Final Environmental Impact Statement 

General Management Plan 

TONTO 

National Monument • Arizona

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

 General Management Plan 

 TONTO 

National Monument • Arizona 

SUMMARY: 

This General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement describes and 

analyzes alternatives for the management of Tonto National Monument over the next ten 

to fifteen years. Four alternatives were considered - a no-action and three action 

alternatives including the National Park Service (NPS) proposal. The NPS proposal would 

construct a new administrative facility within monument boundaries to improve staff 

needs and remodel the existing visitor center to increase visitor orientation and education 

opportunities. The management of cultural and natural resources would also improve 

with more staff and the information needed to conduct preservation programs. The plan 

assesses impacts to archeological and historical resources, long-term health of natural 

ecosystems, visitor experiences, economic contribution to local communities, adjacent 

landowners, and operational efficiency. The plan also describes cumulative effects for 

each alternative. 

PUBLIC COMMENT:

The draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement was prepared to 

evaluate and assess the impacts of a range of alternatives and to provide the public with an 

opportunity to comment. The draft plan was available for public comment for sixty days in 

2002. Refer to Appendix 4 in this document for a list of comments received from the public 

and the NPS response to those comments. 

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

i

Table of Contents

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN ..............................1

Introduction.................................................1

Purpose of the Plan.......................................1

Need for the Plan..........................................1

Planning Issues and Concerns ..................... 2

The Planning Process .................................. 3

The National Park System ........................... 4

Park Purpose ............................................... 4

Park Significance ......................................... 5

MISSION STATEMENT (A VISION 

FOR THE FUTURE) .......................................7

GPRA Mission Goals ................................... 8

Park Mission Goals...................................... 8

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE 

PARK ENVIRONMENT...............................15

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS..............25

THE PROPOSAL AND 

ALTERNATIVES.........................................31

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.........77

Introduction...............................................77

Cultural Resources— Archeology...............78

Cultural Resources—Cliff Dwelling 

Environment ............................................. 80

Cultural Resources— Landscapes .............. 81

Cultural Resources—Historic Structures—

List of Classified Structures 

and Mission 66 ...........................................83

Cultural Resources— Ethnography ............85

Natural Resources—Topography, 

Geology, and Soils ..................................... 86

Natural Resources—Vegetation ................ 88

Natural Resources—Wildlife..................... 90

Natural Resources—Threatened and 

Endangered Species....................................91

Natural Resources—Water Resources, 

Wetlands, Floodplains................................93

Natural Resources—Air Quality ................ 94

Natural Resources—Natural Quiet............ 96

Visitor Use, Experience, Accessibility ....... 97

Scenic Vistas, Viewsheds ..........................100

Adjacent Land, Partnerships .................... 101

Facilities—Visitor/Administrative 

Facility, Parking Area (Including 

Public Safety)............................................ 102

Museum Collections, Reference and 

Archives Library.......................................104

Employee Residences............................... 106

Trails........................................................ 107

Maintenance Facility, Entrance Station, 

Roads, Volunteer Trailer Pad, 

Picnic Area............................................... 108

Operational Efficiency—Visitor Center 

and Headquarters .................................... 109

Water, Septic, and Solid Waste Systems.... 110

Commercial Services................................. 112

Boundary .................................................. 113

Economic Contribution To Gateway 

Communities ............................................ 114

Cumulative Effects .................................... 115

Long-Term Integrity Of Archeological 

Resources.................................................. 117

Historic Character of the Built 

Environment............................................. 121

Long-Term Integrity of Ethnographic 

Resources..................................................125

Long-Term Integrity of Natural Systems 

and Processes (Soils, Vegetation, Wildlife, 

Threatened and Endangered Species, 

Water Resources)......................................129

Long-Term Quality of Air and 

Natural Quiet ............................................ 133

Ability to Use, Experience, and Access 

Park Resources ......................................... 137

Scenic Vistas, Viewsheds...........................142

Impacts to Adjacent Lands and Economies 

of Gateway Communities......................... 144

Operational Efficiency ..............................147

CONSULTATION/COORDINATION .......... 155

Public Involvement, Agencies 

Consulted.................................................. 155

Planning Team .......................................... 155

Contributors .............................................156

List of Recipients ......................................156

REFERENCES CITED................................ 159

APPENDIX 1: LEGISLATION ................... 161

APPENDIX 2: FUTURE PLANS 

AND STUDIES......................................... 163

APPENDIX 3: CULTURAL 

HISTORY................................................. 165

APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC COMMENTS 

& NPS RESPONSE................................... 167

1 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

Introduction 

Tonto National Monument is located in 

east central Arizona’s Gila County only 

50 air miles east of Phoenix in a rapidly 

changing regional environment. The 

monument was established to protect 

numerous prehistoric archeological sites 

including two Gila-phase cliff dwellings 

of the Salado culture. The primary sites 

are the Upper and Lower Cliff Dwellings. 

Rock shelters overlooking Tonto Basin 

have protected the nearly 700 year-old 

masonry cliff dwellings. Thirteen smaller 

remote cliff dwellings and fifty surface 

sites also have been documented in the 

monument. Six of the archeological sites 

are on the List of Classified Structures. 

Evidence of Archaic, Apache or Yavapai, 

and historic Euro-American occupations 

is also found among the sites. 

Archeological excavations have revealed 

well-preserved collections of pottery, 

agricultural tools, ornaments, textiles, 

and more. The diversity of the natural 

setting located between steep cliffs and 

bajadas (gently sloping hills) supports rich 

Sonoran Desert vegetation. The 

astonishing variety of plants provides 

habitat for over 200 species of wildlife. 

Purpose of the Plan 

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 tasked the National Park Service 

(NPS) to prepare General Management 

Plans (GMP) for all national park units. 

The purpose of the General Management 

Plan is: 

• To clearly describe specific resource conditions 

and visitor experiences in various management 

units throughout the park and 

• To identify the kinds of management, use, and 

development that will be appropriate to 

achieving and maintaining those conditions. 

The accompanying environmental 

documentation provides sufficient 

information to evaluate alternatives and 

provide the basis for a Record of Decision 

documenting the NPS’s choice of a 

preferred action. 

Need for the Plan 

Tonto National Monument’s previous 

management document was completed in 

1962. Much has changed since then making 

the original plan insufficient to provide 

adequate guidance for today’s 

management of the monument. There is 

potential for greatly increased tourism 

within Tonto Basin as a result of new and 

expanded recreational facilities at 

Roosevelt Lake, improved highway access 

from Globe and Payson, and the increased 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

2

growth of the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

A new GMP is needed to provide a 

rationale for making management 

decisions that affect the park’s cultural and 

natural resources, visitors’ understanding 

of the site, and park administration. This 

new plan will balance the protection of 

park resources with the needs of visitors 

and administration in a comprehensive 

approach. It includes measures for the 

preservation of the resources and indicates 

the types and general intensities of 

development. When completed, the final 

plan will set forth the basic management 

philosophy for the park. 

The plan presents a proposed action and 

three alternatives. The consequences of 

implementing these actions on cultural 

and natural resources, visitor use, scenic 

viewsheds, nearby lands, partnerships, 

facilities, operational efficiency, and the 

socioeconomic environment are analyzed; 

so far as can be determined by a strategic 

plan. It documents the process used by the 

National Park Service in preparing a 

general management plan. 

Planning Issues and Concerns 

Cultural Resources – Archeological sites 

continue to deteriorate from both natural 

and human erosive forces compromising 

their structural integrity and research 

values. Cultural landscape features and 

ethnographic sites are not identified and 

documented. 

Natural Resources – Changes in wildlife 

and vegetation species and populations are 

not documented and assessed. Threatened 

and endangered species are not identified. 

There are several non-native species in the 

park, some of which may be extremely 

disruptive to native species and habitats. 

The riparian area is integral to the overall 

health of the park by providing important 

habitat for wildlife in the Sonoran desert. 

Hydrological information to assess water 

use and its effects on groundwater sources 

and the riparian area are not known. 

Natural Quiet – Impacts to natural sound 

from both internal and external activities 

and management practices are not 

measured and assessed. 

Visitor Use, Experience, and 

Accessibility – Existing facilities, 

programs, and staffing are inadequate to 

provide visitor services for the existing and 

increasing numbers of visitors. The visitor 

center is not large enough to accommodate 

improved orientation information and an 

expanded educational program. The 

second floor facilities are not accessible. 

The museum exhibits are outdated and 

occupy inadequate space, which does not 

allow for rotation or expansion. The park 

has many artifacts that are not displayed 

for public view. During the busy spring 

season, the small restrooms do not 

accommodate all visitors and the parking 

area fills to capacity forcing visitors to 

either park unsafely along the entrance 

road shoulder or continue their journey 

without stopping. 

Scenic Viewsheds - The contemporary 

scene surrounding the park still retains 

some scenic elements that were present at 

the time of the Salado occupation. 

Changing land uses inside and outside the 

park affect cultural as well as scenic 

viewsheds. 

Adjacent Land/Partnerships – The park 

is completely surrounded by Tonto 

National Forest whose management is 

generally consistent with the park. 

However, some national forest 

recreational activities are not allowed in 

the park. Therefore, accurate boundary 

protection measures, such as fencing and 

enforcement patrols, are required, as are 

expanded partnerships with the U.S. 

Forest Service and other nearby 

landowners to reduce impacts from 

external activities, protect natural and 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

3 

cultural resources, and increase the quality 

of interpretive and visitor services. 

Facilities – Office and workspace is 

inadequate for current and anticipated 

increased staff levels. The visitor center 

lacks sufficient space for employees to 

work, conduct meetings, organize a 

library, and store equipment and supplies. 

No residences are available to house 

seasonal employees or volunteers. Hiring 

employees and recruiting volunteers is 

difficult without having accommodations 

for them. 

Due to the steep, rugged terrain, no 

handicapped accessible trails are available 

for use in the park. 

Staffing – The existing interpretive staff is 

not large enough to handle the increasing 

number of visitors. Additional staff is 

needed to provide quality visitor service 

and experiences for the visiting public. 

The existing cultural and natural resource 

staff is not large enough to properly 

manage the resources entrusted to their 

care. Additional staff is needed to conduct 

high-quality preservation programs. 

Boundary – The Cave Canyon watershed, 

which contains the park’s only perennial 

surface water source, originates outside 

the monument and is potentially impacted 

from external activities. 

The Planning Process 

The planning process builds upon the logic 

established for national parks, starting 

with the national park system and all other 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

The proposed action and alternatives 

displayed in this document are based on 

the purpose and significance of Tonto 

NM. Alternatives in the plan have three 

common components—the mission 

statement, mission goals, and management 

prescriptions. Each alternative responds 

differently in addressing the park’s 

mission goals. 

The mission statement is a short narrative 

that describes the park’s desired future 

condition. It is meant to stand the test of 

time and reflect the park’s purpose and 

significance. It expresses the management 

philosophy for the park and what the park 

is to be like in the future. 

The park’s mission goals capture the 

essence of the mission statement, 

providing clarity and priorities. These 

objectives are issue-, resource-, or 

geographic-specific. They may include 

products to be produced or conditions to 

be attained or maintained. As a whole, 

objectives are interrelated and 

interdependent on one another. The 

park’s mission goals provide a basis for 

allocating resources and describing 

regions in the park. 

Management prescriptions are 

geographically based. Prescriptions 

describe characteristics of the 

management region for which they were 

developed and define the outputs, 

activities, and projects for that region. The 

rationale for defining regional boundary 

delineations is included in this planning 

document. 

Management prescriptions for each region 

are based on the character and condition 

of the resource involved. They are not only 

tied to local or park-wide needs but also 

take into consideration factors beyond 

park boundaries. A menu of available 

management prescriptions is developed. 

Each alternative revolves around a 

common theme, and the same set of 

prescriptions is applied differently over 

park lands depending on the theme of the 

alternative. Themes set the basis for 

developing distinctly different alternatives 

that provide a variety of visitor experience 

options. 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

4

The plan provides general or strategic 

guidance and is not detailed, specific, or 

highly technical in nature. Highly 

technical environmental analysis is to be 

done when funds become 

available to begin design of 

facilities, if prescribed by the 

management plan, when sitespecific impacts can be 

addressed. All undertakings 

will also be subject to the 

National Historic 

Preservation Act’s Section 106 

review and compliance prior 

to implementation. 

The National Park 

System 

The national park system 

represents our national 

heritage and includes a 

collection of the nations most outstanding 

and significant natural, cultural, historic, 

and recreational resources. 

The National Park Service’s purpose of 

conserving resources—whether they are 

natural, cultural, historic, or 

recreational—recognizes the importance 

of preservation as an active management 

tool. This preservation principle respects 

both natural and human relationships and 

emphasizes the value of maintaining land 

for the purpose of preserving natural 

ecosystems, historic significance, and 

outstanding recreational opportunities. 

Balanced against the protection and 

preservation of these resources is the value 

of public enjoyment by present and future 

generations. Human use often can 

threaten the very resources that the 

National Park Service is entrusted to 

protect. Many public debates have 

revolved around the balancing of these 

two National Park Service purposes. 

Whether it is telling a story or carefully 

protecting resources, the Service uses the 

principles of human and natural 

management to accomplish its mission. 

But at the very least, “these areas derive 

increased national dignity and recognition 

of their superb environmental quality 

through their inclusion jointly with each 

other in one national park system managed 

for the benefit and inspiration of all 

people.” (16 USC 1a-1;1970) 

Park Purpose 

Each park in the National Park System is 

established for a specific purpose. The 

reason or reasons why Tonto National 

Monument was set aside is called its park 

purpose. The park purpose reflects current 

scientific or scholarly inquiry and 

interpretation. Purpose statements are 

based on enabling legislation, legislative 

history, and historic trends. Other 

legislation that affects each park unit is 

listed under Servicewide Law and Policies 

on the following page. 

The following purpose statement reflects 

the mandates and legislative intent for the 

creation of Tonto National Monument: 

Tonto National Monument preserves, 

protects, interprets, and manages prehistoric 

cliff dwellings, other archeological sites, 

cultural materials, and the associated 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

5 

Sonoran Desert environment where the 

Salado lived more than five centuries ago. 

Park Significance 

Each national park unit contains resources 

and values that make it special and 

nationally significant. Tonto National 

Monument fulfills a particular “niche” in 

the National Park System. Significance 

statements capture the essence of Tonto 

National Monument’s importance to our 

nation’s natural and cultural heritage. 

They describe the distinctiveness of the 

aggregate of resources that distinguishes 

Tonto National Monument as one of the 

units in the national park system that 

offers a unique experience within a 

regional, national, and global context. 

Significance statements identify the 

exceptional values and resources that must 

be preserved and maintained to achieve 

the purpose of the park. These 

statements also help 

park managers set 

resource protection 

priorities and identify 

primary park 

interpretive themes 

and desirable visitor 

experiences. 

• Tonto National 

Monument 

contains the only 

examples of 

prehistoric Salado 

culture in the National 

Park System, and the bestpreserved Gila-phase cliff dwellings 

representing that culture that are interpreted 

and accessible to the general public. 

• Three major and several smaller cliff dwellings, 

numerous other sites, artifacts, and the 

surrounding Sonoran Desert landscape have 

enormous potential for teaching about 

indigenous peoples and how they adapted 

and thrived in an arid environment. 

• Tonto National Monument is uniquely 

positioned to instill public understanding of 

the Sonoran Desert and the need for the dayto-day preservation of its resources. 

• Textiles from Tonto include some of the finest 

prehistoric examples in North America in 

regard to quantity, degree of preservation, 

variety of weaves, and weaving techniques. 

• Tonto has a fine collection of Salado 

polychrome ceramics, which were among the 

most widely distributed throughout the 

prehistoric Southwest. 

Legislative Background 

Tonto National Monument was 

established by Presidential Proclamation 

No. 787 on December 19, 1907 (35 Stat. 

2168) under the administration of the 

Department of Agriculture to protect “two 

prehistoric ruins of ancient cliff 

dwellings...of great ethnographic, 

scientific and educational interest...and 

one section of land upon which same are 

located.” 

Executive Order No. 6166 on June 10, 1933 

(47 Stat. 1517) consolidated all functions of 

administration of certain areas, which 

included Tonto National 

Monument, into the 

Department of the 

Interior, National Park 

Service, thus moving it 

from the Department 

of Agriculture. 

Monument 

boundaries were 

significantly expanded 

by Presidential 

Proclamation No. 2230 

on April 1, 1937. This 

second proclamation 

recognized both “prehistoric ruins 

and ancient cliff dwellings” and added to 

the monument 480 acres of adjacent 

National Forest lands, “which are required 

for [their] proper care, management and 

protection.” This brought the size to 1,120 

acres. Both proclamations expressly warn 

against unauthorized appropriation, 

injury, or destruction of monument 

features and against settlement on these 

reserved lands. 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

6

Special Mandates 

In addition to legislation, the following 

agreements affect the area’s management: 

• agreement with US Forest Service 

for wildland fire suppression 

• agreement with Tonto Basin Fire Department 

for fire suppression and emergency medical 

service 

• agreement with White Mountain Apache Tribe 

for archeological site preservation treatment 

• agreement with Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality for air quality 

monitoring 

• agreement with Miami Public Schools for 

environmental education programs 

• right-of-way permit with Salt River Project for 

power transmission line crossing the 

monument 

• right-of-way permit with Telephone Data 

System for telephone line crossing the 

monument 

• highway easement deed with Arizona 

Department of Transportation for State Route 

188 

Interagency Wildland Fire Suppression

– A general agreement with Tonto Basin 

Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, 

U.S. Forest Service provides cooperation 

in wildland fire suppression. 

Emergency Services – A general 

agreement with Tonto Basin Fire District 

provides cooperation in fire suppression 

and emergency medical services. 

Archeological Site Preservation – A 

general agreement with White Mountain 

Apache Tribe provides cooperation in the 

preservation/repair/stabilization of 

archeological sites. 

Air Quality – A general agreement with 

Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality provides cooperation in air quality 

monitoring. 

Environmental Education – A general 

agreement with Miami Public Schools 

provides cooperation in environmental 

education programs. 

Power Transmission Line - A right-ofway permit granted to the Salt River 

Project Agricultural Improvement and 

Power District provides access for power 

transmission lines to cross the monument. 

Telephone Lines - A right-of-way permit 

granted to Telephone Data 

Systems/Telecom provides access for 

telephone lines to cross the monument. 

State Route 188 - A highway easement 

deed with the Arizona Department of 

Transportation grants monument land for 

the use of State Route 188. 

Servicewide Law and Policies 

Many laws, regulations, policies, and 

guidelines govern management and 

operations for NPS units. The following 

are those that apply to this planning effort: 

National Park Service Organic Act 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Archeological Resources Protection Act 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

Endangered Species Act 

E.O. 11988: Floodplain Management 

E.O. 11990: Wetlands Protection 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Clean Air Act 

Clean Water Act 

Architectural Barriers Act 

Rehabilitation Act 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

Government Performance and Results Act
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

7 

Mission Statement (A Vision For The Future) 

The following mission statement is based on input received during the management 

assessment. They are short narratives relating “what could be” in the future and are 

used in evaluating the appropriateness of various alternatives. 

Set in the rugged beauty of Tonto 

Basin, Tonto National Monument 

preserves one of America’s best 

surviving examples of a Gila-phase 

village (A.D. 1300 -1400) representing 

the Salado culture. Overlooking the 

basin, the Salado built their large 

multiple-room dwellings in shallow 

caves. The Salado and their 

predecessors also constructed many 

smaller villages on the ridges, bajadas, 

and open desert floor. The longstanding remaining walls together 

with handprints, pottery, fabric 

remnants, and smoke stains from 

fires help us envision what 

prehistoric Salado life was like in the 

rock shelters and on the valley floor. 

Frequently perceived as vast, stark, 

and inhospitable, the Sonoran desert 

is, in reality, a rich and diverse 

environment. The change in 

elevation from the valley floor to the 

ridge tops provides a unique setting 

for a mixture of desert cactus, 

flowers, shrubs, and trees, including 

small deciduous forests in the 

protected canyons. The astonishing 

variety of plants provided the Salado with a diverse food source and habitat for more than 

200 species of wildlife, some of which were hunted by the Salado. 

Viewing the cliff dwellings and wandering through the remaining rooms surrounded by the 

Sonoran desert, visitors experience a segment of prehistoric times. Interpretive programs 

reflect the times of those who once lived here and their relationship to the surrounding 

landscape. Other activities include sightseeing, hiking, picnicking, observing nature, 

photography, and examining the cliff dwellings. The monument is a living classroom where 

opportunities abound for exploration, education, and inspiration. 

The future of the monument lies within the bounds of past and present preservation. The 

National Park Service manages Tonto National Monument and accepts the challenge to 

preserve its cultural and natural resources for future generations. To meet the challenge, 

management decisions and actions affecting the park’s resources are based on scientific 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

8

research. Long-term monitoring programs detect the changing trends of the natural and 

cultural resources. Deterioration of the cliff dwellings and other archeological sites is 

minimized with proper care, management, and protection. Active projects and programs 

protect native species and perpetuate ecological processes to the extent possible. 

Partnerships with individuals, local communities, and a variety of local, state, and federal 

agencies and organizations will allow us to successfully achieve the monument’s mission to 

preserve, protect, research, interpret, and manage the prehistoric sites of the Salado culture 

and their Sonoran desert environment. Additionally, partnerships assist in coordinating 

and providing a variety of high-quality services that meet our visitors’ needs as well as those 

of the people in nearby communities. 

Our children’s children will be able to learn from and enjoy this monument as we have 

because its resources are and will be protected. Their memories and experiences will, 

indeed, last a lifetime. 

GPRA Mission Goals 

The Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA) was enacted to make 

government agencies more effective and 

efficient. Planning for this GMP is 

consistent with the following Mission 

Goals established for GPRA. 

Category I: Preserve Resources 

• Mission Goal Ia: Natural and cultural resources 

and associated values of Tonto NM are 

protected, restored and maintained in good 

condition and managed within their broader 

ecosystem and cultural context. 

• Mission Goal Ib: Tonto NM contributes to 

knowledge about natural and cultural 

resources and associated values; management 

decisions about resources and visitors are 

based on adequate scholarly and scientific 

information. 

Category II: Provide for the Public 

Enjoyment and Visitor Experience 

• Mission Goal IIa: Visitors safely enjoy and are 

satisfied with the availability, accessibility, 

diversity, and quality of Tonto NM facilities, 

services, and appropriate recreational 

opportunities. 

• Mission Goal IIb: Tonto NM visitors understand 

and appreciate the preservation of the park 

and its resources for this and future 

generations. 

Category IV: Ensure Organizational 

Effectiveness 

• Mission Goal IVa: Tonto NM uses current 

management practices, systems, and 

technologies to accomplish its mission. 

• Mission Goal IVb: Tonto NM increases its 

managerial resources through initiatives and 

support from other agencies, organizations, 

and individuals. 

Park Mission Goals 

The park’s mission goals further refine 

management objectives and GPRA goals. 

For each desired future condition, the 

corresponding GPRA Goal is shown in 

parenthesis. 

Prime Resource 

Prime resource lands are defined as those 

resources that made a direct contribution 

to establishing the park as a unit of the 

national park system and are related to the 

park’s purpose and significance. Other 

lands within the park are also important to 

protecting and supporting the prime 

resource, but are not considered to be the 

prime resource. 

The cultural sites and the supporting 

natural environment of Tonto NM are 

considered the prime resource(s) of the 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

9 

monument. Cultural resources of the 

monument include sixty-five archeological 

sites that represent varying cultural themes 

and pieces of the nation’s heritage. 

(Indigenous American Populations—

Southwestern Farmers, Prehistoric 

Architecture, Prehistoric Technology, 

Prehistoric Settlement Patterns, and Major 

Contributions to the Development of the 

Science of Archeology.) 

The following resource-, geographic-, and 

issue-specific mission goals apply to Tonto 

National Monument. 

Park Mission Goals—Resource 

Specific 

! Archeological Research - high quality 

archeological research program. (Ib, IVb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) An up-to-date research program for a more 

complete understanding of our cultural 

resources relating to the Salado people is in 

place. 

2) A broad network of partnership opportunities 

has been identified. 

! Archeology - protect and preserve 

archeological resources through a fullrange of archeological investigations. (Ia, 

Ib) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) A complete inventory, evaluation, and 

enhanced documentation of archeological 

resources is available. 

2) Site formation processes - including both 

natural and cultural agents of deterioration - 

are understood and incorporated into the 

management of archeological resources. 

3) The integrity of archeological resources is 

maintained through periodic site monitoring, 

focused research, and preservation treatments 

where applicable. 

4) Research and management is focused on 

understanding archeological resources within 

the framework of regional prehistory of the 

Tonto Basin and broad-scale strategies – 

including all public and private partners - for 

the protection and preservation of resources. 

5) Enhanced understanding of archeological 

resources is incorporated into interpretive 

programs that stress both regional prehistory 

and preservation strategies. 

6) Impacts of visitor use are minimized through 

enhanced education, protection, and 

preservation treatments. 

! Prehistoric and Historic Structures -

protect and preserve prehistoric and 

historic structures. (Ia,Ib,IIa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) All structures listed on the LCS are fully 

documented from the standpoint of 

archeological and architectural perspectives. 

2) Site formation processes – including both 

natural and cultural agents of deterioration – 

are understood and incorporated into the 

management of structures. 

3) Strategy for preserving the archeological, 

architectural, and structural integrity of 

prehistoric and historic structures is 

maintained through periodic site monitoring, 

focused research, and preservation treatments. 

4) Prehistoric structures accessible to visitors are 

maintained in a safe, stable condition. 

! Cultural Landscapes - identify and 

manage cultural landscapes. (Ia, Ib, IIb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Cultural landscapes are inventoried, evaluated, 

and documented in the Cultural Landscape 

Automated Inventory Management System 

(CLAIMS) and in a Cultural Landscape Report. 

2) A strategy for the management of cultural 

landscapes is based upon a sound 

understanding of both the resources 

themselves and formation processes affecting 

the landscape through time. 

3) Cultural landscapes are considered in the 

management of the monument. Enhanced 

understanding of cultural landscapes is 

incorporated into interpretive programs that 

stress the evolution of overall landscape 

systems. 

! Ethnographic Resources - ethnographic 

studies completed to better support 

management of other types of cultural 

resources as well as ensuring management 

of ethnographic resources themselves. (Ia, 

Ib, IIb) 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

10

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Ethnographic resources are inventoried, 

evaluated, and documented. 

2) A strategy for the management of 

ethnographic resources is based upon a sound 

understanding of the resources themselves 

and formation processes (including park 

management strategies both in the past and 

at present) that potentially affect their 

integrity. 

3) Ethnographic resources are integrated into 

research and management programs related 

to archeological resources, structures, and 

cultural landscapes. 

4) Enhanced understanding of ethnographic 

resources is incorporated into interpretive 

programs that stress the significance of 

American Indian groups to the regional history 

of the Tonto Basin. 

! Historic Studies - identification of 

historical support studies importance and 

need. (Ib) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Appropriate administrative, facilities, and legal 

histories are complete and focused on specific 

park needs and issues. 

2) Historical studies that provide additional 

understanding and perspective for the 

effective overall management of park 

resources are available. 

! Museum Collections/Curatorial - protect 

and preserve museum collections and 

provide high quality artifact preservation 

and exhibits. (Ia, IIa, IVa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Museum collections are fully cataloged, 

documented and preserved according to the 

guidelines established in the NPS Museum 

Management Program. 

2) Inventories and collection histories of museum 

repositories throughout North American that 

contain artifacts from Tonto National 

Monument are available. 

3) Environment of storage areas for artifacts and 

associated archives is maintained to insure the 

continued preservation of collections. 

4) Environment of interpretive exhibits 

containing prehistoric and historic artifacts is 

maintained to insure the continued 

preservation of collections. 

! Vegetation - protect native plant life as a 

part of the natural ecosystem. (Ia, Ib) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Exotic species have been identified and 

controlled. 

2) Trespass livestock and their impacts on 

resources have been identified, mitigated, and 

managed. 

3) Research to understand the basin-wide fire 

history and ecology is prepared. 

4) A T&E, rare, and candidate plant inventory is 

completed. Habitat for endangered species is 

protected or enhanced. 

5) Impacts of visitor use are minimized. 

6) All revegetation efforts focus on exclusive use 

of native materials. 

! Wildlife - preserve native animal life as 

an integral part of the natural ecosystem. 

(Ia, Ib, IVb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Strategies are cooperatively developed with 

other agencies for wildlife management. 

2) Endangered and threatened species are 

protected. 

3) Native and non-native species inventories have 

been completed and species are monitored to 

the point that changes in population trends or 

characteristics can be identified and/or 

managed. 

4) Facility development does not adversely 

impact wildlife and vegetative habitat. 

! Air Quality - maintain the best possible 

air quality. (Ia, Ib) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Facilities and activities within the park are in 

compliance with Clean Air Act requirements. 

2) Park obtains and uses the necessary tools to 

gather and gain information in a cooperative 

effort to document air quality conditions for 

Tonto basin. 

3) The park assists in an effort to develop a 

strategy and to use available information to 

remedy existing and prevent future air 

pollution effects on Tonto basin air quality. 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

11 

! Sound Quality - reduce the impacts of 

noise on cultural and natural resources and 

visitor experiences. (Ia, IIa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Tonto NM is identified on the aeronautics 

map. 

2) All noise sources such as from vehicles, boats, 

aircraft, and mining activity are monitored and 

reduced, if possible. 

3) Users are educated on noise effects on other 

visitors’ experience. 

! Water Quality - manage and protect the 

water resources and aquatic ecosystems to 

maintain, rehabilitate, and preserve their 

inherent natural integrity in coordination 

with state and other federal agencies. (Ia, 

Ib) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Facilities and activities within the park are in 

compliance with Clean Water Act 

requirements and other applicable federal, 

state, and local laws and regulations. 

2) An adequate supply of potable water is 

available to meet visitor and operational 

needs on a year-round basis. 

! Human Resources - develop a strategy to 

determine the appropriate levels of staffing 

to meet management objectives. (IVa, IVb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Park staff is equipped with adequate resources 

to address visitor, resource, and administrative 

needs. 

2) Park is adequately staffed and trained to 

address visitor, resource, and administrative 

needs. 

3) Park works cooperatively with other federal, 

state, and local agencies and tribal entities to 

share resources for accomplishing objectives. 

! Interpretation – provide high quality 

personal services and interpretive 

programs using state-of-the-art 

methodologies. (IIa, IIb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) The interpretive program connects the visitor 

to park resources, builds a local and national 

constituency, and gains public support, which, 

in turn, meets the objective of protecting park 

resources and its associated ecosystem. 

2) Educational programming is provided yearround at existing park facilities and areas 

outside the park using appropriate natural 

and cultural resource themes. 

3) Professional education programs and services 

are offered to international visitors. 

4) A component of the interpretive message 

contains information on the protection and 

preservation of resources. 

! Outreach - provide effective and quality 

outreach programs to the general public 

using state-of-the-art technology and 

techniques. (IIb, IVb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Tonto NM story is understood by school 

children throughout the area. 

2) Partnerships broaden the ability of the park to 

provide the story of Tonto NM to the general 

public. 

3) Environmental and cultural awareness is 

provided through outreach programs. 

4) High quality information is available to the 

public using state-of-the-art technology. 

! Visitor Use - develop a strategy to 

determine the appropriate levels of visitor 

use and experience and alternative 

strategies for maintaining the diversity of 

quality visitor experiences consistent with 

Tonto NM’s purpose and significance. (Ia, 

IIa, IVa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) A strategy has been developed with public 

input to guide the park in ensuring a quality 

visitor experience relative to resource 

preservation and development. 

2) A strategy to determine and establish a 

carrying capacity that protects resources and 

provides a range of experiences has been 

developed. 

! Law Enforcement and Emergency 

Services - protect park resources and 

provide for visitor safety and quality 

experiences. (Ia, IIa, IVa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

12

1) Strategy has been developed to guide the park 

and ensure a quality visitor experience and 

protection of park resources. 

2) Professional emergency services are provided 

year-round to park visitors and staff either 

directly by park staff or through innovative 

cooperation. 

! Viewsheds - minimize visual impacts on 

natural setting. (IIa, IVb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Management for viewsheds that are critical to 

providing quality experiences for park visitors 

is cooperatively coordinated with adjacent 

land management and transportation 

agencies. 

2) The park and external partners provides 

opportunities for visitors to see the larger 

panoramic views of the monument and the 

rest of Tonto Basin. 

3) Work cooperatively with other agencies and 

entities to develop a visual resource 

management strategy for land within and 

beyond the park boundary. 

! Adjacent Lands - manage and protect the 

regional land-based ecosystems and 

cultural landscapes and maintain/preserve 

their inherent integrity throughout Tonto 

Basin in coordination with other federal 

and state agencies and tribes. (Ia, IVa, IVb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Other land management agencies and entities 

assist in achieving mutually agreed-upon 

preservation goals through recognition of 

common benefits and support. 

2) NPS considers opportunities that may present 

themselves to acquire adjacent lands that 

complement the purpose of the park and fit 

within the management goals for the 

monument. 

3) Interpretive programming is in place that 

addresses park and regional resource issues in 

the context of Tonto Basin. 

4) Tonto NM is managed as part of the larger 

Tonto Basin ecosystem. 

5) The park staff is able to inform visitors about 

resource issues on surrounding lands, and 

surrounding land management agencies and 

entities are able to communicate park resource 

issues to their visitors. 

6) Research is facilitated in cooperation with 

other agencies and entities. 

! Partnerships - develop strong 

partnership programs. (IVb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) A strong and vibrant friends group supports 

the monuments mission and goals. 

2) The park partners with institutions, 

organizations, and local, county, state, tribal, 

and federal agencies to share resources and 

experiences. 

3) There is a consistent coordinated effort 

between all land management agencies and 

public interest to manage resources within 

Tonto Basin to create an understanding and 

mutual respect for individual management 

goals and concerns. 

! Facilities - provide facilities that meet 

visitor and staff needs while minimizing 

their impact on the surrounding landscape 

and resources. (IIa, IVa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Facilities meet ADA standards where practical. 

2) Adequate storage and workspace exist for all 

operations meeting all laws and mandates 

where applicable. 

3) Trails meet visitor, educational, and safety 

needs. 

4) Restrooms meet basic needs of staff and 

visitors. 

Park Mission Goals - Geographic 

Specific 

Resource opportunity areas (ROAs) are 

geographic delineations of the monument 

that contain similarities of character and 

resource values. Each ROA contributes in 

a different way to how people use the 

resources of that area. There are Four 

distinct ROAs in the monument - Cliff 

Dwelling, Lowlands, Uplands, and Cave 

Canyon Riparian. 

! Cliff Dwellings ROA - conserve and 

protect cliff dwellings and its ecosystem. (Ia, 

IIa, IIb, IVa) 
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

13 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Cliff dwellings and their associated rock 

shelter environments are protected and 

preserved. 

2) Visitors have the opportunity to view Tonto 

NM`s cultural resources up close and learn 

about the wealth of Salado culture. 

3) Development is done in a sensitive way, 

blending with the natural landscape and 

protecting resources from visitor use impacts. 

4) A strategy has been developed to identify 

acceptable levels of impacts, monitor use levels 

and resource conditions, and take prompt 

corrective action when unacceptable actions 

and impacts occur. 

5) Visitors have the opportunity to contemplate 

and contrast the lifestyles and architecture 

associated with cultural resources in their 

surrounding natural setting. 

! Cave Canyon Riparian ROA - conserve 

and protect the fragile Cave Canyon 

riparian area and its ecosystem. (Ia, IIa, 

IIb, IVa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) The fragile riparian area is protected and 

preserved. 

2) Development is done in a sensitive way, 

blending with the natural landscape and 

protecting resources from visitor use impacts. 

3) Visitors have the opportunity to walk among 

the trees and appreciate the contrast of desert 

environment and the importance of water. 

4) Visitors have an understanding of the 

relationship of the riparian area to prehistoric 

and historic uses. 

! Uplands ROA - conserve and protect the 

uplands scenic, cultural, and natural 

resources. (Ia, IIa, IIb, IVa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Scenic views are preserved and protected in a 

natural setting. 

2) Visitors have the opportunity to contemplate 

cultural and natural values of the park in a 

natural setting. 

3) Visitors have the opportunity to understand 

the diverse Sonoran desert ecosystem. 

4) Visitors have the opportunity to associate the 

cliff dwellings with the larger Salado 

settlement landscape of Tonto Basin. 

5) Archeological sites in the Uplands ROA are 

protected and preserved. 

! Lowlands ROA - conserve and protect 

the lowlands scenic, cultural and natural 

resources. (Ia, IIa, IIb, IVa) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Scenic views are preserved and protected. 

2) Visitors have the opportunity to gain an 

orientation and understanding of the cultural 

and natural values of the park. 

3) Visitors have the opportunity to understand 

the diverse Sonoran desert ecosystem. 

4) Visitors have the opportunity to associate the 

cliff dwellings with the larger Salado 

settlement landscape of Tonto Basin. 

5) Archeological and historic sites in the 

Lowlands ROA are protected and preserved. 

6) Visitors have an opportunity to understand the 

evolution of the cultural landscape from the 

14th to the 20th centuries. 

Park Mission Goals – Issue Specific 

! Legislative Action—Change the name 

“Tonto National Monument” to “Salado 

Cliff Dwellings National Monument and 

protect regional resources associated with 

the park’s purpose to more accurately 

reflect the heritage values associated with 

the monument. (Ia, IVa, IVb) 

Conditions to be attained/maintained: 

1) Legislation has been enacted by Congress to 

establish the new name for the monument 

that better reflects the significance of Tonto 

NM. 

2) A boundary study is completed that would 

identify significant resources to be protected 

adjacent to the park. 

3) Recommendations are made to Congress to 

adjust park boundaries to reflect the addition 

of significant resources. 

