

frequently lined with stone and close to the 

resources harvested. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 32 

Mexican Independence and Administration: 1821-1848 

Introduction 

Historians have characterized the Mexican administration of the Southwest as one of liberalized 

contact and trade with the United States. During their brief administration of the territory, no 

formal exploration of the New Mexico territory was initiated. Rather, the nearly thirty year 

period is characterized by increased contact between American Indians and Anglo-Americans as 

fur trappers rapidly moved into the Colorado Plateau and Grand Canyon region. 

Brief Historic Context 

The road to independence for New Spain began early in the nineteenth century with the 

Napoleonic political crisis of 1808 and the abdication of the Spanish crown. This single event 

initiated a movement towards political autonomy and self-governance throughout the Spanish 

empire. As colonial forces in New Spain began to consolidate and reinforce military rule, those 

in support of autonomy participated in armed resistance movements. By 1815, the insurgency 

had been effectively put down. In 1820, constitutional order was restored in New Spain and 

formalized plans for rebellion from Spain were initiated. By 1821, under the leadership of 

Augustin de Iturbide, Mexico declared its independence from Spain.82

With Mexican independence, the New Mexican territory ceased to be administered and regulated 

with the enthusiasm characterized under Spanish colonization. Compared with their 

predecessors, Mexican authorities instituted a more liberal policy of trade with the United States. 

By the mid-1820s, the earliest Anglo-American fur trappers and traders had begun to enter the 

Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. As a result, contact with American Indians in the larger 

Grand Canyon region began to increase. Ultimately this increased contact led to violence as 

disputes proliferated. Slave trading, which had begun during the end of Spanish Colonial 

administration, continued unabated and increased as new transportation routes to land in 

California were opened during this period. Ute and Navajo slave raiders captured Southern 

Paiute and, less frequently, members of other groups. They would sell these captives to Mexican 

traders and, on occasion, Mormon settlers and American fur traders. During this period, the Old 

Spanish Trail and the Santa Fe Trail became major thoroughfares between Missouri and 

California.83

Although they passed through the region, fur trappers did not regularly visit the Grand Canyon 

nor descend to the Colorado River. Of those that did, few recorded their impressions. One 

trapper who claimed to have spent time in the Grand Canyon was James Ohio Pattie. His 

personal narrative was later recorded by Timothy Flint, a writer renowned for biographies of 

western American heroes. Pattie claimed to have ascended the Colorado River in 1825 to a place 

where “horrid mountains” shut the river in for nearly 300 miles and prevented any descent.84

 

82 Virginia Guedea, “The Old Colonialism Ends, the New Colonialism Begins,” in The Oxford History of Mexico

eds. Michael C. Meyer and William H. Beezley (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 277-300. 83 Pyne, How the Canyon Became Grand, 23; Malouf and Findlay, “Euro-American Impact,” 499-506; Kelly and 

Fowler, “Southern Paiute,” 368-370, 386. 

84 Pyne, How the Canyon Became Grand, 24-25. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 33 

Jedediah Smith first traveled from the Great Salt Lake to the Grand Canyon region between 1826 

and 1827. In 1830, William Wolfskill and George Yount attempted to follow Smith’s route from 

the Sevier to the Colorado River. In the late 1820s, Ewing Young and his band of trappers 

moved up the Colorado River to the Bill Williams Fork but then left the river and proceeded 

along the south rim of the canyon until reaching Navajo country south of the San Juan River.85

Due to the Mexican government’s anti-slavery stance, hostilities between Mexican and AngloTexan colonists gradually began to increase. By the mid-1830s many Texans began to seriously 

consider political autonomy or annexation by the United States. In 1845, the U.S. Congress 

approved the annexation of Texas. A year later, the first United States troops had entered 

Mexican territory. After two years of humiliating defeats, the Mexican government was forced to 

sign the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ceded most of their northern territory to the United 

States in 1848. In 1850, the territory of New Mexico, which included Arizona and the Grand 

Canyon, was created by the United States.86

Modification to the natural environment occurred relatively quickly after Americans entered the 

Grand Canyon vicinity. From about 1825 onward, the quest for natural resources and subsequent 

settlement dramatically altered the type and availability of native flora and fauna. Throughout the 

region, trapping, mining, grazing and logging created greater competition for resources and, as a 

result, increased hostilities. Plant and animal species traditionally utilized were adversely 

impacted and could no longer be depended upon. Over time, Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern 

Paiute peoples were driven from their traditional lands and forced to occupy areas with a 

substantially decreased carrying capacity.87

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 1821-1848: 

Land Uses and Activities 

 

Hunting Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute and Navajo 

peoples hunted both large and small fauna, utilizing 

the resources from both canyon and rim habitats. 

Small game was the most predominant meat source 

and included rabbits, rats, mice, gophers, squirrels, 

chipmunks, birds, and occasionally lizards and 

snakes. The Kaibab Paiutes also fished from the 

Colorado River. 

 Gathering Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute, and Navajo 

peoples gathered a wide variety of local flora, 

utilizing the resources unique to mountain, rim, and 

inner canyon habitats. Pine nuts and agave appear to 

 

85 Stoffle et al., “Big River Canyon,” 71-72.

86 Josefina Zoraida Vazquez, “War and Peace with the United States,” in The Oxford History of Mexico, eds. 

Michael C. Meyer and William H. Beezley (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 339-370. 87 Kimball T. Harper, “Historical Environments,” in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11 Great Basin, ed. 

Warren D’Azevedo (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1986), 60-63. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 34 

have been universally exploited within the larger 

Grand Canyon region. 

Seasonal Migration The Havasupai and Southern Paiute, and to a lesser 

degree, the Hualapai practiced semi-sedentism, 

wintering at more permanent sites on or adjacent to 

the rim or near the mountains and spending planting 

and harvesting seasons within the canyon 

bottomlands. The Southern Paiute were the most 

mobile. 

 Agriculture Hualapai, Havasupai, and to a lesser degree 

Southern Paiute peoples, depended upon 

agricultural fields and gardens located in canyon 

bottoms or adjacent to water resources. Small oneacre gardens could be tended by an individual. 

Larger gardens were tended by extended family. 

Animal Husbandry The introduction of domestic animals 

throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries led to the practice of animal 

husbandry, particularly cattle herding. 

Burning Great Basin peoples, including Southern Paiute, 

occasionally burned native vegetation to increase 

natural yields and plant production, to increase 

fodder for native fauna, and to hunt both small and 

larger game. 

 Mining Red ochre, a mineral used for painting and 

adornment of the body, was mined from sites within 

the inner canyon. Rock salt was also mined from 

sites within the inner canyon. Red ochre and salt 

were important trade items for the Hualapai, 

Havasupai, Southern Paiute, Hopi and Navajo 

peoples. 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

 

Semi-sedentism Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute, and Navajo 

peoples practiced seasonal migration patterns 

attuned to the utilization of regional flora and fauna 

resources, and timed with planting and harvest 

seasons. 

 Site Location Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute, and Navajo 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 35 

occupation of the Grand Canyon region are 

generally divided into winter camps or settlements 

along the rim or adjacent to mountains, and warm 

weather camps along the inner canyon during 

planting and harvesting season and adjacent to 

water resources. 

Response to Natural Environment 

 

Exploitation of Colorado River Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute peoples 

continued to agriculturally exploit the minor canyon 

bottoms adjacent to springs. 

Shelter Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute peoples 

utilized caves and rock shelters within and 

throughout the Grand Canyon as temporary camp 

sites. 

 Range Land Hualapai, Havasupai, Southern Paiute, and 

later Navajo, peoples utilized prime range land for 

grazing cattle, and to a lesser degree sheep and 

goats. 

Cultural Traditions 

 

Taboos Fish, lizards, and reptiles were avoided by 

the Havasupai peoples. 

Circulation Networks 

 

Trails/Routes Formal routes and trails that linked the 

canyon rims with the Colorado River continued to 

be utilized. These trails led to natural resources and 

to irrigated gardens and fields in lesser side 

canyons. The Havasupai and Hualapai peoples 

traded and interacted regularly with one another and 

eventually with the Navajo. The Southern Paiute 

traded and interacted with the Hopi and Navajo. 

Boundary Demarcations

Colorado River The Colorado River was a porous boundary that 

served to generally delineate the Hualapai and 

Havasupai peoples living on the south side of the 

river from the Southern Paiute peoples living on the 

north side of the river. It must be understood that 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 36 

the Colorado River was frequently crossed and that 

trade and interaction was actively pursued from 

both sides. In addition, native fauna and flora 

resources on both sides of the Colorado River were 

utilized by all groups. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

Maize, Squash, and Beans Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute peoples 

continued to plant and rely upon the triumvirate 

staples of maize, squash and beans. The Southern 

Paiute were dependent to a greater degree on 

hunting and gathering. 

Peach, Apricot, and Fig Trees By the eighteenth century peach, apricot and 

fig trees, originally introduced by the Spanish and 

obtained through trade with the Hopi, were growing 

within the inner canyon agricultural fields. 

 Melons and Watermelons Melons were obtained through trade and 

eventually incorporated into the mélange of 

cultivated plants. Melons were planted 

predominantly by Hualapai and Havasupai peoples. 

Lima Beans By the eighteenth century, lima beans were 

regularly planted by the Hualapai and Havasupai 

and later Southern Paiute peoples. 

Buildings and Structures 

 

Wickiups Wickiups, or brush wickiups, were temporary 

conical shelters constructed of locally abundant 

resources. A circular framework of poles was 

woven with willow branches and leafy bushes. 

These shelters served as temporary camps and 

provided seasonal respite from the sun. 

 Granaries Stone granaries were constructed within the 

inner canyon and sealed for long-term preservation 

of stores. 

 Sweathouse Hualapai and Havasupai peoples frequently 

constructed wood and earth saunas or sweathouses. 

 Terraces Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 37 

peoples constructed artificial terraces out of stone 

and soil to create productive agricultural fields 

reducing the potential for erosion and increasing 

agricultural yields. 

 Check Dams Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples increased their agricultural yields by 

constructing check dams to control flooding and 

erosional processes. 

Irrigation Ditches Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples manually irrigated their agricultural fields 

where possible by constructing ditches to control 

the course and direction of water flow. 

Small-scale Features 

 

Bridges/Ladders Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples used both new and existing wooden 

footbridges and ladders to aid in crossing chasms 

and accessing ledges and benches which ultimately 

increased transportation efficiency. 

Roasting Pits Hualapai, Havasupai, and Southern Paiute 

peoples constructed pinyon nut and agave roasting 

pits, which typically consisted of shallow 

subterranean holes. 

Early American Exploration and the Territory of Arizona: 1848-1880 

Introduction 

The earliest period of United States administration of the Southwest is characterized by the 

systematic subjugation of native peoples, Federally-funded exploration of the Colorado River 

and search for travel routes, and the initiation of individual and corporate mining efforts on 

public lands. 

Brief Historical Context 

The formal accession of the northern Mexican territories set in motion the Federally-driven 

incorporation of the new Southwest according to national interests. As Anderson notes, this 

forty-year phase included “warfare, negotiations, treaties and purchase to secure land and subdue 

native residents; creation of orderly territorial and state governments...; and construction of 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 38 

wagon roads followed by railroads to facilitate settlement by U.S. citizens and eastern capitalists’ 

efficient extraction of western resources.”88

The first Federally-funded exploration of lands in the Southwest occurred prior to formal 

acquisition of the northern Mexican territories. In 1846, Lt. William H. Emory, accompanying 

Gen. Stephen Watts Kearney on his military trip to California, studied the geology, botany, and 

zoology of the larger Southwest. He then produced what is regarded as the first accurate map of 

the region. Only five years later, Capt. Lorenzo Sitgreaves explored a route west of Zuni, New 

Mexico to the Colorado River that he believed would be an adequate wagon road. Sitgreaves was 

accompanied on his trip by Dr. S.W. Woodhouse, a physician and naturalist. The Sitgreaves 

expedition was followed in 1853-54 by a second road survey along the same route led by Capt. 

Amiel W. Whipple. Accompanying Whipple were geologist Dr. Jules Marcou and artist and 

naturalist Balduin Mollhausen. The road west of Zuni, New Mexico was subsequently built in 

1857-59, and eventually known as present-day Route 66.89 

Arizona became a formal U.S. Territory in 1863. While the decade of the United States’ Civil 

War saw thousands of gold seekers pass through the Arizona Territory, few remained to settle 

there. The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River did not become a permanent image in the 

American imagination until the late 1860s and 1870s when the area was intimately explored by 

geologists and naturalists. The first Federal exploration of the lower Colorado River occurred in 

1858. Lt. Joseph C. Ives captained a U.S. Army steamboat; the Ives expedition reached as far as 

Black Canyon. The well-known geologist John Wesley Powell conducted two trips down the 

Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, one in 1869 and another in 1871-72. It was on his 

1869 trip that Powell first saw and named Bright Angel Creek, describing it as “a clear, beautiful 

creek, coming down through a gorgeous red canyon.” Powell’s report on his Colorado River trip 

was eventually published in 1875. George Montague Wheeler also led a river survey up the 

Colorado River as far as Diamond Creek in 1871. Despite their focus on the potential for 

valuable natural resources in the area, the published reports of the Powell and Wheeler 

expeditions were widely read in the eastern U.S. and, as a result, the Grand Canyon became 

popularized in the minds of the American public.90

Passed in 1866 and revised in 1870 and 1872, the Lode Law—or Federal Mining Act—allowed 

anyone to recover at their own expense “all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the 

United States, both surveyed or unsurveyed, and the lands in which they are found to occupy and 

purchase.” If minerals of value were discovered, patents were eventually granted for a small fee. 

Also notable is the fact that miners could retain control of mineral-barren land without patent if 

modest annual improvements to the claim were made. The Federal Mining Act also allowed 

anyone to claim water sources for placer mining and ore milling purposes. Claims were subject 

to local mining practices and generally limited to twenty acres or less. The law was intended to 

settle and develop the western frontier, and to that extent it was enormously successful. 91 

 

88 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 50-51. 

89 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 51, 53.

90 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 73-74; Cleeland, “The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District,” 14. During the 

early 1870s, the first photographs of the Grand Canyon were published by Timothy O’Sullivan. These photographs 

provided stunning images and accompanied the textual narratives of Powell and Wheeler. 

91 United States Code, Title 30, Chapter 3, Section 22; Michael F. Anderson, Living at the Edge: Explorers, 

Exploiters and Settlers of the Grand Canyon Region (Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Association, 1998), 6. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 39 

Other late nineteenth century Federal actions also stimulated research within the Grand Canyon 

vicinity. Upon his return from the 1871-72 expedition, Powell began to campaign for Federal 

funding and a continuation of research in the Southwest. His lobbying efforts in Congress 

resulted in the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey in 1879. Powell was chosen as an early 

director. In 1880, the U.S. Geological Survey funded Clarence Dutton’s geological expedition to 

the Grand Canyon. Dutton’s report on his Grand Canyon explorations was published in 1882. 

Within Indian Garden proper, it is likely that one or more Havasupai families were seasonally 

residing there during the second half of the nineteenth century.92 George W. James, a popular 

promoter of the Grand Canyon, noted that “a certain family of the Havasupais used to farm in a 

crude way on this spot” and that the remains of their irrigation ditches, terraces, and dams could 

be seen on the site as late as 1890. In his popular 1935 publication, the superintendent of the 

park, M.R. Tillotson, identified this family as “Big Jim’s.” According to Tillotson, “Big Jim was 

born at Indian Garden, on the present Bright Angel Trail.” Big Jim reportedly remembered his 

family’s occupation of Indian Garden as far back as the 1860s. Like the larger Havasu Canyon 

settlement, the Havasupai families at Indian Garden occupied it on a seasonal basis, planting the 

fertile bottom lands adjacent to the Garden Creek drainage. It is not known what Havasupai 

structures, if any, were located at Indian Garden prior to European arrival.93

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 1848- 1880: 

Land Use and Activities 

Hunting Havasupai peoples at Indian Garden and other 

American Indian peoples along the rims continued 

to hunt native fauna for subsistence and cultural 

needs. 

Gathering Havasupai peoples at Indian Garden and other 

American Indian peoples along the rims continued 

to gather native flora for subsistence and cultural 

needs. 

Agriculture Havasupai peoples at Indian Garden and other 

American Indian peoples along the canyon rims 

continued to seasonally plant native and non-native 

cultivars within the numerous micro-climates 

available. According to a miner who worked at 

Indian Garden in the last quarter of the nineteenth 

 

92 A NPS memo issued in 1988 refers to the U.S. Bureau of Geographic Names publication (1988) that establishes 

that the proper name for the project area under study is Indian Garden, not Indian Gardens. This document will 

refer to the project area as Indian Garden (singular) except when citing sources that have Indian Gardens (plural) in 

their title. The name Indian Garden was likely given to the area in the last quarter of the nineteenth century when the 

first European miners and cattlemen ventured down the old Havasupai trail. See “Geographic Names: Grand Canyon 

National Park,” December 20, 1988. Indian Garden Ranger Station files, Grand Canyon National Park.

93 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail.” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, 8-16; M.R. Tillotson and 

Horace M. Albright, Grand Canyon Country (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1935), 63-64. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 40 

century, evidence of intentional burning by earlier 

non-Anglo peoples was present in the CLR project 

area vicinity. 

Trade Havasupai peoples at Indian Garden continued to 

trade with the Hopi and other American Indian 

peoples and intermittently with Euro-Americans. 

Exploration and Survey Several Euro-American expeditions explore and 

map the Colorado River and Grand Canyon region. 

Prospecting A secondary goal of many of the late nineteenth 

century Euro-American expeditions is to note the 

potential for natural resources, particularly valuable 

minerals, within the Grand Canyon region. 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

Seasonal settlement Havasupai peoples seasonally occupied and tended 

their gardens in the Indian Garden vicinity, 

wintering on the south rim. 

Response to Natural Environment 

Site location Like their predecessors, Havasupai peoples chose to 

seasonally occupy and cultivate the Indian Garden 

area due to the lush riparian environment caused by 

the presence of numerous springs. The springs and 

lush environment also supported a wide variety of 

native flora and fauna. Havasupai peoples likely reoccupied earlier Puebloan Period habitation sites or 

constructed their own along the prominent ridge 

slopes above the Indian Garden project area. 

Cultural Traditions 

Architecture Havasupai continued to build masonry, pole, and 

brush structures used as temporary camps—a 

practice that was likely adopted from their Puebloan 

predecessors. 

Circulation Networks 

Trail/Route The old Havasupai Trail that was subsequently 

improved by American prospectors and claim 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 41 

holders provided one of several access routes into 

the inner canyon in the larger south rim. 

Boundary Demarcations 

South Rim With the exception of the earliest prospectors and 

cattlemen, the south rim may have been a 

formidable boundary for many Americans who 

visited the Grand Canyon during this period. Not 

until the improvement and marketing of inner 

canyon trails did the popularity of venturing down 

into the Grand Canyon increase. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

Cultivars Havasupai peoples living seasonally at Indian 

Garden planted traditional cultivars including 

maize, squash, and beans and possibly then 

recently-introduced fruits such as peaches, apricots, 

figs, and melons. 

Buildings and Structures 

Temporary Camps Seasonal habitation structures typically consisted of 

a pole-and-brush superstructure supported by a drylaid masonry foundation. Ten of the fifteen 

prehistoric sites that have been identified in the 

vicinity of Indian Garden have surface structures 

that likely served as seasonal habitation structures. 

They are all located on terraces and promontories 

overlooking Garden Creek. The expedient 

construction of these structures and the proximity to 

arable land and dependable water indicate that the 

structures were summer farm sites occupied by 

people that lived the remainder of the year on the 

canyon rim or down near the river. The simple 

structures at Indian Garden appear to have been 

constructed by Ancestral Puebloan peoples, as they 

are similar to Puebloan structures from the San Juan 

River area.94 However, the structures are not 

absolutely definitive of Puebloan construction, and 

could have been built or subsequently used by 

Cohonina or later inhabitants.95

 

94 Adams and Adams, “Inventory of Prehistoric Sites,” 12; Coulam, “Archeological Survey of Indian Gardens,” 16. 95 Coulam, “Archeological Survey of Indian Gardens,” 16.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 42 

Granaries Puebloan and Cohonina peoples built masonry, 

wood, and mud storage structures. These structures 

were utilized exclusively as storage units for grain. 

They were either attached to residences or located 

on isolated canyon precipices. Two sites in the 

vicinity of Indian Garden possess granary features. 

At both sites, the granaries are tucked under ledges 

of canyon walls. It is likely that these structures 

may have been used by subsequent peoples such as 

the Havasupai. 

Small-scale Features 

Terraces Puebloan peoples and subsequent Havasupai 

occupants constructed artificial terraces out of stone 

and soil to create productive agricultural fields, 

reducing the potential for erosion and increasing 

agricultural yields. 

 Check Dams Puebloan peoples and subsequent Havasupai 

occupants constructed small rock walls out of stone. 

These stone walls served as check dams to control 

the erosion of soils in canyons and drainages. The 

rock walls also served as passive solar devices. A 

few of the habitation sites in the Indian Garden area 

are associated with small rock walls that may have 

served as check dams. 

 Irrigation Ditches Puebloan peoples and subsequent Havasupai 

occupants constructed shallow, clay-lined 

depressions or canals to funnel water to agricultural 

fields and garden plots. 

Garden Plots Puebloan peoples and subsequent Havasupai 

occupants constructed low rock walls that defined 

garden plots within canyons and drainages. The size 

of garden plots was based on the topography and 

drainage of the land.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 43 

Early Anglo Settlement, Mining Claims, and Pioneer Tourist 

Development on the South Rim: 1880-1901 

Introduction 

In the 1880s, the arrival of the railroad within the larger region and subsequent tourist promotion 

led directly to increased private development within the Grand Canyon. During this period, 

development within Indian Garden proper—along an old Havasupai trail that followed Bright 

Angel Fault—was initiated by Ralph Cameron. Cameron and a partner initially “developed” and 

operated a toll road that followed the Bright Angel Fault and led to the canyon interior. 

Brief Historical Context 

Shortly after the Civil War, large corporate railroads began to extend their lines westward. The 

Atlantic and Pacific Railroad was chartered by Congress in 1866; by 1882, its northern Arizona 

line had reached Flagstaff. A wagon road to the south rim was built in 1885 and stage services to 

Grandview Point were initiated in 1892. The arrival of the railroad at Flagstaff increased regional 

settlement and property values in Mohave, Yavapai, and Coconino counties; encouraged 

continued prospecting for natural resources; connected the new western settlements with goods 

and supplies; and linked the emerging lumber and cattle industries to markets in the Midwestern 

and Eastern United States.96 

Initial development of the Grand Canyon during the last quarter of the nineteenth century was 

largely instigated by individual entrepreneurs. Prospectors, miners, cattlemen, and eventually an 

incipient tourist industry soon developed along the south rim and inner canyon. “Captain” John 

Hance is the first recorded Anglo-American permanent resident at the Grand Canyon. Hance 

settled near what would become Grandview Point and subsequently repaired an old Havasupai 

route on the south rim to facilitate his mineral prospecting. This trail came to be known as the 

“old trail” and was the primary access to the inner canyon throughout the early 1880s. The “old 

trail” was obliterated by rock slides in spring of 1894. A new trail was subsequently constructed 

down Red Canyon to the Colorado River two miles to the east of the old trailhead. Hance 

eventually leased his rights to his homestead and new trail to J. W. Thurber and J. H. Tolfree in 

1895. While Hance was clearly one of the first permanent residents, prospectors flocked to the 

Grand Canyon in great numbers over the next decade. This migration was due in large part to the 

publication of Robert Brewster Stanton’s survey and mineral report of the Grand Canyon in 

1889.97 

During the last twenty-five years of the nineteenth century, the first Euro-Americans 

“discovered” Indian Garden. During the 1880s, William H. Ashurst and John Marshall, early 

mining prospectors, began exploring the inner canyon area, eventually wintering there. In 1880, 

 

96 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 79; Ethan Carr, Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the NPS

(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998), 115. 

97 Debra L. Sutphen, “Sinews of Dirt and Stone: Grand Canyon’s Backcountry Trails System, an Historic Summary” 

(Historic Resource Study, Grand Canyon National Park, 1992), 29, 58-59; Douglas H. Strong, “Ralph H. Cameron 

and the Grand Canyon (Part 1),” Arizona and the West, Vol. 21 (Spring 1978): 43. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 44 

Ashurst is recorded to have driven his horses and other livestock down to Indian Garden for 

pasturage.98 

Although the evidence is clear that Havasupai families used the Indian Garden environs during 

the third quarter of the nineteenth century, by the time Ashurst and other early prospectors began 

to explore the inner canyon vicinity, only traces of the Havasupai occupation were seen. During 

his stint making improvements to the Cameron Trail in 1890-91, Curtis H. McClure noted that 

“there were evidences in existence at the Indian Garden showing that at some time previous, 

some cultivation of the ground had been carried on by someone [and] it apparently had been 

burned off two or three times...” The fact that late nineteenth-century prospectors did not see 

much evidence of Havasupai occupation at Indian Garden may be accounted for by the seasonal 

nature of its use or perhaps their material presence went unrecognized. The disappearance of the 

Havasupai peoples from Indian Garden also coincided with the U.S. Government action in 1880 

that formally reduced traditional Havasupai lands to a sixty square mile reservation in Havasu 

Canyon.99

In 1883, Ralph H. Cameron arrived in Flagstaff from Maine and made his first trip to Grand 

Canyon. Between 1889 and 1890, he reportedly spent two months wintering in the vicinity of 

Indian Garden prospecting. Only a year later, Cameron and other partners including Pete Berry, 

and his brother Niles began filing mining claims within the Grand Canyon. During this period, 

the first permanent Anglo structure was reported to be built at Indian Garden. In 1890, Daniel L. 

Hogan, Jeffrey Sykes, and Charles McLane transported prospecting supplies to Indian Garden 

and built a “stacked stone cabin with canvas roof to serve as a winter home.”100

Access to Indian Garden was obtained via an old Havasupai trail from the south rim through the 

Bright Angel Fault. Ashurst and Marshall were the first to file a claim with Mohave County in 

April of 1890 to build a trail along the Bright Angel Fault to the springs at Indian Garden. A few 

months later they transferred their rights to a group headed by Ralph Cameron and Pete Berry. 

During the ensuing decade, the Bright Angel Trail was heavily used as a convenient access to the 

inner canyon’s natural resources by a diverse group that included miners, cattlemen and 

eventually tourists (Figure 3). During the early 1890s, cattleman George T. Campbell, William 

Ashurst, and others used it to drive livestock down to pasturage.101

In 1890, Pete Berry recorded the old Havasupai trail leading to Indian Garden with Yavapai 

County and obtained a franchise to operate it as the Bright Angel “toll road.” Between 1890 and 

1891, Berry, Niles Cameron, Robert A. Ferguson, Curtis H. McClure, and Millard G. Love 

improved the Bright Angel toll road. During this period they spent approximately $500 on 

improvements.102

 

98 Anderson, Living at the Edge, 56; Sutphen, “Sinews of Dirt and Stone,” 31. Ashurst is the only prospector to have 

discovered “promising ore deposits” at Indian Garden by the late 1890s. See NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-16.

99 Anderson, Living at the Edge, 60; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-16.. 100 Strong, “Ralph H. Cameron,” 43, 47; Sutphen, “Sinews of Dirt and Stone,” 30; George H. Billingsly, Earle E. 

Spamer and Dove Menkes, Quest for the Pillar of Gold: The Mines and Miners of the Grand Canyon (Grand 

Canyon: Grand Canyon Association, 1997), 64; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 77. Hogan et al.’s ‘stacked stone 

cabin’ may be the roofless structure pictured in several early photographs of Indian Garden (See Figure 5-8).

101 Sutphen, “Sinews of Dirt and Stone,” 31; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 86. 102 Anderson, Living at the Edge, 86; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-2; Billingsly et al., Quest, 64. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 45 

Coconino County was formed out of Yavapai County largely with the aid of Ralph Cameron. 

Cameron was subsequently appointed Coconino County’s first sheriff. His influence in County 

politics and the course and direction of development at the Grand Canyon would greatly increase 

in the coming years.103

Even though there were no railroad lines leading directly to the Grand Canyon, national 

promotion of the site by railroads increased during the 1890s. In 1892, the Santa Fe Railroad 

published its first promotional booklet on the Grand Canyon. During the same year, Sanford H. 

Rowe negotiated a deal with Ralph Cameron to allow tourists to travel down his Bright Angel 

toll road in exchange for access to water from Rowe’s Well, a sinkhole near Hermit Basin. 

Rowe’s arrangement was the first documented tourist operation at the central south rim and the 

first person to use the Bright Angel Trail as a tourist attraction.104 

In 1896, the Santa Fe Railroad purchased the rights to Thomas Moran’s painting, entitled Grand 

Canyon. Color reproductions of the painting were subsequently made and hung in railroad 

terminals throughout the United States. Moran was later hired by the Santa Fe Railroad to 

produce additional paintings of the Southwest. The Fred Harvey Company, a partner of the Santa 

Fe Railroad, and the Santa Fe Railroad subsequently contracted with a number of artists, 

including Moran, Louis Akin, Frank P. Sauerwein, E.A. Burbank, E. Irving Course, Ernest L. 

Blumenschein, William R. Leigh, Bert Geer Phillips, and E. Martin Hennings to paint pictures of 

the Southwest. These images were prominently featured in promoting the Santa Fe line and Fred 

Harvey Company facilities. Color picture postcards become particularly popular during the early 

1900s.105 

By the 1880s, prominent conservationists had begun to gather national support for the 

conservation of the Grand Canyon and its resources. In 1893, President Benjamin Harrison 

established the Grand Canyon Forest Reserve, an area encompassing approximately 2,900 square 

miles. The Forest Reserve placed all land in and around the Grand Canyon under the 

management of the Federal Government. In 1897, the management of Grand Canyon Forest 

Reserve was given to the Department of the Interior and the General Land Office.106

During the late 1890s, the trip to the Grand Canyon from Flagstaff was made easier and a direct 

result was an increase in the number of annual visitors to the region. In 1900, the Santa Fe and 

Grand Canyon Railroad, funded by the New York firm of Lombard, Goode and Co. and 

operating as the Tusayan Development Company, began rail service from Flagstaff to their Anita 

mine, only fifteen miles from the Grand Canyon. Visitors made the remainder of the trip to the 

Grand Canyon by stagecoach. A prominent destination for visitors was J.M. Thurber’s Bright 

Angel Hotel, built adjacent to the Bright Angel Trail trailhead in 1896. The Anita mine 

 

103 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-2. 104 Kathleen L. Howard and Diana F. Pardue, Inventing the Southwest: The Fred Harvey Company and Native 

American Art (Flagstaff:Northland Publishing Co., 1996), 90; Carr, Wilderness by Design, 115; Anderson, Living at 

the Edge, 80. 105 Howard and Pardue, Inventing the Southwest, 95-97. 106 Anderson, Living at the Edge, 87. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 46 

eventually proved unprofitable and the spur line from Flagstaff passed into receivership. It was 

subsequently sold to the Santa Fe Railway in 1900.107

Ralph Cameron was one of several entrepreneurs present at the Grand Canyon who was quick to 

recognize the potential revenue that tourism could generate and the role the quickly-approaching 

railroad lines would play in stimulating tourism. In the late 1890s, Cameron reached an 

agreement with the Santa Fe and Grand Canyon Railway that their line spur would eventually 

end at the head of the Bright Angel Trail. Almost immediately, Cameron and the firm of 

Lombard, Goode, and Co. began to plan for the future by making the first substantial 

improvements to the Bright Angel Trail since its establishment as a toll road. In 1898, Buckey 

O’Neill, as agent of Lombard, Goode and Co., hired men to improve the Cameron Trail “as part 

of the company’s overall plan to develop tourism and mineral deposits.” During the same period, 

Buckey O’Neill built a cabin adjacent to head of the Bright Angel Trail. Improvements totaling 

$200 were carried out during this period including a change to the trailhead and first few hundred 

feet of trail. Berry and Cameron hired several men between 1898 and 1899, including Curtis 

McClure, John R. Holford, D. W. Barter and Niles Cameron, to extend the Bright Angel Trail 

from Indian Garden to the Colorado River. Substantial financial investment in trail improvement 

and extension continued through 1903.108

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 1880-1901: 

Land Use and Activities 

Prospecting Early regional prospectors searched for valuable 

minerals in the Indian Garden vicinity. 

Mining Early regional prospectors mined claims within 

Indian Garden and the surrounding Tonto platform. 

Grazing In 1880, prospector and miner William Ashurst is 

recorded to have driven his horses and other 

livestock down to Indian Garden for pasturage. 

Trail Establishment/ 

Improvement Between 1890 and 1891, the old Havasupai trail 

leading down to Indian Garden was documented by 

Ashurst and subsequently acquired and improved by 

Berry and Cameron. The improvement process 

included clearing, widening, stabilizing and 

rerouting the existing pedestrian trail to safely 

accommodate pack animals and mining supplies 

and equipment. 

 

107 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 87-88, 90; Strong, “Ralph H. Cameron,” 45. The Santa Fe Railroad purchased the 

Grand Canyon Railway and quickly finished the line to the South rim in 1901.

108 Anderson, Living at the Edge, 86, 89-91; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-3, 7-4, 8-4. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 47 

Trail extension During the years 1898 and 1899, Berry and 

Cameron hired several laborers to extend the Bright 

Angel toll road further north from Indian Garden to 

the Colorado River. 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

Site Location (South Rim) The presence of miner camps, early pioneer hotels 

and stores, and accessible routes to the inner canyon 

along the south rim established the area east and 

west of the current Grand Canyon Village as the 

focus of subsequent early twentieth century 

settlement and development. 

Response to Natural Environment 

Trail alignment/ 

Improvement The improvement and realignment of the Bright 

Angel toll road generally followed the preestablished Havasupai route that conformed to the 

descent of the Bright Angel Fault from the south 

rim to Indian Garden. 

Site Location (Indian Garden) Due to its lush riparian environment and the 

presence of numerous continuous springs, the 

Indian Garden vicinity became a convenient rest 

area and campsite for early prospectors, miners, and 

cattlemen. 

Water supply (South Rim) Due to the extremely arid conditions and general 

lack of water sources along the south rim, 

settlements had to obtain their water from sources 

within or south of the Grand Canyon. Early on, 

water was brought to the south rim from larger 

settlements to the south like Flagstaff. 

Cultural Traditions 

Land claims Beginning in 1890, and lasting into the first quarter 

of the twentieth century, early explorers and miners 

of the inner canyon laid claim to public lands 

through the 1866 Federal Mining Act (revised 1870 

and 1872). This act allowed anyone to claim 

mineral deposits on surveyed or unsurveyed public 

land and maintain control of such land with minimal 

improvements. At Indian Garden, several mining 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 48 

and water power claims were filed by Ralph 

Cameron. This cultural tradition contributed to the 

private development and commercial exploitation of 

the Grand Canyon. 

Circulation Networks 

Ashurst and Marshall trail By 1890, William Ashurst and John Marshall had 

claimed the trail along Bright Angel Fault leading 

from the south rim to Indian Garden. 

Bright Angel toll road By 1890, Pete Berry and Ralph Cameron purchased 

Ashurst’s trail claim and recorded the Bright Angel 

toll road with Yavapai County. 

Boundary Demarcations 

South Rim With the exception of the earliest prospectors and 

cattlemen, the south rim may have been a 

formidable boundary for many Americans who 

visited the Grand Canyon during this period. Not 

until the improvement and marketing of inner 

canyon trails near the turn of the century did the 

popularity of venturing down into the Grand 

Canyon increase. 

 Claim establishment As part of the prospect and mining process, 

potential claims had to be surveyed and/or marked 

or located on the ground before a claim could be 

filed with the County authorities. Claim markers 

were essentially posted notices that established 

porous boundaries for trail and/or mining sites. 

Buildings and Structures 

Ashurst and Marshall shelter It is likely that William Ashurst and John 

Marshall built a small shelter for themselves or 

occupied a pre-existing one within the Indian 

Garden vicinity during the winter of 1880. 

Cameron shelter It is likely that Ralph Cameron built a small 

shelter for himself or occupied a pre-existing one 

within the Indian Garden vicinity during the winter 

of 1889-90. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 49 

Hogan, Sykes, and 

McLane Stone Cabin Daniel Hogan, Jeffrey Sykes, and Charles McLane 

are recorded to have constructed a “stacked stone 

cabin with canvas roof to serve as a winter home” 

for themselves within the Indian Garden vicinity 

during 1890. 

Small-scale Features 

Prospecting As a result of extensive prospecting in the Indian 

Garden vicinity, numerous adits and tunnels were 

excavated in an attempt to find valuable minerals 

and demonstrate proof that claims were being 

worked.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 50

Figure 3. “Prospecting for Gold, Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon of Arizona,” ca.1901. (NAU-Cline Library

Collection, #NAU.PH.99.48)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 51 

Arrival of the Railroad and Private Development of Indian Garden: 

1901-1928 

Introduction 

In 1901, the Santa Fe Railroad directly linked Williams, Arizona with the south rim of the Grand 

Canyon. In 1903, Ralph Cameron had opened Cameron’s Hotel and Camps on the rim at the 

head of the Bright Angel Trail, and Cameron’s Indian Garden Camp surrounding the springs at 

Indian Garden to cater to the increasing number of Grand Canyon visitors. Over the course of the 

first quarter of the twentieth century, increasing individual and corporate commercial interests 

and a growing Federal concern over the conservation of and public access to the Grand Canyon 

led to a prolonged legal dispute over the ownership of the Bright Angel Trail and Indian Garden. 

Brief Historical Context 

With the Santa Fe Railroad’s purchase of the defunct Santa Fe and Grand Canyon Railway line, 

the arrival of a direct rail link to the Grand Canyon was only a matter of time. In 1901, the 

Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad completed the sixty-five-mile spur line from Williams, 

Arizona to Cameron’s Hotel and Camps at the Bright Angel trailhead. The first Santa Fe 

passenger train arrived at the Grand Canyon in September of that year. As Ethan Carr has noted, 

the completion of the railroad line essentially designated this area of the south rim as the 

principal point of arrival for all visitors to the Grand Canyon. The Santa Fe Railroad 

subsequently built a station cabin and adjoining tent accommodations that became known as 

Bright Angel Camp. During the same year, the Bright Angel toll road franchise was renewed for 

an additional five years by Coconino County in Pete Berry’s name. With permission from the 

Department of the Interior in 1903, Berry and Cameron erected a gate at the head of the Bright 

Angel Trail allowing them to charge all visitors to the Grand Canyon one dollar for its use. Prior 

to 1903, Berry and Cameron had not charged the public for use of their trail.109

The early years of the twentieth century saw the emergence of a growing competition between 

Cameron, the Santa Fe Railroad, and subsequently the U.S. Forest Service and NPS. The feud 

may have been initiated when the Santa Fe Railway decided to extend its tracks to the east and to 

Martin Buggeln’s Bright Angel Hotel. The Santa Fe Railway established a twenty-acre depot 

east of the Bright Angel trailhead and hired Charles F. Whittlesey to design a new hotel at the 

emerging Grand Canyon Village. The El Tovar Hotel opened in January of 1905. Colter’s Hopi 

House adjacent to the El Tovar Hotel opened two months later. In response, Cameron began to 

expand his interests and holdings along the Bright Angel Trail and south rim between 1902 and 

1904. During this period he filed a substantial number of additional mining and milling claims 

along the Bright Angel Trail and trailhead, including the Alder and Willow mill site claims at 

Indian Garden surrounding the permanent spring there. Mill sites were frequently placed 

adjacent to potential water power and generally supported placer and shaft claims, particularly 

the processing of ores recovered from them. By 1903, Cameron had also constructed and opened 

Cameron’s Hotel and Camps near the Bright Angel trailhead in an effort to compete with the 

 

109 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 87-88, 93; Billingsly et al., Quest, 64; Sutphen, “Sinews of Dirt and Stone,” 72; 

Tillotson and Albright, Grand Canyon Country, 63; Carr, Wilderness by Design, 115; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 

86. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 52 

adjacent Santa Fe/Martin Buggeln Bright Angel Hotel operation. Cameron also solidified his 

local political support by being elected to the Coconino County Board of Supervisors. A year 

later he was elected as its chairman. The multi-dimensional competition between individual and 

corporate interests at the south rim became very personal and was to define the development and 

operation of the GRCA into the second quarter of the twentieth century.110

Late nineteenth-century descriptions of Indian Garden are not known to exist, although by the 

first visitor descriptions began to appear by the early 1900s. In 1900, George W. James, an avid 

promoter of the Grand Canyon, described Indian Garden as “made green and fertile by the 

flowing of a large spring of water.” Two years later, a Santa Fe Railroad publication noted that 

“the famous guide, John Hance, is now located at Bright Angel. Eight hours are required for 

going down and coming back, allowing two hours for lunch, rest and sight-seeing. Those 

wishing to reach the river leave the main trail at Indian Garden spring and follow the downward 

course of Willow Creek.” In 1902, P. C. Bicknell provided an extensive description of Indian 

Garden: 

...now we wind easily along the boulder-strewn channel of a dry mountain 

torrent, the bottom land widening out as we advance, with verdant slopes curving up on 

either side. Crystal springs burst from the low, encircling terraces, uniting their waters in 

a noisy little brook that prattles through the flat, converting it into a miniature tangled 

wilderness of prolific vegetation. This is the ‘Indian Garden’: so named because a few 

families of Hava-Supai Indians once dwelt here and cultivated the land. They departed a 

generation ago; but traces of their occupation can still be seen in furrows left by old 

irrigation ditches with which they flooded the bottom land. But ages before the HavaSupai planted his corn here, the little valley was occupied by a prehistoric race. On every 

commanding point above the stream, ruins of their rock houses remain, and fragments of 

pottery—far superior to that of the modern aborigine – are very abundant; indicating a 

lengthy occupation of the land. Beyond the projecting wings of the red-wall that, with a 

vertical height of eight hundred feet encloses the Garden on three sides, the narrow valley 

opens out on to the broad Esplanade, or plateau, that forms the highway of the Canyon; 

while the stream (known as Willow Creek) cuts its way to the right through a tortuous 

little ravine to a level some two hundred feet lower, where it again broadens out into a 

much smaller basin known as the ‘Lower Garden.’111

Cameron eventually formalized his intentions to control the Indian Garden vicinity and the 

springs located there. In 1903, he bought certain mining claims and water rights at Indian Garden 

from other prospectors and began operating a camp beside the Bright Angel Trail on the edge of 

the Tonto Platform (Figure 4). Cameron may have used other earlier inner canyon camps, such 

as Bass or Rowe Well, as an example when constructing his own tourist accommodations at 

Indian Garden. The initial development of Cameron’s Indian Garden camp consisted of “seven 

 

110 Strong, “Ralph H. Cameron,” 49; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 90; Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 91; Hughes, 

House of Stone and Light, 68-69. 111 George W. James, In and Around the Grand Canyon: The Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in Arizona

(Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1905), 135; Passenger Department of the Santa Fe Railroad, The Grand Canyon of 

Arizona (Chicago: Poole Brothers, 1902), 121; P. C. Bicknell, Guide Book of the Grand Canyon of Arizona, (Kansas 

City: Fred Harvey Company, 1902), 47-49. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 53 

tent cabins, meals, and a phone line to the south rim.” Cameron also planted cottonwood trees 

and dammed the creek to irrigate a garden and orchard below camp in the next few years. Over 

the next few years Cameron also constructed several additional buildings and structures 

including a kitchen, root cellar, rain gauge, incinerator, tool shed, laundry, toilets and a water 

supply (Figures 5 through 10). 

 A mid-twentieth-century text recalled the early Cameron development at Indian Garden: 

[The] Camerons planted the cottonwood trees at the Gardens, bringing 

shoots over the Tonto from Cottonwood Canyon to the east as there were only 

willows [that] grew in the creek bed. They had a double row of tents for tourists, 

with trees planted between them approximately where the Ranger Station is 

located now. Below and east of them a rock lodge was started but never 

completed, with a large vegetable garden, irrigated by ditches. They planted 

strawberries, raspberries and blackberries, of which only the latter still thrive 

having taken over the lower swamp thickets along the creek. 

Louis Boucher—the “Hermit”—may have been one of Cameron’s early part-time managers at 

Indian Garden. By 1908, Cameron had hired his brother Niles and Clarence C. Spaulding as 

managers of the Indian Garden Camp.112

In 1906, Emory and Ellsworth Kolb constructed a stone and frame photo studio at lower Indian 

Garden. The photo studio provided them with a darkroom and allowed unlimited access to the 

springs there. Running water was essential for the development process, a commodity that they 

could not count on at their south rim studio (Figures 11 through 14).113

President Theodore Roosevelt visited the Grand Canyon in 1903. In 1905, management of the 

Grand Canyon Forest Reserve was transferred to the U.S. Forest Service. A year later, Roosevelt 

enlarged the existing Grand Canyon Forest Reserve and provided additional protection by 

designating it a game preserve under an act of Congress. In 1907, the Grand Canyon Forest 

Reserve was renamed the Grand Canyon National Forest. In 1908, President Roosevelt 

designated 958 square miles of the Grand Canyon National Forest as a National Monument; 

monument status prohibited any private citizens from making future claims.114

Continuing his battle with corporate and Federal interests, Cameron applied for a patent and 

outright ownership on his two claims at Indian Garden in 1905: the Alder and Willow mill sites. 

The applications were denied and the claims were declared invalid and cancelled. In 1906, Pete 

Berry’s franchise to operate the Bright Angel Trail as a toll road expired. Control reverted to 

Coconino County. However the County eventually awarded the Bright Angel Trail franchise to 

Lannes L. Ferrall, a Cameron brother-in-law and manager of his south rim hotel. A year later 

 

112 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-6, 7-7, 8-14; Cleeland, “Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District,” 28; Anonymous, 

“Details of Trail Data – South Rim at G.C. Village,” (Manuscript at Indian Garden Ranger Quarters, n.d.) 2; 

Anderson, Living at the Edge, 77, 95. 113 William C. Suran, The Kolb Brothers of Grand Canyon (Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Natural History 

Association, 1991), 9. 

114 Sutphen, “Sinews of Dirt and Stone,” 52; Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 98.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 54 

Coconino County awarded the Bright Angel Trail franchise to Ralph Cameron. He maintained 

control of the trail and charged a toll for its use through 1912, when its administration reverted to 

Coconino County.115

Cameron furthered his political career by winning election as the Arizona territorial delegate to 

the U.S. Congress in 1908. He held this position until 1912 when he ran for senator, but lost. 

Despite his obligations in the nation’s capitol, Cameron continued to make sporadic repairs and 

improvements to the Bright Angel Trail. In 1908, he rerouted part of the upper trail to reduce its 

grade and bored the lower tunnel just below the south rim. Sometime prior to 1913, the upper 

tunnel was constructed by Cameron to allow tourists to view Mallery’s Gallery, an area of 

Ancestral Puebloan paintings just below the south rim. In 1909, the U.S. Forest Service 

developed a management document entitled, “A Working Plan for Grand Canyon National 

Monument” authored by Forest Examiner W. R. Mattoon. As a testament to Cameron’s 

improvements, Mattoon stated that “out of a total of five trails descending from the rim to the 

river, the Bright Angel Trail alone is kept in good repair...A toll of $1 per head on each saddle or 

pack animal is collected by Mr. Ralph Cameron, to whom the trail is leased by the county.”116

Throughout the 1900s, corporate entities and the U.S. Forest Service attempted to remove 

Cameron from the Grand Canyon National Monument. In 1908, at the request of the U.S. Forest 

Service, mining officials inspected many of Cameron’s claims along the Bright Angel Trail and 

found them to be “farcical.” In 1909, the Department of the Interior ruled that Cameron had not 

improved his mining and milling claims along the Bright Angel Trail as required and that they 

therefore would revert to the Grand Canyon National Monument. After failing to acquire the 

Bright Angel Trail, in 1909 the Santa Fe Railroad announced that they had received permission 

from the U.S. Forest Service to begin construction on the Hermit project, a new trail and innercanyon development. They hoped that the Hermit project would become overwhelming 

competition to Cameron’s Bright Angel Trail and Indian Garden Camp, eventually convincing 

him to abandon his interests. Despite their best intentions, construction on the “Hermit Project” 

did not begin until between 1911 and 1913.117

In 1909, the Santa Fe Railroad moved their Grand Canyon terminal further east from the Bright 

Angel Hotel to the newly constructed El Tovar Hotel. This eventually precipitated the closing of 

Cameron’s Hotel and Camps at the south rim by 1910. Niles Cameron, C. C. Spaulding, and 

Lannes Ferrall however continued to collect tolls on the Bright Angel Trail and perform regular 

trail maintenance and assessment work at Cameron’s mining claims.118

During the late 1900s, Indian Garden was still a popular destination for travelers to the innercanyon. In 1909, John T. McCutcheon described Indian Garden as: 

 

115 Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the First Session of the 68th Congress of the United States of 

America. Volume LXV – Part 4. February 26 to March 14, 1924, (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 

1924), 3495; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 90-91; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-8. 116 Sutphen, “Sinews of Dirt and Stone,” 52; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 73; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-4; W. 

R. Mattoon, “A Working Plan for Grand Canyon National Monument,” Prepared for U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, June 28, 1909 (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #04560), 6.

117 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-9; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 102; Carr, Wilderness by Design, 116-117; W. R. 

Mattoon, “A Working Plan for Grand Canyon National Monument,” 6, 40. 

118 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 102; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 105; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-9.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 55 

...a beautiful broad plateau on which is situated the little collection of tent 

cottages called the Indian Gardens. A good spring, a little patch of cultivated 

garden land, and a sort of a halfway house where cool drinks may be purchased, 

constitute the settlement. Many people come down and spend the night in the 

tents, thereby getting an experience which enables them to say afterwards, ‘When 

I was roughing it out in Arizona.’ 

In the early 1910s, Emory Kolb described Cameron’s Indian Garden Camp. 

When 1,300 feet above the river, our little workshop beside a stream on 

the plateau—only used at intervals when no water can be had on top, and closed 

for three months past—gave us our first cheerless greeting. Cameron’s Indian 

Garden Camp was also closed for the day, and we were disappointed in a hope 

that we could telephone to our home, 3,200 feet above. But the tents, under rows 

of waving cottonwoods, and surrounded by beds of blooming roses and glorious 

chrysanthemums, gave us a more cheerful welcome than our little building [photo 

studio] below. We only stopped to quench our thirst in the bubbling spring then 

began the four mile climb that would put us on top of the towering cliff. 

Similar positive descriptions of the inviting nature and potential of Indian Garden appeared in 

1918. “The spring at Indian Garden is large enough to irrigate a small tract of ground. 