4) Hunting trespass from the USFS road on the 

monument’s northeast side is reduced or 

eliminated.

15 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK 

ENVIRONMENT 

Beyond the resources management plan 

that identifies specific needs relative to 

individual program areas, such as natural 

and cultural resources, an overall resource 

management strategy to protect park 

resources needs to be developed. This 

enables the park to begin monitoring 

conditions and ensure that the goals 

related to resource management and 

visitor use can be achieved. The 

development of the Resource Opportunity 

Area (ROA) concept is the first step in 

incrementally moving the park toward the 

goal of addressing “carrying capacity.” 

Parks are composites of a variety of 

important cultural and natural resources. 

People value parks for many reasons - 

inspirational, educational, aesthetic, 

recreational, scientific, spiritual, and 

economic, among others. Significant 

differences relating to resource values and 

visitor use usually exist within different 

areas of a park. The uniqueness of these 

various areas and their relationship to one 

another as well as to lands beyond the park 

boundary, influence visitor use and 

management of the park. Describing a set 

of alternatives, the park’s affected 

environment, and ultimately assessing 

impacts requires one to identify and 

categorize the resource values of a park. 

These pieces of the park are called 

resource opportunity areas and may 

extend beyond the boundaries of the park. 

The evaluation of these areas requires the 

involvement of public and private interests 

in the area. The ROAs are referenced in the 

environmental consequence section and 

help to describe how park resources and 

visitor experiences may be affected. 

At Tonto National Monument, there are 

four distinct ROAs - Cliff Dwelling, 

Lowlands, Uplands, and Cave Canyon 

Riparian. Each contributes in a different 

way to how people use the resources of the 

site. 

ROAs are important to incrementally plan 

for the protection of park resources from 

visitor overuse. They illustrate how visitors 

might relate to and use park resources and 

the relative importance of each area to the 

whole. They also provide the basis for 

understanding visitor experiences 

available within a park. At the same time, 

the physical resource attributes and visitor 

experiences are related to the park’s 

purpose and significance. 

ROAs identify sensitive resources where 

damage may occur from overuse. By 

identifying important resources and visitor 

experiences, the first steps needed to 

define carrying capacity and protect park 

resources from overuse are completed. 

Future VERP planning (Visitor Experience 

and Resource Protection) will eventually 

define carrying capacities needed to 

protect resources. 

ROAs are geographic delineations of the 

National Monument that contain 

similarities of character and resource 

values. Each ROA includes a brief 

description of the following: 

• Available recreational and interpretive 

opportunities. 

• Resources that are unusually sensitive to human 

use.
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

16
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

17 

• The management of cultural resources 

(archeological, ethnographic and cultural 

landscapes). 

• The management of natural, scenic, 

geological, ecological, floral, and faunal 

resources. 

• Development concerns. 

Cliff Dwellings ROA 

The Cliff Dwellings ROA contains the 

core of the monument’s prime 

resource. The upper and lower cliff 

dwellings are the primary reasons for 

the monument’s establishment and are 

the primary destination for nearly all 

visitors. The 40-room upper cliff 

dwelling and 19-room lower cliff 

dwelling are the largest archeological 

sites in the monument and provide 

valuable information about the Gila 

phase and Salado culture. Materials 

including plant remains and seeds, 

maize cobs, bones, tools, pottery, and 

textiles found in the dwellings, plus the 

structures themselves, provide the 

opportunity to investigate this 

important segment of prehistoric life. 

The Salado constructed the cliff 

dwellings in naturally formed caves, 

high up in the canyon walls. These 

caves or alcoves developed over 

thousands of years through cracking 

and spalling of ceiling deposits. 

Composed of ancient 

sedimentary rocks, 

fallen roof stones 

provided both a stable 

floor and readily 

available building 

material for 

construction of the 

dwellings. 

The east-facing rock 

shelters provide a 

unique microclimate for 

wildlife. Largely unseen, 

bats, birds, rodents, and 

reptiles seek shade and 

shelter in the caves and honeybees 

build hives in the ceilings. Animals 

(primarily rodents) threaten the 

integrity of the remaining cultural 

deposits and the cliff dwelling walls by 

burrowing underground. 

The rock shelters face Tonto Basin and 

provide broad vistas of sweeping 

landscapes that extend beyond the 

monument’s boundaries to Roosevelt 

Lake, the Sierra Anchas, and other 

mountain ranges. As development both 

inside and outside the monument are 

immediately visible and evident from 

the cliff dwellings, this ROA is 

extremely sensitive in terms of 

preserving the remaining undeveloped 

land. The upper and lower cliff 

dwellings are reached by hiking 

designated trails through the Uplands 

ROA. The lower cliff dwelling is open 

year-round; the upper cliff dwelling is 

open November through April by 

guided tours. 

Activities and resource concerns that 

occur within the Cliff Dwellings ROA 

include: 

• Interpretive opportunities – Guided tours 

through the cliff dwellings provide the 

opportunity to explore and learn about 

the structures and those who lived there. 

Self-guided tours through the lower cliff 
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

18

dwelling provide 

educational opportunities 

for visitors to experience 

the Salado story by 

themselves. Visitors have 

the opportunity to 

contemplate prehistoric 

lifestyles and associated 

architecture with their 

surrounding natural 

setting. 

• Recreational opportunities– 

Walking through the cliff 

dwellings, visitors can 

closely examine the cultural 

resources. For those 

willing to exert some 

effort, some of the most 

spectacular distant and 

panoramic views are 

available. Abundant 

opportunities exist to photograph or 

sketch the cliff dwellings or the 

outstanding scenic views. 

• Cultural resource management – To 

protect the cliff dwellings and prevent 

deterioration, stabilization and repair 

projects are on- going. Carrying capacity 

studies are needed for each cliff dwelling 

to plan and mitigate impacts from high 

levels of visitor use. 

• Natural resource management – Animal 

disturbance and water erosion have 

threatened the integrity of the cliff 

dwellings. There is concern that rock 

movement and shifting walls and ceilings 

in the rock shelters may damage the 

cultural resources and raise public safety 

concerns. 

• Development – To protect the cultural 

resources and provide for human safety, 

handrails, benches, steps, and retaining 

walls have been constructed and 

maintained in the rock shelters, especially 

in the lower cliff dwelling, which has 

higher visitation. 

Lowlands ROA 

The Lowlands ROA is, notably, the 

flattest area of the monument. This 

ROA slopes away from the base of the 

hills at the 2600-foot elevation down 

towards Roosevelt Lake. 

Approximately 75% of the monument’s 

archeological sites are located in the 
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

19 

lowlands. Most of these sites represent 

the remains of small, one- to five-room 

surface structures. These sites help us 

understand where and why the Salado 

spent their time farming and gathering 

resources in this area. Two historic 

archeological sites reveal continuous 

use of the area after the Salado left. 

The desert lowlands are frequently 

perceived as vast, stark, and 

inhospitable. However, the area is, in 

reality, a rich and diverse desert 

environment. Intermittent springs and 

seeps provide water in the arid 

environment and support plant and 

animal diversity. The vegetation 

consists of rich succulent desert flora 

with a mixture of chaparral shrubs. In 

both the lowlands and the uplands, 

there are healthy stands of saguaro 

cactus, the characteristic plant of the 

Sonoran Desert. 

Heavy clay soils are found throughout 

the monument and are highly 

susceptible to erosion. In the lowlands, 

erosion has been accelerated by loss of 

vegetation from past grazing that 

exposed the soils to heavy rainfalls and 

wind. 

From the Lowlands ROA there are 

impressive views upward to the cliff 

dwellings, and outward 

beyond the monument 

boundaries to other 

features within Tonto 

Basin. This ROA is the 

only place for visitors to 

view the sunset and Four 

Peaks, a well-known 

landmark in the Mazatzal 

mountain range. 

This ROA includes most 

of the development that 

has occurred within the 

monument. The 

monument’s maintenance 

facilities, residences, utility corridor, 

and most of the roads are located here. 
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

20

The state road passing through the 

monument and a U.S. Forest Service 

road just outside the monument to the 

east and southeast contribute to the 

spread of non-native vegetation and 

increase the potential for humancaused fires. Even though hunting is 

allowed on neighboring U.S. Forest 

Service lands, illegal poaching activities 

occur within the 

monument. 

Activities and resource concerns that 

occur within the Lowlands ROA 

include: 

• Interpretive opportunities – Visitors often 

have the impression that all Salado lived 

in cliff dwellings. The number of 

archeological sites in the lowlands 

demonstrates that the smaller, open, 

surface villages and farmsteads were the 

dominant settlement. This area provides 

opportunities to interpret farming, 

hunting, and resource use by the Salado 

and subsequent cultures that have 

occupied this area. Saguaro cactus, 

mesquite, jojoba, and other Sonoran 

desert plants can be interpreted for their 

role in Salado life.

• Recreational opportunities – From the 

road, visitors can view the natural setting 

of the monument and other features of 

Tonto Basin. Abundant opportunities exist 

to photograph or paint the outstanding 

scenic views. 

• Cultural resource management – Cultural 

resources in the lowlands are fragile, 

especially those with standing walls, and 

are vulnerable to unauthorized entry. An 

on-going monitoring program to 

document changes in the archeological 

sites has been implemented. No 

preservation treatment has been applied 

to these sites. 

• Natural resource management – Natural 

resource management activities may be 

needed to rehabilitate impacts from 

visitor use, park operations, and 

construction. Native species grown from 

local stock are used for revegetation 

projects. Non-native species are 

documented and controlled where 

possible. Boundary fences are inspected 

and repaired as needed to deter illegal 

intrusive activities yet allow wildlife 

movement. 

• Development – The lowlands provide the 

most level and feasible location for the 

monument’s facilities. All developments 

are as consistent with the park’s cultural 

and natural features by way of 

architecture, color, and vegetative 

screening as possible and are maintained 

to NPS standards. 

• External opportunities – Roosevelt Lake 

and associated U. S. Forest Service lands 

offer extensive boating, water skiing, 

fishing, hunting, and camping 

opportunities. Numerous Salado 

archeological sites, located in Tonto Basin 

under the jurisdiction of the USFS, were 

extensively researched in the early 1990s.

Uplands ROA 

The Uplands ROA is the scenic 

background in which the cliff 

dwellings are viewed. It includes the 

steep slopes and ridge tops (2,600 to 

4,000 feet) that form the prominent 

viewscape as seen from the 

monument’s entrance and visitor 

center. The ridge tops also provide 

broad vistas of the lowlands as well as 

surrounding mountains, with views 

looking across ridges and down 

canyons. The upland’s scenic vistas 

and views are affected by many 

modern developments both within and 

outside the monument. The increasing 

development over the years lends itself 

to contemplation for past, present, and 

future use by humans. 

A few archeological sites are located in 

rockshelters in the uplands. These sites 
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

21 

vary in size from large multiple-room 

structures with interior masonry walls 

to one-room caves with little or no 

modification. Some of the upland 

archeological sites represent later 

occupation than those in the lowland 

and valley. Upland vegetation, wildlife, 

and water availability provided a 

diversity of resources beyond what the 

lowlands offered. 

The uplands are more diverse than the 

lowlands in topography, geology, and 

vegetation providing a variety of 

wildlife habitats. The desert scrub 

vegetation extends up into the 

highlands where it changes into 

representatives of the semidesert 

grassland community on the ridgetops. 

Wildflowers are plentiful in the spring 

when moisture conditions are 

favorable. The uplands are less 

impacted by historic and present-day 

human activities than the other ROA’s. 

Due to the lack of open, level ground, 

facilities are difficult to construct in the 

uplands. However, the monument’s 

visitor center, hiking trails, and picnic 

area are located here. At the top of the 

entrance road, the visitor center is 

perfectly located to view the lower cliff 

dwelling. Trails to both the lower and 

upper cliff dwellings begin from the 

visitor center area. Picnic facilities are 

provided along the entrance road. 

This ROA may be affected by grazing, 

hunting, and fire management 

activities located on adjacent lands 

outside the monument’s boundaries. 

Boundary fences should be relocated 

to protect all of the monument’s lands. 

Activities and resource concerns that 

occur within the Uplands ROA 

include: 

• Interpretive opportunities – Guided and 

self-guided tours along the cactus patch 

and upper and lower cliff dwelling trails 

provide the opportunity to interpret the 

roles of hunting and the gathering of wild 

plants in Salado life. The geology and 

ecology of the Sonoran desert are also 

presented. Permanent and temporary 
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

22

displays in the visitor center inform visitors 

about the monument’s and surrounding 

area’s resources. 

• Recreational opportunities – Hiking, 

where allowed, is challenging in the 

uplands, with diverse topography, 

vegetation, and wildlife as incentives for 

exploration. Other recreational 

opportunities available are picnicking, 

photography, and nature study. 

• Cultural resource management – Because 

of their standing walls, the cultural 
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

23 

resources of the uplands are fragile. An 

on-going monitoring program to 

document changes in the archeological 

sites has been implemented. Preservation 

treatment consisting of vegetation 

removal is applied to sites on the List of 

Classified Structures. 

• Natural resource management – Natural 

resource management activities may be 

needed to rehabilitate impacts from 

visitor use, park operations, and 

construction. Native species grown from 

local stock are used for revegetation 

projects. Non-native species are 

documented and controlled where 

possible. Boundary fences are inspected 

and repaired as needed to deter illegal 

intrusive activities, yet allow wildlife 

movement. 

• Development – Due to the topography, 

development in the uplands is difficult. 

However, this is the closest point visitors 

may drive to the cliff dwellings. Visitor 

administrative, and interpretive facilities 

are located here. All developments are as 

consistent with the park’s cultural and 

natural features by way of architecture, 

color, and vegetative screening as 

possible. All facilities are maintained to 

NPS standards. 

• External opportunities – South and west 

of the monument boundary, the upper 

Sonoran desert community offers hiking, 

hunting, horseback riding, and other 

backcountry wilderness opportunities. 

Cave Canyon Riparian ROA 

The Cave Canyon Riparian ROA is a 

place of contrasts. It is a lush, shaded, 

cool area in a desert environment 

characterized by heat, aridity, and 

bright sunlight. This ROA has the only 

perennial water source found within 

the monument. The presence of water 

and rich soil in this arid environment 

provides habitat for a diversity of 

plants and animals, including many not 

found elsewhere in the monument. 

Arizona sycamore, walnut, and ash 

trees dominate the small deciduous 

forest community. 

Because perennial water sources are 

infrequent in this arid environment, 

the Cave Canyon riparian area is 

essential for wildlife, which could be 

disturbed by overuse. The soils in this 

area are sensitive to trampling, soil 

compaction, and erosion. 

Even though only a few archeological 

sites are located in the riparian area, 

intensive prehistoric use occurred in 

Cave Canyon. Water and the diversity 

of the forest vegetation provided for 

the needs of many of the Salado 

settlements in this area. 
VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND THE PARK ENVIRONMENT 

24

The trail to the 

upper cliff dwelling 

winds through Cave 

Canyon Riparian 

ROA. The upper 

cliff dwelling can be 

viewed from this 

trail. The trail has 

been damaged from 

occasional flash 

floods. If the trail 

continues to remain 

in the riparian area, 

repairs will be 

required after each 

flash flood event. 

This ROA is highly 

sensitive to adjacent watershed uses 

associated with grazing and fire 

management outside Tonto National 

Monument. Cave Canyon water 

quality, bank erosion, and vegetation 

may change because of these activities 

which could affect downstream 

archeological sites and wildlife habitat. 

Increased water use from external 

wells has the potential to affect this 

area’s natural balance. 

Activities and resource concerns that 

occur within the Cave Canyon 

Riparian ROA include: 

• Interpretive opportunities – The riparian 

area provides excellent opportunities for 

nature study, especially bird watching and 

viewing wildflowers. Major faulting, 

uplifting, and seismic activity displays the 

history of the monument’s geological 

formation in its exposed strata. Prehistoric 

use of the springs and deciduous trees 

provides opportunity to discuss Salado use 

of the riparian area. 

• Recreational opportunities – The Cave 

Canyon Riparian ROA provides a cool and 

refreshing walking experience. Visitors can 

study the vegetation and wildlife signs 

found in the riparian area and contrast 

them with those seen in the surrounding 

Sonoran desert. It is also a place to 

compare and contrast the cool, shady 

forest with the desert heat and 

surrounding open landscape. 

• Cultural resource management – The few 

archeological sites in Cave Canyon are 

vulnerable to upstream activity outside 

the monument. An on-going monitoring 

program to document changes in the 

archeological sites has been implemented. 

No preservation treatment has been 

applied to these sites. 

• Natural resource management – The 

riparian area should be monitored to 

document the effects of natural flash 

flood events and influences from humancaused activities inside and outside the 

monument. Natural resource management 

activities may be needed to rehabilitate 

impacts from human use and natural 

events. Non-native species are 

documented and controlled where 

possible. 

• Development – The only facility located in 

this area is the trail to the upper cliff 

dwelling. Because this area is highly 

sensitive, future development should be 

minimal, if at all, with little or no impact 

to the watershed. The occasional flash 

floods rule!
25 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS

Management prescriptions detail desired 

visitor experiences and resource 

conditions for various areas of the park. 

There are four prescriptions for 

management at Tonto National 

Monument - developed, restricted, 

interpretive corridor, and cliff dwellings. 

Specific guidance for each area is 

described using the following seven 

categories: access, experience and 

activities, interpretation, cultural resource 

management, natural resource 

management, facilities, and maintenance. 

The following are the management 

prescriptions for Tonto National 

Monument. 

Developed 

This management prescription includes all 

major park development required to serve 

visitors and meet the needs of 

management. Facilities to serve visitors, 

administer park operations, and provide 

staff residences are located here. It also 

functions as the center for park 

operations. 

This area accommodates the highest levels 

of use and human impacts. The area can be 

congested during the peak visitor season, 

so there is frequent contact with other 

visitors and park staff. Sights and sounds 

of vehicles and people predominate, as 

does the experience that is tied to traffic in 

the main road corridor. 

Development and intensive use have 

substantially altered the setting of 

culturally significant resources and the 

natural environment. Although natural 

processes are perpetuated wherever 

possible, a high degree of encroachment 

and human intrusion in the natural 

environment is evident. 

Access - Access is easy and by vehicle on 

surfaced roads. During the spring and fall 

open house, visitors are shuttled to and 

from the visitor center when the parking 

area fills to capacity. Sidewalks into and 

around the visitor center direct visitors to 

an overview and familiarity with park 

resources. Accommodations for visitors 

with physical impairments provide 

educational opportunities and views of the 

lower cliff dwelling and surrounding 

landscape. 

Experience and Activities - This area 

presents the primary interpretative 

themes. Management emphasizes 

interpretation of the cultural significance 

and the environmental setting of the 

monument. Visitor activities are fairly 

structured and directed and involve little 

challenge. Visitor experience is facility 

dependent (visitor center). Visitor 

activities include orientation, education, 

viewing the surrounding landscape, 

photography, bird watching, plant 

identification, viewing the lower cliff 

dwelling, and picnicking. There is little or 

no opportunity for solitude. 

Interpretation - Orientation is provided 

to all visitors. Impromptu and scheduled 

interpretive talks are given. Permanent 

and temporary displays provide park and 

area information. The Junior Ranger 

Program is available for children. 

Outreach/Parks as Classroom instruction 

is provided to 4th grade classes at Miami 

and Tonto Basin public schools on 

environmental and cultural resource 

issues. 

Cultural Resource Management - 

Archeological sites are given proper care 

and protection. Hands-on activities are 

conducted when it is necessary to preserve 

cultural resources. Relatively intensive 
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

26

resources management activities may be 

required to mitigate impacts from high 

levels of visitor use, park operations, and 

construction. Visitors are directed to 

sidewalks and trails to limit resource 

impacts. Compliance is done for all 

projects and involves coordination and 

consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) and Native 

American groups. Research is allowed for 

further understanding of cultural 

resources and the Salado culture. 

Natural Resource Management - The 

natural character of the land is secondary 

to accommodating high use levels and 

protection of sensitive resources. Visitors 

are directed to sidewalks and trails to limit 

resource impacts. Vista modifications may 

be used to improve views. 

Relatively intensive resources management 

activities may be required to mitigate 

impacts from high levels of visitor use, 

park operations, and construction. 

Significant soil, vegetation, and wildlife 

impacts occurring in high use sites could 

be mitigated through periodic closures, 

more clearly defining use corridors, and 

increased enforcement techniques. Only 

native species are used for revegetation, 

and preferably, stock grown from local 

seed. Compliance is done for all projects to 

assess impacts. 

Research is allowed for further 

understanding of natural resources and 

processes. 

Facilities - Developments are consistent 

with the park architecture. Facilities blend 

in with the surrounding natural and 

cultural landscape as much as possible. 

Existing and potential modifications 

include improved parking, restrooms, 

road maintenance, vista points, and other 

facilities to enhance visitor experience. 

Office and workspace for staff needs to be 

expanded and relocated to improve 

operations. Houses are maintained to NPS 

standards. 

Maintenance - Roads, buildings, signs, 

walks, benches, interpretative displays, 

and other facilities are maintained on a 

regular basis. Activities involve 

maintaining existing facilities, 

landscaping, protecting resources, 

restoring areas disturbed by human 

activities, and providing for human 

convenience, comfort, and safety. Power 

tools are used for routine maintenance 

activities, and heavy equipment is used for 

road and utility system repairs, 

development, and maintenance. 

Restricted 

The setting is a fairly unaltered natural 

landscape with scattered archeological 

features. The restricted area is the remote 

section of the park with rugged terrain and 

provides the backdrop scenery for the 

monument’s archeological features. 

Management restricts the types of uses in 

the restricted area and allows only 

permitted or guided activities. 

Archeological sites are protected and 

closed to the public. The natural 

environment is perpetuated. Human use 

into the natural environment is evident 

when adjacent to developed areas. 

Access - Access is from trails or roads into 

the restricted area. The area has rugged 

terrain and no roads or trails. Motorized 

and non-motorized vehicles are not 

allowed. 

Approved use for researchers or others 

conducting park business is by foot. Hikes 

are moderately to very challenging. 

Experience and Activities - Protection of 

resources is the priority. Researchers are 

allowed to carry out scientific studies with 

an approved permit. Park staff conduct 

patrols and resources management 

activities. 
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

27 

Visitors are not allowed in this area but 

can observe the natural setting from trails, 

roads, and the visitor center. 

Interpretation - No interpretive services 

are provided other than orientation and 

information presented from the visitor 

center, trails, and cliff dwellings. 

Cultural Resource Management - All 

archeological sites are inventoried, 

monitored, and given proper care and 

protection. The resources management 

plan and preservation guides specify 

management decisions and address 

treatment of individual sites. Hands-on 

activities are conducted when it is 

necessary to preserve cultural resources. 

Compliance is done for all projects and 

involves coordination and consultation 

with SHPO and Native American groups. 

Research is allowed for further 

understanding of cultural resources and 

the Salado culture. 

Natural Resource Management - 

Natural processes are unimpeded as much 

as possible. The resources management 

plan identifies issues, needed information, 

and appropriate actions to take. All plant 

and animal species are inventoried and 

monitored and mitigating measures 

(revegetation, removal of non-natives, 

etc.) are done as needed. Naturally 

occurring species are maintained or 

reestablished, and populations of sensitive 

species are protected and augmented. 

Compliance is done for all projects to 

assess impacts. 

The natural environment is preserved to 

the maximum extent possible while 

accommodating low-level use for 

management purposes, projects, and 

research. Research is allowed for further 

understanding of natural resources and 

processes. Park staff maintains close watch 

to insure resource degradation does not 

occur from permitted activities. 

Facilities - No facilities exist. Facilities 

may be provided to protect resources or 

provide for human safety. 

Maintenance - Only archeological 

preservation activities occur here. 

Interpretive Corridor 

Management provides opportunities to 

hike on trails in a cultural and natural 

environment. The setting is a trail system 

leading from the visitor center to the cliff 

dwellings through various terrain and 

environmental features. Encounters with 

other visitors and NPS staff vary by season, 

activity, and trail. 

Access - Public access is by foot and 

people are required to stay on designated 

trails. The cliff dwelling and cactus patch 

trails have regulated times. The upper cliff 

dwelling trail use is limited to guided tours. 

Hikes are moderately challenging. 

No motorized or pack and saddle stock is 

allowed for public access. Motorized 

access is used on the lower cliff dwelling 

trail and saddle stock is sometimes used on 

the upper cliff dwelling trail for 

maintenance and ranger activities. 

Experience and Activities - Ranger- and 

self-guided interpretive tours are available 

to help visitors learn about the resources. 

Exhibits or signs may be used to meet 

objectives of interpreting and protecting 

the resources. 

Visitors must stay on the trail system so 

solitude is limited. There is a moderate 

degree of challenge and self-reliance from 

the varied tread and incline of the trails. 

The opportunity exists to seasonally 

experience the character of the cultural 

and natural resources. Visitor activities 

include viewing the surrounding 

landscape, hiking, painting, photography, 

learning the cultural context, and 

observing nature. 
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

28

Interpretation - Guided tours for groups 

and the general public are provided year 

round to the lower cliff dwelling. 

Scheduled tours are provided November 

through April through the Cave Canyon 

riparian area to the upper cliff dwelling. 

Nature walks are presented along the 

Cactus Patch Trail. Self-guided trails are 

provided to the lower cliff dwelling and 

through the cactus patch. 

Cultural Resource Management - 

Cultural sites are given proper care and 

protection. Hands on activities are 

conducted when it is necessary to preserve 

the cultural resources. Compliance is done 

for all projects and involves coordination 

and consultation with SHPO and Native 

American groups. 

The trail system guides human use and 

minimizes impacts on cultural resources. 

The trails are constructed and maintained 

to minimize impacts on the adjacent 

restricted area. The interface with the 

restricted area is managed to mitigate or 

minimize impacts on cultural resources. 

Natural Resource Management - The 

trail system guides human use and 

minimizes impacts on natural resources. 

The trails are constructed and maintained 

to minimize impacts on the adjacent 

restricted area. The interface with the 

restricted area is managed to mitigate or 

minimize impacts on natural resources. 

Compliance is done for all projects to 

assess impacts. 

Facilities -The only facilities provided are 

trails, interpretive signs, benches, 

trashcans, and retaining walls. Additional 

facilities may be provided if they are 

essential to protect resources or provide 

for human safety. All facilities will blend in 

with the cultural and natural landscape as 

much as possible. 

Maintenance - The trail system with vista 

sites is maintained to NPS standards to 

protect resources, restore disturbed areas, 

and provide for visitor safety. Vista site 

modification is done to allow views of the 

surrounding landscape. Power tools are 

allowed. Pack animals and motorized 

vehicles are used for park projects and 

activities. 

Cliff Dwelling 

This is a unique setting with multi-room 

prehistoric structures built in rock shelter 

alcoves that naturally formed in high 

canyon walls of sedimentary rock. It is a 

cultural landscape that reflects centuries of 

occupation and manipulation of the rock 

shelter. The cliff dwellings overlook Tonto 

Basin and Roosevelt Lake from high 

elevations providing a vast viewscape. 

The varying temperatures and humidity in 

the alcoves create different microclimates 

and unique habitats for plants and wildlife. 

The rock shelters provide shade and relief 

from the desert heat. 

Access - Travel is by foot on trails through 

the interpretive corridor. There is 

controlled access to both cliff dwellings. 

Walking through the dwellings can be 

moderately challenging. Permits are 

required for special uses at the cliff 

dwellings, such as commercial filming. 

Experience and Activities - Ranger- and 

self-guided interpretive tours are available 

to help visitors learn about the 

surrounding landscape and cultural 

themes. The history of archeology and 

preservation methods is presented. 

Visitors are exposed to the character of a 

prehistoric dwelling and can view 

construction techniques to see the 

materials and resources used, spatial 

design, setting, distance from food and 

water sources, etc. Visitors can compare 

Salado life in the cliff dwellings with the 

valley floor archeological sites. Solitude 
MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

29 

can be found when the lower cliff dwelling 

is not crowded. 

Visitor activities include viewing the 

surrounding landscape, examining the 

dwellings, painting and photography, 

learning the cultural context, and 

observing nature. 

Interpretation - Guided tours and 

impromptu talks are given at the lower cliff 

dwelling. A self-guided brochure is also 

available to tour the lower cliff dwelling. 

Scheduled guided tours are conducted 

through the upper cliff dwelling. An open 

house is scheduled twice a year in March 

and November with rangers and 

volunteers stationed in both cliff 

dwellings. 

Cultural Resource Management -The 

resources management plan and 

preservation guides specify management 

decisions and address treatment of 

individual sites. Archeological sites are 

given proper care and protection. 

Retaining the desired resource conditions 

requires intensive cultural resource 

management. Pest management activities 

are carried out to protect resources. 

Compliance is done for all projects and 

involves coordination and consultation 

with SHPO and Native American groups. 

Research is needed for further 

understanding of cultural resources and 

the Salado culture. 

Natural Resource Management - The 

resources management plan identifies 

issues, needed information, and 

appropriate actions to take with natural 

resources in the cliff dwellings. Guided by 

the need to protect resources, employees, 

and visitors, pest management activities 

are carried out in compliance with an 

approved Integrated Pest Management 

Plan. Compliance is done for all projects to 

assess impacts. Research is needed for 

further understanding of how natural 

elements affect the cliff dwellings. 

Facilities - Facilities include handrails, 

benches, and steps. Retaining walls 

prevent erosion of slopes. Additional 

facilities may be provided if they are 

essential to protect resources or provide 

for human safety. All facilities will blend in 

with the cultural and natural landscape as 

much as possible. 

Maintenance - Maintenance activities 

protect resources and restore areas 

disturbed by human activities and natural 

events. Preservation and stabilization 

maintenance on the cliff dwellings is done 

routinely. Power tools are allowed. 

31 

THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

A “no action” alternative, two action 

alternatives, and the National Park Service 

preferred alternative (D) are presented in 

this chapter. The preferred alternative is 

the final General Management Plan for 

Tonto National Monument and will guide 

the management and development of the 

monument for the next ten to fifteen years. 

Alternative A - No Action 

General Emphasis - Under the no-action 

alternative, existing visitor, administrative, 

maintenance, and residence facilities 

would be maintained to support current 

activities; no new facilities would be built.

Information and sales activities, plus the 

museum, library, offices, and storage space 

would continue to be housed in the 

overcrowded visitor/administrative 

facility. No park housing would be 

available for seasonal employees or 

volunteers. Visitors would continue to wait 

in lines to use the restrooms and the visitor 

center parking area would continue to fill 

to capacity during the busy spring season. 

Existing management operations would 

continue at present levels. The number 

and expertise of employees would be 

solely dependent on additional funding, 

available workspace, and training 

opportunities. 

The existing limited cultural and natural 

resources programs would continue to 

operate as they have in the past, albeit with 

insufficient staff and park-based 

information to address critical issues. 

The existing number and types of 

educational programs to enhance visitors’ 

understanding and appreciation of the 

monument would continue to be provided. 

Interpretive programs would use existing 

equipment and methods that are less than 

desired to provide these unique 

educational opportunities. 

Limited protection of the monument’s 

facilities and resources would continue. 

Existing relationships with partners, 

adjacent landowners, agencies, and tribes 

would continue. 

Cultural Resources Management - A 

professional research and resource 

management program would continue on 

a limited basis with present staff levels. 

The administrative facility, designed over 

35 years ago, does not provide the space for 

offices, reference library, archives, or 

equipment storage required to conduct a 

cultural resources management program. 

Consequently, the amount of reference 

material, supplies, and equipment are 

limited and scattered throughout the 

building. Existing inadequate space to 

house offices, reference library, archives, 

supplies, and materials would continue. 

The majority of museum collections would 

continue to be stored at the Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center 

(WACC) in Tucson, Arizona. The outdated 

museum displays would remain 

unchanged within the existing limited 

space. 

Monitoring of archeological sites 

identified in1985 would continue when 

possible by interpretive staff. Only projectspecific archeological surveys would be 

undertaken. A limited assessment and 

stabilization plan would be provided. 

Stabilization and preservation work on the 

cliff dwellings that has been accomplished 

intermittently in the past would continue 

using newer techniques. Emergency 

repairs would be made. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

32
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

33 

Needed ethnographic, historical, 

archeological, and landscape research 

reports would be prepared and available 

for use as funding and staffing permits. 

Natural Resources Management – A 

professional research and resource 

management program would continue on 

a limited basis with present staff levels and 

assistance from the Phoenix-based 

Southern Arizona Office (NPS) and the 

Tucson-based Inventory and Monitoring 

Program (NPS) and Biological Resources 

Division (USGS). 

The administrative facility, designed over 

35 years ago, does not provide the space for 

offices, reference library, archives, or 

equipment storage required to conduct a 

natural resources management program. 

Consequently, the amount of reference 

material, supplies, and equipment are 

limited and scattered throughout the 

building. Existing inadequate space to 

house offices, reference library, archives, 

supplies, and materials would continue. 

The monument’s resources management 

plan, written in the 1970s, was substantially 

updated in the early 1990s and requires 

another update. The few action plans 

prepared to address environmental 

conditions and concerns would be 

maintained, but more are needed. 

Comprehensive integrated pest 

management (IPM) plans were written to 

control pests threatening historic and 

prehistoric structures, human safety, 

vegetation, and wildlife. IPM methods 

have been, and would continue to be used, 

to combat rodents in the cliff dwellings 

and Africanized bees. These plans would 

be updated periodically. 

Air quality measurements have been 

recorded in the monument during the past 

decade to monitor particulate sampling 

and visibility. The monument’s security 

and location near the Class I Superstition 

Mountain Wilderness Area were 

determining factors in site selection. This 

existing monitoring program would 

continue. 

Noise from aircraft overflights have been 

and would continue to be recorded when 

planes and helicopters fly too low or hover 

by the cliff dwellings. Some aircraft 

identification numbers have been and 

would continue to be read and owners 

contacted to educate them about the 

inappropriateness and safety hazard of 

flying low over parks. Noise from boats on 

Roosevelt Lake, vehicular traffic, or mine 

blasting has not been documented or 

monitored. 

The vegetation inventory is 80% complete 

and would be finished with funding from 

the servicewide inventory and monitoring 

program. Studies on special habitats or 

species, such as the riparian community 

and saguaros, would be prepared when 

additional funding is available. The 

existing limited program to control nonnative plants and restore disturbed areas 

with native plants would continue. 

Wildlife vertebrates have been inventoried 

(approximately 95%) and long-term 

monitoring plots have been established. 

Complete inventory and monitoring 

would be completed with funding from the 

servicewide inventory and monitoring 

program. Special species or habitat studies, 

such as the riparian and cliff communities, 

would be prepared when additional 

funding is available. 

The existing program to document human 

water consumption would continue. The 

NPS Water Resources Division has 

investigated and documented a statewide 

water rights determination. A complete 

inventory of all water sources has not been 

done and would be completed when 

funding allows. Two significant flash flood 

events occurred in Cave Canyon in the 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

34

1990s, but no quantifying measurements 

were taken. 

The monument’s soil was comprehensively 

surveyed and mapped in 1994. This was a 

comprehensive report so no other work 

would be needed except for projectspecific investigations. A geologic study to 

accompany the soil survey and provide 

useful information about cave formations, 

hydrogeologic structure, etc., would be 

completed when funds are available. 

Cliff Dwellings ROA - A comprehensive 

management plan to direct stabilization 

and preservation activities of the cliff 

dwellings would be developed and 

available to guide park staff when funding 

allows. The current limited levels of 

stabilization and preservation efforts 

would continue. No inventory and 

monitoring protocols would be available 

to direct the staff. Damage to the cliff 

dwellings from small mammals that 

burrow in the floor has been studied. IPM 

protocols have been and would continue 

to be used to remove rodents and to 

monitor further damage. Monitoring 

deterioration from the effects of other 

environmental variables would continue at 

minimal levels for protection. This limited 

data would be available for research 

purposes. 

Park staff would continue to provide 

visitors with existing number of guided 

tours to the cliff dwellings. Protection of 

the cliff dwellings would rely on 

uniformed staff, when available, until such 

time as passive security measures would be 

added. 

Uplands and Lowlands ROAs - A 

comprehensive integrated study to 

inventory and develop long-term

monitoring protocols for wildlife was 

prepared in the late 1990s. Long-term 

monitoring plots for vegetation have 

existed since the late 1980s. Monitoring 

would continue with funding from the 

servicewide inventory and monitoring 

program. The results would be used to 

develop a comprehensive management 

model to guide park staff in protecting the 

natural and cultural resources and their 

processes in the uplands and lowlands. 

The current level of programs to visitors 

that explain the resource diversity of the 

uplands and lowlands would continue. 

Cave Canyon Riparian ROA - A 

comprehensive integrated study to 

inventory and develop long-term 

monitoring protocols for wildlife was 

prepared in the late 1990s. Long-term 

monitoring plots for vegetation have 

existed since the late 1980s. Monitoring 

would continue with funding from the 

servicewide inventory and monitoring 

program. The results would be used to 

develop a comprehensive management 

model to guide park staff in preserving the 

natural and cultural resources and 

determining the appropriate levels of 

visitor use in the riparian area. 

The current level of interpretive programs 

for visitors in the riparian area would 

continue. 

Human Resources - Park employees 

would continue to work in overcrowded 

facilities with insufficient supplies and 

equipment that impedes productive work. 

The number and expertise of staff would 

be solely dependent on additional funding, 

available workspace, and training. Staffing 

needs would not be met, even if funding 

were available, until adequate physical 

workspace can be provided. 

Outreach and Interpretation - Initial 

contact with visitors would continue to 

take place at the existing visitor center. 

The existing limited number and type of 

interpretive programs presented at the 

monument and to schools and other offsite entities would continue. All programs 

would emphasize the need to protect 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

35 

Tonto Basin’s sensitive archeological sites 

and Sonoran desert ecosystem. Visitor 

experience through understanding would 

continue. Continuing to locate all of the 

interpretive services inside the park would 

make it easier for the public to directly 

connect the park story to the resources. 