Experience has demonstrated that not only can vegetables of every kind be grown here, but all 

kinds of fruits, even oranges, lemons and grapefruit.” Peaches and other fruits were apparently a 

marketable commodity in the larger region during this period. Supai peaches sold well in both 

Williams and Flagstaff.119

In 1916, the Santa Fe Land Improvement Company acquired several Cameron land claims from 

John Daniel, acting as an agent for Cameron. Water rights and the Alder and Willow mill claims 

at Indian Garden were acquired in June. Cameron, however, retained the platinum mining and 

hydroelectric development rights on all his claims, essentially blocking future development at 

Indian Garden. This partial acquisition stimulated the proposal of corporate development at 

Indian Garden. Plans for the immediate development of Indian Garden were drawn up by Mary 

Jane Colter for the Fred Harvey Company. The proposals submitted to the U.S. Forest Service 

included building tourist cabins at Indian Garden Camp and called for various-sized guest houses 

accommodating two to twelve persons. The plans were never adopted by Forest Service or the 

NPS due to Cameron’s continued presence at Indian Garden (Figures 15 through 19).120

 

119 John T. McCutcheon, “Doing the Grand Canyon,” in Paul Schullery, ed. The Grand Canyon: Early Impressions

(Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, 1981), 118; E. L. Kolb, Through the Grand Canyon from Wyoming 

to Mexico (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953), 217; George W. James, The Grand Canyon and How to See 

It (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1918) 62; J. Donald Hughes, House of Stone and Light, 77. 120 Billingsly et al., Quest, 65; Strong, “Ralph H. Cameron,” 58; Virginia L. Grattan, Mary Colter: Builder Upon the 

Red Earth (Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon Natural History Association, 1992), 32; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 88; 

Mary Jane Colter, “Floor Plans of Stone Cottages, Proposed for Indian Gardens [No. 7],” Nov. 1916. Grand Canyon 

Museum Collection, #16713; Mary Jane Colter, “Cabin Accomodating 2 Persons, Kitchen Elevation facing Road, 

Slab Construction, [No. 10]” n.d. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #16712; Mary Jane Colter, “Typical Stone 

Cottage (Accomodating 12 Persons), Proposed for Indian Gardens [No. 8],” ca. 1916. Grand Canyon Museum 

Collection, #16682. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 56 

The Fred Harvey Company map produced in 1916 shows the existing structures and features at 

Indian Garden. These included eight tents, a stone house, a kitchen, a stable area, a laundry, a 

former garden, a former alfalfa patch in the upper garden area, two trail maintainer’s tents, the 

Kolb “cottage” or photo studio, and two unidentified structures/tents in the lower garden area 

(See Figure 15).121

In 1917, Don P. Johnston and Aldo Leopold issued a revised document entitled “Grand Canyon 

Working Plan.” This document called for a detailed topographic survey of the Grand Canyon 

National Monument with the purpose of designating development use zones and mitigating 

conflicting land uses. A direct result of the document was the production of a U.S. Forest Service 

map of Indian Garden (Figure 20). Produced in 1917, this map shows similar existing structures 

and features as the Fred Harvey Company map. They include the Kolb Brothers photo studio, an 

“old toilet,” a trail keeper’s tent, an “oil float box” and adjacent tent, an old alfalfa field and a 

pond in the lower Indian Garden area, two unidentified structures adjacent to a vegetable garden, 

a former laundry tent, a kitchen, a root cellar, a stone house, a tool shed, a toilet, hitch racks, 

eight tents, an incinerator, and two unidentified structures adjacent to the upper Indian Garden 

area—most likely a mule shed and corral.122 

After a decade of heavy use and only meager funds allotted by Cameron for its maintenance, the 

appearance of the Indian Garden camp began to suffer. In 1916, the Indian Garden Camp was 

described less than favorably by the U.S. Forest Service. 

The Indian Gardens constitute the more or less level stretches on the first 

mesa on the Bright Angel Trail at an elevation of 3,800 feet above sea level or 

3,288 feet below the rim at the head of the trail. The water at this point has made 

it a desirable stopping point for trail parties to lunch. Due to mineral claims, 

however, there has been no authority to keep the place clean, and it is in a filthy 

and disgraceful condition. Piles of decayed remnants of lunch were found within a 

few yards of the trail at several points. Lunch boxes with the cards furnished by 

the Forest Service requesting care with refuse are found scattered from one end of 

the Gardens to the other. One of the Coconino County Trail caretakers lives here. 

The surroundings about his living quarters are as filthy as other parts of the 

Garden. Tourists who pass up and down the trail probably [--] get the impression 

that this man is an employee of the Government. There are four springs at the 

Gardens capable of supplying water to extensive hotel and living quarters. The 

surplus may some day be pumped to the top of the rim unless other arrangements 

are made. It is the plan of the [Fred Harvey] Company to develop these gardens as 

a stopping place for tourists who wish to remain in the Canyon over night or 

longer. A wax model has been made of the proposed development. It is the plan to 

have a number of individual cottages, some supplied with baths and others not. 

The plan is to fix a rate for the cheaper quarters so low as to be within reach of 

people of limited means. The prices of the more pretentious quarters are to be 

 

121 Fred Harvey Company, “Plat ‘A’ Showing Present Plan of Indian Gardens,” 1916. Grand Canyon National Park, 

Museum Collection.

122 U.S. Forest Service, “Working Plan Map, Grand Canyon, Tusayan National Forest, Indian Garden Area,” 1917. 

Grand Canyon National Park, Museum Collection; Carr, Wilderness by Design, 118. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 57 

fixed high enough to help bear the costs of operation for the others. There is to be 

a central dining hall and a large lounging room with large fireplace. Corrals for 

stock would be placed below. It is the idea to have chickens and cows so as to 

furnish fresh eggs, milk and cream for the patrons. In order to do this there must 

be poultry pens and small pastures. For this purpose it is proposed to develop the 

lower Indian Gardens where there is not to exceed ten acres of land which may 

have value for these purposes. It cannot be hoped to grow enough feed for these 

cows; and of course, the remainder must be packed down the trail. The company’s 

landscape gardener desires to leave natural conditions undisturbed as much as 

possible. Cottages are to be built against or partially on top of boulders. Existing 

trees and shrubs are not to be disturbed. There is practically no wood supply, and 

the introduction of eucalyptus has been proposed. The whole idea of developing 

Indian Gardens is based upon the principle of making it appear, at least, as being 

independent within itself. The cliffs near by have cave houses and dugouts as 

living quarters for the Supai Indians, which tribe formerly inhabitated [sic] this 

spot. These Indians will care for the garden spots. Fresh vegetables could be 

raised during at least eight months of the year. The effect should be pleasing. The 

project is stupendous after one considers that building material must be packed 

from the top on mule back. This tract can hardly be put to any higher use than the 

one proposed. The expenditure, which will be distributed over five to ten years, 

will probably be $100,000. The mules which transport these supplies will be taxed 

the $1. toll unless special concessions are made by the County authorities, or the 

present arrangement is permanently altered. It is planned to be able to take care of 

60 guests per day by the end of next season, future developments to depend upon 

the demand. The right of way along the Bright Angel Trail is claimed to be 40 

feet in width. It practically ruins the upper Indian Gardens. It is essential that the 

trail be moved slightly in one or two instances. Even so, buildings will be within 

20 feet of it. Several years ago Kolb Brothers built a cabin at the lower end of the 

Upper Gardens. It was used for making of enlargements, since a fresh water 

supply was at hand. The building probably cost $700 including packing the 

material. The County’s employee who lives nearby states that it is used an 

average of three times a year. Mr. Emory Kolb claims to use it three times a 

month. The building has an abandoned appearance. There is no objection to the 

continued use of this building and site provided it is maintained in good order and 

the premises kept clean. However any permit should be issued for an extremely 

small area surrounding that house and should clearly stipulate that it will not 

interfere with higher use.123

Throughout the 1910s, Cameron actively investigated selling many of his claims along the Bright 

Angel Trail and adjacent to Indian Garden to large corporations in the eastern U.S. In 1912, 

Cameron claimed that a Philadelphia syndicate had an option to purchase thirty-five of his 

mining claims, some near Indian Garden, to “build a reservoir and hydroelectric plant within 

Garden Creek’s narrows.” The claims were never sold and the plans were never developed. 

Cameron also continued to pursue his rising political career. In 1914, he was defeated in a bid for 

 

123 Don P. Johnston and Aldo Leopold, “Grand Canyon Uses Working Plan,” December 1916 (Grand Canyon 

Museum Collection #28343), 7-9. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 58 

Governor of Arizona. Six years later Cameron was swept into Congress on the Republican ticket. 

He served his constituents in this capacity until early 1927.124

Under county administration since 1912, the Bright Angel Trail continued to remain a popular 

destination. During 1915, the fact that the Grand Canyon happened to be along the route to the 

San Francisco World’s Fair to the Grand Canyon greatly increased tourism along the south rim. 

Tolls for the Bright Angel Trail during that year amounted to $20,000. Several attempts were 

made to connect the Bright Angel Trail to Bright Angel Creek and the north rim. In 1907, David 

Rust constructed a cable system at the terminus of the Bright Angel Trail formally connecting 

the trails on either side of the Colorado River. In 1921, the NPS constructed a suspension bridge 

across the Colorado River at the northern terminus of the Bright Angel Trail. These efforts only 

increased the popularity of the Grand Canyon and its inner-canyon trials. The suspension bridge 

was eventually rebuilt in 1927.125

In 1916 the NPS was created. Three years later, President Woodrow Wilson signed legislation 

creating the GRCA. Despite the United States’ entry into World War I in 1917, the NPS wasted 

little time initiating improvements within their new park. By January of 1922, GRCA’s first 

cross-canyon telephone line was completed by a contractor. The single wire line was connected 

to trees and rocks along the Bright Angel Trail. A telephone station was located at Indian 

Garden.126

Over time, the Federal government increased its attempts to remove Cameron from the Bright 

Angel Trail and Indian Garden. In June of 1916, a suit was initiated against Cameron and his 

Alder and Willow mill sites at Indian Garden. Five years later in February 1921, a decree was 

entered against Cameron that forbid his use of “said sites and required within 60 days to remove 

therefrom all buildings, structures and improvements.” In an attempt to stall his eviction from 

Indian Garden, Cameron alleged that he had a pre-existing agreement with Coconino County to 

use the buildings there. Likewise he also believed that the buildings he owned were in the Bright 

Angel Trail right-of-way and therefore under the jurisdiction of the County.127 

The NPS was well aware of the administrative problems it faced when it took over the GRCA. 

The Superintendent’s Annual Report for the years 1920-25 notes “probably the greatest problem 

confronting the Service upon its taking over the administration of the park was the existence of 

the many claims of alleged mineral value. Among these were the claims located by Ralph H. 

Cameron which have been in litigation for several years.” During the early 1920s, Assistant 

Director of NPS, Horace Albright, inspected the GRCA and reported that “the situation at Indian 

Gardens is a disgrace to the park and an insult to the nation that owns the park” (Figures 21 

through 23). By the mid-1920s, the NPS was finally able to drive Cameron out of Indian Garden 

but did not obtain control of the Bright Angel Trail until late in the decade. In 1920, the U.S. 

Supreme Court invalidated all of Cameron’s mining claims and labeled him a trespasser within 

 

124 Anderson, Living at the Edge, 106; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-2, 8-11; Strong, “Ralph H. Cameron,” 58. 125 Anderson, Living at the Edge, 106; Carr, Wilderness by Design, 116; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-16. 126 NPS, “Trans Canyon Telephone Line, Grand Canyon National Park” (National Register of Historic Places 

Inventory – Nomination Form, 1986), 8-2; NPS, Superintendent’s Annual Report [SAR], Grand Canyon National 

Park, 1922,” 7. Grand Canyon Museum Collection. 

127 Congressional Record, 3495; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 106.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 59 

NPS lands. Three years later, suits were again filed against Cameron in Federal court for his 

refusal to vacate his invalid claims and for his failure to remove the structures and his employees 

from Indian Garden. Cameron was legally evicted from Indian Garden in 1924, formally ending 

his presence there. In September of that same year, when Cameron refused to leave Indian 

Garden, park rangers acted by storming the Indian Garden camp. Cameron’s caretakers ran away 

just before they arrived. The park rangers found an illegal distilling operation in one of the store 

houses. The facilities present at Indian Garden within Cameron’s Alder and Willow Mill claims 

in 1924 were noted by Hubert Work of the NPS as “a long storehouse occupied by a caretaker of 

the Bright Angel Trail, ownership of which is now in Coconino County; the stone shell of a twostory structure; and ten to twelve frames for small shelter cabins for campers.”128

In 1924, Louis Crampton, a Congressional representative from Michigan and long time political 

opponent of Cameron’s, took the opportunity to put on record the extensive lengths to which 

Cameron and his associates went to keep the U.S. Forest Service and NPS out of the Bright 

Angel Trail and Indian Garden vicinity. In particular, he noted that in February of 1924, Santa Fe 

Railroad engineers constructed a stone weir with a gauge below the Kolb Brothers studio to 

measure the flow of Garden Creek. The Indian Garden Coconino County caretaker said that he 

would destroy the weir and gauge. Later the weir was found to have been destroyed by 

explosion. In the same year, samples of water taken at the “lunching station” at Indian Garden 

were analyzed by the Santa Fe Railroad hospital and found to contain typhoid. Samples taken 

from two springs approximately one quarter mile above the lunching station were found to be 

pure. Contamination of Garden Creek was thought to have come from old pit toilets “built by 

Clarence Spaulding about 1909 for use of Cameron’s tent colony. These toilets were also used by 

the public until about two years ago [1922], when the caretaker destroyed them, but we are 

informed, did not fill the pits.” Lastly, an NPS sign placed at Indian Garden warning against the 

danger of contaminated water at the lunch station was torn down by the Coconino County 

caretaker.129

National periodicals also picked up the story of the long standing conflict and the NPS raid that 

detailed the abhorrent physical conditions at Indian Garden. 

Their actions [Cameron] were especially obnoxious at Indian Gardens, the 

oasis on the bottom of the canyon by way of the Bright Angel Trail. They 

prevented the erection of a public comfort station for travelers and eventually the 

water upon which the visitors depended for drinking at Indian Gardens became 

polluted with typhoid-fever germs which came, so officials of the NPS stated, 

from unsanitary conditions permitted by the Cameron employees. When the park 

officials put up signs warning travelers against drinking the water the placards 

were torn down...The forest rangers found the Cameron employees decamped, 

their property left behind in great disorder. In one deserted shack the park 

superintendent reported that he found ‘a large vessel containing about six or eight 

 

128 NPS, “SAR,” 1920-1925. Grand Canyon Museum Collection; Anderson, Living at the Edge, 106; Strong, “Ralph 

H. Cameron,” 161; Hughes, House of Stone and Light, 88, 90; Billingsly, et al., Quest, 65; Congressional Record, 

3497. 

129 Congressional Record, 3498-3499.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 60 

gallons of mash, ready for the still. There was evidently a hooch factory in 

embryo.’130

Only a month after the NPS raid, the Santa Fe Railroad announced plans to build a hotel “similar 

to the El Tovar” at Indian Garden. For whatever reason, the plans were never seriously 

considered by the NPS.131

After the NPS confiscated the Indian Garden facilities formerly owned by Cameron, the formal 

process of acquiring Indian Garden and the Bright Angel Trail accelerated. In 1926, Cameron 

lost his bid for another term as congressional representative to Carl Hayden and subsequently 

retired to the east coast, leaving the future of the Bright Angel Trail to Coconino County. Despite 

convincing Coconino County to reject a NPS offer to buy the Bright Angel Trail in 1924, the 

County eventually agreed to sell the trail to the NPS in 1927 in exchange for $100,000 spent on 

construction of a new approach road from U.S. Route 66 to the south rim. The NPS gained full 

control of Indian Garden in September of 1927. A year later they received the title to the Bright 

Angel Trail.132

In 1926, the NPS contacted a Mr. Wood to become the Federal government-employed caretaker 

and trail manager at Indian Garden. The Wood family lived at Indian Garden. Their home 

consisted of two “tent houses, one of which was used for living, and the other for a cook 

house...The floors had wide cracks in them, but we managed to get linoleum to cover them and I 

made curtains for the windows and it began to look like home...Indian Garden was a beautiful 

spot and we were surrounded on three sides by sheer cliffs, several large shade trees and a few 

fruit trees.” At the end of their one-year term, the Wood family left Indian Garden.133

Improvements made at Indian Garden in the first few years of NPS tenure, but prior to formal 

ownership of Bright Angel Trail and Indian Garden in 1927, included a general cleaning up of 

the grounds, and the removal of trash and debris between 1924 and 1925. In 1925, old pit toilets 

were treated with quick lime and covered, new chemical pit toilets and watering troughs were 

constructed, and portions of the trail were rerouted out of the Garden Creek in an effort to clean 

up the water.134 Just before the formal acquisition of the Bright Angel Trail, the Santa Fe 

Railroad completed initial development work at various springs at Indian Garden in 1927 “so 

that the flow of the springs was increased to approximately 576,000 gallons per day. After 

observing the output of these springs for a sufficient period it is the ultimate plan to pump water 

from this source to the south rim for the supply of fresh water which is at present provided by a 

one-hundred-mile haul by rail in tank cars.”135

By 1925, the NPS was completing major construction projects that would have a direct impact 

on visitorship to the park. In 1925, Bureau of Public Roads engineers surveyed the “Williams 

 

130 Arthur Warner, “Canyons and Camerons: A United States Senator Defies the Government” The Nation, Vol. 121, 

No. 3147 (October 28, 1925): 481-482. 

131 Cleeland, “Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District,” 34. 132 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-12; Billingsly et al., Quest, 65; Cleeland, “Cross Canyon Corridor Historic 

District,” 34. Ralph Cameron died and was buried in the cemetery at Grand Canyon Village in 1953. 133 Hazel Wood, “Aunt Hazel and Indian Garden” The Ol’ Pioneer, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April / June 1999): 5-6. 134 “SAR,” 1925, 6. Grand Canyon Museum Collection. 135 “SAR,” 1927, 7. Grand Canyon Museum Collection.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 61 

approach road” to the Grand Canyon Village. The road arrived at the south rim at the head of 

Bright Angel Trail. Construction was subsequently completed by the end of 1928. Also in 1928, 

the Navajo Bridge at Marble Canyon was constructed. 

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 1901-1928: 

Land Use and Activities 

Prospecting Prospecting for valuable minerals in the Indian 

Garden vicinity was continued by Ralph Cameron 

and others. 

Mining Mining for valuable minerals in the Indian 

Garden vicinity was continued by Ralph Cameron. 

Tourism Throughout the first three decades of the 

twentieth century, Indian Garden became one of the 

more popular destinations for inner canyon 

travelers. 

Photographic developing With the construction of the Kolb Brothers photo 

studio in 1906, the development of early 

photographs was carried on at Indian Garden. 

Alcohol distilling After a 1924 raid on Cameron’s Indian Garden, 

NPS rangers discovered an illegal distillery in one 

of the structures. 

Cultivation Extensive vegetable and fruit gardens were 

established and cultivated for the support of Indian 

Garden personnel and possibly for sale as well. 

 Water development In 1927, the Santa Fe Railroad accomplished 

“minor development” of the springs at Indian 

Garden to monitor their water flow. 

 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

Development of water sources Within the larger Grand Canyon area, convenient 

water sources within the inner canyon, usually 

located along well-established trails, were initially 

developed by and for miners, and subsequently to 

serve the incipient tourist industry. 

 Linear settlement pattern Following the general north-south orientation of the 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 62 

Garden Creek springs at Indian Garden, Ralph 

Cameron built his Indian Garden camp along the 

lush relatively flat floodplain corridor. 

Response to Natural Environment 

Trail alignment The Bright Angel toll road generally followed the 

pre-established Havasupai route that conformed to 

the descent of the Bright Angel Fault from the south 

rim to Indian Garden. 

Cultural Traditions 

Land claims Beginning in 1890, and lasting into the first quarter 

of the twentieth century, early explorers and miners 

of the inner canyon laid claim to public lands 

through the 1866 Federal Mining Act (revised 1870 

and 1872). This act allowed anyone to claim 

mineral deposits on surveyed or unsurveyed public 

land and maintain control of such land with minimal 

improvements. At Indian Garden, several mining 

and water power claims were filed by Ralph 

Cameron. This cultural tradition contributed to the 

private development and commercial exploitation of 

the Grand Canyon. 

Cluster Arrangement 

 Alder and Willow Mill sites Much of the development at Indian Garden 

clustered within two small water power claims 

established by Ralph Cameron. Administrative 

buildings and gardens were located in the northern 

or Willow Mill site, and the tent cabins and other 

features were generally located in the southern or 

Alder Mill site. 

Circulation Networks 

Bright Angel Trail The Bright Angel Trail emerged as the most 

popular inner canyon trail due to its location 

adjacent to the railroad and the fact that it was a 

relatively well-maintained system. 

Bright Angel Trail rerouted In 1925, the NPS rerouted part of the Bright Angel 

Creek out of Garden Creek at Indian Garden. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 63 

Boundary Demarcations 

 

Mining Claim located As part of the prospect and mining process, 

potential claims had to be surveyed and/or marked 

or located on the ground before a claim could be 

filed with county authorities. Claim markers were 

essentially posted notices that established porous 

boundaries for trail and/or mining and milling sites. 

 Enclosure fenced A 1916 map of the Indian Garden vicinity 

indicates that an area just south of the Alder Mill 

claim and surrounding two unidentified structures, 

most likely mule shelters, was fenced as a corral. 

 Enclosure fenced A 1916 map of the Indian Garden vicinity 

indicates that an area labeled as Vegetable Garden 

was surrounded by a fenced enclosure. 

 Enclosure fenced A 1916 map of the Indian Garden vicinity 

indicates that an area labeled as “Alfalfa field” was 

surrounded by a fenced enclosure. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

 

Trees planted Ralph Cameron planted an unknown number of 

cottonwood trees in at least three linear rows within 

the Garden Creek floodplain to provide shade for 

visitors to his Indian Garden Camp. 

Vegetable and Fruit cultivated Prior to 1916, at least two separate cultivated areas 

were initiated in the Indian Garden floodplain: an 

alfalfa field and a vegetable garden. 

 

Buildings and Structures 

 

Kitchen and Root Cellar A part frame and part tent structure was built by 

Ralph Cameron prior to 1916 at Indian Garden. 

Photographs document that this structure may have 

had two construction phases. 

Laundry Tent constructed A laundry tent, similar to the frame and canvas 

camp tents, was constructed by Ralph Cameron 

prior to 1916 at Indian Garden. 

 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 64 

Frame and canvas tents At least seven, possibly eight, frame and 

constructed canvas tents were constructed for overnight guests 

at Indian Garden prior to 1916 by Ralph Cameron. 

The frame tents were covered by a canvas shell that 

included a roof and sides. Each tent had a door and 

at least two windows. 

 

Tool shed constructed A tool shed was constructed at Indian Garden prior 

to 1916 by Ralph Cameron. It is not known what 

the structure looked like. 

 

Trail maintainer’s tents constructed Two frame and canvas tents were constructed at 

Indian Garden prior to 1916 by Ralph Cameron. 

The tents were used by the trail maintainer and were 

located below Indian Garden proper, on an eastern 

slope above the Kolb Brothers studio. 

Unidentified tent constructed An unidentified tent located just south of the 

Trail Maintainer’s tent on a ridge east of Garden 

Creek was constructed prior to 1916 by Ralph 

Cameron. 

 Kolb Brothers photo studio built A two-story stone and frame building was 

constructed in 1906 adjacent to the Garden Creek 

drainage by Emory Kolb. The structure had a porch 

on its eastern side. 

 

[Mule shelter] constructed Two unidentified structures that formed the 

southern or upper end of Indian Garden were 

constructed at Indian Garden just prior to 1916 by 

Ralph Cameron. Because of the adjacent fence 

enclosure, the structures likely served as mule 

shelters. 

Small-scale Features 

 

Trail maintainer’s platform A platform where the Trail Maintainer’s tents were 

constructed located was leveled out of a ridge just east of 

Garden Creek. 

Signage placed In 1924, the NPS posted signs calling attention to 

the contaminated water at Indian Garden. 

Pit toilets constructed At least one pit toilet was erected just west of the 

tent camp and cottonwood tree area for use by 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 65 

visitors. The toilet was erected prior to 1916 by 

Ralph Cameron. 

Chemical toilets constructed In 1925, the NPS installed chemical toilets at Indian 

Garden to replace the old Cameron-era pit toilet. It 

is not known where these toilets were located or 

what materials were used in their construction. 

Watering troughs constructed In 1925, the NPS erected new watering troughs at 

Indian Garden for the use of mule trains. 

 

Hitching posts constructed Several mule hitching posts were erected 

throughout the Indian Garden area prior to 1916 by 

Ralph Cameron. It is presumed that the hitching 

posts were constructed of wood. 

Stone weir and gauge constructed In 1924, engineers for the Santa Fe Railroad 

constructed a stone weir and gauge in Garden Creek 

below the Kolb Brothers photo studio. 

Prospecting As a result of extensive prospecting in the Indian 

Garden vicinity, numerous adits and tunnels were 

excavated in an attempt to find valuable minerals 

and demonstrate proof that claims were being 

worked. 

Pond established A “pond” west of and adjacent to the alfalfa field 

was constructed prior to 1916 by Ralph Cameron. 

The pond may have served as a watering hole for 

the mules or as a catchment basin to water the 

alfalfa field. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 66

Figure 4. “Indian Gardens,” showing workers clearing vegetation, ca. 1902. (P.C. Bicknell, Guide Book of the

Grand Canyon of Arizona, 47)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 67

Figure 5. Cameron's Indian Garden, view to south, 1906. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection

#3611a)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 68

Figure 6. View of Indian Garden, ca.1906. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #3611b)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 69

Figure 7. Close-up view of Indian Garden, ca.1906. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #3611c)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 70

Figure 8. Burro trains packing provisions at Indian Garden, ca.1906. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum

Collection #9836)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 71

Figure 9. Tourist camp at Indian Garden, ca.1907. Note row of cottonwood trees in background. (Grand Canyon

National Park Museum Collection #12065)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 72

Figure 10. Mule train at Indian Garden, ca.1910. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection

#11412)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 73

Figure 11. Indian Garden ca.1916, looking southwest, showing Kolb Studio, Trail Keeper’s tents and

platform, lush environment of Garden Creek area, and canyon background. (NAU - Cline Library Collection,

568-1216)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 74

Figure 12. Indian Garden ca.1916, looking south and showing Kolb Studio and Trail Keeper’s tents and platform.

(NAU-Cline Library Collection, 568-1213)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 75

Figure 13. Indian Garden ca.1916, looking southwest at Kolb Studio and canyon wall in background. (NAU -

Cline Library Collection, 568-1214)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 76

Figure 14. Indian Garden ca.1916, looking west at Kolb Studio with mule, dog, and two individuals. (NAU-Cline

Library Collection, 568-1215)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 77

Figures 15. Conceptual site plan for Indian Garden (never constructed), 1916. (Grand Canyon National Park

Museum Collection, call number unknown)

“Plat A Showing Present Plan of Indian Gardens”

“Plat B Showing Proposed Development of Indian Gardens”
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 78

Figure 16. Mary Colter’s conceptual drawing of guest house at Indian Garden, August 1916 (never constructed).

(Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #16683)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 79

Figure 17. Mary Colter’s conceptual drawing of proposed “typical stone cottage” at Indian Garden, August 1916

(never constructed). (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #16682)

Figure 18. Mary Colter’s conceptual drawing of proposed two-person cabin at Indian Garden, August 1916 (never

constructed). (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #16712)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 80

Figure 19. Mary Colter’s conceptual “Floor Plans for Stone Cottages,” for Indian Garden, November 1916 (never

constructed). (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #16713)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 81

Figure 20. Detail of “Working Plan Map, Grand Canyon, Tusayan National

Forest, Indian Garden Area,” Surveyed 1917. (Grand Canyon

National Park Museum Collection, number unknown)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 82

Figure 21. Ruins of Daniel L. Hogan’s winter cabin at Indian Garden, 1921. (Grand Canyon National Park

Museum Collection #10063)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 83

Figure 23. Ruins of Cameron tent cabins, 1921. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #10060)

Figure 22. Ruins of Cameron tent cabins, 1921. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #10061)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 84


Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 85 

National Park Service Tenure and the 

Civilian Conservation Corps Era: 1928-1945 

Introduction 

By 1928, the NPS had acquired both the Bright Angel Trail and Indian Garden. Soon thereafter, 

the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) undertook development and improvement efforts, 

including construction of trail shelters and flood control measures, along Bright Angel Trail and 

within Indian Garden. 

Brief Historical Context 

The 1930s saw the initiation of a substantial amount of construction and improvement to the 

Bright Angel Trail and facilities at Indian Garden. Between 1929 and 1939, the NPS completed 

an almost total realignment of the Bright Angel Trail and constructed trail shelters at various 

points along its length. The trail construction project was divided up into three segments, the 

middle segment (from Pipe Creek up to Indian Garden) was accomplished between 1929 and 

1930, the upper segment (from Indian Garden to the south rim) was accomplished between 1930 

and 1931, and the lower segment (from the Colorado to Pipe Creek) was accomplished between 

1938 and1939. A mess hall and camp were established as a base camp just below Indian Garden 

and the Tonto Platform in 1929. Local crews of NPS laborers, including Havasupai workers, 

were hired to accomplish the major work between 1929 and 1931.136

In 1931, the NPS awarded the Santa Fe Railroad a contract to build a new water system for the 

park that would supply water to the south rim. Construction of a cable tramway to transport 

materials and labor into the inner canyon was begun immediately (Figure 24). A cable tramway 

support was built just east of Garden Creek at Indian Garden. Two and one-half miles of six-inch 

water pipe were subsequently laid. At Indian Garden, a two-unit pump and reservoir system was 

built. Facilities consisted of a lower, smaller Rehandling Pump House and reservoir adjacent to 

the Kolb Brothers photo studio. This pump and reservoir unit collected water from two springs 

and sent it to a 70,000 gallon circular reservoir built into a slope just east of the Bright Angel 

Trail. Adjacent to the upper reservoir was a larger pump house that forced the water up to the 

rim. The entire system was controlled from a power house on the south rim. Both pump houses 

and the reservoir at Indian Garden were built of locally native stone. A year later, when the water 

system was working, the cable and tramway was dismantled. The water pumped up from Indian 

Garden was chlorinated due to its frequent E. coli content.137

In 1925, the NPS, working jointly with the U.S. Biological Survey, introduced twelve pronghorn 

antelope to the Tonto Platform. The antelope were meant to serve as tourist attractions and help 

restore the platform’s native flora. The herd, however, adapted to and reproduced slowly in their 

new habitat; the new total of twenty-four animals were eventually “enticed to Indian Garden by 

1933 following the closure of Hermit Camp.” In 1934, it was noted that “the semi-tame antelope 

 

136 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-4, 7-5. 137 Hughes, House of Stone and Light, 94; NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-7; Adrian Harbin, “Water now is pumped to 

the Rim of Grand Canyon” The Santa Fe Magazine, Vol. 25, No. 10 (September 1932): 43-44; “SAR,” 1932, 21. 

Grand Canyon Museum Collection.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 86 

herd at Indian Gardens has shown practically no increase. Although a number of kids were born, 

all but one were killed by bobcats or coyotes.”138 The NPS ended their artificial feeding program 

which both fed the antelope and kept them within the Indian Garden vicinity. Ending the feeding 

program resulted in the antelope scattering across the Inner Canyon in search of food; only one 

animal remained in Indian Garden by 1944.139 

With the arrival of the first CCC labor units in 1933, the NPS turned their attention to the 

facilities at Indian Garden. During the early 1930s, the former Cameron era structures, including 

tent frames, stone and frame houses (Figure 25), the Kolb Brother’s studio, and other support 

structures were demolished and removed. In October of 1932, a two-room stone and frame 

Caretaker’s Residence was constructed for the use of the NPS caretaker at Indian Garden. Some 

of the stones from Cameron’s stone house may have been used in its construction. 

Approximately 350 feet of electrical line was extended from the Santa Fe Pump House—now 

called the South Pump House—and reservoir to the new caretaker’s quarters.140

In preparation for the construction of a new telephone line, the CCC built a “side camp” for 

phone line workers at Indian Garden in December 1934. Throughout 1935, the CCC constructed 

a single circuit trans-canyon phone line. Poles were painted “complimentary to the surrounding 

rock formations.” The phone line was subsequently modified by the CCC between 1938 and 

1939.141

Between 1932 and 1937, the NPS experimentally oiled portions of the Bright Angel Trail from 

the south rim to Indian Garden in an attempt to dustproof it. The experiment, while somewhat 

successful, was never repeated.142

Four NPS maps of the Indian Garden vicinity produced in the mid-1930s document the structures 

present prior to the substantial improvements made to the facilities in 1937. A 1935 NPS map of 

a proposed sewer line shows existing structures and features at Indian Garden, including the NPS 

Caretaker’s Residence, three dry-laid stone walls, and a chemical toilet (Figure 26). A 1935 NPS 

erosion control and planting map shows the existing structures and features at Indian Garden, 

including the “two open irrigation ditches—one below trail—one above channel slope—gate at 

top,” “present erosion channel—line to be maintained—channel rip-rapped with stone,” an “open 

ditch to irrigate new planting,” the “existing Caretaker’s Cabin,” “new cottonwood plantings,” 

“old existing cottonwoods,” the proposed trailside shelter site, and a “picnic area.” The riprapping of Garden Creek channel was to begin above the NPS Caretaker’s Residence where the 

 

138 “SAR,” 1934, 1. Grand Canyon Museum Collection. 

139 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 71. 140 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-7, 7-8; Cleeland, “Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District,” 34, 36; “Grand 

Canyon National Park, Caretaker’s Cabin, Indian Gardens,” March 29, 1932. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, 

Drawing No. 3211; “SAR,” 1933, 24-25. Grand Canyon Museum Collection; Architectural Resources Group, 

“Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence: Historic Structure Report,” 10-12. Prepared for the NPS. MS in 

possession of John Milner Associates, Inc., April, 2001. 141 NPS, “Trans Canyon Telephone Line,” 8-3; Patricia Mott, “Memorandum to Division Chief, Res. Mgmt.; 

Historic Architect; Cultural Resources Manager; Res. Mgmt. Files on Historic Structures, Regarding CCC Work 

Projects in Grand Canyon National Park,” November 28, 1983 (Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #58700), n.p. 

142 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-6; Cleeland, “Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District,” 24; “SAR,” 1933, 23. 

Grand Canyon Museum Collection.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 87 

Bright Angel Trail crossed from the west to the east side of Garden Creek, down to just below 

the picnic area. In a text accompanying the map, the notes on plantings directed that “1) areas on 

each side of the channel to be planted to native willows, grapes, blackberry, raspberry, burro 

brush, cottonwood, redbud; 2) tops of all riprap slopes to be planted; 3) new plantings to be 

irrigated by open ditches supplied by west spring; 4) new cottonwoods to be planted thruout [sic] 

entire area to eventually replace old plantings” (Figure 27). A January 1936 topographic map of 

Indian Garden shows the existing structures and features there, including a water trench, an 

unidentified structure and fenced-in corral, the NPS Caretaker’s Residence, historic cottonwood 

trees from the Cameron era, terraces and stone retaining walls, two latrines and a latrine pump 

and sludge trench on the west side of the Indian Garden floodplain, a “garden area,” a water 

trough, the upper pump and reservoir unit consisting of a concrete valve box, a pump house, a 

70,000 gallon concrete circular reservoir, and a mine tunnel dug for the east spring (Figure 28). 

Lastly, a February 1936 map of the Santa Fe Water System at Indian Garden documents the 

specific details of the upper and lower pump and reservoir units. At the Rehandling Pump House, 

the existing structures and features included a pump house and sump, a concrete dam spanning 

Garden Creek, rock paving and rubble masonry walls just upstream from the dam, a perforated 

intake pipe, a concrete box with water meter, and a sediment trap (Figure 29).143 

In 1936, a second new structure was constructed at Indian Garden. The Fred Harvey Company 

built a Pump Caretaker’s Residence—presently known as the “Rock House”—adjacent to and 

west of the NPS Caretaker’s Residence. This structure eventually burned in 1942 but was rebuilt 

in 1943 on the same spot. Plans for the structure, drawn in February 1936, detail that it was to be 

a frame structure with shingle roof sitting on a stone foundation. The plan also documents the 

location of the “Gov’t Caretaker” structure and the “New Cabin” in relation to the Bright Angel 

Trail. Also noted is an eighteen-inch-high stone wall that created the level terrace upon which the 

two structures were built.144

Throughout the mid-1930s, the CCC also constructed trail shelters at prominent points along the 

Bright Angel Trail. The three-mile shelter was constructed in 1935; the one and one-half-mile 

shelter and Colorado River shelter were constructed in 1936; and a shelter was constructed at 

Indian Garden in 1937. All of the shelters were constructed of timber and native stone and were 

designed to fit into the surrounding landscape. At Indian Garden, the trail shelter was built 

adjacent to and incorporated two large boulders, one each on its northeast and southeast corners 

(Figure 30). Each of the original shelters were open on all four sides, had a covered bark roof 

over a flagstone floor, benches along its sides, and a drinking fountain on the interior.145

 

143 “Grand Canyon National Park, Sewer at Indian Gardens,” Feb. 9, 1935. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, 

Drawing No. GC #8135; “Grand Canyon National Park, Erosion Control and Planting, Indian Gardens,” April 2, 

1935. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, Drawing No. GC #3109; “Grand Canyon National Park, Topographical 

Map, Indian Gardens Area,“ Jan. 1936. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, Drawing No. 5081-1; “Details of Santa 

Fe Water System at Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon, Arizona,” Feb. 20, 1936. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, 

Drawing No. 70208. 

144 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-7; “Cabin for Pump Caretaker, Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon, Arizona in the 

Grand Canyon National Park,” February 17, 1936, Sheet 1 of 2. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, Map #70156. 

145 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-6; “Grand Canyon National Park, Trailside Shelter, Indian Garden,” ca. 1935. 

Grand Canyon Museum Collection, Drawing No. GC #3142.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 88 

Throughout the 1930s, visitation at the Grand Canyon increased and the Bright Angel Trail 

continued to be a popular destination for many park visitors. According to NPS figures, trail 

usage increased dramatically in the mid-1930s from 12,725 visitors in 1935 to over 20,000 

visitors in 1936. The first “good” paved road leading to the south rim facilities was begun in 

1932 and completed in 1937. M. R. Tillotson, the park’s first superintendent, authored a popular 

book on the Grand Canyon in 1935. “Halfway down [the Bright Angel Trail] are the cool and 

shaded Indian Gardens, where the Havasupais cultivated their little farms in early days.”146

In 1937, several new NPS structures at Indian Garden were built by the CCC. In addition to the 

trail shelter, a mule barn and corral and “trail-side exhibit” were constructed. The CCC also 

relocated 400 feet of the Bright Angel Trail at Indian Garden. The mule barn was a two-part 

structure composed of an open stable and storage room constructed of native stone and timber. 

Historic photographs of the mule barn and corral document that it had a frame and thatched bark 

roof (Figures 31 through 34). The corral extended to the structure’s west and was built of native 

stone piers and wood rails. A stone watering trough was placed in the center of the corral. No 

information on the trailside exhibit could be found.147

The NPS had recognized that intermittent flooding was a problem at inner canyon sites. In 1936, 

a substantial rainy season caused major flooding at Indian Garden. Throughout the late 1930s, 

the NPS worked on attempting to control the flood waters by limiting their impact on the built 

environment and directing their course through the Garden Creek floodplain. Erosion control in 

the form of rip-rapping the main Garden Creek channel and planting the banks with native 

species was carried out.148 

In 1938, the Santa Fe Railroad Company initiated improvements to its lower pump and reservoir 

unit at Indian Garden. The following year, the CCC completed necessary improvements to the 

trans-canyon telephone line, installing an additional set of cross-arms for a second circuit.149

Little work was carried out at Indian Garden during World War II, due in part to the disbanding 

of the CCC to provide more men for the war effort. In 1942, however, the wood-frame Fred 

Harvey Company pump caretaker’s structure burned to the ground. The following year, a new 

pump caretaker’s structure was built in the same location by the Fred Harvey Company. The new 

structure was built entirely of stone, perhaps reflecting the increased need for fire protection in 

the inner canyon. The Fred Harvey Company also updated the water collection facilities at 

Indian Garden. Also in 1942, a new well and tunnel were excavated approximately forty feet 

 

146 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 8-15; Hughes, House of Stone and Light, 87; Tillotson and Albright, Grand Canyon 

Country, 66. 147 NPS, “Bright Angel Trail,” 7-7; Mott, “Memorandum”, n.p.; “Grand Canyon National Park, Mule Shelter, Indian 

Gardens,” ca. 1935. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, Drawing No. 3134.

148 Mott, “Memorandum,” n.p.; “Grand Canyon National Park, Erosion Control and Planting, Indian Gardens,” April 

2, 1935. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, Drawing No. GC #3109. 

149 “Silt removal at Lower Indian Gardens Pumping Plant, Grand Canyon, Arizona in the Grand Canyon National 

Park,” June 2, 1938. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #70211; “The A. T. & S. F. RY. Co. Coast Lines, Silt 

Removal, Indian Gardens at Grand Canyon, Arizona,” October 4, 1938. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #70210; 

NPS, “Trans Canyon Telephone Line,” 8-4. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 89 

north of the Rehandling Pump House facility. The tunnel connected the well to the Garden Creek 

drainage.150 

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 1928-1945: 

Land Use and Activities 

Tourism Mule trains continued to bring tourists down to 

Indian Garden and beyond to see the Grand 

Canyon. 

Recreation The Bright Angel Trail, one of the more popular 

inner canyon trails, continued to attract thousands of 

day and overnight hikers. 

Water pumping station By 1932, the water pumping system at Indian 

Garden filled an 812,000 gallon storage tank on the 

south rim with water obtained from two springs. 

Camping The campground at Indian Garden provided a 

designated area for those hikers using the Bright 

Angel Trail. 

 

Camp for laborers Indian Garden served as a “side camp” for 

laborers who were installing the trans-canyon phone 

line in 1935. 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

Linear settlement pattern Following the general north-south orientation of the 

Garden Creek springs at Indian Garden, the NPS 

continued to develop the area along the lush, 

relatively flat, floodplain corridor. 

Response to Natural Environment 

 

 Erosion control In an effort to control damage stemming from 

periodic flooding of Garden Creek, the NPS 

constructed rip-rap walls and reinforced existing 

tent platforms with rock. 

 

150 “Cabin for Pump Caretaker, Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon, Arizona,” Sheet 2 of 2, Jan. 6, 1943. Grand Canyon 

Museum Collection, #70156; “Well, Tunnel and Pump at Lower Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon Arizona, in the 

Grand Canyon National Park,” ca. 1942. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #8722.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 90 

Circulation Networks 

 

Bright Angel Trail The Bright Angel Trail, now under the 

management of the NPS, continued to be one of the 

more popular day and overnight hiking trails within 

GRCA. 

 Bright Angel Trail rerouted Above and below Indian Garden, nearly the 

entire route of the Bright Angel Trail was rerouted 

between 1929 and 1939. 

Cable tramway constructed A cable tramway was constructed in 1931 from the 

south rim to Indian Garden to bring labor and 

materials down for the construction of a new water 

system. The cable tramway was located adjacent to 

Indian Garden on an eastern slope; it is not known if 

any of the cable system was located within the 

project area. 

Cable tramway removed Shortly after the completion of the new water 

system at Indian Garden in 1932, the cable tramway 

was removed. 

Bright Angel Trail oiled Between 1932 and 1937, portions of the Bright 

Angel Trail were oiled by both machine and hand in 

an attempt to reduce dust levels. It is not known if 

the portion of the Bright Angel Trail that ran 

through Indian Garden was oiled. 

Bright Angel Trail relocated In 1937, 400 feet of the Bright Angel Trail at Indian 

Garden were relocated. 

Boundary Demarcations 

Enclosure fenced In 1937, a stone and wood corral was constructed 

adjacent to the Mule Barn. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

 

Vegetation planted After creating a stabilized channel in 1935, CCC 

landscape architects planted what they believed to 

be native vegetation including “willows, grapes, 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 91 

blackberry, raspberry, burro bush, and redbud” 

along the banks of Garden Creek.151

 Cottonwood trees planted In 1935, new cottonwood trees were planted 

“thruout [sic] entire area” of Indian Garden to 

supplement and eventually replace old cottonwood 

trees.” 

Garden Area A 1936 map denotes a “Garden Area” surrounded 

by stone walls. It is not known if this was an area 

meant to produce edible crops, or if the term was 

meant to convey a vegetated seating or picnic area. 

Later plans created in the 1950s and 1960s show a 

campground and picnic area in this location. The 

1936 map shows the garden area to be surrounded 

by a stone wall and entered using a set of steps. 

Native vegetation planted After major flooding caused damage at Indian 

Garden in 1936, new plantings of native vegetation 

continued in 1937 in conjunction with channel riprapping. 

Buildings and Structures 

 

Cameron era structures razed During the early 1930s, the Cameron era 

structures at Indian Garden including the stone 

house, tent frames, and Kolb Brothers photo studio 

were razed. 

Rehandling Pump House and 

reservoir constructed In 1932, the Santa Fe Railroad constructed a 

Rehandling Pump House within the Garden Creek 

drainage adjacent to the Kolb Brothers photo studio. 

The pump house and reservoir, constructed out of 

native stone, served to collect water and pump it to 

the upper pump house. 

Upper pump house and reservoir In 1932, the Santa Fe Railroad constructed an upper 

pump house to the east of the Garden Creek. The 

pump house and 70,000 gallon reservoir, 

constructed out of native stone, served to collect 

water and pump it up to the south rim. 

 

151 Willow, burro bush, Arizona grapes, and redbud are considered native to the Grand Canyon region. Blackberry 

and raspberry bushes are not native to the United States. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 92 

NPS Caretaker’s Residence 

constructed In 1932, the NPS built a two-room stone and frame 

cabin for their caretaker at Indian Garden. 

 

Latrines constructed Two latrines located just north of and downstream 

from the NPS Caretaker’s Residence were 

constructed in 1932 for the use of visitors to Indian 

Garden. The latrines were connected to a latrine 

pump and sludge trench. 

Telephone line constructed In 1935, a the CCC erected a single circuit transcanyon telephone line. 

 Pump Caretaker’s Residence built The Santa Fe Railway constructed a frame 

cabin for the pump caretaker in 1936. The cabin 

was located west of and adjacent to the NPS 

Caretaker’s Residence. 

Trail shelter constructed A stone, frame, and bark trail shelter with benches 

and a water fountain was constructed in 1937 

adjacent to and west of the Bright Angel Trail at 

Indian Garden. 

 Mule barn constructed A stone, frame, and thatch mule barn was 

constructed in 1937 at Indian Garden south and 

upstream from of the NPS Caretaker’s Residence. 

Telephone line modified Between 1938 and 1939, the existing phone poles 

were modified by the addition of a new cross-arm 

and a second circuit. 

Pump Caretaker’s Residence burns The Santa Fe Pump Caretaker’s Residence was 

destroyed by fire in 1942. 

Pump Caretaker’s Residence The Santa Fe Railroad rebuilt the pump Caretaker’s 

(Rock House) rebuilt Residence in the same location in 1943. The new 

structure was built completely out of native stone. 

Small-scale Features 

 

Water pipe laid Two and one-half miles of six-inch water pipe were 

laid from Indian Garden to the south rim between 

1931 and 1932. 

 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 93 

Electrical line laid 350 feet of electrical line were laid from the new 

NPS Caretaker’s Residence to the new Santa Fe 

pump station in 1932. 

Latrine pump constructed A 1935 NPS map indicates that a latrine pump was 

present at Indian Garden in between the two 

latrines. The latrine pumped the sewage upslope to 

a sludge trench. 

Water pipe laid A 1935 NPS map identifies that a water pipe was 

laid connecting the two latrines to the latrine pump, 

and connecting the latrine pump to the sludge 

trench. 

Sludge trench excavated A 1935 NPS map indicates that a sludge trench was 

excavated at Indian Garden on a slope west of 

Garden Creek and above the two latrines and latrine 

pump. 

Barrel spring excavated A 1935 NPS map indicates that a barrel spring was 

present at Indian Garden just south of the mule barn 

and corral. 

Watering trough placed A 1935 NPS map indicates a water trough was 

present at Indian Garden, just north of the barrel 

spring. 

Terraces constructed A 1932 NPS map suggests there were three earthen 

terraces present near the NPS’s Caretaker’s 

Residence. The earth was retained by an eighteeninch high stone wall on its northern or downslope 

side. It is not known whether these terraces were 

Cameron-era features or whether they were 

constructed by the NPS. 

Irrigation ditches excavated Two open irrigation ditches for watering new 

plantings were excavated within the Garden Creek 

floodplain at Indian Garden in 1935. 

Erosion channel rip-rapped The main erosion channel within Garden Creek was 

stabilized with rip-rapping for the purposes of 

controlling the flooding at Indian Garden in 1935. 

Electrical line laid Electrical line was laid from the new Santa Fe 

Railroad Pump Caretaker’s Residence (Rock 

House) to the new Santa Fe Pump Station in 1936. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 94 

“Trail-side Exhibit” erected An unidentified “trail-side exhibit” is erected in 

1937 at an unknown location within Indian Garden. 

 Erosion channel rip-rapped Rip-rapping of the main erosion channel for 

Garden Creek continued in 1937 after a major flood 

damaged Indian Garden in 1936. 

 Rehandling Pump House 

improved In 1938, the Santa Fe Railroad initiated 

improvements to the facilities and equipment in its 

Rehandling Pump House and reservoir unit. 

 Rehandling Pump House 

improved In 1942, the Santa Fe Railroad improved its 

facilities at the Rehandling Pump House and 

reservoir unit again, this time excavating a new well 

and tunnel approximately forty feet north of the 

existing facility. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 95

Figure 24. Pipeline tram gondola with ten people near Indian Garden, ca.1931. Photograph

by Hubert R. Lauzon. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #17687)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 96

Figure 25. Ian Campbell in front of cabin at Indian Garden, ca.1933. (NAU-Cline Library Collection, #NAU.PH.

95.48.808)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 97

Figure 26. ca. 1935 partial plan of Indian Garden sewer improvements. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #8153)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 98

Figure 27. 1935 erosion control and planting plan, Indian Garden. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #3109)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 99

Figure 28. “Topographical Map of Indian Gardens Area,” January 1936. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #5081A)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 100

Figure 29. “Details of Santa Fe Water System at Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon, Arizona,” September 1936. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum

Collection #100208)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 101

Figure 30. Building #143, Trail Shelter at Indian Garden, ca.1936. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum

Collection #7584)

Figure 31. NP-4 unit of CCC constructing Indian Garden Mule Barn, March 25, 1936. (Grand Canyon National

Park Museum Collection #10056)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 102

Figure 32. NP-4 unit of CCC constructing Indian Garden Mule Barn, March 25, 1936. (Grand Canyon National

Park Museum Collection #10055)

Figure 33. West view of Mule Barn at Indian Garden, ca.1936. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection

#10054)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 103

Figure 34. Northwest view of Indian Garden mule barn, corral fence, ranger station, ca. 1936. (Grand Canyon

National Park Museum Collection #10053)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 104


Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 105 

Post-War Indian Garden: Mission 66 and the Development 

of a New Water System: 1945-1970 

Introduction 

Significant development of Indian Garden occurred in the 1960s, during the Mission 66 era of 

park funding and development, when the NPS constructed a campground, picnic area, and 

comfort stations. After important pumping facilities were donated to the NPS in the mid-1960s, a 

new water system was constructed that conveyed water from Roaring Springs to the south rim 

via Indian Garden. 