Visitor and Resource Protection - The 

present limited level of protection for the 

monument’s facilities and resources would 

continue. The existing security systems 

would be maintained. A study for passive 

resource protection would be completed 

as funding allows. The existing law 

enforcement needs assessment would be 

periodically reviewed and updated. The 

current level of cooperative services with 

local law enforcement and other 

emergency agencies would be maintained. 

A plan to analyze the appropriate levels of 

visitor use and provide monitoring 

standards to protect visitor experiences 

and monument resources would be 

developed for existing conditions and use 

levels when funding allows. 

Viewshed - A scenic viewshed analysis 

would be developed when possible. 

Adjacent Lands - The existing 

relationships with adjacent and nearby 

land management agencies, tribes, and 

landowners to manage the surrounding 

land to minimize impacts on the 

monument’s and surrounding Tonto Basin 

resources would continue at current levels. 

Adjacent land use would be monitored 

when sufficient funds and staff are 

available. A boundary study would be 

completed when possible to identify 

significant resources and recommend 

boundary adjustments to Congress. 

Partnerships – Existing partnerships with 

the U.S. Forest Service, Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Geological 

Survey/University of Arizona, Arizona 

departments of Transportation and 

Environmental Quality, State Historic 

Preservation Office, Gila County, 

Globe/Miami/Apache Junction chambers 

of commerce, Globe/Miami/Tonto Basin 

public schools, Salt River Project, and TDS 

Telecom in support of park missions and 

activities would continue. The possibility 

of forming a friends group to support the 

monument’s mission and goals would be 

explored. 

Land-Use Management - Existing land 

uses would not change with this 

alternative. A long-term land allocation 

plan using management prescriptions for 

monument uses would be prepared and

implemented when funding allows. 

Existing management prescriptions (MP) 

can be broken down as follows: 

• About 78 acres (6.9%) –Developed MP 

• About 1033 acres (92.2%)-Restricted MP 

• About 5 acres (0.5%)-Interpretive Corridor MP 

• About 4 acres (0.4%)-Cliff Dwellings MP

Proposed Future Facility and 

Development Changes - Existing visitor, 

administrative, maintenance, and 

residential facilities, roads, and trails 

would be maintained to support present 

activities and programs. No new facilities 

or trails would be built. Consequently, no 

development costs would be incurred. 

Retaining the existing facilities would not 

impact park resources. Operational 

efficiency would not improve without 

increased workspace. Keeping the original 

use of the visitor center would retain the 

value of the National Register-eligible 

building. 

The existing shuttle operation would 

continue to be used as needed when the 

parking area fills to capacity to transport 

visitors to and from their vehicles parked 

along the entrance road shoulder. The 

existing fences built on or near the 

boundary would be repaired as needed. 

No park housing would be available for 

seasonal employees or volunteers. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

36

Operational Costs - Current Budget and 

Staff - The FY2001 budget for Tonto 

National Monuments is $734,000. (See 

operational Cost Table 1.) Current staffing 

levels include 13 permanent full-time 

equivalencies (FTEs)— Interpretation and 

Visitor Services (5.5), Administration (3), 

Maintenance (2.5), Natural Resources (1), 

and Cultural Resources (1). Due to the 

limited staff, all employees share visitor 

service, protection, and preservation 

responsibilities. 

Development Costs - There are no 

development costs for the no-action 

alternative. 

Future Plans and Studies - New plans 

would be written as funding and staffing 

allows. 

Alternative B 

General Emphasis - This alternative 

would construct a new state-of-the-art 

visitor center/administrative facility with 

associated infrastructure within the 

monument near the beginning of the 

entrance road to provide increased visitor 

educational experiences and 

accommodate staff workspace needs. 

Administrative staff would be moved out 

of the existing visitor center into offices in 

this new facility. The existing visitor center 

would then be remodeled into a learning 

center to provide a more in-depth and 

hands-on learning experience for park 

visitors. 

Administrative, maintenance, 

interpretation, resource management, and 

protection activities would improve with 

the additional facilities and staff levels. 

Staff levels and expertise would be 

enhanced with increased funding, 

workspace, and training. 

The cultural and natural resources 

programs would have an integrated 

approach, be raised to a higher standard, 

address diverse components, have 

sufficient professional-level staff and 

adequate reference materials. 

Greatly increased educational experiences 

would be provided to enhance the visitor’s 

understanding of the monument’s values 

and protect cultural and natural resources. 

Interpretive programs would use the latest 

equipment and methods to provide 

educational material within a regional 

context so visitors could contemplate the 

Salado culture and its relationship to the 

surrounding Sonoran desert environment. 

Heightened protection of the monument’s 

facilities and resources would occur 

through increased NPS staffing and 24-

hour security systems, and improved 

emergency services and cooperative law 

enforcement agreements. 

The additional staff would create more 

opportunities to form partnerships with 

other agencies, tribes, educational 

institutions, and the private sector that 

leverage the park’s ability to provide 

quality visitor services and protect 

monument resources. 

Relationships with adjacent and nearby 

land management agencies, tribes, and 

landowners would be expanded to manage 

the surrounding land using sound 

ecological principles. 

Cultural Resources Management - A 

professional research and resource 

management program and an integrated 

comprehensive program design for 

cultural resource investigation and 

management would be enhanced with 

added staff, expertise, and professional 

skills. 

The new administrative offices and visitor 

center would provide dedicated space for 

employees to work, organize a reference 

library, and store supplies and equipment 

required for the cultural resources 

management program. The new facility 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

37 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

38

would provide sufficient space to update 

and expand museum exhibits. 

Additional field studies and inventories of 

archeological sites would be done. A 

comprehensive, systematic program to 

monitor and evaluate archeological sites 

would be developed and implemented. An 

assessment and stabilization plan, subject 

to periodic review and update, would be 

developed, maintained, and implemented. 

Routine and emergency stabilization and 

preservation work would continue using 

better techniques and more skilled labor. 

All work would be documented and 

monitored for results. All previous 

stabilization efforts would be summarized 

in one report. 

Ethnographic, archeological and historical 

research studies including oral histories, 

historical structures reports, and 

preservation guides would be completed 

and available for use. Cultural landscapes 

would be inventoried, documented, and 

evaluated. 

Natural Resources Management -A 

professional research and resource 

management program and an integrated 

comprehensive program design for natural 

resource investigation and management 

would be enhanced with added staff, 

expertise, and professional skills. 

The new administrative offices and visitor 

center would provide dedicated space for 

employees to work, organize a reference 

library, and store supplies and equipment 

required for the natural resources 

management program. 

The resources management plan would be 

updated routinely, and action plans would 

be prepared to address specific 

environmental conditions and concerns. 

The IPM plans would be updated and/or 

new ones written as needed. 

The monument’s existing cooperative air 

monitoring program would continue. 

Low-flying aircraft would continue to be 

recorded and corrective action taken. A 

monitoring protocol would be developed 

to record noise from aircraft, boats on the 

lake, vehicular traffic, and mine blasting. 

The effects of these noise levels on wildlife 

would be determined. 

The vegetation inventory would be 

completed to the 95% level or above. 

Long-term monitoring plots would be read 

and data analyzed to track vital signs, 

species, and/or habitats. Strategies and 

protocols would be consistent with other 

parks in southern Arizona to compare 

results. Specialized studies would be 

undertaken for unique habitat and species. 

Native plants, preferably cultivated from 

onsite stock, would be used for 

landscaping or rehabilitating disturbed 

sites. A systematic approach would be 

taken to remove non-native plants and 

restore native vegetation. 

Long-term monitoring plots for 

vertebrates would be read to track vital 

signs, species, and/or habitats. Strategies 

and protocols would be consistent with 

other parks in southern Arizona to 

compare results. More work would be 

done on invertebrate species. Specialized 

studies would be undertaken for unique 

habitat and species. A systematic approach 

would be taken to identify and restore 

habitat, if necessary. 

A survey of water sources would be 

completed. Water quality and quantity 

would be documented and monitored to 

protect the sources for wildlife, vegetation, 

and humans. A procedure would be 

developed to document flashflood events. 

If site-specific soil data were needed for 

projects, it would be acquired to augment 

existing information. The geology would 

be examined and a report prepared with 

special attention given to the cliff-dwelling 

alcoves to describe formation and stability. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

39 

Cliff Dwellings ROA - A comprehensive 

management model to direct cliff-dwelling 

stabilization and preservation activities 

including the effects from natural 

processes would be developed. This model 

would direct the staff to complete 

increased stabilization and preservation 

activities on an annual recurring basis. A 

program to comprehensively monitor the 

range of environmental variables affecting 

the cliff dwellings would be developed and 

implemented. Monitoring data would be 

collected continuously and evaluated. IPM 

techniques would continue to be used 

when necessary. 

New interpretive programs would be 

developed to provide more opportunities 

for visitors to view and understand the cliff 

dwelling architecture and Salado life. 

More uniformed personnel would be 

available to provide additional 

information to visitors. Protection of the 

cliff dwellings would increase with 

additional uniformed staff and installation 

of passive security systems. 

Uplands and Lowlands ROAs - Longterm monitoring plots would be read 

routinely and data analyzed. Results would 

be used to respond to resource threats. 

Data would be shared with other parks 

and entities in Arizona and elsewhere. In 

the monument, the results would be used 

to develop a comprehensive management 

model to guide park staff in protecting the 

natural and cultural resources and their 

processes in the uplands and lowlands. 

The current level of programs to visitors 

that explain the resource diversity of the 

uplands and lowlands would increase. 

Cave Canyon Riparian ROA - Long-term 

monitoring plots would be read routinely 

and data analyzed. Results would be used 

to respond to resource threats. Data would 

be shared with other parks and entities in 

Arizona and elsewhere. In the monument, 

the results would be used to develop a 

comprehensive management model to 

guide park staff in protecting the natural 

and cultural resources and determining 

the appropriate levels of visitor use in the 

riparian area. 

The interpretive staff would provide more 

visitor education programs about the 

riparian area to communicate the 

importance of water, shade, and the 

deciduous forest in the arid desert. 

Human Resources - Necessary workspace 

and supporting supplies and equipment 

would be available for park staff to address 

resource, administrative, interpretive, 

visitor, protection, and maintenance 

needs. The number and expertise of 

employees would increase. Training for all 

employees in all disciplines would be 

enhanced with increased staffing and 

funding. Stewardship of the monument 

would increase. 

Outreach and Interpretation - A new 

accessible visitor center and associated 

interpretive trail would be built within the 

monument that uses state-of-the-art 

technology to provide educational and 

informational opportunities to the public 

about the monument and the rest of Tonto 

Basin. Initial contact with visitors would 

take place at this new facility. The number 

and/or type of interpretive programs 

presented to the public linking them to the 

monument’s resources using preservation 

and other stewardship themes would 

increase. Visitor experience through 

understanding would substantially 

increase. Locating all of the interpretive 

services inside the park would make it 

easier for the public to directly connect the 

park story to the resources and ease their 

movement with simpler logistics. 

The educational programs presented to 

schools and other off-site entities would be 

expanded. All programs would emphasize 

the need to protect the monument’s 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

40

sensitive archeological sites and Sonoran 

desert ecosystem. 

Visitor and Resource Protection - 

Additional staff and security systems 

would provide twenty-four-hour 

protection of the monument’s facilities 

and resources. Cooperative agreements 

with local law enforcement agencies and 

other emergency services for supplemental 

support would be updated and/or 

developed. 

The current law enforcement needs 

assessment would be periodically reviewed 

and updated. An assessment to identify 

needed levels of emergency medical, fire, 

and search and rescue services would be 

developed to include the new on-site 

facilities. A study for passive resource 

protection systems would be produced 

and implemented. A plan to analyze the 

appropriate levels of visitor use and 

provide monitoring standards to protect 

visitor experiences and monument 

resources would be developed and 

implemented. 

Viewshed - A scenic viewshed analysis 

would be developed. 

Adjacent Lands - Attempts to minimize 

impacts on park and surrounding Tonto 

Basin resources from incompatible uses of 

adjacent lands would be expanded 

through cooperative management and 

mutual agreements with adjacent 

landowners. Cooperative agreements with 

other agencies would also promote the 

rural landscape consistent with cultural 

and scenic values. A boundary study would 

be completed that would identify 

additional significant resources to be 

protected adjacent to the park including 

Cave Canyon watershed. The study would 

also include recommendations to 

Congress for adjustments to the park 

boundary. A fence would be constructed 

along the legal boundary to protect 

existing and new lands. All unneeded 

interior fencelines would be removed. 

More staff and funds would be needed to 

inventory and assess these new lands and 

provide protection. 

Partnerships - Partnerships with local, 

state, and federal agencies, tribes, 

organizations, and individuals in support 

of park missions and activities would 

continue to be developed and expanded. 

The possibility of forming a friends group 

to support the monument’s mission and 

goals would be explored. 

Land-Use Management - This alternative 

would provide for a sufficient increase in 

facilities inside the monument that support 

high-quality public education, visitor 

experience, and accommodate staff 

workspace needs. The developed area has 

about seven more acres (6%) than the noaction alternative. The new facilities (see 

below) would be located near the existing 

maintenance and residential buildings in 

the lowlands. No changes in land use 

would occur to the interpretive corridor or 

cliff dwellings management prescriptions. 

The existing rugged appearance of the 

monument’s canyons, hills, and cliffs 

would not change. 

This alternative uses management 

prescriptions that emphasize appropriate 

levels of visitor experiences with 

appropriate levels of development. 

Management prescriptions (MP) describe 

how the park would be managed. These 

can be broken down as follows: 

• About 85 acres (7.6%)—Developed MP 

• About 1,026 acres (91.6%)— Restricted MP 

• About 5 acres (0.5%)—Interpretive Corridor 

MP 

• About 4 acres (0.4%)—Cliff Dwellings MP 

Proposed Future Facility and 

Development Changes 

A new 3,500-square foot accessible visitor 

center and supporting infrastructure 

including road and parking would be built 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

41 

within the monument. Locating the new 

facility inside the monument would 

improve visitor understanding and 

resource stewardship with the greatest 

impact to park resources. Use of this 

facility would require more staff and 

substantially increase operational and 

utility costs. 

An associated accessible interpretive trail 

would be constructed. 

Administrative functions would be 

removed from the existing facility and a 

new 2,000-square foot building would be 

constructed elsewhere inside the 

monument. Operational efficiency would 

increase with the added workspace, yet 

would be more difficult to maintain with a 

second visitor center. 

The existing visitor facility would be 

remodeled into a learning center. All first 

floor rooms would be fully accessible. 

Changing the original use of the visitor 

center into a learning center would lessen 

the value of the National Register-eligible 

building. 

An alternative transportation system to 

access park resources would be developed 

and implemented. Visitors would be 

transported from the new visitor center to 

the learning center during the busiest 

times of the year. The ATS would 

transport visitors the same distance as in 

the preferred alternative equaling costs, 

vehicles, and operation time. 

The boundary would be completely 

fenced. 

A new seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence would be constructed increasing 

the park’s ability to obtain needed help for 

resource stewardship and visitor services. 

Operational Costs - Under this 

alternative funding would be sought for an 

increase of 8 FTEs or $317,000 in base 

funding. (See Operational Cost Table 1.) 

Development Costs - There would be an 

expenditure of $2,130,000. (See Table 2.) 

Future Plans and Studies 

• Security Plan 

• Development Concept Plan 

• Cultural Landscape Report -(CLR) 

• Cultural Landscape Inventory – (CLI) 

• Administrative History 

• Historic Resource Study 

• Historic Structures Report 

• Ethnographic and Ethnohistory Studies 

• Archeological Overview 

• Assessment & Stabilization Plan 

• Collections Management Plan 

• Artifact Study with Institutional Involvement 

• Environmental Condition Action Plan 

• Vegetation Management Plan 

• Viewshed Analysis 

• Water Resource Assessment 

• Response Need Assessment –(EMS/SAR) 

• Passive Resource Protection Study 

• VERP – Visitor Experience and Resource 

Protection Plan 

• Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

• Alternative Transportation System Plan 

• Boundary Study
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

42
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

43 

Alternative C 

General Emphasis - This alternative is the 

same as Alternative B except that a new 

state-of-the-art visitor center and 

administrative facility with associated 

infrastructure would be built or an existing 

building remodeled outside the monument

either in Roosevelt, Globe, or Payson to 

provide increased visitor educational 

experiences and accommodate staff 

workspace needs. Administrative staff 

would be moved out of the existing visitor 

center into this new facility. The existing 

visitor center would then be remodeled to 

expand visitor and interpretive services. 

Administrative, maintenance, 

interpretation, resource management, and 

protection activities would improve with 

the additional facilities and staff levels. 

Staff levels and expertise would be 

enhanced with increased funding and 

training. 

The cultural and natural resources 

programs would have an integrated 

approach, be raised to a higher standard, 

address diverse components, have 

sufficient professional-level staff, and have 

adequate reference materials. 

Greatly increased educational experiences 

would be provided to enhance the visitor’s 

understanding of the monument’s values 

and protect cultural and natural resources. 

Interpretive programs would use the latest 

high-tech equipment and methods to 

provide educational material within a 

regional context so visitors could 

contemplate the Salado culture and its 

relationship to the surrounding Sonoran 

desert environment. 

Heightened protection of the monument’s 

facilities and resources would occur 

through increased NPS staffing and 24-

hour security systems, and improved 

emergency services and cooperative law 

enforcement agreements. 

The additional staff and new facilities 

located outside the monument would 

create more opportunities to form 

partnerships with other agencies, tribes, 

educational institutions, and the private 

sector that leverage the park’s ability to 

provide quality visitor services and protect 

monument resources. 

Relationships with adjacent and nearby 

land management agencies, tribes, and 

landowners would be expanded to manage 

the surrounding land using sound 

ecological principles. 

Cultural Resources Management - A 

professional research and resource 

management program and an integrated 

comprehensive program design for 

resource investigation and management 

would be enhanced with added staff, 

expertise, and professional skills. 

The new administrative offices and visitor 

center would provide dedicated space for 

employees to work, organize a reference 

library, and store supplies and equipment 

required for the cultural resources 

management program. The new facility 

would provide sufficient space to update 

and expand museum exhibits. 

Additional field studies and inventories of 

archeological sites would be done. A 

systematic program to monitor and 

evaluate archeological sites would be 

developed and implemented. An 

assessment and stabilization plan, subject 

to periodic review and update, would be 

developed, maintained, and implemented. 

Routine and emergency stabilization and 

preservation work would continue using 

better techniques and more skilled labor. 

All work would be documented and 

monitored for results. All previous 

stabilization efforts would be summarized 

in one report. 

Ethnographic, archeological and historical 

research studies including oral histories, 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

44

historical structures reports, and 

preservation guides would be completed 

and available for use. Cultural landscapes 

would be inventoried, documented, and 

evaluated. 

Natural Resources Management - A 

professional research and resource 

management program and an integrated 

comprehensive program design for natural 

resource investigation and management 

would be enhanced with added staff, 

expertise, and professional skills. 

The new administrative offices and visitor 

center would provide dedicated space for 

employees to work, organize a reference 

library, and store supplies and equipment 

required for the natural resources 

management program. 

The resources management plan would be 

updated routinely, and action plans would 

be prepared to address specific 

environmental conditions and concerns. 

The IPM plans would be updated and/or 

new ones written as needed. 

The monument’s existing cooperative air 

monitoring program would continue. 

Low-flying aircraft would continue to be 

recorded and corrective action taken. A 

monitoring protocol would be developed 

to document noise from aircraft, boats on 

the lake, vehicular traffic, and mine 

blasting. The effects of these noise levels 

on wildlife would be determined. 

The vegetation inventory would be 

completed to the 95% level or above. 

Long-term monitoring plots would be read 

and data analyzed to track vital signs, 

species, and/or habitats. Strategies and 

protocols would be consistent with other 

parks in southern Arizona to compare 

results. Specialized studies would be 

undertaken for unique habitat and species. 

Native plants, preferably cultivated from 

onsite stock, would be used for 

landscaping or rehabilitating disturbed 

sites. A systematic approach would be 

taken to remove non-native plants and 

restore native vegetation. 

Long-term monitoring plots for 

vertebrates would be read to track vital 

signs, species, and/or habitats. Strategies 

and protocols would be consistent with 

other parks in southern Arizona to 

compare results. More work would be 

done on invertebrate species. Specialized 

studies would be undertaken for unique 

habitat and species. A systematic approach 

would be taken to identify and restore 

habitat, if necessary. 

A complete survey of water sources would 

be done. Water quality and quantity would 

be documented and monitored to protect 

the sources for wildlife, vegetation, and 

humans. A procedure would be started to 

document flashflood events. 

If site-specific soil data were needed for 

projects, it would be acquired to augment 

existing information. The geology would 

be examined and a report prepared with 

special attention given to the cliff dwelling 

alcoves to describe formation and stability. 

Cliff Dwellings ROA - A comprehensive 

management model to direct cliff dwelling 

stabilization and preservation activities 

including the effects from natural 

processes would be developed. This model 

would direct the staff to complete 

increased stabilization and preservation 

activities on an annual recurring basis. 

Staff would continue to monitor damage 

caused by small mammals and other 

animals. A program to comprehensively 

monitor the range of environmental 

variables affecting the cliff dwellings 

would be developed and implemented. 

Monitoring data would be collected 

continuously and evaluated. IPM 

techniques would continue to be used 

when necessary. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

45 

New interpretive programs would be 

developed to provide more opportunities 

for visitors to view and understand the cliff 

dwelling architecture and Salado life. 

More uniformed personnel would be 

available to provide additional 

information to visitors. Protection of the 

cliff dwellings would increase with 

additional uniformed staff and installation 

of passive security systems. 

Uplands and Lowlands ROAs - Longterm monitoring plots would be read 

routinely and data analyzed. Results would 

be used to respond to resource threats. 

Data would be shared with other parks 

and entities in Arizona and elsewhere. In 

the monument, the results would be used 

to develop a comprehensive management 

model to guide park staff in protecting the 

natural and cultural resources and their 

processes in the uplands and lowlands. 

The current level of programs to visitors 

that explain the diverse resources of the 

uplands and lowlands would increase. 

Cave Canyon Riparian ROA - Long-term 

monitoring plots would be read routinely 

and data analyzed. Results would be used 

to respond to resource threats. Data would 

be shared with other parks and entities in 

Arizona and elsewhere. In the monument, 

the results would be used to develop a 

comprehensive management model to 

guide park staff in protecting the natural 

and cultural resources and determining 

the appropriate levels of visitor use in the 

riparian area. 

The interpretive staff would provide more 

visitor education programs about the 

riparian area to communicate the 

importance of water, shade, and the 

deciduous forest in the arid desert. 

Human Resources - Necessary 

workspace and supporting supplies and 

equipment would be available for park 

staff to address resource, administrative, 

interpretive, visitor, protection, and 

maintenance needs. The number and 

expertise of employees would increase. 

Training for all employees in all disciplines 

would be enhanced with increased staffing 

and funding. Stewardship of the 

monument would increase. 

Outreach and Interpretation - A new 

accessible visitor center would be built or 

an existing building remodeled outside the 

monument that uses state-of-the-art 

technology to provide educational and 

informational opportunities to the public 

about the monument and the rest of Tonto 

Basin. 

The number and/or types of interpretive 

programs presented to the public linking 

them to the monument’s resources using 

preservation and other stewardship 

themes would increase. Visitor experience 

through understanding would increase. 

Locating some of the interpretive services 

outside the park at the new visitor center 

would make it more difficult for the public 

to directly connect the park story to the 

resources and complicate their movement 

with complex logistics. 

The educational programs presented to 

schools and other off-site entities would be 

expanded. All programs would emphasize 

the need to protect the monument’s 

sensitive archeological sites and Sonoran 

desert ecosystem. 

Visitor and Resource Protection - 

Additional staff and security systems 

would provide twenty-four-hour 

protection of the monument’s resources 

and facilities. Cooperative agreements 

with local law enforcement agencies and 

other emergency services for supplemental 

support would be updated and/or 

developed. 

The current law enforcement needs 

assessment would be periodically reviewed 

and updated. An assessment identifying 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

46

needed levels of emergency medical, fire, 

and search and rescue services would be 

developed to include new off-site facilities. 

A study for passive resource protection 

systems would be produced and 

implemented. A plan to analyze 

appropriate levels of visitor use and 

provide monitoring standards to protect 

visitor experiences and monument 

resources would be developed and 

implemented. 

Viewshed - A scenic viewshed analysis 

would be developed. 

Adjacent Lands - Attempts to minimize 

impacts on park and surrounding Tonto 

Basin resources from incompatible uses of 

adjacent lands would be expanded 

through cooperative management and 

mutual agreements with adjacent 

landowners. Cooperative agreements with 

other agencies would also promote the 

rural landscape consistent with cultural 

and scenic values. A boundary study would 

be completed that would identify 

additional significant resources to be 

protected adjacent to the park including 

Cave Canyon watershed. The study would 

also include recommendations to 

Congress for adjustments to the park 

boundary. A fence would be constructed 

along the legal boundary to protect 

existing and new lands. All unneeded 

interior fencelines would be removed. 

More staff and funds would be needed to 

inventory and assess these new lands and 

provide continued protection. 

Partnerships - Partnerships with local, 

state, and federal agencies, tribes, 

organizations, and individuals in support 

of park missions and activities would 

continue to be developed and expanded. 

The possibility of forming a friends group 

to support the monument’s mission and 

goals would be explored. 

Land-Use Management - This alternative 

would provide for a sufficient increase in 

facilities outside the monument that 

support high-quality public education, 

visitor experience, and accommodate staff 

workspace needs. The developed area has 

one more acre than the no action 

alternative. The new facilities (see below) 

inside the monument would be located 

near the existing houses. No changes in 

land use would occur to the interpretive 

corridor or cliff dwellings management 

prescriptions. The existing rugged 

appearance of the monument’s canyons, 

hills, and cliffs would not change. 

This alternative uses management 

prescriptions that emphasize appropriate 

levels of visitor experiences with 

appropriate levels of development. 

Management prescriptions (MP) describe 

how the park would be managed. These 

can be broken down as follows: 

• About 78 acres (6.9%)—Developed MP 

• About 1033 acres (92.2%)— Restricted MP 

• About 5 acres (0.5%)—Interpretive Corridor 

MP 

• About 4 acres (0.4%)—Cliff Dwellings MP 

Proposed Future Facility and 

Development Changes 

A new or upgraded accessible 

visitor/administrative facility and 

supporting infrastructure would be 

located outside the monument boundary. 

Locating the new facility outside the 

monument would provide the most 

improvements to visitor understanding 

and resource stewardship with the least 

impact to park resources. Use of this 

facility would require more staff and 

substantially increase operational and 

utility costs. 

The existing visitor facility would be 

remodeled. The lobby, museum, 

publication sales area, and indoor 

interpretive programs would become more 

accessible. The original use of the visitor 

center (altering the value of the National 

Register-eligible building) would probably 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

47 

change based on the location of the new 

visitor center. Operational efficiency 

would increase with the added workspace, 

yet would be more difficult to maintain 

with some employees stationed outside the 

park. 

An alternative transportation system to 

access park resources would be developed 

and implemented to transport visitors 

from the new visitor center to the existing 

visitor center during the busiest times of 

the year. The ATS would transport visitors 

more miles in this alternative increasing 

costs, vehicles, and operation time. 

The boundary would be completely 

fenced. 

A seasonal employee/volunteer residence 

would be constructed increasing the park’s 

ability to obtain needed help for resource 

stewardship and visitor services. 

Operational Costs - Under this 

alternative funding would be sought for an 

increase of 9 FTEs or $354,000 in base 

funding. (See Operational Cost Table 1.) 

Development Costs - There would be an 

expenditure of $2,068,000. (See Table 2.) 

Future Plans and Studies 

• Security Plan 

• Development Concept Plan 

• Cultural Landscape Report -(CLR) 

• Cultural Landscape Inventory – (CLI) 

• Administrative History 

• Historic Resource Study 

• Historic Structures Report 

• Ethnographic and Ethnohistory Studies 

• Archeological Overview 

• Assessment & Stabilization Plan 

• Collections Management Plan 

• Artifact Study with Institutional Involvement 

• Environmental Condition Action Plan 

• Vegetation Management Plan 

• Viewshed Analysis 

• Water Resource Assessment 

• Response Need Assessment –(EMS/SAR) 

• Passive Resource Protection Study 

• VERP – Visitor Experience and Resource 

Protection Plan 

• Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

• Alternative Transportation System Plan 

• Boundary Study 

Alternative D – NPS Preferred 

General Emphasis - This alternative is the 

National Park Service’s proposal. It is 

similar to Alternatives B and C except that 

a new visitor/administrative facility would 

not be built. Instead, the administrative 

operation would be moved out of the 

existing visitor center to a new facility 

constructed inside the monument near the 

maintenance facility to accommodate staff 

workspace needs. The existing visitor 

center building would be remodeled to 

provide slightly increased visitor 

educational experiences. 

Administrative, maintenance, 

interpretation, resource management, and 

protection activities would improve with 

the additional facilities and staff levels. 

Staff levels and expertise would be 

enhanced with increased funding and 

training. 

The cultural and natural resources 

programs would have an integrated 

approach, be raised to a higher standard, 

address diverse components, have 

sufficient professional-level staff, and have 

adequate reference materials. 

Slightly increased educational experiences 

would be provided to enhance the visitor’s 

understanding of the monument’s values 

and protect cultural and natural resources. 

Interpretive programs would use improved 

equipment and methods to provide 

educational material within a regional 

context so visitors could contemplate the 

Salado culture and its relationship to the 

surrounding Sonoran desert environment. 

Heightened protection of the monument’s 

facilities and resources would occur 

through increased NPS staffing and 24-
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

48
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

49 

hour security systems, and improved 

emergency services and cooperative law 

enforcement agreements. 

The additional staff would create more 

opportunities to form partnerships with 

other agencies, tribes, educational 

institutions, and the private sector that 

leverage the park’s ability to provide 

quality visitor services and protect 

monument resources. 

Relationships with adjacent land 

management agencies, tribes, and 

landowners would be expanded to manage 

the surrounding land using sound 

ecological principles. 

Cultural Resources Management - A 

professional research and resource 

management program and an integrated 

comprehensive program design for 

resource investigation and management 

would be enhanced with added staff, 

expertise, and professional skills. 

The new administrative offices and 

remodeled visitor center would provide 

dedicated space for employees to work, 

organize a reference library, and store 

supplies and equipment required for the 

cultural resources management program. 

The remodeled facility would provide 

some additional space to improve and 

expand museum exhibits. 

Additional field studies and inventories of 

archeological sites would be done. A 

systematic program to monitor and 

evaluate archeological sites would be 

developed and implemented. An 

assessment and stabilization plan, subject 

to periodic review and update, would be 

developed, maintained, and implemented. 

Routine and emergency stabilization and 

preservation work would continue using 

better techniques and more skilled labor. 

All work would be documented and 

monitored for results. All previous 

stabilization efforts would be summarized 

in one report. 

Ethnographic, archeological and historical 

research studies including oral histories, 

historical structures reports, and 

preservation guides would be completed 

and available for use. Cultural landscapes 

would be inventoried, documented, and 

evaluated. 

Natural Resources Management - A 

professional research and resource 

management program and an integrated 

comprehensive program design for natural 

resource investigation and management 

would be enhanced with added staff, 

expertise, and professional skills. 

The new administrative offices and 

remodeled visitor center would provide 

dedicated space for employees to work, 

organize a reference library, and store 

supplies and equipment required for the 

natural resources management program. 

The resources management plan would be 

updated routinely, and action plans would 

be prepared to address specific 

environmental conditions and concerns. 

The IPM plans would be updated and/or 

new ones written as needed. 

The monument’s existing cooperative air 

monitoring program would continue. 

Low-flying aircraft would continue to be 

recorded and corrective action taken. A 

monitoring protocol would be developed 

to document noise from aircraft, boats on 

the lake, vehicular traffic, and mine 

blasting. The effects of these noise levels 

on wildlife would be determined. 

The vegetation inventory would be 

completed to the 95% level or above. 

Long-term monitoring plots would be read 

and data analyzed to track vital signs, 

species, and/or habitats. Strategies and 

protocols would be consistent with other 

parks in southern Arizona to compare 

results. Specialized studies would be 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

50

undertaken for unique habitat and species. 

Native plants, preferably cultivated from 

onsite stock, would be used for 

landscaping or rehabilitating disturbed 

sites. A systematic approach would be 

taken to remove non-native plants and 

restore native vegetation. 

Long-term monitoring plots for 

vertebrates would be read to track vital 

signs, species, and/or habitats. Strategies 

and protocols would be consistent with 

other parks in southern Arizona to 

compare results. More work would be 

done on invertebrate species. Specialized 

studies would be undertaken for unique 

habitat and species. A systematic approach 

would be taken to identify and restore 

habitat, if necessary. 

A complete survey of water sources would 

be done. Water quality and quantity would 

be documented and monitored to protect 

the sources for wildlife, vegetation, and 

humans. A procedure would be started to 

document flashflood events. 

If site-specific soil data were needed for 

projects, it would be acquired to augment 

existing information. The geology would 

be examined and a report prepared with 

special attention given to the cliff dwelling 

alcoves to describe formation and stability. 

Cliff Dwellings ROA - A comprehensive 

management model to direct cliff dwelling 

stabilization and preservation activities 

including the effects from natural 

processes would be developed. This model 

would direct the staff to complete 

increased stabilization and preservation 

activities on an annual recurring basis. 

Staff would continue to monitor damage 

caused by small mammals and other 

animals. A program to comprehensively 

monitor the range of environmental 

variables affecting the cliff dwellings 

would be developed and implemented. 

Monitoring data would be collected

continuously and evaluated. IPM 

techniques would continue to be used 

when necessary. 

Additional interpretive programs would be 

developed to provide more opportunities 

for visitors to view and understand the cliff 

dwelling architecture and Salado life. 

More uniformed personnel would be 

available to provide additional 

information to visitors. Protection of the 

cliff dwellings would increase with 

additional uniformed staff and installation 

of passive security systems. 

Uplands and Lowlands ROAs - Longterm monitoring plots would be read 

routinely and data analyzed. Results would 

be used to respond to resource threats. 

Data would be shared with other parks 

and entities in Arizona and elsewhere. In 

the monument, the results would be used 

to develop a comprehensive management 

model to guide park staff in protecting the 

natural and cultural resources and their 

processes in the uplands and lowlands. 

The current level of programs to visitors 

that explain the resource diversity would 

be increased. 

Cave Canyon Riparian ROA - Long-term 

monitoring plots would be read routinely 

and data analyzed. Results would be used 

to respond to resource threats. Data would 

be shared with other parks and entities in 

Arizona and elsewhere. In the monument, 

the results would be used to develop a 

comprehensive management model to 

guide park staff in protecting the natural 

and cultural resources and determining 

the appropriate levels of visitor use in the 

riparian area. 

The interpretive staff would provide more 

visitor education programs about the 

riparian area to communicate the 

importance of water, shade, and the 

deciduous forest in the arid desert. 

Human Resources - Sufficient workspace 

and supporting supplies and equipment 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

51 

would be available for park staff to address 

resource, administrative, interpretive, 

visitor, protection, and maintenance 

needs. The number and expertise of 

employees would increase. Training for all 

employees in all disciplines would be 

enhanced with increased staffing and 

funding. Stewardship of the monument 

would increase. 

Outreach and Interpretation - The 

existing visitor center would be remodeled 

to provide increased educational and 

informational opportunities to the public 

about the monument and the rest of Tonto 

Basin. Initial contact with visitors would 

continue to take place at the existing 

visitor center. The number and/or types of 

interpretive programs presented to the 

public linking them to the monument’s 

resources using preservation and other 

stewardship themes would slightly 

increase. Visitor experience through 

understanding would slightly increase. 

Locating all interpretive services in one 

location at the existing visitor center 

would make it easier for the public to 

directly connect the park story to the 

resources and ease their movement with 

simpler logistics. 

The educational programs presented to 

schools and other off-site entities would be 

expanded. All programs would emphasize 

the need to protect the monument’s 

sensitive archeological sites and Sonoran 

desert ecosystem. 

Visitor and Resource Protection - 

Additional staff and security systems 

would provide twenty-four-hour 

protection of the monument’s resources 

and facilities. Cooperative agreements 

with local law enforcement agencies and 

other emergency services for supplemental 

support would be updated and/or 

developed. 

The current law enforcement needs 

assessment would be periodically reviewed 

and updated. An assessment identifying 

needed levels of emergency medical, fire, 

and search and rescue services would be 

developed to include new on-site facilities. 

A study for passive resource protection 

systems would be produced and 

implemented. A plan to analyze 

appropriate levels of visitor use and 

provide monitoring standards to protect 

visitor experience and resource protection 

would be developed and implemented. 

Viewshed - A scenic viewshed analysis 

would be developed. 

Adjacent Lands - Attempts to minimize 

impacts on park and surrounding Tonto 

Basin resources from incompatible uses of 

adjacent lands would be expanded 

through cooperative management and 

mutual agreements with adjacent 

landowners. Cooperative agreements with 

other agencies would also promote the 

rural landscape consistent with cultural 

and scenic values. A boundary study would 

be completed that would identify 

additional significant resources to be 

protected adjacent to the park including 

Cave Canyon watershed. The study would 

also include recommendations to 

Congress for adjustments to the park 

boundary. A fence would be constructed 

along the legal boundary to protect 

existing and new lands. All unneeded 

interior fencelines would be removed. 

More staff and funds would be needed to 

inventory and assess these new lands and 

provide continued protection. 

Partnerships - Partnerships with local, 

state, and federal agencies, tribes, 

organizations, and individuals in support 

of park missions and activities would 

continue to be developed and expanded. 

The possibility of forming a friends group 

to support the monument’s mission and 

goals would be explored. 

Land-Use Management - This alternative 

would provide for a slight increase in 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

52

facilities inside the monument that support 

improved public education, visitor 

experience, and accommodate staff 

workspace needs. The developed area has 

two more acres than the no action 

alternative. The new facilities would be 

located near the existing maintenance 

facility in the lowlands. No changes in land 

use would occur to the interpretive

corridor or cliff dwellings management 

prescriptions. The existing rugged 

appearance of the monument’s canyons, 

hills, and cliffs would not change. 

This alternative uses management 

prescriptions that emphasize appropriate 

levels of visitor experiences with 

appropriate levels of development. 

Management prescriptions (MP) describe 

how the park would be managed. These 

can be broken down as follows: 

• About 79 acres (7.1%)—Developed MP 

• About 1032 acres (92.1%)— Restricted MP 

• About 5 acres (0.5%)—Interpretive Corridor 

MP 

• About 4 acres (0.4%)—Cliff Dwellings MP 

Proposed Future Facility and 

Development Changes 

Administrative functions would be 

removed from the existing facility and a 

new 2,000-square foot building would be 

constructed elsewhere inside the park. The 

existing cultural landscape would be 

impacted by the new administrative facility 

yet no archeological sites would be 

affected. Operational efficiency would 

substantially increase with the added 

workspace and with one visitor center to 

maintain. Use of this facility would 

increase utility costs. 

The existing visitor facility would be 

remodeled. Remodeling the existing 

facility would improve visitor access, 

understanding, and resource stewardship 

and would not impact park resources. The 

lobby, museum, publication sales area, and 

indoor interpretive programs would 

become more accessible. However, 

remodeling the visitor center is contingent 

upon construction of a new administrative 

facility, which would impact park 

resources. Keeping the original use of the 

visitor center (rather than constructing a 

new building) would retain the value of the 

National Register-eligible building. 

A 10- to 50-vehicle transportation staging 

area would be developed and an 

alternative transportation system to access 

park resources would be developed and 

implemented to transport visitors from the 

new staging area near the entrance station 

to the visitor center during the busiest 

times of the year. The ATS would 

transport visitors the same distance as in 

Alternative B equaling costs, vehicles, and 

operation time. 

The boundary would be completely 

fenced. 

A seasonal employee/volunteer residence 

would be constructed increasing the park’s 

ability to obtain needed help for resource 

stewardship and visitor services. 

Operational Costs - Under this 

alternative funding would be sought for an 

increase of 6 FTEs or $242,000 in base 

funding required. (See Operational Cost 

Table 1.) 

Development Costs - There would be an 

expenditure of $1,117,000. (See Table 2.) 

Future Plans and Studies 

• Security Plan 

• Development Concept Plan 

• Cultural Landscape Report -(CLR) 

• Cultural Landscape Inventory – (CLI) 

• Administrative History 

• Historic Resource Study 

• Historic Structures Report 

• Ethnographic and Ethnohistory Studies 

• Archeological Overview 

• Assessment & Stabilization Plan 

• Collection Management Plan 

• Artifact Study with Institutional Involvement 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

53 

• Environmental Condition Action Plan 

• Vegetation Management Plan 

• Water Resource Assessment 

• Viewshed Analysis 

• Response Need Assessment –(EMS/SAR) 

• Passive Resource Protection Study 

• VERP – Visitor Experience and Resource 

Protection Plan 

• Comprehensive Interpretive Plan 

• Alternative Transportation System Plan 

• Boundary Study 

Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative 

The environmentally preferred alternative 

is determined by applying the criteria 

suggested in the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which is guided 

by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ). The CEQ provides direction that 

“the environmentally preferable 

alternative is the alternative that would 

promote the national environmental 

policy as expressed in NEPA’s Section 101.” 

(“Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Regulations”, 1981.) 

Section 101 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act states that “...it is the 

continuing responsibility of the Federal 

Government to ... (1) fulfill the 

responsibilities of each generation as 

trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations; (2) assure for all Americans 

safe, healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of 

beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradations, risk to health or safety, or 

other undesirable and unintended 

consequences; (4) preserve important 

historic, cultural, and natural aspects of 

our national heritage and maintain, 

wherever possible, an environment which 

supports diversity and variety of individual 

choice; (5) achieve a balance between 

population and resource use which would 

permit high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities; and (6) enhance 

the quality of renewable resources and 

approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources.” The 

environmentally preferable alternative for 

this project is based on these national 

environmental policy goals. 

Alternative A – No Action. The No-Action 

Alternative continues the existing limited 

cultural and natural resource management 

programs and maintains the overcrowded 

visitor/administrative facility. This 

alternative would disturb the least amount 

of natural and cultural resources 

compared to the other alternatives; no new 

facilities would be constructed and the 

National Register eligible Mission 66-

visitor center would not be remodeled. 

However, the existing limited cultural and 

natural resource education, protection, 

and preservation programs would 

continue to operate as they have in the past 

with insufficient staff and information. 

Therefore, this alternative would not 

result in the same level of protection of 

natural and cultural resources over the 

long-term as would occur with the three 

other alternatives. Consequently, the Noaction Alternative does not satisfy 

provisions 1 and 4 of NEPA’s Section 101. 

Alternative B. Alternative B updates and 

improves the park’s cultural and natural 

resource programs with the greatest

amount of ground disturbance inside the 

park. About seven acres would be 

disturbed to construct the new 

visitor/administrative facility, associated 

parking lot, nature trail, and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence. 

Improvements to parking would ultimately

provide for increased safety of visitors. 

The cultural and natural resource 

education, protection, and preservation 

programs would greatly improve with 

sufficient staff and information. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

54

Therefore, this alternative would result in 

better protection of natural and cultural 

resources over the long-term than 

Alternative A. However, Alternative B does 

not satisfy provision 3 of NEPA’s Section 

101. 

Alternative C. Alternative C updates and 

improves the park’s cultural and natural 

resource programs with the least amount 

of ground disturbance inside the park, but 

instead, disturbance would occur outside

the park. Less than one acre would be 

disturbed inside the park to construct the 

seasonal employee/volunteer residence, 

but another six acres would be disturbed 

outside the park to construct the 

visitor/administrative facility and 

associated parking lot. The longer route of 

the alternative transportation system 

would heighten safety concerns. The 

cultural and natural resource education, 

protection, and preservation programs 

would greatly improve with sufficient staff 

and information. Therefore, this 

alternative would result in better 

protection of natural and cultural 

resources over the long-term than 

Alternative A. Consequently, Alternative C 

does not satisfy provisions 2 and 3 of 

NEPA’s Section 101. 

Alternative D – NPS Preferred. The 

Preferred Alternative strives to update and 

improve the park’s cultural and natural 

resource programs with the least amount 

of ground disturbance both inside and 

outside the park. Less than two acres 

would be disturbed inside the park to 

construct the administrative facility, ATS 

staging area, and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence; no facilities 

would be built outside the park. 

Improvements to parking would ultimately

increase the safety of visitors. The cultural 

and natural resource education, 

protection, and preservation programs 

would greatly improve with sufficient staff 

and information. Therefore, this 

alternative would result in better 

protection of natural and cultural 

resources over the long-term than 

Alternative A. This alternative would 

realize each of the provisions of the 

national environmental policy goals. 

The environmentally preferable alternative 

is Alternative D because it surpasses the 

other alternatives in realizing the full range 

of national environmental policy goals as 

stated in δ101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Although the

No-action Alternative and Alternative C

achieve less disturbance of cultural and 

natural resources inside the park, the NPS 

preferred alternative does (1) provide a 

high level of protection of natural and 

cultural resources while concurrently 

attaining the widest range of neutral and 

beneficial uses of the environment with the 

least amount of degradation; and, (2) 

integrate resource protection with an 

appropriate range of visitor uses. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

55 

TABLE 1 

OPERATIONAL COSTS 

(Increases in FTEs by Alternative)

Description A* B** C** D** 

Interpretation/VS 5.5* 5.0 6.0 3.0 

Administration 3.0* 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Maintenance 2.5* 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Natural Resources 1.0* 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Cultural Resources 1.0* 1.0 1.0 1.0 

TOTAL Proposed Increase 0.0* 8.0 9.0 6.0 

Alternative A: shows existing with no increase. 

Alternative B: funding sought for an additional 8 FTEs or $317,000 for 

increased staff. 

Alternative C: funding sought for an additional 9 FTEs or $354,000 for 

increased staff. 

Alternative D funding sought for an additional 6 FTEs or $242,000 for 

increased staff.

* Existing FTEs 

** Indicates Additional Full Time Equivalents (FTE)

TABLE 2 

POSSIBLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT COSTS 

Description A B C* D* 

Visitor Center (3500s.f.) $ 784,000 

Administrative facility $421,000 $421,000 

Modify existing visitor 

center $75,000 $75,000 $ 75,000 

Asphalt-surfaced trail $ 60,000

Fence boundary $163,000 $163,000 $163,000 

Two-bedroom duplex $152,000 $152,000 $152,000 

Visitor Center and 

administrative facility 

(5500 s.f.) off site 

 $ 1,205,000 

Asphalt parking area $81,000 $81,000 $ 99,000 

Sub Total $1,736,000 $1,676,000 $910,000 

Shuttle Vans $75,000 $100,000 $75,000

Project Planning and 

Advance Cost $319,000 $292,000 $132,000 

TOTAL $2,130,000 $2,068,000 $1,117,000
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

56

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

+ This alternative would 

maintain existing facilities. 

Park operations would 

continue at present levels. 

+ This alternative would 

provide an increase and 

modification of park 

facilities. Park operations 

would increase with 

additional staff. 

+ This alternative would 

provide additional 

facilities outside the park 

and modification of inpark facilities. Park 

operations would increase 

with additional staff. 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

 

+ Existing visitor and 

administrative facilities 

would be maintained to 

support current activities. 

No new facilities would be 

built. 

+ A new visitor/ 

administrative facility with 

associated infrastructure 

would be built within the 

monument to provide 

increased visitor education 

experiences and 

accommodate staff 

workspace needs. 

+ A new visitor/ 

administrative facility with 

associated infrastructure 

would be built at a 

location outside the 

monument to provide 

increased visitor education 

experiences and 

accommodate staff 

workspace needs. 

+ The administrative 

operation would be 

moved out of the existing 

building to new facility 

inside the park and the 

existing visitor center 

would be remodeled to 

improve visitor education 

experiences and 

accommodate staff 

workspace needs. 

+ Existing administrative, 

maintenance, 

interpretation, resource 

management, protection, 

and land use activities 

would continue at present 

levels. 

+ Administrative, 

maintenance, 

interpretation, resource 

management, protection, 

and land use activities 

would improve with 

additional staff and 

facilities. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ The limited cultural and 

natural resources 

programs would not have 

an integrated approach, 

be raised to a higher 

standard, address diverse 

components, have 

sufficient staff, or have 

adequate reference 

materials on hand. 

+ The cultural and natural 

resources programs would 

have an integrated 

approach, be raised to a 

higher standard, address 

diverse components, have 

sufficient professionallevel staff, and have 

adequate reference 

materials. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Interpretive programs 

would use existing 

equipment and methods 

to provide educational 

opportunities. 

+ Interpretive programs 

would use high-tech 

equipment and methods 

to provide educational 

material within a broader 

context so visitors could 

contemplate the Salado 

culture in relation to 

regional prehistory and 

the Sonoran desert 

environment. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Interpretive programs 

would use improved 

equipment and methods 

to provide educational 

material within a broader 

context so visitors could 

contemplate the Salado 

culture in relation to 

regional prehistory and 

the Sonoran desert 

environment. 

General Emphasis 

+ Existing educational 

experiences to enhance 

visitor’s understanding of 

monument values and 

protect cultural and 

natural resources would 

continue. 

+ Greatly increased 

educational experiences 

would enhance visitor’s 

understanding of 

monument values and 

protect cultural and 

natural resources. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Increased educational 

experiences would 

enhance visitor’s 

understanding of 

monument values and 

protect cultural and 

natural resources. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

57 

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

+ Existing limited 

protection activities would 

continue. 

+ Heightened protection 

would occur through 

increased NPS staffing and 

24-hour security systems, 

and improved emergency 

services and cooperative 

law enforcement 

agreements. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Existing relationships 

with partners would 

continue. 

+ Additional staff would 

create more opportunities 

to form partnerships with 

other agencies, tribes, 

educational institutions, 

and the private sector that 

leverage the park’s ability 

to provide quality visitor 

services and protect 

monument resources. 

+ Additional staff and new 

facilities located outside 

the monument would 

create increased 

opportunities to form 

partnerships with other 

agencies, tribes, 

educational institutions, 

and the private sector that 

leverage the park’s ability 

to provide quality visitor 

services and protect 

monument resources. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

+Existing relationships 

with adjacent and nearby 

land management 

agencies, tribes, and 

landowners would 

continue. 

+Relationships with 

adjacent and nearby land 

management agencies, 

tribes, and landowners to 

manage the landscape 

using sound ecological 

principles would be 

increased. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

General Emphasis 

+Staff levels and expertise 

would be opportune 

depending on funding and 

training. 

+Staff levels would be 

increased and staff 

expertise would be 

enhanced. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ A professional research 

and resource management 

program would continue 

on a limited basis with 

present staff levels. 

+ A professional research 

and resource management 

program and an 

integrated comprehensive 

program design for 

resource investigation and 

management would be 

provided and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Existing inadequate 

space and material for the 

reference library would 

continue. 

+ The reference library 

would be expanded and 

organized into a dedicated 

space in the new facility. 

+ Same as Alternative B + The reference library 

would be expanded and 

organized into a dedicated 

space in the remodeled 

facility. 

Cultural Resources Management 

+ A limited assessment and 

stabilization plan would 

be provided. Current 

limited levels of 

stabilization would 

continue. 

+ A comprehensive 

assessment and 

stabilization plan, subject 

to periodic review and 

update, would be 

developed, maintained, 

and implemented for both 

historic and prehistoric 

structures. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

58

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

+ Existing program to 

monitor archeological sites 

would continue. 

+ Archeological sites 

would be completely 

inventoried, monitored, 

evaluated, and stabilized, 

where applicable. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Information on cultural 

landscapes would be 

gathered when possible. 

+ Cultural landscapes 

would be inventoried, 

documented, evaluated, 

and managed. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Needed ethnographic, 

archeological, and 

historical research would 

be completed as funding 

permits. 

+ Appropriate 

ethnographic, 

archeological, and 

historical research studies 

would be completed and 

available for use. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

Cultural Resources Management 

+ Management and 

display of museum 

collections would continue 

within existing limited 

space. Archives and 

photographs would 

continue to be housed in 

various locations. 

+ The management and 

interpretation of in-park 

museum collections would 

greatly improve. Archives 

and photographs would 

be centrally organized 

with the creation of 

enhanced space. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Less space would be 

available than in Alt. B and 

C to improve the 

management and 

interpretation of in-park 

museum collections. 

Organization of archives 

and photographs would 

be slightly improved with 

the creation of increased 

space. 

+ A professional research 

and resource management 

program would continue 

on a limited basis with 

present staff levels. 

+ A professional research 

and resource management 

program and an 

integrated comprehensive 

program design for 

resource investigation and 

management would be 

enhanced. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Existing inadequate 

space and material for the 

reference library would 

continue. 

+ The reference library 

would be expanded and 

organized into a dedicated 

space in the new facility. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ The park would continue 

to maintain existing 

number of specific action 

plans to address 

environmental conditions 

and concerns. 

+ The park would develop 

specific action plans to 

address environmental 

conditions and concerns. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ The park’s coordinated 

program for Class I air 

monitoring would 

continue. 

+ Same as Alternative A + Same as Alternative A + Same as Alternative A 

+ Existing limited program 

to monitor aircraft noise 

would continue. 

+ A noise management 

strategy would be 

developed and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

Natural Resources Management 

+ Existing program to 

control non-native plants 

and restore disturbed 

areas with native plants 

would continue. 

+ Vegetation inventory 

would be completed and 

program would be 

established to monitor 

vegetation, control nonnatives, and restore 

natives. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

59 

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

+ Wildlife inventory and 

monitoring would be 

conducted, as funding is 

available. 

+ Wildlife would be 

inventoried, monitored, 

and evaluated to restore 

habitat, if necessary. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Existing documentation 

of human water use would 

continue. Water sources 

would be inventoried 

when funding allows. 

+ Water sources would be 

inventoried, documented, 

and monitored to provide 

adequate supply for 

wildlife and human 

consumption. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Geological reports would 

be prepared when funding 

allows. 

+ Geology would be 

examined and report 

prepared. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

Natural Resources Management 

+ Current IPM action plans 

would be updated and 

implemented. 

+ IPM action plans 

identifying new pests 

would be updated and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ The limited program to 

monitor some 

environmental variables 

would continue. Some 

research data would be 

available. 

+ A program to 

comprehensively monitor 

the range of 

environmental variables 

would be developed and 

implemented through 

collecting continuous data. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Current limited levels of 

stabilization and 

preservation would 

continue. 

+ Increased stabilization 

and preservation on an 

annual recurring basis 

would be provided. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ A management model 

would be developed when 

funding allows. 

+ A comprehensive 

management model to 

direct stabilization and 

preservation activities 

including effects from 

natural processes and 

visitor use would be 

developed. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Monitoring would 

continue at minimal levels 

necessary for protection. 

+ Inventory and 

monitoring protocols for 

resources and processes 

would be developed and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Existing security 

measures would continue. 

+ Increased security 

(passive/active) would be 

provided. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Current levels of visitor 

interaction would 

continue. 

+ Increased opportunities 

for visitors to interact with 

uniformed staff would be 

provided. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

Cliff Dwellings ROA 

+ Current level of visitor 

opportunities to 

understand the resource 

diversity would continue. 

+ Visitor opportunities to 

view and understand the 

resource diversity would 

be increased. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

60

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

+ A management model 

would be developed when 

funding allows. 

+ A comprehensive 

management model to 

protect natural and 

cultural components and 

processes would be 

developed and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

Uplands and 

Lowlands ROAs 

+ Current level of visitor 

opportunities to 

understand the resource 

diversity would continue. 

+ Visitor opportunities to 

understand the resource 

diversity would be 

increased. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Inventory and 

monitoring protocols 

would be developed and 

implemented when 

funding allows. 

+ Inventory and 

monitoring protocols for 

natural and cultural 

resources and processes 

would be developed and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ A management model 

would be developed when 

funding allows. 

+ A comprehensive 

management model to 

preserve natural and 

cultural components and 

processes and determine 

the appropriate levels of 

visitor use would be 

developed and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

Cave Canyon Riparian ROA 

+ Current program of 

visitor awareness and 

education would continue. 

+ Increased visitor 

awareness and education 

programs would be 

provided. 

+ Same as Alternative B + Same as Alternative B 

+ Existing resources and 

workspace for park staff 

would continue. 

+ Adequate resources and 

workspace would be 

available for park staff to 

address resource, 

administrative, protection, 

visitor, and maintenance 

needs. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Less resources and 

workspace would be 

available than in 

Alternatives B and C, but 

more than in Alternative 

A. 

+ Staff levels would be 

opportune depending on 

funding. 

+ Staff levels would 

increase by 8 FTEs. 

+ Staff levels would 

increase by 9 FTEs. 

+ Staff levels would 

increase by 6 FTEs. 

Human Resources 

+ Staff training would be 

opportune depending on 

funding and staff 

availability. 

+ Staff-training 

opportunities in all 

disciplines would increase. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Land Use 

Management 

+Developed MP – about 78 

acres. 

Restricted MP – about 

1033 acres. 

Interpretive Corridor MP – 

about 5 acres. 

Cliff Dwellings MP – about 

4 acres. 

+Developed MP – about 85 

acres. 

Restricted MP – about 

1026 acres. 

Interpretive Corridor MP – 

about 5 acres. 

Cliff Dwellings MP – about 

4 acres. 

+Developed MP – about 78 

acres. 

Restricted MP – about 

1033 acres. 

Interpretive Corridor MP – 

about 5 acres. 

Cliff Dwellings MP – about 

4 acres. 

+Developed MP – about 79 

acres. 

Restricted MP – about 

1032 acres. 

Interpretive Corridor MP – 

about 5 acres. 

Cliff Dwellings MP – about 

4 acres. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

61 

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

+The present visitor center 

would continue to provide 

existing levels of 

educational and 

informational 

opportunities. 

+ A visitor center would be 

built on-site that uses 

state-of-the-art technology 

to provide increased 

educational and 

informational 

opportunities. 

+ A visitor center would be 

built or remodeled off-site 

that uses state-of-the-art 

technology to provide 

increased educational and 

informational 

opportunities. 

+ The existing visitor 

center would be 

remodeled to provide 

increased educational and 

informational 

opportunities. 

+The existing interpretive 

program would continue. 

+ The interpretive 

program linking the visitor 

to the park’s resources 

using preservation and 

other stewardship themes 

would increase. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+Locating all interpretive 

services inside the park 

would be easier for visitors 

to connect the park story 

to the resources and ease 

their movement with 

simpler logistics. 

+ Same as Alternative A. +Locating some 

interpretive services 

outside the park would be 

more difficult for visitors 

to connect the park story 

to the resources and 

complicate their 

movement with complex 

logistics. 

+ Same as Alternative A. 

Outreach and Interpretation 

+ The existing educational 

program to schools and 

other off-site entities 

would continue. 

+ Geographic distribution 

of existing educational 

curriculum to schools, 

other off-site entities, and 

electronic medium would 

be expanded. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Current limited levels 

would be maintained. 

+ Twenty-four-hour 

security of sites and 

facilities that includes the 

ability to provide the 

appropriate level of law 

enforcement response 

would be implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ The law enforcement 

needs assessment would 

be updated and 

maintained. 

+ The law enforcement 

needs assessment would 

be periodically reviewed 

and updated. An 

assessment identifying 

needed levels of EMS 

response, fire, and SAR 

services would be 

developed to include new 

on-site facilities. 

+ The law enforcement 

needs assessment would 

be periodically reviewed 

and updated. An 

assessment identifying 

needed levels of EMS 

response, fire, and SAR 

services would be 

developed to include new 

off-site facilities. 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

+ A study for passive 

resource protection would 

be completed when 

possible. 

+ A study for passive 

resource protection would 

be produced and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Visitor & Resource Protection 

+ Current level of 

cooperative services with 

local law enforcement and 

other emergency agencies 

would be maintained. 

+ Cooperative agreements 

with local law 

enforcement agencies and 

other emergency services 

for supplemental support 

would be updated and/or 

developed. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

62

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

Visitor & 

Resource 

Protection 

+ A visitor experience and 

resource protection plan 

would be developed for 

existing conditions and use 

levels. 

+ A visitor experience and 

resource protection plan 

to analyze appropriate 

levels of visitor use and 

provide monitoring 

standards would be 

developed and 

implemented. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Viewshed 

+ A viewshed analysis 

would be developed when 

possible. 

+ A viewshed analysis 

would be developed. 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

+ Existing relationships 

with adjacent and nearby 

land management 

agencies, tribes, and 

landowners would 

continue. 

+ Relationships with 

adjacent and nearby land 

management agencies, 

tribes, and landowners to 

manage the landscape 

using sound ecological 

principles would be 

expanded. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Adjacent Lands 

+ A boundary study would 

be completed when 

possible to identify 

significant resources and 

recommend boundary 

adjustments to Congress. 

+ A boundary study would 

be completed to identify 

significant resources and 

recommend boundary 

adjustments to Congress. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Existing partnerships 

would continue. 

+ Partnerships with local, 

state, and federal 

agencies, tribes, 

organizations, and 

individuals in support of 

park missions and activities 

would continue to be 

developed and expanded. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Partnerships 

+ The possibility of 

establishing a friends 

group to support the 

monument’s mission and 

goals would be explored. 

+ Same as Alternative A + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ A new visitor center

would not be built. 

+ A new 3,500-square foot 

accessible 

visitor/administrative 

facility and supporting 

infrastructure including 

road and parking area 

would be built within the 

monument to provide 

increased visitor 

experiences and public 

understanding and 

appreciation of park 

resources. 

+ A new accessible 

visitor/administrative 

facility and supporting 

infrastructure would be 

located outside the 

monument to provide 

better visitor orientation 

and education to park 

resources. 

+Same as Alternative A. 

Possible Future Facility and 

Development Changes 

+ No new costs would be 

incurred. 

+ Use of this facility would 

require more staff and 

substantially increase 

operational and utility 

costs. 

+ Use of this facility would 

require more staff and 

substantially increase 

operational and utility 

costs. 

+ Use of the new 

administrative facility 

would increase utility 

costs. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

63 

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

+ An associated accessible 

interpretive trail would 

not be constructed. 

+ An associated accessible 

interpretive trail would be

constructed. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

+ Administrative functions 

would remain in the 

existing facility. 

+ Administrative functions 

would be removed from 

the existing facility and a 

new 2,000-square foot 

building would be 

constructed elsewhere 

inside the park. 

+ Administrative functions 

would be removed from 

the existing facility and 

included in the new offsite visitor center building 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

+ Operational efficiency 

would not improve 

without increased 

workspace. 

+ Operational efficiency 

would increase with added 

workspace, yet would be 

more difficult to maintain 

with second visitor center. 

+ Operational efficiency 

would increase with added 

workspace, yet would be 

more difficult to maintain 

with some employee 

offices located outside the 

park. 

+ Operational efficiency 

would substantially 

increase with added 

workspace and with one 

visitor center to maintain. 

+ The existing visitor 

center/administrative 

facility would be 

maintained. 

+ The existing visitor 

center would be 

remodeled into a learning 

center to provide 

enhanced educational 

opportunities and more 

accessible areas. 

+ The existing visitor 

center would be 

remodeled to expand 

access and visitor and 

interpretive services. 

+ Same as Alternative C. 

+ Park resources would not 

be impacted without the 

construction of new 

facilities. 

+ New visitor center would 

provide greatest impact to 

park resources. 

+ New visitor center would 

provide least impact to 

park resources. 

+ Remodeling visitor 

center would not impact 

park resources but new 

admin. facility would. 

+ Original use of National 

Register eligible-visitor 

center would be 

maintained. 

+ Changing the original 

use of the visitor center 

into a leaning center 

would lessen the value of 

the building. 

+ The original use of the 

visitor center would 

probably change. 

+ Original use of National 

Register eligible-visitor 

center would be retained. 

+ The shuttle system used 

during busy times would 

continue as needed. 

+ An alternative 

transportation system to 

access park resources 

would be developed and 

implemented with same 

costs as Alt. D. 

+ An alternative 

transportation system to 

access park resources 

would be developed and 

implemented to include 

new visitor center location 

outside the monument 

with more costs than Alt. B 

and D. 

+ An improved 10- to 50- 

vehicle transportation 

staging area for periods of 

increased visitation would 

be developed and an 

alternative transportation 

system to access park 

resources would be 

developed and 

implemented with same 

costs as Alt. B. 

+ Existing fences would 

continue to be repaired as 

needed. 

+ The boundary would be 

completely and accurately 

fenced. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

Possible Future Facility and Development Changes

+ No new housing would 

be constructed. 

+ Seasonal 

employee/volunteer 

residence would be 

constructed. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

64

TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A – No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D – NPS Preferred

+ Existing Staff 

Interpretation/VS – 5.5 

Administration – 3 

Maintenance – 2.5 

Natural Resources - 1 

Cultural Resources – 1 

+ Existing Staff 

Interpretation/VS – 5.5 

Administration – 3 

Maintenance – 2.5 

Natural Resources - 1 

Cultural Resources – 1

+ Existing Staff 

Interpretation/VS – 5.5 

Administration – 3 

Maintenance – 2.5 

Natural Resources - 1 

Cultural Resources – 1

+ Existing Staff 

Interpretation/VS – 5.5 

Administration – 3 

Maintenance – 2.5 

Natural Resources - 1 

Cultural Resources – 1

Operational Costs 

+ Proposed Additions to 

Existing Staff 

Interpretation/VS - 5 

Administration – 0 

Maintenance – 1 

Natural Resources - 1 

Cultural Resources – 1 

COST FOR ADDITIONAL 

STAFF $317,000 

+ Proposed Additions to 

Existing Staff 

Interpretation/VS - 6 

Administration – 0 

Maintenance – 1 

Natural Resources - 1 

Cultural Resources - 1 

COST FOR ADDITIONAL 

STAFF $354,000 

+ Proposed Additions to 

Existing Staff

Interpretation/VS – 3 

Administration – 0 

Maintenance – 1 

Natural Resources – 1 

Cultural Resources – 1 

COST FOR ADDITIONAL 

STAFF $242,000 

Development 

Costs 

+There are no 

development costs for the 

no-action alternative. 

TOTAL COST $2,130,000 

(See Table 2 – Possible 

Future Development Costs) 

TOTAL COST $2,068,000 

(See Table 2 – Possible 

Future Development Costs) 

TOTAL COST $1,117,000 

(See Table 2 – Possible 

Future Development Costs) 

Future Plans and Studies

+New plans would be 

written as staffing and 

funding allow. 

The following plans 

would be prepared: 

+ Security Plan 

+Development Concept Plan 

+ Cultural Landscape Report 

-(CLR) 

+ Cultural Landscape 

Inventory – (CLI) 

+ Administrative History 

+Historic Resource Study 

+Historic Structures Report 

+ Ethnographic and 

Ethnohistory Studies 

+ Archeological Overview 

+ Assessment & Stabilization 

Plan 

+Collections Management 

Plan 

+ Artifact Study with 

Institutional Involvement 

+ Environmental Condition 

Action Plan 

+Vegetation Management 

Plan 

+ Water Resource 

Assessment 

+Viewshed Analysis 

+ Response Need Assessment 

–(EMS/SAR) 

+ Passive Resource 

Protection Study 

+ VERP – Visitor Experience 

and Resource Protection 

Plan 

+Comprehensive Interpretive 

Plan 

+Alternative Transportation 

System Plan 

+Boundary Study

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

65 

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

+ No new development 

would occur to impact 

archeological sites. 

+ New development would 

avoid all archeological sites. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Deterioration of sites 

would continue from lack of 

information, procedures, 

and management. 

+ Deterioration of cliff 

dwellings would decrease 

with improved stabilization 

and preservation methods 

and additional staffing. 

+Site protection would 

remain inadequate without 

sufficient staff. 

+Site protection would 

improve with additional 

staff and installation of 

security systems. 

Archeological Resources 

+Content of interpretive 

programs and museum 

exhibits would remain 

outdated without new 

research information. 

+Content of interpretive 

programs and museum 

exhibits would improve 

with new research 

information. 

Mitigation 

• Cultural resource information would be incorporated into planning and project decision-making. 

• Prior to the development of new facilities, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Archeological Resource Protection Act, and other historic preservation 

statutes and regulations would be followed. 

+ No new development 

would occur to impact cliff 

dwelling environment. 

+ No new development 

would impact cliff dwelling 

environment. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+Cliff dwellings would be 

impacted by lack of 

information and routine 

stabilization. 

+ Cliff dwellings would be 

preserved with increased 

information and annual 

stabilization. 

 

+Rodents would impact cliff 

dwellings. 

+IPM program would 

protect cliff dwellings from 

rodents. 

 

Cliff Dwelling Environment 

+Cliff dwelling protection 

would remain less than 

adequate without sufficient 

staff. 

+ Cliff dwelling protection 

would improve with 

increased staff and 

installation of security 

systems. 

 

Mitigation 

• Cultural resource information would be incorporated into planning and project decision-making. 

• Prior to the development of new facilities, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Archeological Resource Protection Act, and other historic preservation 

statutes and regulations would be followed. 

+No new development 

would occur to impact 

cultural landscapes. 

+New visitor/admin facility, 

associated parking area, 

nature trail, and residence 

would impact landscapes. 

+Same as Alternative B 

except that only the new 

residence would impact 

landscapes. 

+Same as Alternative B 

except that the new 

administrative facility, ATS 

staging area, and residence 

would impact landscapes. 

+Proper management of 

landscapes would be limited 

due to lack of information. 

+Completed landscape 

inventory and report would 

provide better 

management. 

Cultural Landscapes 

+ Staff and adjacent 

landowners would work to 

minimize future external 

development. 

+Increased staff and 

adjacent landowners would 

work to minimize future 

external development. 

Mitigation 

• Cultural resource information would be incorporated into planning and project decision-making. 

• Project designs would include modifications to reduce impacts to cultural landscapes. 

• Size, configuration, and location of new facilities would be selected to reduce intrusion. 

• Natural color, topography, and native plants for screening would be used to blend new facilities with landscape. 

• Any modifications made to existing facilities would not impact the integrity of landscape elements. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

66

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

+ No new development or 

modifications would occur 

to impact historic structures. 

+ New development would 

avoid all LCS sites. Existing 

visitor center would be 

remodeled. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ No impacts would occur to 

the visitor center. 

+ No impacts would occur 

to the exterior of the visitor 

center or its siting. 

 

+ Irreversible changes would 

occur to LCS sites without 

proper documentation, 

procedures, and 

management. 

+ Deterioration of LCS sites 

would decrease with 

improved stabilization and 

preservation methods and 

additional staffing. 

 

+ Site and building 

protection would remain 

less than adequate without 

sufficient staff. 

+ Site and building 

protection would increase 

with additional staff and 

installation of security 

systems. 

 

Historic Structures 

+ Content of interpretive 

programs and museum 

exhibits would remain 

outdated without new 

research information. 

+ Content of interpretive 

programs and museum 

exhibits would be improved 

with new research 

information. 

 

Mitigation 

• Cultural resource information would be incorporated into planning and project decision-making. 

• Prior to the development of new or remodeling of existing facilities, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Archeological Resource Protection Act, and other 

historic preservation statutes and regulations would be followed. 

• All work would meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and any other constraints mandated by 

DO-28, Cultural Resource Management.

+ No new development 

would occur to impact 

ethnographic resources. 

+ New facilities would have 

potential to impact 

ethnographic resources. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Proper management of 

ethnographic resources 

would be limited due to lack 

of information. 

+ Completed ethnographic 

study and report would 

provide better 

management. 

Ethnographic Resources 

+The story of all people 

occupying Tonto Basin 

would be incomplete. 

+Accurate and complete 

story of all people 

occupying Tonto Basin 

would be presented. 

Mitigation 

• Cultural resource information would be incorporated into planning and project decision-making. 

• All future planning requiring Section 106 clearance would include opportunities for review and input by tribal 

governments. 

+ No new development 

would occur to impact 

undisturbed areas. 

+ New construction would 

impact soil. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that substantially 

less soil would be disturbed 

with the placement of the 

new visitor/admin facility 

outside the monument. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that less soil would 

be disturbed with only the 

admin facility, residence, 

and ATS staging area 

constructed. 

+ Lack of information would 

provide unknown effects. 

+ Expanded information 

would provide better 

management practices. 

 

Topography, Geology, and Soils 

+ Soil compaction would 

continue in developed 

areas. 

+ Soil compaction would 

continue in existing 

developed areas and 

increase in new areas, but 

all areas would be 

mitigated. 

 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

67 

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

+ Soil compaction would 

continue from trespass 

grazing in areas not 

protected by boundary 

fences. 

+ Soils would be protected 

from trespass grazing with 

construction of accurate 

boundary fence. 

 

Mitigation 

• Placement of future facilities would be selected based on soil compatibility. 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts to soil. 

• Hardened surfaces would be built around new facilities. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas. 

• Education and interpretation would encourage visitors to use designated trails and walkways. 

+ No new development 

would occur to disturb 

vegetation. 

+ New construction would 

remove vegetation. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that significantly less 

vegetation would be 

disturbed with placement 

of the new visitor/admin 

facility outside the 

monument. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that slightly less 

vegetation would be 

disturbed without the 

construction of the new 

visitor center. 

+ Lack of information would 

provide unknown effects. 

+ Expanded information 

would provide better 

management practices. 

+ Not all nonnative plants 

would be controlled. 

+ Nonnative plants would 

increase in new construction 

areas, but would be 

controlled or eliminated. 

+ Some impacted areas 

would be restored. 

+ All impacted areas would 

be restored. 

+ Trespass grazing would 

still trample vegetation and 

spread nonnative plants in 

areas not protected by 

boundary fence. 

+ Vegetation would be 

protected from trespass 

grazing with construction of 

accurate boundary fence. 

Vegetation 

+ Content of interpretive 

programs would remain 

outdated without new 

research information. 

+ Visitors would be 

educated about effects of 

nonnative plants on 

ecosystem. 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts to vegetation. 

• Existing plants would be removed and transplanted elsewhere or saved for later rehabilitation, if possible. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas. 

• Education and interpretation would encourage visitors to use designated trails and walkways. 

+ No new development 

would occur to destroy 

wildlife habitat. 

+ New construction would 

remove wildlife habitat and 

disrupt wildlife habits. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that significantly less 

wildlife habitat would be 

altered with placement of 

the new visitor/admin 

facility outside the 

monument. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that slightly less 

wildlife habitat would be 

altered with construction of 

the administrative facility. 

+ Lack of information would 

provide unknown effects. 

+ Expanded information 

would provide better 

management practices. 

 

+ Less wildlife habitat would 

be protected without a 

boundary fence. 

+ All wildlife habitat would 

be protected with 

construction of accurate 

boundary fence. 

Wildlife 

 

+ Potential-poaching 

activities would occur 

without sufficient law 

enforcement personnel. 

+ Additional law 

enforcement staff would 

reduce poaching incidents. 

 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

68

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts to wildlife habitat and habits. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas. 

• New facilities would be located near existing developed areas. 

• All new fencelines would be built to provide safe wildlife crossings and would not be constructed in archeological 

sites. 

+ No new development 

would occur to impact T&E 

species or habitat. 

+ Construction of new 

facilities would not affect 

T&E species and habitat. 

+Same as Alternative B. +Same as Alternative B. 

+ Lack of information would 

provide unknown effects. 

+ Expanded information 

would provide better 

management practices. 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

+ Content of interpretive 

programs would remain 

outdated without new 

research information. 