Brief Historical Context 

During the post-war era, visitation to National Parks increased dramatically. At the Grand 

Canyon, day-trip travel to the inner canyon became more and more popular. By the late 1940s, 

the NPS stationed permanent personnel on most inner corridor trails to maintain and protect 

them. On the Bright Angel Trail, “a man stationed at Indian Gardens maintains the Bright Angel 

Trail to the Colorado River and also up from Indian Gardens toward the south rim for 

approximately one mile.”152 In 1947, a fire started in Indian Garden; the damage it caused was 

not noted.153

A 1952 NPS map showing the “Inner Canyon Developed Areas” documents the existing 

structures and features present at Indian Garden, including the mule shelter and corral, barrel 

spring and trough, dike, rip-rap ditch, the NPS Caretaker’s Residence, Santa Fe Railroad’s Pump 

Caretaker’s Residence/Rock House, an unidentified tent frame, two comfort stations, pump 

house, sludge pit, leaching field, trail shelter, campground and picnic area, hitch racks and 

trough, power house and water tank, the east spring, and buried water and power lines (Figure 

35).154

In 1954, at the end of their twenty-year lease of facilities that began in 1933, the Santa Fe 

Railroad “transferred all interests in its water, power, road and trail systems” within GRCA to 

the NPS. While the NPS searched for a contractor to operate the electrical service, it took on the 

maintenance and operation of the water system itself. Shortly thereafter, a new power line to 

Indian Garden was erected with the aid of helicopters.155

Based on deteriorating facilities at existing parks and their inability to accommodate anticipated 

increases in visitation due to increased leisure time and automobile travel, NPS Director Conrad 

Wirth implemented a ten-year development program designed to upgrade and enhance the 

nation’s park system in 1956, called “Mission 66.” Much of the development proposed and 

carried out under this program addressed the need to improve and add physical facilities of parks 

 

152 “SAR,” 1947, 2. Grand Canyon Museum Collection. 153 “SAR,” 1947, 2. Grand Canyon Museum Collection. 154 “Inner Canyon Developed Areas, Part of the Master Plan, Grand Canyon National Park,” May, 1952. Grand 

Canyon Museum Collection, #2118-B; “Inner Canyon Developed Areas, Part of the Master Plan, Grand Canyon 

National Park,” May, 1952. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #2118-A.

155 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 259-260; Hughes, House of Stone and Light, 108. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 106 

including road construction, improvement and expansion of camping and picnic areas, and 

construction of sanitary facilities, housing, and visitor centers. Mission 66 development was 

targeted to be completed in 1966, the fiftieth anniversary of the NPS. Within Indian Garden, 

Mission 66 development plans included improving the picnic and campground facilities, 

constructing comfort stations, and upgrading utilities. Although these projects were implemented 

during Mission 66, a direct link between Mission 66 funding and design aesthetic has yet to be 

substantiated for Indian Garden, as the development seems to have taken place as either a 

reaction to flood damage or in a vernacular design style that more closely approximated existing 

Rustic Style features, rather than “modern” Mission 66 principles. The original exterior 

aesthetics of the 1967 North Pump House, however, may provide one link to Mission 66. The 

original finish was meant to be simple stucco, rather than the ubiquitous stone cladding of many 

earlier NPS buildings, and may have more closely followed Mission 66 design principles. The 

stone cladding was added in 1986 to mitigate the noise of the pumps inside. 

A 1959 NPS topographic map of the Indian Garden vicinity documents that very little had 

changed at Indian Garden despite the Mission 66-era boom in development throughout the rest of 

the park and NPS system. Existing structures and features noted on this map include a water 

catchment, a mule barn and corral, retaining walls that channel a western drainage into Garden 

Creek, the NPS Caretaker’s Residence, the Santa Fe Railroad’s Pump Caretaker’s Residence, a 

tool shed, two comfort stations, a pump house, a sewage ditch, the trail shelter, a picnic area, 

mule hitching posts, a water trough, a blackberry thicket, and a pump house and reservoir 

(Figure 36).156

During the early 1960s, construction initially focused on the development of a campground and 

picnic area and a new sewage disposal system (Figures 37 and 38). During 1961, construction 

began on a twenty-site campground complete with picnic tables and fireplaces—no plans were 

located during the preparation of this CLR, however, that delineated the physical appearance of 

the campground. In addition, a new, larger comfort station west of and adjacent to the 

campground was also built. A new sewage pumping unit carried the waste upslope to a renovated 

leaching field. A 1963 NPS topographic map of the Indian Garden vicinity documents the new 

development in this area. The existing structures and features shown included a water catchment, 

mule barn and corral, existing retaining walls, rip-rap channel, NPS Caretaker’s Residence, old 

Santa Fe Pump Caretaker’s Residence, tool shed, new and larger comfort station, pump house, 

sewage ditch, bridge over garden creek, trail shelter, picnic area, mule hitching posts and water 

trough, berry thicket, and upper pump house and reservoir (Figure 39). After completion of the 

new comfort station, pump unit, sewage lines, and leaching field, an existing sludge trench was 

abandoned and two earlier comfort stations were demolished. Additional development included 

the construction of a bunkhouse adjacent to, and north of, the Santa Fe Pump Caretaker’s 

Residence in 1965. An old tool shed was torn down to make room for the new bunkhouse.157

Since the beginning of NPS tenure at Indian Garden, flash floods and control of runoff in the 

Garden Creek channel had been a major concern. In August and September of 1963, a flash flood 

 

156 “Indian Gardens Topo, Inner Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park,” September 1959. Grand Canyon Museum 

Collection, #3444. 

157 “Indian Gardens Topo, Grand Canyon National Park,” ca. 1963. Grand Canyon Museum Collection #60577; 

“SAR,” 1961. Grand Canyon Museum Collection. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 107 

destroyed a number of facilities at Indian Garden (Figure 40). General clean-up and facilities 

repair, including repair of the Rehandling Pump House, the Garden Creek channel and banks, 

and utility lines, took place over the subsequent two years. At the Rehandling Pump House, a 

masonry rock wall was constructed around the upstream part of the complex to protect it. The 

catchment basin was dug out and reconstructed with a new reinforced concrete inlet and cover. A 

new ten-horsepower motor and two electrical starting units were replaced in the pump house. 

Elsewhere in Indian Garden, the Garden Creek channel was cleaned of debris, including 8,800 

cubic yards of rock and earth. This debris was used to fill in eroded areas of the campground and 

to build up the creek banks. A 100-foot-long and 4-foot-wide masonry rock protection wall was 

also constructed to keep future flood waters within the channel and to protect the Indian Garden 

site. The footbridge over Garden Creek that had been washed away was replaced with a timbered 

structure. Additionally, 210 feet of 2-inch underground waterlines and valves were replaced and 

soils were re-graded to cover seventy feet of a four-inch sanitary sewer line that had been 

exposed by the flood.158

With the acquisition of a new water supply infrastructure in 1954, an assessment of needs and 

capacity was undertaken. In 1960, the water supply to the south rim from Roaring Springs (via 

Indian Garden) was deemed inadequate. Water usage had increased dramatically and often had to 

be shipped into the south rim by train. With the donation of the North Rim water facilities to the 

NPS by the Union Pacific in 1965, plans for a new water supply system were initiated, perhaps 

as part of the Mission 66 improvement plans. During the same year, the NPS hired a contractor 

to begin building a new twelve and one-half mile water system that would carry water from 

Roaring Springs to the south rim through the Indian Garden water pumping system. In December 

1966, only a year after construction was initiated, a devastating flood destroyed the nearly 

completed water system. Subsequent clean-up and re-engineering of the system to withstand 

future floods pushed back the date for new construction to begin. In association with the water 

system improvements, a second pump house—now called the North Pump House—was also 

constructed adjacent to the original 1930s Santa Fe Pump House and reservoir during the same 

year. By 1970, the new water system that could deliver up to 190 million gallons per year to the 

south rim was up and running.159

Late-1960s development at Indian Garden also included the construction of flood mitigation 

features and a new mule barn and corral. In an effort to protect the existing ranger station 

buildings at Indian Garden, the NPS constructed rock gabion walls lining both banks of a 

drainage, just south of the NPS Caretaker’s Residence and Pump Caretaker’s Residence (Rock 

House). The rocks were contained within a square wire frame and stacked two levels high. new 

mule barn was built in 1970. Oriented in a northeast to southwest direction, the mule barn was a 

frame rectangular structure with two covered mule shelters over a dirt floor, with an enclosed 

tack and feed room. The corral was expanded in size and abutted the existing rock gabion walls 

to the north. The fence, consisting of wooden posts connected by wire strands, was arranged to 

 

158 “Narrative Statement – Project B-39 – Indian Gardens: Repair Storm Damage to Buildings and Utilities.”Ca. 

January 1965. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #4750.

159 Anderson, Polishing the Jewel, 314-316. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 108 

allow entrance to the tack and feed rooms without entering the corral. A metal trough and 

concrete spring box were located within the corral.160

The NPS Caretaker’s Residence was renovated and a two-room addition added to the western 

side in 1960—the addition doubled the size of the structure. Two original stone piers from the 

western side were taken down during the renovation, and the stone was subsequently used to 

build a new porch on the same side (Figure 41).161

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, 1945-1970: 

Land Use and Activities 

 

Tourism Mule trains continued to bring tourists down to 

Indian Garden to see the Grand Canyon. 

Recreation The Bright Angel Trail, one of the more popular 

inner canyon trails, continued to attract thousands of 

day and overnight hikers. 

Water pumping station Indian Garden continued to be an important water 

pumping station providing thousands of gallons of 

water per day to the south rim. 

Camping The campground at Indian Garden provided a 

designated area for those hikers using the Bright 

Angel Trail. 

 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

Linear settlement pattern Following the general north-south orientation of the 

Garden Creek springs at Indian Garden, the NPS 

continued to develop the area along the lush, 

relatively flat floodplain corridor. 

Response to Natural Environment 

 

 Erosion control In an effort to control damage stemming from 

periodic flooding of Garden Creek, the NPS 

continued to practice erosion control by erecting a 

gabion wall in the late 1960s. 

 

160 Mark Sinclair to Chief Ranger and Inner Canyon Supervisor. “Flood Damage at Indian Garden Campground,” 

September 18, 1980. Indian Garden Ranger Station files, Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National Park; “Mule Barn, 

Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon National Park,” 1970. Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #80003. 

161 Architectural Resources Group, “Indian Garden Trail Caretaker’s Residence: Historic Structure Report,” 18, 21. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 109 

Circulation Networks 

 

Bright Angel Trail The Bright Angel Trail and spur to Plateau Point, 

one of the more popular inner canyon trails, 

continued to attract thousands of day and overnight 

hikers as recreational hiking increased during the 

1960s and 1970s. 

Boundary Demarcations 

 

Enclosure fenced In association with the construction of a new 

mule barn in 1970, a new corral was also erected. 

The new corral was enclosed by a wood post and 

wire fence. The new corral was erected in the same 

location as the old one. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

Cactus planting A 1959 NPS map notes that cacti were planted 

adjacent to and east of the Bright Angel Trail 

between the NPS Caretaker’s Residence and the 

trail shelter. 

Lawn planted A 1959 NPS map identifies a “lawn” area located 

east of and adjacent to the NPS Caretaker’s 

Residence. 

Blackberry thicket A 1959 NPS map identifies a blackberry thicket 

located at Indian Garden just north of the picnic 

area and mule hitching posts. The thicket was likely 

impenetrable and therefore deserving of mapping. 

Buildings and Structures 

 

Tent frame constructed A 1952 NPS map indicates that a tent frame was 

present just north of the rebuilt Santa Fe Railroad 

Pump Caretaker’s Residence (Rock House). 

 Power line erected During the mid-1950s, a new power line is 

erected at Indian Garden. 

Tool shed constructed A 1959 NPS map identifies a “tool shed” 

constructed at Indian Garden just north of and 

adjacent to the rebuilt Santa Fe Railroad Pump 

Caretaker’s Residence (Rock House). The tool shed 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 110 

was located in an identical location as a tent frame 

seven years earlier. 

 Caretaker’s Residence addition In 1960, a two-room addition to the western side of 

 constructed the NPS Caretaker’s residence was built. In the 

process, two original stone columns were removed 

and a stone porch built. 

Comfort station constructed A 1963 NPS map identifies that a new, larger 

comfort station was built at Indian Garden. The 

comfort station was connected to a new pump 

station and replaced the two earlier latrines. 

Pump station constructed A 1963 NPS map indicates that a new sewage pump 

station was constructed at Indian Garden. The new 

pump station was connected to the leaching field 

upslope and replaced an earlier pump station. 

Latrines razed After construction of the new, larger comfort station 

and pump house in 1963, two older latrines were 

razed. 

Rehandling Pump House repaired After a major flood damaged it, the Rehandling 

Pump House was repaired and installed with new 

machinery in 1963. 

Tool shed razed Between 1963 and 1965, the tool shed was torn 

down to make room for a new bunkhouse. 

Bunkhouse constructed In 1965, a bunkhouse in the location of the tool 

shed was constructed at Indian Garden. 

 Pump House constructed In association with the construction of a new 

water system to supply water from Roaring Springs 

to the south rim via Indian Garden, a second pump 

house was built in 1967, west of and adjacent to the 

earlier upper pump house and reservoir. 

Mule barn razed Just before the construction of a new mule barn, the 

earlier CCC-era mule barn was razed. It is not 

known why the structure was torn down. 

Mule barn constructed In 1970, a new mule barn was built to replace the 

old mule barn. The new mule barn was constructed 

in the same location as the old one. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 111 

Gabion walls constructed In association with the construction of the new mule 

barn, gabion walls were constructed to replace the 

old retaining walls in order to control floodwaters 

from a western drainage leading into Garden Creek. 

It is likely that these walls were built ca. 1969-1970. 

Small-scale Features 

 

Leaching field excavated A 1952 NPS map identifies that a leaching field was 

excavated west of and upslope from the sludge 

trench. The leaching field was connected to the 

sludge trench; it is not known when this feature was 

constructed. 

Dike excavated A 1952 NPS map identifies that a “dike” was built 

at Indian Garden to channel a western drainage into 

Garden Creek. The dike was constructed between 

1936 and 1952 and was located between the mule 

barn and corral and the NPS Caretaker’s Residence. 

Water catchment constructed A 1959 NPS map identifies that a “water 

catchment” was located at Indian Garden southeast 

of the mule barn and corral. This may be the old 

barrel spring from the former period.

Retaining walls built A 1959 NPS map identifies that two retaining walls 

were located at Indian Garden to channel a western 

drainage into Garden Creek. The retaining walls 

were built between 1952 and 1959 and located 

between the mule barn and corral and the NPS 

Caretaker’s Residence. The retaining walls likely 

replaced the dike. 

Campground and picnic area In 1961, a new campground and picnic area was 

established in the Cameron-era cottonwood grove. 

The area was graded and a new twenty-site 

campground was established complete with picnic 

tables, fireplaces and drinking fountains. 

Foot bridge constructed A 1963 NPS map indicates that a footbridge was 

placed at Indian Garden. The footbridge spanned 

Garden Creek and led from the picnic area to the 

new comfort station. 

Leaching field renovated The leaching field located above the old sludge 

trench was renovated in the early 1960s. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 112 

Sludge trench abandoned With the construction of the new comfort station, 

the old sludge trench was abandoned. 

Protection wall built After a damaging flood in 1963, a one-hundred-foot 

long, four-foot-wide masonry rock wall was 

constructed along the bank of Garden Creek 

through the campground area in 1964. 

Protection wall built After a damaging flood in 1963, a masonry rock 

wall was constructed around the Rehandling Pump 

House unit in 1964.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 113

Figure 35. "Detail, Inner Canyon Developed Areas, Region 3,” May 1952. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum

Collection #2118A)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 114

Figure 36. “Indian Gardens Topo,” 1959. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #3444)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 115

Figure 37. “Campground - Picnic Area, Indian Gardens,” ca.1960s. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #60550)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 116

Figure 38. “Sewage Disposal System, Indian Gardens,” September 1960. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #3502)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 117

Figure 39. “Indian Gardens Topo,” 1963. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #60577)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 118

Figure 40. Scene after flash flood below Indian Garden, 1963. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection

#4477)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 119

Figure 41. Former ranger station and NPS Caretaker’s Residence (now SAR Cache) at Indian Garden (Bldg. #93),

1978. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #10964)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 120


Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 121 

Late Twentieth-Century and Early Twenty-First-Century 

Improvements: 1970-2002 

Introduction 

NPS efforts at Indian Garden during the last quarter of the twentieth century focused on the 

control and removal of invasive plant species and the removal of all facilities from the 100-year 

floodplain. As a result of several studies, construction and demolition efforts enacted between 

1988 and 1989 resulted in the razing of several existing buildings and features and the 

construction of a new campground and several new operational, administration, and residential 

structures. 

Brief Historical Context 

A 1971 NPS topographic map of Indian Garden documents the existing structures and features at 

the beginning of the last quarter of the twentieth century. They included the Rock House (1943 

Santa Fe Pump Caretaker’s Residence); NPS Caretaker’s Residence; bunkhouse; comfort station; 

sewage pump station; trail shelter; mule racks and trough; “jungle swamp;” the North Pump 

House; the South Pump House; the water reservoir; and the new “rough chopper pad” upslope of 

the reservoir (Figure 42).162

In mid-1974, the Museum of Northern Arizona conducted an archeological corridor survey of the 

Bright Angel, South Kaibab and North Kaibab trails. The purpose of the survey was to “appraise 

the probable impact of potential development along these trails” and to identify sites and analyze 

their significance. Of thirty-four identified sites, twelve were located along the Bright Angel 

Trail—all of which were overlooking Garden Creek and many of which were in the general 

vicinity of Indian Garden. In the late winter of 1978, Robert C. Euler visited the Indian Garden 

vicinity as part of a survey of prehistoric sites. During this period he located Ancestral Puebloan 

and other Indian sites within and adjacent to the CLR project area.163

During the late 1970s, a floodplain study of the Indian Garden area was initiated. One of the 

recommendations of the 1979 study was to move the entire campground and picnic area out of 

the perennial floodplain. The following year, Garden Creek floods again eroded the channel and 

parts of the trail and campground, damaged the footbridge, and deposited sedimentation in the 

irrigation ditches.164

In spring of 1981, the NPS initiated a trial reseeding project at Indian Garden in an attempt to 

stabilize soils and stem the loss of vegetation due to soil compaction. Using native grass seed—

such as Arizona brome (Bromus arizonicus), Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), Indian rice 

grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), and Galleta (Hilaria jamesii) purchased from Native Plants, Inc. 

of Salt Lake City—small trampled areas alongside the trail and adjacent to facilities totaling 

 

162 “Grand Canyon National Park, Indian Gardens,” September 1971. Grand Canyon Museum Collection #41029. 163 Brook et al, “Cross Canyon Corridor Survey,” 2, 28-31; Mark Sinclair to Inner Canyon Unit Personnel. “Euler’s 

visit to Indian Gardens,” May 16, 1978. Indian Garden Ranger Station files, Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National 

Park. 

164 Sinclair to Chief Ranger and Inner Canyon Supervisor. “Flood Damage,” n.p. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 122 

approximately one-third of an acre were seeded. Soil in designated areas was scarified by hand, 

reseeded, and roped off.165

In 1985, improvements to the existing water supply facilities and line from Indian Garden to the 

south rim were initiated. The old six-inch water supply line dating to 1932 was replaced with 

eight-inch steel pipes. As water and sewer service was terminated to Indian Garden facilities as a 

result of the pipeline replacement, new Clivus Multrum composting toilets were constructed 

north of and adjacent to the comfort station. As part of an acoustical treatment to isolate noise 

from the 900 horsepower pumps within, the North Pump House received a stone veneer and the 

windows of the South Pump House were closed off with board siding.166

A January 1985 NPS sewage system map shows existing structures and features in the Indian 

Garden vicinity. They include a four-unit composting Clivus Multrum toilet (noted as “not in 

service”), the mule barn and corral, maintenance residence, bunkhouse and ranger quarters, 

campground and picnic area, old comfort station (noted as “not in service”), lift stations, new 

chemical toilets, lift station for the chemical toilets, trail shelter and mule watering area, North 

and South Pump Houses, and reservoir (Figure 43).167

By the mid-1980s, the NPS initiated a Development Concept Plan for the GRCA. The 1985 

Development Concept Plan proposed several alternatives that incorporated the recommendations 

of the 1979 floodplain study for moving the Indian Garden campground and picnic area upslope 

and out of the 100-year floodplain. By early 1986, an alternative was selected that moved the 

new ranger station, maintenance building, residence and bunkhouse, campground and picnic area 

up stream to the west of Garden Creek (Figure 44).168

Sometime between 1986 and 1988, several new structures were built. A second bunkhouse was 

constructed west of and adjacent to the 1943 Santa Fe Pump Caretaker’s Residence (stone 

house). This bunkhouse was of frame construction. In addition, three new Clivus Multrum 

composting toilets were constructed; one toilet placed on a slope east of the Trail Shelter and two 

toilets in the new campground area—one on the northern end of the west slope and one on the 

southern end of the west slope.169 

Throughout the 1980s, the NPS had become concerned with the aging cottonwood trees that 

dominated the campground and picnic area. Most had been planted in the first decade of the 

twentieth century by Ralph Cameron but some additional planting had also taken place in the 

 

165 Richard W. Marks to Files. “Categorical Exclusion Designation for Indian Gardens Reseeding Project,” May 13, 

1981. Indian Garden Ranger Station files, Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National Park. 

166 NPS, “Work begins on waterline improvements at Grand Canyon,” July 31, 1985. News Release. Indian Garden 

Ranger Station files, Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National Park; acoustical improvement information is courtesy 

of Paul Cloyd of the NPS Denver Service Center. 167 “Indian Gardens Sewage System, Grand Canyon National Park,” January 1985. Grand Canyon Museum 

Collection, #40083. 

168 McLaughlin Water Engineers, EDAW, Inc., “Indian Gardens Development Concept Plan,” February 1986. Grand 

Canyon Museum Collection #40104. 

169 “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Indian Gardens,” [As Constructed Drawings] June 1988. See 

“Demolition Plan,” Sheet 7 of 98. Grand Canyon Museum Collection #41137c; See “Mule Corral Layout Plan,” 

Sheet 20 of 98. Grand Canyon Museum Collection #41137c; See “Campground Layout Plan,” Sheet 14 of 98. Grand 

Canyon Museum Collection #41137c.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 123 

mid-1930s during the CCC era. A 1982 site visit and study of hazardous trees at Indian Garden 

by a Forest Pest Management plant pathologist identified a total of twenty-six Fremont 

cottonwoods (Populus fremontii) that were potential threats to life and property due to their poor 

condition and proximity to cultural resources and visitor use areas. It was recommended that six 

cottonwoods of high risk be removed immediately and that twelve others receive immediate 

attention. The six trees identified as high risk were removed in October of 1987. The majority of 

the resultant tree slash was moved or burned on-site in a fire pit at the north end of the former 

mule corral.170 

Based on the recommendations of the Floodplain Study and Development Concept Plan, 

contracts were initiated to begin moving the campground out of the 100-year floodplain and to 

undertake new construction projects. Prior to development, a study for potential sources of rock 

to be used in the construction of new buildings was made in the Indian Garden vicinity. The final 

development plan, carried out between 1988 and 1989, called for demolishing some structures, 

building new structures, and relocating others.171

The buildings demolished include the 1970 mule barn and corral, although the associated feeding 

troughs were saved for the new corral; the older bunkhouse; the old comfort station; and the 

pedestrian wood bridge whose concrete abutments were retained for a new bridge. In addition, 

all signage, drinking fountains, and other small-scale features were removed from the Day Use 

Area, the hitching posts and backpack racks were taken out of the old hitching area, and the old 

lift station and septic tank associated with the comfort station were removed.172

A great deal of new development occurred in 1989, when the NPS undertook a large-scale 

rehabilitation project in Indian Garden. Much of the landscape that had been altered since the 

period of significance was changed again when numerous existing features were demolished, 

relocated, or added (Figure 45). Rehabilitation efforts included the grading and construction of a 

new Storage/Laundry/First Aid building (Building B), new Ranger Residence (Building C), new 

Pump Operator’s Residence (Building D), and a new Mule Barn and Corral (Building J) (Figures 

46 through 48). These facilities were located west of the Bright Angel Trail and south of the old 

mule barn and corral. Stairs and pathways connecting the new facilities to each other, the Bright 

Angel Trail, and the new campground were also constructed. 

New plantings and an irrigation system were installed near the Ranger and Pump Operator’s 

Residences (Figure 49). In addition, a new helispot and trail leading to it were constructed south 

of and upslope from the new ranger housing area. Immediately to the north of the new residential 

area, grading and construction was carried out for a new sludge drying bed and sand filter 

system. The area surrounding the sand filter system was also planted and irrigated. A new drain 

field was constructed in conjunction with the sand filter system and located east of, and 

downslope from, the filter beds. 

 

170 Douglas L. Parker, Director of Forest Pest Management to Superintendent, Grand Canyon National Park. 

“Hazard Tree Evaluation, Indian Gardens and Phantom Ranch,” August 1982. Indian Garden Ranger Station files, 

Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National Park. 

171 Ken Phillips to Dan. “Area stone survey for upcoming construction,” March 1988. Indian Garden Ranger Station 

files, Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National Park.

172 “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Indian Gardens,” [As Constructed Drawings] June 1988. Grand 

Canyon Museum Collection, #41137c. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 124 

The new campground was placed on the west side of the Bright Angel Trail, just north of the 

new ranger housing area. A total of sixteen new camping sites, complete with shade structures, 

picnic tables, and pack racks were installed. An area central to the campground was created to 

house an information kiosk, water fountain, and benches. Each individual site was connected by 

short paths leading to a central north-south path through the campground. The campground was 

planted and irrigated (Figure 50). New plants included the netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), 

catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii var. arizonica), datil yucca (Yucca baccata), bear grass (Nolina 

microcarpa), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia spp.), Colorado four-o’clock (Mirabilis multiflora), 

and a velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina). New grass seed mix was also placed in the northeast corner 

of the campground area. The old campground was designated a day use area. 

At the north end of Indian Garden, ground for a new mule barn and corral was graded. The new 

mule barn was a stone and frame structure and contained a covered but open shelter for mules. 

The eastern end of the building contained a closed tack room and feed storage area. The corral 

extended to the west of the mule barn. Two watering troughs were placed in the western end of 

the corral. Adjacent to and east of the mule barn and corral, a hitching post and trough area was 

graded and constructed. Benches were placed around a shade tree in this area. A new information 

and rest area was also located between the mule barn and corral and the Clivus Multrum 

composting toilets. The rest area included an information kiosk, a drinking fountain, and nine 

benches. The area surrounding the mule barn and corral was also planted and irrigated. 

Appropriate electrical, water, and sewer facilities were dug to connect all of the new structures 

and areas.173

The bunkhouse (Building A), located west of the 1943 Santa Fe Pump Caretaker’s Residence, 

was moved upslope and to the south of the new Storage/Laundry/First Aid building in the new 

administration area. Stone from the Indian Garden vicinity was used to construct a stone veneer, 

making the old structure fit in more appropriately with the new construction. The two structures 

remaining in the 100-year floodplain—the Caretaker’s Residence and Pump Caretaker’s 

Residence/Rock House—were stabilized. In addition, logs in the former picnic grounds were 

moved to the new mule hitching area.174

Rock and debris carried down by a flash flood in 1993 caused extensive damage to the foot 

bridge crossing Garden Creek. The foot bridge was subsequently razed, although the concrete 

abutments on either side were left. 

In 1997, attempting to combat the growing problem of containing and controlling non-native, 

exotic vegetation, the NPS issued an action plan to eradicate the species in some areas and 

contain it in others. The blackberry was thrived in the riparian habitat and dominated the area to 

the exclusion of other native species. A 1992 survey reported that the Himalaya Blackberry had 

colonized about four acres of riparian habitat, or one and one-half miles along Garden Creek. 

The Himalaya Blackberry, along with other exotic fruits and berries, was planted at Indian 

Garden during the Cameron-era occupation (1903-1927) as an ornamental or horticultural 

 

173 “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Indian Gardens,” [As Constructed Drawings] June 1988. Grand 

Canyon Museum Collection, #41137c. 

174 “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Indian Gardens,” [As Constructed Drawings] June 1988. Grand 

Canyon Museum Collection, #41137c. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 125 

plant.175 The eradication plan called for the pruning of the blackberry canes at their roots 

followed by selective chemical treatment with an herbicide. This eradication plan continues 

along Garden Creek to this day.176 

Chronology by Landscape Characteristic, ca. 1970-2002: 

Land Use and Activities 

Tourism Mule trains continued to bring tourists down to 

Indian Garden to see the Grand Canyon. 

Recreation The Bright Angel Trail, one of the more popular 

inner canyon trails, continued to attract thousands of 

day and overnight hikers. 

Water pumping station Indian Garden continued to be an important water 

pumping station, providing thousands of gallons of 

water per day to the south rim. 

Camping The campground at Indian Garden provided a 

designated area for hikers using the Bright Angel 

Trail. 

 

Patterns of Spatial Organization 

 

Linear settlement pattern Following the general north-south orientation of the 

Garden Creek springs at Indian Garden, the NPS 

continued to develop the area along the lush 

relatively flat riparian corridor.

Response to Natural Environment 

 

Floodplain study On the recommendations of a floodplain study and 

Development Concept Plan, the campground was 

moved upstream and out of Garden Creek due to 

persistent and damaging flooding. 

 

175 Lori Makarick, et al., “Himalaya Blackberry Removal Project,” Canyon Views Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring 2002): 8. 176 Nancy Brian, “Action Plan: 1997 Himalaya Blackberry Control at Garden Creek, Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona,” Revised October 8, 1996. Indian Garden Ranger Station files, Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National 

Park.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 126 

Circulation Networks 

Bright Angel Trail The Bright Angel Trail, one of the more popular 

inner canyon trails, continued to attract thousands of 

day and overnight hikers. 

 Rough chopper pad By the early 1970s, formal landing areas for 

helicopters allowed supplies and personnel to be 

safely hauled down to, and out of, Indian Garden. 

Boundary Demarcations 

Enclosure fenced A new corral was constructed at the north end of 

Indian Garden just south of the blackberry thicket. 

Vegetation (Related to Land Use) 

 

Reseeding initiated In 1981, native grass seed was sown in trampled 

areas alongside the Bright Angel Trail and adjacent 

to facilities. Approximately one-third of an acre was 

reseeded. 

Hazardous trees removed In 1987, six hazardous Fremont cottonwood trees 

(Populus fremontii) were removed from the 

Cameron-era cottonwood grove. The remains of the 

trees were left or burned on-site. 

New plantings and irrigation In 1989-90, new plantings and irrigation systems 

were placed in and around the new ranger complex 

and adjacent sand filter system and sludge drying 

bed, as well as in the new campground and around 

the new mule barn and corral. Plantings included 

netleaf hackberry, cat claw acacia, datil yucca, bear 

grass, prickly pear cactus, Colorado four-o’clock, 

and velvet ash. 

New grass seeding New grass seed mix was planted in the northeast 

corner of the new campground in 1989-90. 

Blackberry infestation controlled In 1997, the NPS initiated plans to eradicate and 

control the spread of the Himalaya Blackberry at 

Indian Garden. Plants were pruned at their base and 

then sprayed with a chemical herbicide. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 127 

Buildings and Structures 

 

Clivus Multrum toilets built In association with the water system 

improvements initiated in 1985, water service was 

terminated to Indian Garden facilities. A new Clivus 

Multrum composting toilet was placed north of, and 

adjacent to, the existing comfort station. 

North Pump House renovated As part of the improvements made to the water 

service system between 1985-1986, the North Pump 

House received a new stone veneer as part of an 

acoustical treatment to isolate noise. 

South Pump House renovated As part of the improvements made to the water 

service system between 1985-1986, the windows of 

the South Pump House were closed off with board 

siding as part of an acoustical treatment to isolate 

noise. 

Bunkhouse constructed Sometime between 1986 and 1988, a second 

bunkhouse was constructed west of and adjacent to 

the 1943 Santa Fe Railroad Pump Caretaker’s 

Residence (Rock House). 

Clivus Multrum toilets 

constructed Three new Clivus Multrum composting toilets were 

constructed at Indian Garden; one on a slope east of 

the Indian Garden trail shelter, and two in the area 

out of the 100-year floodplain proposed for the new 

campground. 

Storage/Laundry/First Aid A new Storage/Laundry/First Aid building was 

building constructed constructed in 1988 as part of the new 

administration complex. 

Ranger Residence constructed A new Ranger Residence was constructed in 1988 

as part of the new administration complex upstream 

and out of the 100-year floodplain. 

Pump Operator’s Residence 

constructed A new Pump Operator’s Residence was constructed 

in 1988 as part of the new administration complex. 

Bunkhouse moved In 1988, a bunkhouse was moved from its former 

location west of the Rump Caretaker’s 

Residence/Rock House to the new administration 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 128 

complex upstream. A native stone veneer was added 

to the structure. 

Mule barn constructed A new mule barn was constructed in 1988 west of 

the Pump Houses. 

Mule barn razed In 1989, the 1970 mule barn was razed after the 

construction of the new mule barn. 

 Bunkhouse razed In 1989, the old 1965 bunkhouse was razed. 

Comfort station razed In 1989, the old 1961 comfort station was razed. 

Caretaker’s Residence stabilized In 1989, the Caretaker’s Residence (the old NPS 

ranger station) was stabilized. 

 Rock House stabilized In 1989, the 1943 Santa Fe Railroad Pump 

Caretaker’s Residence (Rock House) was stabilized. 

 

Small-scale Features 

Rough helicopter pad 

constructed A 1971 NPS map of Indian Garden identifies a 

rough “chopper pad” adjacent to, south of, and 

upslope from the 70,000 gallon upper reservoir. 

Water system improved In 1985 the old six-inch water supply pipe at Indian 

Garden, dating to 1932, was replaced with a new 

eight-inch steel pipe. 

 Stairs and pathways constructed New stairs and pathways connecting the 

facilities in the new ranger station complex were 

constructed in 1988. 

Sand filter system constructed A new sand filter system and sludge drying bed was 

constructed north of and adjacent to the new ranger 

complex in 1988. 

Drain field excavated A new drain field was constructed east of and 

adjacent to the new sand filter system in 1988. 

 New campground established A new campground was established upstream 

and out of the 100-year floodplain in 1989. A total 

of sixteen new camping sites complete with shade 

structures, picnic tables, and backpack racks were 

installed. An area central to the campground 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 129 

contained an information stand, a water fountain 

and benches. Each individual site was connected by 

short paths leading to a central north-south path 

through the area. 

Signage removed All signage associated with the old campground and 

picnic area within the 100-year floodplain was 

removed in 1989. Four new signs identifying the 

space’s new use as a Day Use Area were installed. 

Signage installed Four new signs were installed in the old 

campground designating it for day use only. 

Drinking fountains razed All drinking fountains located in the old 

campground and picnic area within the 100-year 

floodplain were removed in 1989. 

Pump station and septic 

tank razed The old pump station and septic tank located in the 

old campground and picnic area within the 100-year 

floodplain were removed in 1989. 

Helispot constructed A new helicopter landing pad was constructed in 

1988 south of and adjacent to the new ranger 

complex. 

 

 Information and rest area 

constructed A new information and rest area east of and 

adjacent to the new mule barn was constructed in 

1989. The rest area included an information kiosk, a 

drinking fountain, and nine benches. 

Footbridge razed After a flash flood in 1993, the footbridge was 

razed, while the concrete abutments on either side 

of Garden Creek were left in situ. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 130

Figure 42. Topographic map of Indian Garden, September 1971. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #41029)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 131

Figure 43. “Indian Gardens Sewage System,” January 1985. (Grand Canyon Museum Collection Acession #40083)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 132

Figure 44. Indian Garden floodplain map, September 1986. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #40104)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 133

Figure 45 “Demolition Plan,” Sheet D-1 of as-constructed drawings for “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities” project, 1989. Demo plan shows

Indian Garden existing conditions prior to 1989 rehabilitation. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #41137C)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 134

Figure 46 “Housing Area Layout/Grading Plan,” Sheet L-2 of as-constructed drawings for “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities” project, 1989.

(Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #41137C)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 135

Figure 47. “Campground Layout Plan Sheet L-4 of as-constructed drawings for “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities” project, 1989. (Grand Canyon

National Park Museum Collection #41137C)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 136

Figure 48. “Mule Corral Layout Plan, Sheet L-10 of as-constructed drawings for “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities” project, 1989. (Grand

Canyon National Park Museum Collection #41137C)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 137

Figure 49. “Housing Area Planting/Irrigation Plan,” Sheet L-3 of as-constructed drawings for “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities” project, 1989.

(Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #41137C)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Physical History II - 138

Figure 50. “Campground Planting Plan,” Sheet L-6 of as-constructed drawings for “Modify Wastewater Treatment Facilities” project, 1989. (Grand

Canyon National Park Museum Collection #41137C)




Chapter III • Landscape Existing 

Conditions Documentation

Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 1 

 Chapter III • Landscape Existing 

Conditions Documentation 

Introduction 

This chapter includes written, graphic, and photographic documentation of existing landscape 

conditions at Indian Garden and its associated landscape character areas. This documentation is 

based upon review of available documentation, base mapping, and fieldwork conducted in Indian 

Garden by John Milner Associates, Inc. (JMA) and its consultants. 

JMA mapped existing conditions data for Indian Garden using an electronic CAD survey 

provided by the Denver Service Center of the National Park Service and through field 

observations, which were translated into CAD to obtain a complete base map of the site. The 

resultant base map provided the basis for the diagrams and maps appearing in this report. 

Existing conditions documentation in this report provides an overview of landscape features and 

systems for the entire project area and then is organized, along with the accompanying inventory, 

by landscape character areas within Indian Garden. Each of the following six character areas 

exhibits a coherent identity and land use within the park: 

• Bright Angel Trail Corridor (North and South); 

• Administration Area; 

• Campground Area; 

• Day Use Area; 

• Pump Station and Corral Area; and 

• North Indian Garden Area. 

Existing conditions for Indian Garden and the six character areas are addressed later in this 

chapter through narrative descriptions, existing conditions photographs, and illustrative maps. 

The following landscape characteristics were used to organize existing conditions information: 

• Natural Systems and Features; 

• Spatial Organization; 

• Land Use; 

• Circulation; 

• Vegetation; 

• Buildings and Structures; 

• Views and Vistas; and 

• Small-scale Features. 

Additionally, archeological site identification information and an over-arching vegetative 

analysis are presented in the Indian Garden Overview section of this chapter. 

All photographs used to illustrate written information in this chapter are numbered sequentially 

in the text and located at the end of each character area section. The photographs are coordinated 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 2 

with photographic station-point maps located at the end of this chapter. The photographic 

station-point maps are useful in determining where and in which direction any particular photo 

was taken. 

Each individual feature is highlighted once in bold text and listed in the Inventory of landscape 

Features located in Appendix A of this report. The inventory identifies each feature’s 

contributing or non-contributing status, condition assessment, Cultural Landscape Report (CLR)-

assigned inventory number, and any additional pertinent information. Each feature is located, 

using its CLR number, on the relevant existing condition inventory map; the maps are found at 

the end of each character area section. All attempts were made to accurately locate each feature 

on the maps, although the locations should be considered representative and approximate. The 

feature list legend on the maps includes each inventoried feature and its associated CLR number, 

as well as each feature’s contributing status as determined in Chapter IV, Analysis and 

Evaluation. The contributing status is listed on each map in order to aid cross-referencing 

between the two chapters. 

To aid, again, in the location and cross-referencing of buildings and structures, building 

identification numbers are placed in parentheses behind building or structure names in the text. 

Identification numbers for historic buildings were derived from the park’s List of Classified 

Structures—an official inventory of historic buildings and structures. Non-historic building and 

structure numbers were taken from a Building Numbers Database obtained from the Denver 

Service Center’s Technical Information Center; these numbers were created by the park’s 

maintenance division. All building and structure names were derived from this database, which 

offered the most contemporary and commonly-used nomenclature for historic and non-historic 

Indian Garden features. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 3 

Overview of the Grand Canyon National Park Landscape 

The Grand Canyon National Park is an immense, complex ecosystem encompassing over one 

million acres of land and 278 miles of the Colorado River in northern Arizona. Situated on the 

southern end of the Colorado plateau, the park is internationally known for views into the canyon 

created by the Colorado River and its tributaries. Approximately 8,000 vertical feet of exposed 

geologic strata, from an elevation of 9,200 feet at the canyon’s highest point at the North Rim to 

1,200 feet near Lake Mead, provide one of the most complete records of geologic history. This 

geologic diversity is visible to the four to five million visitors who arrive at the park every year. 

Surrounding the park are vast lands comprising Navajo, Havasupai, and Hualapai Indian 

reservations, and the Kaibab National Forest. 

Thousands of linear miles of exposed cliff faces, often broken by plateaus, plunge to the canyon 

base from either rim. Smaller side canyons incise the mesas, buttes, and pinnacles of the upper 

portions of the canyon, exposing the multiple layers of rock including Kaibab Limestone, 

Toroweap Formation, Coconino Sandstone, Hermit Shale, Supai Formation, Redwall Limestone, 

Muav Limestone and Dolomite, Bright Angel Shale, Tapeats Sandstone, and the Precambrian 

rock below. 

The varying levels of sunlight, temperature, and precipitation in the canyon have created 

multiple ecosystems that include: boreal forest community, ponderosa pine community, pinyonjuniper woodland, inner canyon scrub communities, and riparian communities. The boreal forest 

community is usually found in the colder, higher elevations along the North Rim of the canyon, 

and includes a mix of conifers such as fir, spruce, and aspen interspersed with meadows. The 

ponderosa pine community is found on both rims of the canyon. It is a community shaped by fire 

and the activity of the tassel-eared squirrel. The pinyon-juniper woodland occurs on or below the 

rims and includes extremely drought-resistant evergreens such as the pinyon pine that produces 

nuts for the multiple bird and animal species. The Tonto Platform is the primary home of the 

inner canyon desertscrub community characterized by low-growing shrubs such as blackbrush, 

Mormon tea, turpentine broom, and prickly pear cactus. Riparian communities surround the 

Colorado River and other water sources in low areas of the canyon, such as Thunder Spring, 

Roaring Spring, Bright Angel Creek, and Clear Creek. Plants and animals requiring constant 

access to water, such as mosses, ferns, and canyon tree frogs, thrive in this environment. 

Sites of active human occupation and visitation are scattered throughout this vast and complex 

natural system. The main areas of development, as outlined in the 1995 GRCA General 

Management Plan (GMP), are the South Rim, the North Rim, and Tuweep. South Rim 

development is concentrated at Grand Canyon Village, but also includes Desert View and many 

other overlooks such as Grandview Point, Yaki Point, and Hermit’s Rest. Easy access to the 

South Rim draws visitors from around the world to view the enormous panoramas at the canyon. 

Trails and roads provide access to the park’s developed and wild areas. The East Rim Drive 

(Desert View), West Rim Drive (Hermit Rim Road), the South Entrance Road, Tonto Trail, 

Bright Angel Trail, and Hermit Trail, for example, are all part of a complex circulation system 

available along or from the South Rim. Because it is more difficult to reach, the North Rim is 

minimally developed and includes Bright Angel Point and trails such as the North Kaibab Trail 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 4 

and the Clear Creek Trail. Trails from both rims connect at Phantom Ranch along the Colorado 

River. Tuweep is the most remote of the developed areas and is located in the northwestern 

section of the park, not far from its border. 

Overview of Indian Garden 

Site Description 

Indian Garden is an oasis of water and lush vegetation within a generally arid environment 

(Sheets 6 and 7). This sliver of greenery created by the perennially-wet Garden Creek is located 

four and one-half miles down the Bright Angel Trail and 3,000 feet below the South Rim of the 

Grand Canyon. The shady spot rests upon the Tonto Platform of the inner canyon and between 

two steep cliffs. Indian Garden is currently used, as it was historically, as a rest stop for tourists 

and campers traversing the Bright Angel Trail. 

Indian Garden was once a treeless spot that appeared very similar to the surrounding desertscrub 

community. American Indians used the perennial flow Garden Creek as a water source for their 

daily activities. The dense vegetation that appears at present began to grow when Garden Creek 

was dammed by Ralph Cameron in the early 1900s to create a water supply for his Indian 

Garden tourism operations. Cameron also planted cottonwood trees to increase opportunities for 

shade. The existing vegetation is made possible by irrigation as well as flash flooding, NPS 

dams, and irrigation ditches that detain water in the area. Water overflow from the trans-canyon 

water line also contributes to the thick vegetation of Indian Garden. 

Natural Systems and Features 

Indian Garden is part of the Tonto Platform geomorphological unit—a generally hot, dry, 

treeless expanse of desertscrub vegetation.1 The Tonto Platform, stretching from the base of the 

Redwall Cliff to the edge of the Inner Gorge, exists because of the thick exposures of Bright 

Angel Shale, which outcrop at that point and are eroded back to reveal Tapeats Sandstone.2

 As a 

hiker travels up from Indian Garden, he or she will witness millions of years of deposition and 

several different types of rock exposed over time by erosion. As one ascends from Indian 

Garden, up the Bright Angel Trail to the Village, Muav Limestone, the Temple Butte Formation 

of dolomite, Redwall Limestone, the Supai Group of shale and sandstone, Hermit Shale, 

Coconino Sandstone, the Toroweap Formation of sandstone and limestone, and finally the 

Kaibab Formation of sandstone, limestone, and shale are visible. 

Indian Garden is part of the Upper Sonoran life zone located between 3,500 and 7,500 feet above 

sea level.3

 This life zone is characterized by plants such as blackbrush scrub, sagebrush scrub, 

 

1

 Rose Houk, An Introduction to Grand Canyon Ecology (Grand Canyon, Arizona: Grand Canyon Association, 

1996), 35. 

2

 L. Greer Price, An Introduction to Grand Canyon Geology (Grand Canyon, Arizona: Grand Canyon Association, 

1999), 51. 

3

 Stephen R. Whitney, A Field Guide to the Grand Canyon (Seattle: The Mountaineers, 1996), 63-64. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 5 

and pinyon-juniper woodland. Within Indian Garden, however, the presence of Garden Creek 

affords a small corridor of riparian vegetation along its banks (Photograph 1). A more detailed 

description of vegetation and plant communities is found later in this overview, under the 

heading “Vegetation.” 

Garden Creek is a perennial water source within the inner Grand Canyon. It begins on the south 

side of the canyon—approximately 3,800 feet above sea level—and runs down the canyon wall 

and over the Tonto Platform before emptying into the Colorado River. Garden Creek is subject 

to flooding, both from natural occurrences and overflow from the trans-canyon water pipeline. 

These floods have scoured and eroded the banks and bed of Garden Creek. Other unnamed 

springs and seeps feed into Garden Creek from the side slopes edging Indian Garden. 

A variety of wildlife lives on the Tonto Platform. The Grand Canyon “pink” rattlesnake 

(Crotalus viridis abyssus), for example, is only found in the inner canyon and nowhere else on 

earth.4 The Niobrara ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni haydeni) also exists in Indian Garden. 

Originally thought to be a Kanab ambersnail, an endangered species, a small enclave of Niobrara 

ambersnail exists in Indian Garden’s Day Use Area landscape character area. The Niobrara 

ambersnail—closely related to the Kanab species—is not endangered although its habitat is 

threatened by increased development in Indian Garden.5

 

Other species living on the Tonto Platform include Scrub Jay, Mourning Dove, Loggerhead 

Shrike, Red-tailed Hawk, Ringtail, Canyon Mouse, Cactus Mouse, Desert Woodrat, and the 

Western Collared Lizard.6

Topography 

Indian Garden occupies a relatively level area between two cliffs, and gently slopes from higher 

to lower elevation from south to north. The northern portion of the site has level floodplain 

topography created by the flooding actions of Garden Creek. The land originally occupied by 

Ralph Cameron’s tourism operations were located on a broader section of this floodplain. Over 

time, development grew to the south of this character area, as well as higher on the surrounding 

slopes and more rolling sections of Indian Garden to avoid the frequent floods. The current 

Administration Area buildings sit on a gentle slope above Bright Angel Trail and Garden Creek. 

The Campground Area landscape character area is situated at a slightly lower elevation, while 

the Day Use Area lies within the Garden Creek floodplain; the Day Use Area is subject to 

frequent flooding as a result. 

 

4

 Jeremy Schmidt, A Natural History Guide: Grand Canyon (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1993), 106. 5

 United States Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Environmental Assessment-Upgrade Corridor Area Fire 

Protection (Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon National Park, 2003), 51. 6

 Schmidt, 106. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 6 

Spatial Organization 

Indian Garden is a long, narrow, linear space defined by its vegetation and topography; the 

corridor edges and width are defined by the relatively thick mass of trees and shrubs fed by 

Garden Creek and the level topography that is enclosed by steep side slopes. The developed 

areas within the overall project area follow this linear arrangement and are arranged around, and 

along, Garden Creek and the Bright Angel Trail. 

Over time, the linear length of Indian Garden development has increased. Cameron-era resources 

are located in the northern part of Indian Garden, north of the intersection of Plateau Point Trail 

and Bright Angel Trail. During the 1920s and 1930s, buildings, structures, and other features 

were constructed south of this intersection. Excessive flooding in this location pushed 

campground and administrative facilities even further south and upslope in the 1980s. 

At present, Bright Angel Trail and Garden Creek edge the Administration Area and campground 

to the east. Garden Creek crosses the trail east of the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence and 

heads northwest into the North Indian Garden Area to run between Bright Angel Trail and 

Plateau Point Trail. The Administration Area, consisting of the ranger residence and 

maintenance facilities, is located in the southernmost portion of Indian Garden. The Campground 

Area is located north of the Administration Area and consists of camp sites and comfort stations. 

North of this area is the Day Use Area consisting of the SAR Cache, Rock House, and groups of 

picnic tables. Visitor use and park maintenance of this area has been limited due to excessively 

wet conditions and potential endangerment of the Niobrara ambersnail habitat. The Pump Station 

and Corral Area contains mule facilities and pump station buildings and is located north of the 

Day Use Area. The North Indian Garden Area occupies the northern half of Indian Garden and 

contains dense vegetation, the Kolb Studio ruin, the Rehandling Pump House, and other 

Cameron-era resources. 

Land Use 

Land uses in Indian Garden primarily support visitor services and include administrative, 

recreational, and operational uses. Administrative and operational facilities offer housing to 

rangers, pump operators, and trail crews and include a medical clinic, laundry room, carpentry 

shop, and helicopter landing pads. Campground facilities offer camp sites, backpack bars, and 

comfort stations. Mule concessionaire facilities include shelters, and hitching bars, as well as 

seating for mule riders. The pump station facility pumps and treats water for Indian Garden and 

the South Rim including Grand Canyon Village. Recreational uses are associated with Bright 

Angel Trail and Plateau Point Trail. 

Circulation 

The primary forms of circulation in Indian Garden are pedestrian and equestrian, although 

helicopters occasionally provide air transport. Bright Angel Trail is the main route through 

Indian Garden for both hikers and mule riders, leading from the Grand Canyon Village at the 

South Rim, down to the Colorado River, and up to the North Rim on the opposite side of the 

Canyon. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 7 

Within the Indian Garden developed areas, pedestrian circulation takes the form of earthen trails, 

often edged in stone. Circulation patterns vary from hierarchical, in the Campground Area, to 

undefined and loose, in the Pump Station and Corral Area. The site is connected to the rest of the 

Grand Canyon by three trails: Plateau Point Trail—which connects Indian Garden to the Tonto 

West Trail, Bright Angel Trail, and Tonto East Trail. 