+ Increased interpretive 

programs would educate 

about the need to protect 

T&E species from extinction. 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts to threatened and endangered 

species. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas. 

• New facilities would not be located near T&E species. 

• Consultation with USFWS would continue for all projects that could potentially impact listed species. 

+ No new development 

would occur to destroy 

wetlands or floodplains. 

+ No new development 

would be constructed in 

riparian area or floodplains. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that significantly less 

water from the park would 

be consumed with 

placement of new 

visitor/admin facility outside 

the monument. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that slightly less 

water from the park would 

be consumed without 

construction of new visitor 

center. 

+ Demand on groundwater 

resources would fluctuate 

with visitation levels. 

+ New facilities would 

increase demand on 

groundwater resources. 

 

+ Lack of information would 

provide unknown effects on 

groundwater and riparian 

area. 

+ Expanded information 

would provide better 

management of 

groundwater and riparian 

area. 

 

+ Content of interpretive 

programs would remain 

outdated without new 

research information. 

+ Increased interpretive 

programs would educate 

visitors about the 

importance of protecting 

riparian areas in the 

Sonoran desert. 

 

Water Resources, Floodplains, Wetlands 

+ Existing partnerships 

would work to reduce 

impacts from outside 

activities on riparian area. 

+ Expanded partnerships 

would reduce impacts from 

outside activities on riparian 

area. 

 

Mitigation 

• Site planning would document potential impacts on ground water sources. 

• New facilities would not be located in wetlands or floodplains. 

• Consultation would continue with Army Corps of Engineers for all projects that could have potential impact on 

wetlands or floodplains. 

Air Quality 

+ No construction activities 

would occur to impact air 

quality. 

+ Air quality would be 

impacted over short and 

long term by construction 

and use of new facilities. 

+ The same as Alternative B 

except that substantially 

fewer impacts would occur 

to air quality with 

placement of new 

visitor/admin facility outside 

the monument. 

+ The same as Alternative B 

except that fewer impacts 

would occur to air quality 

without construction of a 

new visitor center. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

69 

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

+ Air quality monitoring 

would continue. 

+ Air quality monitoring 

would continue. 

+ Existing partnerships 

would work to reduce 

impacts on air quality from 

outside activities. 

+ Expanded partnerships 

would reduce impacts from 

outside activities on air 

quality. 

Mitigation 

• Exposed soil would be covered or watered during construction activities to reduce dust levels. 

• Use of the alternative transportation system would reduce impacts to air quality from single vehicle emissions. 

+ Natural quiet would 

remain the same. Noise 

distraction would still occur 

around existing developed 

areas. 

+ Noise levels would 

increase from construction 

and use of new and 

remodeled facilities. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that substantially 

less noise would occur over 

the long term to impact 

natural quiet with 

placement of the new 

visitor/admin facility outside 

the monument. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that less noise would 

occur over the long term to 

impact natural quiet 

without the construction of 

the new visitor center. 

+ Noise disruptions from 

overflights would continue 

to be monitored. No 

documentation would be 

made for boat, traffic, and 

mine activity. 

+ All noise sources would be 

monitored. 

Natural Quiet 

+ Existing partnerships 

would reduce external noise 

levels. 

+ Expanded partnerships 

would reduce external noise 

levels. 

 

Mitigation 

• Use of the alternative transportation system would reduce impacts to noise levels from single vehicles. 

+ Needs of current and 

future visitors would not be 

met. 

+ Needs of increasing 

visitors would be met. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that overcrowded 

restrooms and parking lot 

would not be alleviated, the 

off-site visitor center would 

be more difficult to find 

and attract fewer visitors, 

and the existing natural 

setting and aesthetic appeal 

would remain intact with 

placement of the new 

visitor/admin facility outside 

the monument. 

+ Needs of increasing 

visitors would slightly 

improve. 

+ Existing outdated, 

cramped, and/or inaccessible 

visitor services would be 

maintained. 

+ Interpretive services 

would be expanded and 

improved. 

+ Interpretive services would 

slightly expand and 

improve. 

+ Interpretive programming 

would not expand without 

increased staff. 

+ Interpretive programming 

would expand with 

increased staff. 

+ Interpretive programming 

would expand with 

increased staff. 

+ Existing visitor center 

would remain partially 

accessible. 

+ New facilities would be 

fully accessible. 

+ Existing facility would be 

made accessible. 

+ Fewer visitors would be 

contacted without a second 

facility. 

+ More visitors would be 

contacted with second 

facility. 

+ Fewer visitors would be 

contacted without a second 

facility. 

+ All visitor services would 

be located in one area. 

+ Visitor services would be 

split between two different 

areas. 

+ All visitor services would 

be located in one area. 

Visitor Use, Experience, Accessibility 

+ Parking lot would fill to 

capacity during busy season. 

+ New parking lot would 

ease parking difficulties 

during busy season. 

+ New ATS staging area 

would ease parking 

difficulties during busy 

season. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

70

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

+ Restrooms would remain 

overcrowded during busy 

season. 

+ New public restrooms 

would ease overcrowding. 

+ New employee restrooms 

in admin. facility and new 

public restrooms in ATS 

staging area would alleviate 

some of the overcrowding. 

+ Visitor satisfaction would 

decrease. 

+ Visitor satisfaction, 

experience, and education 

would increase. 

+ Visitor satisfaction, 

experience, and education 

would slightly increase. 

+ Existing natural setting 

and aesthetic appeal along 

the entrance road would 

remain unchanged. 

+ Existing natural setting 

and aesthetic appeal along 

the entrance road would 

decrease. 

+ Existing natural setting 

and aesthetic appeal would 

slightly decrease with the 

construction of the new 

admin. facility. 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts. 

• Additional staffing would be needed for additional facilities and accommodate increased levels of visitation. 

+No impacts to scenic 

viewsheds inside monument 

would occur. 

+Scenic viewsheds inside 

monument would be 

impacted with addition of 

new visitor/admin facility in 

lowlands. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that impacts to 

scenic viewsheds would 

greatly decrease with 

placement of the new 

visitor center outside the 

monument. 

+Same as Alternative B 

except that impacts to 

scenic viewsheds would 

slightly decrease with 

construction of the new 

admin facility, ATS staging 

area, and residence. 

Scenic Vistas, 

Viewsheds 

+ Existing partnerships 

would continue to improve 

scenic viewsheds as seen 

from the monument. 

+ Expanded partnerships 

would improve external 

scenic viewsheds from 

future impacts. 

 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts to scenic viewsheds. 

• Size, configuration, and location of new facilities would be selected to reduce intrusion. 

• Natural color, topography, and native plants for screening would be used to blend new facilities with landscape. 

• Medians planted with vegetation would lessen the visual impact from the parking area. 

• All concrete would be tinted to blend in with the natural soil color. 

• Any modifications made to existing facilities would not impact the integrity of scenic viewsheds. 

+ Staff would work with 

adjacent landowners to 

reduce impacts from 

external activities. 

+ Increased staff would 

encourage adjacent 

landowners to reduce 

impacts from external 

activities. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that community 

connections would increase 

with relocation of 

administrative facilities 

outside the monument. 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

Adjacent Lands, 

Partnerships 

+ Cooperative efforts would 

continue to provide 

educational opportunities 

and visitor services. 

+ Expanded partnerships 

would increase quality and 

quantity of interpretive and 

visitor services. 

Mitigation 

• None 

Visitor/Administrative Facility 

and Parking Area 

+ No new impacts would 

occur to cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ Cultural and natural 

resources would be 

impacted. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that the new facility 

located outside the 

monument would not 

impact the park’s cultural 

and natural resources and 

would not alleviate 

overcrowded restroom and 

parking conditions within 

the monument. The longer 

distance covered by the ATS 

system would heighten 

safety concerns. 

+ Cultural and natural 

resources would be 

impacted less than 

Alternative B. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

71 

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

+ Crowded facility; would 

not meet the needs of 

current and future visitor 

and staff levels. 

+ Space would be available 

to meet the needs of 

current and future visitor 

and staff levels. 

+ Slightly more space would 

be available to meet needs 

of current and future visitor 

and staff levels. 

+ No space would be 

available to conduct indoor 

interpretive programs. 

+ Space would be available 

to house indoor interpretive 

programs. 

+ Limited space would be 

available to house indoor 

interpretive programs. 

+ Sales area and museum 

would remain crowded. 

+ Space would be available 

to expand sales area and 

museum. 

+ Limited space would be 

available to expand sales 

area and museum. 

+ Waiting lines would 

continue for restroom use. 

+ Additional restrooms 

would accommodate 

visitors. 

+ Waiting lines would 

continue for restroom use. 

+ Lack of parking spaces 

would occur during spring 

season forcing visitors to 

park along road shoulder 

creating hazardous 

situation. 

+ The new visitor center 

parking area would 

accommodate visitors and 

eliminate hazardous 

parking along road 

shoulder. 

+ The new ATS staging area 

would accommodate visitors 

and eliminate hazardous 

parking along road 

shoulder. 

+ Visitor satisfaction and 

experience would decrease. 

+ Visitor satisfaction and 

experience would increase. 

+ Visitor satisfaction and 

experience would slightly 

increase. 

+ Basement offices would 

continue to be unsafe. 

+ Basement would no 

longer be used for offices. 

+ Basement would no 

longer be used for offices. 

Visitor/Administrative Facility 

and Parking Area 

+ Existing staff levels would 

not provide adequate 

protection for facilities. 

+ Increased staff levels and 

24-hour security would 

provide necessary 

protection for all facilities. 

+ Increased staff levels and 

24-hour security would 

provide necessary 

protection for all facilities. 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts. 

• Size, configuration, and location of new facilities would be selected to reduce intrusion. 

• Natural color, topography, and native plants for screening would be used to blend new facilities with landscape. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas. 

• No new development would be built on archeological sites. 

• Any modifications made to existing facilities would not impact the integrity of cultural landscapes and scenic 

viewsheds. 

+ No change would occur to 

existing small museum and 

outdated exhibits. 

+ Museum would expand 

and exhibits updated with 

current research 

information. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that security risks to 

the museum collection 

would increase with new 

facility located outside the 

monument. 

+ Less space would be 

available to expand and 

improve the museum. 

+ Visitor satisfaction and 

education would be less 

than desired. 

+ Visitor satisfaction and 

education would increase. 

+ Visitor satisfaction and 

education would slightly 

increase. 

+ Artifacts would continue 

to deteriorate without 

stringent environmental 

controls. 

+ Condition and protection 

of artifacts would improve 

in new facility. 

+ Condition and protection 

of artifacts would improve 

in remodeled facility. 

Museum Collection and 

 Reference and Archives Library 

+ Lack of space for library 

materials would continue. 

+ Space for library materials 

would substantially 

increase. 

+ Space for library would 

slightly increase. 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts. 

• No new development would be built on archeological sites. 

• Any modifications made to existing facilities would not impact the integrity of cultural landscapes and scenic 

viewsheds. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

72

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

+ No further impacts would 

occur to cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ Impacts would occur to 

cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ No facilities would be 

available to house seasonal 

employees and volunteers. 

+ New facility would 

provide adequate 

accommodations for 

seasonal employees and 

volunteers. 

 

Employee Residences 

+ Monument’s difficulty in 

obtaining seasonal 

employee and volunteer 

help would continue. 

+ Monument’s ability to 

obtain seasonal employee 

and volunteer help would 

increase. 

 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts. 

• Size, configuration, and location of new facilities would be selected to reduce intrusion. 

• Natural color, topography, and native plants for screening would be used to blend new facilities with landscape. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas 

• No new development would be built on archeological sites. 

Any modifications made to existing facilities would not impact the integrity of cultural landscapes and scenic viewsheds. 

+ No further impacts would 

occur to cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ New impacts would occur 

to cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

Trails 

+ No accessible trails would 

be constructed and available 

for visitor use. 

+ One accessible nature trail 

would be constructed and 

available for visitor use. 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts. 

• Existing plants would be removed and transplanted elsewhere or saved for later rehabilitation, if possible. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas. 

• No new development would be built on archeological sites. 

+ Existing maintenance 

facility, entrance station, 

VIP trailer pads, roads, 

and picnic area would 

be maintained. 

+ Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. + Same as Alternative A. 

Maintenance 

Facility, Entrance 

Station, VIP Trailer 

Pads, Roads, Picnic 

Area 

+ No further impacts 

would occur to cultural 

and natural resources. 

 

Mitigation 

• Any modifications made to existing facilities would not impact the integrity of cultural landscapes and scenic 

viewsheds. 

+ No new impacts would 

occur to cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ New impacts would occur 

to cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that more staff time 

would be used to travel 

between park facilities with 

placement of new 

visitor/admin facility outside 

monument and 

communication links would 

be more difficult to 

maintain. 

+ Similar to Alternative B 

except that fewer impacts 

would occur to cultural and 

natural resources. 

Operational Efficiency: 

Visitor Center and Headquarters 

+ Crowded facility; would 

not meet needs of current 

and future staff and visitor 

levels. 

+ New facilities would meet 

needs of current and future 

staff and visitor levels. 

 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

73 

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

+ Inadequate space would 

continue to exist for offices, 

meetings, library, 

equipment, and supplies. 

+ Adequate space for 

offices, meetings, library, 

equipment, and supplies 

would be provided. 

 

+ Employee work efficiency 

and visitor satisfaction and 

experience would continue 

to decrease. 

+ Employee work efficiency 

and visitor satisfaction and 

experience would increase. 

 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts. 

• Size, configuration, and location of new facilities would be selected to reduce intrusion. 

• Natural color, topography, and native plants for screening would be used to blend new facilities with landscape. 

• No new development would be built on archeological sites. 

• Any modifications made to existing facility would not impact the integrity of cultural landscapes and scenic 

viewsheds. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas. 

+ No new development 

would occur to impact 

cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ Expanded water and 

sewer systems would impact 

cultural and natural 

resources. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that significantly less 

impact would occur to 

groundwater resources with 

placement of new 

visitor/admin facility outside 

the monument. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that slightly less 

impact would occur to 

groundwater resources with 

construction of admin 

facility. 

Water, Septic, and Solid 

Waste Systems 

+ Lack of information would 

lead to unknown effects to 

vegetation, wildlife, and 

ground and surface water. 

+ Research would provide 

proper management of 

vegetation, wildlife, and 

ground and surface water. 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts. 

• Size, configuration, and location of new facilities would be selected to reduce intrusion. 

• Natural color, topography, and native plants for screening would be used to blend new facilities with landscape. 

• Additional staff would monitor and rehabilitate impacted areas. 

• No new development would be built on archeological sites. 

+Space would continue to 

be too small to house SPMA 

operation. 

+SPMA operation would 

expand. 

+Same as Alternative B. + SPMA operation would 

expand slightly. 

+Visitor satisfaction, 

experience, and education 

would continue to decrease. 

+Visitor satisfaction, 

experience, and education 

would increase. 

+Visitor satisfaction, 

experience, and education 

would slightly improve. 

Commercial Services 

+SPMA would continue to 

contribute existing 

volunteers and funding to 

monument. 

+SPMA volunteers and 

funding would increase. 

+SPMA volunteers and 

funding would slightly 

increase. 

Mitigation 

• New development areas would be designed and landscaped to minimize impacts. 

• No new development would be built on archeological sites. 

+ Cave Canyon watershed 

would continue to be 

potentially impacted from 

external activities. 

+ A boundary study would 

be initiated to protect 

external significant 

resources. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Existing fencelines would 

be repaired as needed. 

+ New fenceline would be 

constructed. 

Boundary 

+ New staff or funds would 

not be needed to inventory, 

assess, and protect new 

lands. 

+ More staff and funds 

would be needed to 

inventory, assess, and 

protect new lands. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

74

TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D—NPS Preferred

Mitigation 

• All new fencelines would be built to provide safe wildlife crossings and would not be constructed on archeological 

sites. 

+ No additional 

contributions would occur 

to the local community. 

+ An increase of $3.2 million 

in total sales, $303,000 in 

tax revenue, and 32 

additional jobs would occur 

over the short-term. 

+ An increase of $3.07 

million in total sales, 

$291,000 in tax revenue, 

and 31 additional jobs 

would occur over the shortterm. 

+ An increase of $1.82 

million in total sales, 

$173,000 in tax revenue, 

and 18 additional jobs 

would occur over the shortterm. 

Economic Contribution 

to 

Gateway Communities 

+ An increase of $458,000 in 

total sales, $43,000 in tax 

revenue, and five additional 

jobs would occur over the 

long-term. 

+ An increase of $516,000 in 

total sales, $49,000 in tax 

revenue, and five additional 

jobs would occur over the 

long-term. 

+ An increase of $344,000 in 

total sales, $32,000 in tax 

revenue, and three 

additional jobs would occur 

over the long-term. 

Mitigation 

• None. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

75 

TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D— NPS Preferred 

Archeological 

Resources 

+ Moderately adverse 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to archeological 

resources from lack of 

protection and preservation 

actions. 

+ Moderately beneficial 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to archeological 

resources from increased 

protection and preservation 

actions. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Minor beneficial long-term 

impacts would occur to 

cultural landscapes from no 

new construction. 

+ Moderate adverse longterm impacts would occur to 

cultural landscapes from 

new construction. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except negligible adverse 

long-term impacts would 

occur to cultural landscapes 

from new construction. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except minor adverse longterm impacts would occur to 

cultural landscapes from 

new construction. 

+ Moderately adverse 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to LCS sites and 

cultural landscape without 

needed reports and 

inventories. 

+ Moderately beneficial 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to LCS sites and 

cultural landscapes from 

acquired reports and 

inventories. 

 

Historic Character of Built 

Environment 

+ No impacts would occur to 

the visitor center.

+ No adverse impacts would 

occur to the visitor center 

exterior and location. 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

+ Minor adverse impacts 

would occur to 

ethnographic resources over 

the long-term from lack of 

information. 

+ Moderately beneficial 

impacts would occur to 

ethnographic resources over 

the long-term with 

increased tribal 

participation. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Same as Alternative B. 

+ Minor beneficial impacts 

would occur without 

construction activities. 

+ Moderate adverse impacts 

would occur from 

construction activities. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that negligible 

adverse impacts would occur 

from construction activities. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that minor adverse 

impacts would occur from 

construction activities. 

Natural Systems and 

Processes 

+ Moderately adverse 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to natural 

resources without adequate 

information for proper 

program management. 

+ Moderately beneficial 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to natural 

resources with adequate 

information for proper 

program management. 

 

+ Minor beneficial impacts 

would occur without 

construction activities. 

+ Moderate adverse impacts 

would occur from 

construction activities and 

use of the new facilities. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that negligible 

adverse impacts would occur 

from construction activities 

and use of the new facility. 

+ Same as Alternative B 

except that minor adverse 

impacts would occur from 

construction activities and 

use of the new facilities. 

Air Quality and Natural 

Quiet 

+ Minor adverse impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to air quality and natural 

quiet without adequate 

information for proper 

program management. 

+ Minor beneficial impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to air quality and natural 

quiet with adequate 

information for proper 

program management. 

Visitor 

Experience 

+ Moderately adverse 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to visitor use, 

experience, and 

understanding without 

improved facilities, access, 

and programs. 

+ Major beneficial impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to visitor use, experience, 

and understanding with 

improved facilities, access, 

and programs. 

+ Same as Alternative B. + Moderately beneficial 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to visitor use, 

experience, and 

understanding with slightly 

improved facilities, access, 

and programs. 
THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 

76

TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alt. A—No Action Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D— NPS Preferred 

Scenic 

vistas, 

Viewsheds + Minor beneficial impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to scenic vistas and 

viewsheds without 

additional facilities. 

+ Moderate adverse impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to scenic vistas and 

viewsheds from additional 

visitor/admin facility and 

residence. 

+ Negligible adverse impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to scenic vistas and 

viewsheds from additional 

residence. 

+ Minor adverse impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to scenic vistas and 

viewsheds from additional 

admin facility, ATS, and 

residence. 

+ No construction activities 

would have minor beneficial 

impacts to adjacent 

landowners. 

+ Moderate beneficial 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to adjacent 

landowners from expanded 

partnerships and use of 

sound ecological principles. 

+ Beneficial or adverse 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to adjacent 

landowners depending on 

location of new facility. 

+ Same as Alternative B. 

Adjacent Lands and 

Economies 

+ Negligible adverse impacts 

would occur to economies of 

nearby communities without 

construction activities and 

increased staff. 

+ Negligible beneficial 

impacts would occur to 

economies of nearby 

communities over the longterm. 

+ Negligible beneficial 

impacts would occur to 

economies of nearby 

communities over the longterm. 

Operational 

Efficiency 

+ Major adverse impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to operational efficiency 

without improved facilities 

and operations and 

increased staff levels. 

+ Major beneficial impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to operational efficiency 

from improved facilities and 

operations and increased 

staff levels. 

+ Moderate beneficial 

impacts would occur over 

long-term to operational 

efficiency from improved 

facilities and operations and 

increased staff levels. 

+ Major beneficial impacts 

would occur over long-term 

to operational efficiency 

from improved facilities and 

operations, and increased 

staff levels. 
77 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 

All action alternatives meet the park’s 

mission goals previously described in the 

first chapter in different ways. 

Management prescriptions are used as the 

basis for all alternatives and are allocated 

differently. Alternatives for commercial 

services encompass allocation of resources 

consistent with the monument’s purpose 

and significance, and also may include 

future actions in the monument by nongovernment entities. Only those areas of 

the monument that could be affected are 

described. Future site-specific proposals 

after approval of this plan may require 

further surveys and environmental and 

historical compliance. 

Effects are documented in general terms in 

the environmental consequence section 

and are related to the descriptions of the 

resources described in this section. Impact 

topics have been selected on the basis of 

significant resources and the potential for 

beneficial or adverse effects on them by 

each alternative as required by law, 

regulation, and NPS policy. Topics that 

would not be impacted under any of the 

alternatives are not discussed. Impacts 

may be direct or indirect. Direct effects are 

caused by an action and occur at the same 

time and place as the action. Indirect 

effects are caused by the action and occur 

later in time or farther removed from the 

place, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Note: Area Land Use Plans – The Council 

on Environmental Quality directs that 

federal agencies must consider possible 

conflicts between their actions and actions 

listed in other area land use plans and/or 

policies. Tonto National Forest is the only 

entity that has a land use plan (USFS, 1985) 

for the area adjacent to the park. 

Monument and national forest staff have 

and would continue to develop a working 

relationship that reconciles any possible 

conflicts in land management policies and 

use. Therefore, the impact topic on land 

use plans is dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Note: Environmental Justice – Executive 

Order 12898, “General Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” 

requires all federal agencies to incorporate 

environmental justice into their missions 

by identifying and addressing 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of 

their programs and policies on minorities 

and low-income populations and 

communities. The proposed action would 

not have health or environmental effects 

on minorities or low-income populations 

or communities as defined in the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Environmental Justice Guidance (1998). 

Therefore, Environmental Justice was 

dismissed as an impact topic in this 

document. 

Note: Energy Requirements and Natural 

or Depletable Resource Requirements – 

Tonto National Monument would strive to 

incorporate the principles of sustainable 

design and development into all facilities 

and park operations. Sustainability can be 

described as the result achieved by doing 

things in ways that do not compromise the 

environment or its capacity to provide for 

present and future generations. 

Sustainable practices minimize the shortand long-term environmental impacts of 

developments and other activities through 

resource conservation, recycling, waste 

minimization, and the use of energy 

efficient and ecologically responsible 

materials and techniques. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

78

The National Park Service’s Guiding 

Principles of Sustainable Design (1993) 

provides a basis for achieving 

sustainability in facility planning and 

design, emphasizes the importance of biodiversity, and encourages responsible 

decisions. The guidebook describes 

principles to be used in the design and 

management of visitor facilities that 

emphasize environmental sensitivity in 

construction, use of nontoxic materials, 

resource conservation, recycling, and 

integration of visitor uses with natural and 

cultural settings. Tonto National 

Monument reduces energy costs, 

eliminates waste, and conserves energy 

resources by using energy efficient and 

cost-effective technology. Energy 

efficiency would also be incorporated into 

any decision-making process during the 

design or acquisition of structures, as well 

as all decisions affecting park operations. 

The use of value analysis and value 

engineering, including life cycle cost 

analysis, would be performed to examine 

energy, environmental, and economic 

implications of proposed development. In 

addition, the monument encourages 

suppliers and contractors to follow 

sustainable practices and addresses 

sustainable park and non-park practices in 

interpretive programs. 

Therefore, the impact topics on energy 

requirements and conservation potential 

and natural or depletable resource 

requirements and conservation potential 

are dismissed from further consideration. 

Note: Prime and Unique Farmlands – In 

August 1980, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) directed 

that federal agencies must assess the 

effects of their actions on farmland soils 

classified by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Natural Resource 

Conservation Service as prime or unique. 

Prime or unique farmland is defined as 

soil, which particularly produces general 

crops such as common foods, forage, fiber, 

and oil seed; unique farmland produces 

specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, 

and nuts. According to the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (2000), the 

soil series comprising the project areas are 

useful primarily for rangeland and wildlife 

habitat and are not classified as prime or 

unique farmland. Thus, prime and unique 

farmlands will not be addressed as an 

impact topic. 

Note: Wilderness Areas – The Wilderness 

Act of 1964 states that an area is suitable 

for wilderness designation if it contains at 

least 5,000 acres or is a sufficient size to 

make practicable its preservation and use 

in an unimpaired condition. A wilderness 

area must also be untrammeled by man, 

retain its primeval character without 

permanent improvements, be affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, managed 

to preserve natural conditions, and have 

outstanding opportunities for solitude. 

Tonto National Monument is not suitable 

for wilderness designation because of its 

size (1,120 acres), permanent 

improvements and inhabitants, and 

proximity to vehicular traffic and 

Roosevelt Lake recreational activities. 

Therefore, wilderness was dismissed as an 

impact topic in this document. 

Cultural Resources — 

Archeology

Existing Conditions 

Sixty-five archeological sites have been 

recorded within the boundaries of the 

monument. All of these sites are 

considered to be contributing properties 

of the Tonto National Monument National 

Register District and the entire monument 

is listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places. For the most part, these 

resources represent the remains of maize 

agriculturists associated with the Gila and 

Roosevelt phases commonly referred to as 
CULTURAL RESOURCES 

79 

the Salado culture (ca. A.D. 1000-1450). 

Two archeological sites, the Upper and 

Lower cliff dwellings, are the focal point 

for establishing the monument in 1907. 

The Lower Cliff Dwelling has been almost 

completely excavated and is open to the 

public daily, except Christmas Day. The 

Upper Cliff Dwelling is in near pristine 

condition and is open part of the year for 

reservation-only guided tours. The rest of 

the archeological sites are scattered 

throughout the monument and are closed 

to public entry. 

A surface cultural-resource inventory of 

the monument was conducted in the mid1980s (Tagg, 1985). Although this inventory 

is considered to be thorough and to 

modern standards, the potential does exist 

that undiscovered cultural resources might 

be present within the monument’s 

boundaries. With the exception of the 

Upper and Lower cliff dwellings, which 

are stabilized by routine preservation 

maintenance, the remaining archeological 

sites within the monument are managed in 

an “as is” status. Park staff conducts 

routine monitoring of site condition and 

site locations are being located using GPS 

technology for the development of a GIS 

database. 

Most impacts to archeological sites within 

the monument are natural (e.g., erosion 

and animal disturbance) and are 

considered to be minimal. The exception 

is the two cliff dwellings that require 

ongoing preservation maintenance to 

preserve these architectural/archeological 

sites. Although ceramic fragments become 

exposed and minor disturbance has been 

documented at a few of the sites, no severe 

cases of unauthorized collecting or site 

vandalism has been observed. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under Alternative A, no new development 

would occur to impact archeological sites. 

However, irreversible changes would still 

occur to the archeological sites without 

proper documentation, procedures, 

management, and protection. 

Archeological site integrity and subsurface 

materials would remain unevaluated. The 

structural integrity would be compromised 

without the information and staff needed 

to document and preserve the sites. The 

archeological sites would naturally 

deteriorate over time. Insufficient 

protection of the archeological sites would 

occur without adequate staff and passive 

security systems. The content of 

interpretive programs and museum 

exhibits would remain outdated without 

incorporating the most recent research 

information. 

Impacts of Alternatives B, C, and D - 

NPS Preferred 

Given the completion of the park-wide 

cultural resource inventory, the on-going 

site monitoring program, and the 

management prescriptions outlined in this 

GMP, there would be no impacts to known 

cultural resources from Alternatives B, C, 

and D. Construction of buildings, parking 

lots, and trails would not impact 

archeological resources as the alternatives 

are designed to avoid all known sites 

within the monument. The monument has 

a long history of consultation with 

professional archeologists at the NPS’ 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center and the Southern Arizona Office. 

Given these associations, there would be 

no impacts to unknown resources as well 

since the monument consults with 

professional archeologists on every 

undertaking within the monument. 

Having complete archeological 

inventories, overviews, assessments, and 

procedures would provide park 

management with the information needed 

to protect and interpret archeological 

resources. Future archeological resource 

management programs would improve 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

80

documentation, stabilization, and 

preservation of the archeological sites. 

These programs would include additional 

research and study of stabilization 

procedures and impacts to the sites from 

natural and cultural (visitation) processes. 

In addition, the monument would update 

and expand the content of interpretive 

programs to encompass local and regional 

cultural resources with new information 

gained from the additional research 

programs. This information would also be 

used to update museum exhibits and 

displays. Preservation and stabilization 

activities would continue to include formal 

consultation with Native American groups 

associated with the monument. The 

additional staff would provide increased 

protection of the cliff dwellings by 

monitoring and educating visitors at these 

sites. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

To mitigate any potential future impacts to 

archeological sites in Alternatives B, C, 

and D, the monument would continue to 

work with their professional advisors 

within the National Park Service, as well as 

seeking input from tribes and the State 

Historic Preservation Office. Cultural 

resource information would be 

incorporated into planning and project 

decision-making. Should any cultural 

resources be impacted by future 

development the monument would 

continue to follow policies and regulatory 

requirements under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, the Archeological 

Resource Protection Act, and other 

historic preservation statutes and 

regulations. The monument would 

maintain close contact with agency, state, 

and Native American advisors to ensure 

that policy and regulatory requirements 

are met and archeological sites within the 

monument are protected. 

Cultural Resources—Cliff 

Dwelling Environment 

Existing Conditions 

Throughout the American southwest 

alcoves or rock shelters provide diverse 

habitats or microenvironments for an 

array of plants, animals, and in the past, 

human activities. Depending upon aspect, 

surrounding landscape, presence or 

absence of water, character of rock 

surfaces, floor sediments, and overall 

morphology any given alcove may be 

either an oasis or nothing more than a 

small sheltered ledge on a cliff face. Within 

the monument both types of alcoves occur 

in abundance, however only fifteen 

distinct shelters exhibit evidence of past 

human modification through construction 

of buildings, delineation and use of open 

space, and modification of alcove 

environments. These fifteen sites preserve 

a particularly unique record of prehistoric 

settlement and adaptation in the Tonto 

Basin. 

The same characteristics that attracted 

human settlement to the rock shelters also 

encourage a unique assemblage of insects, 

birds, rodents, and distinctive plants. In 

combination, the interaction of fauna and 

flora with the dynamic character of rock 

shelters – most noticeably in terms of rock 

stability and hydrology – produces a 

microenvironment that gives the outward 

appearance of stability while steadily 

transforming through time. Despite the 

often-remarkable preservation of 

archeological resources in rock shelters, it 

is the dynamic nature of these 

microenvironments that inherently affects 

buildings, artifacts, and the residue of 

human life in adverse ways. These factors 

require consistent monitoring, judicious 

preservation treatments, and mitigation 

through effective implementation of an 

integrated pest management program. 

Balancing the need to preserve both the 
CULTURAL RESOURCES 

81 

rich cultural and natural heritage of these 

rock shelters presents one of the most 

compelling challenges facing resource 

managers at Tonto National Monument. 

Although little information is presently 

available, future inventory of biological 

components as well as physical processes 

should enhance appreciation and 

management of the cliff dwelling 

environment. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under Alternative A, no new development 

would occur to impact the cliff dwelling 

environment. Limited levels of 

stabilization would continue to preserve 

the cliff dwellings. However, 

environmental, geological, hydrological, 

and cultural processes would compromise 

the structural integrity of the cliff 

dwellings because the effects of these 

processes would not be properly 

documented and the rate and 

deterioration of the cliff dwellings would 

not be assessed and mitigated. Impacts to 

the cliff dwellings from visitor use would 

not be monitored and appropriate levels of 

carrying capacity would not be 

determined. Insufficient protection of the 

cliff dwellings from these natural and 

cultural processes would occur without 

adequate staff. 

Impacts of Alternatives B, C, and D - 

NPS Preferred 

Under the three action alternatives, no 

new development would occur to impact 

the cliff dwelling environment. The 

implementation of a plan to assess the 

effects from environmental, geological, 

hydrological, and cultural processes on the 

cliff dwellings would result in an 

integrated preservation program. The rock 

alcove ecology would be better 

understood. More staff and improved 

stabilization treatment instituted on an 

annual recurring basis would further 

preserve the cliff dwellings. Impacts to the 

cliff dwellings from existing and increased 

levels of visitor use would decrease once 

appropriate carrying capacity levels are 

determined and implemented. Additional 

staff and installation of security systems 

would further protect the cliff dwellings. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

To mitigate any potential future impacts to 

the cliff dwellings, the monument would 

continue to work with their professional 

advisors in the National Park Service, as 

well as seeking input from tribes and the 

State Historic Preservation Office. 

Cultural resource information would be 

incorporated into planning and project 

decision-making. Should the cliff 

dwellings be impacted by future 

development the monument would 

continue to follow policies and regulatory 

requirements under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, the Archeological 

Resource Protection Act, and other 

historic preservation statutes and 

regulations. The monument would 

maintain close contact with agency, state, 

and Native American advisors to ensure 

that policy and regulatory requirements 

are met and the cliff dwellings are 

protected. 

Cultural Resources— 

Landscapes 

Existing Conditions 

A cultural landscape is a geographic area 

that may exhibit modification and use by 

communities varying in size, complexity, 

and character. However, cultural 

landscapes do not have to exhibit any 

human modifications or evidence or use. 

They can appear natural and their values 

can derive from uses that do not involve 

physical manipulations. These landscapes, 

often portraying long evolutionary 

histories, may reflect, a) locales associated 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

82

with specific historic events, activities or 

persons, b) intentional design according to 

the principles and stylistic convention of 

landscape architecture, c) settlement 

organization, architecture, land use, and 

patterns of movement that illuminate the 

history and culture of small to large 

communities, and d) natural and cultural 

resources that associated communities 

identify as having significant meaning. The 

National Park Service’s cultural landscape 

program identifies and preserves a 

landscape’s physical attributes, biotic 

systems, and use when that use contributes 

to its historical significance. The Cultural 

Landscape Inventory (CLI) - designed to 

identify cultural landscapes and record 

information on their location, historical 

development, character-defining features, 

and management – provides a basic 

automated inventory of cultural 

landscapes within a park. The Cultural 

Landscape Report provides an in-depth 

view of a cultural landscape through 

documentation, analysis, and evaluation of 

all components of a landscape and 

presents recommendations for long term 

preservation and management. 

Neither a cultural landscape inventory nor 

report has been completed for the 

monument. Potentially significant cultural 

landscapes associated with the Salado 

culture, Apachean groups, Spanish and 

later Mexican expeditions, Euroamerican 

ranching efforts, and large-scale 20th

century development are evident in 

physical remains, heavily modified 

locations, literary accounts, and 

traditional oral histories. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

No new development would occur to 

impact cultural landscapes. The lack of 

information on the monument’s cultural 

landscapes would limit their proper 

management. Cultural landscape 

information would not be available for 

interpretive programs. All existing 

structures would continue to be visible, 

non-historic elements within the cultural 

landscape. However, it would be entirely 

impossible to remove existing modern-day 

development such as the monument’s 

infrastructure, electrical transmission 

towers and lines, State Route 188, and 

Roosevelt Lake and associated facilities 

from view of the cliff dwellings. 

Monument staff would continue to work 

with adjacent landowners to minimize 

future external modern-day intrusions 

from the monument’s cultural viewsheds. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

The completion of the cultural landscape 

inventory and report would provide 

management with an integrated view of the 

cultural and natural setting to protect the 

cultural landscape. However, the 

construction of the new 

visitor/administrative facility, associated 

parking area, and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence within the 

monument would introduce more nonhistoric elements onto the cultural 

landscape. Vehicles parked by the visitor 

center and visitor and staff use of the new 

facility would also be visible. Increased 

monument staff would work with adjacent 

landowners to minimize future external 

modern-day intrusions from the 

monument’s cultural viewsheds. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

Impacts to the cultural landscapes would 

be substantially less than those listed 

under Alternative B with the new 

visitor/administrative facility located 

outside the monument. Only the 

additional residence would impact the 

cultural landscape by introducing more 

non-historic elements. 
CULTURAL RESOURCES 

83 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impacts to the cultural landscapes would 

be slightly less than those listed under 

Alternative B. The new administrative 

facility, ATS staging area, and additional 

residence would impact the cultural 

landscape by introducing more nonhistoric elements. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Cultural resource 

information would be incorporated into 

planning and project decision-making. 

Design modifications would reduce 

impacts to the cultural landscape. The size, 

configuration, and location of the new 

facilities would be selected to reduce 

intrusion on cultural landscapes. Newly 

developed areas would blend in with the 

cultural landscape as much as possible 

using color, topography, and native plants 

for screening. Pending the completion of a 

cultural landscape inventory and report, 

any modifications made to existing 

structures would not impact the integrity 

of contributing or potentially contributing 

landscape elements. 