Vegetation 

Two vegetation communities exist in and around Indian Garden (Sheet 8). The relatively level 

floodplain along Garden Creek is dominated by a diverse riparian community (Photograph 2), 

while the xeric slopes above the floodplain are inhabited by desertscrub vegetation (Photograph 

3). Scientific and common names used to document and describe vegetation in this CLR follow 

The Annotated Checklist of Vascular Plants of GRCA.7 A plant species list compiled during a 

field visit in September 2002 was compared to a list compiled by Brian and Rowlands (1994), 

and the composite list is presented here. 

Riparian Community 

The riparian community has changed significantly in the last hundred years. Photos taken 

during the Cameron era show very little vegetation in the Indian Garden area (Figure 6 – 

Chapter II). Cameron planted numerous Fremont cottonwood trees, which are now producing 

additional offspring. Vegetation diversity and density increased further in the 1960s when the 

National Park Service (NPS) began planting redbud and ash trees in an attempt to create shade, 

making the area more hospitable to hikers. In the 1980s, the NPS constructed four irrigation 

systems to bring water to the current overnight use area, up-canyon from the natural springs. 

That development project resulted in the current proliferation of plants in the Indian Garden CLR 

project area. 

Although the density and diversity of vegetation in Indian Garden has increased significantly 

within the last hundred years, most of the plants encountered here are native to the Grand 

Canyon region and can be found in other side canyons with sufficient water supply. Native tree 

species currently growing in the Indian Garden riparian community include: 

Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii

Fragrant ash Fraxinus cuspidata var. macropetala

Single-leaf ash Fraxinus anomala

Catclaw acacia Acacia greggii var. arizonica

Netleaf hackberry Celtis reticulata

Redbud Cercis occidentalis var. orbiculata

Boxelder Acer negundo

Shrub live oak Quercus turbinella

 

7

 Barbara G. Phillips, Arthur M. Phillips III, and Marilyn Ann Schmidt Bernzott, Annotated Checklist of Vascular 

Plants of Grand Canyon National Park (Monograph No. 7) (Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon Natural History 

Association, 1987). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 8 

Native shrubs and herbs growing in the Indian Garden riparian community include: 

Arizona grape Vitis arizonica

Coyote willow Salix exigua

Seep willow Baccharis salicifolia

Emory baccharis Baccharis emoryi

Squaw bush Rhus trilobata

Apache plume Fallugia paradoxa

Century plant (Utah agave) Agave utahensis

Datil yucca Yucca baccata

Mormon tea Ephedra viridis

Beargrass Nolina microcarpa

Englemann prickly pear Opuntia phaeacantha

Four-wing saltbush Atriplex canescens

Colorado four o’clock Mirabilis multiflora

Trailing four o’clock Allionia incarnata

Long-leaf brickellia Brickellia longifolia

Goldenrod Solidago spp. 

Silverleaf nightshade Solanum elaeagnfolium

Globe mallow Sphaeralcea spp. 

Rayless encelia Encelia fructescens

Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus spp. 

Sacred datura Datura meteloides

Hemp-dogbane Apocynum cannabinum

Artemisia (no common name) Artemisia ludoviciana

Broom snakeweed Guiterrezia sarothrae

Fleabane Erigeron spp. 

Antelope horns Asclepias asperula ssp. capricornu

Bernardia (no common name) Bernardia incana

Cattail Typha domingensis

Horsetail Equisetum x ferrissii

Water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica

Giant common reed Phragmites australis

Bulrush Scirpus americanus or validus

Only one native grass was noted in the riparian community of Indian Garden: 

Foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum

In addition to the native plant species named above, several invasive species listed on the GRCA 

exotic species inventory currently grow in Indian Garden. No invasive tree species were noted. 

Invasive shrubs and herbs growing in the Indian Garden riparian community area include: 

Horehound Marrubium vulgare

Russian thistle Salsola tragus

Common mullein Verbasum thapsus

Goatsbeard Tragapogon dubius
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 9 

Yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis

Himalaya blackberry Rubus procerus syn. R. discolor

Watercress Nasturtium officinale 

Invasive grasses growing in the riparian community of the Indian Garden include: 

Ripgut brome Bromus rigidus 

Crabgrass Digitaria spicata ssp. stricta 

Rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis 

According to a 2002 NPS Nature Notes newsletter, Himalaya blackberry, an extremely pervasive 

exotic within Indian Garden, was intentionally introduced into GRCA as an ornamental plant in 

the early 1900s. Because of its ability to quickly take root and proliferate, blackberries soon 

escaped cultivation and became a persistent and exotic vegetative presence along Garden Creek, 

whose consistent flooding encouraged blackberry growth. The NPS has undertaken measures to 

control Himalaya blackberry because the plant has dominated the riparian zone along the creek 

to the exclusion of native species. It has dramatically altered the ecosystem function and 

structure of Garden Creek and prevents visitors from experiencing the area by impeding access 

to Garden Creek.8 Himalaya blackberry is being removed from the Day Use Area, southwest of 

the Trailside Shelter, and north of the pump house and helispot in the Pump Station and Corral 

Area. 

Desertscrub Community 

The desertscrub community is dominated by blackbrush, which is also common in both the 

Great Basin and the Mojave Desert (Photograph 3).9 Desertscrub vegetation in this section of the 

Grand Canyon is difficult to characterize as either the Great Basin or Mojave Desert assemblage 

since other indicator species are rare.10 No invasive species or grasses were noted in the 

desertscrub community occupying the slopes above Indian Garden. Only one native tree species 

was noted in the desertscrub community above Indian Garden: 

Catclaw acacia Acacia greggii var. arizonica

Native shrubs, herbs, and succulents growing in the desertscrub above Indian Garden include: 

Blackbrush Coleogyne ramosissima

Century plant (Utah agave) Agave utahensis

Mormon tea Ephedra viridis

Englemann prickly pear Opuntia phaeacantha

Fetid marigold Dyssodia papposa

 

8

 Lori Makarick and Emily King, Canyon Views: Nature Notes: Himalaya Blackberry Removal Project. (GRCA: 

NPS, 2002) vol. VII no. 1, Spring 2002, viii. 

9

 David E. Brown, ed. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico (Provo, UT: 

University of Utah, 1982). 

10 Phillips, Phillips, and Bernzott, 1987. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 10 

Many-headed barrel Echinocactus polycephalus var. xeranthemoides

Grizzly bear cactus Opuntia erinacea 

Arizona fishhook cactus Mammillaria microcarpa

Buildings and Structures 

Buildings and structures in Indian Garden are limited in number (Sheet 9). Many buildings are of 

relatively new construction or have been moved from their original location. Few of the 

buildings qualify as historic or retain their original use or purpose. Certain buildings and 

structures are in ruins and may be classified as archeological sites. These include the Kolb Studio 

ruin and Rehandling Pump House. The predominant architectural style of the project area is NPS 

Rustic Revival, circa 1980, and primarily of wood and stone construction. This style is 

“characterized by the extensive use of timbers and wood siding with modest stone 

foundations.”11 Earlier buildings and structures feature stonework façades presented in the 

original NPS Rustic style, which employed sawn timber and log construction, rock foundations 

and corner piers, and steeply pitched, overhanging roofs.12

The greatest density of buildings is in the Administration Area and include the Bunkhouse, a 

clinic building, the Pump Operator’s Residence, and the Ranger Residence. The Campground 

Area has two comfort stations and a number of shade structures used by campers. The Day Use 

Area contains two historic buildings and an historic trailside shelter. The Pump Station and 

Corral Area contains livestock buildings and the pump houses as well as a heliport. The North 

Indian Garden Area contains the Kolb Studio ruin and Rehandling Pump House. 

Within the project area, three telephone poles—remnants of the trans-canyon telephone line 

built in 1935—are located on the slope east of, and above, the Pump Station (Photograph 4). The 

telephone line and its associated features were listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

in 1986. 

 

The telephone poles are made from standard two-inch galvanized pipe 

manufactured by the Jones and Laughlin Company. The pipe is in four- and eightfoot sections, which could be screwed together depending on desired pole height. 

The poles are fitted with cross-arms to hold the circuit lines. Installation of a 

second circuit in 1938-39 required modification of the cross-arms. On the 

southern section of the line [and in Indian Garden], another cross-arm was added 

to the tops of the poles, which raised their height from between twelve and 

eighteen inches...The poles vary in overall height from about two to twelve feet, 

depending on the nature of the rugged terrain, but most are about eight to ten feet 

 

11 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park Architectural Character 

Guidelines (Grand Canyon, AZ: National Park Service, 1994), 14. 12 Ibid., 16-17. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 11 

high. The telephone line itself is an open-wire copper-weld line with porcelain 

and glass insulators.13

The poles still retain their glass insulators, cross-arms, and other defining features. According to 

Michael Anderson of GRCA, the associated telephone system no longer functions as a rim-torim system, as significant gaps occur where the telephone wire is down. Portions of the system, 

however, continue to be in service.14

Views and Vistas 

Because Indian Garden is located within the Grand Canyon, all views to surrounding areas are 

spectacular and breath-taking, as Indian Garden is surrounded by multi-colored cliffs on three 

sides and the greater Grand Canyon to the north. 

Views within Indian Garden are of little significance due to the surrounding context. Indian 

Garden contains no designed or purposeful vistas, and buildings and other features were not sited 

with the creation of internal views in mind. 

Small-scale Features 

Small-scale features in Indian Garden support visitor services, residential uses, and operations. 

Features such as backpack bars, benches, picnic tables, and drinking fountains increase the 

comfort of campers and hikers as well as their enjoyment of their Indian Garden stay. Features 

such as fencing, signage, stone edging, and stone walls increase hiker/camper awareness and 

safety as well as protecting the surrounding environment. Mule hitching bars, utility structures, 

and other utilitarian features described within each character area aid in the day-to-day 

operations of Indian Garden. 

Archeological Sites 

A total of twenty-one archeological sites have been previously recorded in the vicinity of Indian 

Garden. Five of the twenty-one sites are within the boundary of the Indian Garden cultural 

landscape as defined by this report. The five sites, which are discussed below, consist of one 

prehistoric and four historic sites (Sheet 9). 

 

Site No. Ariz. B:16:140 

This site was recorded in 1983 by GRCA personnel Doug Brown and Ann Nolan. It is composed 

of two crudely constructed, dry-laid, stone masonry structures on a small, man-made terrace that 

has been cut into the western and northern sides of a talus slope east of Garden Creek, 

approximately 485 feet south-southeast of the junction of the Bright Angel and Tonto Trails 

 

13 Teri A. Cleeland, National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Trans-Canyon Telephone Line (Washington 

D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1986) Section 7, 1-2. 

14 Michael Anderson, “Help with CLR-Indian Garden Phone Line,” 30 April 2003, office communication (1 May 

2003). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 12 

(Photograph 5). One structure consists of two low walls joined at the ends to form a right angle. 

The walls have between ten and twelve courses that rise to a height of approximately three to 

four feet and measure two to three feet thick. The wall that parallels the terrace cut is 

approximately eighteen feet long, whereas the wall that runs perpendicular to the terrace is 

approximately six feet long. The second structure, located around the talus slope to the northeast 

of the first structure, was likely of similar construction but has collapsed into a pile of rubble. 

This site is likely associated with Ralph Cameron’s mining activities around the turn of the 

twentieth century. Mine waste rock from the terrace cut is present downslope to the west and 

north of the masonry structures. The purpose of the structures is unclear, however. Their 

expedient construction suggests that they may have served no other purpose except to “prove up” 

the mine claim. No artifacts are associated with the terrace cut or structures. 

Site No. Ariz. B:16:152 

This site was originally recorded in 1983 and re-recorded in 1984 by GRCA Archeologists J. 

Balsom, H. Fairley, and N. Coulam. The site is a single, dry-laid, stone masonry room partially 

built into the northeast-facing slope directly below the Plateau Point Trail, overlooking the 

Garden Creek floodplain to the east. The structure has a square footprint with each associated 

wall measuring ten feet in length. The walls are a maximum of five to six courses high (creating 

walls approximately twenty inches in height), with the stones shaped into rectangular blocks. 

No artifacts are visible in the immediate area to indicate the age of the structure. However, the 

structure is probably associated with Cameron’s occupation of Indian Garden. Supporting 

evidence includes the shaped rectangular block construction, the presence of an obvious 

doorway, the height of the walls and placement of the structure on the slope, and the absence of 

prehistoric artifacts. 

Site No. Ariz. B:16:164 

This site was originally recorded in 1984 by GRCA Archeologists J. Balsom, H. Fairley, and N. 

Coulam. The site is located on a slight bench/terrace approximately sixty-five feet (twenty 

meters) east of the Bright Angel Trail and approximately 160 feet (fifty meters) east of Garden 

Creek. Note that this site is not labeled on the associated existing condition map due to the 

sensitive nature of this feature. 

The site represents the remains of an ancestral Puebloan habitation structure composed of several 

rock alignments, rubble cobbles and slabs, and a fairly dense artifact scatter. The structure 

appears to have had three rooms. Overall, the room block measures approximately eighteen feet 

by seven feet (5.5 by 2.2 meters) in plan. There is some evidence that there were other rock 

alignments to the southwest of the room block, but these potential alignments are too disturbed 

for a positive assessment. 

No specific evidence of a midden is visible. However, shallow rills that bisect the site and extend 

down slope to the north contain numerous ceramic sherds and flaked stone debitage. Despite the 

erosion, this site possesses one of the densest artifact scatters at Indian Garden, and illustrates the 

impacts that illegal artifact collection has had on other sites in the area. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 13 

Site No. Ariz. B:16:165 

This site was originally recorded in 1974 by the Museum of Northern Arizona during the Cross 

Canyon Corridor Survey and subsequently re-recorded in 1984 by GRCA Archeologists J. 

Balsom, H. Fairley, and N. Coulam.15 The site is located on a talus slope approximately 480 feet 

northeast of the junction of the Bright Angel and Tonto Trails. 

The site consists of a dry-laid stone masonry wall built between two large boulders to form a 

small enclosure, a large man-made terrace/platform with a low rock foundation or retaining wall, 

and a drill hole (Photographs 6 and 7). The Museum of Northern Arizona identified the site as 

being associated with mining in the region. J. Balsom, H. Fairley, and N. Coulam suggest, 

however, that the site may represent part of the old tram system built in the early 1930s during 

the construction of the trans-canyon water line. The CLR team’s examination of historic 

photographs of the area and the 1917 Working Plan Map of Indian Garden seems to indicate that 

the man-made terrace was actually a tent platform for the Trail Keeper’s tent and the rock enclosure 

served as a latrine (Figures 11, 12, and 20 – Chapter II). Given the presence of the drill hole, it is 

possible that the site was subsequently used for tramway placement and/or mining activity. 

However, the historic photographs and maps clearly illustrate the original use of the platform 

and rock enclosure. 

Site No. Ariz. B:16:252 

This site was originally identified and recorded in 1989 by GRCA personnel Jamie Lepinsky and 

Jim Dryer while monitoring construction activities associated with the Indian Garden 

campground relocation project. While trenching for a new pipeline in the vicinity of the 1989 

mule barn, park archeologists monitoring the trenching activity observed historic artifacts buried 

to a depth of up to twenty inches (fifty centimeters) below the ground surface. The artifacts 

included several enamel vessels, a porcelain bowl, a glass bottle, a seed drill, and stove parts. 

The artifacts date between 1900 and 1923, and are likely associated with Cameron’s occupation 

of Indian Garden. 

The depth of the artifacts illustrates the relatively rapid rate at which cultural remains can 

become buried in areas near or adjacent to Garden Creek, likely due to frequent flooding and the 

resultant deposition of sediment. Furthermore, the areal extent of the historic phenomena was not 

ascertained and it is likely that other buried cultural remains are present at Indian Garden within 

the Garden Creek floodplain. 

 

15 Richard A. Brook, “Final Report for the Cultural Resources of The Grand Canyon Cross Canyon Corridor 

Survey,1974.” Ms. on file Museum of Northern Arizona. Flagstaff, AZ. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 14

Photograph 1. Linear oasis of riparian

vegetation growing along Garden Creek,

surrounded by the desertscrub vegetation

community.

(SWCA 2002)

Photograph 2. Riparian vegetation,

showing cottonwood and seep willow.

Note mule deer in background.

(SWCA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 15

Photograph 3. The desertscrub community above Indian Garden, dominated by

blackbrush.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 4. Historic telephone pole,

part of the trans-canyon telephone line.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 5. Site No. Ariz. B:16:140,

dry-laid stone masonry structures.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 16

Photograph 6. Site No. Ariz. B:16:165,

“Cooler”or latrine comprised of masonry

wall between two boulders.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 7. Site. No. Ariz. B:16:165,

Tent platform with stone retaining wall.

(JMA 2002)








Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 17 

Description of Existing Conditions by 

Landscape Character Area 

Bright Angel Trail Corridor 

Refer to Sheets 10 through 13 at the end of this section. 

The Bright Angel Trail Corridor, as it runs through Indian Garden, consists of the earthen trail, 

adjacent vegetation, fencing, and small-scale features. In this report, the corridor is broken into 

two portions: north and south Bright Angel Trail Corridor, divided by the Pump Station and 

Corral Area landscape character area. Both portions are discussed within this section. The 

northern portion begins north of the Mule Barn, while the southern portion begins south of the 

Mule Barn. Each portion exhibits a different character: the northern trail has a more enclosed 

feeling due to a greater amount of and density of mature vegetation, while the southern trail is 

open and exposed with a larger ratio of lower and younger plants. Both sections, however, run 

along the eastern edge of Indian Garden. 

Natural Systems and Features 

Garden Creek meets the Bright Angel Trail in the southern portion of the corridor, just south of 

the SAR Cache. The creek is heavily eroded in this area and has washed away much of the trail. 

Spatial Organization 

The Bright Angel Trail Corridor consists of a linear path delineated along its length by varying 

combinations of steep slopes, vegetative barriers, wood fencing, and stone edging (Photographs 

8 and 9). Rarely more than three or four feet in width, the trail runs along the eastern edge of the 

developed character areas and Indian Garden project area boundary. The corridor varies in width 

depending on the width of vegetation on either side of the trail, the proximity of steep slopes 

along the eastern edge, and the location of Garden Creek in relation to the corridor. 

A spatial node, or a distinct location that is a center of activity, is located near the junction of 

Bright Angel Trail and Garden Creek, east of the gabion walls (Photograph 10). The node of 

space consists of a widened section of the trail corridor which has been heavily eroded and 

washed out by flooding. Tall cottonwood trees shade the area while several small-scale features, 

such as benches and hitching bars, create the appearance of a gathering space. 

A second node is created by the Trailside Shelter. The shelter stairs create a corridor that leads 

to an interior, covered space defined by the shelter roof and pillars. 

Land Use 

The Bright Angel Trail Corridor is used solely for transportation of pedestrians and mule riders. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 18 

Circulation 

Bright Angel Trail (Photographs 8 and 9) is a narrow, packed-sand and earthen path that runs 

from the South Rim, beginning below the Kolb Studio, down the cliff, along the eastern edge of 

Indian Garden, and to the Colorado River. The trail terminates at the mouth of Pipe Creek at the 

Colorado River. 

Spur trails, both formal and informal, branch off the Bright Angel Trail through Indian Garden. 

The formal spur trails, created by the NPS, are typically edged with stones and marked with 

signage. The informal spur trails are narrow and poorly defined (Photograph 11). These social 

trails lead to undeveloped locations such as eastern Garden Creek before it enters Indian Garden. 

A flight of stone steps leads from the trail down into the Trailside Shelter, south of the mule 

corral. The steps are described below, under Buildings and Structures. A formal spur trail leads 

from Bright Angel Trail up to the comfort station located in the Pump Station and Corral Area. 

The steep, upslope path is edged with stones (Photograph 12). 

The trail is filled with mule-worn depressions which collect water (Photograph 13). Log and 

stone water bars have been placed perpendicular to the trail to prevent trail wash-out. At present, 

the earth surrounding them is eroding (Photograph 14). 

Vegetation 

Edge-defining vegetation is one of the primary features of both the northern and southern 

portions of the trail. Vegetation within the corridor varies from low shrubs to tall, mature 

cottonwood trees. The southern portion of the trail is edged with prickly-pear cactus, grasses, 

and shrubs (Photograph 15). Near the northeast corner of the Campground Area, several tall 

cottonwood trees edge the trail (Photograph 10). The northern portion of the trail has fewer 

cacti, but is edged with low shrubs, small trees, and cottonwoods (Photograph 16). A row of 

cottonwoods is located along the trail as it passes east of the Day Use Area (Photograph 17). 

One particularly large redbud grows out from under a large boulder along the Bright Angel 

Trail, north of the Pump Station, and arches gracefully over the trail (Photograph 18). 

Buildings and Structures 

One building is located within the Bright Angel Trail Corridor. Civilian Conservation Corps 

(CCC) crews built the 1937 Trailside Shelter (Bldg. #BCB0143) that still stands close to where 

the Bright Angel Trail and the Plateau Point Trail split at Indian Garden (Photograph 19). The 

shelter is an excellent example of the Rustic style of architecture employed by the NPS during 

the CCC period. The shelter stands on the northwest side of the Bright Angel Trail in a natural 

depression. Built between two large stone outcroppings, the building incorporates the natural, in 

situ stone into its corner piers. The structure is an open pavilion that consists of four tapered, 

stone piers that support a low-pitched, gable roof. Originally clad in thatch, the roof is now 

covered with green asphalt shingles, and features wide eaves, exposed rafter tails, and projecting 

purlins on its gable ends. The random-rubble stone posts form massive piers at the corners. Low, 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 19 

rubble walls enclose the southwest and northwest sides of the pavilion. The shelter can be 

entered from the Bright Angel Trail via a set of rustic stone stairs that were built into the natural 

slope or from a pathway on the northeast. 

The stone steps leading to the Trailside Shelter consist of thick stone slabs for treads with rock 

cheek walls (Photograph 20). 

A mortared stone protective wall is visible south of the Rehandling Pump House, near the 

northern segment of the Bright Angel Trail (Photograph 21). This wall covers, and reinforces 

against erosion, an underground pipeline that runs along the Bright Angel Trail. 

Views and Vistas 

Views from the trail and corridor to the surrounding Canyon are spectacular. The surrounding 

multi-colored cliffs and views into the distance of the greater Grand Canyon provide a dramatic 

backdrop to the area. 

Within the corridor, views tend to be narrow and foreshortened due to frequently-occurring 

dense vegetation along the trail corridor edges. The corridor passes by each of the remaining five 

landscape character areas which are clearly visible from the trail. 

Small-scale Features 

Small-scale features in Indian Garden support visitor services and attempt to protect natural 

features. 

Wood fencing runs along the western edge of the trail, in the southern portion of the corridor 

and south of the gabion walls. The fence is approximately three feet in height and consists of 

round wood posts supporting long, thin wood rails (Photograph 22). The fencing acts to define 

the trail edge and also to keep hikers from damaging surrounding vegetation. 

Stone edging, consisting of small, multi-colored rocks, defines both sides of the trail for most of 

the length of the corridor, although it is more consistent along the southern half of the trail 

(Photograph 8). 

Log risers and stone water bars are located throughout the corridor (Photograph 23). Log 

risers placed perpendicularly to the trail tread take up the grade along portions of the trail that 

may otherwise be too steep to traverse. Stone waterbars, also placed perpendicularly to the trail, 

divert water flow across the trail rather than down its length and help prevent erosion. 

Throughout the corridor, signage helps to direct and warn hikers (Photograph 22). Typical 

signage consists of a dark wood post—either milled or rough—supporting rectangular, lightcolored, wood signs with routed letters. A contemporary illustrative sign, depicting the 

dangers of heat exhaustion and overexertion during hiking, is located near the North Indian 

Garden Area and along the northern portion of the trail (Photograph 9). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 20 

South of the Pump Station comfort station, a thermometer is located in the eastern edge of the 

trail (Photograph 24). The feature consists of a round, white thermometer attached to a typical 

metal sign-post. 

“Rustic” benches located in the corridor are constructed of wood and have one long plank for a 

seat and another plank for a seat-back (Photograph 25). The planks are supported by two round 

wood posts. A typical bench is located at the junction of the Bright Angel Trail and Garden 

Creek. A hitching bar, consisting of metal pipes and elbow joints, is also located at this junction 

and is used for private, non-NPS livestock(Photograph 26). Along the Bright Angel Trail near 

the Trailside Shelter are broad cottonwood stumps from trees that have been cut down. These 

stumps have been left along the trail; some are used as seating (Photograph 17). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 21

Photograph 8. Bright Angel Trail

Corridor with fencing, vegetation, and

stone edging.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 9. Bright Angel Trail

Corridor with stone waterbar and signage.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 10. Node at junction of

Bright Angel Trail and Garden Creek.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 22

Photograph 11. Informal spur/social

trail.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 12. Formal spur trail to

Comfort Station.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 23

Photograph 13. Mule-worn depressions

in Bright Angel Trail.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 14. Erosion around Bright

Angel Trail log risers.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 24

Photograph 15. Trail-edge vegetation.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 16. Northern portion of

Bright Angel Trail, edged in low shrubs,

small trees, and cottonwoods.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 17. Row of cottonwoods,

with stumps of former trees on left.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 25

Photograph 18. Large redbud tree along

trail.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 19. Trailside Shelter, built in

1937.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 26

Photograph 20. Stone steps to Trailside

Shelter.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 21. Mortared stone protective wall, south of the Rehandling Pump

House.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 22. Wood post-and-rail

fencing and wooden signage along southern portion of Bright Angel Trail

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 27

Photograph 23. Log risers and stone

waterbars.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 24. Thermometer.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 28

Photograph 25. Bench (in back right),

with cottonwood stumps in foreground.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 26. Hitching bar.

(JMA 2002)








Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 29 

Administration Area 

Refer to Sheets 14 through 16 at the end of this section. 

The Administration Area consists of buildings, structures, and other features used by NPS 

personnel and staff, such as rangers and trail crews. This area contains the Ranger Residence, 

Pump Operator’s Residence, laundry room, a clinic, repair shop, a bunkhouse, helispot, and sand 

filter wastewater treatment system. The public typically visits this character area only in time of 

emergency. The Administration Area was constructed in 1989 as part of NPS rehabilitation 

efforts. 

Natural Systems and Features 

There are very few noteworthy natural features or systems associated solely with this character 

area. Please refer to the Indian Garden Overview above for a more in-depth discussion about 

project area-wide features. However, two intermittent streams flow west to east in this area. 

These streams are located between the Pump Operator’s Residence and sand filter beds. The 

larger of the two streams is lined with rocks. 

Spatial Organization 

Within this character area, three main clusters of buildings and structures define space: the 

helispot, the central building complex, and the sand filter beds. These clusters are divided by 

vegetation, yet reached by a system of interconnected trails. 

The cluster of buildings in the central portion of the character area creates both communal and 

private spaces. An intimate gathering space—used solely by the pump operator—is located 

around the Pump Operator’s Residence and is defined by a wood deck and stone walls north of 

the building (Photograph 27). A corridor of space is created between the Pump Operator’s 

Residence and the Storage/Laundry/First Aid Building and Bunkhouse complex. This corridor 

forms a sort of alley that leads to the helispot. 

A courtyard is formed by the eastern elevation of the Storage/Laundry/First Aid Building and 

northern elevation of the Bunkhouse (Photograph 28). The courtyard has seating and a mule 

hitching bar. A retaining wall to the south of the Ranger Residence creates a small backyard 

space and private space for the ranger (Photograph 29). To the north of the Ranger Residence, 

an open front porch and picnic table create a public space where the ranger greets hikers and 

visitors (Photograph 30). 

The sand filter beds are located in the northern portion of the character area and are reached by 

an informal path. The beds are enclosed within a fence and rest on top of graded, level ground. 

The helispot is located in the southern portion of the character area and is also reached by a trail. 

The circular helispot space is defined by the round, level area upon which helicopters land. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 30 

Land Use 

The Administration Area is used for visitor services, housing, and maintenance operations. 

Visitor services include medical facilities and use of the Ranger Residence during emergencies. 

The Bunkhouse, Pump Operator’s Residence, and Ranger Residence are all used to house NPS 

personnel, such as trail crews, during their stay in Indian Garden. The Storage/Laundry/First Aid 

Building, or Building B, has a laundry, first aid clinic, storage space, and repair shop. 

Circulation 

Circulation in this area is solely pedestrian and is formed by a network of stone-edged trails. 

The primary entrance to the area is a short, formal, stone-edged trail, accessed by a short spur 

trail leading west from Bright Angel Trail (Photograph 31). The trail runs north-south between 

the Ranger Residence and Campground, where it forms the central spine of the Campground 

Area circulation pattern, and terminates into a flight of wooden steps that head west to the Pump 

Operator’s Residence. The steps lead to the secondary trail which provides access to the sand 

filter beds, Pump Operator’s Residence, and helispot. 

Numerous spur trails, most edged in stone, weave through the area and access the Ranger 

Residence front entrance and backyard, Bunkhouse, Storage/Laundry/First Aid Building, as well 

as creating shortcuts between the primary and secondary trails. Flights of wooden stairs are 

located in some places to make these side trails more accessible. 

To expedite access to the helispot and Administration Area, an informal, loosely-defined spur 

trail, narrow in width, leads from Bright Angel Trail to the helispot (Photograph 32). This trail 

is intended for NPS personnel only and not for hikers. Another informal spur trail, intended 

only for NPS personnel, begins at Bright Angel Trail and heads up the slope to the Bunkhouse 

(Photograph 22). The trail is blocked by the length of wood fence that runs along Bright Angel 

Trail. A concrete sidewalk is located along the eastern elevation of the Storage/Laundry/First 

Aid Building (Photograph 28). 

The helispot is used for air transportation. Helicopters are used to drop off and pick up supplies 

and for emergency evacuations. 

Vegetation 

The majority of vegetation in this character area is part of the native desertscrub community 

which comprises much of the Indian Garden project area and surrounding region. During the 

1989 rehabilitation of the character area, additional native vegetation was either transplanted 

from another source in the Canyon or nursery-grown, and used for ornamentation and erosion 

control. Planting beds, created by stone retaining walls, contain native vegetation in front of the 

Ranger Residence (Photograph 33) and Pump Operator’s Residence. This “infill” vegetation was 

installed according to a 1989 planting plan whose plant list called for netleaf hackberry, rubber 

rabbitbrush, fourwing saltbush, apache plume, and datil yucca. Prickly pear cactus, redbud trees, 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 31 

and various grasses were also observed during fieldwork, although it is unknown if these were 

intentionally planted or native to the site. 

The slope between the Bright Angel Trail and the stone-edged trail to the Ranger Residence has 

been marked as a re-vegetation area. A small wooden placard placed on the fence along the 

Bright Angel Trail reads “Reveg Area, Keep Out.” This area was created, likely during the 1989 

rehabilitation, as a way to allow new vegetation to gain a foothold in the landscape and to 

prevent visitors from trampling the plantings. 

Many of the younger, less established trees currently in the character area are protected with 

cylindrical tree cages. In addition to the planting plan and schedule, an irrigation system was 

detailed and built in accordance with the 1989 plans. For more detailed information about 

vegetation throughout the project area, refer to the Indian Garden Overview section earlier 

within this chapter. 

Buildings and Structures 

Buildings and structures in this character area have been recently constructed or relocated from 

elsewhere within Indian Garden. The helispot, sand filter beds, Storage/Laundry/First Aid 

Building, Pump Operator’s Residence, and Ranger Residence were built around 1989. One 

bunkhouse, built in 1986, was relocated from its former site near the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s 

Residence in the Day Use Area, also in 1989. 

The singular cluster of buildings in the character area is the central building complex which 

includes the Ranger Residence, Pump Operator’s Residence, Storage/Laundry/First Aid 

Building, and Bunkhouse. 

The NPS Ranger Residence (Bldg. #1460) (Photograph 30) and Pump Operator’s Residence 

(Bldg. #1459) (Photograph 34) are two of four buildings that comprise the central building 

cluster. Built in 1989, the Ranger and Pump Operator’s Residences are identical in design. 

Utilizing the NPS Rustic Revival style, they consist of twenty-eight-feet by thirty-six-feet, 

rectangular-plan structures covered by side-gable, asphalt-shingled roofs. The frame walls are 

clad in board-and-batten siding with partial random-rubble, stone façades accentuating the 

corners and base of the buildings. Other distinguishing features include the paired, exposed rafter 

tails; gable-end eave brackets; ganged, eight-light, wood casement windows; and single-leaf, 

panel-and-light metal doors. 

The NPS Storage/Laundry/First Aid Building (Bldg. #1462) was built in 1989 and consists of 

a forty-eight-feet-long by fourteen-feet-deep, rectangular, frame structure that is covered by an 

asphalt-shingled, side-gable roof (Photograph 35). Like the Ranger and Pump Operator’s 

Residences, the Storage/Laundry/First Aid building’s frame walls are clad in board-and-batten 

siding and partial random-rubble, stone façades that accentuate the corners and base of the 

building. The building features paired, exposed rafter tails; gable-end eave brackets; paired, 

eight-light, wood casement windows; and two single-leaf, panel-and-light metal doors. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 32 

In 1989, the NPS relocated a1986 Bunkhouse (Bldg. #473/1429) that stood just north of the 

historic Pump Operator’s Residence/Rock House (Photograph 28). The original structure 

comprised a one-story, frame, gable-roofed building clad in board-and-batten siding. In 1989, the 

structure was dismantled and reconstructed on a new concrete block foundation and remodeled 

on the exterior and interior to match the three new buildings in the NPS housing cluster. The 

frame walls are clad in board-and-batten siding and a partial random-rubble stone veneer that 

accentuates the corners and the base of the building. The building features exposed rafter tails; 

gable-end, eave brackets; paired, eight-light, wood casement windows; and single-leaf, paneland-light metal doors. At present, the Bunkhouse provides temporary accommodations for NPS 

staff.

A six-feet by eight-feet Trash Compactor Shed (Bldg. #1501), built in 1991, stands directly 

west of the NPS Bunkhouse (Photograph 36). The shed occupies the corner of an enclosed 

courtyard that is formed by the west wall of the Bunkhouse, the south wall of the 

Storage/Laundry/First Aid building, and a four-feet-tall, L-shaped stone wall that connects the 

two buildings. A wooden gate provides access to the courtyard and the shed. The shed itself 

consists of a one-story, frame structure clad in “T-111” paneling and covered by an asphaltshingled, front gable roof that extends beyond the front wall of the structure to provide a canopy 

above the door. One enters the shed through a centered, gable-end, panel-and-light metal door. 

In 1989, the NPS constructed a sand filter bed structure to provide intermittent treatment for the 

waste water produced by the new NPS housing area at the south end of Indian Garden 

(Photograph 37). The structure consists of an eight-feet by twenty-six-feet sludge-drying bed 

and a thirteen-feet by fifty-five-feet sand filter bed—both set into the west side of the new public 

campground. Both structures are built using embedded timber walls set into the ground. The 

sand filter structure is six feet deep, filled with layers of gravel and sand, and host to volunteer 

vegetation. The sludge bed is three and one-half-feet deep with a bottom layer of sand. A sixfeet-tall, log and wire fence structure surrounds both of the beds. On the south end of the fence 

enclosure, a metal pipe gate provides access to the sand filtration and sludge drying beds. 

The helispot is located south of the central building cluster and consists of a circular gravel 

clearing approximately thirty feet in diameter (Photograph 38). 

Throughout the character area, wooden stairs provide access to buildings and structures and 

between trails (Photograph 39). The stair treads are constructed of six-inch by eight-inch square 

pressure-treated timbers placed two to a tread. 

Stone walls and stone retaining walls are also located throughout the character area. The 

majority of the walls are located around the Pump Operator’s Residence and Ranger Residence, 

while some are used to support the helispot slope. The walls are constructed of dry-laid rock and 

stone. 

A simple horseshoes court is located just south of the sand filter beds and actually is part of the 

trail that leads to the beds from the central building cluster (Photograph 40). The court consists 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 33 

of two metal stakes secured in concrete footings and set the proper distance apart for playing the 

game. 

A hose house, north of the Pump Operator’s Residence, consists of a gabled roof and wood 

walls resting on a concrete slab (Photograph 41). The brown shed measures two-feet-one inch 

by one-feet-nine inches and is two-feet-six inches in height. 

The drainfield, part of the underground wastewater treatment system, is located south of the 

sand filter beds on the slope above the campground (Photograph 42). It consists of two groups of 

four trenches each. The trenches are lined with synthetic drainage fabric and filled with gravel 

which supports a perforated PVC drain pipe. 

Views and Vistas 

Views from the Administration Area to the surrounding canyon are spectacular (Photograph 

43). The surrounding multi-colored cliffs and views into the distance of the greater Grand 

Canyon provide a beautiful backdrop to the area. Views from the helispot are particularly good 

due to its higher elevation (Photograph 44). 

Internal views are of little importance in comparison to distant views of the Canyon. Views 

within, and adjacent to, the area consist of vegetation and buildings as well as the Bright Angel 

Trail and Campground Area. 

Small-scale Features 

Signage in this character area is typical of Indian Garden, consisting of rough dark wood posts 

supporting rectangular, light-colored, wood signs with routed letters (Photograph 31). 

Most trails and paths in the area have multi-colored stone edging that defines the trail edge 

(Photograph 45). 

Two hitching bars are located within the central building complex. The first is found south of 

the Pump Operator’s Residence and on the upper secondary trail. It consists of six narrow metal 

pipe posts supporting horizontal metal pipes (Photograph 46). The second hitching post is found 

in the courtyard in front of the Bunkhouse and consists of thick metal pipes and elbow joints 

(Photograph 28). A wood and metal picnic table is also located in this courtyard. A red 

windsock, on a metal pipe post, is attached to the stone wall adjacent to the Bunkhouse 

(Photograph 47). 

Features in front and to the north of the Ranger Residence include a metal flagpole with 

American flag, a wood and metal picnic table, and cylindrical wire mesh tree cages (Photograph 

30). 

Various types of utility structures are located throughout the area; some are above ground while 

others are flush with the ground. The sand filter beds are protected by a wire mesh fence 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 34 

(Photograph 37). The wire mesh is stretched between rough wood posts and a horizontal metal 

pipe attached to the top of the posts. A metal gate at the southwest corner of the fence provides 

access to the filter beds. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 35

Photograph 27. Wood deck and stone

walls defining a gathering space around

Pump Operator’s Residence.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 28. Courtyard with concrete

sidewalk, hitching bar. Relocated

Bunkhouse is in background.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 29. Backyard space south of

Ranger Residence.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 36

Photograph 30. Ranger Residence and

public front porch, flagpole, and picnic

table. Tree cage is at right.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 31. Formal spur trail to

buildings and Campground. Note wood

signage and fencing, as well as erosion

and drainage problems.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 32. Informal spur trail to

helispot.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 37

Photograph 33. Native vegetation in

planting beds.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 34. Pump Operator’s

Residence.

(History Matters 2002)

Photograph 35. Storage/Laundry/First

Aid Building.

(History Matters 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 38

Photograph 36. Trash Compactor Shed.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 37. Sand filter bed.

(History Matters 2002)

Photograph 38. Helispot.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 39

Photograph 39. Wooden stairs (typical).

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 40. Horseshoes court.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 41. Hose house, at right.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 40

Photograph 42. Drainfield (structure

underground).

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 43. View from

Administration Area to surrounding

canyon.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 44. View to north from

helispot, with buildings of Administration

Area below.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 41

Photograph 45. Stone edging, stone

walls, and wire mesh tree cages.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 46. Hitching bar and stone

wall.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 47. Windsock to rear of

Bunkhouse.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 42






Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 43 

Campground Area 

Refer to Sheets 17 through 19 at the end of this section. 

Historically, the Campground Area was located north of the gabion walls and SAR Cache. Due 

to heavy flooding and safety reasons, the campground was moved to its current location after 

1989. The existing campground is used to accommodate overnight campers who bring their own 

tents and equipment. 

Natural Systems and Features 

In 1989, the Campground Area was sited on relatively level ground located above the floodplain 

and south of the gabion walls. The camp sites were relocated from the Day Use Area due to 

flooding. For a more complete discussion of natural systems and features for Indian Garden as a 

whole, please refer to the Indian Garden Overview section of this chapter. 

Spatial Organization 

The Campground Area consists of clusters of public and semi-private areas centered around a 

public space. The area is defined by gabion walls to the north, increasingly steep slopes to the 

west, the entrance trail to the Administration and Campground Area to the south, and the Bright 

Angel Trail to the east. 

The semi-private camping areas are arranged along the linear, central spine of the campground 

trail (Photograph 48). Along this access trail, short spur trails lead east and west into the 

camping areas. These places of cleared earth are defined and separated by vegetation and stone 

edging or walls. Within the camping areas, seventeen shade shelters further divide spaces into 

individual camp sites. 

A central public space exists at the center of the Campground Area (Photograph 49). This 

gathering area consists of a bump-out along the eastern edge of the access trail. The space 

features seating, a kiosk, and a drinking fountain. A secondary public space, much smaller in 

size, contains a drinking fountain and is located near the northern edge of the Campground Area. 

Other public spaces exist around the comfort stations. The comfort stations are located upslope 

of the camping areas, one each on the north and south edges of the Campground Area. Each 

comfort station has a sort of “waiting area” for persons waiting to use the facilities. The south 

comfort station has a much more developed public space than the northern comfort station, 

composed of a curving stone wall and benches for seating as well as a stone water fountain and 

stone-edged planting beds (Photograph 50). 

Land Use 

The Campground Area and its associated facilities are used solely for visitor services. These 

services include recreation opportunities and accommodations for overnight campers. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 44 

Circulation 

In accordance with the spatial relationships discussed above, pedestrian circulation exists in a 

hierarchical form: a central trail forms the spine of the area while smaller spur trails head to 

camping areas and public spaces. 

The central trail, approximately four feet wide and edged with stone, is accessed from two 

locations (Photograph 51). The first entrance is a spur trail at the southern end of the 

Campground Area. This trail serves as the entry for both the Administration Area and the 

Campground Area, as well as leading to the south comfort station. The second entrance, actually 

part of the central trail, is located at the north end of the Campground Area and adjacent to the 

southern gabion wall. It is a less formal, somewhat obscure entry to the campground due to its 

narrow width and lack of stone-edge definition. 

Other spur trails, mostly edged with small stones and rocks, lead to the comfort stations and 

into camping areas (Photograph 52). Circulation within the camping sites is informal and 

undefined as the camp sites act more as gathering spaces than passageways. 

Vegetation 

Dense vegetation, consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, pervades the area creating a 

shady character more like a forest than the surrounding desert environment. It is in this character 

area where riparian community vegetation begins to supersede the desertscrub community of the 

Administration Area. 

According to a planting plan in the 1989 “As Constructed Drawings for Indian Garden” (Figure 

50 – Chapter II), transplanted native vegetation, such as netleaf hackberry, catclaw acacia, 

datil yucca, bear grass, prickly pear cactus, Colorado four-o’clock, and velvet ash, was installed 

in the character area. The plant schedule also specified that a seed mix be used over the northern 

portion of the site. It is not known what type of seed mix was specified or if it was used. 

The 1989 plans also called for an irrigation system, which was constructed. The system provides 

water to the plants and likely encourages the dense vegetation growth and resultant shady 

character of the area. 

Buildings and Structures 

Buildings and structures within the Campground Area consist of two comfort stations, seventeen 

shade structures, and a wayside. 

A four-stall comfort station (Bldg. #1413) stands at the crest of a rise on the south end of the 

campground (Photograph 50). Surrounded on three sides by wooden decking, the building 

exhibits a square footprint and a prow-front, gable roof form. The walls consist of plywood 

panels secured by wooden battens. Textured plastic windows line the north and south elevations, 

while three metal doors occupy the west wall. The 1980s comfort station, and its adjacent public 

space pre-date the 1989 development of the new public campground, although the exact 

construction date of the building is not currently known. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 45 

The 1987, frame comfort station (Bldg. #1440) is similar in design to the comfort station in the 

Pump Station and Corral Area (Photograph 53). The one-story, three-stall restroom building 

contains Clivus Multrum composting toilets and features a side gable, wood-shingled roof, 

plywood wall panels, and flush metal doors that open onto a ground-level, wood deck. Set into 

the hillside, the building also includes a lower-level shed extension and three exhaust stacks on 

the roof. 

The campground contains sixteen camp sites. Each site includes a single, metal-frame, 

rectangular shade structure (Bldgs. #1463-1480) that measures twelve and one-half feet by 

fourteen feet (Photograph 54). Each shade structure consists of four square metal posts that 

support a conventional, wood-rafter, gable roof that is clad with asphalt shingles. Camp site #3 

contains two shade structures, one in the design described above and the second in a larger size 

with six support beams measuring twelve and one-half feet by twenty feet. These shade 

structures were originally built to temporarily provide shade to campers until the vegetation grew 

large enough to perform the same task. Because they proved popular with campers, the structures 

have remained in place beyond their intended use. 

An information kiosk is located in the central node and consists of an asphalt-shingled gable 

roof supported by two sets of round posts at either end. Two glass cases, filled with educational 

and safety information, are suspended between the posts and below the roof (Photograph 49). 

Stone walls of various heights are located throughout the Campground Area (Photograph 55). A 

two to three-foot high dry-laid stone retaining wall is located around the public space of the 

south comfort station. Another dry-laid stone retaining wall, varying in height, is located along 

the western edge of the character area—stretching between camp site #14 and the north comfort 

station. The third dry-laid stone retaining wall in the character area is found along the west edge 

of camp site #15. 

Shorter stone retaining walls, approximately twelve to eighteen inches in height, edge many of 

the camp sites in the character area. These walls help to take up the grade of the sloping site and 

create level camp site floors. 

Views and Vistas 

As with most other areas in Indian Garden, views to surrounding canyon walls are spectacular. 

However, because of the dense vegetation in the Campground Area, internal views are 

foreshortened. This has the effect of increasing privacy between camping areas. Views into the 

area from Bright Angel Trail are also screened by dense vegetation. 

Small-scale Features 

Each camp site in the Campground Area contains its own set of similar small-scale features: 

picnic tables, camp site markers, ammunition boxes, and backpack bars (Photograph 54). Metal 

and wood picnic tables are located beneath each shade structure. The 1989 construction 

drawings identify these tables as a “Gametime No. 1337” and “No. MD766.” Camp site 

markers are short, round posts with beveled tops and white, routed numbers placed in the bevel 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 46 

(Photograph 52). Each camp site also comes equipped with an ammunition box used for storing 

food or other items that may attract wildlife. The dark green boxes appear to be military issue. 

Finally, a backpack bar is located at each site. These brown, metal, T-shaped bars have crossbar supports and squirrel baffles. The bars allow campers to hang backpacks in order to keep 

them dry and out of reach of wildlife. 

Two types of benches are located in the character area. The first is the “rustic” bench consisting 

of a simple horizontal plank supported by two shorter vertical planks. These benches are located 

near the south comfort station. The “contemporary” bench is located in the central space east 

of the information kiosk. These benches resemble typical wood-slat benches and have a wood 

seat and seatback attached to a metal frame. 

Stone edging consists of multi-colored canyon stone and defines trail edges and planting beds. 

Drinking fountains are located in the central public space and in the smaller public space 

(Photograph 56). They consist of a three-feet, three-inch tall square stone and mortar drinking 

fountain with an attached stone and mortar basin measuring three-feet-square. The basin is meant 

to catch excess water from the jug filler faucet attached to the fountain wall. 

Various utility and irrigation boxes are located throughout the area. Signage consists of log 

posts with finished and stained signs, similar to those located in other character areas throughout 

Indian Garden. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 47

Photograph 48. Semi-private camp sites.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 49. Central public space in

campground, with information kiosk,

bench, and drinking fountain.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 50. Public space at south

comfort station.

(History Matters 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 48

Photograph 51. Central campground

trail.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 52. Formal spur trail to

camping area (typical), with camp site

marker (visible in lower left corner).

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 53. Northern comfort 

station.

(History Matters 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 49

Photograph 54. Typical camp site with

shade structure and small-scale features

including picnic table, backpack bars,

and ammunition box.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 55. Stone walls west of

north comfort station.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 56. Drinking fountain.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 50






Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 51 

Day Use Area 

Refer to Sheets 20 through 22 at the end of this section. 

The Day Use Area includes the gabion walls, SAR Cache and Rock House, and the portion of 

land north of the SAR Cache and Rock House in the 100-year floodplain of Garden Creek. This 

character area includes riparian vegetation interspersed with clusters of small-scale features such 

as picnic tables, benches, drinking fountains, and stone edging. These clusters are connected 

across the dense, swampy patches of vegetation via narrow, informal paths, some of which are 

elevated within the wet areas by a single line of large stones and logs. 

Natural Systems and Features 

In the Day Use Area, Garden Creek’s 100-year floodplain begins just north of the gabion 

walls. Here, vegetation growth has formed a wet area in the landscape between the Caretaker’s 

Residence and Mule Barn and Corral. At one time, narrow canals were dug throughout the area 

to collect water and keep the seating areas dry. Currently, the canals have not been maintained in 

order to preserve a wet habitat for the ambersnail. 

Spatial Organization 

The largest portion of the Day Use Area is comprised of overgrown picnic grounds, forming a 

dense and relatively uniform space that was open at one time (Photograph 57). A cleared area

below the Trailside Shelter, east of Garden Creek, is one of the few open spaces in the Day Use 

Area. A level terrace of cleared, hard-packed earth, constructed between the SAR Cache and 

Rock House, sets these buildings apart from the picnic grounds to their north. 

Land Use 

The Day Use Area has been used for recreation, but its use is currently limited for two reasons: 

to protect what was once thought to be a Kanab ambersnail habitat and due to inadequate site 

maintenance. Active uses include emergency services provided at the SAR Cache and storage 

provided at the Rock House.

Circulation 

An informal spur trail forks north from the Bright Angel Trail at its junction with Garden Creek 

to run east of the SAR Cache (Photograph 58). This trail leads into the former picnic grounds. 

Once in the picnic grounds, this trail splits into different directions, forming a network of trails 

that weave throughout the grounds and terminate near the Mule Barn. These earthen, un-edged 

trails frequently pass through locations that are inundated with water in wet weather. In some 

places, stones and logs have been laid along the path as stepping stones. Concrete sidewalks

access the SAR Cache entrances (Photograph 59). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 52 

Vegetation 

Riparian community vegetation, including reeds, grasses, and other species that thrive in the 

wet environment, dominates the Day Use Area. This vegetation is very dense and overgrown, 

with some plants reaching heights of six to ten feet, and impedes use of the picnic grounds by 

visitors (Photograph 60). Please refer to the Indian Garden Overview for a more detailed 

discussion of riparian community vegetation. 

Rows of large cottonwood trees are present within the Day Use Area. Some of these are in 

decline—displaying dieback and missing limbs (Photograph 61). Stumps appear where trees 

have been cut down in recent years. A large cottonwood tree is growing out of the terrace 

between the SAR Cache and Rock House. A single peach tree of unknown origin grows just 

north of the SAR Cache. 

Buildings and Structures 

Built by the NPS in 1932, the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence (Bldg. #0093) is the oldest 

standing NPS building at Indian Garden (Photograph 62). The one-story, frame and stone 

residence displays characteristic design features of the NPS Rustic style. Distinguishing features 

include tapered, random-rubble stone piers that adorn the northeast and southeast corners of the 

building. The northwest and southwest corner piers were removed around 1960 when a tworoom addition was built. The stone piers support an external-frame structure with inset vertical 

board walls. The exposed frame consists of vertical supports and diagonal braces at the corners. 