Cultural Resources—Historic 

Structures—List of Classified 

Structures and Mission 66 

Existing Conditions 

The monument was completely surveyed 

for significant standing-wall structures in 

1985 as part of an overall archeological 

evaluation. As a result, six archeological 

sites were identified and placed on the List 

of Classified Structures (LCS). These six 

structures consist of the upper and lower 

cliff dwellings, three smaller rock shelters, 

and one surface structure. The 1993 LCS 

report listed half of these structures in 

good condition and the other half in fair 

condition. Over the last sixty or so years, 

the upper and lower cliff dwellings have 

undergone various stabilization efforts. 

Both natural and cultural agents of 

deterioration are present. Natural agents 

causing decay include weathering, wildlife, 

and vegetation. Cultural impacts occur 

from visitors and historical pot hunting. 

The four smaller structures are monitored 

and encroaching vegetation is periodically 

removed. 

In 1955 National Park Service Director 

Conrad Wirth embarked upon the 

Service’s largest park improvement plan in 

an effort to address visitation pressures 

and the advent of the Service’s fiftieth 

anniversary in 1966. The “Mission 66” 

program resulted in a variety of 

construction and improvement programs 

including the erection of a variety of new 

“visitor centers.” According to 

Architectural Historian Christine Madrid, 

the concept of the “visitor center” did not 

exist in the National Park Service prior to 

Mission 66 despite its use in corporate and 

other government sectors. She writes, 

“Park Service planners, architects, and 

landscape architects devised the concept 

to incorporate visitor facilities, 

interpretive programs, and administrative 

offices in one structure.” 

Mission 66 visitor centers differed from 

their Civilian Conservation Corps 

predecessors in several aspects. For one, 

they were intended to be distinctive 

architectural expressions of the modern 

movement rather than the popular “rusticstyle” of the 1930’s. Secondly, the visitor 

centers were sited prominently and 

intentionally placed near park features for 

the benefit of resource interpretation. And 

third, the visitor centers were intended to 

address both visitor and park 

administrative needs. Twelve Mission 66 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

84

visitor centers are located in national park 

units in Arizona. 

The monument’s existing visitor center 

was one of fifty visitor centers designed by 

Cecil Doty during the National Park 

Service’s “Mission 66” construction 

program. The siting of the building 

appears to be significant in that it is 

situated prominently in relation to the cliff 

dwellings, for which it serves as a gateway, 

and to the valley below, for which it frames 

a commanding view. No assessment has 

been made of the architectural qualities 

and features that convey the visitor 

center’s historical significance. However, 

because of its architect and its siting in 

relationship to the primary resources, this 

building meets criteria for nomination to 

the National Register of Historic Places. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

No new development or modifications 

would occur to impact historic structures. 

No adverse impacts would occur to the 

existing visitor center, which would be 

maintained to support current activities. 

However, irreversible changes would 

occur to the archeological sites on the List 

of Classified Structures without proper 

documentation, procedures, management, 

and protection. Structure integrity would 

remain unevaluated and compromised 

without the information and staff levels 

needed to document and preserve the 

structures. The structures would naturally 

deteriorate over time. Insufficient 

protection of the classified structures 

would occur without adequate staff. 

Current research information about 

historic structures would not be available 

to augment interpretive programs and 

museum exhibits. 

Impacts of Alternatives B, C, and D - 

NPS Preferred 

In Alternatives B, C, and D, the existing 

visitor center would be remodeled thereby 

impacting the assumed to be eligible 

building. As noted under existing 

conditions above, the placement and 

exterior design are the building’s 

qualifying features for nomination to the 

national register. All remodeling plans 

would be limited in design so as not to 

alter these important features. Any 

changes proposed for the interior of the 

building would respect the original design 

intent and building footprint. Both 

exterior and interior character defining 

features and treatments would be retained. 

Construction of buildings, parking lots, 

and trails would not impact archeological 

sites on the List of Classified Structures as 

each alternative is designed to avoid all 

cultural resources within the monument. 

Future cultural resource management 

programs would improve stabilization and 

preservation of the cliff dwellings. These 

programs would include additional 

research and study of stabilization 

procedures and impacts to the sites from 

natural and cultural (visitation) processes. 

Preservation and stabilization activities 

would continue to include formal 

consultation with Native American groups 

associated with the monument. 

In addition, the monument would update 

and expand the content of interpretive 

programs to encompass local and regional 

cultural resources with new information 

gained from the additional research 

programs. This information would also be 

used to update museum exhibits and 

displays. Additional staff would provide 

increased protection of the structures by 

monitoring and educating visitors at these 

sites. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Only the interior of the visitor center 

would be changed. No modifications 

would occur to the exterior of the building 

or its setting in relation to the cliff 

dwellings. To mitigate any potential future 
CULTURAL RESOURCES 

85 

impacts to historic structures, the 

monument would continue to work with 

their professional advisors in the National 

Park Service, as well as seeking input from 

tribes and the State Historic Preservation 

Office. Cultural resource information 

would be incorporated into planning and 

project decision-making. Should any 

cultural resources be impacted by future 

development or remodeling the 

monument would continue to follow 

policies and regulatory requirements 

under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 

the Archeological Resource Protection 

Act, and other historic preservation 

statutes and regulations. The monument 

would maintain close contact with their 

professional, Native American, and public 

advisors to ensure that policy and 

regulatory requirements are met and the 

historic structures are protected. All work 

would meet the Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards of Rehabilitation and any other 

constraints mandated by Director’s Order28, Cultural Resource Management. 

Cultural Resources— 

Ethnography 

Existing Conditions 

Ethnographic resources are defined as 

park resources that have traditional 

subsistence, sacred ceremonial or 

religious, residential, or other cultural 

meaning for members of contemporary 

park-associated ethnic groups, including 

American Indians. Ethnographic 

resources may include museum objects, 

archeological sites, historic structures, 

landscape features, sacred areas, flora and 

fauna, minerals, and bodies of water. Even 

though contemporary tribes presently do 

not use monument resources, the history 

and presence of several tribes in the area 

indicate a potential for having 

ethnographic resources within the 

monument. 

The only research-based information the 

monument has regarding associations of 

contemporary communities with 

monument resources is derived from a 

cultural affiliation study conducted for 

Casa Grande National Monument. That 

study (Stoffle, 1995) concluded that Salado 

archeological resources, such as those 

preserved at the monument, are associated 

with the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Gila 

River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe, Salt 

River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 

Tohono O’Odham Nation, and Zuni 

Pueblo. Other tribes and communities may 

also have affiliations with the monument. 

For example, Apache brownware ceramics 

found in the monument indicate an 

Apache presence in post-contact times. 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe has a 

particular interest in the monument’s ruin 

stabilization program as a potential 

partnership and source of training for 

tribal members involved in stabilizing a 

similar site on the Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation. Therefore, the San Carlos 

Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai Apache 

Tribe, and Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe 

may also have interests in and/or 

affiliations with the monument. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Adverse impacts would be unknown 

without a completed ethnographic survey 

and assessment. However, no new 

development would occur to impact 

potential ethnographic resources. 

Impacts of Alternatives B, C, and D - 

NPS Preferred 

Having a completed ethnographic study as 

well as increased tribal participation 

would provide park managers with the 

information needed to improve 

management of ethnographic resources. A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

86

completed ethnographic study would 

enable the monument to present a more 

accurate and complete story of all people 

who occupied Tonto National Monument 

and the rest of Tonto Basin. However, 

additional developments would have the 

potential to impact ethnographic 

resources. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

All future planning requiring National 

Historic Preservation Act’s Section 106 

clearance would include opportunities for 

review and input by the above-mentioned 

tribal governments. Cultural resource 

information would be incorporated into 

planning and project decision-making. 

Natural Resources—

Topography, Geology, and Soils 

Existing Conditions 

Tonto National Monument is located on 

the southern edge of Tonto Basin, one of a 

series of large intermontane basins in east 

central Arizona. Geologically, this section 

of Arizona has been labeled the Central 

Highlands transition zone, separating the 

Colorado Plateau to the north and east and 

the Basin and Range Desert to the south 

and west (Chronic, 1983). This area is 

considered one of the most rugged terrains 

in the state. The monument’s elevations 

range from 2,300 to 4,000 feet in the 

eastern foothills of the Mazatzal 

Mountains. 

The exposed mountains are principally 

sedimentary rocks of the Apache group 

and the Gila conglomerate (Raup, 1959). 

Rocks of the Apache group consist of 

ocean floor sediments that were deposited 

a little more than a billion years ago during 

Precambrian time. The highest layer, 

composed mainly of dolomite, caps most 

of the ridgetops in the monument. The 

rock alcoves that house the cliff dwellings 

are located in a layer consisting primarily 

of thinly laminated siltstone. A process 

known as spalling, the breaking loose of 

the thin layers of siltstone, which then fall 

from the ceiling, formed the caves. The 

oldest layer, a dark red siltstone, can be 

seen below the visitor center in Cholla 

Canyon. This siltstone breaks into thin 

layers that were fashioned into weapons 

and tools by the Salado. After the Apache 

group was deposited, it was intruded by 

diabase, which is similar to basalt but has a 

higher iron and magnesium content. 

Diabase weathers into greenish colored 

soil and can be seen east of the visitor 

center across the canyon. 

The Gila conglomerate is much younger 

and was deposited between one-half to 15 

million years ago after many geologic 

events had affected the older rocks of the 

Apache group. Gravel, clay, and silica 

were cemented together to form the 

distinctive Gila conglomerate rock unit. 

Uplifting left parts of the Gila 

conglomerate high on the slopes as can be 

seen on the cliff face at the lower cliff 

dwelling. 

The youngest material at the monument is 

rock debris, or talus, that is eroding from 

the higher cliffs and accumulates as veneer 

on the slopes and fill on the valley floor. 

This debris is composed of angular rock 

fragments, ranging in size from sand grains 

to boulders several feet in diameter. 

Deposits on the lower slopes are called 

bajadas or alluvial fans and are frequently 

cut by intermittent stream channels. 

The present soil forming process began 

about 10,000 years ago at the end of the 

Pleistocene following a climate change to 

increased aridity. The soils occur in an 

orderly pattern related to the geology, 

landforms, climate, and natural vegetation. 

The soils are products of an arid to 

semiarid climate. Lack of water hinders 

decomposition of parent rock into soil 

building material. Organic matter and its 
NATURAL RESOURCES 

87 

conversion into humus are reduced due to 

the sparse plant cover. Sheet flooding and 

flash flooding, which carries large volumes 

of soil and rock, accompany intense 

summer rainstorms. These factors result in 

slow soil formation and minimal horizon 

development. 

A description of the monument soils, their 

location, and a discussion of the suitability, 

limitations, and management for specified 

uses was prepared in 1994 (Lindsey et al.). 

Soil scientists identified soils by color, 

texture, size and shape of aggregates, kind 

and amount of rock fragments, 

distribution of plant roots, and other 

features. Eleven different soil types were 

found in the monument. All soil types are 

well-drained loam, sand, or clay mixtures 

combined with gravel or cobble. Soil 

depths vary from shallow to very deep, 

which is indicative of their locations on the 

two- to ninety-percent slopes. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

development would occur to affect 

undisturbed areas and change the 

topography as presently viewed. However, 

the impacts to soils and geology would be 

mostly unknown due to the limited 

information and staff available to properly 

manage the resources. Accurate and 

current information would not be 

available to use in interpretive programs. 

Soil compaction, erosion, loss of soil 

permeability, changes in soil chemistry, 

and loss in soil insulation would still 

continue in areas of existing visitor and 

administrative use such as the upper and 

lower cliff dwellings, the upper cliff 

dwelling trail, visitor center, and the 

picnic, residential, and maintenance areas. 

The lack of adequate staff would not be 

able to successfully mitigate soil 

compaction in these areas. Trespass 

grazing would continue to compact soils in 

areas not protected by a boundary fence 

and those areas outside but immediately 

adjacent to the monument boundary. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Expanded information about the soil and 

geological resources of the monument 

would be obtained providing the 

knowledge necessary to properly manage 

the resources and to monitor and mitigate 

impacts. This information would also be 

used to augment interpretive programs. 

Soils would still be impacted from new 

development in the Lowlands ROA. Future 

construction activity would remove about 

seven acres of soil and destroy soil 

structure. During construction activities, 

soil would temporarily undergo rapid 

erosion from wind and occasional 

monsoon storms. Afterward, the soil 

would be protected and preserved when 

drainage structures are in place and 

vegetation restored. Impacts to soil would 

still continue at existing and future visitor 

and administrative use areas, but all 

impacted areas would be mitigated. The 

additional interpretive programs 

presented would also increase impacts to 

the upper and lower cliff dwellings and 

upper cliff dwelling trail. Soils would be 

protected from trespass grazing in 

additional areas once an accurately placed 

boundary fence is constructed. Soils and 

geology in the Restricted ROA would not 

be affected. The topography as presently 

viewed would remain unchanged. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that 

substantially less soil and geology would be 

disturbed with the placement of the new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument boundary. Impacts would still 

occur to one acre of soil and geology from 

constructing a new seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

88

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that less soil 

and geology would be disturbed without 

the construction of a new visitor center. 

Two acres of land would still be disturbed 

to build the administrative facility, 

seasonal employee/volunteer residence, 

and ATS staging area inside the 

monument. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Mitigation of impacts would 

include design modifications to reduce 

erosion. The placement of future 

development would be selected based on 

compatibility with soils and geology. 

Carefully designed and landscaped areas 

would minimize impacts to soil. Hardened 

surfaces would be built for use around new 

facilities. Additional staff levels would 

conduct careful and continuous 

monitoring to measure impacts and 

rehabilitate areas impacted by visitor and 

employee use. Mitigation measures would 

also include interpretive contacts with 

visitors to encourage them to stay on 

designated trails and walkways. 

Natural Resources—Vegetation 

Existing Conditions 

Tonto National Monument lies near the 

northeastern edge of the Sonoran Desert. 

Five different plant communities are 

represented in the monument reflecting 

the diversity of the setting between the 

Mazatzal Mountains and the Salt River 

valley. The monument’s plant species were 

first listed by Strong and Burgess in the 

1960s and resurveyed by Brian in 1991. 

Further research resulted in a 

comprehensive description of the five 

plant communities and listed 297 species as 

the result of a partial survey (Jenkins et al., 

1991). The largest families are Compositae 

with 48 species and Gramineae with 36 

species. A total of 28 nonnative species 

were identified. 

The five plant communities can be 

described as follows: 

• Much of the monument is covered 

with typical Sonoran Desert Scrub 

vegetation consisting of a mixture of 

succulent cactus, flowers, and 

chaparral shrubs and trees. Jojoba, 

paloverde, mesquite, tomatillo, 

snakeweed, cholla, prickly pear, and 

saguaro dominate the mid- to lower 

slopes. 

• On the higher slopes to the ridgetops, 

the vegetation transitions from 

Sonoran Desert Scrub to Semidesert 

Grassland represented by saguaro, 

cholla, sotol, agave, globe mallow, 

snakeweed, jojoba and various 

grasses. 

• The vegetation on the high slopes 

varies markedly between the 

northwest and southeast slopes. The 

Interior Chaparral community is found 

on the north-facing slopes with 

mountain mahogany as the 

characteristic specie. 

• The vegetation becomes dense and 

tall enough in the larger canyon 

bottoms and washes where sufficient 

water is available to form the Desert 

Riparian Scrub composed mainly of 

jojoba, mesquite, and catclaw acacia. 

• The permanent spring in Cave Canyon 

supports a small Interior 

Southwestern Riparian Deciduous 

Forest dominated by netleaf 

hackberry and Arizona sycamore, ash, 

and walnut. 

Past human activities have impacted the 

native vegetation. Prehistoric subsistence 

strategies undoubtedly modified the native 
NATURAL RESOURCES 

89 

vegetation through manipulation of the 

landscape (e.g. field clearing or selective 

management of desired plants) and the 

introduction of various cultigens along 

with their associated weed species. 

Grazing occurred throughout the 

monument until boundary fencing 

excluded the activity in 1981. Several 

wildfires burned repeatedly over some 

sites, reducing tree, shrub, and cacti cover. 

Construction of state route 188 and park 

development has cleared land for roads, 

trails, and buildings. These activities have 

allowed nonnative vegetation to spread 

within the monument and possibly 

converted native grasses to a shrub cover 

at lower elevations. A listing of non-native 

plants within the monument was prepared 

in 1992 (Phillips). 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

development would occur to disturb 

vegetation. But because sufficient staff is 

not available to routinely read and record 

monitoring plots, changes in vegetation 

would not be assessed and managed, if 

needed. Accurate and current information 

would not be available to use in 

interpretive programs. The existing 

limited staff would not be able to control 

all nonnative plants that diminish native 

vegetation communities. Disturbed areas 

around visitor and administrative use areas 

would continue to impact native plants 

and would only be restored when possible. 

Trespass grazing would continue to 

trample native vegetation and contribute 

to the spread of nonnative plants in areas 

not protected by an accurately constructed 

boundary fence. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

The increased staff levels would routinely 

monitor vegetation plots thereby 

providing the information needed to 

document changes and support proper 

management decisions. Vegetation 

communities would be better understood 

and documented including effects from 

past and potential future fires. This 

information would also be used to 

augment interpretive programs. 

Additional staff would control and/or 

eliminate nonnative species to reduce 

impacts on native plant communities. 

Restoring native plants in disturbed areas 

would minimize impacts from visitor and 

administrative uses. Trespass grazing 

would be removed from the monument 

eliminating damage to vegetation with the 

construction of an accurately placed 

boundary fence. Increased interpretive 

programming would include educating 

visitors about the negative impacts from 

nonnative plants on the natural Sonoran 

desert ecosystem. 

Impacts to vegetation are related to those 

described for soils. The construction of 

additional facilities in the Lowlands ROA 

would impact about seven acres of 

vegetation. Non-native plants that invade 

disturbed areas would become more 

common. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that 

significantly less vegetation would be 

affected with the placement of the new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument. Building a new seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence would still 

impact one acre of vegetation. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that somewhat 

less vegetation would be affected without 

the construction of a new visitor center. 

Vegetation on two acres of land would still 

be impacted from constructing an 

administrative facility, seasonal 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

90

employee/volunteer residence, and ATS 

staging area. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

reduce damage to vegetation. Prior to 

construction, existing plants would be 

removed and transplanted elsewhere or 

saved for later rehabilitation, if possible. 

Newly developed areas would be replanted 

with native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Careful and continuous monitoring would 

measure, record, and mitigate impacts to 

vegetation. Mitigation measures would 

also include interpretive contacts with 

visitors to encourage them to stay on 

designated trails and walkways. 

Natural Resources—Wildlife 

Existing Conditions 

The diversity of the natural environment 

provides habitat for a variety of wildlife. 

Terrestrial invertebrates were identified 

and documented in 1995 (Price and 

Fondriest), terrestrial vertebrates in 1996 

(Swann et. al.), and birds in 1999 (Hiett and 

Halvorson). 

Invertebrates – Terrestrial invertebrates 

(insects and arachnids) are among the 

largest groups of wildlife in the world, 

comprising greater than 50% of all known 

species and are essential components of all 

terrestrial ecosystems. However, scientists 

have described a relatively low percentage 

of these species. A yearlong survey 

documented the relative diversity of 

terrestrial invertebrates in the monument. 

Species diversity is high; over 340 species 

were identified. Additional research could 

raise this number to well over 1,000 

species. 

Vertebrates - A variety of techniques were 

used to detect the presence and absence of 

mammals, reptiles, and amphibians due to 

their diverse lifestyles, including nocturnal 

and underground habits. Twenty-six 

species of terrestrial mammals, thirty-two 

species of reptiles, and six species of 

amphibians were confirmed during this 

study. A number of these species were 

observed in Cave Canyon’s permanent 

spring area and not in any other location in 

the monument. The most common 

mammals are ground squirrels, ringtails, 

coyotes, skunks, whitetail deer, mice, 

desert cottontails, and collared peccary. A 

comprehensive survey of bats was not 

conducted. Bats were seen exiting both 

cliff dwellings on several occasions and 

roosts were located high above both caves. 

Six species of bats have been collected on 

several occasions in the past. Half of the 

thirty-two species of reptiles consisted of 

lizards and the other half were snakes. The 

six species of amphibians consisted of four 

toads and two frogs. 

Birds - A survey was conducted from 1992 

to 1995 to inventory bird species within the 

monument. Records were made during the 

February to July breeding season as well as 

during the fall and winter months. A field 

checklist was prepared listing the presence 

or absence, seasonal status, and 

abundance of individual species based on 

historic records and observations, current 

literature, and monitoring information 

collected during the study. This checklist 

lists a total of 165 different bird species. 

Some birds, such as nocturnal species, 

birds that primarily use cliff areas, or large 

birds that occur in low numbers, were 

difficult to survey accurately. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

development would occur to destroy 

wildlife habitat. But because there would 

be insufficient staff to read and record 
NATURAL RESOURCES 

91 

monitoring plots, changes in wildlife 

species and populations would not be 

assessed. This lack of necessary 

information to better manage the wildlife 

would result in unknown effects. Accurate 

and up-to-date information would not be 

available to augment interpretive 

programs. Poaching activities would occur 

without sufficient law enforcement 

personnel. Less wildlife habitat would be 

protected without a legal boundary fence. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

The increased staff levels would routinely 

monitor wildlife plots thereby providing 

the information needed to document 

changes and support better management 

decisions. Wildlife ecology would be better 

understood and documented. This 

information would also be used to 

augment interpretive programs. Resource 

management activities would improve 

management of wildlife species by 

restoring habitat, if needed. Additional law 

enforcement staff would reduce poaching 

incidents. More wildlife would be 

protected with the construction of 

accurate boundary fences and by building 

these fences to accommodate safe wildlife 

crossings. 

The construction of new facilities in the 

Lowlands ROA would alter about seven 

acres of wildlife habitat. During the 

construction there would be a temporary 

disturbance and displacement of wildlife. 

The surrounding land, however, would 

continue to provide abundant nesting, 

escape, and protective cover. Some small 

animals may be killed or forced to relocate 

to areas outside the project area, but this 

would not be expected to have any longterm effect upon local populations. 

Wildlife would be expected to move to 

revegetated areas following construction. 

The long-term use of these facilities by 

visitors and staff would also disrupt 

normal wildlife habits and movement 

patterns in the vicinity of the new 

buildings. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that 

substantially less wildlife habitat would be 

altered and day-to-day wildlife movement 

and habits would not be disrupted with the 

placement of the new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument boundary. Constructing a new 

seasonal employee/volunteer residence 

would still affect one acre of wildlife 

habitat. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that less 

wildlife habitat would be altered without 

the construction of a new visitor center in 

the lowlands. Two acres of wildlife habitat 

would still be affected from constructing 

the administrative facility, seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence, and ATS 

staging area. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

reduce damage to wildlife habitat. Newly 

developed areas would be replanted with 

native grasses and plants. New facilities 

would be located near existing developed 

areas to reduce impacts. 

Natural Resources—Threatened 

and Endangered Species 

Existing Conditions 

A systematic survey to identify, record, 

and locate threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species has not been conducted 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

92

in the monument. Of special concern are 

federally listed species that require 

protection under the Endangered Species 

Act and its amendments as well as state 

protected species. The threatened, 

endangered, and candidate species that 

have been documented within Gila County 

are the Arizona agave, Arizona hedgehog 

cactus, Arizona bugbane, bald eagle, cactus 

ferruginous pygmy owl, Mexican spotted 

owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, 

Chiricahua leopard frog, and seven fish 

species (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1999). 

Of these fifteen species, only the bald eagle 

and the Mexican spotted owl have been 

documented in the monument. The bald 

eagle is an uncommon resident throughout 

the year and has been seen soaring 

overhead. No bald eagle nest or perching 

areas have been reported in the 

monument. The Mexican spotted owl is a 

rare transient passing through the 

monument during the winter months 

(Hiett and Halvorson, 1999) and has been 

seen in the riparian area. 

The Arizona agave occurs at elevations 

between 3,000 to 6,000 feet on steep rocky 

slopes in the transition zone between oakjuniper woodlands and mountain 

mahogany-oak scrub. The Arizona 

hedgehog cactus is found between 3,700 

and 5,200 feet in interior chapparal and 

madrean evergreen woodlands. The 

Arizona bugbane grows on rich, fertile 

soils high in humus content, under deep 

shade, from 5,300 to 7,000 feet, in 

coniferous and riparian ecotones. The 

cactus ferruginous pygmy owl primarily 

ranges from New River (north) to Gila Box 

(east) to Cabeza Prieta Mountains (west). 

Critical habitat has been designated for the 

owl in Pima, Cochise, Pinal, and Maricopa 

counties. Southwestern willow flycatcher 

habitat consists of cottonwood, willow, 

and tamarisk vegetation communities 

along perennial rivers and streams. None 

of these habitats are found in the 

monument. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

development would occur to alter 

threatened and endangered species 

habitat. But because of the lack of a 

complete survey, locations and changes in 

species and populations would not be 

known. This lack of necessary information 

would result in unknown impacts to listed 

species. Accurate and current information 

would not be available for use in 

interpretive programs. 

Impacts of Alternatives B, C, and D - 

NPS Preferred 

A threatened and endangered species 

inventory would be completed. The 

increased staff would routinely monitor 

plots thereby providing the information 

needed to document species’ locations and 

changes to better support management 

decisions. Threatened and endangered 

species ecology would be better 

understood and documented. Resource 

management activities would improve 

management of threatened and 

endangered species by restoring species 

and habitat, if needed. Increased 

interpretive programming would include 

educating visitors about the need to 

protect threatened and endangered species 

and habitat from extinction. 

The construction of new facilities in the 

Lowlands ROA would not affect the above 

listed threatened and endangered species. 

The only listed species documented in the 

monument are the bald eagle and Mexican 

spotted owl. The bald eagle’s habitat 

primarily consists of large trees or cliffs 

near open water with abundant prey. The 

Mexican spotted owl generally nests in 

canyons of older forests of mixed conifer 

or ponderosa pine/gambel oak. Neither of 

these habitats is found in the Lowlands 
NATURAL RESOURCES 

93 

ROA. The cactus ferruginous pygmy owl 

nests in cavities in large saguaros, 

mesquites, and palo verde trees with 

diameters greater than six inches. No 

saguaros or large trees suitable for nesting 

would be destroyed in the Lowlands ROA. 

A 2001 survey (Benson) for Mexican 

spotted and cactus ferruginous pygmy 

owls found no owls. Habitat for the other 

listed species is not found in the park. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Site planning, done at the time of the 

proposed action, would further document 

any potential effects on threatened and 

endangered species. New development 

would not be constructed near threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species and 

habitats. Consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service would continue for all 

projects that could have potential impact 

on listed species. 

Natural Resources—Water 

Resources, Wetlands, 

Floodplains 

Existing Conditions 

Tonto National Monument’s annual 

precipitation averages about 15 inches. 

Moisture is received in two distinct rainy 

seasons, during the summer months and 

again in late winter to early spring. Locally 

heavy monsoon thunderstorms or longerlasting widespread frontal systems can 

cause sheet flooding or flash flooding. The 

latter rearranges the configuration of the 

monument’s drainages and creates 

temporary water-filled floodplains. Snow 

occasionally falls in January, but rarely 

remains on the ground for more than a day 

or two (Burgess, 1965). 

The watershed of the monument consists 

of a number of tributary drainages that 

start in or just outside the boundary and 

drain north towards Roosevelt Lake. 

Surface water flow is limited to spring 

discharges and intermittent stream flows 

following cloudbursts or extended periods 

of steady rainfall. No perennial streams or 

rivers exist in the monument’s arid terrain; 

however, a perennial spring occurs in the 

Cave Canyon riparian zone. This riparian 

area has been designated a wetland by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s national 

wetlands inventory. Intermittent springs 

and seeps may exist in other drainages and 

washes in the Lowlands ROA. 

Roosevelt Dam was constructed from 1903 

to 1911 and enlarged in 1996 to safely absorb 

flood flows from Tonto Creek and the Salt 

River and to control the release of water 

downstream. At an elevation of 2,300 feet, 

all land within the monument is located 

above Roosevelt Lake’s storage level and 

associated floodplain. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

development would occur to adversely 

impact wetlands or floodplains. Demand 

on groundwater resources would continue 

to fluctuate according to visitation totals. 

But because of the lack of hydrological 

information to assess water use and its 

effects, impacts to ground water sources 

and the riparian area would not be known. 

Current and alternative water sources 

would not be identified. Sufficient staff 

would not be available to read wildlife and 

vegetation monitoring plots to assess 

changes in the riparian area from visitor 

use on the upper cliff dwelling trail, 

demands on groundwater resources, and 

upstream activities occurring on U.S. 

Forest Service land. This lack of necessary 

information would result in unknown 

impacts on the riparian area. Accurate and 

current information on the riparian area 

would not be available to use in 

interpretive programs. Existing 

partnerships would work to reduce 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

94

impacts from outside activities on the 

riparian area. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

A completed inventory of ground water 

sources and a study of the geohydrology of 

the watershed would support better 

management decisions. The increased staff 

would routinely monitor wildlife and 

vegetation plots thereby providing the 

information needed to document species’ 

locations and changes and better manage 

the riparian area. Impacts from trail users 

in the riparian area would be assessed and 

controlled or reduced. Expanded 

partnerships with adjacent landowner 

agencies would work to reduce impacts 

from outside activities on the riparian 

area. Increased interpretive programming 

would include educating visitors about the 

importance of and need to protect riparian 

areas in the arid Sonoran desert 

ecosystem. 

No new development would be 

constructed in the riparian area or 

floodplains. However, the additional 

facilities constructed in the lowlands 

would increase human water use and 

impact groundwater resources and the 

riparian area by reducing the amount of 

the existing water table. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that 

significantly less groundwater would be 

consumed within the monument with 

placement of the new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

park. Water use would still increase over 

the no-action alternative because of the 

addition of a seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that slightly 

less groundwater from the monument 

would be consumed without construction 

of a new visitor center in the lowlands. 

Water use would still increase over the noaction alternative because of the addition 

of the administrative facility and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Site planning, done at the time of the 

proposed action, would further document 

any potential effects on ground water 

sources. New development would not be 

constructed in the wetland or floodplains. 

Consultation with the Army Corps of 

Engineers would continue for all projects 

that could have potential impacts on 

wetlands or floodplains. 

Natural Resources—Air Quality 

Existing Conditions 

Tonto National Monument is classified as 

a Class II Air Quality area. A Class II 

designation indicates the maximum 

allowable increase in concentrations of 

pollutants over baseline concentrations of 

sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, as 

specified in the 1963 Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq). Further, the Clean Air 

Act provides that the federal land manager 

has an affirmative responsibility to protect 

air quality related values (including 

visibility, plants, animals, soils, water 

quality, cultural resources, and public 

health) from adverse pollution impacts. 

Low population levels and the lack of large 

industries in Tonto Basin have generally 

meant high standards of air quality and 

good visibility. However, poor air quality 

occurs significantly on a seasonal basis 

when extensive prescribed burning is 
NATURAL RESOURCES 

95 

conducted on U.S. Forest Service and 

tribal lands. In addition, air quality may be 

lessened by air pollution from the large 

urban areas of Phoenix and Tucson, as 

well as from area copper mines (smelter 

emissions and tailings dust) and vehicular 

traffic on State Route 188. 

The monument has been operating an 

IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments) air quality 

sampling station since 1988. The 

monument was selected as an IMPROVE 

site to assist in monitoring the neighboring 

Class I Superstition Mountain Wilderness 

airshed by documenting particulate 

concentrations. The IMPROVE program, 

begun in 1987 as prescribed by the Clean 

Air Act, is a cooperative interagency effort 

to determine existing visual air quality 

levels in wilderness and national park 

areas, identify sources of human-made 

visibility impairments, and document 

long-term trends. The monument is 

working with the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality to install and 

operate additional air monitoring 

equipment. The new instruments consist 

of an open-air nephelometer and 

meteorological equipment. The 

nephelometer measures the scattering 

coefficient of a known volume of air and 

the meteorological equipment will track 

temperatures, relative humidity, wind 

speed, and wind direction. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, no 

construction activities would occur to 

impact air quality. Air quality monitoring 

with the IMPROVE and nephelometer 

instruments would continue. Existing 

partnerships would work to reduce 

impacts on air quality from outside 

activities. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Air quality would be temporarily impacted 

from dust and vehicle emissions during 

construction of new facilities. Emissions 

from vehicles being driven to and parked 

at the new visitor/administrative facility 

would impact air quality over the longterm in the Lowlands ROA. Increased 

visitation would increase vehicle emissions 

reducing air quality in the park as well as 

Tonto Basin. Air quality monitoring with 

the IMPROVE and nephelometer 

instruments would continue. Negative 

impacts would be offset by using the ATS 

and expanding partnerships working to 

schedule prescribed burning activity in 

Tonto Basin when pollutants are otherwise 

at lower levels thereby improving air 

quality. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that 

substantially fewer impacts would occur to 

air quality with the placement of the new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument. Air quality would be 

temporarily impacted during construction 

of the new seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that fewer 

impacts would occur to air quality without 

the construction and use of a new visitor 

center in the lowlands. Air quality would 

be temporarily impacted during 

construction of the new administrative 

facility, ATS staging area, and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence. Emissions 

from vehicles being driven to and parked 

at the new administrative facility and ATS 

staging area would impact air quality over 

the long-term in the lowlands. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

96

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Exposed soil would be covered or watered 

during construction activities to reduce 

dust levels. Use of an alternative 

transportation system would reduce 

impacts to air quality from single vehicle 

emissions along the monument entrance 

road. Construction-related emissions 

would be reduced when possible by 

properly maintaining and operating the 

equipment. 

Natural Resources—Natural 

Quiet 

Existing Conditions 

Noise levels can affect visitors’ experiences 

and the monument’s natural resources. 

Vehicle and boat traffic, mining activity, 

maintenance activities by monument staff, 

and private and military aircraft 

overflights disrupt the natural quiet. The 

monument is located in the relatively 

remote and lightly populated Tonto Basin. 

Access to the monument is from State 

Route 188, which is moderately traveled. 

Vehicle use of the highway will likely 

increase once Arizona Department of 

Transportation improves State Route 188 

from Globe and Payson into Tonto Basin. 

Blasting activities from copper mines to 

the southeast generate sound that disturbs 

the natural quiet of the monument. Noise 

from boating activity on Roosevelt Lake 

can also be heard. The only road into the 

monument is a one-mile dead end paved 

road. Visitors are exposed to higher 

amounts of noise at the visitor center and 

picnic area from normal road traffic. 

Infrequent overflights provide a temporary 

distraction to visitor experiences. Noise 

levels can also disrupt normal wildlife 

activity such as foraging, breeding, and 

nesting. 

The irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind, 

archeological cliff dwellings are sensitive 

to vibrations caused by hovering 

helicopters (King and King, 1998). Touring 

helicopters hover at low altitudes just 

outside the monument’s cliff dwellings and 

should stay at least 200 feet away from 

them to prevent damage to the walls. 

No park service regulations exist to 

prohibit park overflights. Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) regulations request 

aircraft to maintain a minimum altitude of 

2,000 feet above national park areas, but 

compliance is at the pilots discretion 

except in those few areas (e.g. Grand 

Canyon) where altitude restrictions or 

certain types of flight activity have been set 

by federal statute. The monument staff 

documents aircraft overflights when 

possible. When identification numbers can 

be ascertained, the staff works with the 

FAA in contacting pilots to seek 

compliance. This effort has been 

minimally effective with military aircraft. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, natural 

quiet levels would remain the same. Noise 

distraction would still occur around 

existing developed areas. Noise 

disruptions from overflights would 

continue to be monitored and reduced 

when possible. Natural quiet would 

continue to be impacted by boat, traffic, 

and mine activity. Existing partnerships 

would work to reduce noise levels from 

sources originating outside the monument. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Noise levels would temporarily increase 

from construction activities building new 

facilities and remodeling the existing 

visitor center. Noise levels in the Lowlands 

ROA would increase over the long term 

from increased visitor and employee 

activity and vehicle use at the new 

visitor/administrative facility. Increased 

staff would monitor all noise sources. 

Negative impacts would be offset by use of 
VISITOR USE, EXPERIENCE, ACCESSIBILITY 

97 

the ATS and expanded partnerships 

working to reduce noise levels from 

sources originating outside the monument. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that 

substantially fewer impacts would occur to 

natural quiet in the monument over the 

long term with the placement of the new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

The same impacts would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that fewer 

impacts would occur to natural quiet over 

the long term without the construction of a 

new visitor center in the lowlands. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

The alternative transportation system 

would reduce noise levels from the many 

single vehicles being driven on the 

monument entrance road. 

Visitor Use, Experience, 

Accessibility 

Existing Conditions 

Annual visitation has 

ranged from 60,400 to 

79,400 over the past nine 

years. Of the 74,006 visitors 

who came to the monument 

in 1999, over half or 41,979 

visitors arrived during the 

winter/spring months of 

January through April. 

Visitation is lowest during 

the hotter summer months. 

Daily use patterns show that 

visitation is highest on 

weekends and holidays. The 

percentage of year-round 

Arizona residents visiting 

the monument is lowest in 

the winter and highest in the summer 

(Moore and Crowe, 1993). Non-residents 

were highest in the winter reflecting 

Arizona’s status as a seasonal haven for 

people from cooler climates. Visitation by 

non-U.S. residents was highest during the 

summer, although visitation from Canada 

peaked during the fall marking the influx 

of winter residents. 

Visitation during the past nine years has 

stayed fairly constant. However, future 

visitation is expected to increase. The 

surrounding Tonto National Forest has 

completed construction of greatly 

expanded recreational facilities around 

Roosevelt Lake. These facilities include 

1,500 individual campsites, eighty picnic 

sites, nine boat launch areas, and a new 

visitor center. The Arizona Department of 

Transportation is currently in the process 

of improving State Route 188 from Globe 

and Payson to the monument. It is 

expected that more people will use the 

park and Lake Roosevelt facilities once 

easier access into Tonto Basin has been 

constructed. 