Set atop a continuous, random-rubble stone foundation, the building also features an interior 

stone chimney, cut-stone stairs that lead to the main entrance, and a front gable, asphalt-shingled 

roof. The distinctive roofline features exposed rafter tails in its wide, overhanging eaves and 

chamfered roof purlin ends that project at the front and rear gables. The main entrance occupies 

the north façade of the Residence and contains a single-leaf, vertical board door with a paneland-screen outer door. The windows on the original residence consist of four-light, wood 

awning-type sash grouped together in sets of three. 

In 1960, according to a 2001 Historic Structures Report, the NPS remodeled the Caretaker’s 

Residence by adding a one-story, board-and-batten clad, frame addition to the west elevation of 

the original residence. The addition sits on a continuous, random-rubble, stone foundation, and is 

sheltered by a gable roof. The windows consist of both paired and single, three-light, wood 

casements. A single-leaf, paneled wood door, and a wooden, louvered gable vent occupies the 

west façade of the addition. 

In 1943, the Fred Harvey Company constructed the Pump Caretaker’s Residence (Bldg. 

#0018), also known as the Rock House, at Indian Garden as part of their development of Garden 

Creek as a water source for their tourist facilities on the South Rim (Photograph 63). The 

residence replaced a 1936 residence—a one-story, external frame structure set on a raised stone 

foundation which burned in 1942. The next year, the current residence was built in stone at the 

same location. The 1943 masonry building reused portions of the original foundation and steps. 

The one-story, front gable residence displays a rectangular plan with a small projecting bay on 

its east elevation. The front gable roof features wide, overhanging eaves, exposed rafters, and 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 53 

diamond-shaped, asbestos-shingle cladding. The building’s entrance occupies the north gable 

end and consists of a single-leaf, paneled, wood door with an outer screened door. The windows 

have been replaced with paired, one-light metal casement windows. 

A frame shed structure, located approximately fifty feet southwest of the Rock House, contains 

an NPS Air Quality Monitoring Station (Photograph 64). It is a simple, post-and-beam wood 

frame structure covered by an asphalt-shingled, gable roof. The southern elevation of the 

structure is enclosed with plywood, while the northern elevation is open. Equipment boxes line 

the interior and four antennae extend above the roof. A hinged plywood door covers the east 

gable end of the structure. The construction date for the weather station is not known. However, 

1988 plans indicate that the station was formerly located directly behind the Pump Caretaker’s 

Residence. The structure was relocated and rebuilt around 1995. 

Two long, parallel, gabion walls are located to the south of the SAR Cache and Rock House 

buildings (Photograph 65). These walls, thought to be built by the Army Corps of Engineers in 

the late 1960s, consist of metal mesh gabion baskets filled with canyon stone and stacked two 

high to reach a height of six feet and a width of three feet. The walls help to channel flash floods 

down the wash and prevent flooding in the Day Use and Campground Areas.

Just north of the junction of Garden Creek and Bright Angel Trail, and east of the SAR Cache, 

Garden Creek has been channelized with rocks set into mortar (Photograph 66). The result is a 

more stable creek bed that resists wash-outs and can therefore prevent flood damage. 

A concrete footbridge abutment, part of the former footbridge used to cross Garden Creek, is 

located in the Day Use Area—to the west of the creek (Photograph 67). A small concrete 

foundation of unknown origin is located in the small clearing in the northwestern corner of the 

Day Use Area (Photograph 68). 

North of the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence and Pump Caretaker’s Residence/Rock House is 

a three feet high, rubble stone retaining wall separating the terrace from the former picnic 

grounds (Photograph 69). Stone steps lead up from the picnic grounds to the buildings 

(Photograph 59). A utility pole is located west of the Rock House (Photograph 70). The pole 

was intended for the installation of a public pay phone, which was never installed due to the 

limitations of the old phone system. 

Views and Vistas 

Scenic views, near or distant, are not available from within the Day Use Area due to the 

abundance of riparian vegetation. 

Small-scale Features 

Rock edging occurs in the Day Use Area, where groupings of picnic tables on level ground are 

surrounded by stones. The stones appear to have been originally set on a linear alignment, but 

have shifted and/or are overgrown (Photograph 71). Similar stone edging is also used on the 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 54 

terrace between the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence and Pump Caretaker’s Residence/Rock 

House to define planting beds. 

Signage in the area is typical of that found throughout Indian Garden, having rough wood posts 

with milled and stained signs displaying routed letters. 

Stepping stones, spaced two to three feet apart, are placed along the alignment of a frequently 

flooded path near the former bridge site. They may have been introduced recently and allow 

access to the Day Use Area when the surrounding ground is too wet to walk upon. 

Many wooden benches are scattered throughout the Day Use Area (Photograph 72). Just below 

the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence and Pump Caretaker’s Residence/Rock House are two

wooden benches of varying construction. The contemporary-styled “contemporary” bench

consists of long, square wood posts whose seat back and seat are joined by two thick metal 

brackets. The “rustic” bench, possibly of earlier construction date, is constructed of two flat, 

wood planks forming the seat back and seat and attached to round wood post frame. Continuous 

bench seating is located on the terrace (Photograph 73). It consists of one continuous bench 

running the length of the terrace between the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence and Pump 

Caretaker’s Residence/Rock House. The wood bench is supported by at least eight short, square, 

stone pillars at a height of approximately eighteen inches. 

Located at the west edge of the Day Use Area, on the edge of the hillside, is an electrical 

distribution box, six feet tall by four feet wide by two feet deep of gray-painted metal 

(Photograph 74). 

Drinking fountains in the Day Use Area are typical of those throughout the entire site: they are 

of stone construction with metal fixtures, including a lower spigot for filling bottles and an upper 

spigot for drinking. Two drinking fountains exist in this character area: one just north of the SAR 

Cache/Caretaker’s Residence, and a second within the overgrown portion of the Day Use Area 

(Photograph 72). Many picnic tables are scattered throughout the Day Use Area (Photographs 

68 and 71). 

To the west of the Rock House/Pump Caretaker’s Residence, a rectangular garden plot is 

enclosed by a wood and wire mesh fence (Photograph 75). The wood post-and-rail fence has an 

attached wire mesh component to prevent wildlife from damaging the garden. A section of PVC 

pipe juts out of the trail to the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence from Bright Angel Trail 

(Photograph 76).16 The pipe was installed in 1987 as part of the campground irrigation system.

 

16 The pipe was removed in 2004 after a flash flood severely damaged the dirt bank covering the pipe, as well as an 

adjacent section of trail. The pipe was uncovered, removed, and the dirt bank and trail replaced. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 55

Photograph 57. View of picnic areas

within wet area. Note cottonwood trees in

background and cleared area in foreground. 

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 58. Spur trail east of

Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 59. Stone steps, concrete

sidewalk at Caretaker’s Residence/SAR

Cache.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 56

Photograph 60. Cottonwoods with

dieback. Dense groundcover of riparian

vegetation below.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 61. Remains of large 

cottonwood near Caretaker’s

Residence/SAR Cache.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 62. Caretaker’s

Residence/SAR Cache, 1932.

(History Matters 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 57

Photograph 63. Rock House (former

Pump Caretaker’s Residence), 1943, with

seating bench area in foreground.

(History Matters 2002)

Photograph 64. Air Quality Monitoring

Station.

(History Matters 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 58

Photograph 65. Gabion walls.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 66. Channelized section of

Garden Creek.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 67. Concrete footbridge

abutment on trail in picnic area.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 59

Photograph 68. Concrete foundation and

picnic table.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 69. Stone retaining wall.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 70. Utility pole west of

Rock House/Pump Caretaker’s

Residence, center.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 60

Photograph 71. Rough stone edging,

picnic tables, and bench in picnic area.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 72. Benches and drinking

fountain on edge of picnic area, just north

of Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache.

Contemporary bench is shown front left

and rustic bench is shown rear left.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 73. Wood bench seating on

terrace.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 61

Photograph 74. Electrical distribution

utility box.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 75. Wood and wire mesh

fence west of Rock House/Pump

Caretaker’s Residence.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 62

Photograph 76. PVC pipe along trail.

The pipe was removed in 2004.

(JMA 2002)






Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 63 

Pump Station and Corral Area 

Refer to Sheets 23 through 26 at the end of this section. 

The Pump Station and Corral Area includes the North and South Pump Houses, Reservoir, 

associated trails, paths and walls, as well as the adjacent electrical substation. A spring and a 

helispot are located on the hill just above—south and east of—the South Pump Station. To the 

west, the character area also includes the Mule Barn and Corral, hitching area, nearby benches 

and visitor rest area. 

Natural Systems and Features 

A perennial spring is located on the hillside above the Pump Station, marked by a clump of 

cottonwood trees in a small declivity (Photograph 77). 

Garden Creek passes to the west of the Mule Barn in this character area. Typical of the 

surrounding landscape, stormwater runoff has formed rocky dry washes on the steep slope that 

forms the southern boundary of the character area. 

Spatial Organization 

A visitor rest area with benches, a kiosk, and drinking fountain is a major space within the 

Pump Station and Corral Area (Photograph 78). Defined on one side by a retaining wall, the rest 

area is edged on the east and north by the Mule Barn facilities. The Mule Barn facility includes 

the barn, corrals, and clearing with hitching bars and water troughs. North of these spaces, the 

Pump Station node includes the two pump houses, the open hillside and circulation leading to 

the reservoir tank above, and the substation adjacent to the buildings (Photograph 79). On the 

hillside above, the circular helispot and its trail corridor form a fourth space within the character 

area (Photograph 80). 

Land Use 

This character area fulfills numerous land uses in Indian Garden, including recreation, visitor 

services, utilities, and livestock care. 

Circulation 

Circulation in this character area is comprised of formal trails defined with stone edging, 

informal spur trails of narrow width and no edging, and open circulation patterns where no 

distinct routes exist. 

A formal stone-edged trail leads from the Bright Angel Trail up to the helispot. It becomes 

much more simple as it picks up again east of the helispot to continue north to the South Pump 

House (Photograph 81). To the north of this trail, a ramp-like trail, also with a packed-earth 

tread and lined with stone, leads from Bright Angel Trail to a comfort station west of the pump 

houses (Photograph 82). Another packed-earth, stone-edged trail passes to the south of the 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 64 

Mule Barn from Bright Angel Trail. A short stretch of poured concrete sidewalk runs along the 

western edge of the pump house complex (Photograph 83). 

Informal spur trails weave through the character area, around the Mule Barn, and head west into 

the Day Use Area. These trails are not edged with stone. The remainder of the circulation 

patterns in the character area are loose and informal, particularly in the visitor rest area, where 

hikers and mule riders are free to choose their own path between destinations. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation in the Pump Station and Corral Area is similar to that found elsewhere in Indian 

Garden, with riparian community vegetation occurring in the lower elevations, particularly 

along Garden Creek, and desertscrub vegetation growing on the slopes rising up to the south 

and east. Refer to the Indian Garden Overview section at the beginning of this chapter for a more 

complete discussion of these two vegetation communities as they relate to Indian Garden. 

Cottonwood trees, possibly remnants of Ralph Cameron-era occupation, are located in the 

character area. Most notable are three large cottonwoods that line the trail and shade the southern 

portion of the visitor rest area (Photograph 84). 

A redbud tree is located adjacent to the mule hitching area. The tree is surrounded by fencing 

and benches, which afford the tree some level of protection from damage by mules and visitors 

(Photograph 85). 

Buildings and Structures 

Completed in 1967, although not operating until 1970, the North Pump House (Bldg. #484) was 

built as part of the trans-canyon water line that brought water from Roaring Springs, below the 

North Rim, to supply the South Rim’s Grand Canyon Village (Photograph 83). The original 

1967 design resulted in the building being clad in a stucco finish; stone veneer was added in the 

1980s to isolate noise from the pumps. 

The one-story stone North Pump House displays the same box-like form as the earlier pump 

house with a low-sloped roof concealed by a stone and concrete parapet, and a double-leaf, flush 

metal door on its south façade. While the North Pump House now features exterior stone 

cladding, the character of the stone differs significantly from that of the earlier pump house, due 

to the contractor’s inability to match the 1932 craftsmanship that was required in the project bid 

documents. The stone veneer of the North Pump House was applied so that the rubble formed a 

flat, almost uniform surface that is visually distinct from the deep shadow lines of the 1932 

South Pump House. Additionally, only three sides of the North Pump House are fully clad in 

stone. The east elevation is clad in the original 1967 beige stucco. 

Erected in 1932 by the Fred Harvey Company and the Atcheson, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad 

Company (Santa Fe Railroad), the South Pump House (Bldg. #IGB0031) pumped water from 

Garden Creek to supply the Grand Canyon Village on the South Rim (Photograph 86). This was 

the South Rim’s first inner canyon water source. The stone pump house displays features of the 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 65 

Rustic style. Its random-rubble, stone walls help to blend the building into its surroundings. 

Located at the base of a slope, the one-story building features a box form, a three-bay south 

elevation, and a low-sloping roof that is protected by a stone parapet. Several large mechanical 

units occupy the roof. A single-leaf, flush metal door occupies the south façade. A transom—infilled with shiplapped boards—crowns the entry. In-filled, single window openings flank the 

entrance. 

Located adjacent to and just above the South Pump House, the 1932 Pump House Reservoir

(Bldg. #0032)—also known as the Water Storage Tank and the Sedimentation Tank—is a 

circular, stone structure with a diameter of approximately thirty-three feet (Photographs 87). The 

reservoir is set into the slope, so that its north end consists of a twelve-feet tall, random-rubble 

retaining wall. At its south end, where the structure meets the hill, the structure is only one foot 

tall. The tank has a slightly-domed concrete cap protected by a stone parapet. 

The 1989 stone-clad Mule Barn (Building #1461) stands in an earthen clearing at the 

intersection of the Bright Angel and Plateau Point Trails (Photograph 88). Designed in the NPS 

Rustic Revival architectural style, the building features random-rubble, stone cladding, boardand-batten wall sections, wide overhanging eaves, and wooden roof brackets. Brown asphalt 

shingles clad the gable roof. The Mule Barn is divided into two sections; one-third of the 

building consists of an enclosed, stone-clad office and storage area. The office is entered through 

a single-leaf, panel-and-light, metal door. The gable-end windows consist of grouped, eight-light 

wood casements. The remaining two-thirds of the building consists of an open-sided livestock 

shelter with feeding troughs. The open section is supported on rustic tapered stone piers. A 

fenced corral extends off the west end of the building (Photograph 89). 

A six-stall comfort station (Building #1439) stands on a hill east of the Bright Angel Trail, near 

the visitor rest area (Photograph 90). Built in 1987, the simple frame structure consists of a onestory, side gable building set into the hillside. Six flush metal doors open off the building’s south 

façade onto a four-feet wide, ground-level, wood deck. With its wood shingle roof and plywoodbattened walls, the design uses natural materials to integrate the building into the landscape. The 

comfort station is equipped with six Clivus Multrum-type composting toilets. A one-story, 

lower-level, shed extension provides storage. Five exhaust stacks extend above the roof. 

An electrical substation enclosed by chain-link fencing stands behind the south pump house on 

its north elevation. This area is generally out of the view of visitors; the high-voltage transformer 

area is surrounded by a ten-feet-high chain-link fence topped with razor wire. The footing of the 

fence is a low stone wall. 

A wooden, roofed information kiosk is located in the visitor rest area (Photograph 78). It is 

similar to the kiosk found in the Campground Area. A small concrete cistern structure is located 

at the perennial spring site above the Pump Station (Photograph 91). 

Modification to the landform is particularly visible in the visitor rest area. This area is comprised 

of shallow, leveled terraces that are edged to the east by retaining walls, reflecting a cut into the 

natural slope of the hillside (Photograph 78). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 66 

A stone retaining wall runs along the path to the comfort station. Another, double-height, 

terraced stone retaining wall runs along the uphill (west) side of the adjacent visitor rest area. It 

is comprised of two three to four-feet-high walls, one on top of another, with a narrow level step 

between them (Photograph 92). Stone-edged steps with earthen treads lead from the Bright 

Angel Trail to the ramp-like comfort station trail. 

Views and Vistas 

Views to the surrounding scenery and to the larger Grand Canyon are available (Photograph 

93). Internal views are of little significance in comparison to distant views of the Canyon and 

canyon walls. Views within and adjacent to the area consist of vegetation, buildings, and 

structures. 

Small-scale Features 

The helispot above the Pump Station complex is comprised of leveled ground with stone edging. 

Boulder and log edging are utilized as edging along the north side of the mule hitching area, 

blocking access to the low-lying floodplain (Photograph 93). 

At the helispot, a small wooden cabinet on two posts contains helicopter landing equipment, 

such as earphones and directing wands (Photograph 94). A windsock and a radar dish are 

adjacent. A standing electrical hookup and a “No Hiking” sign are also located along the path 

to the helispot. 

Several types of fence are located in this character area. Brown-painted metal pipe rail fencing

forms the two mule corrals. In addition, wooden post-and-rail fencing surrounds part of the 

corral and edges the paths around the Mule Barn, as well as encircling part of a tree near the 

hitching bars. Chain-link fencing, topped with razor wire and woven with plastic strips for 

screening purposes, surrounds the substation. A wooden gate blocks access to storage between 

the pump houses (Photograph 95). 

In the corral are two wooden troughs with metal edging, which, according to Ranger Chuck 

Sypher, were salvaged from the original mule barn site (Photograph 89). A third, metal trough 

appears to hold water. Large metal water troughs on stone piers with a hose connection 

(Photograph 96) and three metal pipe hitching bars are located outside the corral, in a clearing 

east of the Mule Barn (Photograph 97). 

There are many wooden benches in this character area. Numerous wooden “contemporary”

benches with backs line the edge of the visitor rest area (Photograph 92). Near the hitching bars, 

three backless “rustic” wooden benches are arranged in a semicircle around the trunk of a 

redbud tree (Photograph 85). 

The drinking fountain in the Pump Station and Corral Area is typical of those found throughout 

the project area. It is of stone construction with metal fixtures, including a lower spigot for filling 

bottles and an upper spigot for drinking (Photograph 92). This fountain is found among the level 

ground in the visitor rest area and is not fully functional, missing its drinking spigot. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 67 

The sole interpretive wayside at Indian Garden is located along the Bright Angel Trail, at the 

corner of the North Pump Station (Photograph 98). Framed by two small redbud trees, the 

wayside explains the function of the trans-canyon water system and the role of the Indian Garden 

Pump Station. 

Signage is present throughout the Day Use Area, particularly along the trails (Photograph 84). 

As with other signage typical of Indian Garden, small wooden placards with engraved directional 

or regulatory messages are affixed to rough wooden posts about three feet tall. 

Utility structures are located in several places within the Day Use Area, indicating the presence 

of electrical, telephone, and water systems. Several such structures are visible near the Pump 

Station (Photograph 99). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 68

Photograph 77. Spring, surrounded by

vegetation, with cottonwood trees in

background.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 78. Visitor rest area.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 79. Pump Station node,

viewed from above.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 69

Photograph 80. Helispot.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 81. Informal earthen path to

top of reservoir.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 70

Photograph 82. Ramp-like trail to 

comfort station, with stone retaining wall

and edging.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 83. North Pump House,

1967, with concrete sidewalk.

(History Matters 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 71

Photograph 84. Cottonwood trees near

visitor rest area along log-edged earthen

steps in trail. Note wood directional sign

on right.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 85. Redbud shade tree with

benches at mule hitching area.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 72

Photograph 86. South Pump House,

1932.

(History Matters 2002)

Photograph 87. Pump House Reservoir,

1932.

(History Matters 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 73

Photograph 88. Mule Barn, 1989.

(History Matters 2002)

Photograph 89. Corral with wooden

troughs.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 74

Photograph 90. Comfort station, 1987.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 91. Concrete cistern located

at site of perennial spring.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 92. Stone retaining wall in

background, with benches and drinking

fountain.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 75

Photograph 93. Boulder and log 

edging, at right, at hitching area.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 94. Wooden cabinet and

stone edging near helispot.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 76

Photograph 95. Wood gate between

pump houses.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 96. Water trough at mule

hitching area.

(History Matters 2002)

Photograph 97. Mule hitching bars.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 77

Photograph 98. Interpretive wayside at

North Pump House.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 99. Utility structures.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 78








Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 79 

North Indian Garden Area 

Refer to Sheets 27 and 28 at the end of this section. 

This character area, as defined by this report, was once the site of Ralph Cameron’s tourism 

facilities, between 1903 and 1924. According to historic photos, Cameron and his staff built 

tents, irrigated gardens, constructed a pond, and developed other features within this section of 

Indian Garden (See Figures 5 through 10 – Chapter II). Development moved southward when 

the NPS took over the land from Cameron in the mid-1920s. 

North of the current Indian Garden developed areas are outlying sites comprised of remnants and 

ruins from the Ralph Cameron era. These include the rock cache (or Cooler) and tent platform 

sites; the 1932 Rehandling Pump House and protective walls; the Kolb Studio site; and the level 

plinth with possible Cameron-era stone and debris in the Garden Creek floodplain north of the 

North Pump House. 

Natural Systems and Features 

Much of the North Indian Garden Area rests within the floodplain of Garden Creek. Particularly 

along the northern portion of Garden Creek throughout the North Indian Garden Area, the 

banks of the creek appear scoured and eroded in places, with deep cuts into previously deposited 

sediment. In this character area, Garden Creek is somewhat broader and deeper than in the areas 

upstream to the south (Photograph 100 and 101). Dry, stony washes exist where runoff rushes 

down the steep eastern and western slopes into Garden Creek during storms. 

Spatial Organization 

A central space is formed by a section of floodplain that has been cleared of vegetation; 

remnants of stone structures are visible along Garden Creek in this space (Photograph 102). 

Rising to the east is a steep hillside with an open vegetative character and several ruined 

structures described in the Indian Garden Overview located earlier in this chapter, under the 

heading “Archeological Sites.” A cleared space surrounded by dense vegetation is located near 

the deteriorated Rehandling Pump House. 

Land Use 

Currently, most of this character area is not in use. The sole features that are actively in use are 

the trails described in the Circulation section below, providing transportation and recreation 

opportunities for hikers. 

Circulation 

The Bright Angel Trail Corridor overlaps with the North Indian Garden Area in the northernmost 

portion of Indian Garden. This northern segment of the Bright Angel Trail, as described in a 

previous section, runs between the tent platform and rock cache ruins and the majority of the 

character area. This trail continues past the Indian Garden boundary, as defined by this report, to 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 80 

continue down to the Colorado River. Please refer to the Bright Angel Trail Corridor character 

area description for a more complete discussion regarding the Bright Angel Trail and its 

associated features. 

The Tonto East Trail forks off to the east from the northern segment of the Bright Angel Trail 

(Photograph 103). Marked by a small wooden sign, the trail is a two-feet-wide backcountry trail 

without water bars, major grading, or steps within the Indian Garden project area boundary. The 

Tonto East Trail continues past the boundary and connects to the South Kaibab Trail. 

The Plateau Point Trail is a three to five-foot-wide earthen trail with water bars and minimal 

grading, as it runs on relatively level ground to the west and north of Indian Garden. North of the 

project area, the Tonto Trail West splits from the trail. The Plateau Point Trail originates at the 

edge of the current developed area, just to the north and west of the Mule Barn. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation in the North Indian Garden Area is similar to that found elsewhere in Indian Garden, 

with riparian species occurring in the lower areas and blackbrush vegetation on the slopes rising 

up to the east. A more complete discussion regarding vegetation is located in the Indian Garden 

Overview section earlier in this chapter. 

Rows of cottonwood trees in the Day Use Area form discernible rows in the floodplain where 

Ralph Cameron-era cabins may once have stood (Photograph 104). 

Himalaya blackberry, an invasive species described in the Indian Garden Overview at the 

beginning of this chapter, is present in this character area. A large cleared space, where the 

blackberry was removed in recent years, encompasses visible stone remnants and debris piles in 

the North Indian Garden Area (Photograph 102). Blackberry shoots have begun to sprout again 

in this location. 

Buildings and Structures 

Located approximately one quarter mile north of the existing Pump Station, on Garden Creek, 

the 1932 Rehandling Pump House was built as part of the Santa Fe Railroad and the Fred 

Harvey Company’s Indian Garden Water Pumping Station (Photograph 105). The system 

originally operated on a two-stage pumping process, whereby water was pumped out of Garden 

Creek from this building and sent through underground pipes up to the South Pump House 

Reservoir, located east of the current Mule Barn. 

The one-story, stone Rehandling Pump House building once stood on the west bank of Garden 

Creek, but due to seasonal flooding and erosion, the building now sits within the stream bed. At 

an unknown date, a series of substantial stone-and-concrete walls were erected to protect the 

pump house from flood damage. The building is now in a deteriorated, abandoned state and silt 

has begun to fill the interior. Although significant damage has occurred, at present, the external 

walls and roof structure of the building appear to be stable. The date of abandonment is 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 81 

unknown, but likely coincides with the construction of the trans-canyon water system between 

1967 and 1970. 

The Rehandling Pump House consists of a one-story, random-rubble stone building that 

measures approximately twelve feet on each side. The building features a flat, parapeted roof; 

factory-style, pivoting, metal windows on the north and east elevations; and a badly deteriorated, 

flush, metal door topped by a six-light transom. The building retains its historic hardware and 

electrical connection on the west elevation. The interior is stuccoed and remnants of the pumping 

equipment remain buried in the four-feet-deep sediment that now fills the building. 

The surrounding stone-and-concrete flood walls form a semi-circle around the pump house 

(Photograph 106). They measure approximately five to six feet thick, and range from two feet to 

eight feet in height. 

Remnants of Cameron-era structures are located in this character area. The rock cache (or 

Cooler) (Photograph 6), drill hole, and tent platform (Photograph 7) are considered 

archeological sites, as well as structures, and have been previously described in the Indian 

Garden Overview section located in the beginning if this chapter. 

Views and Vistas 

In this character area, the Bright Angel Fault begins to open into the larger canyon, providing 

more encompassing and broader views to the surrounding canyon. Although these views are 

not available from the more vegetated areas along the creek, they are afforded at the open, 

upland areas such as the slope by the tent platform and rock cache; the Tonto East and Plateau 

Point Trails; and along some portions of the Bright Angel Trail (Photograph 107). 

Small-scale Features 

No small-scale features were observed in this character area. 

Archeological Sites 

Possible Cameron-era remnants include stone edging around level ground (Photograph 108). 

Debris piles, including metal cans, a wheelbarrow, and other discarded items, are also found 

within the Garden Creek floodplain (Photograph 109). 

The site of the former Kolb Studio at Indian Garden is located at the northern end of the project 

area along Garden Creek just below the Bright Angel Trail (Photograph 110). While no 

structural remnants are evident on the surface, the site is marked by a densely vegetated 

depression on the north side of a boulder. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 82

Photograph 100. Garden Creek with

eroded bank and seep willows.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 101. Garden Creek through

North Indian Garden Area.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 102. Cleared area of floodplain, with piles of stone and Himalaya

blackberry slash.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 83

Photograph 103. Tonto East Trail forking off to right (east) from Bright Angel

Trail.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 104. Cottonwood trees in

rows.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 105. Rehandling Pump

House, 1932.

(History Matters 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 84

Photograph 106. Flood walls around

Rehandling Pump House.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 107. View to south and surrounding canyon walls from North Indian

Garden Area.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 85

Photograph 108. Stone edging around

level ground.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 109. Debris pile with wheelbarrow.

(JMA 2002)

Photograph 110. Site of former Kolb

Studio.

(JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 86




Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 87 

Condition Assessments 

Introduction 

This condition assessment describes the physical condition of landscape features within Indian 

Garden using standards established by the NPS in such texts as the Resources Management Plan 

Guideline and A Guide To Cultural Landscape Reports. These texts establish four standards for 

defining the condition of cultural landscape features: Good, Fair, Poor, and Unknown. These 

standards are described as follows: 

Good – indicates the cultural landscape shows no clear evidence of 

major negative disturbances and deterioration by natural and/or 

human forces. The cultural landscape’s historical and natural 

values are as well preserved as can be expected under the given 

environmental conditions. No immediate action is required. 

Fair – indicates the cultural landscape shows clear evidence of 

minor disturbances and deterioration by natural and/or human 

forces, and some degree of corrective action is needed within three 

to five years to prevent further harm. If the current condition is not 

corrected, the landscape will deteriorate into a poor condition. 

Poor – indicates the cultural landscape shows clear evidence of 

major disturbance and rapid deterioration by natural and/or human 

forces. Immediate corrective action is required to protect and 

preserve the remaining historical and natural areas. 

Unknown – indicates that not enough information is available to 

make an evaluation. 

This section of the Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) discusses character areas and inventoried 

features which have a Fair, Poor, or Unknown assessment. For each area or feature, a rationale is 

given for its rating. Features that are assessed in good condition are not described in detail 

because they require no immediate attention. A complete listing of inventoried features and their 

condition is located in the appendix to this report. 

Project Area-wide Condition Assessment 

As a whole, the portions of Indian Garden that were rehabilitated or developed in 1989 are in 

good condition. This assessment applies to the Bright Angel Trail Corridor, the Administration 

Area, and the Pump Station and Corral Area, where development is relatively new and somewhat 

protected from flooding. Individual features within these character areas, however, show 

evidence of minor disturbances and deterioration, such as malfunctioning drinking fountains, 

eroded trail surfaces, stone edging that is becoming covered with earth, and similar occurrences 

that require some degree of corrective action. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 88 

The remaining landscape, comprised of the Day Use Area and North Indian Garden Area, is in 

poor condition. These two character areas exhibit clear evidence of major disturbances and rapid 

deterioration, including flood damage to Garden Creek and the surrounding landscape, declining 

and potentially hazardous cottonwood trees, unprotected historic ruins, and spaces obscured by 

overgrown riparian vegetation. In these character areas—and throughout the project area—all 

efforts should be made to repair, protect, or stabilize features assessed in poor condition to 

prevent further decline or loss of historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Bright Angel Trail Corridor 

The Bright Angel Trail Corridor is generally in fair condition, although certain features can be 

classified as poor. Features that are in fair and poor condition are described below. During 

fieldwork in September of 2003, the CLR team observed that the Corridor was primarily in fair 

condition owing to several minor disturbances related to frequent mule and pedestrian traffic and 

erosion of the trail tread, trampling and vandalism of surrounding vegetation by visitors, and 

general “wear-and-tear” of features over time. In general, however, these disturbances and 

evidences of deterioration do not require immediate attention to avoid loss or destruction of 

important resources. 

Features that are considered to be in poor condition are the junction of the Bright Angel Trail 

and Garden Creek, which has experienced much flood-related damage, and the cottonwood trees 

which may be nearing the end of their life cycles—typically no more than 130 years—and are 

exhibiting decay and decline.17 

Fair Condition 

Garden Creek 

• Flooding is eroding away the creek banks and under-cutting the side slopes. 

Bright Angel Trail 

• Erosion and heavy usage by pedestrians and mule trains results in a rocky and rutted trail 

surface. During wet weather, excessive puddling occurs on the trail and behind the water 

bars. 

Spur trails – informal 

• Pedestrian use of these unauthorized trails is causing cumulative, but not immediate, 

damage to the surrounding vegetation. Because they are unofficial trails, not edged in 

stone, visitors are more apt to wander off the path, trampling vegetation and surrounding 

resources. 

 

17 United States Department of Agriculture, “Fire Effects Information System,” U.S. Forest Service Homepage: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/popfre/botanical_and_ecological_characteristics.html (accessed 3 

October 2003). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 89 

Edge-defining vegetation 

• Visitors accidentally come into contact with the plantings or intentionally vandalize the 

border vegetation. During fieldwork, the CLR team observed prickly pear cactus that was 

etched with initials or purposely torn. 

Redbud tree 

• The redbud tree shows dieback in the tree crown. The CLR team was also unable to 

determine how well the tree was rooted into the boulder. 

Stone steps to Trailside Shelter 

• The step surfaces are fractured and stone rubble has accumulated on the treads. 

Stone edging 

• Throughout the character area, sections of stone edging along the trail are partially 

covered with earth, giving the appearance that they have sunken below the trail tread. 

Stones have also rolled into the middle of the trail or are missing from the edging 

alignment. 

Log risers and stone water bars 

• The water bars along the trail are being undercut by erosion, both from behind and 

beneath; many have become obstacles or trip hazards in the trail, rather than erosioncontrolling devices. 

Poor Condition 

Junction of Bright Angel Trail and Garden Creek 

• At this intersection, the trail is heavily eroded, due to frequent flooding of Garden Creek. 

An undercut slope may be hazardous to visitors, as rocks may fall upon pedestrians or 

mule riders, or the slope could eventually collapse. The condition of the space gives it a 

somewhat abandoned feeling; it is also unclear if visitors continue to use this space for 

any activity such as gathering or mule-hitching. 

Cottonwood trees 

• Many cottonwood trees have reached maturity and are in decline. Most trees exhibit 

heavy crown dieback, where sections of the upper limbs and leafy material have died. 

Administration Area 

The Administration Area is primarily in good condition, overall, with few features in need of 

corrective action and most showing no clear evidence of negative disturbances or deterioration. 

The character area’s “good” assessment is likely due to its relatively new construction, its 

limited use by the public, its protection from flooding, and its almost full-time occupation by 

NPS personnel such as rangers and trail crews. Although this area is considered to be in good 

condition overall, the few features in deteriorated or unknown conditions are described below. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 90 

Fair Condition 

Stone edging 

• Throughout the character area, vegetation is growing over and between individual stones 

thus obscuring the edging from view. 

Horseshoes court 

• The court is poorly demarcated, while the upright stakes pose a tripping hazard. 

Vegetation is encroaching upon the court’s edges. 

Unknown Condition 

Sand filter beds and drainfield 

• It is beyond the expertise and scope of the CLR team to determine the condition of these 

features. Qualified personnel, familiar with the design and construction of septic and 

sewage treatment facilities, should thoroughly check the status of the sand filter beds and 

drainfield. 

 

Campground Area 

The Campground Area is considered to be in good condition, with no evidence of major 

disturbances and few features requiring corrective action. Individual features in fair condition 

within this character area have deteriorated due to heavy use by visitors and overgrowth of 

vegetation. 

Fair Condition 

Spur trails to comfort stations and camping areas 

• Vegetation is encroaching upon, and growing over, trails within the character area. 

Stone edging 

• Typical of edging found throughout Indian Garden, sections of stone are sinking into the 

ground or are becoming obscured by overgrown vegetation. 

Unknown Condition 

Utility and irrigation boxes 

• It is beyond the expertise and scope of the CLR team to determine the condition of these 

features. Qualified personnel, familiar with the design and construction of Indian 

Garden’s utility and irrigation systems, should thoroughly check the status of these 

features. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 91 

Day Use Area 

The Day Use Area is assessed in poor condition due to the proliferation of overgrown and 

uncontrolled vegetation, obscured spatial and circulation patterns, and abandoned, worn, or 

dysfunctional structures and small-scale features. Due to its poor condition, this character area is 

no longer used as originally intended: as a public picnic grounds and gathering space. 

Fair Condition 

Spur trail from Bright Angel Trail to SAR Cache 

• The stone edging is deteriorating and the trail tread is both eroded and littered with loose 

rocks and smaller stones. 

Caretaker’s Residence 

• This building has been assessed by the NPS in fair condition due to inappropriate and 

inadequate preservation and rehabilitation techniques and for weather-related 

deterioration. 

Footbridge abutment 

• The abutment is no longer in use. During wet weather, the concrete abutment sits in 

pooled water giving the appearance that it is sinking into the ground. 

Stone retaining wall at terrace 

• The eastern portion of the wall is failing, while vegetation is beginning to grow through 

all portions of the wall. 

Rock edging 

• The rocks retain a linear alignment, although some are partially covered with sediment 

and overgrown vegetation. 

Stepping stones 

• The stones are overgrown with vegetation and are loosely seated in the ground, creating a 

slip hazard. It is not known if the stones are a temporary or permanent measure. 

Drinking fountains 

• The drinking fountain in the northern, overgrown portion of the Day Use Area was turned 

off and abandoned in 2004. 

Picnic tables 

• The wood elements of the tables are weathered and warped. 

Wood and wire mesh fence 

• The gate is warped and vegetation is growing through and over the mesh. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 92 

Poor Condition 

Picnic grounds 

• The spatial and circulation organization is barely visible through the prolific vegetation, 

while the ground is often wet. 

Trail network 

• The trails are overgrown, have eroded surfaces which are littered with rock and 

vegetative debris, and are often indiscernible. 

Concrete sidewalks 

• The concrete slabs forming the sidewalks are cracked and uplifted; vegetation is growing 

over the edges, threatening to obscure the sidewalks. 

Cottonwood trees 

• As in other portions of the project area, the cottonwoods are over-mature and show 

dieback, are missing limbs, and are growing water sprouts. 

Peach tree 

• Wildlife is eating the bark leaving the peach tree in poor condition. 

Concrete foundation 

• The foundation is no longer in use and its original purpose is unclear. A large piece of the 

corner is missing, having broken off at an unknown date. 

Stone steps at terrace 

• Use and flood damage has eroded soil from underneath the steps, which have also 

shifted. 

Unknown Condition

Floodplain and wet areas 

• It is beyond the expertise and scope of the CLR team to determine the condition of these 

features. Qualified personnel, familiar with the assessment of floodplain and wetland 

environments, should thoroughly check the status of these features. 

Trailside Shelter cleared area 

• The original and intended purpose of this space is not known, and therefore the existing 

condition is difficult to assess. 

Canals 

• Little is known about the original location or condition of the canals. They are currently 

indiscernible in this character area because they have not been maintained in order to 

provide a wet habitat for the ambersnails. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 93 

Pump Station and Corral Area 

The Pump Station and Corral Area is in good condition, requiring little corrective action to 

preserve and maintain the existing natural and cultural resources. Individual features in fair and 

poor condition have resulted from flood damage, overly-mature vegetation, and general intensive 

use by visitors over time. 

Fair Condition 

Garden Creek 

• The banks of Garden Creek are eroded and possibly unstable, while the creek bed is filled 

with stone and vegetative debris. 

Spur trail – informal 

• The undefined edges of the trail allow visitors to stray off the path, while surrounding 

vegetation is encroaching on the trail tread. 

Chain-link fencing 

• The plastic strips interwoven into the chain-link fence are cracked, broken, or missing. 

Drinking fountain 

• The drinking spigot is missing from the fountain top. 

Interpretive wayside 

• The paint is rubbing off of the metal wayside frame. 

Poor Condition 

Cottonwood trees 

• As in other portions of the project area, the cottonwoods are over-mature and exhibit 

dieback, missing limbs, and suckers. 

Unknown Condition 

Perennial streams and dry washes 

• It is beyond the expertise and scope of the this CLR to determine the condition of these 

features. Qualified personnel, familiar with the assessment of Inner Canyon and Indian 

Garden hydrology, should thoroughly check the status of these features. 

Utility structures 

• It is beyond the expertise and scope of the this CLR to determine the condition of these 

features. Qualified personnel, familiar with the design and construction of Indian 

Garden’s utility systems, should thoroughly check the status of this feature. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 94 

North Indian Garden Area

The North Indian Garden Area is in poor condition due to flood damage, lack of maintenance, 

overgrown vegetation, and deteriorating buildings and archeological sites. Without immediate 

and appropriate corrective action, historic and natural resources may be damaged or lost. 

Fair Condition 

Garden Creek 

• In this character area, the banks of Garden Creek are eroded, while the creek bed is filled 

with rock and vegetative debris. 

Tonto East Trail 

• The trail tread is eroded, having been flooded numerous times, while vegetation is 

encroaching along the trail edges. 

Plateau Point Trail 

• The stone edging that lines the trail is partially buried with sediment, giving it the 

appearance that is has sunken into the ground. Excessive mule traffic has created deep 

indentations in the trail surface; these indentations gather water and become puddles in 

wet weather. 

 

Poor Condition 

Central space 

• If this space was once related to Ralph Cameron-era use, no historic spatial organization 

remains. The space is currently filled with rock piles, Himalaya blackberry slash, and 

overgrown vegetation. 

Cottonwood trees 

• As in other portions of the project area, the cottonwoods are over-mature and exhibit 

dieback, missing limbs, and suckers. 

Himalaya blackberry 

• Piles of Himalaya blackberry debris, created by efforts to clear the invasive exotic shrub, 

lay around this character area. Blackberry shoots are sprouting again within the cleared 

areas. 

Rehandling Pump House 

• This abandoned building is in a deteriorated state; the window glass is broken or missing, 

silt from flood events has built up upon the floor, and the door is damaged. In 2004, a 

large flash flood collapsed metal window frames and filled the structure with rock and 

debris. 

Flood walls 

• The flood walls surrounding the building are crumbling due to deteriorating mortar. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 95 

Stone edging 

• Stone edging in the character area barely retains its original alignment, is often found in 

piles, and does not serve its original purpose as a demarcation and directional device. 

Debris piles 

• Piles of brush, stone, and possible historic detritus are located throughout the character 

area. If certain debris piles contain historically and culturally important items, they will 

soon be lost to flood damage or general decay. 

Unknown Condition 

Floodplain and dry washes 

• It is beyond the expertise and scope of the CLR team to determine the condition of these 

features. Qualified personnel, familiar with the assessment of Inner Canyon and Indian 

Garden hydrology, should thoroughly check the status of these features 

Former Kolb Studio 

• The ruined Kolb Studio remnant is barely discernible through overgrown vegetation. It is 

not known if the ruin is stable, in need of repairs, or requires substantial preservation 

efforts. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Existing Conditions Documentation III - 96 






Chapter IV • Landscape Analysis and Evaluation

Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 1 

Chapter IV • Landscape Analysis and 

Evaluation 

Introduction 

A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques maintains that 

“defining the significance of a landscape involves relating findings from the site history and 

existing conditions to the historic context associated with the landscape.”1 As part of this 

process, individual landscape characteristics and features are defined within the context of the 

landscape as a whole. Each Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) contains a statement of 

significance that details the relationship between the cultural landscape, its specific historic 

contexts, the criteria set forth within the National Register of Historic Places, and period(s) of 

significance. 

To be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, a cultural landscape must be 

significant to American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture, and must 

exhibit this significance as a site or district that retains integrity of location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Additionally, a cultural landscape must exhibit 

one or more of the following criteria: 

A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

our history; or 

B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

C. Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, 

or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction; or 

D. Have yielded, or may likely yield, information important in prehistory and history. 

The landscape must also continue to exhibit most or all of the physical features and 

characteristics that convey its significance within one or more of the four criteria mentioned 

above. The ability to physically convey significance is referred to as historic integrity. Integrity 

is determined by assessing landscape characteristics, associated features, and spatial qualities 

that shaped the landscape during the historic period to determine if they are present in much the 

same way as they were historically. As landscapes typically change and evolve over time, this 

assessment of integrity can be complex. Therefore, the extent to which the general character of 

the historic period is evident, and the degree to which intrusive or incompatible elements can be 

removed or reversed, is considered as part of the assessment. 

 

1

 Robert R. Page, Cathy Gilbert, and Susan Dolan, A Guide To Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and 

Techniques (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1998) 71. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 2 

The statement of significance included in this chapter discusses the ways in which Indian Garden 

meets any of the four National Register criteria and identifies the historical contexts, or broad 

patterns of history that are associated with the Indian Garden landscape. A comparative analysis 

of historic and existing features helps to identify contributing, non-contributing, supporting, and 

missing features and provides the basis for an integrity assessment. The integrity assessment 

establishes whether the landscape retains the features that are necessary for it to convey its 

historical significance. This chapter also discusses existing international and national recognition 

of the Grand Canyon to give an overview of how Indian Garden fits within the larger, significant 

park landscape. 

Existing International and National Recognition 

GRCA is recognized nationally and globally as a site important to our collective heritage. First 

protected as a forest preserve in 1893 and then as a game preserve in 1906, the Grand Canyon 

was established as a national monument in 1908. Eleven years later, in 1919, the Grand Canyon 

was declared a national park, and by 1979 the site was added to the World Heritage List. 

These numerous accolades illuminate the rich cultural and natural heritage embodied in the 

Grand Canyon. Indian Garden is but a part of this resource recognized for its “exceptional value 

or quality in illustrating and interpreting the heritage of the United States.”2

 The following text 

examines Indian Garden within the context of the Grand Canyon as a World Heritage Site and in 

terms of its individually significant and National Register-listed resources. 

World Heritage Site 

Nominated in October of 1979 as a World Heritage Site, the Grand Canyon is “recognized as a 

place of universal value, containing superlative natural and cultural features that should be 

preserved as part of the heritage of all people.”3 As stated in the World Heritage List nomination, 

GRCA is exceptional in meeting both natural and cultural resource criteria for designation as a 

world heritage site. 

According to the 1995 General Management Plan (GMP), several facets of the Grand Canyon 

help to reinforce this designation. The Grand Canyon has exceptionally diverse biology and 

multiple life zones, serves as an ecological refuge, and displays rich and diverse geologic and 

fossil records. American Indian groups have close and sacred ties to the Grand Canyon, which 

has been occupied by humans for over 4,500 years. The natural scenery, quiet, and solitude 

offered in the park is remarkable. Unsurpassed and unique recreational opportunities, including 

hiking, wilderness experiences, and whitewater rafting on the Colorado River are also available.4

These are just a few of the qualities that make GRCA an international treasure. As part of the 

Grand Canyon World Heritage Site, Indian Garden contributes to these qualities and helps to 

promote and sustain the traits that both educate and inspire visitors. 

 

2

 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Historic Landmarks Program,

http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/ (accessed 18 April 2003). 3

 United States, Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Draft Grand Canyon National Park General 

Management Plan (Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon National Park, March 1995), 4. 4

 Ibid., 7-8. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 3 

National Register Nominations 

Neither Indian Garden nor its resources have been individually nominated to the National 

Register of Historic Places. Although this CLR focuses on Indian Garden as an individual site, 

certain National Register nominations have included portions of Indian Garden within their 

boundaries, or are located in close proximity to the CLR project area. 

Bright Angel Trail National Register of Historic Places Nomination 

A 1992 draft nomination for the Bright Angel Trail was prepared by Michael Anderson and 

Debra Sutphen, although it has not yet been approved.5 The nomination draws heavily from Teri 

Cleeland’s 1986 thesis, “The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District In Grand Canyon National 

Park: A Model For Historic Preservation”—written prior to the extensive 1989 alterations which 

removed some of the buildings listed in Cleeland’s thesis and added additional features and use 

areas. Both the Bright Angel Trail nomination and Cleeland’s thesis consider Indian Garden to 

be a site that contributes to the significance of the trail. Several of the buildings within Indian 

Garden are also considered to be contributing, while features developed after 1943 are classified 

as non-contributing. In addition to the Indian Garden site itself, the following buildings and 

structures are considered to be contributing in this nomination: 

1. Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache (Bldg. #93) (1932) 

2. Rock House (Bldg. #18) (1943) 

3. South Pumphouse (Bldg. #31) (1932) 

4. Reservoir/Water Tank (Bldg. #32) (1932) 

5. Rehandling Pumphouse (Bldg. #20) (1932) 

6. Trail Maintainer’s Tent Foundation (ca. 1905) 

7. Trailside Shelter (Bldg. #143) (1937) 

Trans-Canyon Telephone Line National Register of Historic Places Nomination 

A National Register nomination was written for the telephone line by Teri Cleeland and 

approved in 1986. Although the mid-1930s trans-canyon telephone line is not located within the 

Indian Garden CLR project area, it runs near the eastern edge of the Indian Garden boundary. 

Three telephone poles are included in this CLR as part of a discontiguous unit. The telephone 

line serviced Indian Garden, Phantom Ranch, and the Rest Houses along the Bright Angel Trail. 

According to the nomination and 2002 field observations, the telephone poles retain a high level 

of integrity. A description of the existing poles is located in the Indian Garden Overview section 

of Chapter III. 

 

5

 In August 1997, the Bright Angel Trail nomination was submitted to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

and was determined eligible as part of a multiple property nomination for Grand Canyon Roads and Trails. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 4 

Preliminary Statement of Significance 

Due to its role in the development of tourism in the Grand Canyon and the efforts of CCC crews 

who built and maintained many features with Indian Garden, portions of Indian Garden are 

significant under Criterion A. Under Criterion A, Indian Garden is significant within the area of 

Recreation for its association with tourism-related activities begun by Ralph Cameron and 

continued as part of the Grand Canyon National Park, and as one of the few developed innercanyon sites to serve tourists. Additionally, Indian Garden is significant within the area of 

Politics/Government because of its association with Federal relief programs of the 1930s and 

early 1940s, including the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) program that brought crews of 

laborers to develop and maintain Indian Garden. 

Indian Garden is also significant under Criterion C, within the area of Architecture, for its 

collection of buildings designed in the NPS Rustic architectural style. Indian Garden may also be 

significant under Criterion C within the area of Engineering, for the design and construction of 

the Santa Fe Railway’s water pumping system. A quote from Polishing the Jewel, An 

Administrative History of Grand Canyon National Park suggests that the water system may be 

eligible for the National Register as an example of innovative engineering: 

 Completed in August 1932, the new system consisted of a pumping plant 

with two sets of two turbine pumps, together capable of delivering eighty-five 

gallons per minute (gpm) from a 70,000-gallon concrete reservoir through 12,000 

feet of six-inch pipe against a static head of 3,300 vertical feet. Some of its more 

sophisticated features included remote operation from the village power plant, 

auxiliary pumps at lower springs that fed the upstream reservoir, a photoelectric 

cell that automatically diverted silty water before reaching the pumps, thermostats 

that warned plant operators to start idle pumps to keep pipes from freezing, water 

softeners, and chlorinators.6

At present, it is not known how the design and complexity of this historic water system compares 

to other systems built during the same era. Additional engineering-related research and 

comparison should be undertaken to determine whether the pipeline embodies the distinctive 

characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; in other words, whether the water 

pumping system was innovative or unusual for its time or if its method of construction was once 

widely practiced but is now represented in only a few locations. Research must also be 

undertaken to assess the integrity of the water system and whether it exists much as it did during 

the period of significance or if it has undergone so many changes that no historic portions 

remain. 

Indian Garden may also be significant under Criterion D, within the area of Ethnic Heritage, for 

its association with, and potential to yield information about, American Indian groups that 

historically and prehistorically utilized Indian Garden resources. Indian Garden may also be 

 

6

 Michael F. Anderson, Polishing the Jewel; An Administrative History of Grand Canyon National Park (Grand 

Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon Association, 2000), 27. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 5 

significant under Criterion D within the area of Recreation for its Ralph Cameron-era resources 

that may yield information about early tourism and site development within the inner canyon. 

Period of Significance 

The period of significance for Indian Garden spans from 1903, when Ralph Cameron began his 

tourism operations in Indian Garden, until 1943, the year that the Pump Caretaker’s 

Residence/Rock House was rebuilt after having burned the year before. The end year of 1943 

also marks the waning of Rustic-style design in Indian Garden. Within this overall period of 

significance, two sub-periods exist. The first sub-period extends from 1903 until 1927, reflecting 

the years of Ralph Cameron’s control over the Bright Angel Trail and the Indian Garden 

landscape; this sub-period ends when the NPS officially gained control over these lands. The 

second sub-period spans from 1927 until 1943; the earlier date represents the first year of official 

NPS administration of Indian Garden, while the end-date represents the year when the Rock 

House was rebuilt. 

Historical Contexts 

1100 BP-1860s: American Indian Use and Occupation of Indian Garden 

The presence of American Indian cultures in and near Indian Garden represents an intermittent 

yet continuous use and occupation of a singular area within the Grand Canyon. According to Teri 

Cleeland’s thesis, archeological evidence from Indian Garden indicates the presence of 

prehistoric ancestral Puebloan and Cohonina cultures from 1100 BP.7 These cultures seasonally 

migrated to and from Indian Garden to take advantage of Garden Creek and other surrounding 

resources. Garden Creek provided these peoples with water for drinking, cooking, and irrigation. 