Visitor activities are fairly structured and 

directed at the monument. Visitors must 

stay on existing sidewalks to the visitor 

center and trails to the lower and upper 

Visitation 1991-1999

74,006

78,822

79,402

71,970

70,936

69,083

70,161

60,375

62,639

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

year

number of visitors
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

98

cliff dwellings. Access to the upper cliff 

dwelling is controlled by guided tours 

during the winter season, which protects 

the dwelling and provides for quality 

experiences. The lower cliff dwelling is 

open year-round. Depending on the 

season, visitors can expect the company of 

others as they tour the visitor center and 

cliff dwellings. Crowding can occur on 

weekends and holidays during the busy 

spring season. 

At Tonto National Monument, visitors 

have the opportunity to experience and 

learn about Salado prehistoric life and 

their relationship to the surrounding 

Sonoran desert. Visitors can enter the 

remains of a multiple family dwelling and 

can view construction techniques to see 

the materials and resources that were used. 

At the visitor center, visitors can acquire 

information and view exhibits and 

electronic interpretive presentations. 

Other visitor activities include observing 

nature, picnicking, and photography. 

The rugged topography of Tonto National 

Monument provides few opportunities for 

mobility impaired visitors. Accessible 

areas are the visitor center and picnic area, 

which meet accessibility requirements set 

forth by the American Disabilities Act. The 

visitor center’s second floor theatre and 

observation deck are only reachable via a 

staircase. To accommodate physically 

challenged visitors; video equipment and a 

seating area have been incorporated into 

the first-floor museum. Because of the 

elevation gain, the trails to both cliff 

dwellings make the dwellings inaccessible 

to physically challenged visitors. The 

lower cliff dwelling can be seen from the 

visitor center parking area and through a 

telescope on the observation deck. A 

parking area from which to view the upper 

cliff dwelling is being constructed by the 

Arizona Department of Transportation on 

U.S. Forest Service land. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Current visitation trends have shown 

increasing tendencies that may surge upon 

completion of highway improvements into 

Tonto Basin. Retaining the existing visitor 

use facilities without any improvements 

would not provide for the needs of current 

and expected increased numbers of 

visitors. The existing outdated, cramped, 

and/or inaccessible visitor services 

(museum exhibits, information lobby, 

publications sales area, theatre, 

observation deck, and parking area) would 

be maintained. Interpretive programs 

would not expand without additional staff. 

No space would be available to present 

indoor interpretive programs. No new 

accessible areas or trails would be 

constructed and available for use. Visitor 

satisfaction and accessibility of the existing 

visitor center would not improve. 

However, the existing visitor center’s onsite location would continue to directly 

connect the visitor to the resource and 

would eliminate confusion by providing all 

visitor use facilities in one location. Yet, 

fewer visitors would be contacted without 

an additional facility as in Alternatives B 

and C. No additional parking spaces would 

be provided. When encountering the full 

parking lot, visitors would not be able to 

stop but would be forced to either circle 

the parking area while waiting for an 

opening or would simply leave the park 

continuing on their way. The natural 

setting and aesthetic appeal as visitors 

entered the monument would be retained; 

the lowlands area would not be developed 

for a new building. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Increasing and improving visitor services 

and facilities would enhance visitor 

experience through understanding. New 

facilities combined with the remodeled 

existing visitor center and increased staff 

levels would enhance and expand 
VISITOR USE, EXPERIENCE, ACCESSIBILITY 

99 

interpretive services (exhibits, displays, 

information lobby, publications sales area, 

and audiovisual and interpretive 

programs). The existing visitor center 

would be remodeled to provide more indepth educational facilities in that 

building. All new facilities, including a 

nature trail, would be fully accessible. 

With these improvements, a wider range of 

visitor needs would be met. The new onsite visitor center would connect the 

visitor directly to the park resources and 

alleviate crowded conditions at the 

existing visitor center, restrooms, and 

parking area. Its placement near the 

beginning of the entrance road would be 

highly visible and easy to locate. The 

number and duration of visits would 

increase. However, visitors stopping at the 

new visitor center would be making an 

additional stop before reaching the cliff 

dwelling trails. Constructing additional 

facilities in the lowlands would provide for 

the needs of increased visitation, but 

would detract from the natural setting and 

aesthetic appeal as they enter the 

monument. Additional staff levels and 

cooperative services with local emergency 

agencies would provide increased 

emergency response levels for visitors and 

facilities. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The impacts would be the same as 

Alternative B except that the new 

visitor/administrative facility would be 

located outside the monument. By placing 

the new facility outside the monument, the 

lowlands area would not be developed and 

its natural setting and aesthetic appeal 

would remain intact as visitors enter the 

monument. However, depending on its 

location, the new visitor center would be 

more difficult for the public to find. The 

park story would have to be repeated both 

in this building and in the existing visitor 

center. Information would be more 

difficult to explain or present without 

having the park resources on-hand or 

within view. By locating the new visitor 

center off-site, additional restrooms and 

parking spaces would not be available in 

the park to alleviate overcrowding and a 

new accessible nature trail would not be 

built. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

A similar impact would occur as listed 

under Alternative B except that no new 

visitor center would be built. Instead, the 

existing visitor center would be remodeled 

to partially improve and expand visitor 

and interpretive services. Crowded 

conditions would probably occur at the 

remodeled building during the busiest 

season. If visitation increases as projected, 

the remodeled visitor center would be 

adequate only for the ten- to fifteen-year 

life of this plan. The new ATS staging area 

would alleviate crowded conditions and 

provide ample spaces. This alternative 

addresses immediate concerns, but would 

not be adequate for the long-term. 

Construction of the new administrative 

facility would impact the natural setting 

and decrease aesthetic appeal as visitors 

enter the monument. A new accessible 

nature trail would not be built. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

reduce damage to natural and cultural 

resources. The size, configuration, and 

location of new monument facilities would 

be selected to reduce intrusion on scenic 

viewsheds and cultural landscapes. The 

new facilities would blend in with the 

natural environment as much as possible 

by use of natural colors and screening with 

native vegetation. Careful and continuous 

monitoring would measure, record, and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

100

mitigate impacts to vegetation. No new 

development would be built on 

archeological sites. Additional staffing 

would be required to operate new facilities 

and accommodate increased levels of 

visitation. 

Scenic Vistas, Viewsheds 

Existing Conditions 

Outstanding scenic vistas provide 

sweeping panoramas of the monument’s 

cliff dwellings and the rugged Sonoran 

Desert landscape including, Roosevelt 

Lake, the Sierra Anchas and Mazatzal 

Mountains, and the remainder of Tonto 

Basin. Visitors can watch a fascinating 

display of changing shadows and light 

among the mountains, canyons, and 

valleys as the sun changes location in the 

sky. Viewpoints are maintained at the 

visitor center and along the lower cliff 

dwelling trail. The scenic vistas are 

occasionally disrupted by smoke from fire 

activities on nearby tribal and U.S. Forest 

Service lands. Smoke trapped in an 

inversion layer in the Tonto Basin can be 

so dense as to obscure the view of 

Roosevelt Lake from the visitor center, a 

straight-line distance of two miles. 

Viewsheds are an integral part of the 

prehistoric scene at Tonto National 

Monument. However, increasing modernday development both inside and outside 

the monument is becoming more visible 

from the cliff dwellings. Park management 

works to minimize the sight of internal 

development by using vegetation screens 

and colors that blend in with the 

surrounding landscape. The adjacent 

Tonto National Forest has completed 

constructing new recreational facilities 

around Roosevelt Lake. The new 

campgrounds and boat ramps at Windy 

Hill (located across the highway from the 

monument) are visible from the visitor 

center and cliff dwellings. Also visible are 

State Route 188 and the overhead 

transmission lines that parallel the 

highway. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Impacts to scenic viewsheds looking into 

the monument would not change. Existing 

partnerships would work towards 

reducing impacts from future development 

and smoke from prescribed fires on scenic 

viewsheds as seen from the monument. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

The new visitor/administrative and 

residential facilities and associated parking 

areas would impact the monument’s scenic 

viewshed. Expanded partnerships with 

adjacent agencies and nearby tribes would 

work to improve impacts to the scenic 

viewshed as seen from the monument 

caused by smoke from prescribed fires, 

addition of new facilities, and increased 

effects of visitation. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

The impacts to monument viewsheds 

would be substantially less than those 

described in Alternative B if the new 

visitor/administrative facility was located 

outside the scenic viewshed. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

The impacts to monument viewsheds 

would be less than those described in 

Alternative B because a new visitor center 

would not be constructed and only the 

new administrative facility, residence, and 

ATS staging area would impact the scenic 

viewshed. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

reduce damage to natural and cultural 
VIEWSHEDS - ADJACENT LAND, PARTNERSHIPS 

101 

resources. The size, configuration, and 

location of new monument facilities would 

be selected to reduce intrusion on scenic 

viewsheds. All new facilities would blend 

in with the natural environment as much 

as possible by use of natural colors and 

screening with native vegetation. The new 

visitor center parking area in Alternative B 

would use medians planted with native 

vegetation to interrupt and lessen the 

visual impacts from the large open surface 

area. All concrete would be tinted to blend 

in with the natural soil color. Any 

modifications to existing facilities would 

not add additional impacts to scenic 

viewsheds. 

Adjacent Land, Partnerships 

Existing Conditions 

Tonto National Monument is completely 

surrounded by Tonto National Forest. 

Numerous recreational activities and 

limited livestock grazing occur on these 

lands administered by the U.S. Forest 

Service. Expanded campgrounds, picnic 

areas, and boat ramps were recently 

completed around Roosevelt Lake. 

Boating and fishing as well as hunting, 

horseback riding, and off-road driving are 

popular recreational activities. Limited 

cattle grazing occurs adjacent to the 

monument’s east and south boundaries. 

The community of Roosevelt has 

commercial facilities and residential areas 

scattered along State Route 188 two- to 

seven-miles distant from the monument. 

Private residences are concentrated in 

Lakeview Trailer Park, Roosevelt Estates, 

Quail Run, and Roosevelt Resort 

developments. 

Specific impacts and values associated with 

land protection are the preservation of 

natural and cultural resources and the 

setting in which they occur. Management 

actions under each alternative seek to 

preserve the viewshed, protect the natural 

and cultural resources, and provide a 

quality visitor experience. 

Park management has formed 

partnerships with the U.S. Forest Service, 

Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. 

Geological Survey/University of Arizona, 

Arizona departments of Transportation 

and Environmental Quality, State Historic 

Preservation Office, Gila County, 

Globe/Miami/Apache Junction chambers 

of commerce, Globe/Miami/Tonto Basin 

public schools, Salt River Project, and TDS 

Telecom in support of park missions and 

activities. Continual efforts to establish 

and expand partnerships may result in 

shared resource protection, public 

education, and renewed appreciation of 

the resources both within and outside the 

park. Expanded partnerships would 

include consultation with a variety of 

agencies and entities, including tribal 

governments, to ensure compliance with 

various laws, regulations, policies, and 

management directives. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Monument staff would continue to work 

with adjacent and nearby landowners to 

reduce impacts to monument resources by 

decreasing detrimental external activities 

such as grazing, prescribed fire, spread of 

exotic plants, and poaching. Cooperative 

efforts would also continue with adjacent 

and nearby landowners to provide 

educational opportunities and public 

services. 

Impacts of Alternatives B, C, and D - 

NPS Preferred 

Monument staff would expand relations 

with adjacent and nearby landowners to 

manage their land in ways that would be 

compatible with monument values and 

reduce impacts to monument resources. 

Under Alternative C, there would be a 

positive benefit of increased community 

connection associated with the relocation 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

102

of administrative offices outside the 

monument. Expanded partnerships would 

increase the quality and quantity of 

interpretative and public services. 

Facilities—

Visitor/Administrative Facility, 

Parking Area (Including Public 

Safety) 

Existing Conditions 

Visitor/Administrative Facility - The 2,964-

square-foot visitor/administrative facility 

was completed in 1964 around an existing 

restroom building. Structurally, the 

building is in good condition. It is sited 

against the side of a steep hill at the end of 

the entrance road. The facility was built to 

accommodate 55,000 annual visitors and 

provide workspace for five employees. The 

building also houses the information 

lobby, museum, publication sales area, 

library, storage room, and two public 

restrooms. A staircase to the second floor 

provides access to the theatre, observation 

deck, and lower cliff dwelling trail. Since 

1964, visitation to the monument has 

increased to about 80,000 visitors 

annually. During the busy spring months, 

visitors must crowd into the lobby, 

museum, and sales area, and peer around 

each other in order to view the exhibits 

and sales items and must wait in line to use 

the public restrooms. 

Nine permanent employees, one part-time 

association employee, and seasonal 

employees/volunteers now work out of 

office space that was originally designed 

for five people. The facility is not large 

enough to house all employees and their 

operations. There isn’t sufficient space for 

offices, library, work area, meeting room, 

lunch area, and storage. Two offices have 

been incorporated into the basement 

storage area. The single exit from the 

basement is a safety hazard. 

Parking Area - The small visitor center 

parking lot, with forty-six spaces, fills to 

capacity during the busy spring season. 

Large recreational vehicles and vehicles 

pulling boat trailers exacerbate this 

situation since only three of the spaces are 

large enough to accommodate them. When 

the parking lot is full, all monument 

employees and volunteers must park their 

vehicles in the residential area to provide 

parking spaces for visitors. Visitor entry 

into the parking area is then stopped until 

space is available. For those who don’t 

want to wait, parking is available in the 

picnic area or along the entrance road 

shoulder. An employee or volunteer is 

then needed to shuttle visitors to and from 

their parked vehicles. It is not practical to 

enlarge the parking area because of its 

location on the side of a steep hill. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, the 

existing facilities would be maintained; no 

new facilities would be built. 

Consequently, no further encroachment 

would occur to the monument’s natural 

and cultural resources. However, the 

existing visitor center would remain 

crowded during the spring months and 

would not meet the needs of existing and 

increasing visitation. Space would not be 

available to conduct indoor interpretive 

programs, expand museum exhibits and 

displays, and enlarge the sales area. The 

second floor theatre, observation deck, 

and lower cliff dwelling trail entrance 

would remain inaccessible. Visitors would 

continue to wait in lines to use the existing 

restroom facilities. Visitor satisfaction and 

experience would continue to decrease. 

Adequate space would not be available for 

employees to work, conduct meetings, 

organize a library, and store equipment 

and supplies. The two basement offices 

would not meet health and safety 

standards. Existing staff levels would not 
FACILITIES 

103 

provide adequate protection for all 

facilities. 

Without an additional parking area, 

visitors would continue to park in the 

picnic area or along the entrance road 

shoulder creating unsafe conditions. 

Visitor experience would continue to 

decrease. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, a new visitor/ 

administrative facility and associated 

parking lot would be constructed inside 

the monument near the beginning of the 

entrance road. The existing visitor center 

would be remodeled into a learning center. 

An Alternative Transportation System 

(ATS) would transport visitors from the 

new visitor center to the learning center 

during the busy spring months. The new 

facility would encroach on and impact the 

monument’s natural and cultural 

resources and scenic viewshed. This 

alternative would increase much-needed 

space for present and future levels of 

visitors and employees. Museum exhibits 

and displays and the sales area would be 

expanded and improved. Space would be 

available to conduct interpretive 

programs. Additional restroom facilities 

would accommodate present and 

increased levels of visitation, as would the 

new parking area. Visitor education, 

satisfaction, and experience would greatly 

increase. 

Adequate space would be available for 

employees to work, conduct meetings, 

organize a library, and store equipment 

and supplies. Offices would no longer be 

located in the unsafe basement. 

Tremendous savings would be realized by 

having adequate storage facilities to 

safeguard equipment, supplies, and 

materials. Increased staff levels and 24-

hour security systems would increase 

protection for all facilities. 

With the new visitor center and the ATS in 

use, ample parking would be available 

during the busy spring months. Visitors 

would park their vehicles at the new visitor 

center and ride the transportation system 

the short distance to the existing visitor 

center to access the cliff dwelling trails. 

Visitor satisfaction and experience would 

greatly increase. The new parking facilities 

would also reduce the staff time needed to 

control traffic during special events such 

as the biannual open houses and would 

reduce the safety hazard created from the 

current practice of using road shoulders 

for overflow parking. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the new 

visitor/administrative facility would be 

built or an existing building remodeled 

outside the monument either in Roosevelt, 

Globe, or possibly, Payson. The existing 

visitor center would be remodeled to 

enhance visitor services. An Alternative 

Transportation System (ATS) would 

transport visitors from the new visitor 

center to the existing facility during the 

busy spring months. Impacts would be the 

same as for Alternative B except that the 

new facility would not encroach on and 

impact the monument’s natural and 

cultural resources and scenic viewshed. 

The ATS would cover more miles than in 

Alternatives B and D, thereby increasing 

costs and operation time. The increased 

distance would also heighten safety risks of 

transporting visitors. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Under Alternative D, administrative 

functions would be removed from the 

existing facility to a new building inside 

the monument near the maintenance 

facility. The existing visitor center would 

be remodeled to provide enhanced visitor 

services and opportunities. Less space 

would be available to conduct interpretive 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

104

programs and expand and improve 

museum exhibits, displays, and the sales 

area than in Alternatives B and C. The 

second floor audiovisual viewing room 

and observation deck would be made 

accessible. Visitor education, satisfaction, 

and experience would increase. An 

Alternative Transportation System (ATS) 

would transport visitors from a new 

staging area near the entrance station to 

the visitor center during the busy spring 

months. Both the new administrative 

facility and ATS staging area would 

encroach on and impact the monument’s 

natural and cultural resources and scenic 

viewshed. 

Adequate space would be available for 

employees to work, conduct meetings, 

organize a library, and store equipment 

and supplies. Offices would no longer be 

located in the unsafe basement. 

Tremendous savings would be realized by 

having adequate storage facilities to 

safeguard equipment, supplies, and 

materials. Increased staff levels and 24-

hour security systems would increase 

protection for all facilities. 

A new parking area to stage the ATS would 

relieve traffic congestion at the existing 

visitor center. Locating the new ATS 

staging area near the entrance station 

would facilitate the control of vehicular 

traffic. The ATS would operate a shorter 

distance than in Alternatives B and C 

reducing safety risks, costs, and operation 

time. The ATS staging area would include 

amenities for visitors as they wait, such as 

restrooms and outdoor interpretive 

exhibits. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

minimize damage to natural and cultural 

resources. The size, configuration, and 

location of new monument facilities would 

be selected to reduce intrusion on scenic 

viewsheds and cultural landscapes. The 

new facilities would blend in with the 

natural environment as much as possible 

by using natural colors and native 

vegetation screens. Careful and 

continuous monitoring would measure, 

record, and mitigate impacts to vegetation. 

No new development would be built on 

archeological sites. 

Museum Collections, Reference 

and Archives Library 

Existing Conditions 

Under the category of museum collections, 

objects are defined as material items 

possessing functional, aesthetic, cultural, 

symbolic, and scientific value. The 

monument’s museum collection consists 

of a variety of artifacts and archeological 

samples, primarily prehistoric in age, with 

a few natural history or herbarium 

samples. In addition, archeological project 

archives are included under the category 

of museum collections. The majority of 

these artifacts and archives (69,000 items) 

are curated and stored at the Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center in 

Tucson, Arizona. Although the monument 

has a small collection on site for display in 

the museum and does have secure storage 

that meets NPS guidelines, the current 

facility was not designed for the stringent 

environmental controls for collections 

required by the NPS (see NPS Museum 

Handbook [revised]). All items are either 

in the process of being cataloged or are 

cataloged to NPS standards although some 

long term conservation of organic 

materials may be required in the near 

future. 

Past excavations at the monument have 

yielded an incredible number of wellpreserved perishable artifacts including 
MUSEUM COLLECTIONS, REFERENCE AND ARCHIVES LIBRARY 

105 

one of the finest collections of prehistoric 

fabrics in the Southwest. The Salado’s 

weaving technology and artistry rivaled 

that of any contemporary southwestern 

culture. Pieces of finely woven cotton 

cloth depict different delicate weaving 

methods. Native plants woven into 

sandals, baskets, or mats show exquisite 

workmanship. The Salado were also 

accomplished at making beautiful 

multicolored ceramics. Polychrome 

pottery is one of the most popular types 

produced in the Southwest and is often 

called the hallmark of the Salado tradition. 

Inlaid turquoise jewelry, brightly painted 

arrows, and many other tools and 

implements for daily living reflect their 

creativity and artistic expressions. 

Only 0.2% of the total artifact collection 

are displayed in six exhibit cases in the 

monument’s twelve- by fourteen-foot 

exhibit room. These wall–mounted 

displays were installed when the building 

was constructed in 1964; there is no room 

to add additional exhibits. The displays 

depict Salado food gathering and 

cultivating, tools, pottery, clothing, and 

architectural style. Subsequent 

archeological research at the monument 

and elsewhere in Tonto Basin has 

provided new information about the 

Salado culture outdating the information 

presented in the thirty-five year-old 

exhibits. Information about the associated 

Sonoran desert ecosystem is not presented 

in these exhibits. During the busy spring 

months, an average of over 400 visitors 

crowd into the small museum each day. 

Most of the monument’s reference and 

archives library is located in the 

visitor/administrative facility where there 

is insufficient space to house and organize 

all volumes in one dedicated area. 

Reference materials are scattered among 

five different offices. Most of the volumes 

are arranged in six cupboards located 

above employees’ desks. These employees 

must move in order for others to reach 

into the cupboards. There is no complete 

or centralized listing of all the documents. 

The remainder of the archives collection is 

stored at the Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center in Tucson, Arizona. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, the 

existing museum and reference and 

archives library would be maintained. The 

museum would continue to be too small to 

meet the needs of present and expected 

future levels of visitation. Adequate space 

would not be available to enlarge the 

museum or house the library and archive 

materials. The existing outdated thirty-five 

year-old exhibits would not present 

current and accurate information about 

the Salado culture and their surrounding 

Sonoran desert environment. Visitors 

would continue to crowd into the small 

museum or choose not to enter. The 

condition of the displayed artifacts would 

continue to deteriorate without stringent 

environmental controls required for 

proper storage. Monument staff would 

continue to spend time searching for 

needed reference materials if they, indeed, 

existed. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, a new 

visitor/administrative facility would be 

constructed inside the monument and the 

existing visitor center would be 

remodeled. This alternative would 

increase much-needed space for the 

museum and reference and archives 

library. Museum exhibits and displays 

would be expanded and improved with 

increased space and up-to-date research 

information. Visitor satisfaction and 

experience would substantially increase. 

Increased staff levels and 24-hour security 

systems would increase protection of the 

museum collection and archives. The 

condition of the displayed artifacts in the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

106

new facility would improve with stringent 

environmental controls required for 

proper display. The library would be 

expanded, organized, and improved with 

increased space and staff. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, a new 

visitor/administrative facility would be 

constructed outside the monument and 

the existing visitor center would be 

remodeled. Impacts would be the same as 

listed under Alternative B except that 

emergency response time to the external 

facility by monument staff would take 

longer after working hours thereby 

increasing security risks to the museum 

collection and archives library. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Under Alternative D, administrative 

functions would be removed from the 

existing facility to a new building inside 

the monument. The existing visitor center 

would be remodeled to provide enhanced 

visitor services and opportunities. Less 

space would be available than in 

Alternatives B and C to expand and 

improve museum exhibits and displays. 

Visitor satisfaction and experience would 

increase slightly. Increased staff levels and 

24-hour security systems would provide 

for increased protection of the museum 

collection. The condition of the displayed 

artifacts would improve with additional 

environmental controls required for 

proper display. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Mitigation measures for Alternatives B, C, 

and D would be the same for 

visitor/administrative facility. 

Employee Residences 

Existing Conditions 

A two-bedroom and a three-bedroom 

house were constructed in 1953 and two 

three-bedroom houses were added in 1965. 

All residences have been adequately 

maintained over the years, but most of the 

original floor coverings and fixtures have 

never been updated. All of the houses have 

been made environmentally efficient with 

added insulation and smaller, tight-fitting 

windows and doors. These houses provide 

sufficient residences for permanent 

employees as long as additional housing is 

available in the communities of Roosevelt 

and Globe, where some of the employees 

reside. One of the three-bedroom houses 

was furnished for use by seasonal 

employees and volunteers until staff size 

increased in 2001. The park now has no 

housing for seasonal employees and 

volunteers. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under Alternative A, the existing 

residences would be maintained. No new 

residences would be built to further impact 

the viewshed or encroach upon the 

monument’s natural and cultural 

resources. However, no residences would 

be available to house seasonal employees 

or volunteers. Hiring seasonal employees 

and obtaining volunteers would be more 

difficult without providing them 

accommodations. The existing residents 

would continue to provide quick response 

to emergency and law enforcement 

incidents. 

Impacts of Alternatives B, C, and D - 

NPS Preferred 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D one duplex 

would be constructed. The duplex would 

provide adequate housing for seasonal 

employees or volunteers and would 

increase the monument’s ability to hire 
EMPLOYEE RESIDENCES - TRAILS 

107 

them. The additional residence would 

provide increased timely response to 

emergency and law enforcement incidents 

by having more employees residing within 

the monument. The additional duplex 

would further impact the viewshed and 

encroach upon the monument’s natural 

and cultural resources. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

reduce damage to natural and cultural 

resources. The size, configuration, and 

location of the facilities would be selected 

to reduce intrusion on scenic viewsheds 

and cultural landscapes. The new facility 

would blend in with the natural 

environment as much as possible by use of 

natural colors and screening with native 

vegetation. Careful and continuous 

monitoring would measure, record, and 

mitigate impacts to vegetation. No 

development would be built on 

archeological sites. 

Trails 

Existing Conditions 

All trails within the monument are nonhistoric. The Lower Cliff Dwelling and 

Cactus Patch trails are constructed of 

asphalt or concrete. The trails are covered 

with a glued-on sand finish that provides 

an unobtrusive and non-slip surface and 

holds up well to foot traffic. The 

dirt/gravel Upper Cliff Dwelling trail is 

one and a half miles long. The section of 

the trail through Cave Canyon was 

destroyed by a flashflood in 1999. Minor 

repairs have been made to temporarily 

route visitors along the floor of the 

canyon. 

Impacts of Alternatives A (No 

Action), C, and D (NPS Preferred) 

Under Alternatives A, C, and D, all trails 

would be maintained to support current 

activities. No further impacts would occur 

to the monument’s natural and cultural 

resources. No accessible trails would be 

constructed and available for use. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, a one-mile mobility 

impaired accessible nature trail would be 

constructed near the new visitor center 

within the monument. This alternative 

would provide the only accessible trail 

available for visitors thereby increasing 

visitor education, experience and 

satisfaction. However, the new trail would 

encroach on and affect the monument’s 

natural and cultural resources and scenic 

viewshed. 

Mitigation for Alternative B 

Specific mitigation measures for the nature 

trail would be defined during the planning 

and carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications to 

reduce damage to natural and cultural 

resources. The length and location of the 

trail would be selected to reduce intrusion 

on scenic viewsheds and cultural 

landscapes. Prior to construction, existing 

plants would be removed and transplanted 

elsewhere or saved for later rehabilitation, 

if possible. The trail would blend in with 

the natural environment as much as 

possible by use of vegetative screening. 

Careful and continuous monitoring would 

measure, record, and mitigate impacts to 

vegetation. The trail would not be built on 

archeological sites. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

108

Maintenance Facility, Entrance 

Station, Roads, Volunteer 

Trailer Pad, Picnic Area 

Existing Conditions 

Maintenance Facility - The 2,048-square 

foot maintenance facility was built in 1978. 

Structurally, it is in good condition, but 

needs a few repairs. The original air 

conditioning system and garage doors 

need to be replaced. The electrical system 

requires upgrading. The building is located 

about one-half-mile from the visitor 

center. To provide needed space for 

supplies and vehicles, two storage sheds 

and three covered parking areas were later 

constructed within the maintenance yard. 

Entrance Station - An entrance station is 

located in the middle of the entrance road 

about 0.3 mile from State Route 188. The 

four- by seven-foot booth was constructed 

in 1988. Structurally, it is in fair condition 

with electrical but no telephone service. Its 

design does not match the other public 

buildings in the monument. Cement-filled 

pipes and curbing do not provide proper 

safety barriers between vehicular traffic 

and employees working inside the 

building. Plans have been made to upgrade 

the entrance station by replacing exterior 

surfaces and installing telephone service. 

Safer traffic barriers will be constructed 

around the building. Vegetation will be 

added to screen the building from view as 

seen from the visitor center and cliff 

dwellings. The entrance station provides a 

degree of traffic control especially during 

special events, but due to low staffing 

levels, it is not prudent to keep an 

employee in the booth year-round. 

Employees are always required to staff the 

visitor center, so entrance fees are 

normally collected there. 

Roads - A one-mile paved entrance road 

serves the visitor center with a one-tenth 

mile spur road to the 

residential/maintenance area. The oneway loop road through the picnic area is 

gravel. 

The entrance road was initially designed 

for use by single vehicles in the early 1930s. 

The widths of the lanes vary in size and are 

too narrow in places to safely 

accommodate today’s wider and longer 

vehicles. The two sharp curves in the road 

do not provide a safe sight distance for 

visitors unaccustomed to driving the road. 

The entrance road was last chip-sealed in 

1994. The asphalt surface is now cracked 

and buckling and the edge is crumbling 

and eroding. Some areas of the roadbed 

have settled or compacted leaving 

depressions in the surface. The gravel road 

shoulders have also eroded. 

The intersection of the park entrance road 

with State Route 188 is hazardous. The 

intersection sits at the crest of a hill, which 

obscures on-coming traffic in both 

directions. No turning lanes have been 

provided. Westbound vehicles must stop 

in the lane of traffic while waiting to turn 

into the monument. 

Plans have been made to upgrade the 

entrance road by the end of 2002. These 

plans include relocating the intersection 

with State Route 188 and resurfacing the 

entire entrance road and visitor center 

parking area. The road base will be 

widened to accommodate uniform 12-foot 

wide lanes and two-foot wide shoulders. 

The radius of two sharp curves will be 

increased to improve sight distance and 

safety conditions. 

Volunteer Trailer Pad - Two trailer pads 

were constructed in the residential area 

(one in 1992 and another 2001) for 

volunteers who have their own 

recreational vehicles. The trailer pads have 

complete utility connections and a wooden 

ramada that shades a picnic table. 
MAINTENANCE FACILITY, ENTRANCE, ROADS, TRAILER PAD, PICNIC AREA – OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

109 

Picnic Area - The picnic area consists of 

seven tables, each under a shade ramada. 

The picnic area was relocated in 1992 from 

the visitor center parking area to its new 

location about one-third mile from the 

visitor center. One picnic site and the 

modern restroom, constructed in 1997, are 

handicapped accessible. The picnic area 

and the restroom are in good condition. 

Impacts of Alternatives A (No 

Action), B, C, and D (NPS Preferred) 

Under all alternatives, the maintenance 

facility, entrance station, park roads, 

volunteer trailer pads, and picnic area 

would be maintained once upgrading has 

been completed to improve existing 

facilities. No further impacts would occur 

to the monument’s natural and cultural 

resources. 

Mitigation for All Alternatives 

Any modifications made to the 

maintenance facility, entrance station, 

picnic area, trailer pads, and roads would 

be done so as not to impact archeological 

sites, cultural landscapes, and scenic 

viewsheds. 

Operational Efficiency—Visitor 

Center and Headquarters 

Existing Conditions 

The visitor center building serves as both a 

visitor 

information/orientation/educational 

center and as the main administrative 

facility for the monument. The monument 

is currently authorized twelve permanent, 

full-time employees. Additional staff 

includes one part-time cooperating 

association employee, seasonal employees, 

volunteers, and researchers. All employees 

except those in the maintenance division 

work in the visitor center building. 

The visitor center building is not large 

enough to house current staff members 

and their operations. The information 

lobby, museum, and sales area become 

crowded during the busy spring season. 

The second floor audio/visual theatre, 

observation deck, and lower cliff dwelling 

trail entrance are not accessible. There 

isn’t sufficient space for offices, library, 

work area, meeting room, lunch area, and 

storage. Because the visitor center is 

assumed to be eligible for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places and 

because it is located on the side of a steep 

hillside, the building cannot easily be 

enlarged. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

The effects of the no-action alternative 

would be a continuation of the present 

situation. The current 

visitor/administrative facility would not 

meet the needs of the staff and the current 

and anticipated increased levels of visitors. 

The overcrowded conditions would 

impact work efficiency, employee moral, 

and visitor satisfaction. Space would not 

be available to conduct meetings, organize 

a library, and store equipment and 

supplies. However, no impacts would 

occur to cultural and natural resources 

since no new buildings would be 

constructed. Having most of the 

employees working within one building 

would increase operational efficiency. 

Only one visitor/administrative facility 

would exist to staff, clean, and maintain 

compared to the two buildings in 

Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Impacts on operational efficiency would 

significantly increase with the 

construction of a new 

visitor/administrative facility within the 

monument and remodeling of the existing 

facility. Work efficiency would increase 

with additional office and storage space. 

Building security would increase. Visitors 

would be adequately served with a facility 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

110

large enough to meet their needs through 

space improvements. Tremendous savings 

would be realized by having adequate 

storage facilities to safeguard equipment, 

supplies, and materials. However, impacts 

would occur to cultural and natural 

resources from construction activities. 

Having employees’ offices split between 

two buildings would decrease operational 

efficiency. Two visitor facilities would 

require increased staffing, cleaning, and 

maintaining compared to the one building 

in Alternative A. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

Impacts on operational efficiency would 

be similar but less than Alternative B with 

the construction of a new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument. Work efficiency would 

increase in the new facility with additional 

office and storage space, but additional 

time would be required to travel between 

the new facility and the monument. 

Communication links between employees 

would be difficult to maintain. However, 

no impacts would occur to the 

monument’s cultural and natural 

resources with construction of the new 

facility off-site. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impacts on operational efficiency would 

be similar to Alternative B with the 

removal of administrative functions to a 

new facility and the remodeling of the 

existing visitor center. Work efficiency 

would increase somewhat in the new 

facility with additional office and storage 

space. However, fewer impacts would 

occur to cultural and natural resources 

without the construction of a new visitor 

center. Only one visitor facility would 

require staffing compared to the two 

buildings in Alternatives B and C, but the 

new administrative facility would require 

additional cleaning and upkeep. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

reduce damage to natural and cultural 

resources. The size, configuration, and 

location of new monument facilities would 

be selected to reduce intrusion on scenic 

viewsheds and cultural landscapes. The 

new facilities would blend in with the 

natural environment as much as possible 

by use of natural colors and screening with 

native vegetation. Careful and continuous 

monitoring would measure, record, and 

mitigate impacts to vegetation. New 

facilities would not be constructed on 

archeological sites. 

Water, Septic, and Solid Waste 

Systems 

Existing Conditions 

A 145-foot well, drilled at an intersection of 

two geologic faults, supplies the 

monument’s domestic water needs. 

However, the extent of groundwater 

resources is not well known. Existing 

water sources provide adequate volume 

for current domestic needs but the volume 

declines periodically. It is unclear whether 

this decline is a simple drought-water flow 

relationship. Block faulting (which could 

potentially shift unexpectedly) as well as 

minimal sedimentary formations capable 

of aquifer function characterize the 

underlying geology. It is not known if or 

how the expected increased water demand 

following escalated recreational use of 

Roosevelt Lake, which is down-slope of 

the monument, and from within and above 

the monument will affect the groundwater 

reservoir. 

Separate sewage systems serve the visitor 

center and the maintenance/residential 
WATER, SEPTIC, SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS 

111 

area. The visitor center system discharges 

into a 5,000-gallon septic tank and drains 

into a leech field located at the edge of 

Cave Canyon drainage near the 

monument’s well. This system is operating 

at its maximum design capacity during 

peak visitation periods although no 

leakage has occurred. The 

maintenance/residential area system 

discharges waste into a separate 5,000-

gallon septic tank and drains into a transevaporative system northeast of the 

residential area. To increase capacity and 

remove the need for the old visitor center 

leach field, these two sewage systems were 

combined into a new expanded system in 

2002 that included a new leech field and 

septic tank. 

A transfer station serves solid waste 

disposal needs for the monument. Gila 

County operates this transfer station on 

U.S. Forest Service land four miles east of 

the monument. Since the transfer station 

isn’t a permanent operation, future 

disposal options are unclear but may 

include regular trips to distant landfills by 

monument staff. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

The effects of the no-action alternative 

would be a continuation of the present 

situation. However, impacts to ground and 

surface water resources, vegetation, and 

wildlife would not be known without an 

assessment to determine the effects of 

increased groundwater withdrawal from 

existing and future internal and external 

visitor and employee demands and 

activities. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the new 

visitor/administrative facility built within 

the monument would further impact 

groundwater and natural resources by 

requiring expansion of the existing water 

and sewer systems. However, an 

assessment to determine the effects of 

increased groundwater withdrawal on 

ground and surface water, vegetation, and 

wildlife would be conducted. This 

information would provide monument 

staff with the knowledge needed to 

properly manage groundwater resources. 

Expanded partnerships would consider 

contracting waste management systems 

including recycling efforts. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

Impacts would be substantially less than 

Alternative B with the construction of a 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument. The addition of the seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence would not 

require expansion of the existing water 

and sewer systems and therefore, would 

not significantly impact groundwater and 

other natural resources. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impacts would be similar but less than 

Alternative B with only the addition of the 

administrative facility and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence. 

Groundwater and other natural resources 

would be somewhat impacted from the 

expansion of the existing water and sewer 

systems. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B and D 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

reduce damage to natural and cultural 

resources. The size, configuration, and 

location of new water and sewer systems 

would be selected to reduce intrusion on 

scenic viewsheds and cultural resources. 