Beginning about 700 BP, the Havasupai and other Pai people began to migrate into the Grand 

Canyon and inner canyon. These peoples, particularly the Havasupai, spent winters on the rim 

and planting and harvesting seasons in the inner canyon where water was available. Havasupai 

seasonal use of Indian Garden continued until the late nineteenth century. “Big Jim” was one of 

the Havasupai who was born in the vicinity of Indian Garden and whose family seasonally 

occupied the site until the 1910s. The Havasupai eventually abandoned Indian Garden, likely due 

to the growing presence of European Americans at the Grand Canyon in the late nineteenth 

century. 

1903-1927: Tourism and Early Development in Indian Garden 

Anglo-American usage of Indian Garden began largely with mining claims. Garden Creek ran 

through Indian Garden and provided a constant source of water for the operation of small mining 

facilities nearby. Tourism in Indian Garden began in earnest when a few miners and their 

compatriots discovered that providing mule rides into the inner canyon and refreshments brought 

a larger income than their earlier entrepreneurial efforts. 

Expecting great returns on their investments in mining claims, and encouraged by the increasing 

network of railroad lines, people moved to the Grand Canyon region to exploit its potential 

 

7

 Teri Cleeland, “The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District in Grand Canyon National Park” (Master’s thesis, 

Northern Arizona University, 1986), 27-28. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 6 

resources. When these ventures did not produce great financial returns, and shipping ore became 

too expensive due to transportation limitations, some miners turned to tourism operations to 

recoup their losses.8 

With the growing mobility provided by railroad lines and eventually the automobile, American 

interest in tourism grew rapidly—encouraging the new mule ride and refreshment concessions 

and increasing trail toll collections at the Grand Canyon. Railroads and improved automobile 

roads were able to bring tourists to the South Rim and Grand Canyon Village in high numbers. 

The Bright Angel Trail provided a recreational opportunity for these tourists, who stopped at 

Indian Garden on their journey along the trail. Indian Garden was one of the few tourist facilities 

below the rim that provided an oasis of relative comfort in a region known for its heat and 

aridity. The amenities, particularly drinking water and shade, provided at Indian Garden made 

the trip down the Bright Angel Trail more accessible for mule riders and hikers, thus increasing 

the number of people who were willing and able to travel into the canyon. The luxuries, however 

minimal, created by Ralph Cameron’s tourist camps and later continued by the NPS, likely 

helped increase the number of Grand Canyon visitors while opening up the inner canyon to 

people interested in going beyond the typical South Rim experience. 

1927-1943: National Park Service and Concessionaire Development of Indian Garden 

In 1927, after years of legal battles with Ralph Cameron, the NPS finally gained control of 

Indian Garden and Bright Angel Trail. Over the next few years, the NPS—with the help of Santa 

Fe Railway engineers—made efforts to clean up, develop, and manage Indian Garden, because 

much of Ralph Cameron’s original Indian Garden was abandoned or in disrepair and Garden 

Creek was contaminated from visitor overuse. 

Similar to the Grand Canyon Village on the south rim, development in Indian Garden was fueled 

by both the NPS and the Santa Fe Railway. These two entities worked together to construct and 

improve facilities that shaped Indian Garden. Development followed no apparent plan, except for 

initially being located near the boundaries of Cameron’s former camp site, along the course of 

the Bright Angel Trail, and partially out of the path of flooding. While Indian Garden’s 

development was minimal in comparison to that of the Village and Bright Angel Peninsula on 

the North Rim, the effort to construct facilities below the rim—in manpower, mule-power, and 

engineering ingenuity—was considerable. 

The Santa Fe Railway began constructing its water pumping system in 1931, which included the 

South Pump House, the Reservoir, the Rehandling Pump House, and the Pump Caretaker’s 

Residence. Perhaps the most important feature of this system was the pipeline which pumped 

water from Indian Garden to the South Rim, providing thousands of people with a reliable water 

source and eliminating the need to haul water to the rim by train. 

The NPS built and planned facilities to provide comfort and safety to park visitors and staff. 

These facilities included the Trail Shelter, Caretaker’s Residence, a mule barn and corral, 

 

8

 J. Donald Hughes, In the House of Stone and Light (Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon Natural History 

Association, 1978), 47. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 7 

comfort stations, and a picnic area. Consequently, trails and paths were built to access each 

feature. 

NPS development also included extensive utility systems, such as underground power lines, 

sewer lines and sludge trenches, telephone lines, and water hydrants. Because of frequent 

flooding, NPS engineers also devised various methods of erosion control that were implemented 

throughout Indian Garden. Slope-stabilizing vegetation was also introduced into Indian Garden 

to help control erosion along the Garden Creek banks, while the Garden Creek channel was riprapped and mortared to prevent wash-outs. 

By 1943, Indian Garden was one of the few developed areas along the Bright Angel Trail, 

providing shady spots to gather, a place to corral mules, a water pumping system, and year-round 

housing for NPS and Santa Fe staff, as well as the infrastructure to support these features. 

1927-1943: National Park Service Architecture in Indian Garden 

In their post-Cameron rehabilitation of Indian Garden, the NPS implemented typical Rustic Style 

architectural principles seen more prominently in the Grand Canyon Village on the south rim and 

Bright Angel Point of the north rim. The primary intent of the Rustic Style was to subordinate or 

harmonize a structure to its environment.9

 This unique architectural style was an effort to fit 

human-made objects into a natural landscape with minimal intrusion or disruption in the visual 

experience. To this end, much of the architecture designed and constructed by the NPS in Indian 

Garden featured wood construction, steeply-pitched overhanging roofs, and foundations, walls, 

and piers built of locally-available stone. Examples of Rustic Style architecture in Indian Garden 

include the Caretaker’s Residence/SAR Cache, the South Pump House, and the Trailside Shelter. 

1933-1942: Role of Federal Relief Programs in the Development of Indian Garden 

Beginning in 1933, CCC crews were assigned to work in GRCA. The CCC was part of the U.S. 

government’s effort to relieve some effects of the Great Depression by creating Federally-funded 

jobs for men. The result was crews of laborers who were often sent to state and national parks to 

undertake construction and development projects. 

Indian Garden was one of the recipients of CCC attention during this era. CCC crews built the 

trans-canyon telephone line, improved the Indian Garden campgrounds, constructed the Trailside 

Shelter in Indian Garden, built the original mule barn, constructed an interpretive exhibit about 

trilobites, and performed erosion control work, as well as maintained the entire Bright Angel 

Trail.10 Other work likely consisted of constructing or improving parts of the water pipeline 

system, irrigation systems throughout Indian Garden, wastewater treatment facilities, and trails. 

Without the efforts of CCC laborers, Indian Garden would not have developed in the manner and 

to the extent that it did. 

 

9

 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park Architectural Character 

Guidelines (Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon National Park, 1994), 14. 10 Patricia Mott. Memorandum to Division Chief, Res. Mgmt.; Historic Architect; Cultural Resources Manager; Res. 

Mgmt. Files on Historic Structures, Regarding CCC Work Projects in Grand Canyon National Park. November 28, 

1983. (Grand Canyon Museum Collection Accession #58700). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 8 

Comparative Analysis of Historic and Existing Conditions 

Introduction 

A comparative analysis of historic and existing conditions is useful in understanding the 

relationship between the 2002 Indian Garden landscape (documented in Chapter III) and the 

landscape that existed during the period of significance. In general, this analysis focused on 

extant features and their date of origin. Known missing features are also identified. The three 

primary goals for developing this comparative analysis of historic landscape features are: 

1) to understand which features contribute to the significance of the landscapes; 

2) to serve as the basis for an integrity evaluation; and 

3) to provide insight into the similarities and differences between historic and existing 

conditions that will contribute to the development of a well-grounded treatment plan for 

the cultural landscape. 

The comparative analysis is first organized into an overview of the Indian Garden landscape, and 

then according to the landscape characteristics identified in Chapter III Existing Conditions. 

These characteristics are Natural Systems and Features, Spatial Organization, Land Use, 

Circulation, Vegetation, Buildings and Structures, Views, and Small-scale Features. Comparative 

photograph pairs are located at the end of this section. 

A detailed listing of inventoried features is located in Appendix A. Within the list, each feature 

has been assessed—based on the comparative analysis prepared below—as either contributing, 

supporting, non-contributing, or undetermined (insufficient documentation available to assess the 

date of origin of the feature). These assessments are discussed in more detail later in this chapter. 

Overview 

Indian Garden has changed significantly over time, both during and after the period of 

significance. Because of frequent flood events that required reconstruction of the landscape, and 

the need to continually develop—and redevelop—the site to meet the needs of visitors and park 

personnel, the NPS has rehabilitated Indian Garden several times. The most marked changes 

occurred in the late 1920s and 1930s, when the NPS removed Ralph Cameron’s tent camps and 

tourist concession facilities and implemented their own plans in conjunction with the CCC and 

Santa Fe Railway; in the 1960s, when the NPS added more buildings and rearranged the spatial 

organization; and in the late 1980s, when the NPS created entirely new spaces, constructed and 

relocated several buildings and structures, and altered much of the historic character that was 

present between 1903 and 1943. As a credit to the designers of the 1989 rehabilitation, however, 

new features and work was completed in such a way to be generally compatible with the historic 

character, as well as the character of the surrounding inner canyon landscape. Through the use of 

Rustic Revival architecture, local materials such as native plants, stone, and wood, many new 

features can be classified as supporting rather than non-contributing, as noted later in this 

chapter. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 9 

The greatest difference between the landscape during the period of significance and at present is 

the organization of spatial patterns and the number and location of buildings and structures. 

These two landscape characteristics, more than any other, suggest the extent to which Indian 

Garden has irreversibly changed since the period of significance. The current location and 

complexity of circulation patterns, in comparison with the simplicity of historic patterns, also 

signals the large degree to which the landscape has been altered. 

Features that have remained the same, or in the same location, over time are few in number and 

tend to be grouped together; these features include those associated with the Caretaker’s 

Residence/ SAR Cache site and the Pump House node. These two locales remain the least 

changed, as the surrounding landscape has been rehabilitated and redeveloped around them. 

Remnants of the Cameron-era sub-period of significance are few; including not much more than 

building remnants and ruins and traces of his tent camp location amid the faint rows of hundredyear-old cottonwood trees. 

In sum, the comparative analysis below will show that the Indian Garden landscape of today is 

not that of the period of significance. Although several pieces of historic landscape fabric 

remain, when viewed as a whole, the historic character of Indian Garden has changed to a great 

degree. 

Natural Features and Systems 

Humans were first drawn to Indian Garden for its water resources—including springs, seeps, and 

Garden Creek. The water provided irrigation for American Indian crops, power for mining 

operations, and cooling refreshment for tourists. In the early part of the period of significance—

during Ralph Cameron’s tenure in Indian Garden—water from Garden Creek was mainly used to 

irrigate vegetable gardens, as an aid for developing photographs at the Kolb Brothers’ studio, and 

likely for food preparation activities. Although a dam was placed across the flow of Garden 

Creek to create a pond, there was little physical manipulation to water resources, in contrast to 

later years. 

In the middle to later portion of the period of significance—during NPS control of Indian 

Garden—NPS and CCC crews, along with Santa Fe Railway civil engineers, created ways to 

harness these water resources. The NPS and Santa Fe Railway collaborated to install pipeline 

and water handling facilities to carry water from Garden Creek up to the South Rim. The Garden 

Creek bed was channelized with riprap and mortar to prevent washouts from frequent flooding. 

Over time, people involved with managing Indian Garden turned from viewing water as an 

entirely welcome resource to attempting to control the flood events and natural creek flow. 

Overall, however, Garden Creek retains much of the same course at present as it did during the 

period of significance. It is highly likely that the creek bed margins and floodplain have shifted 

over time, due to flooding and naturally-occurring erosion of the creek banks. It is not known if 

the amount of water flowing through the creek has increased or decreased since the period of 

significance. Similarly, the current versus historic condition of the springs, seeps, and dry washes 

is unknown. The 1995 GMP, however, states that water resource management studies will be 

undertaken, such as the impact of water diversion or groundwater withdrawal on seeps and 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 10 

springs and an in-stream flow study for Garden Creek; the NPS’s requirement of these studies 

suggests that water flow and management has changed over time.11

The surrounding cliffs of the South Rim and desertscrub-covered slopes appear to have changed 

very little. Erosion and flooding have, however, impacted some of the rocky slopes closer to the 

creek by undercutting the slope toe and exposing loose soil and rock. 

The wildlife component of Indian Garden is not well-documented from a historical point-ofview. It is likely that any native wildlife present in Indian Garden during the period of 

significance still continues to reside on the site in 2002, due to lack of climactic changes. No 

antelope remain, however, from a herd introduced in the 1930s as part of an artificial feeding 

program meant to grow the herd as a tourist attraction and vegetation restoration instigator. 

Spatial Organization 

Spatial organization in 2002 differs greatly from that present during the period of significance—

particularly from the Cameron-era years. Spatial patterns have changed both in complexity and 

number, due to the development of the site over time. 

During the Cameron years of the period of significance, from 1903 until 1927, space was 

organized in a fairly central location along the Bright Angel Trail (Figures 51 and 51a). 

Cameron’s stone house, the tent frame grouping, the vegetable garden, and other miscellaneous 

buildings and structures formed a corridor of space along the trail, upon which all these features 

were focused. Other subordinate spaces included the corral to the south and the alfalfa field to 

the north. 

When the NPS gained control over the site in 1927, their work crews demolished Cameron’s 

buildings and structures and replaced them with their own development. The new NPS-era 

construction began in a similar location as Cameron’s former camp, south and west of the Bright 

Angel Trail/Plateau Point Trail split. However, while these NPS-era spaces were also aligned 

along the Bright Angel Trail, they focused more inwardly upon themselves, creating separate 

spaces, rather than reinforcing the trail as both gathering space and passage corridor. 

Between 1927 and 1943, NPS-constructed spaces included a picnic area, a stone wall-enclosed 

gathering space which is no longer extant; a space north of the Caretaker’s Residence which 

once contained dry-laid stone erosion-control or sewage-handling channels and Cameron’s 

remnant cottonwood tree rows; and the Pump House space, which is still extant, yet has 

expanded in square footage since the period of significance. Patterns of spatial organization 

missing from the latter period of significance are the Mule Barn and Corral space—now located 

approximately where a picnic area once stood, and the former sludge trenches—once located 

west of the current Day Use Area. The only spatial pattern that can be said to remain from the 

early part of the period of significance, 1903 until 1927, are the faintly distinguishable rows of 

trees that once helped define the rows of tent frames used by early tourists. 

 

11 GMP, 24. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 11 

The spatial organization of Indian Garden remained fairly similar to its NPS-era period of 

significance incarnation until 1989, when the NPS again performed a massive rehabilitation of 

the site. The result was a reorganization of spaces that already existed and the addition of new 

patterns to the south, making the site even less centrally-focused than during the latter portion of 

the period of significance. Although smaller spaces, such as the terrace between the Caretaker’s 

Residence and Rock House, the Trailside Shelter space, and the Pump House space remain from 

the period of significance, overall historic spatial patterns are no longer intact. 

Land Use 

The essential land uses of tourism and recreation remain intact from the period of significance. 

Throughout and after the period of significance, land uses have been expanded to accommodate 

increased numbers of visitors, provide for visitor comfort and safety, and efficiently pump water 

to the South Rim. 

Land uses that were added or expanded since the period of significance include safety facilities, 

such as the first aid clinic and helicopter landings spots; administrative facilities such as the 

formal ranger residence and laundry room; and maintenance facilities such as the repair shop, 

trail and maintenance crew bunkhouses, and second pump house. 

Land uses that are no longer extant from the period of significance are the retail opportunities 

once provided by Ralph Cameron’s concessions. 

Circulation 

Bright Angel Trail was the primary circulation corridor through Indian Garden during the period 

of significance and it remains so at present. The trail alignment has shifted over time to repair 

trail sections due to flood damage, to lessen the grade or otherwise make the trail easier to travel 

upon, and to make way for the addition of new features. These adaptations, however, were few 

and did little to alter the overall course of the trail. The greatest change came in the late 1920s 

when the NPS re-routed the Cameron-era Bright Angel Trail farther east of its original position. 

The Plateau Point Trail, unlike the Bright Angel Trail, has apparently undergone few alignment 

modifications; the greatest change to the trail since was its renaming from “Trail to Hermit 

Basin” to “Plateau Point Trail” at an unknown date. Only vestiges of the “Trail to Turtle Head,” 

once located between the Plateau Point and Bright Angel Trails, remain. 

As with spatial organization, the circulation patterns in Indian Garden have become increasingly 

complex since 1903, due to new development during and after the period of significance. 

Between 1903 and 1927, Ralph Cameron’s Indian Garden circulation was fairly simple in 

organization, being aligned around and along the Bright Angel Trail. Separate circulation 

systems likely consisted of earthen trails leading to the mule corral and sheds, within the row of 

tents, around the grouping of maintenance and operations facilities, and possibly to the old 

alfalfa field. 

When the NPS took control of the site in 1927, and until the period of significance ended in 

1943, their revitalization efforts simultaneously removed most of Cameron’s circulation and 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 12 

created new patterns of their own. Although the new NPS circulation patterns were slightly more 

complex and structured, they were relatively uncomplicated compared to existing patterns of 

circulation. The paths and trails during the latter part of the period of significance were also 

earthen in composition, included stone steps, and possibly stone edging. 

The most significant difference between the current and historic circulation patterns in Indian 

Garden is the ratio of internal versus external circulation features. During the period of 

significance, circulation systems were relatively open and interconnected, almost forming a 

singular network. At present, Indian Garden has several circulation systems that are independent, 

yet linked together at certain points within the site. These internal systems are evident in the 

Administration Area, Campground Area, and Day Use Area whose circulation patterns are very 

internally focused, yet can be reached by connector trails. The circulation patterns within the 

Pump Station and Corral Area are more comparable to historic circulation systems. 

Vegetation 

During the period of significance, three types of vegetation existed: native brush and riparian 

vegetation, vegetation that was cultivated for food, and vegetation that was introduced into the 

site to provide shade and stabilize slopes. 

Cultivated vegetation occurred during the Cameron years in the form of vegetable plots, fruit 

trees, and alfalfa for mule feed. The NPS revitalization efforts removed the vegetable and alfalfa 

plots, although it is not known if any fruit trees existed during the latter period of significance. 

At present, no cultivated vegetation exists in Indian Garden. 

Throughout the period of significance, historic photographs show that the density and coverage 

of native riparian vegetation has increased (Figures 52 and 52a). The NPS may have 

intentionally fostered the growth of native vegetation, in order to provide visitors with cooling 

shade. Although this CLR has determined that the density and coverage of native vegetation 

increased between Cameron’s tenure in Indian Garden and the NPS years of the period of 

significance, it is not fully known to what extent native vegetation trends have altered since the 

period of significance. It is likely, however, that vegetation density continued to increase, 

particularly in the current Day Use Area and North Indian Garden Area landscape character areas 

(Figures 53 and 53a, 54 and 54a). This character area was once more open and not as densely 

vegetated than at present, and possibly irrigated with canals. However, when the Niobrara 

ambersnail, an endangered snail species, was thought to have been discovered in the Day Use 

Area in the 1990s, all use and alterations of the space were forbidden.12 Rangers and 

maintenance personnel were not permitted to maintain the area, vegetation was allowed to grow 

unchecked, and this landscape character area now has qualities similar to those of a wetland. 

Prior to the prohibition of exotic and invasive species in the park, certain non-native plants were 

installed in Indian Garden in the 1930s and possibly earlier. Himalaya blackberry (Rubus 

 

12 Once thought to be Kanab ambersnails, biologists now consider the snails to be Oxyloma haydeni haydeni 

(Niobrara ambersnail). The Niobrara ambersnail, while considered a “sensitive” species, is not endangered. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 13 

procerus syn. R. discolor) and raspberry (Rubus sp.) were listed on a 1935 planting list for Indian 

Garden. At present, only the Himalaya blackberry plants were observed on-site. 

Native plants were also transplanted into Indian Garden to both increase shade and provide 

erosion control along the frequently washed-out Garden Creek banks. In the same 1935 plant list 

mentioned above, redbuds (Cercis occidentalis), burro bush (Ambrosia dumosa), grapes, and 

willows were designated. The latter two plants may be the Arizona grape (Vitis arizonica) and 

seep willow (Baccharis salicipholia) that are native to the region. Many of these plants on the 

plant list, except the burro bush, were observed during fieldwork, although it is not known if they 

were installed as part of the 1935 planting effort. Additionally, Ralph Cameron planted native 

cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) at Indian Garden to create shade for his customers. His tree 

rows, once located between tent frames in the early part of the period of significance, are still 

discernible at present—one of the few remnants of the Cameron era in Indian Garden. 

Due to the lack of formal, geometric planting designs, the use of native plants, and the looselyplaced vegetation shown in a 1935 planting plan, it is likely that the NPS designers of Indian 

Garden followed Rustic Style design principles of the time. The vegetation in the planting plan 

appears to have been sited to both prevent erosion and to blend unobtrusively into the landscape. 

It appears that these planting design principles are still visible at present. Mature vegetation still 

appears to be located “naturalistically,” rather than as part of a formal design, while new plant 

installations from 1989 follow similar principles. 

After the end-date of the period of significance, the NPS continued to transplant native 

vegetation into Indian Garden, particularly during the 1989 rehabilitation work. 

Buildings and Structures 

No buildings and structures, and only a few ruins, remain from the early period of significance—

during Ralph Cameron’s tenure between 1903 and 1927. This is due to the thorough job 

undertaken by the NPS in 1927 of removing all Cameron-related buildings and structures. At one 

time Cameron’s Indian Garden camp included a mule corral and shed, incinerator, tents, a tool 

shed, a laundry tent, toilets, a root cellar, Cameron’s stone house, a kitchen, and several lengths 

of stone wall (Figures 51 and 51a, 52 and 52a). The only building-related remnants are stone 

platform foundations of a trailkeeper’s tent, a compilation of rocks that served either as a toilet or 

food cooler, and an area once used as the Kolb Brother’s studio. Certain piles of stone and debris 

throughout the CLR project area may also be remnants of this time, but are not yet identifiable as 

such. 

In contrast, many of the major buildings and structures from the NPS-era period of significance, 

from 1927 until 1943, remain intact. These features, built by either the NPS, Santa Fe Railway or 

the CCC on behalf of the NPS, include the 1932 Caretaker’s Residence (now known as the SAR 

Cache) and terrace (Figures 55 and 55a); the 1932 South Pump House; the 1932 Reservoir (or 

sedimentation tank); the 1932 Rehandling Pump House; the 1937 Trailside Shelter and steps 

(Figures 56 and 56a); the trans-canyon telephone line; portions of the Garden Creek riprap 

channelization; and the concrete intake and valve box above the Reservoir. The Rock House, 

which burned in 1942, was re-built in 1943 (Figures 57 and 57a). 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 14 

It is likely, although difficult to ascertain without earth-disturbing excavations, that many of the 

underground utility lines from the period of significance remain in place, although in an unused 

state. These utilities likely include underground sewage treatment facilities, such as sludge 

trenches and drain fields, underground electric lines, and underground water pipelines. 

Buildings and structures missing from the period of significance of 1927 until 1943 include the 

stone-lined ditches that were part either of the 1930s erosion control or sewage-handling system, 

latrines once located north of the Caretaker’s Residence, stone walls around the former Picnic 

Area, and a mule barn and corral. 

Many new features were built after the period of significance ended in 1943. A bunkhouse was 

built in 1965, north of the Rock House, but demolished in 1989. A second bunkhouse was built 

west of the Rock House in 1986 and subsequently moved to the new Administration Area 

landscape character area in 1989. All the remaining buildings and structures in the 

Administration Area and Campground Area post-date the period of significance and were built in 

the mid-to-late 1980s. The helispots, sand filter beds, and drain field were built as part of the 

1989 rehabilitation. The gabion walls south of the Caretaker’s Residence were built after 1943—

likely in the 1960s. The 1970’s mule barn and corral, which replaced the 1930’s mule barn and 

corral, was replaced in a different location in 1989. 

Views and Vistas 

During the earlier sub-period of significance, when Indian Garden was under Ralph Cameron’s 

control and guidance, the Indian Garden landscape was much more open and exposed. Fewer 

mature trees and less riparian vegetation during this time allowed a full range of views through 

the site—the entire complex could be viewed from any one particular location in Indian Garden. 

As more features began to be added to the Indian Garden landscape between 1927 and 1943, and 

the vegetation grew taller and more dense, views through the site to other spaces became more 

foreshortened. The vegetation and buildings created visual barriers between spaces, preventing 

all-encompassing views of Indian Garden. 

Since the period of significance, views within the project area have become increasingly 

foreshortened and fractured. Vegetation continued to grow, both in height and density, resulting 

in limited viewsheds. It is now possible for a person to stand in one area and have no visual 

access to surrounding spaces. The spaces created during the 1989 rehabilitation, however, afford 

new and different view opportunities. The southern helispot, in particular, provides sweeping 

overhead views of the entire site due to its elevated position above Indian Garden. The only 

views common to both the period of significance and existing conditions are the views available 

to the surrounding canyon walls. These views have changed little over time, altered only by the 

increasing height of trees. 

Small-scale Features 

No visible, intact small-scale features remain from the Cameron-era sub-period of significance, 

although some features may be underground. While no known features remain, existing small-
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 15 

scale features perform many of the same functions; missing features such as hitch racks, signage, 

rain gauges, and wood fencing have been replaced over time with more contemporary materials. 

Features that were not updated and replaced, such as the oil float box, Kolb Studio items, and 

small-scale features related to Cameron’s retail enterprises, were likely no longer needed. 

The type and extent of small-scale features present in Indian Garden between 1927 and 1943 are 

difficult to assess due to lack of graphic and photographic documentation. It is likely, as with the 

Cameron-era sub-period of significance, that many features have been upgraded over time using 

contemporary materials. These features may include hitch racks, water troughs, fences, signage, 

and seating. Many photographs taken between 1927 and 1943 also show temporary constructionrelated items—including wheelbarrows, sawhorses, and pulleys. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 16

Figure 51. View of Cameron’s Stone House and

auxiliary buildings, looking south, 1920.

(Northern Arizona University Cline Library, Call

#NAU.PH.95.44.52.2)

Figure 51a. View of 1989 Mule Barn and Corral

in approximate location of Cameron’s stone

house, 2002. (JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 17

Figure 52. View of Cameron’s tent camp and cottonwood trees, looking south, 1907. (Grand

Canyon National Park Museum Collection

#12065)

Figure 52a. View of current Day Use Area and

former location of Cameron’s tent camp, looking

south. Note increased vegetation density. (JMA

2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 18

Figure 53. View showing new concrete slab cover

catachment basin at lower [Rehandling] Pump

House and overflow outlet, looking south, 1965.

(Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection

#4705h)

Figure 53a. View of lower [Rehandling] Pump

House and overflow outlet, looking south, 2002.

Note increased vegetation density. (JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 19

Figure 54. General view of rock masonry wall

constructed around upstream side of the lower

[Rehandling] Pump House, 1965, looking north.

(Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection

#4705k)

Figure 54a. Same view of rock masonry wall and

lower [Rehandling] Pump House, 2003, looking

north. (JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 20

Figure 55. SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence, looking south, 1932. (GRCA Construction Drawing entitled “U.S.

Department of the Interior-National Park Service Grand Canyon National Park Caretaker’s Cabin-Indian Garden”

Job. No. G.C.-3211-A)

Figure 55a. SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence, looking southwest, 2002. Note 1960s addition to west. (JMA

2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 21

Figure 56. Trailside Shelter, looking east, 1937. (Grand Canyon National Park Museum Collection #7584)

Figure 56a. Trailside Shelter, looking east, 2002. (JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 22

Figure 57. Rock House/Pump Caretaker’s Residence, looking west, circa 1970s. (Grand Canyon National Park

Museum Collection Archives #16821)

Figure 57a. Rock House/Pump Caretaker’s Residence, note increase in vegetation and more-defined terrace space

with site furnishings. (JMA 2002)
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 23 

Identification of Contributing, Non-Contributing, 

Supporting, and Missing Resources 

In order to aid the assessment of integrity and, later in making appropriate treatment decisions, 

all existing, inventoried landscape features are classified as contributing, non-contributing, 

supporting, or undetermined in this CLR. Contributing features survive from the period of 

significance—1903 until 1943. Non-contributing features post-date this period. Supporting 

resources also post-date the period of significance, but support the historic character because 

they have been constructed with the same or similar design intent as those features dating from 

the period of significance. An undetermined classification signifies that not enough information 

is known about a particular feature to make a judgment concerning its contributing or noncontributing status at this time. 

For this CLR, one of these four classifications was assigned for each landscape feature identified 

in the Chapter III Existing Conditions documentation of this report. The classifications are 

summarized below, and can also be found in Appendix A of this report and on the existing 

conditions inventory maps in Chapter III. An overview map of contributing, non-contributing, 

and supporting features is located on a base map within this section (Sheet 32). The table format 

below also includes a column entitled “Period of Significance or Time-frame.” This column 

describes with which period or sub-period of significance each feature is associated, or the 

general time-frame if the feature post-dates the period of significance; these dates provide the 

reader with a better frame of reference when evaluating the information presented. 

Missing features are classified as those features that were once present within Indian Garden but 

are no longer extant. A list of these features is identified at the end of this section, organized by 

landscape characteristic and keyed to the accompanying map. Features whose historic locations 

are unknown—or are found throughout the entire Indian Garden landscape—are not mapped. 

Many of these features are also identified on the graphic chronology maps located in Chapter II, 

Landscape Physical History of this CLR. 

Contributing, Non-Contributing, and Supporting Resources 

Contributing Features 

The majority of contributing resources in the Indian Garden landscape remain from the latter, 

NPS sub-period of significance (1927 until 1943). Contributing resources that span the full fortyyear period of significance (1903-1943) tend to be natural features that typically take decades, or 

even centuries, to change—such as geologic features, streams, and vegetative communities—and 

features that are part of the larger Grand Canyon circulation system, such as the primary trails 

running into the canyon and between the rims. All contributing resources dating to the Cameronera sub-period of significance (1903-1927) are ruins, remnants, or archeological sites that are 

considered contributing due to their potential to yield information about that sub-period. 

Contributing resources remaining from the NPS sub-period of significance are primarily 

buildings, structures, and vegetation. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 24 

Landscape Feature CLR 

# 

Location within Indian Garden Period of 

Significance 

or Time-frame 

Riparian community Ve-1 Indian Garden, North Indian Garden Area, 

Pump Station and Corral Area 

1903-1943 

Desertscrub community Ve-2 Indian Garden, Pump Station and Corral 

Area 

1903-1943 

Garden Creek N-1 Indian Garden 1903-1943 

Linear path through corridor SO-1 Bright Angel Trail Corridor 1903-1943 

Bright Angel Trail C-1 Bright Angel Trail Corridor 1903-1943 

Cottonwood trees Ve-4 Bright Angel Trail Corridor, Day Use Area, 

North Indian Garden Area 

1903-1943 

Views to surrounding canyon V-1 Bright Angel Trail Corridor, North Indian 

Garden Area, Pump Station and Corral Area 

1903-1943 

Intermittent streams N-2 Administration Area 1903-1943 

Perennial streams N-5 Pump Station and Corral Area 1903-1943 

Tonto East Trail C-20 North Indian Garden Area 1903-1943 

Plateau Point Trail C-21 North Indian Garden Area 1903-1943 

Dry washes N-6 Pump Station and Corral Area, North Indian 

Garden Area 

1903-1943 

Floodplain N-3 Day Use Area, North Indian Garden Area 1903-1943 

Arizona B:16:140 (Mining 

remnants) 

A-1 Indian Garden 1903-1927 

Arizona B:16:152 (possible 

Cameron bldg.) 

A-2 Indian Garden 1903-1927 

Arizona B:16:165 (Tent platform 

and cooler/latrine) 

A-4 Indian Garden 1903-1927 

Arizona B:16:252 (Cameron 

artifacts) 

A-5 Indian Garden 1903-1927 

Central space – cleared floodplain SO-22 North Indian Garden Area 1903-1927 

Steep hillside SO-23 Pump Station and Corral Area 1903-1927 

Cottonwood trees Ve-4 Pump Station and Corral Area, North Indian 

Garden Area 

1903-1927 

Stone edging remnants A-6 North Indian Garden Area 1903-1927 

Debris piles A-7 North Indian Garden Area 1903-1927 

Telephone poles S-1 Indian Garden 1927-1943 

Node created by Trailside Shelter SO-3 Bright Angel Trail Corridor 1927-1943 

Redbud tree Ve-5 Bright Angel Trail Corridor 1927-1943 

Trailside Shelter B-1 Bright Angel Trail Corridor 1927-1943 

Stone steps to Trailside Shelter S-2 Bright Angel Trail Corridor 1927-1943 

SAR Cache/Rock House terrace SO-17 Day Use Area 1927-1943 

Spur trail – Bright Angel Trail to 

SAR Cache 

C-12 Day Use Area 1927-1943 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 25 

SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence B-9 Day Use Area 1927-1943 

Pump Caretaker’s Residence/Rock 

House (1943) 

B-10 Day Use Area 1927-1943 

Channelized Garden Creek S-16 Day Use Area 1927-1943 

Stone retaining wall at terrace S-19 Day Use Area 1927-1943 

Stone steps to terrace S-20 Day Use Area 1927-1943 

Pump Station node SO-20 Pump Station and Corral Area 1927-1943 

Redbud tree Ve-5 Pump Station and Corral Area 1927-1943 

South Pump House B-12 Pump Station and Corral Area 1927-1943 

Pump House Reservoir B-13 Pump Station and Corral Area 1927-1943 

Concrete cistern S-24 Pump Station and Corral Area 1927-1943 

Himalaya blackberry – cleared Ve-9 North Indian Garden Area 1927-1943 

Rehandling Pump House B-16 North Indian Garden Area 1927-1943 

Arizona B:16:164 (Puebloan 

ruins) 

A-3 Indian Garden ? 

Non-Contributing Features 

In this report, non-contributing features are features that were not present during the period of 

significance, no longer possess integrity, and/or are not capable of yielding important 

information about the period of significance. The majority of non-contributing features within 

Indian Garden are from the 1989 rehabilitation project that resulted in the construction of new 

spaces and buildings, the expansion of the site’s boundaries, and the installation of many other 

new features. Other non-contributing features appear to have accumulated over time, beginning 

around the 1960s. The exception is the former Kolb Studio site which is considered noncontributing because it retains no integrity and possesses no remaining elements that are capable 

of yielding important information about the period of significance. 

Landscape Feature CLR 

# 

Location within Indian Garden Period of 

Significance 

or Time-frame 

Former Kolb Studio A-8 North Indian Garden Area 1903-1927 

Picnic grounds SO-15 Day Use Area 1960s 

Trail network C-13 Day Use Area 1960s 

Footbridge abutment S-17 Day Use Area 1960s 

Electrical substation S-22 Pump Station and Corral Area 1960s 

Chain-link fencing SS-33 Pump Station and Corral Area 1960s 

Gabion walls S-15 Day Use Area 1960s or 1970s 

Comfort station spaces SO-14 Campground Area 1980s 

Comfort Station – south B-7 Campground Area 1980s 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 26 

Comfort Station – north B-8 Campground Area 1980s 

Wood and wire mesh fencing SS-25 Day Use Area 1980s 

PVC pipe SS-26 Day Use Area 1980s 

Comfort Station – 1987 B-15 Pump Station and Corral Area 1980s 

Wooden cabinet SS-28 Pump Station and Corral Area 1980s 

Electrical hook-up SS-29 Pump Station and Corral Area 1980s 

“No Hiking” sign SS-30 Pump Station and Corral Area 1980s 

Interpretive wayside SS-37 Pump Station and Corral Area 1980s 

Weather Station S-14 Day Use Area 1980s (?) 

Spur trail – comfort station C-4 Bright Angel Trail Corridor Post-1989 

Wood fencing SS-1 Bright Angel Trail Corridor Post-1989 

Contemporary illustrative sign SS-5 Bright Angel Trail Corridor Post-1989 

Cottonwood stumps SS-9 Bright Angel Trail Corridor Post-1989 

Communal space – Pump 

Operator’s Residence 

SO-4 Administration Area Post-1989 

Corridor of space SO-5 Administration Area Post-1989 

Courtyard SO-6 Administration Area Post-1989 

Backyard space– Ranger 

Residence 

SO-7 Administration Area Post-1989 

Public space – Ranger Residence SO-8 Administration Area Post-1989 

Sand filter bed SO-9 Administration Area Post-1989 

Helispot SO-10 Administration Area Post-1989 

Concrete sidewalk C-9 Administration Area Post-1989 

Trash Compactor Shed B-6 Administration Area Post-1989 

Sand Filter Bed S-4 Administration Area Post-1989 

Horseshoes court S-8 Administration Area Post-1989 

Hose House S-9 Administration Area Post-1989 

Drainfield S-10 Administration Area Post-1989 

Views to surrounding canyon V-1 Administration Area, Campground Area Post-1989 

Views from helispot V-2 Administration Area Post-1989 

Picnic table SS-10 Administration Area, Campground Area, Day 

Use Area 

Post-1989 

Windsock and post SS-11 Administration Area Post-1989 

Flagpole S-12 Administration Area Post-1989 

Tree cages SS-13 Administration Area Post-1989 

Utility meters and irrigation boxes SS-14 Administration Area, Campground Area Post-1989 

Wire mesh fence SS-15 Administration Area Post-1989 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 27 

Camping areas SO-11 Campground Area Post-1989 

Central public space SO-12 Campground Area Post-1989 

Secondary public space SO-13 Campground Area Post-1989 

Shade structures S-11 Campground Area Post-1989 

Camp site markers SS-16 Campground Area Post-1989 

Ammunition box SS-17 Campground Area Post-1989 

Backpack bar SS-18 Campground Area Post-1989 

“Contemporary” benches SS-19 Campground Area, Day Use Area, Pump 

Station and Corral Area 

Post-1989 

Continuous bench seating SS-23 Day Use Area Post-1989 

Electrical distribution box SS-24 Day Use Area Post-1989 

Visitor rest area SO-18 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Mule Barn facility SO-19 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Helispot SO-21 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Boulder and log edging SS-27 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Metal pipe rail fencing SS-31 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Wooden post-and-rail fencing SS-32 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Thermometer SS-6 Bright Angel Trail Corridor Post-1989 (?) 

Wet area N-4 Day Use Area 1990s 

Riparian community vegetation Ve-1 Day Use Area 1990s 

Utility structures SS-14 Pump Station and Corral Area Various 

Supporting Features 

In this report, supporting features are defined as features that post-date the period of significance 

yet were constructed with the same or similar design intent, or in the same “spirit,” as those 

features dating from the period of significance. Supporting features can either remain in or be 

removed from the landscape without reducing integrity. Indian Garden’s supporting features are 

those that were designed and/or constructed after 1943, but are still compatible with the historic 

character of the site. Supporting features here tend to reflect Rustic Style architectural and 

landscape architectural principles employed by the NPS between 1927 and 1943 and are 

constructed primarily of wood and native stone gathered from the surrounding region. Native 

vegetation installed after 1943 is also considered supporting because it reflects the character and 

types of plants utilized during the period of significance. 

Landscape Feature CLR 

# 

Location within Indian Garden Period of 

Significance 

or Time-frame 

Stone-edged steps S-27 Pump Station and Corral Area ? 

North Pump House B-11 Pump Station and Corral Area 1960s 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 28 

Wooden gate SS-34 Pump Station and Corral Area 1960s 

Wooden troughs with metal 

edging 

SS-35 Pump Station and Corral Area 1960s 

Flood walls S-28 North Indian Garden Area 1960s 

Typical signage SS-44 Bright Angel Trail, Administration Area, 

Campground Area, Day Use Area, Pump 

Station and Corral Area 

1980s 

“Rustic” benches SS-7 Bright Angel Trail, Campground Area, Day 

Use Area, Pump Station and Corral Area 

1980s 

Bunkhouse B-5 Administration Area 1980s 

Spur trails – to comfort stations 

and camping areas 

C-11 Campground Area 1980s 

Stone-edged trail to helispot C-15 Pump Station and Corral Area 1980s 

Ramp-like trail to Comfort Station C-16 Pump Station and Corral Area 1980s 

Stone retaining wall S-26 Pump Station and Corral Area 1980s 

Spur trails – formal C-2 Bright Angel Trail Post-1989 

Spur trails – informal C-3 Bright Angel Trail Post-1989 

Stone edging SS-2 Bright Angel Trail, Administration Area, 

Campground Area, Pump Station and Corral 

Area 

Post-1989 

Log risers and stone water bars SS-3 Bright Angel Trail Post-1989 

Stone-edged trail to Ranger 

Residence 

C-5 Administration Area Post-1989 

Secondary trail C-6 Administration Area Post-1989 

Spur trail – Bright Angel Trail to 

helispot 

C-7 Administration Area Post-1989 

Spur trail – Bright Angel Trail to 

Bunkhouse 

C-8 Administration Area Post-1989 

Transplanted native vegetation Ve-6 Administration Area, Campground Area Post-1989 

Re-vegetation area Ve-7 Administration Area Post-1989 

NPS Ranger Residence (1989) B-2 Administration Area Post-1989 

Pump Operator’s Residence B-3 Administration Area Post-1989 

Storage/Laundry/First Aid 

Building 

B-4 Administration Area Post-1989 

Wooden stairs S-6 Administration Area Post-1989 

Stone walls and retaining walls S-7 Administration Area Post-1989 

Central trail C-10 Campground Area Post-1989 

Riparian community vegetation Ve-1 Campground Area Post-1989 

Information kiosk S-12 Campground Area Post-1989 

Stone walls S-7 Campground Area Post-1989 

Stone camp site retaining walls S-13 Campground Area Post-1989 

Drinking fountains SS-20 Campground Area, Day Use Area, Post-1989 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 29 

Rock edging SS-21 Day Use Area Post-1989 

Stone-edged trail to south of Mule 

Barn 

C-17 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Spur trail – informal C-19 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Mule Barn and Corral B-14 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Information kiosk S-23 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 

Large metal water troughs SS-36 Pump Station and Corral Area Post-1989 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 30 


Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 31 

Missing Resources 

The majority of features from the period of significance that are no longer extant are related to 

the Ralph Cameron sub-period of significance between 1903 and 1927. These include service 

and housing structures, agricultural fields, walls, fences, and trails. Most of these features were 

removed during the mid-to-late-1920s NPS revitalization endeavors. 

Fewer features are missing from the latter sub-period of significance—between 1927 and 1943. 

Small-scale features, patterns of spatial organization such as the picnic area that was once near 

the Trailside Shelter and space north of the Caretaker’s Residence, latrines and a mule barn and 

corral, and lengths of stone wall and stone-lined channels are among the missing features. 

Features from this period of significance were removed because they were no longer useful, were 

in disrepair, or were updated by a more contemporary feature. 

The following map lists and locates features missing from the Indian Garden landscape that were 

present during the period of significance (Sheet 33). The dates in parentheses denote whether the 

missing feature was from the Cameron sub-period of significance (1903-1927) or the NPScontrolled sub-period of significance (1927-1943). The map legend also presents a list of features 

that are not easily located on a map, such as views and spatial organization, or exist over a broad 

area within Indian Garden. 

Since the period of significance, Indian Garden has continued to evolve. This evolution led to the 

removal of certain landscape features to make room for new development. Although the 

following features post-date the period of significance, future researchers may appreciate the 

following list of items that are no longer extant in Indian Garden. 

Features Missing Since circa 1966 

• Tool Shed near Rock House 

• 1935 Mule Barn and Corral 

• Picnic Area with Stone Walls 

• Footbridge 

• Septic Tank (may still be buried) 

• Sludge Trench (may still be buried) 

• Sewage Trenches (may still be buried) 

• Comfort Station 

• Overhead Power Lines 

• Dike/Retaining Wall (west of Caretaker’s Residence) 

Features Missing Since circa 1988 

• Helispot on campground 

• 1970s Mule Barn and Corral 

• 1965 Bunkhouse (demolished) 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 32 


Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 33 

Integrity Assessment 

National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation states 

that: 

Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance...Historic 

properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not. 

Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven 

aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain 

historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the 

aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property 

to convey significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to 

a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is 

significant. 

Assessment of integrity is based on an evaluation of the existence and condition of physical 

features dating from a property's period of significance, and taking into consideration the degree 

to which the individual qualities of integrity are present. The seven aspects of integrity included 

in the National Register criteria are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

and association. 

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the 

place where the historic event occurred; design is the combination of elements 

that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property; setting is the 

physical environment of a historic property; materials are the physical elements 

that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and on a 

particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property; workmanship is 

the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any 

given period in history or prehistory; feeling is a property's expression of the 

aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and association is the 

direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. 

Within this section, integrity is assessed for each sub-period of the overall 1903-1943 period of 

significance. Integrity is assessed, using the seven aspects listed above, for the Indian Garden 

project area as a whole and then, where applicable, by landscape characteristic. Threats to 

integrity are described after these assessments. Finally, recommendations for which portions of 

Indian Garden are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places are discussed 

at the end of this section. 

Assessment of Integrity 

Integrity Assessment for the Ralph Cameron Sub-Period of Significance (1903-1927) 

The comparative analysis and significance evaluation concluded that too few features remained 

from Ralph Cameron’s tenure in Indian Garden to fully portray the importance of his effect upon 

the landscape. Extant features included tree rows and archeological features, such as stone tent 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 34 

platforms, and possibly buried artifacts. It has been determined that the landscape does not 

convey its significance for the Ralph Cameron sub-period of significance (1903-1927), and 

therefore does not retain integrity from this sub-period. This sub-period, however, is an 

important part of Indian Garden’s evolution. Without the events occurring during these years, 

Indian Garden would not appear as it does today, and may not have existed at all. For this reason, 

despite lack of integrity and numerous missing features, the CLR team recommends that the 

period of significance remain from 1903 until 1943 to ensure that any Cameron-era remnants are 

considered contributing and are properly preserved and maintained.

As a whole, for the Ralph Cameron sub-period of significance, the Indian Garden landscape does 

retain integrity of location. The physical location of Cameron’s former tent camp remains intact. 

The location of the natural systems and features—such as the general course of Garden Creek, 

geologic formations, and likely the dry washes, springs, and seeps—also remain in the same 

location as during the Cameron sub-period of significance. Many of the cottonwood trees extant 

from this sub-period also retain integrity of location, particularly the tree rows found north of the 

Caretaker’s Residence. Although most circulation patterns from the sub-period are missing, the 

Bright Angel Trail and Plateau Point Trail retain similar alignments to those that existed 

historically. No buildings and structures, only remnant features, retain any integrity of location 

for this sub-period; small-scale features do not retain integrity of location from this sub-period 

either. 

The Indian Garden landscape does not retain integrity of design from this sub-period of 

significance. The overall landscape no longer conveys the conscious decisions made during 

Cameron’s and his colleagues’ original conception and planning of the Indian Garden landscape. 

Their design decisions, such as how and where to locate buildings, how they organized space in 

the tent camp, how and where they laid out the vegetable garden, and what type of ornamental 

details to use, are no longer visible in the landscape to a sufficient extent. The only landscape 

characteristics that retain any integrity of design are circulation and vegetation; the current 

design and placement of Bright Angel Trail and Plateau Point were likely affected by Cameron 

and his contemporaries, while cottonwood trees were deliberately sited in rows that are 

discernable at present. 

The overall Indian Garden landscape retains integrity of setting, due to the typically unchanging 

nature of the surrounding canyon walls that provide a similar backdrop at present as they did 

between 1903 and 1927. Within the project area, however, few landscape features are considered 

to retain integrity of setting, due to the numerous changes made to the landscape since 1927. In 

particular, the amount of vegetation has increased to such an extent that Indian Garden is no 

longer set in a primarily arid desertscrub environment with only a few imported trees and little 

shade. Rather, the current setting is one of a lush, riparian environment. 

Indian Garden does not retain integrity of materials from the Cameron sub-period of 

significance. Although remnants of Cameron-era remain, such as the stone platform of the 

former Trailkeeper’s Tent, there are too few features to provide insight into the material 

preferences of Cameron and his colleagues. For example, no wood or canvas remains from their 

tents and auxiliary structures, the exact materials chosen for fence types and stone walls are 

unknown, and exact species of plant material installed are also unknown. Indian Garden also 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 35 

lacks integrity of materials because substantial amounts of new materials have been incorporated 

that have obliterated those that once existed between 1903 and 1927. It is impossible to assess 

materials integrity for intangible features, such as spatial organization, land use, and views and 

vistas; and for features that were not designed, such as natural systems. Although it is likely that 

circulation features retain integrity of materials, due to the possible retention of earthen treads 

over time, it is not known if materials such as stone edging and water bars remain, or were used 

between 1903 and 1927. Vegetation retains a minimal degree of integrity of materials, due to the 

mature cottonwoods that are known to remain from the Cameron sub-period of significance. No 

integrity of materials remains for building and structural features, due to the fact that no intact or 

reasonably representative features from this category are still extant in the Indian Garden 

landscape. 

For many of the same reasons that the Indian Garden lacked integrity of materials from the 1903-

1927 sub-period of significance, it also lacks integrity of workmanship. Because there are so few 

extant or intact features from this period of significance, there is no evidence of Cameron’s 

worker’s skill or methodology of construction—the landscape does not convey what type of 

detailing, finishes, technologies, or aesthetics were used, however simplistic or complicated. 

Although one can judge the level and type of workmanship in historic photographs, these 

concepts are not available to Indian Garden visitors in the landscape as a whole or through any 

particular landscape characteristic. 

Indian Garden does not retain integrity of feeling from the 1903-1927 sub-period of significance. 

Because so much has changed since 1927 in Indian Garden—including the site’s internal setting; 

the amount, type, and location of buildings and structures; the amount of vegetation; and spatial 

organization—the landscape no longer conveys the character that existed during Ralph 

Cameron’s tenure. As mentioned in the section on integrity of setting, during Cameron’s time in 

Indian Garden the landscape was an arid, desertscrub environment softened only by a few 

transplanted trees and the waters of Garden Creek. At present, Indian Garden is a lush oasis of 

dense and mature vegetation, shady rest areas, and far more development than Cameron likely 

ever imagined. Therefore, the landscape does not convey any historic feeling from between 1903 

and 1927. 

Indian Garden does not retain integrity of association because, although it is the location where 

Cameron set up his concession operations between 1903 and 1927, the landscape is not 

sufficiently intact to convey the relationship between Ralph Cameron, his tourism business, and 

the landscape. 

Integrity Assessment for the NPS Sub-Period of Significance (1927-1943) 

The analysis and evaluation of the Indian Garden landscape shows that, as a whole, Indian 

Garden does not retain integrity to the sub-period of significance from 1927 until 1943. Although 

some of the seven aspects of integrity were shown to exist, the most important aspect of the site, 

integrity of design, is not retained. The physical characteristics of the landscape have changed to 

such a degree that little historic character remains that would present a holistic understanding of 

how the landscape appeared between 1927 and 1943. Additionally, the alterations made in 1989 

are not easily reversed, again reinforcing the landscape’s lack of integrity. In this landscape, the 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 36 

lack of most of the tangible aspects of integrity—design, materials, and workmanship—outweigh 

the retention of other intangible aspects of feeling and association. For these reasons, the overall 

Indian Garden landscape does not retain an adequate level of integrity to be eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places as an individual district. Certain extant buildings and 

structures, however, may be eligible for listing due to their ability to convey their significance. 

Additionally, although the landscape does not retain integrity to this sub-period of significance, it 

is still important to preserve and maintain all contributing features. 

For this sub-period of significance, the Indian Garden site retains integrity of location because 

the remainder of Indian Garden development that occurred between 1927 and 1943 has not been 

relocated. Elements that detract from integrity of location are the fact that much of the historic 

spatial organization was altered since the period of significance, particularly during the 1989 

rehabilitation effort. Yet, many individual landscape characteristics built or developed during 

this sub-period remain in their historic locations. As with the earlier sub-period, natural systems 

and features—such as Garden Creek, springs, seeps, floodplains, and dry washes—have 

maintained much the same location. Flooding and geologic events, such as rock slides, have 

likely slightly altered the locations of some features, yet these events have not been considerable 

enough to affect integrity. Circulation features retain a fair degree of integrity, although those 

circulation patterns once associated with relocated or demolished historic spaces are missing. 

The primary circulation features, however, of Bright Angel Trail and Plateau Point Trail retain 

their same location—although their alignments have been altered over time—as do the steps to 

the Trailside Shelter and the path leading from Bright Angel Trail to the Caretaker’s Residence. 

All the extant buildings and structures constructed between 1927 and 1943 remain in their 

historic locations. It is likely that any vegetation remaining from the latter sub-period of 

significance retains integrity of location. 

As a complete entity, the Indian Garden landscape does not retain integrity of design due to the 

numerous changes the site has undergone since 1943. Alterations undertaken in the 1950s and 

1960s, and in particular the 1989 rehabilitation, relocated or demolished much of the original 

layout and design of Indian Garden. While certain individual features, such as buildings and 

possibly vegetation, retain some level of integrity unto themselves, the entire landscape does not 

retain its historic spatial relationships. These relationships include the picnic area, the spatial 

patterns north of the Caretaker’s Residence, and the former mule barn and corral site; the 

numerous features associated with these spaces are also lost. When comparing historic 

documents and images of vegetation to existing vegetative conditions, the landscape 

characteristic of vegetation does retain integrity of design. The use of native plants and the 

apparent placement of vegetation to harmonize with the surrounding natural character of the site 

is still apparent today. The historic buildings and structures of Indian Garden retain integrity of 

design, as the majority of their massing, materials, ornamentation, and location are intact. These 

buildings and structures are the Rock House, Caretaker’s Residence, Trailside Shelter, Reservoir, 

South Pump House, and Rehandling Pump House. Too little information about the physical and 

ornamental design of circulation exists to accurately assess integrity. 

The Indian Garden landscape does not retain integrity of setting. At a larger scale, Indian Garden 

appears to retain integrity because the physical setting and surroundings of Indian Garden are 

similar today to its character present between 1927 and 1943. During this time, Indian Garden 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 37 

was a site of shade-giving vegetation running along a creek, set amongst a desertscrub 

environment and between three walls of the Grand Canyon. Internally, however, the alteration of 

spatial organization, the addition of the Campground and Administrative Areas to the south, the 

new Mule Barn and Corral, and the increase in vegetative density—particularly in the Day Use 

Area—result in a lack of integrity of setting. 

The Indian Garden landscape does not retain integrity of materials. As a whole, most of the 

physical materials located in Indian Garden at present—stone, wood, and metal—post-date the 

period of significance. Although similar materials may have been used during the period of 

significance, enough of the physical fabric has been recently introduced, and introduced in new 

ways, that integrity of materials is not retained. National Register Bulletin #15 provides guidance 

on this issue by stating that “...if the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials must 

have been preserved. The property must also be an actual historic resource, not a re-creation; a 

recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible.”13 For example, the stone drinking 

fountains appear to be historic and utilize native stone, but construction details from the 1989 

rehabilitation drawings show that these fountains are actually recent additions to the landscape. 

The 1989 construction drawings also show that other features using materials that were available 

during the period of significance, such as stone edging, wood risers, stone waterbars, and wood 

and metal water troughs, were built in 1989. Additionally, major floods during the 1960s likely 

washed away many historic material examples and were replaced during reconstruction efforts. 

Individual buildings, however, retain integrity of materials and include the Caretaker’s 

Residence/SAR Cache, Trailside Shelter, South Pump House, Reservoir, and Rehandling Pump 

House. Much of the vegetation may also retain integrity of materials because it appears that few 

plants have been removed since the period of significance. 

For this sub-period of significance, the overall Indian Garden does not retain integrity of 

workmanship due to the general lack of extant historic features and the intrusion of new features 

that post-date the period of significance. What is predominantly visible in Indian Garden at 

present is the evidence of NPS crews’ construction labor and skill from the late 1980s. Despite 

this general lack of integrity, extant historic buildings retain integrity of workmanship. The 

Rustic-style buildings, such as the South Pump House and Trailside Shelter, continue to display 

the skill of NPS and CCC designers and laborers; particularly of their skill at carpentry, masonry, 

and fitting architecture into existing natural surroundings. The telephone line that exists to the 

east of Indian Garden is another example of NPS and its contractor’s workmanship. 

Indian Garden retains integrity of feeling because it continues to represent a shady, vegetatively 

lush respite from the heat and aridity of hiking or mule-riding in the inner canyon. During the 

period of significance, NPS personnel sought to make Indian Garden a welcome rest stop on the 

way through the canyon. They did this through encouraging vegetation growth for its shade and 

cooling abilities, offering seating and picnicking opportunities, and generally creating an oasislike atmosphere. This atmosphere and feeling continues to exist at present. 

The overall Indian Garden landscape retains integrity of association because it conveys a direct 

link between the historic events that occurred there between 1927 and 1943, as well as a direct 

 

13 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, National Register Bulletin #15 How to 

Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 45. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 38 

link to the important architecture styles that were employed in the site. Although the association 

is not strong due to the numerous alterations made between the 1960s and 1989, the landscape 

conveys its link to the development of tourism and recreation in the Grand Canyon due to its 

continued presence along the Bright Angel Trail and the fact that the site has remained in its 

same location since 1927, and because its tourism-related land uses have remained the same 

since 1927. This link is conveyed through the South Pump House, Reservoir, and Rock House 

which are evidence of the cooperative efforts made between the NPS and its concessionaires to 

develop tourism and recreation in the Grand Canyon. Indian Garden also conveys its linkage to 

political and governmental events through its retention of CCC-constructed features, such as the 

Caretaker’s Residence, Trailside Shelter, and telephone poles. These features are evidence that 

the CCC was involved in the development of Indian Garden and of the architectural 

craftsmanship they exhibited. The landscape’s link to architecture-related activities between 

1927 and 1943 is exhibited in the extant historic buildings built by the NPS, CCC, and Santa Fe 

Railway that employed Rustic-style architectural principles common during that time. 

Threats to Integrity 

Although the Indian Garden landscape does not retain integrity from the period of significance as 

a complete entity, it does retain some aspects of integrity. This section addresses threats to the 

landscape that may diminish what integrity remains. 

Threats to integrity of an historic site generally include natural forces, neglect, and improper 

human intervention. At present natural forces that pose a threat to Indian Garden include erosion 

and flooding-related damage. Flooding and erosion are constant threats in Indian Garden and 

have caused great damage to Indian Garden in the past. Without proper controls, flood events 

and erosional forces may harm contributing cultural resources. Invasive plant species are a 

constant threat in any landscape; a number of invasive species grow in Indian Garden that may 

alter the vegetative character of the site if improperly managed. 

Lack of maintenance also threatens integrity in Indian Garden. If left unchecked, as is happening 

in the Day Use Area, vegetation will begin to obscure both historic and non-historic features 

ultimately altering the character and setting of Indian Garden. Dead, damaged, and dying 

vegetation also poses a threat to intact cultural resources as well as to visitor safety. Without 

proper maintenance, the remaining Cameron-era cottonwood trees will likely be lost or 

inappropriately replaced. The Rehandling Pump House requires stabilization and maintenance if 

the 1932 Rustic-style building is to remain intact. 

Potential threats posed by human intervention include unmitigated mule- and pedestrian-related 

damage to the Bright Angel Trail. Without frequent maintenance, mule trains and hikers will 

have a detrimental impact to the Bright Angel Trail, including worn depressions, widening and 

relocating the trail tread, and damage to edge vegetation and water bars. 

Additional development around the site, particularly development that is not sensitive to 

remaining contributing resources, would also diminish integrity and detract from the experience 

of being away from the rim, in an inner canyon oasis that is both small enough to feel isolated 

from crowds but developed enough to provide a sense of security and comfort. Removal or 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 39 

relocation of any of the extant historic buildings would also diminish the level of integrity. 

Installation of incompatible features, such as inappropriate buildings, structures, and site 

furnishings, would diminish Indian Garden’s level of integrity. 

An additional threat is the lack of archeological investigations concerning the 1903-1927 subperiod of significance. Without appropriate archeological investigations of Cameron-era 

artifacts, sub-surface data that currently exists may be lost forever beneath layers of flood-related 

sediment deposition. If this potential information source is lost, interpretive efforts concerning 

the sub-period may be hindered. 

Recommendations 

As a result of the analysis and evaluation undertaken in this chapter, the CLR team concludes 

that Indian Garden is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as an individual 

district. According to National Register Bulletin #15, “...the relationships among [a] district’s 

components must be substantially unchanged since the period of significance.” Bulletin #15 also 

states that a district is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places if it 

contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys its sense of historic 

environment.14 

Indian Garden does, however, contain contributing features that should be appropriately 

protected and preserved. Portions of Indian Garden and some of its contributing features have 

already been included in the draft 1992 Bright Angel Trail nomination—a nomination for the 

entire 7.8 mile Bright Angel Trail system from the Kolb Studio on the South Rim to the 

Colorado River. Although this nomination has not yet been approved or listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office made a Determination 

of Eligibility for the entire trail in 1997. The CLR team offers that while Indian Garden may not 

be individually eligible as a district, it continues to be an important part of the holistic evolution 

and use of the Bright Angel Trail and Grand Canyon National Park. 

The conclusions drawn in this CLR suggest that the NPS should proceed with seeking approval 

of the Bright Angel Trail nomination, which should include Indian Garden’s contributing 

features. The sections relating to Indian Garden in the existing nomination were written using 

information and boundaries set prior to the 1989 rehabilitation and should be updated to reflect 

recent changes.15 For example, the Bright Angel Trail nomination boundary is still sized to 

include now-demolished buildings including the 1970 Mule Barn, a 1965 Bunkhouse, and a 1961 

Comfort Station. The revisions should include all contributing features described in this CLR, 

rather than solely buildings. The following illustration depicts the proposed historic district 

boundary as it exists in the Bright Angel Trail nomination and the revised historic district 

boundary as proposed in this CLR (Sheet 34). 

 

14 National Register Bulletin #15, 46. 

15 The Bright Angel Trail nomination draws its boundary and contributing feature information from Teri Cleeland’s 

1986 thesis, “The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District in Grand Canyon National Park: A Model For Historic 

Preservation.” 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Landscape Analysis and Evaluation IV - 40 


Chapter V • Landscape Treatment and Design 

Recommendations

Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 1 

Chapter V • Landscape Treatment and 

Design Recommendations 

Introduction 

The cultural landscape treatment recommendations and design guidelines presented in this 

chapter provide specific short-term assistance as well as a comprehensive vision to guide longterm management decisions. The information included in this section addresses the challenges 

associated with balancing cultural and natural resource protection, park operations, and 

interpretation within Indian Garden. 

All landscape treatment recommendations and design guidelines offered in this chapter were 

developed in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996). This text 

provides guidance to resource managers prior to and during the planning and implementation of 

projects that may impact cultural landscape resources. The cultural landscape treatment 

recommendations and design guidelines provide an overall flexible approach to the protection, 

preservation, and maintenance of site resources and recommend a body of specific concepts for 

managing the site. 

This chapter is divided into four sections: 

• Management Issues, Goals, and Objectives; 

• Recommended Landscape Treatment Approach; 

• Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines; and 

• Specific Project Recommendations 

The Management Issues, Goals, and Objectives section provides a summary of management 

information found primarily within the park’s 1995 General Management Plan (GMP). This 

section also offers additional management goals and objectives developed by the CLR team that 

are directed specifically toward management of the cultural landscape. 

The Recommended Landscape Treatment Approach section outlines the treatment alternatives 

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior for treating historic landscapes and identifies the most 

appropriate approach for the Indian Garden project area. The selection of the appropriate 

approach is based on the assessment of integrity and park-identified management goals and 

objectives. 

The Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines section identifies the types and degrees 

of change that can occur in the project area without negatively affecting the landscape’s physical 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 2 

and visual character-defining features. The emphasis of this section, given the project area’s 

general lack of integrity, is the preservation and rehabilitation of remaining contributing features 

and the slowing of incremental changes which will further alter historic character if not properly 

managed. Treatment recommendations are based on the existing conditions assessments found in 

Chapter III Existing Conditions and focus on rehabilitating existing features that are in fair and 

poor condition. Design guidelines focus on managing new development within Indian Garden to 

ensure new features are compatible with the remaining historic character of the site. 

 

The final section—Specific Project Recommendations—provides recommendations that support 

specific park projects. The CLR team evaluated planning and design options that were developed 

by the park. The team also developed recommendations for maintaining important landscape 

features affected by each specific project. 

Management Issues, Goals, and Objectives 

The Grand Canyon National Park’s (GRCA) 1995 GMP sets forth the basic strategy for 

managing park resources, visitor use, and interpretation. The GMP is the primary vehicle for 

determining the general treatment of all cultural resources in the park. The GMP was used to 

inform the CLR team with regard to the park’s vision, management objectives, and planning 

issues that could potentially impact treatment guidelines and recommendations. 

In the GMP, Indian Garden is considered a Corridor Trails facility. The GMP offers a vision 

statement regarding the preservation of the Corridor Trails’ natural, scenic, and cultural 

resources and that conveys the essence of the park’s qualities and desired future conditions. The 

vision statement, however, does not specifically mention Indian Garden. 

The corridor trails are the main transportation routes for most visitors 

into the inner canyon. Rustic facilities have historically been provided 

along the trails to meet visitor needs. For over a hundred years mules have 

carried visitors into the canyon, hauled supplies, and helped with trail 

maintenance. The traditional character of the trails should be maintained, 

and mule use should be allowed to continue. However, crowding, visitor 

use conflicts, and resource impacts should be minimized. Services, such as 

drinking water and toilets, should continue to be provided at critical 

locations for visitor safety and reduced environmental impacts. Phantom 

Ranch should continue as a small rustic historic ranch where visitors can 

experience the inner canyon.1

The following is a summary of planning issues facing the Corridor Trails area from the GMP; 

the list has been edited to show issues that may impact Indian Garden. 

 

1

 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, General Management Plan for Grand Canyon National 

Park (Denver Service Center, 1995), 11. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 3 

Visitor Experience 

• Visitor information is lacking, so visitors are not always prepared for safe hiking trips. 

• Trails are often overcrowded. 

• Mule use on trails causes conflicts with hikers. 

Cultural and Natural Resources 

• The historic character, cultural landscape, and archeological resources near the trails are 

being impacted by high visitor use. 

• Intensive trail maintenance is needed due to mule use, and borrow pits in the inner 

canyon are used for maintenance purposes. 

• Excess water from the trans-canyon waterline is released to Garden Creek, with resulting 

impacts on the natural habitat. 

The GMP also provides management objectives for the Corridor Trails. Again, these objectives 

do not specifically mention Indian Garden, yet they have the ability to inform decisions 

concerning its landscape:2

Visitor Experience 

• Where livestock and visitors share the same trails and areas, minimize conflicts and 

resource impacts, and enhance safety. 

• Provide a high level of NPS management presence to enhance the visitor experience and 

safety, and to protect park resources and values. 

• Provide a quality backcountry experience consistent with historic uses of the crosscanyon corridor. 

Development 

• Provide facilities only at currently developed areas within the cross-canyon corridor. 

• Provide only basic services and facilities that support resource preservation and visitor 

safety, and that preserve an experience dominated by the natural environment and 

historic setting, design, and uses. 

• Minimize the intrusion of the sights and sounds of facilities and developments on the 

visitor experience (for example, lights or generators should not be seen or heard by 

visitors in campgrounds). Maintain and enhance the historic setting. 

Maintenance 

• Maintain the Bright Angel, North Kaibab, South Kaibab, and River Trails to 

accommodate high levels of backcountry visitor use. 

 

2

 GMP, 16. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 4 

• Minimize and mitigate the impacts of trail maintenance activities, such as borrow pits, on 

the environment away from the immediate trail. 

To mitigate the above issues, achieve the park’s goals and objectives, and implement the park’s 

vision, the GMP offers the following actions:3

Access and Trails 

• Sections of the main trails will be hardened with a natural material that blends well with 

the environment, that is permeable, that provides good traction, and that will significantly 

reduce the need to use borrow material. 

• At Indian Garden visitor programs will be provided, and a small amphitheater will be 

added near the picnic area. A small building (the former ranger station) [SAR 

Cache/Caretaker’s Residence], which is used for storage, will be converted to a visitor 

contact station. 

• The campgrounds at Indian Garden...will remain the same size. 

• At Indian Garden housing will remain the same, except one house [the Rock House] now 

used for storage will be converted back to housing for an interpreter if floodplain safety 

concerns can be adequately addressed. 

Recommended Management Goals and Objectives 

In addition to the management issues and goals offered above, the CLR team developed 

additional goals and objectives to enhance the preservation and understanding of Indian 

Garden’s cultural landscape. The following text offers a set of goals for each topic and then a 

sub-set of objectives that elucidate how to achieve each goal. 

Maintenance 

• Undertake frequent maintenance within Indian Garden. 

o Prepare a maintenance plan that incorporates both historic and recent features to 

ensure an integrated, holistic treatment and protection of the site. 

o Include trail, vegetation, and building maintenance in the overall plan. 

Natural Systems and Features 

• Minimize the impact of flooding and the release of excess water on cultural and natural 

resources in Indian Garden. 

o Understand typical flood hydrology in Indian Garden and develop techniques to 

mitigate the harmful effects of flooding. 

o Locate new features out of flood zones. 

 

3

 Ibid., 57. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 5 

Circulation 

• Maintain the Bright Angel Trail and all interior trails within Indian Garden. 

o Prepare a section dedicated to trail maintenance in the proposed Indian Garden 

maintenance plan. 

o Work with mule concessionaires to share maintenance responsibilities of trails 

that are used for mule travel. 

Vegetation 

• Minimize the impacts of pedestrian and mule traffic on vegetation. 

o Create a more visible NPS staff presence to prevent vandalism. 

o Educate visitors and concessionaires on the importance of respecting vegetation. 

o Install signage and barriers to protect particularly sensitive vegetation. 

• Prepare a vegetation management plan for Indian Garden. 

o Prepare a plan that includes best management practices for controlling vegetation 

growth, controlling invasive and exotic plants, undertaking re-vegetation efforts, 

installing new plants to replace those that have died or been removed, and a list of 

appropriate native plants to be installed when new development occurs. 

• Perform frequent maintenance to control vegetation growth. 

o Undertake tasks, such as pruning, clearing, thinning, as part of the proposed sitewide maintenance plan or the proposed vegetation management plan. 

o Control excess water that promotes unwanted plant growth in certain areas. 

Buildings and Structures 

• Preserve and protect all historic buildings and structures within Indian Garden. 

o Enlist qualified personnel, such as architects, conservators, and structural 

engineers, to assess the condition of historic buildings and structures in Indian 

Garden, including archeological resources and the Rehandling Pump House. 

o Prepare a plan that assesses the condition of the buildings and structures, methods 

of stabilization and repair, and appropriate techniques for the future treatment and 

maintenance of each feature. This could be a stand-alone report or part of the sitewide maintenance program. 

Interpretation 

• Enhance interpretation efforts in Indian Garden 

o Increase the number of interpretation staff in Indian Garden. 

o Include additional interpretation themes that address all stages of landscape 

development in Indian Garden. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 6 

Recommended Landscape Treatment Approach 

The U.S. Department of the Interior currently recognizes four appropriate treatment alternatives 

for historic landscapes: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. These are 

defined and discussed in both The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation 

Projects and Director’s Order – 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. DO-28 provides 

the following definitions of the four treatment alternatives for cultural landscapes: 

Preservation maintains the existing integrity and character of a cultural 

landscape by arresting or retarding deterioration caused by natural forces and 

normal use. It includes both maintenance and stabilization. Maintenance is a 

systematic activity mitigating wear and deterioration of a cultural landscape by 

protecting its conditions. In light of the dynamic qualities of a landscape, 

maintenance is essential for the long-term preservation of individual features and 

integrity of the entire landscape. Stabilization involves re-establishing the 

stability of an unsafe, damaged, or deteriorated cultural landscape while 

maintaining its existing character. 

Rehabilitation improves the utility or function of a cultural landscape, through 

repair or alteration, to make possible an efficient compatible use while preserving 

those portions or features that are important in defining its significance. 

Restoration accurately depicts the form, features, and character of a cultural 

landscape as it appeared at a specific period or as intended by its original 

constructed design. It may involve the reconstruction of missing historic features, 

and selective removal of later features, some having cultural value in themselves. 

Reconstruction entails depicting the form, features, and details of a nonsurviving cultural landscape, or any part thereof, as it appeared at a specific 

period or as intended by its original constructed design. Reconstruction of an 

entire landscape is always a last-resort measure for addressing a management 

objective and will be undertaken only after policy review in the regional and 

Washington offices. 

Project Area-wide Treatment Approach 

The Indian Garden management issues, goals, and condition assessments outlined above and in 

Chapter III described a need for improved visitor services and interpretive opportunities, 

protection of the inner canyon corridor trail experience, remedies for over-crowding and 

mule/hiker conflicts, protection of cultural and natural resources, and the need for ongoing 

maintenance. These actions require both preservation of existing historic and natural resources 

combined with alterations or additions to the landscape. Despite the site’s lack of integrity as an 

individual unit, the CLR team recommends rehabilitation as the appropriate treatment 

alternative for those portions of Indian Garden that will be included in a revised Bright Angel 

Trail National Register nomination (Refer to Sheet 34 in Chapter IV). The approach for the non-
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 7 

historic areas—the Administration and Campground Areas—should include appropriate levels of 

maintenance to prevent deterioration and compatible and sensitive new development, when 

necessary. 

Rehabilitation is defined as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a 

property through repair, alterations, and additions, while preserving those portions or features 

which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” Rehabilitation will allow site 

managers to sensitively incorporate new features and uses while preserving the remaining 

historic character of the site. In addition to the need for accommodating new elements, 

rehabilitation is a suitable choice because of the numerous changes already made in Indian 

Garden since the period of significance, and the landscape’s lack of integrity.4 

Treatment Approach by Landscape Character Area 

For the four historic character areas within Indian Garden that should be included in a revised 

Bright Angel Trail National Register nomination—Bright Angel Trail Corridor (North and 

South); Day Use Area; Pump Station and Corral Area; and North Indian Garden—the 

recommended treatment approach is rehabilitation. Although individual justifications are given 

below, the two primary reasons for this recommendation are the diminished integrity of the 

character areas and the need for compatible repairs and new features. Within these character 

areas, the rehabilitation approach must be tempered with the implementation of preservation 

principles to protect historic, contributing features. 

Administration and Campground Areas

Because these two areas are not historic, no rehabilitation or preservation efforts are required. 

Appropriate actions include proper maintenance of existing features and the addition of new 

infill development, when necessary. 

Bright Angel Trail Corridor

Rehabilitation is recommended due to the continual need to repair and maintain the Bright Angel 

Trail and edge vegetation. This choice is also reinforced by the large ratio of new additions 

versus contributing features in the character area. 

Day Use Area

Rehabilitation is recommended due to the high proportion of non-contributing features to 

contributing features in the character area, the need for maintenance to control vegetation, the 

need to repair deteriorated features, and the possible addition of contemporary uses such as a 

Visitor Contact Station and interpretive furnishings. In this character area, however, preservation 

efforts must also be implemented to protect extant contributing resources, such as the Cameronera cottonwood trees and the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence. 

 

4 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes states that rehabilitation is recommended when “a determination is made prior to 

work that a greater amount of existing historic fabric has become damaged or deteriorated over time and, as a result, 

more repair and replacement will be required.” 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 8 

Pump Station and Corral Area

Rehabilitation is recommended because more new additions and non-contributing features exist 

than historic contributing features, new and compatible uses have already been integrated into 

the character area, and maintenance of existing features will be required more often than 

preservation efforts. Preservation of contributing resources, such as the South Pump House and 

reservoir, must also be a high priority in this character area. 

North Indian Garden

Rehabilitation is recommended because the possibility of finding new information through 

archeological surveys may create an opportunity for new interpretive uses. These new uses may 

require the installation of features such as waysides and site furnishings. If necessary, limited 

new development may also be located in this character area; non-essential construction and 

development should be avoided. The preservation component of this rehabilitation approach is 

important in this character area to ensure the protection and retention of features such as the 

Rehandling Pump House and Trail Maintainer’s tent platform, as well as any historic resources 

identified in the future. 

Standards for Rehabilitation 

In order to provide park managers and others involved with the treatment and management of the 

Indian Garden landscape, the Secretary of the Interior has developed standards for the 

rehabilitation of historic landscapes. The Standards for Rehabilitation are as follows: 

• A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal 

change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 

• The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of 

distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that 

characterize a property will be avoided. 

• Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes 

that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or 

elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 

• Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be 

retained and preserved. 

• Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of 

craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 

• Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of 

deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old 

in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will 

be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 

• Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means 

possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 9 

• Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be 

disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 

• New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic 

materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work 

will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, 

features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and 

its environment. 

• New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner 

that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its 

environment would be unimpaired. 

Treatment Concept 

Indian Garden presents an unusual case because the CLR project area does not retain integrity. 

The key, however, to preparing recommendations and guidelines for this project area is to 

understand that although no integrity remains, Indian Garden continues to hold an important 

place in the evolution of Grand Canyon National Park. By emphasizing a well-rounded treatment 

approach of both rehabilitation and preservation activities, Indian Garden’s story can continue to 

be told through its remaining contributing features and through the changes that it has incurred 

over time. 

With this in mind, the overarching treatment concept for Indian Garden is to implement 

alterations and new additions in the landscape that are compatible with the both the existing 

character and residual historic character of the site, while preserving contributing resources. This 

is possible because, although the landscape has undergone considerable alterations since the 

period of significance, many of these changes were compatible with the Rustic Style character of 

the site initially developed between the 1920s and 1940s. The 1989 rehabilitation, for example, 

utilized native stone and wood materials, as well as Rustic Revival design principles, which fit 

with both the historic character of the landscape and the natural character of Indian Garden’s 

inner canyon setting. The CLR recommends that this tradition of harmonizing built features with 

the landscape through appropriate and compatible design choices continue as part of the 

overarching treatment approach. 

Treatment recommendations and guidelines also emphasize maintenance and upkeep efforts. All

features—contributing, supporting, and non-contributing—must be protected and repaired when 

needed to avoid deterioration or damage to surrounding resources. The 1989 rehabilitation 

introduced numerous new additions and alterations, yet much of this was undertaken in a manner 

that was compatible with the existing historic character of the site, as well as the visual and 

material character of the inner canyon. It is important that these supporting features be 

maintained both for safety and aesthetic purposes, but also because this example of Rustic 

Revival design may be considered a significant era in NPS design in the future. 

Lastly, the overarching approach regarding new development is that it must be planned in such a 

way that the inner canyon/corridor trail experience is not compromised, yet the needs of park 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 10 

personnel and visitors are met. New development must also be sensitive to ethnographic and 

archeological resources within and near proposed construction or ground disturbance. 

Treatment Recommendations and Design Guidelines 

One of the purposes of this CLR is to provide appropriate treatment recommendations and 

design guidelines for the preservation and enhancement of cultural landscape resources within 

the Indian Garden landscape. The recommendations and guidelines offered in this section are 

intended to support the NPS’s planning efforts and design processes, including actions necessary 

to protect and preserve important cultural landscapes and landscape features and ensure that 

development in specific areas considers the historic landscape character and contributing 

features. 

This section is divided into three parts: design guidelines for new development in Indian Garden 

for all six character areas; general treatment recommendations for the entire cultural landscape, 

including all six character areas; and treatment recommendations for the four historic landscape 

character areas. Design guidelines focus on how to sensitively implement new development into 

the Indian Garden landscape without negatively impacting the remaining historic character. 

Treatment recommendations focus primarily on existing condition issues—described in the 

Chapter III condition assessments—that are in need of more immediate attention. 

Design Guidelines 

The guidelines described below are intended to complement the treatment recommendations that 

follow this section in order to establish a general, overarching approach to additions to and new 

development within the Indian Garden project area. The following guidelines may be applied to 

all current and future planning and design initiatives, as well as new construction, in both the 

historic and non-historic character areas of Indian Garden. 

New Development and Construction 

• Avoid adding new development or new construction within Indian Garden unless necessary 

for the safety, comfort, or education of visitors or staff. If new development or construction 

is required, refer to the following guidelines, as well as Sheet 35 at the end of the section: 

o Avoid expanding the developed area of Indian Garden, unless absolutely 

necessary. Expanding the physical boundaries of Indian Garden will not support 

the GMP’s desired inner canyon experience of minimal development and basic 

facilities. 

o Avoid locating new development or construction east of the current Indian 

Garden CLR boundary, where development has not existed historically. 

o Attempt to locate necessary new development and construction in the 

contemporary Administration and Campground Areas before siting new features 

in the historic Day Use, Pump Station and Corral, and North Indian Garden 

Areas. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 11 

o If necessary, consider locating a limited number of small buildings or structures 

in the North Indian Garden Area, if the following requirements are met: 

 Research and archeological surveys determine that no sensitive cultural 

resources are located in or near the area to be developed; and 

 New development will not be negatively impacted by flood events, nor 

will new development increase the negative impacts of flooding. 

 If feasible, new development or construction in this character area could 

be located on sites of former building locations, such as in the former 

location of one of Cameron’s structures. Again, this effort should only be 

undertaken if historic cultural resources will be not be damaged. 

• Replace materials in-kind to the extent feasible. Although few of the materials currently in 

the Indian Garden landscape survive from the period of significance, many materials—such 

as limestone and juniper wood—were used historically. These types of native, compatible 

materials should continue to be used, both to replace existing materials and in designs for 

new features to ensure consistency with the remaining historic character as well as the 

natural character of the inner canyon. 

• Undertake sufficient research of landscape features—to supplement the findings of the 

CLR—that require modification, repair, or replacement before work is performed to protect 

research and interpretive values. 

• Avoid landscape changes or additions that create a false sense of historical development, 

including the addition of conjectural, typical, or representative features. 

• Design and site new additions or alterations in such a way that they will not destroy historic 

materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the cultural landscape. Design 

all new additions and alterations to be a product of their time, yet also to be compatible with 

the historic resources in materials, size, scale and proportion, and massing. Differentiate new 

work from existing historic resources. 

• Design and site new additions and alterations to the landscape in such a way that, if removed 

in the future, the essential form and character of the landscape would be unimpaired. 

Natural Systems and Features 

• Limit land disturbing activities when implementing new development and construction. For 

example, avoid excessive grading, limit impact on floodplains and water resources, and limit 

the amount of cut and fill. 

• Avoid re-routing or altering the course of Garden Creek, unless absolutely necessary for the 

safety of visitors and staff, or the protection of historic resources. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 12 

Land Use 

• Maintain, where feasible, historic land uses including hiking, mule riding, water-related 

utilities, and camping. 

• Protect elements of the less-developed inner canyon experience including scenic views, 

restricted views of development, natural quiet, and minimal illumination by limiting new 

uses and development. 

• Evaluate all proposed new uses in consultation with preservation specialists, such as 

historical landscape architects, historical architects, archeologists, or cultural resource 

managers within the park. 

Circulation 

• If necessary, consider constructing a limited number of new trails. New trails may match, or 

be similar to, existing trails in design and materials. This is possible because the existing 

trails, while of fairly recent construction, are compatible with the natural and historic 

character of Indian Garden and serve as a good design model for future trails. New trails 

should have earthen tread and may include native stone edging, stone waterbars, and log 

risers where appropriate. 

o Avoid hardened surfaces such as asphalt and concrete. If a resilient surface is 

required, consider using a resin-based pavement prepared with local stone 

aggregates. 

Vegetation 

• New plantings should consist only of plant species that are native to Indian Garden and the 

inner canyon. Planting palettes could include western redbud (Cercis occidentalis) and 

cottonwood (Populus fremontii), which are native to the region, but were introduced into 

Indian Garden in the first half of the 20th century. 

• Avoid any type of formal planting design during the installation of new plantings. Install new 

plantings at random, to mimic the manner in which they would have grown naturally. The 

exception to this guideline is the cyclical replacement of cottonwood trees in rows, to 

continue the tradition of the cottonwood rows planted during the Cameron years in Indian 

Garden. 

Buildings and Structures 

• Construct only those buildings and structures that are necessary for the safety, comfort, or 

education of visitors or staff. 

• Design new buildings and structures to be compatible with the existing character of the site 

in color, style, size, and massing. Follow the Grand Canyon National Park Architectural 

Character Guidelines for additional guidance on compatible new building types. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 13 

o Consider using Rustic Revival principles when designing and constructing new 

buildings and structures. Consider incorporating stone work, timber beams, 

exposed rafters, ganged windows, and muted earth tone colors, all of which are 

compatible with the historical cultural landscape of the site. 

Views and Vistas 

• Avoid constructing or installing any type of building or development that will block or 

foreshorten views to the surrounding canyon features. 

Small-scale Features 

• Design all new small-scale features to be compatible with the existing character of Indian 

Garden. 

o Ensure that new small-scale features are differentiated from historic small-scale 

features in Indian Garden. This is particularly important in the Day Use and Pump 

Station and Corral Areas, which contain much of the site’s remaining historic 

features. 

o Utilize native and locally-available materials—such as juniper, ponderosa pine, 

and ash woods, as well as limestone and sandstone—when designing and 

constructing new small-scale features. 

o Utilize metal sparingly. Visible metal elements should not appear shiny or 

reflective. Incompatible metal materials should be located inconspicuously. 

o Refer to the “Design – Process and Principles” chapter in Grand Canyon National 

Park Architectural Character Guidelines for additional information on the design 

of compatible site features. 

Interpretation and Education 

• Limit the use of destructive investigative techniques, such as archeological excavation, to 

provide sufficient information for research, interpretation, and management goals. 

• Introduce new interpretive features in such a way as to minimize adverse impacts on the 

historic character and resources of the landscape. 

• Introduce additional waysides and interpretive furnishings that describe the evolution of 

Indian Garden’s cultural landscape. 

o Consider the following interpretive themes for the cultural landscape: 

• Ralph Cameron and the Early Development of Indian Garden 

• American Indian Use of the Indian Garden Landscape 

• The Use and Effects of Water in Indian Garden 

• NPS Rustic Design and Architecture in Indian Garden 

• CCC Construction in Indian Garden 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 14 


Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 15 

General Treatment Recommendations 

The recommendations found on the ensuing pages apply to all six of the following historic and 

non-historic character areas within the Indian Garden CLR project area: 

• Bright Angel Trail Corridor (North and South) 

• Administration Area 

• Campground Area 

• Day Use Area 

• Pump Station and Corral Area 

• North Indian Garden Area 

These recommendations should be used in conjunction with recommendations offered for each 

character area later in this chapter. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 16

Figure 58. Examples of eroded banks and flood debris

in Garden Creek.

Natural Systems and Features

One of the primary methods for ensuring that

important cultural resources are protected in

Indian Garden is to mitigate the impacts of

flooding, erosion, and the release of excess

water into the site. The landscape character

areas that are most intensely impacted by these

issues are the Bright Angel Trail Corridor, Day

Use Area, Pump Station and Corral Area, and

North Indian Garden Area. 

• Enlist a natural resource specialist familiar

with stream hydrology to study Garden Creek,

if this task has yet to be performed.

- Findings should include the flood habits

of Garden Creek, the impacts of flooding on

Indian Garden and its resources, and potential

mitigation methods.

• Enlist a natural resource specialist and/or

civil engineer to develop stabilization methods

for the banks of Garden Creek. 

- Appropriate methods are those that will

incorporate means of flood mitigation that

blend with the surrounding colors and materials of the site, such as native limestone riprap

or native vegetation for bank stabilization, and

are minimally intrusive. Inappropriate methods

of flood mitigation include the use of concrete

structures, riprap that does not utilize local

stone, and pargeting (coating mortar over

rough masonry that completely covers the

masonry surface, similar to the application of

stucco). 

• Undertake research to determine how excess

water released from the trans-canyon waterline

affects Indian Garden and how the negative

impacts can be mitigated. 

- The 1997 Resource Management Plan

states that the free-flowing spring water at

Indian Garden is supplemented by surges of

excess water from the trans-canyon pipeline.

The surges contain a different quality of water

than the springs, although the plan does not

explain the variation. Although water quality

issues fall outside the scope of this CLR, the 

impacts of the surge releases on the cultural

landscape—including increased vegetation

growth or possible increases in flood intensity— resulting in greater damage to the landscape-should be studied. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 17

Circulation

The primary concern regarding circulation in

Indian Garden is the condition of the Bright

Angel Trail and interior trails. Although the

CLR team observed the trails for a limited

time, the condition documented during this

time was fair, meaning the features showed

clear evidence of minor disturbances and deterioration. All character areas are affected by

these issues.

• Undertake frequent trail maintenance to prevent deterioration.

- Include such tasks as filling holes, resurfacing the trail tread, repairing waterbars and

risers, and pruning vegetation along trails

throughout Indian Garden. 

Figure 59. Fill holes in trails during maintenance.

Figure 61. Eroded places around log risers should be

backfilled and and the trail tread resurfaced during trail

maintenance. Repairs should be made so that water is

diverted away from the trail tread, rather than trapped. 

Figure 60. Portions of trails that puddle during wet

weather should have low spots filled during trail maintenance. Assess the causes of puddling to prevent recurrence.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 18

Vegetation

Within Indian Garden, the majority of vegetation constraints are related to either unchecked

growth or decline of vegetation. Due to wet

conditions in certain areas, vegetation flourishes and grows over trails and through stone

edging. Many cottonwood trees planted at the

turn of the 19th century are reaching the end of

their life span and are declining.

• Prepare a site-wide vegetation management

plan to assess the characteristics of Indian

Garden vegetation, determine the opportunities

and constraints posed by the types of vegetation in the site, and determine methods for

management that enhance the visitors’ safety,

and understanding of the role of vegetation in

Indian Garden. 

• Remove any vegetation that poses a hazard

to people or surrounding cultural or natural

resources.

Figure 62. Remove vegetation that is dead, dying, or

hazardous to people or resources. 

• Enlist a qualified arborist or natural

resources specialist to determine the general

ages of mature vegetation in Indian Garden.

An overall understanding of the age of mature

trees and shrubs in the project area will enable

managers to be selective in their choice of

which plants to remove during any clearing or

maintenance efforts as well as which plants

should remain. 

- Use least invasive techniques when determining ages before methods such as tree coring.

- Record the information as part of the sitewide vegetation management plan.

• Enlist a qualified arborist or natural

resources specialist to determine the health of

the remaining cottonwood trees. 

- Remove any cottonwood trees that are

dead, dying, or that have the potential to harm

people or surrounding resources should they

fall or drop limbs. 

- Replace any deteriorating or dead cottonwood trees present during or before the period

of significance or was likely planted by

Cameron or one of his workers. These trees

will be approximately one hundred years old

at this time. 

- Replace trees in-kind, using the same

species of tree that currently exists (Populus

fremontii). If the exact species cannot be

found, use a cottonwood species that most

closely matches the height, shape, character,

and habit as the existing trees, such as the

Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera L.

ssp. trichocarpa).

- Consider propagating existing, historic

cottonwood trees using cuttings to ensure that

in-kind replacements are available for trees

that need to be removed. 

• Continue to monitor and control invasive and

exotic plant species throughout Indian Garden.

- Remove invasive/exotic plants using ecologically-sound techniques that will not cause

damage to other resources. Techniques include

biodegradable, systemic herbicides, and handremoval. Refer to the park’s “Parkwide

Programmatic Invasive Plant Management

Program” for additional guidance.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 19

Buildings and Structures

While the many buildings and structures in

Indian Garden are of recent construction, several historic features remain and should be

protected from flood damage and general deterioration from lack of maintenance. 

• Retain and maintain all contributing buildings and structures, including the following

features:

- Telephone poles

- Trailside Shelter

- SAR Cache/Caretaker's Residence

- South Pump House

- Pump House Reservoir

- Rehandling Pump House

- Pump Caretaker's Residence/Rock House

• Enlist qualified historical architects and

structural engineers to assess historic buildings

and structures, evaluate their condition, and

prepare maintenance and rehabilitation plans.

• Include building maintenance, for all buildings and structures, in the proposed site-wide

Indian Garden maintenance plan. 

Small-scale Features

Very few small-scale features remain from the

period of significance in Indian Garden, due to

the 1989 rehabilitation that introduced numerous new features. Recommendations are

offered below for the maintenance of contemporary small-scale features that are compatible

with the historic character of the area and surrounding visual aesthetic of the inner canyon. 

• Repair or replace missing, covered, and dislocated stone edging throughout the site.

- Uncover stone edging that has been

buried by silt from the trail tread or left by

receding flood waters. Reset the stones so that

they are clearly visible to hikers and mule riders. Undertake frequent maintenance to keep

edging clear of soil build-up.

- Undertake trail tread and stone edging

maintenance at the same time so that additional layers of tread material do not cover or bury

edging. 

- Remove vegetation that grows over and

between stone edging. Undertake frequent

maintenance to prevent vegetation from

obscuring edging, which will become a trip

hazard and lose its edge-defining properties if

it is not visible.

- Replace stone edging with stones of a

similar shape, color, and size as those existing

to present a uniform appearance. If stone edging is replaced throughout a particular character area, it is acceptable to introduce new,

compatible stone edging styles. 

Figure 63. Remove vegetation that grows over and

between stone edging. 

• Repair and maintain all broken or malfunctioning drinking fountains throughout Indian

Garden. Although the drinking fountains are

not historic, they are compatible with the

remaining historic character of Indian Garden

and are considered supporting features. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 20

General Maintenance

General, holistic maintenance is much-needed

within Indian Garden. The site will benefit

greatly from an integrated maintenance plan

which details not only which features need

maintenance and how often this maintenance

is undertaken, but the number and type of staff

needed to perform tasks as well as the amount

of funding required. 

• Prepare a maintenance plan that addresses

materials, budget, staffing requirements, frequency, and priorities of Indian Garden maintenance. 

Archeology

Several archeological resources from the

Ralph Cameron era (1903-1927) are found

within the project area. These features require

study and protection to ensure that they continue to exist and educate future generations of

researchers and visitors. 

• Protect and preserve archeological resources

in place. If such resources must be disturbed,

undertake mitigation measures such as documentation, recovery, and curation.

• Enlist a qualified archeologist to survey

areas that may contain archeological features,

such as the North Indian Garden Area. 

• Retain and maintain all archeological features that have already been documented,

including the Trail Maintainer's Tent Platform,

the Cooler, and the dry-laid masonry room that

may be associated with Ralph Cameron. 

Figure 64. Undertake archeological surveys for sites

that may contain information-yielding resources such as

this site in the North Indian Garden Area. 

Figure 65. Retain and maintain all archeological features in and around Indian Garden. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 21 

Recommendations by Landscape Character Area 

The recommendations found on the ensuing pages address the treatment of existing condition 

issues for the following four historic character areas: 

• Bright Angel Trail Corridor (North and South) 

• Day Use Area 

• Pump Station and Corral Area 

• North Indian Garden Area 

Condition issues are based on issues identified in Chapter III Existing Conditions and address 

features that are in fair and poor condition. Additional recommendations that address issues 

common to all six character areas are provided in the preceding section. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 22

Bright Angel Trail Corridor

• Maintain the linear corridor of Bright Angel

Trail through Indian Garden, including the

existing width of the trail and edge-defining

features such as vegetation and stone edging.

- Limited alterations to this corridor are

acceptable when safety and use conflict issues

will be resolved through pruning, limited

clearing of edge vegetation, or limited widening of the trail tread. 

- If possible, alterations should be made to

the portion of the trail running adjacent to the

contemporary Administration and Campground Areas before those portions running

through more historic character areas.

• Avoid perceptibly realigning the Bright

Angel Trail. The trail should be minimally

realigned only to improve hiker safety or to

mitigate flood damage.

• Eradicate social trails and informal spur

trails that have a negative impact on surrounding natural and cultural resources. 

- Consider using locally-harvested or relocated boulders to block paths.

- Install regionally-native plants to 

re-vegetate disturbed routes.

- Consider posting additional signage

requesting visitors to stay on designated trails.

• Repair and maintain the stone steps leading

to the Trailside Shelter. 

- Enlist a qualified masonry conservator to

assess the condition of the steps and offer

appropriate repair methods. 

- If the steps can be repaired, distinctive

historic materials, finishes, and construction

techniques that define the NPS- and CCC-era

craftsmanship should be preserved.

- If materials need to be replaced, new

materials should match the historic steps in

design, color, and materials. 

• Protect vegetation along the trail corridor

from damage or vandalism by hikers and mule

riders.

- Increase educational programs and signage at the rim to educate hikers on the

impacts of damaging inner canyon vegetation.

- Increase staff or volunteer presence along

the trail to discourage intentional or unintentional damage to vegetation.

Figure 66. Maintain the linear corridor of Bright Angel

Trail along with its edge-defining characteristics. 

Southern Bright Angel Trail, typical condition

Northern Bright Angel Trail, typical condition

Stone Edging

Edge-defining Vegetation

Trail Tread

Stone Edging

Edge-defining Vegetation

Trail Tread
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 23

Figure 67. Undertake methods to reduce mule and

hiker conflicts, such as creating small “bump-outs” in

high traffic areas. 

• Undertake methods to reduce mule and hiker

conflicts. 

- Consider creating “bump-outs” at narrow

points in the trail where hikers can safely step

off the main trail when mule trains pass by.

This will also control damage to vegetation as

hikers will not have to step onto plants. 

° The bump-outs should be an informal

widening of the trail tread, limited in size to

hold two to four hikers, and demarcated by

stone or log edging. 

Original, typical condition of Bright Angel Trail.

Illustrative concept of bump-out along trail.

Figure 68. Assess the stability of the vertical slope on

Bright Angel Trail.

• Repair and maintain waterbars and log risers

along the Bright Angel Trail.

- Undertake frequent maintenance to clear

clogged, eroded, or displaced stone waterbars

and backfill eroded log risers. 

- Assess the effectiveness of existing waterbars and the need for additional water-controlling features on the trail. 

- New waterbars can match existing materials, although they are not historic, due to the

general compatibility of the wood and local

stone materials with the existing character of

Indian Garden. 

• Enlist a qualified natural resource specialist

and/or a civil engineer to assess the stability of

the vertical slope at the junction of Bright

Angel Trail and Garden Creek. The same personnel should prepare a stabilization and

maintenance plan depending on their findings. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 24

Figure 69. Coordinate with natural resources staff to

determine whether portions of the Day Use Area can be

used by visitors. (“Indian Garden Site Plan,” Sheet C-6

of Pkg. 113-41233.)

Day Use Area

Ambersnail

Habitat

Caretaker’s Residence

Rock House

Day Use Area

• Avoid altering the spatial organization of the

Day Use Area.

- Retain the building and feature relationships around the SAR Cache/Caretaker's

Residence and Rock House.

- Retain the spatial patterns of the Day Use

picnic grounds until further information is

gathered regarding its date or origin. 

• Undertake frequent and character-area-wide

maintenance to return the Day Use Area to a

useful picnic grounds. 

- Coordinate with GRCA natural resource

managers to determine what steps can be taken

to mitigate protection of the ambersnail habitat

with maintenance and use of the Day Use

Area. 

protecting more sensitive cultural and natural

resources elsewhere.

- Remove vegetation that is obscuring

trails, picnic sites, and other seating areas.

Focus on removing immature vegetation, as

well as invasive and exotic plants, before

clearing vegetation that is obviously mature. 

Figure 70. Remove excess vegetation that is obscuring

spaces, using other sites in Indian Garden as examples.

Note that the unusable seating example above was

cleared and repaired in 2004, but the general treatment

concept applies to similar sites throughout this area. 

Clear, useful seating area in the Campground Area.

Once overgrown, unusable seating area in Day Use

Area.

- Undertake flood mitigation efforts and

activities to reduce excess water in this area.

Consider, however, the role of this character

area during flood events. For example, consider the necessity for this area to be protected

from all flooding or whether it can become a

detention area during heavy flood events, thus
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 25

- Perform trail maintenance to regain the

existing circulation pattern.

° Install waterbars, undertake minimal

re-grading, or utilize other methods to ensure

that trails and seating areas drain water effectively. Waterbars should match others found in

Indian Garden or be created from local stone

or wood materials. Re-grading should be done

as sensitively as possible and to the least

extent necessary to create positive drainage.

• Remove the footbridge abutment if it will

not be re-used. Retain and maintain the stepping stones if they are frequently used.

• Repair and maintain the terrace elements

north of the Caretaker's Residence.

- Repair and stabilize the stone retaining

wall using materials that match the existing as

closely as possible in size, shape, and color. 

- Remove vegetation that is growing

through and encroaching upon the wall.

Undertake frequent maintenance to prevent

vegetation from overtaking the wall.

- Repair and maintain concrete sidewalks that

are cracked and uplifted. 

° Because the historic sidewalk or path

material is not known, and concrete will withstand heavy pedestrian traffic better than bare

earth, the concrete sidewalks should be

replaced in-kind. Concrete materials need not

match the existing, unless future research finds

the sidewalks to be historic, but should be

compatible with the surrounding character in

color and texture. New concrete mixes should

be appropriate for the climate of Indian

Garden and the amount of pedestrian traffic. 

- Repair and maintain the stone steps,

which have shifted and have been weakened

by erosion. 

° Although it is not known if these steps

are historic, they are compatible with the character of the site. All efforts should be made to

repair the steps. If the steps cannot be

repaired, they should be replaced by rocks of a

similar size and type.

Figure 71. Repair the Caretaker’s Residence/SAR

Cache terrace by stabilizing the wall and removing

unwanted vegetation growing through and over the

stones. (History Matters 2002)

Terrace wall

Figure 72. Repair and maintain the concrete sidewalk

and stone steps found at the Caretaker’s Residence/SAR

Cache. (History Matters 2002)

Sidewalk

Stone steps
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 26

• Assess the condition and utility of smallscale features within the Day Use Area to

determine if they should be replaced or

repaired.

- Assess features such as picnic tables,

wood and wire mesh fence, and rock edging.

If these features cannot be repaired, replace

them with new features that are compatible

with the surrounding character of the site.

° New picnic tables should be made of

wood, metal, and/or stone components. Avoid

bright colors in favor of muted earth tones. 

° New fencing should match the existing as closely as possible because of its compatible design. Similar, yet different, fencing

designs are acceptable, although they should

be more traditional in design. Avoid fence

types that utilize contemporary materials such

as chain-link or plastic.

• Undertake additional research to determine

the original purpose of the concrete foundation. If the foundation is not historic, currently

serves no purpose, and will not be re-used, it

should be removed, as it is in poor condition.

Document the foundation through photography

and base-mapping prior to removal. 

Figure 73. Determine the original purpose of the foundation and remove it if it is not historic, serves no purpose, and will not be re-used. 

Concrete foundation

Pump Station and Corral Area

• Retain all contributing features in this character area. 

• Avoid altering the spatial organization of the

Pump Station and Corral Area.

- Retain the building and feature relationships around the pump houses and pump

house reservoir.

North Indian Garden Area

• Undertake research and archeological survey

to determine if any significant artifacts of the

Cameron-era occupation of Indian Garden are

present in this area, particularly in the central

space of the character area. 

- Develop interpretive themes based on the

research and survey findings.

• Consider locating limited new development

in this character area. Refer to the design

guidelines located in the next section for guidance on new development in this character

area. 

• Continue Himalaya Blackberry control and

eradication efforts throughout Indian Garden,

and particularly in this character area. 

- Continually monitor recently cleared portions of blackberry to prevent re-growth.

- Remove slash piles as soon as possible to

prevent sprouting and to avoid an unkempt

appearance. 

- Consider having a qualified archeologist

survey sections of this character area that have

never been cleared, particularly when grounddisturbing methods such as grubbing are used

to remove blackberry roots. 

• Retain and maintain the Rehandling Pump

House and associated flood walls. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 27

Figure 74. Survey potential archeological sites, such as

the rock pile on the left. Continue Himalaya Blackberry

eradication efforts and remove slash piles, such as the

pile on the right, as soon as possible. 

Figure 75. Retain and maintain the Rehandling Pump

House and associated flood walls. (History Matters

2002)

- Enlist a qualified architectural conservator or structural engineer to assess the stability

of the Rehandling Pump House and flood

walls and to prepare a plan for their preservation and maintenance. 

- Consider incorporating these features into

an interpretive theme describing the importance of water in Indian Garden.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 28
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 29 

Specific Project Recommendations 

The recommendations made in this section support specific park projects that will directly 

impact Indian Garden’s cultural landscape. These recommendations are intended to guide the 

planning and design decisions made by park personnel in an effort to preserve the remaining 

historic character of Indian Garden and discourage the installation of incompatible features. The 

ultimate goal of the guidance offered here is to prevent the loss of contributing, compatible 

resources by stemming incremental change in Indian Garden. 

The following projects were chosen, with input from the park, to be reviewed in the CLR due to 

their potential to impact the physical and visual landscape resources in Indian Garden. 

• Rehabilitate Historic Indian Garden Ranger Station (PMIS #53664) 

• Remove Invasive Plants Along Pipe, Garden, and Bright Angel Creeks and Corridor 

Trails (PMIS #104714) 

• Upgrade Corridor Area Fire Protection Systems (PMIS #053675) 

Recommendations are based on information provided in Project Management Information 

System (PMIS) sheets, Environmental Assessments (EA), and drawings which JMA received 

from the park. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 30 

Rehabilitate Historic Indian Garden Ranger Station 

Project Description 

According to the PMIS project narrative, this project will rehabilitate the historic Indian Garden 

Ranger Station—known as the SAR Cache or Caretaker’s Residence in this CLR—for use as an 

interpretive visitor contact and aid station. Much of the work will be undertaken in the interior of 

the building, although the project also calls for upgrades to exterior visitor use areas. These 

upgrades include installation or improvement of benches, picnic tables, walkways, shade 

structures, interpretive display panels, a drinking fountain, and mule cinch-up areas. Revegetation of approximately .25 acres would also be necessary. This project will take place in the 

Day Use Area, as described in this CLR. 

Recommendations 

While Indian Garden does not retain integrity as a complete unit, the Day Use Area contains 

many of the site’s remaining historic resources. With this in mind, the proposed additions and 

alterations to the landscape in this character area are appropriate under the previously-designated 

rehabilitation approach, yet must be implemented sensitively to avoid damage to important 

cultural resources. Refer to Sheet 36 and additional illustrations from the 1989 “As-Constructed” 

drawings at the end of this section for graphic depictions of the following recommendations. 

• Attempt to locate new features on previously disturbed ground. For example, install new 

shade structures in cleared areas that currently contain picnic tables or seating areas. 

• Limit the construction of new walkways and circulation patterns only to the extent 

necessary to achieve interpretation and safety goals. 

o Repair or replace deteriorated sidewalks. Sidewalks may be replaced in-kind, 

using an appropriate concrete mix, or may be replaced with a compatible material, 

such as native stone. 

o Avoid paving the terrace with asphalt or a monolithic pour of concrete. Consider 

using materials such as native stone or patterned concrete that better fit the scale 

and character of the area. 

• Repair or replace existing sidewalks that are deteriorating. Replace concrete sidewalks 

in-kind, using mixtures that are compatible with the character of the Day Use Area and 

with the amount of traffic the sidewalk will receive. Refer to the recommendations made 

for the Day Use Area earlier in this chapter for additional guidance. 

• Limit the number of new, built features installed in this character area to the minimum 

amount necessary to achieve visitor experience and safety goals. 

• Consider the impacts of creating a new mule cinch-up site near the Ranger 

Station/Caretaker’s Residence. The increased mule traffic, along with the large amount of 

space needed for these users to navigate safely, may not be appropriate in the Day Use 

Area or near the Ranger Station/Caretaker’s Residence. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 31 

o Consider locating a new mule cinch-up area near the junction of Bright Angel 

Trail and Garden Creek, where space already exists for these activities. 

• Consider installing shade structures that match those located in the Campground Area to 

present a uniform appearance and consistent visual character throughout the site. 

Consider using the details from the 1989 construction documents to build new shade 

structures (Sub-Sheet L-20). 

• Consider installing benches and picnic tables that match those already present in Indian 

Garden to present a uniform appearance and consistent visual character (Sub-Sheet L-16). 

• New drinking fountains should match the existing fountains installed in 1989, which also 

resemble the stone fountains seen in photographs from the 1960s. Consider using the 

details from the 1989 construction documents to build new fountains (Sub-Sheet C-16). 

• Utilize only native plantings during any re-vegetation efforts. Use native plants found in 

the Day Use Area before using plants found in other locations within Indian Garden. 

Utilize measures to mitigate exotic and invasive plant encroachment on disturbed ground 

while re-vegetation is taking place. 

• Install outdoor interpretive panels that will be noticeable to visitors, but compatible with 

the surrounding character of the area in size and color. Consider using muted earth tone 

colors in brown, green, or black for panel components. Avoid making the panels the most 

prominent features wherever they are located, thereby taking attention away from the 

contributing and supporting landscape resources. 

o Consider locating the panels where circulation patterns and development 

currently exist, rather than creating or clearing a new site. Consider locating 

panels near the SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence and Rock House or along 

existing trails. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 32 








Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 33 

Remove Invasive Plants Along Pipe, Garden, and Bright Angel Creeks 

and Corridor Trails 

Project Description 

According to the PMIS project narrative, this project will utilize volunteers and park staff to 

complete a Himalaya blackberry removal, invasive plant control, and riparian restoration project 

along creeks and trail corridors, including Garden Creek and Bright Angel Trail through Indian 

Garden. Tasks include clearing blackberry thickets and debris piles, chipping and removing 

slash, and seeding and mulching disturbed areas. 

Recommendations 

Completion of this project as described in the PMIS statement will improve the appearance of 

the cultural landscape and the health of the vegetative communities in Indian Garden. Care must 

be taken, however, to educate workers on appropriate and sensitive removal techniques that will 

not harm archeological resources that may be near the surface of the ground or desirable plants. 

Additionally, although the Himalaya blackberry is now considered an invasive plant, it was 

planted in Indian Garden in the 1930s, making it an historic plant. While the CLR team does not 

recommend the retention of blackberry plants, site managers may want to consider options for 

replicating the character of the blackberry plants where they existed historically. 

• Educate work crews on the correct methods of clearing, grubbing, and herbicide 

application to prevent loss of or damage to desirable vegetation. 

• Educate work crews on correct removal methods to avoid damaging potential 

archeological resources. Work crews should also be aware of how to identify and report 

potential archeological artifacts. 

• Consider undertaking archeological surveys in Indian Garden prior to beginning any 

ground disturbing activities. 

• Consider enlisting a qualified archeologist to supervise clearing, grubbing, and ground 

disturbing work in order to limit damage to potential archeological artifacts. 

• Educate work crews as to the identification of desirable vegetation to remain and 

undesirable plants to be removed prior to beginning work. 

 

• Ensure that new seeds and plantings are native to the Indian Garden site or region. 

• Consider replacing any remaining mature, historic blackberry thickets with native plants 

of similar height and shape to simulate the historic appearance. 

• Remove piles of slash quickly to avoid allowing cuttings to root and reproduce, as well as 

an unattractive appearance. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 34 

• If vegetation to be removed is located on or near the banks of Garden Creek, assess the 

stability of the banks, and their ability to withstand being cleared of vegetation, prior to 

beginning work. 

o If vegetation will be removed from unstable banks, implement bank stabilization 

and erosion control methods. 

• Follow recommendations and guidelines found in the “Parkwide Programmatic Invasive 

Plant Management Program,” completed February 2004, for information on invasive 

plant management. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 35 

Upgrade Corridor Area Fire Protection Systems 

Project Description 

The Environmental Assessment states that this project includes upgrading the existing water 

distribution system connected to the trans-canyon pipeline to deliver the volume and pressure 

needed to supply fire sprinkler and standpipe hydrant systems at four sites along the corridor 

trails, including Indian Garden. Exterior work that may impact the cultural landscape in Indian 

Garden includes the installation of new hydrants, hose boxes, and trenching required to install 

new water lines. Vegetation will be removed where new structures and trenching occur. 

Recommendations 

Of primary importance during this project is the necessity to undertake trenching and the 

installation of new features sensitively. Trenching represents the most disruptive activity in this 

project, but will cause minimal ground disturbance if done correctly. With proper restoration of 

the disturbed earth and vegetation, trenching should not impact the cultural landscape when 

complete. New features must be designed to be compatible with the existing character of the site 

and be minimally intrusive. Overall, the CLR team agrees with the techniques and 

methodologies put forth in the Environmental Assessment and feels that, if these policies are 

implemented, the impact on the cultural landscape will be negligible. Refer to the illustrations at 

the end of this section for graphic depictions of the following recommendations. 

• Consider enlisting a qualified archeologist to supervise trenching and ground-disturbing 

activities. 

• Design new features, such as hose boxes and hydrants, to be similar in appearance to the 

same features constructed during the 1989 rehabilitation (Refer to Sub-Sheet C-16 

above). The 1989 features are compatible with the character of Indian Garden. In 

addition, a uniform appearance will result if new features are designed using the same or 

similar details. 

• Design new features that do not have 1989 counterparts—or other existing, compatible 

counterparts—to be compatible with the surrounding character of the site. Utilize muted 

earth tone colors, wood and stone materials, and dull, brushed, or non-reflective metals. 

Features utilizing contemporary materials that will not be compatible with the character 

of Indian Garden—including plastics, concrete, non-native stone, and white or reflective 

materials—should be as inconspicuous as possible. 

• Repair any features disturbed by trenching to their original, pre-construction appearance. 

• Ensure that primary construction staging activities occur in the Administration Area and 

Pump Station and Corral Area, as proposed in the fire protection drawings (Sub-Sheet C6 of Indian Garden Site Plan). Undertake minimal staging activities within the Day Use 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 36 

Area and North Indian Garden Area. Avoid any staging activity within Indian Garden 

that negatively impacts any contributing or supporting resource. 

• Utilize only locally or regionally-native plants during re-vegetation activities. Ensure that 

new plantings match the vegetation community in which they are being installed. For 

example, only plants native to the desertscrub vegetation community should be planted in 

the Administration Area, while riparian community vegetation should be planted in the 

Day Use Area. 

• Consider undertaking the Former Ranger Station/SAR Cache/Caretaker’s Residence 

rehabilitation concurrently with the fire protection upgrade project to minimize impact on 

surrounding cultural and natural resources, as well as upon the visitor’s experience in 

Indian Garden. 

• Undertake post-construction monitoring of disturbed ground to identify and eliminate 

opportunistic invasive and exotic plant species. 

• Ensure that the items listed below, taken from the Environmental Assessment’s 

“Mitigating Measures for Alternative B,” are implemented. Note that only the measures 

related to the cultural landscape and visitor experience in Indian Garden are reproduced 

here; the original numbering is retained for ease of reference to the original document. 

1. Measures will be taken to assure that no surface disturbance or sedimentation should 

occur in Niobrara ambersnail habitat (Indian Garden). The park biologist will 

delineate Niobrara ambersnail habitat prior to commencement of construction 

activities. 

5. Construction workers and supervisors would be informed about special status species. 

Contract provisions would require the cessation of construction activities if a species 

were discovered in the project area, until park staff re-evaluates the project. This 

would allow modification of the contract for any protection measures determined 

necessary to protect the discovery. 

6. Installation of sprinkler systems and other appurtences would be done in accordance 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

7. If dust becomes a problem during work, sprinkling with water would occur to reduce 

dust in the construction areas. The park’s Air Quality Specialist will be notified of the 

dates and times of trenching at Indian Garden so air quality data collected at that site 

can be annotated. Power line to the air quality monitoring station at Indian Garden 

will be noted and avoided by construction crews. 

8. Construction equipment would not idle for long periods to reduce noise and air 

quality impacts on site. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 37 

9. Construction zones would be fenced with construction tape, snow fencing, or some 

similar material before any construction activity. The fencing would define the 

construction zone and confine activity to the minimum area required for construction. 

All protection measures would be clearly stated in the construction specifications and 

workers would be instructed to avoid conducting activities beyond the construction 

zone as defined by the construction zone fencing. 

10. To minimize soil erosion at the project site, standard erosion control measures 

including silt fence and sandbags would be incorporated into the action alternative. 

Any trenching operations would use a rock drill, small excavator, trencher, and/or 

hand excavation with excavated material side-cast for storage and backfilling. 

Backfilling and compaction would begin immediately after the lines are placed into 

the trench and the trench surface would be returned to pre-construction contours. All 

trenching restoration operations would follow guidelines approved by park staff. 

11. A Revegetation Plan would be developed for the project by a landscape architect or 

other qualified individual, in coordination with the Park Restoration Biologist. Any 

revegetation efforts would use site-adapted native species and/or native seed, and 

Park policies regarding revegetation and site restoration would be incorporated into 

the plan. The plan would incorporate, among other things, the use of native species, 

plant salvage potential, exotic vegetation and noxious weeds, and pedestrian barriers. 

12. To prevent and minimize the spread of exotic vegetation and noxious weeds, the 

Revegetation Plan would be followed. The following mitigation measures would be 

implemented, and would be incorporated into the plan 

• Existing populations of exotic vegetation at the construction site would be treated 

before construction activities. 

• All construction equipment brought in from outside the park would be pressure 

washed before transport to the construction site. 

• The location of the staging areas would be limited to existing disturbed areas. 

• All areas disturbed by construction would be revegetated using site-adapted 

native seed and/or plants if available. 

• Post-project exotic plant monitoring should also be conducted in the project area, 

as time and funding allows. 

13. All workers would be informed of the penalties for illegally collecting artifacts or 

intentionally damaging any archeological or historic property. Workers would also be 

informed of the correct procedures if previously unknown resources were uncovered 

during construction activities. Data recovery excavations would be carried out to 

mitigate adverse affects as outlines in the section on environmental consequences. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Treatment Recommendations V - 38 

14. The NPS has conducted archeological surveys to identify resources in the [Corridor 

Area Fire Protection] project area and no archeological sites were discovered. 

However, archeological monitoring would accompany construction (especially areas 

where trenching is required) as necessary to ensure avoidance or appropriate 

treatment of uncovered resources. A Park Cultural Resource Specialist will be on site 

to carry out the monitoring. Should presently unknown archeological resources be 

discovered during construction, work would stop in that area until the resources are 

properly evaluated and treatment measures are carried out as necessary in 

consultation with the Arizona SHPO. In the event that human remains, funerary 

objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered during 

construction, the NPS would follow provisions outlined in the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. 

16. If helicopters are used, flights would be scheduled during the off-peak backcountry 

season, to minimize disturbance to visitors. The flight path selected for delivery and 

removal of equipment would be developed so as to minimize the time that the 

helicopter is in the canyon, i.e. dog-leg flight paths that stay over forested areas the 

longest, and using direct flights to the sites to minimize noise disturbance in the inner 

canyon. 


References

Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 1 

References 

General Sources 

Adams, William Y. and Nettie K. Adams. “An Inventory of Prehistoric Sites on the Lower San 

Juan River, Utah.” Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 31, Glen Canyon Series no. 1 

(1959). 

Ahlstrom, Richard V. N. “Tree-Ring Dating the Cohonina.” MS on file, Department of 

Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1986. 

Ahlstrom, Richard V. N., David E. Purcell, M. Zyniecki, Dennis A. Gilpin, and Virginia L. 

Newton. An Archaeological Overview of Grand Canyon National Park. Flagstaff, AZ: 

SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants, 1993. 

Anderson, Michael F. “Polishing the Jewel: An Administrative History of Grand Canyon 

National Park.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University, 1999. 

________. Living at the Edge: Explorers, Exploiters and Settlers of the Grand Canyon Region. 

Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon Association, 1998.

Annerino, John. Hiking the Grand Canyon. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1993. 

Bettinger, Robert L., and Martin A. Baumhoff. “The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in 

Competition.” American Antiquity 47, no. 3 (1982): 485-503. 

Bicknell, P. C. Guide Book of the Grand Canyon of Arizona. Kansas City: Fred Harvey, 1902. 

Billingsly, George H., Earle E. Spamer, and Dave Menkes. Quest for the Pillar of Gold: The 

Mines and Miners of the Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon Association, 

1997. 

Brewer, Sallie Pierce. “The Long Walk to Bosque Redondo, as told by Peshlakai Etsedi.” 

Museum Notes 9, no. 11 (1937): 55-62. 

Brian, Nancy. River to Rim: A Guide to place names along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. Flagstaff, AZ: Earthquest Press, 1992. 

Brook, Richard A. “Final Report for the Cultural Resources of the Grand Canyon Cross Canyon 

Corridor Survey.” MS on file, Museum of Northern Arizona. Flagstaff, AZ, 1974. 

Brown, David E. ed. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. 

Provo: University of Utah, 1987. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 2 

Bungart, Peter W. “Rock Art.” In The Grand Canyon River Corridor Survey Project: 

Archaeological Survey along the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

Separation Canyon. Helen C. Fairly, Peter W. Bungart, Christopher M. Coder, Jim 

Huffman, Terry L. Samples, and Janet R. Balsom, eds. Prepared in cooperation with the 

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, National Park Service, 1994. 

Carr, Ethan. Wilderness by Design: Landscape Architecture and the National Park Service. 

Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1998. 

Cartledge, Thomas R. “Cohonina Adaptation to the Coconino Plateau: A Re-evaluation.” The 

Kiva 44, no. 4 (1979): 297-317. 

Cleeland, Teri A. “The Cross Canyon Corridor Historic District in Grand Canyon National Park: 

A Model for Historic Preservation.” Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University, 1986. 

Cleeland, Teri A., John A. Hanson, Lawrence M. Lesko, and Neil S. Weintraub. “Native 

American Use of the South Kaibab National Forest: An Ethnographic Overview.” MS on 

file, Kaibab National Forest, Williams, Arizona, 1992. 

Coder, Christopher M. An Introduction to Grand Canyon Prehistory. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand 

Canyon Association, 2000. 

Colton, Mary Russell and Harlod S. Colton. “Petroglyphs: The Record of a Great Adventure.” 

American Anthropologist 33, no. 1 (1931): 32-37. 

Coulam, Nancy J. “An Archeological Survey of Indian Gardens, Grand Canyon National Park, 

Arizona.” MS on file Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1986. 

Courlander, Harold. The Fourth World of the Hopis. New York: Crown Publishers, 1971. 

Cushing, Frank. The Nation of the Willows. Reprint from 1882 Atlantic Monthly 50 (1965): 362-

374, 541-549. Flagstaff, AZ: Northland Press, 1965. 

D’Azevedo, Warren L., ed. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 11 Great Basin. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1986. 

Dunmire, William W. and Gail D. Tierney. Wild Plants and Native Peoples of the Four Corners. 

Santa Fe: Museum of New Mexico Press, 1997. 

Emslie, Steven D., Robert C. Euler, and Jim I. Mead. “A Desert Culture Shrine in Grand 

Canyon, Arizona, and the Role of Split-twig Figurines.” National Geographic Research 

3, no. 4 (1987): 511-516. 

Euler, Robert C. “Archaeological Problems in Western and Northwestern Arizona, 1962.” 

Plateau, Vol. 35, No. 3 (1963): 78-85. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 3 

________. “Walapai Culture History.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, 

University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1958. 

Ferguson, T. J., and E. Richard Hart. A Zuni Atlas. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 

1985. 

Ford, James A. A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas: Diffusion of the Psychic 

Unity of Man. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1969. 

Grattan, Virginia L. Mary Colter: Builder upon the Red Earth. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand 

Canyon Association, 1992. 

Harbin, Adrian E. “Water is now pumped to the rim of Grand Canyon.” The Santa Fe Magazine, 

25, no. 10 (1932): 43-44. 

Higgins, C. A. Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. Chicago: The Henry O. Shepard Company, 

Printers, 1892. 

________. Titan of Chasms: The Grand Canyon of Arizona. W. J. Block, 1910. 

Houk, Rose. An Introduction to Grand Canyon Ecology. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon 

Association, 1996. 

Howard, Kathleen L. and Diana F. Pardue. Inventing the Southwest: The Fred Harvey Company 

and Native American Art. Flagstaff, AZ: Northland Publishing, 1996. 

Hughes, J. Donald. In the House of Stone and Light: Introduction to the Human History of 

Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon Association, 1978.

Hunter, Helen Virginia. “Ethnography of Salt in North America.” Masters thesis, University of 

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1940. 

James, George Wharton. In & Around the Grand Canyon. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1907. 

________. The Grand Canyon of Arizona, How to See It. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1918. 

Kolb, E. L. Through the Grand Canyon from Wyoming to Mexico. New York: The Macmillan 

Company, 1953. 

Kooyahoema, Merwin. “Pilgrimage to Shrines Returns.” Uqa’Toqti (October 19, 1978): 1. 

Makarick, Lori and Emily King. “Nature Notes: Himalaya Blackberry Removal Project.” 

Canyon Views vol. VII no. 1 (2002): viii. 

McClelland, Linda Flint. Building the National Parks: Historic Landscape Design and 

Construction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 4 

McCutcheon, John T. “Doing the Grand Canyon” [1909]. In The Grand Canyon: Early 

Impressions, edited by Paul Schullery. Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, 

1981. 

McGregor, John C. The Cohonina Culture of Northwestern Arizona. Urbana: The University of 

Illinois Press, 1951. 

Meyer, Michael C. and William H. Beezley, eds. The Oxford History of Mexico. New York: 

Oxford University Press, 2000. 

Neal, Lynn A., Dennis Gilpin, Lilian Jones, and Jean H. Ballagh. “Cultural Resources Data 

Synthesis within the Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon National Park and Glen 

Canyon Recreational Area, Arizona.” Flagstaff: SWCA, Inc., 2000. 

Orr, Thomas G. “The Romance of Common Salt.” Science Monthly 39 (Nov. 1934): 449-454. 

Ortiz, Alfonso, ed. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 9 Southwest. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution, 1979. 

________. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 10 Southwest. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution, 1983. 

Passenger Department of the Santa Fe. The Grand Canyon of Arizona: Being a book of words 

from many pens, about the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in Arizona. Chicago: 

Poole Brothers, 1902.

Phillips, Barbara G., Arthur M Phillips, III, and Marilyn Ann Schmidt Bernzott. Annotated 

Checklist of Vascular Plants of Grand Canyon National Park (Monograph No. 7). Grand 

Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon Natural History Association, 1987. 

Price, J. Greer. An Introduction to Grand Canyon Geology. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon 

Association, 1999. 

Pyne, Stephen J. How the Canyon Became Grand: A Short History. New York: Penguin Books, 

1999. 

Ribokas, Bob. “Master Index and Glossary.” Grand Canyon Explorer (11 December 2003), 

http://www.kaibab.org/gc/misc/gc_misc.htm#tonto_platform (accessed February 2003). 

Richmond, Al. Cowboys, Miners, Presidents, and Kings: The Story of the Grand Canyon 

Railway. Flagstaff, AZ: Grand Canyon Railway, 1989. 

Roberts, Alexa, Richard M. Begay, and Klara B. Kelley. “Bits’iis Nineezi (The River of 

Neverending Life): Navajo History and Cultural Resources of the Grand Canyon and the 

Colorado River.” Window Rock, AZ: Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, 

1995. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 5 

Santa Fe Railroad. The Santa Fe Magazine 36, no. 7 (July 1942): 70. 

________. The Santa Fe Magazine 37, no. 1 (January 1943): 35. 

Schmidt, Jeremy. A Natural History Guide: Grand Canyon National Park. New York: Houghton 

Mifflin Company, 1993. 

Shields, Kenneth D. Jr. Images of America. The Grand Canyon: Native People and Early 

Visitors. Chicago: Arcadia Publishing, 2000. 

Smithson, Carma Lee. Havasupai Legends: Religion and Mythology of the Indians of the Grand 

Canyon. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994. 

Smithson, Carma Lee, and Robert C. Euler. “Havasupai Religion and Mythology.” 

Anthropological Paper 38. University of Utah, Department of Anthropology, Salt Lake, 

1964. 

Spier, Leslie. Havasupai Ethnography. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1928. 

Stoffle, Richard B., et al. “Pia ‘Paxa ‘Huipi (Big River Canyon): Southern Paiute ethnographic 

resource inventory and assessment for Colorado River Corridor, Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area, Utah and Arizona, and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.” Final 

Report. Tucson, AZ: Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of 

Arizona, 1994. 

Strong, Douglas Hillman. “The Man Who ‘Owned’ Grand Canyon.” The American West 6, 

no. 5 (September 1969): 33-54. 

________. “Ralph Cameron and the Grand Canyon (Part I).” Arizona and the 

West 20 (1978): 41-64. 

________. “Ralph Cameron and the Grand Canyon (Part II).” Arizona and the 

West 20 (1978): 155-171. 

Suran, William C. The Kolb Brothers of Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon, Arizona: Grand Canyon 

Natural History Association, 1991. 

Tillotson, M.R. and Horace M. Albright. Grand Canyon Country. Stanford, CA: Stanford 

University Press, 1935. 

United States Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. National Historic Landmarks 

Program, http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/ (accessed 18 April 2003). 

Verkamp, Margaret M. History of Grand Canyon National Park [1940]. Flagstaff: Grand 

Canyon Pioneers Society, 1993. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 6 

Warner, Arthur. “Canyons and Camerons: A United States Senator Defies the Government.” The 

Nation 121, no. 3147 (October 28, 1925): 481-483. 

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips. Method and Theory in Archaeology. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press, 1958. 

Whiteley, P. Deliberate Acts: Changing Hopi Culture through the Oraibi Split. Tucson: 

University of Arizona Press, 1988. 

Whitney, Stephen R. A Field Guide to the Grand Canyon, 2nd ed., Seattle, WA: The 

Mountaineers, 1996. 

Wood, Hazel. “Aunt Hazel and Indian Garden.” The Ol’ Pioneer 10, no. 2 (April/June 

1999): 5-6. 

Federal Reports and Documents 

Carrel, C. M. “Final Report on Bright Angel Trail Reconstruction.” Superintendent’s Annual 

Reports, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, January 2, 1932. 

________. “Final Construction Report on Bright Angel Trail Oiling.” Superintendent’s 

Annual Reports, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1933. 

Congressional Record. “Proceedings and Debates of the First Session of the 68th Congress of the 

United States of America.” 68th Congress, 1924. Vol. LXV, pt. 4. 

Harrison, Laura Soulliere. Architecture in the Parks, National Historic Landmark Theme Study. 

Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986. 

Johnston, Don P. and Aldo Leopold. “Grand Canyon Working Plan, December 1916.” Grand 

Canyon Museum Collection, #28343. 

________. “Grand Canyon Uses Working Plan, December 1916: Revised in Accordance with 

Memorandum of March 17, 1917.” Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #18555. 

Matoon, W. R. A Working Plan for Grand Canyon National Monument. Prepared for U. S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.” June 28, 1909. Grand Canyon National Park 

Museum Collection #04560. 

Metzger, Art. “Transcript of an Oral History Interview,” date unknown. NPS Study Collection, 

Grand Canyon National Park.
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 7 

Mott, Patricia. “Memorandum to Division Chief, Res. Mgmt.; Historic Architect; Cultural 

Resources Manager; Res. Mgmt. Files on Historic Structures, Regarding CCC Work 

Projects in Grand Canyon National Park,” November 28, 1983. GRCA, Grand Canyon 

Museum Collection, #58700. 

“Narrative Statement. Project B-39 – Indian Gardens: Repair Storm Damage to Buildings and 

Utilities,” GRCA, Research Library, #4750 a-1. 

Office of the Law Revision Council, U.S. House of Representatives. United States Code. Title 

30, Chapter 3, Section 22. R.S. Sec. 2319, 1920. 

United States Dept. of Agriculture. “Fire Effects Information System.” U.S. Forest Service. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/popfre/botanical_and_ecological_characteri

stics.html (accessed 3 October 2003). 

United States Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. A Guide to Cultural Landscape 

Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques, by Robert R. Page, Cathy A. Gilbert, and 

Susan A. Dolan. Washington, D.C., 1998. 

________. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Charles A. Birnbaum and 

Christine Capella Peters, eds. Washington, D.C.: Cultural Resource Stewardship and 

Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services, Historic Landscape Initiative, 1996. 

________. Backcountry Management Plan, Grand Canyon National Park. Grand Canyon, AZ: 

National Park Service, September 1988. Document reformatted in April 2000. 

________. Draft Bright Angel Trail National Register of Historic Places Registration

Nomination, by Michael Anderson and Debra Sutphen. Grand Canyon, AZ, 1992 

________. Draft Grand Canyon, Arizona Historic Trails and Roads National Register of 

Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, by Michael Anderson and 

Debra Sutphen. Grand Canyon, AZ, 1992. 

________. Environmental Assessment - Upgrade Corridor Area Fire Protection. Grand Canyon 

National Park, 2003. 

________. General Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park. Denver: Denver 

Service Center, 1995. 

________. Grand Canyon National Park Architectural Character Guidelines. NPS Document 

#NPS D-293. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon National Park, 1994. 

________. Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan, August 1995. Denver, 

Denver Service Center, 1995. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 8 

________. “Superintendent’s Annual Reports for Grand Canyon National Park,” includes 

various reports from 1920 through 2000. Located in the Grand Canyon National Park 

Museum Collection. 

________. Trans-Canyon Telephone Line, Grand Canyon National Park National 

Register of Historic Places Nomination. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 

9 April 1986. 

Sinclair, Mark. “Euler’s Visit to Indian Gardens.” Memorandum from Mark Sinclair to Inner 

Canyon Unit Personnel, May 16, 1978. Indian Garden Ranger Station files, Indian 

Garden, Grand Canyon National Park. 

Sutphen, Debra. Sinews of Dirt and Stone: Grand Canyon’s Backcountry Trail System, An 

Historic Summary. Historic Resource Study prepared at the request of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service,1992. 

Underhill, A.E. “Final Construction Report of Bright Angel Trail Oiling,” Superintendent’s 

Annual Reports, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, December 2, 

1932. 

Van Valkenburg, Richard. Diné Bikéyah. A report prepared at the request of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Navajo Service, Window Rock, Arizona, 1941. 

Waugh, Frank A. A Plan for the Development of the Village of Grand Canyon, Arizona, 1918. 

Grand Canyon Museum Collection, #18555. 

Newspapers 

Miami [Arizona] Daily Silver Belt, 10 October 1924. 

Unpublished Documents 

Marks, Richard W. to Files. “Categorical Exclusion Designation for Indian Gardens Reseeding 

Project,” Indian Garden Ranger Station Files. Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National 

Park, 13 May 1981. 

United States Depart. of the Interior, National Park Service. “Work Begins on Waterline 

Improvements at Grand Canyon,” news release, Indian Garden Ranger Station Files. 

Indian Garden, Grand Canyon National Park, 31 July 1985. 

Parker, Douglas L., Director of Forest Pest Management to Superintendent. “Hazard Tree 

Evaluation, Indian Gardens and Phantom Ranch,” Indian Garden Ranger Station Files. 

Indian Garden, Grand Canyon national Park, August 1982. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 9 

Maps and Drawings

Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company. “Cabin for Pump Caretaker, Indian Gardens 

– Sheet 2 of 2; GECL 89-20938.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Loa 

Angeles: AT&SF Railway Co., January 6, 1943. 

Author unknown. “Details of Santa Fe Water System at Indian Gardens Grand Canyon, Arizona 

– Drawing #113-70208.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand 

Canyon, AZ: 1936. 

Fred Harvey Company. “Plat A Showing Present Plan of Indian Gardens.” Grand Canyon 

National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon National Park, 

1916. 

________. “Plat B Showing Proposed Development of Indian Gardens.” Grand Canyon National 

Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand Canyon National Park, 1916. 

McLaughlin Water Engineers and EDAW, Inc. “Indian Gardens Development Concept Plan 

Figure VII-A – Drawing #113-40104.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. 

February 1986. 

United States Forest Service. “Working Plan Map Grand Canyon Tusayan Nat. For. Indian 

Garden Area, surveyed by H.D. Burell.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. 

Grand Canyon, AZ: United States Forest Service, 1917. 

United States Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. “Grand Canyon National Park Erosion 

Control and Planting Indian Gardens, Drawn by Branch of Plans and Design – Drawing 

#NP-GC 3109.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: 

Grand Canyon National Park,1935. 

________. “Grand Canyon National Park Sewer At Indian Gardens, Office of the Park 

Engineer.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: Grand 

Canyon National Park, February 9, 1935. 

________. “Indian Gardens Sewage System Grand Canyon National Park – Drawing #113-

40083.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: National 

Park Service, January 1985. 

________. “Indian Gardens Topo. Grand Canyon National Park - Drawing #113-60577.” Grand 

Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: National Park Service, 

1959. 

________. “Indian Gardens Topo Inner Canyon Grand Canyon National Park - Drawing #NPGC 34:44.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: 

National Park Service, September 1959. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 10 

________. “Trailside Shelter Indian Gardens - Drawing #NP-GC 0142.” Grand Canyon National 

Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: National Park Service, 1935. 

________, Branch of Engineering Western Office of Design and Construction. “Sewage 

Disposal System Indian Gardens Grand Canyon National Park - Drawing #NP-GC 3502.” 

Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: National Park 

Service, September 1960. 

________, Denver Service Center. “As-Constructed Drawings; Modify Wastewater Treatment 

Facilities, Indian Gardens – Drawing #113-41137C; Campground Layout Plan, Sheet 14 

of 98.” Denver Service Center Technical Information Center. Denver: National Park 

Service Denver Service Center, 1988. 

________, Denver Service Center. “As-Constructed Drawings; Modify Wastewater Treatment 

Facilities, Indian Gardens – Drawing #113-41137C; Campground Planting Plan, Sheet 16 

of 98.” Denver Service Center Technical Information Center. Denver: National Park 

Service Denver Service Center, 1988. 

________, Denver Service Center. “As-Constructed Drawings; Modify Wastewater Treatment 

Facilities, Indian Gardens – Drawing #113-41137C; Demolition Plan, Sheet 7 of 98.” 

Denver Service Center Technical Information Center. Denver: National Park Service 

Denver Service Center, 1988. 

________, Denver Service Center. “As-Constructed Drawings; Modify Wastewater Treatment 

Facilities, Indian Gardens – Drawing #113-41137C; Housing Area Layout/Grading Plan, 

Sheet 12 of 98.” Denver Service Center Technical Information Center. Denver: National 

Park Service Denver Service Center, 1988. 

________, Denver Service Center. “As-Constructed Drawings; Modify Wastewater Treatment 

Facilities, Indian Gardens – Drawing #113-41137C; Housing Area Planting/Irrigation 

Plan, Sheet 13 of 98.” Denver Service Center Technical Information Center. Denver: 

National Park Service Denver Service Center, 1988. 

________, Denver Service Center. “As-Constructed Drawings; Modify Wastewater Treatment 

Facilities, Indian Gardens – Drawing #113-41137C; Mule Corral Layout Plan, Sheet 20 

of 98.” Denver Service Center Technical Information Center. Denver: National Park 

Service Denver Service Center, 1988. 

________, Division of Landscape Architecture Regional Office. “Inner Canyon Developed 

Areas; Part of the Master Plan, Grand Canyon National Park - Drawing #NP-GC 2118-

A.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: National Park 

Service, May 1952. 

________, Landscape Division. “Campground-Picnic Area Indian Gardens Grand Canyon 

National Park.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: 

National Park Service, 1959. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 11 

________, Office of the Chief Engineer. “Grand Canyon National Park Topographical Map 

Indian Gardens Area – Drawing #NP-GC 5081.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum 

Archives. San Francisco: National Park Service, January 1936. 

________ Office of Environmental Planning and Design – Western Service Center. 

“Topographic Sheet 1 of 1 Grand Canyon National Park Indian Gardens – Drawing #113-

41029.” Grand Canyon National Park Museum Archives. Grand Canyon, AZ: National 

Park Service, September 1971. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2004

References R - 12 
Appendix A • Inventory of Landscape Features

Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 1 

Appendix A • Inventory of Landscape 

Features 

Appendix A, Inventory of Landscape Features, contains a list of existing conditions identified 

through fieldwork. Conditions are arranged according to landscape character area within the 

CLR project boundary, and then according to landscape characteristic as described in Chapter 

III, Existing Conditions. 

This list contains the following: 

• the feature’s name; 

• the character area in which it is located; 

• the assessment of the landscape characteristic which the feature represents; 

• an assessment of the feature’s condition; 

• a determination of its contributing, non-contributing, supporting, or undetermined status; 

• the feature’s CLR-assigned inventory number; and 

• any NPS-assigned building numbers. 

Each feature is mapped on separate 11 x 17 existing conditions inventory maps located in 

Chapter III of this CLR. More detailed information about the condition assessments are also 

located in Chapter III. Information regarding contributing, non-contributing, supporting, and 

missing features is discussed in Chapter IV. 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 2 

Overview 

Vegetation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Riparian community 

vegetation 

Indian Garden Good Contributing Ve-1 

Desertscrub community 

vegetation 

Indian Garden Good Contributing Ve-2 

Buildings and Structures 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Telephone poles Indian Garden Good Contributing S-1 

Archeological Sites 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Arizona B:16:140 (Mining 

remnants) 

Indian Garden Unknown Contributing A-1 

Arizona B:16:152 (possible 

Cameron bldg.) 

Indian Garden Unknown Contributing A-2 

Arizona B:16:164 

(Puebloan ruins) 

Indian Garden Unknown Contributing A-3 

Arizona B:16:165 (Tent 

platform and cooler/latrine) 

Indian Garden Unknown Contributing A-4 

Arizona B:16:252 

(Cameron artifacts) 

Indian Garden Unknown Contributing A-5 

Bright Angel Trail Corridor 

Natural Systems and Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Garden Creek Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Fair Contributing N-1 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 3 

Spatial Organization 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Linear path through 

corridor 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Contributing SO-1 

Junction of Bright Angel 

Trail and Garden Creek 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Poor Undetermined SO-2 

Node created by Trailside 

Shelter 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Contributing SO-3 

Circulation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Bright Angel Trail Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Fair Contributing C-1 

Spur trails—formal Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Supporting C-2 

Spur trails—informal Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Fair Supporting C-3 

Spur trail—comfort station Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Non-contributing C-4 

Vegetation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Edge-defining vegetation Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Fair Undetermined Ve-3 

Cottonwood trees Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Poor Contributing Ve-4 

Redbud tree Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Fair Contributing Ve-5 

Buildings and Structures 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Trailside Shelter 

(LCS #BCB00143) 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Contributing B-1 

Stone steps to Trailside 

Shelter 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Fair Contributing S-2 

Mortared stone protective 

wall 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Undetermined S-3 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 4 

Views and Vistas 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Views to surrounding 

canyon 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Contributing V-1 

Small-scale Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Wood fencing Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Non-contributing SS-1 

Stone edging Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Fair Supporting SS-2 

Log risers and stone water 

bars 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Fair Supporting SS-3 

Typical signage Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Supporting SS-4 

Contemporary illustrative 

sign 

Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Non-contributing SS-5 

Thermometer Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Non-contributing SS-6 

“Rustic” benches Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Supporting SS-7 

Hitching bar Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Undetermined SS-8 

Cottonwood stumps Bright Angel 

Trail Corridor 

Good Non-contributing SS-9 

Administration Area 

Natural Systems and Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Intermittent streams Administration 

Area 

Good Contributing N-2 

Spatial Organization 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Gathering space – Pump 

Operator’s Residence 

Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-4 

Corridor of space Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-5 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 5 

Courtyard Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-6 

Backyard space– Ranger 

Residence 

Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-7 

Public space – Ranger 

Residence 

Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-8 

Sand filter bed Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-9 

Helispot Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-10 

Circulation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Stone-edged trail to Ranger 

Residence 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting C-5 

Secondary trail Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting C-6 

Spur trail—Bright Angel 

Trail to helispot 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting C-7 

Spur trail—Bright Angel 

Trail to Bunkhouse 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting C-8 

Concrete sidewalk Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing C-9 

Vegetation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Desertscrub community Administration 

Area 

Good Contributing Ve-2 

Transplanted native 

vegetation 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting Ve-6 

Re-vegetation area Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting Ve-7 

Buildings and Structures 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

NPS Ranger Residence 

(Bldg. #1460) 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting B-2 

Pump Operator’s 

Residence (Bldg. #1459) 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting B-3 

Storage/Laundry/First Aid 

Building (Bldg. #1462) 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting B-4 

Bunkhouse 

(Bldg. #1429) 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting B-5 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 6 

Trash Compactor Shed 

(Bldg. #1501) 

Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing B-6 

Sand filter bed Administration 

Area 

Unknown Non-contributing S-4 

Helispot Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting S-5 

Wooden stairs Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting S-6 

Stone walls and retaining 

walls 

Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting S-7 

Horseshoes court Administration 

Area 

Fair Non-contributing S-8 

Hose House Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing S-9 

Drainfield Administration 

Area 

Unknown Non-contributing S-10 

Views and Vistas 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Views to surrounding 

canyon 

Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing V-1 

Views from helispot Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing V-2 

Small-scale Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Typical signage Administration 

Area 

Good Supporting SS-4 

Stone edging Administration 

Area 

Fair Supporting SS-2 

Hitching bar Administration 

Area 

Good Undetermined SS-8 

Picnic table Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-10 

Windsock and post Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-11 

Flagpole Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-12 

Tree cages Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-13 

Utility meters and 

irrigation boxes 

Administration 

Area 

Unknown Non-contributing SS-14 

Wire mesh fence Administration 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-15 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 7 

Campground Area 

Natural Systems and Features 

----- 

Spatial Organization 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Camping areas Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-11 

Central public space Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-12 

Secondary public space Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-13 

Comfort station spaces Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-14 

Circulation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Central trail Campground 

Area 

Good Supporting C-10 

Spur trails – to comfort 

stations and camping areas 

Campground 

Area 

Fair Supporting C-11 

Vegetation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Riparian community 

vegetation 

Campground 

Area 

Good Contributing Ve-1 

Transplanted native 

vegetation 

Campground 

Area 

Good Supporting Ve-6 

Buildings and Structures 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Comfort station—south 

(Bldg. #1413) 

Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing B-7 

Comfort station—north 

(Bldg. #1440) 

Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing B-8 

Shade structures 

(Bldg. #s 1463-1480) 

Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing S-11 

Information kiosk Campground 

Area 

Good Supporting S-12 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 8 

Stone walls Campground 

Area 

Good Supporting S-7 

Stone camp site retaining 

walls 

Campground 

Area 

Good Supporting S-13 

Views and Vistas 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Views to surrounding 

canyon 

Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing V-1 

Small-scale Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Picnic tables Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-10 

Camp site markers Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-16 

Ammunition box Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-17 

Backpack bar Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-18 

“Rustic” benches Campground 

Area 

Good Supporting SS-7 

“Contemporary” benches Campground 

Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-19 

Stone edging Campground 

Area 

Fair Supporting SS-2 

Drinking fountains Campground 

Area 

Good Supporting SS-20 

Utility and irrigation boxes Campground 

Area 

Unknown Non-contributing SS-14 

Typical signage Campground 

Area 

Good Supporting SS-4 

Day Use Area 

Natural Systems and Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Garden Creek Day Use Area Good Contributing N-1 

Floodplain Day Use Area Unknown Contributing N-3 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 9 

Wet area Day Use Area Unknown Non-contributing N-4 

Spatial Organization 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Picnic grounds Day Use Area Poor Non-contributing SO-15 

Trailside Shelter cleared 

area 

Day Use Area Unknown Undetermined SO-16 

SAR Cache/Rock House 

terrace 

Day Use Area Good Contributing SO-17 

Circulation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Spur trail – Bright Angel 

Trail to SAR Cache 

Day Use Area Fair Contributing C-12 

Trail network Day Use Area Poor Non-contributing C-13 

Concrete sidewalks Day Use Area Poor Undetermined C-14 

Vegetation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Riparian community 

vegetation 

Day Use Area Good Non-contributing Ve-1 

Cottonwood trees Day Use Area Poor Contributing Ve-4 

Peach tree Day Use Area Poor Undetermined Ve-7 

Buildings and Structures 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

SAR Cache/Caretaker’s 

Residence 

(LCS #0093) 

Day Use Area Fair Contributing B-9 

Pump Caretaker’s 

Residence/ Rock House 

(LCS #IGB0018) 

Day Use Area Good Supporting B-10 

Air Quality Monitoring 

Station 

Day Use Area Good Non-contributing S-14 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 10 

Gabion walls Day Use Area Good Non-contributing S-15 

Channelized Garden Creek Day Use Area Good Contributing S-16 

Footbridge abutment Day Use Area Fair Non-contributing S-17 

Concrete foundation Day Use Area Poor Undetermined S-18 

Stone retaining wall at 

terrace 

Day Use Area Fair Contributing S-19 

Stone steps to terrace Day Use Area Poor Contributing S-20 

Utility pole Day Use Area Unknown Undetermined S-21 

Views and Vistas 

----- 

Small-scale Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Rock edging Day Use Area Fair Supporting SS-21 

Typical signage Day Use Area Good Supporting SS-4 

Stepping stones Day Use Area Fair Undetermined SS-22 

“Contemporary” bench Day Use Area Good Non-contributing SS-19 

“Rustic” bench Day Use Area Good Supporting SS-7 

Continuous bench seating Day Use Area Good Non-contributing SS-23 

Electrical distribution box Day Use Area Good Non-contributing SS-24 

Drinking fountains Day Use Area Fair Supporting SS-20 

Picnic tables Day Use Area Fair Non-contributing SS-10 

Wood and wire mesh fence Day Use Area Fair Non-contributing SS-25 

PVC pipe Day Use Area Poor Non-contributing SS-26 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 11 

Pump Station and Corral Area 

Natural Systems and Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Perennial streams Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Unknown Contributing N-5 

Garden Creek Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Fair Contributing N-1 

Dry washes Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Unknown Contributing N-6 

Spatial Organization 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Visitor rest area Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-18 

Mule Barn facility Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-19 

Pump Station node Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Contributing SO-20 

Helispot Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SO-21 

Circulation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Stone-edged trail to 

helispot 

Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting C-15 

Ramp-like trail to comfort 

station 

Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting C-16 

Stone-edged trail to south 

of Mule Barn 

Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting C-17 

Concrete sidewalks Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Undetermined C-18 

Spur trail – informal Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting C-19 

Vegetation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Riparian community 

vegetation 

Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Contributing Ve-1 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 12 

Desertscrub community 

vegetation 

Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Contributing Ve-2 

Cottonwood trees Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Poor Contributing Ve-4 

Redbud tree Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Contributing Ve-5 

Buildings and Structures 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

North Pump House 

(Bldg. #484) 

Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Supporting B-11 

South Pump House 

(LCS #IGB0031) 

Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Contributing B-12 

Pump House Reservoir 

(LCS #IGB0032) 

Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Contributing B-13 

Mule Barn and Corral 

(Bldg. #1461) 

Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Supporting B-14 

Comfort Station 

(Bldg. #1439) 

Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing B-15 

Electrical substation Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing S-22 

Information kiosk Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Supporting S-23 

Concrete cistern Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Contributing S-24 

Leveled terraces Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Undetermined S-25 

Stone retaining wall Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Supporting S-26 

Stone-edged steps Pump Station 

and Corral Area 

Good Supporting S-27 

Views and Vistas 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Views to surrounding 

canyon 

Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Contributing V-1 

Small-scale Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Stone edging Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting SS-2 

Boulder and log edging Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-27 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 13 

Wooden cabinet Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-28 

Electrical hook-up Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-29 

“No Hiking” sign Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-30 

Metal pipe rail fencing Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-31 

Wooden post-and-rail 

fence 

Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-32 

Chain-link fencing Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Fair Non-contributing SS-33 

Wooden gate Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting SS-34 

Wooden troughs with 

metal edging 

Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting SS-35 

Large metal water troughs Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting SS-36 

Hitching bars Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Undetermined SS-8 

“Rustic” benches Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting SS-7 

“Contemporary” benches Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Non-contributing SS-19 

Drinking fountain Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Fair Supporting SS-20 

Interpretive wayside Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Fair Non-contributing SS-37 

Typical signage Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Good Supporting SS-4 

Utility structures Pump Station and 

Corral Area 

Unknown Non-contributing SS-14 

North Indian Garden Area 

Natural Systems and Features 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Floodplain North Indian 

Garden Area 

Unknown Contributing N-3 

Garden Creek North Indian 

Garden Area 

Fair Contributing N-1 

Dry washes North Indian 

Garden Area 

Unknown Contributing N-6 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 14 

Spatial Organization 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Central space – cleared 

floodplain 

North Indian 

Garden Area 

Poor Contributing SO-22 

Steep hillside North Indian 

Garden Area 

Good Contributing SO-23 

Cleared space at 

Rehandling Pump House 

North Indian 

Garden Area 

Poor Undetermined SO-24 

Circulation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Tonto East Trail North Indian 

Garden Area 

Fair Contributing C-20 

Plateau Point Trail North Indian 

Garden Area 

Fair Contributing C-21 

Vegetation 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Riparian community 

vegetation 

North Indian 

Garden Area 

Good Contributing Ve-1 

Cottonwood trees North Indian 

Garden Area 

Poor Contributing Ve-4 

Himalaya blackberry - 

cleared 

North Indian 

Garden Area 

Poor Contributing Ve-9 

Buildings and Structures 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Rehandling Pump House 

(1932) 

North Indian 

Garden Area 

Poor Contributing B-16 

Flood walls North Indian 

Garden Area 

Poor Supporting S-28 

Views and Vistas 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Views to surrounding 

canyon 

North Indian 

Garden Area 

Good Contributing V-1 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 15 

Small-scale Features 

----- 

Archeological Sites 

Landscape Feature Sub-Area Condition 

Assessment 

Contributing/Noncontributing CLR # 

Stone edging North Indian 

Garden Area 

Poor Contributing A-6 

Debris piles North Indian 

Garden Area 

Poor Contributing A-7 

Former Kolb Studio North Indian 

Garden Area 

Unknown Supporting A-8 
Indian Garden Cultural Landscape Report • Grand Canyon National Park • June 2005

Appendix A - 16 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our 

nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water 

resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural 

values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor 

recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their 

development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in 

their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for 

people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

GRCA D-739, June 2005 
United States Department of the Interior