The new systems would blend in with the 

natural environment as much as possible 

by screening and rehabilitating disturbed 

areas with native vegetation. Careful and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

112

continuous monitoring would measure, 

record, and mitigate impacts to vegetation. 

Water and sewer system expansions would 

not be located on archeological sites. 

Commercial Services 

Existing Conditions 

The only commercial service currently 

provided in the monument is the sale of 

public educational and convenience items 

by Southwest Parks and Monument 

Association (SPMA). SPMA is a nonprofit 

organization authorized by Congress to 

operate visitor center bookstores in more 

than fifty western parks. Proceeds from 

this activity are returned to the parks to aid 

and promote their educational and 

scientific programs. At Tonto National 

Monument, all sales items are displayed in 

a corner of the visitor center lobby 

between the information desk and the exit 

doors to the second floor and lower cliff 

dwelling trail. SPMA began providing this 

service in the late 1970s with one small 

display case for books. Presently, nine 

different cases displaying the sales items 

have been crowded into the ten- by 

sixteen-foot space allowing only two- to 

four-foot wide walking aisles. The highest 

shelves are six feet from the floor. Total 

sales have risen dramatically from $22,150 

in 1982 (earliest figures available) to 

$90,165 in 2000. 

The gateway communities of Roosevelt, 

Tonto Basin, and Globe provide basic 

commercial public services such as 

lodging, food, and gas. The adjacent Tonto 

National Forest provides camping, 

picnicking, hiking, and boating facilities. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

The no-action alternative would be a 

continuation of the present situation. One 

part-time SPMA employee would continue 

to manage the association operation. Space 

inside the existing visitor center would 

continue to be too small to house the 

present display of SPMA sales items 

creating an overcrowded area and denying 

visitors access to the educational items. 

Physically handicapped visitors cannot 

reach the publications on the upper 

shelves. Adequate space would not be 

available for proper storage of 

merchandise. Visitor satisfaction, 

experience, and education would 

decrease. However, the current excellent 

selection of educational publications 

would continue to be offered. SPMA 

would continue to contribute the existing 

level of volunteers and funding towards 

monument operations. 

Because commercial lodging, food, and gas 

services are available from local 

communities, plus the fact that the 

monument land base is very small and 

preserves numerous archeological sites, 

these services would not be provided 

inside the monument. The addition of inpark facilities would require more 

parkland to be developed and would strain 

the park’s existing small water and sewage 

system. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

The addition of the new visitor center 

within the monument would greatly 

expand and improve SPMA’s operation by 

providing needed display and storage 

space. Substantially more funds would be 

generated to assist in the monument’s 

operation. Excellent educational and 

thematic publications would easily be 

accessible to visitors. Visitor satisfaction, 

experience, and understanding of the 

monument would substantially increase. 

However, the new visitor center would 

encroach on and adversely impact the 

monument’s cultural and natural 

resources. 

Impacts from commercial lodging, food, 

and gas services would be the same as for 

Alternative A. 
COMMERCIAL SERVICES - BOUNDARY 

113 

Impacts of Alternative C 

Same as Alternative B. The addition of the 

new visitor center outside the monument 

would greatly expand and improve 

SPMA’s operation by providing needed 

display and storage space. Substantially 

more funds would be generated to assist 

the monument’s operation. Excellent 

educational and thematic publications 

would easily be accessible to visitors. 

Visitor satisfaction, experience, and 

understanding of the monument would 

substantially increase. But because the 

new visitor center would be built outside 

the monument, no encroachment would 

occur to the monument’s cultural and 

natural resources. 

Impacts from commercial lodging, food, 

and gas services would be the same as for 

Alternative A. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

The remodeling of the existing visitor 

center would slightly expand and improve 

SPMA’s operation by providing a little 

more display and storage space. A few 

more funds would be generated to assist 

the monument’s operation. Excellent, 

educational, and thematic publications 

would be more accessible to visitors. 

Visitor satisfaction, experience, and 

understanding of the monument would 

increase. But because a new visitor center 

would not be built, no encroachment 

would occur to the monument’s cultural 

and natural resources. 

Impacts from commercial lodging, food, 

and gas services would be the same as for 

Alternative A. 

Mitigation for Alternative B 

Specific mitigation measures for future 

development projects would be defined 

during the planning for each project and 

carried out prior to or during project 

development. Design modifications would 

reduce damage to natural and cultural 

resources. The size, configuration, and 

location of new visitor facility would be 

selected to reduce intrusion on scenic 

viewsheds. The new facility would blend in 

with the natural environment as much as 

possible by use of natural colors and 

screening with native vegetation. Careful 

and continuous monitoring would 

measure, record, and mitigate impacts to 

vegetation. No development would occur 

on archeological sites. 

Boundary 

Existing Conditions 

When the monument was established and 

enlarged, boundary lines were drawn 

following section lines instead of locating 

them along ecological or archeological 

features. Cave Canyon, the largest 

watershed draining into the monument, 

begins on U.S. Forest Service land. 

Activities and practices that occur in the 

headwaters of Cave Canyon can negatively 

impact the monument’s downstream 

natural and cultural resources. These 

activities include grazing, hunting, offroad vehicle use, erosion from roads, use 

of firefighting chemicals and equipment, 

and possibly prescribed burning. Cave 

Canyon’s stream channel, water quality, 

vegetation, and wildlife habitat may 

change because of these activities. Water 

use from external wells in this drainage has 

the potential to affect this area’s natural 

balance. The monument’s only perennial 

surface water source is located in Cave 

Canyon and is listed as a wetland by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ national 

wetlands inventory. 

The 1985 archeological survey documented 

that vandalism and the construction of 

bulldozed firelines had disturbed 

archeological sites near the boundary, 

both within and outside the monument. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

114

Due to the rugged terrain, the monument’s 

‘boundary’ fence was built for ease of 

construction and does not necessarily 

follow the legal boundary. Most deviations 

are inside the monument allowing trespass 

and incompatible uses. The fence was not 

built to allow for safe wildlife crossings. 

Impacts of Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no-action alternative, the Cave 

Canyon watershed would continue to be 

potentially impacted from external 

activities. The existing boundary fence 

would be repaired and maintained as 

constructed. New staff or funds would not 

be needed to inventory, assess, and protect 

new monument lands. 

Impacts of Alternatives B, C, and D - 

NPS Preferred 

Alternatives B, C, and D would attempt to 

preserve and protect the entire Cave 

Canyon watershed by initiating a 

boundary study including recommended 

adjustments to Congress. A fence would 

then be constructed along the legal 

boundary to protect these new lands. All 

unneeded interior fencelines would be 

removed. More staff and funds would be 

needed to inventory and assess these new 

lands and provide continued protection. 

Mitigation for Alternatives B, C, D 

All new fencelines would be built to 

provide safe wildlife crossings and would 

not be constructed through archeological 

sites. 

Economic Contribution To 

Gateway Communities 

Existing Conditions 

The exact amount of socioeconomic 

increases cannot be predicted because of 

the general nature of this plan. We can 

estimate the effect of future possible 

actions, however, using output from the 

Money Generation Model & Money 

Generation Model II (1992,1999). These 

impacts are shown for each alternative and 

should be considered general estimates. 

Current visitation is flat, so no additional 

information for the future is estimated 

other than to say that if additional 

visitation did occur, each additional 1000 

visits would contribute benefits to the local 

economy. 

The existing budget of $734,000 and 

thirteen full time employees for the park 

along with the existing visitation of 

approximately 74,000 visits annually 

provide income to the local economy. 

Total combined sales are about .6 million 

annually from park operating 

expenditures and .99 million from existing 

visitation. Total increased tax revenue 

gained from park-related activities is 

approximately $37,000 annually and from 

existing visitation is about $71,000 

annually. Operations and use of the park 

has resulted in approximately thirty-six 

jobs being created for the local 

community. 

For every 1,000 additional party nights 

calculated using the MGMII, 

approximately $18,000 in combined sales 

is added to the local economy along with 

approximately $2,150 in increased tax 

revenue. About nine-tenths of a job is also 

created. For every $1,000 expended by the 

park, approximately $2,000 in combined 

sales is added to the local economy along 

with $190 in increased tax revenue. One 

tenth of a job would also be created. 

Impacts of Alternative A - No-Action 

There is no additional contribution to the 

local economy from this alternative. 

Impacts of Alternative B 

This alternative would provide a slight 

short-term increase to the local economy. 

There are two types of estimated increases: 

short-term (from capital investment) and 
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION TO GATEWAY COMMUNITIES 

115 

long-term (from an increase in the annual 

operating budget). 

In the short term, it is estimated that an 

expenditure of about $1.6 million would 

create a one-time benefit to the economy. 

The benefits would be an increase of $3.2 

million in total combined sales, 

approximately $303,000 in tax revenue, 

and approximately thirty-two additional 

jobs. This would not necessarily occur in 

the local economy. 

In the long term, there would be an 

additional annual contribution resulting 

from an increase of $229,000 in the annual 

operating budget. The benefits would be 

an increase of $458,000 in total combined 

sales, approximately $43,000 in tax 

revenue, and approximately five additional 

jobs. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

This alternative would provide a slight 

short-term increase to the local economy. 

There are two types of estimated increases: 

short-term (from capital investment) and 

long-term (from an increase in the annual 

operating budget). 

In the short term, it is estimated that an 

expenditure of about $1.53 million would 

create a one-time benefit to the economy. 

The benefits would be an increase of $3.07 

million in total combined sales, 

approximately $291,000 in tax revenue, 

and approximately thirty-one additional 

jobs. This would not necessarily occur in 

the local economy. 

In the long term, there would be additional 

annual contribution resulting from an 

increase of $258,000 in the annual 

operating budget. The benefits would be 

an increase of $516,000 in total combined 

sales, approximately $49,000 in tax 

revenue, and approximately five additional 

jobs. 

Impacts of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

This alternative would provide a slight 

short-term increase to the local economy. 

There are two types of estimated increases: 

short-term (from capital investment) and 

long-term (from an increase in the annual 

operating budget). 

In the short term, it is estimated that an 

expenditure of about $.91 million would 

create a one-time benefit to the economy. 

The benefits would be an increase of $1.82 

million in total combined sales, 

approximately $173,000 in tax revenue, 

and approximately eighteen additional 

jobs. This would not necessarily occur in 

the local economy. 

In the long term, there would be additional 

annual contribution resulting from an 

increase of $172,000 in the annual 

operating budget. The benefits would be 

an increase of $344,000 in total combined 

sales, approximately $32,000 in tax 

revenue, and approximately three 

additional jobs. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects were determined by 

combining the impacts of each alternative 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency (federal or nonfederal) or 

person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time. Therefore, it was necessary 

to identify other ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable future projects within the 

Tonto National Monument area and, if 

applicable, the surrounding region. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

116

Impairment of Park Resources or 

Values 

In addition to determining the 

environmental consequences of the 

preferred and other alternatives, National 

Park Service policy (Management Policies, 

2001) requires analysis of potential effects 

to determine whether or not actions would 

impair park resources. 

The fundamental purpose of the national 

park system, established by the Organic 

Act and reaffirmed by the General 

Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a 

mandate to conserve park resources and 

values. National Park Service managers 

must always seek ways to avoid, or to 

minimize to the greatest degree 

practicable, adversely impacting park 

resources and values. However, the laws 

do give the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow impacts to 

park resources and values when necessary 

and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of a 

park, as long as the impact does not 

constitute impairment of the affected 

resources and values. Although Congress 

has given the National Park Service the 

management discretion to allow certain 

impacts within parks, that discretion is 

limited by the statutory requirement that 

the National Park Service must leave park 

resources and values unimpaired, unless a 

particular law directly and specifically 

provides otherwise. The prohibited 

impairment is an impact that, in the 

professional judgement of the responsible 

National Park Service manager, would 

harm the integrity of park resources or 

values, including the opportunities that 

otherwise would be present for the 

enjoyment of those resources or values. An 

impact to any park resource or value may 

constitute an impairment. An impact 

would be more likely to constitute an 

impairment to the extent that it has a 

major or severe adverse effect upon a 

resource or value whose conservation is: 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation 

or proclamation of the park; 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the park or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or 

• identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. 

Impairment may result from National Park 

Service activities in managing the park, 

visitor activities, or activities undertaken 

by concessionaires, contractors, and 

others operating in the park. A 

determination on impairment is included 

in the analysis of each impact topic for all 

alternatives. 

Scenarios

Tonto Basin Recreational Facilities: In 

1996, the Bureau of Reclamation modified 

Roosevelt Dam because it was determined 

that the probable maximum flood in the 

basin would have brought more water into 

the reservoir than the original dam was 

designed to safely release. The enlarged 

dam vastly increased Roosevelt Lake’s 

recreation potential. As part of the dam 

modification project, new recreational 

facilities were constructed around 

Roosevelt Lake in Tonto National Forest. 

The new facilities added 1,500 individual 

campsites, eighty picnic sites, a group 

campground, nine boat launch areas, six 

fish cleaning stations, and a new visitor 

center. There is potential for increased 

tourism within Tonto Basin as a result of 

the increased recreational facilities. 

Tonto Basin Transportation: Arizona 

Department of Transportation is 

undertaking a project to realign the 30-

mile section of State Route 188 between 

Globe and the monument. Upon 

completion, the improved highway will 

provide easier access into Tonto Basin 

from Globe/Miami. 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

117 

Regional Population: Maricopa County 

(Phoenix metropolitan area) is the second 

fastest growing county in the United 

States. Increased growth of the Phoenix 

area may increase demand for use of parks 

such as Tonto National Monument. These 

population increases have not yet resulted 

in significant increased visitation to the 

monument. A popular day-trip from the 

Phoenix metropolitan area is a loop drive 

along the scenic Apache Trail (State Route 

88) to Tonto Basin and the monument and 

then returning through Globe/Miami and 

Superior. 

External Activities: Tonto National 

Forest has developed a prescribed fire 

burn plan for 1,400 acres adjacent to the 

south boundary of the monument. The 

goals of this burn plan are to improve 

forage conditions and reduce the build up 

of fine dead fuels. Other activities 

occurring on forest service lands adjacent 

to the park include hunting, grazing, and 

off-road vehicle use. 

Tonto National Monument: The National 

Park Service’s proposed expanded 

facilities and operation described under 

Alternative D would not be expected to 

substantially increase visitation to the 

monument and the rest of Tonto Basin. 

Long-Term Integrity Of 

Archeological Resources 

Methodology 

All available information on known 

archeological sites was compiled (Tagg, 

1985). Map locations of archeological sites 

were compared with locations of proposed 

developments and modifications to 

existing facilities to determine potential 

for impacts. 

Effects to resources may be beneficial or 

adverse, direct or indirect, and either 

short- or long-term. The following 

definitions were used in analyzing effects 

on archeological resources and the cliff 

dwelling environment: 

Negligible – The impact on these resources 

is not measurable or perceptible. 

Minor – The impact on these resources is 

measurable or perceptible, but it is 

localized within a relatively small area of a 

site or group of sites and would not have a 

permanent effect on the integrity of any of 

these resources. 

Moderate – The impact on these resources 

is sufficient to cause a change in site 

integrity, but the impact remains localized 

to one or a few sites. The change is 

measurable and perceptible. Adverse 

impacts could be mitigated through 

stabilization, data collection, or some 

other means. 

Major – The impact on these resources is 

substantial, noticeable and permanent. 

Beneficial – A positive change in the 

condition or appearance of these 

resources, or a change that moves the 

resource towards a desired condition. 

Adverse – A change that moves the 

resource away from a desired condition or 

detracts from its appearance. 

Short-term – An effect that within a short 

period of time (generally one or two years 

but no more than five years) would no 

longer be detectable as the resource 

returns to its pre-disturbance condition. 

Long-term – A change in a resource or its 

condition that does not return to predisturbance conditions and for all 

practical purposes is considered 

permanent. 

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – Historic and 

prehistoric properties are identified and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

118

inventoried and their significance and 

integrity are evaluated under National 

Register criteria. The qualities that 

contribute to the eligibility for listing of 

historic properties or archeological sites 

on the National Register of Historic Places 

are protected in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 

Source – National Historic Preservation 

Act; Executive Order 11593 Cultural 

Environment; Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act; Archeological Resources 

Protection Act; the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation; 

Programmatic Memorandum of 

Agreement Among the NPS, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Council of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (1995); NPS 

Management Policies; Director’s Order 28 

– Cultural Resource Management; Tonto 

National Monument enabling legislation. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

facilities would be built; existing facilities 

would be maintained. Therefore, no 

impacts would occur to archeological 

resources as a result of construction 

activities. 

Visitors currently have unsupervised 

access to the lower cliff dwelling and 

access the upper cliff dwelling via rangerguided tours. The remaining sites in the 

monument are closed to public entry, 

although enforcement of the closure is 

hampered by a lack of adequate staff to 

conduct routine patrols and monitoring. 

The expected increase in park visitors 

would impact the cliff dwellings through 

both inadvertent actions and deliberate 

vandalism. Inadvertent impacts include 

touching original plasters, picking up or 

otherwise displacing pottery sherds and 

other artifacts, compacting cultural 

deposits, plus the incremental cumulative 

effects of thousands of people walking 

around and through the rooms over time. 

Intentional vandalism includes removing 

artifacts, inscribing graffiti, damaging 

walls, and probing or digging in sites. 

Some of these impacts are mitigated 

through stabilization of site architecture. 

Archeological resources adjacent to the 

park boundary would continue to be 

vulnerable to surface disturbance, 

inadvertent damage, and vandalism. 

The deterioration of archeological sites 

would also continue from lack of 

information, stabilization procedures, and 

proper management. Long-term 

monitoring, assessment, and stabilization 

programs would not be conducted to 

properly care for and preserve 

archeological resources. Over the longterm, the lack of adequate protection and 

preservation actions would adversely 

affect site integrity. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past management strategies have limited 

visitor impacts at archeological sites to the 

two stabilized cliff dwellings. 

Implementation of the no-action 

alternative would not open any additional 

sites to visitation impacts. No construction 

activities would take place to adversely 

impact archeological resources. However, 

the no-action alternative would have a 

long-term adverse effect on archeological 

sites, because threats to the archeological 

sites would continue. Existing staff levels 

undertaking emergency stabilization 

practices would not be able to carry out 

long-term management goals to preserve 

and protect the cultural resources through 

comprehensive monitoring, assessment, 

and mitigation programs. 

The continuing growth of the Phoenix 

metropolitan area and the improved 

highways and U.S. Forest Service facilities 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

119 

in Tonto Basin would potentially result in 

increased adverse impacts to the 

monument’s archeological resources such 

as vandalism, incidental artifact collection, 

inadvertent destabilization of walls, and 

social trailing. Under Alternative A, 

insufficient NPS law enforcement 

capabilities would not be able to protect 

archeological resources from these 

adverse impacts. 

Within Tonto Basin, improved highways 

and recreational facilities have adversely 

impacted individual archeological sites. As 

recreational users grow, impacts on 

surrounding U.S. Forest Service lands and 

resources would continue to increase, 

resulting in the possible degradation of 

archeological sites. As archeological sites 

are adversely impacted outside the park, 

the relative rarity and importance of the 

archeological resources within the 

monument would increase. 

Conclusion - The no-action alternative 

would result in moderately adverse affects 

to preserving the long-term integrity of the 

monument’s archeological resources from 

the lack of protection and preservation 

actions. Because there would be no major, 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s archeological 

resources. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Under this alternative a new 

visitor/administrative facility, associated 

parking lot, seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence, and nature trail would be built 

and the existing visitor center remodeled. 

Construction of new and remodeling of 

existing facilities would not impact or 

destroy archeological resources or the cliff 

dwelling environment because no 

archeological sites are located in the 

proposed development areas. The location 

of the new visitor center may enhance 

long-term integrity of archeological 

resources by providing visitors with more 

education about the 

importance/significance/fragility of 

cultural resources thereby lessening their 

impacts on the cliff dwellings. 

Visitors currently have unsupervised 

access to the lower cliff dwelling and 

access the upper cliff dwelling via rangerguided tours. The remaining sites in the 

monument are closed to public entry. The 

expected increase in park visitors would 

impact the cliff dwellings through both 

inadvertent actions and deliberate 

vandalism until a carrying capacity study 

was completed to limit visitation at any 

given time. Impacts would be mitigated 

through stabilization of site architecture 

and increased staff levels conducting 

routine patrols and monitoring programs. 

The increased personnel at the cliff 

dwellings as well as the better monitoring 

of these and other sites would provide 

increased protection to archeological 

resources. The presence of uniformed 

personnel has been demonstrated to be an 

effective deterrent to inappropriate 

behaviors that would result in resource 

damage. Archeological resources adjacent 

to the park boundary would continue to be 

vulnerable to surface disturbance, 

inadvertent damage, and vandalism. These 

impacts would be mitigated by having 

sufficient staff levels to patrol and monitor 

the vulnerable sites. 

The deterioration of archeological sites 

would be reduced with increased 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

120

information, stabilization procedures, and 

proper management. Long-term 

monitoring, assessment, and stabilization 

programs would be conducted to properly 

care for and preserve archeological 

resources. Over the long-term, protection 

and preservation actions would benefit site 

integrity. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past management strategies have limited 

visitor impacts at archeological sites to the 

two stabilized cliff dwellings. 

Implementation of this alternative would 

not open any additional sites to visitation 

impacts. This alternative would have a 

long-term moderate beneficial effect on 

archeological sites. Increased staff along 

with developed guidelines would be more 

effective in carrying out long-term 

management goals to preserve and protect 

the cultural resources entrusted to its care. 

Threats to the archeological sites would 

diminish through monitoring, assessment, 

and mitigation programs. The new 

constructed facilities would not impact 

archeological sites because no sites were 

found in these areas during the 1985 

archeological survey. The additional 

visitor center would create positive 

benefits from visitors receiving more 

education and an enhanced appreciation 

of the cultural resources. However, 

relative to existing conditions, the net 

effect would be a minor increase in 

degradation of the cliff dwellings due to 

increased visitor access and associated 

impacts, but moderately beneficial impacts 

would result from better preservation 

programs. Negative impacts would be 

offset to some degree by visitors receiving 

more education, the implementation of a 

carrying capacity, and increased 

protection capabilities under this 

alternative. 

The continuing growth of the Phoenix 

metropolitan area and the improved 

highways and U.S. Forest Service facilities 

in Tonto Basin would potentially result in 

increased visitation and adverse impacts to 

the monument’s archeological resources 

such as vandalism, incidental artifact 

collection, inadvertent destabilization of 

walls, and social trailing. Under 

Alternative B, sufficient NPS law 

enforcement capabilities would be able to 

protect archeological resources from these 

adverse impacts. Within Tonto Basin, 

improved highways and recreational 

facilities have adversely impacted 

individual archeological sites. As 

recreational users grow, impacts on 

surrounding U.S. Forest Service lands and 

resources will continue to increase, 

resulting in the possible degradation of 

archeological sites. As archeological sites 

are adversely impacted outside the park, 

the relative rarity and importance of the 

archeological resources within the 

monument would increase. 

Conclusion – This alternative would result 

in moderately beneficial effects to 

preserving the long-term integrity of the 

monument’s archeological resources from 

increased protection and preservation 

actions. Because there would be no major, 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s archeological 

resources. 

Effects of Alternative C 

Impact Analysis 

Under Alternative C, a new 

visitor/administrative facility would be 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

121 

constructed outside the monument. A new 

seasonal employee/volunteer residence 

would still be constructed inside the park. 

The impact analysis would be the same as 

listed under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative B. 

Conclusion - Same as Alternatives B and 

D. This alternative would result in 

moderately beneficial effects to preserving 

the long-term integrity of the monument’s 

archeological resources from increased 

protection and preservation actions. 

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s archeological 

resources. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

Under Alternative D, an administrative 

facility, seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence, and ATS staging area would be 

constructed within the monument. The 

impact analysis would be the same as listed 

under Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative B. 

Conclusion - Same as Alternatives B and 

C. This alternative would result in 

moderately beneficial effects to preserving 

the long-term integrity of the monument’s 

archeological resources from increased 

protection and preservation actions. 

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s archeological 

resources. 

Historic Character of the Built 

Environment 

Methodology 

The National Historic Preservation Act 

requires agencies to take into account the 

effects of their actions on properties listed 

or eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places. In 1966, the 

entire monument was listed on the 

National Register. The existing visitor 

center, although not nominated, meets 

criteria for nomination to the national 

register. The monument was completely 

surveyed for significant standing-wall 

structures in 1985. As a result, six 

archeological sites including the two cliff 

dwellings were listed on the List of 

Classified Structures (LCS). Although a 

cultural landscape inventory has not been 

completed, potentially significant cultural 

landscapes are evident. Locations of 

known resources were compared with 

locations of proposed developments and 

modifications to existing facilities to 

determine potential for impacts. The 

following definitions were used in 

analyzing effects on cultural landscapes 

and historic structures: 

Negligible – The impact on these resources 

is at the lower levels of detection. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

122

Minor – The impact on these resources is 

slight, but measurable and would not have 

a permanent effect on the integrity of any 

of these resources. 

Moderate – The impact on these resources 

is readily apparent. 

Major – The impact on these resources is 

severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial. 

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – Historic and 

prehistoric properties are identified and 

inventoried and their significance and 

integrity are evaluated under National 

Register criteria. The qualities that 

contribute to the eligibility for listing of 

historic properties or archeological sites 

on the National Register are protected in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards. 

Source – National Historic Preservation 

Act; Executive Order 11593 Cultural 

Environment; Archeological and Historic 

Preservation Act; Archeological Resources 

Protection Act; the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation; 

Programmatic Memorandum of 

Agreement Among the NPS, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Council of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (1995); NPS Organic 

Act; NPS Management Policies; Director’s 

Order 28 – Cultural Resource 

Management; Tonto National Monument 

enabling legislation. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Under this alternative, the existing 

Mission 66-visitor center is maintained 

and no new structures would be built. 

Therefore, no impacts would occur to 

cultural landscapes and historic structures 

from construction activities. Impacts to 

the cliff dwellings and other LCS sites 

would be the same as listed under Longterm Integrity of Archeological Resources 

for Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Implementation of the no-action 

alternative would not open any additional 

LCS sites other than the two cliff dwellings 

to visitation impacts. No construction 

activities would take place to impact LCS 

sites, cultural landscapes, and the Mission 

66-visitor center. However, the no-action 

alternative would have a long-term 

moderate adverse effect on LCS sites, 

because threats to them would continue. 

Existing staff and continued emergency 

stabilization practices would not be able to 

carry out long-term management goals to 

preserve and protect the LCS sites through 

comprehensive monitoring, assessment, 

and mitigation programs. Minor adverse 

impacts would occur to cultural 

landscapes without completed inventories 

and reports to guide park managers in the 

long-term. 

Within Tonto Basin, additional 

recreational and commercial facilities and 

their users have impacted the cultural 

landscape. Improved highways and 

recreational facilities have adversely 

impacted individual archeological sites. As 

recreational users grow, impacts on 

surrounding U.S. Forest Service lands and 

resources would continue to increase, 

resulting in the possible degradation of 

archeological sites and cultural landscapes. 

As archeological sites and cultural 

landscapes are impacted outside the park, 

the relative rarity and importance of these 

resources within the monument would 

increase. 

Conclusion - The no-action alternative 

would have minor beneficial long-term 
HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT 

123 

effects on cultural landscapes without the 

construction of new facilities. However, 

the no-action alternative would have a 

long-term moderate adverse effect on 

cultural landscapes and LCS sites without 

needed inventories, reports, and 

preservation programs. The Mission 66-

visitor center would not be affected. 

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s historical resources. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Under this alternative, a new 

visitor/administrative facility, associated 

parking lot, nature trail, and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence would be 

constructed within the park and the 

interior of the existing Mission 66-visitor 

center would be remodeled. The new 

facilities would impact unidentified 

cultural landscape features. However, an 

inventory would be conducted and a 

report prepared to mitigate impacts to 

cultural landscapes. No impacts would 

occur to LCS sites because none of these 

sites are located in the proposed 

development areas. No alterations would 

be made to the existing visitor center’s 

exterior design or its strategic placement. 

Cumulative Effects 

The additional facilities would have 

moderate adverse and long-term impacts 

on unidentified cultural landscape 

features. However, the new visitor center 

would create positive benefits from 

visitors receiving more education and an 

enhanced appreciation of the cultural 

landscapes and LCS sites. Negative 

impacts would be offset with the 

knowledge gained from having completed 

cultural landscape inventories and reports 

to guide park managers in the long-term. 

No adverse impacts would occur to the 

existing Mission 66-visitor center because 

the exterior design would not be changed. 

The cumulative effects on LCS sites would 

be the same that’s described under Longterm Integrity of Archeological Resources 

for Alternative B. 

Within Tonto Basin, recreational facilities, 

commercial businesses, and other modern 

developments have compromised the 

integrity of the cultural landscape. These 

impacts would be adversely moderate and 

long-term. As development increases, the 

importance of protecting the cultural 

landscape within the monument increases. 

Conclusion – The actions under this 

alternative would have moderate adverse 

long-term impacts on unidentified cultural 

landscape features from construction of 

new facilities. This alternative would result 

in moderately beneficial long-term effects 

to cultural landscapes and LCS sites from 

information gained and preservation 

practices used. There would be no adverse 

impacts to the Mission 66-visitor center’s 

exterior or location. Because there would 

be no major, adverse impacts to a resource 

or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment of the monument’s 

historical resources. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

124

Effects of Alternative C

Impact Analysis 

The impact analysis would be similar to 

Alternative B except that the new 

visitor/administrative facility and 

associated parking lot would be 

constructed outside the monument. 

Depending on its location, the addition of 

this facility would contribute to increased 

development in Tonto Basin. Only the 

additional seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence would be built within the 

monument; the existing Mission 66-visitor 

center would be remodeled. The new 

residence would still impact unidentified 

cultural landscape features, but these 

impacts would be significantly less than 

Alternative B. No impacts would occur to 

LCS sites because no archeological sites 

are located in the proposed development 

area. No alterations would be made to the 

existing visitor center’s exterior or its 

strategic placement. 

Cumulative Effects 

Only the additional residence would have 

negligible adverse and long-term impact 

on unidentified cultural landscape features 

within the monument since the new 

visitor/administrative facility would be 

built outside the park. Negative impacts 

would be significantly less than in 

Alternative B and would be offset with the 

information gained from having 

completed cultural landscape inventories 

and reports to guide park managers in the 

long-term. As in Alternative B, no adverse 

impacts would occur to the existing visitor 

center because the exterior design would 

not be changed. The cumulative effects on 

LCS sites would be the same that’s 

described under Long-term Integrity of 

Archeological Resources for Alternative B. 

Within Tonto Basin, recreational facilities, 

commercial businesses, and other modern 

developments have compromised the 

integrity of the cultural landscape. These 

impacts would be adversely moderate and 

long-term and increased with the addition 

of the new visitor center outside the 

monument. As development increases, the 

importance of protecting the cultural 

landscape within the monument increases. 

Conclusion – Similar to Alternative B. The 

actions under Alternative C would have 

negligible adverse long-term impacts on 

unidentified cultural landscape features 

from construction of the new residence. 

Alternative C would result in moderately 

beneficial long-term effects to LCS sites 

and cultural landscapes from information 

gained and preservation practices used. 

There would be no adverse impacts to the 

Mission 66-visitor center’s exterior and 

location. Because there would be no 

major, adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s historical resources. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

Under this alternative, a new 

administrative facility, ATS staging area, 

and seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence would be constructed inside the 

park and the interior of the existing 

Mission 66-visitor center would be 

remodeled. The new facilities would 

impact unidentified cultural landscape 

features, but locating the new facilities 

near the existing maintenance/residential 

area would minimize these impacts. No 

impacts would occur to LCS sites because 

no archeological sites are located in the 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

125 

proposed development areas. As in 

Alternatives B and C, no alterations would 

be made to the existing visitor center’s 

exterior or its strategic placement. 

Cumulative Effects 

The additional structures would have 

minor adverse and long-term impact on 

unidentified cultural landscape features. 

Negative impacts would be offset with the 

information gained from having 

completed cultural landscape inventories 

and reports to guide park managers in the 

long-term. As in Alternatives B and C, no 

adverse impacts would occur to the 

existing visitor center because the exterior 

design would not be changed. The 

cumulative effects on LCS sites would be 

the same that’s described under Long-term 

Integrity of Archeological Resources for 

Alternative B. 

Within Tonto Basin, recreational facilities, 

commercial businesses, and other modern 

developments have compromised the 

integrity of the cultural landscape. These 

impacts would be adversely moderate and 

long-term. As development increases, the 

importance of protecting the cultural 

landscape within the monument increases. 

Conclusion – Similar to Alternative B. The 

actions under the proposed alternative 

would have minor adverse long-term 

impacts on unidentified cultural landscape 

features from construction of new 

facilities. The proposed alternative would 

result in moderately beneficial long-term 

effects to LCS sites and cultural landscapes 

from knowledge gained and preservation 

practices used. There would be no adverse 

impacts to the Mission 66-visitor center’s 

exterior and location. Because there would 

be no major, adverse impacts to a resource 

or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment of the monument’s 

historical resources. 

Long-Term Integrity of 

Ethnographic Resources 

Methodology 

The only research-based information the 

monument has regarding associations of 

contemporary communities with 

monument resources is derived from a 

cultural affiliation study conducted for 

Casa Grande National Monument. This 

study concluded that the Ak-Chin Indian 

Community, Gila River Indian 

Community, Hopi Tribe, Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, Tohono 

O’Odham Nation, and Zuni Pueblo are 

associated with Salado archeological 

resources. Other tribes that may also have 

affiliations with the monument are San 

Carlos Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, Yavapai 

Apache Tribe, and Yavapai Prescott Indian 

Tribe. Because ethnographic resources are 

tied to communities’ cultural identities, 

effects to the resources would occur in 

perpetuity. Therefore, the duration of 

impacts to ethnographic resources would 

be forever. The definitions of the intensity 

of potential impacts to ethnographic 

resources are as follows: 

Negligible – The impact is at the lower 

levels of detection. 

Minor – The impact is slight, but 

detectable. 

Moderate – The impact is readily apparent. 

Major – The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

126

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – Appropriate cultural 

anthropological research is conducted in 

cooperation with park-associated groups. 

All agencies shall accommodate access to 

and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites 

by Indian religious practitioners, and 

avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of these sacred sites. NPS general 

regulations on access to and use of natural 

and cultural resources in parks will be 

applied in an informed and balanced 

manner that is consistent with park 

purposes and does not unreasonably 

interfere with native American use of 

traditional areas or sacred resources and 

does not result in degradation of park 

resources. The park consults with 

traditionally associated native Americans 

regarding planning, management, and 

operational decisions that affect 

subsistence activities, sacred materials or 

places, or other ethnographic resources 

with which they are historically associated. 

The identities of community consultants 

and information about sacred and other 

culturally sensitive places and practices 

will be kept confidential when research 

agreements or other circumstances 

warrant. Native Americans and other 

individuals and groups linked by ties of 

kinship or culture to ethnically identifiable 

human remains will be consulted when 

remains may be disturbed or are 

encountered on park lands. 

Source – National Historic Preservation 

Act; Executive Order 13007 American 

Indian Sacred Sites; Executive Order 11593 

Cultural Environment; American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act; Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; 

Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 

1994 on Government-to-Government 

Relations with Tribal Governments; 

Programmatic Memorandum of 

Agreement Among the NPS, Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Council of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (1995); NPS 

Management Policies; Director’s Order 28 

– Cultural Resource Management. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

facilities would be built; existing facilities 

would be maintained. Therefore, no 

impacts would occur to ethnographic 

resources as a result of construction 

activities. However, under the no-action 

alternative, no information would be 

available to tie the monument to those 

tribes whose ethnographic resources are 

related. Any negative impacts that 

presently occur to archeological sites as a 

result of use or vandalism would 

potentially affect ethnographic resources. 

Conversely, any protection to 

archeological sites that is currently 

afforded by lack of access constitutes a 

major beneficial effect on archeological 

sites as ethnographic resources. The 

culturally appropriate interpretive 

messages about tribal histories and values 

would continue to be unknown. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past management strategies have limited 

visitor impacts at archeological sites to the 

two stabilized cliff dwellings. 

Implementation of the no-action 

alternative would not open any additional 

sites to visitation impacts. No construction 

activities would take place to adversely 

impact ethnographic resources. However, 

the no-action alternative would adversely 

affect ethnographic resources without a 

completed ethnographic survey and 

assessment. 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

127 

Within Tonto Basin, improved highways 

and recreational and commercial facilities 

have impacted individual archeological 

sites. As recreational users grow, impacts 

on surrounding U.S. Forest Service lands 

and resources would continue to increase, 

resulting in the possible degradation of 

ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion – Minor adverse impacts 

would occur to ethnographic resources 

over the long-term from lack of 

information necessary to manage the 

resource. Because there would be no 

major, adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s ethnographic 

resources. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Same as described under Long-term 

Integrity of Archeological Resources and 

Historic Character of the Built 

Environment for Alternative B. Any 

negative effects to archeological sites and 

cultural landscapes would also constitute 

an impact to the sites as ethnographic 

resources. Even though the new 

visitor/administrative facility, parking lot, 

and seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence would not be built on 

archeological sites, they would alter the 

cultural landscape. Completed 

ethnographic surveys and assessments 

would identify the tribes culturally 

affiliated to the park. Improved 

interpretive media and educational 

messages would have a positive effect on 

the cultural values associated with 

ethnographic resources by increasing 

tribal participation in telling the stories of 

their own histories and relationships to 

park resources. Increased education about 

the cultural values associated with 

ethnographic resources would help 

minimize some of the potential negative 

effects to archeological sites due to 

inadvertent destructive activities or 

vandalism. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects of this alternative on 

ethnographic resources would primarily 

be minor to moderate beneficial long-term 

effects as a result of increasing tribal 

participation in park actions and practices. 

A moderately beneficial effect would result 

from the improved interpretive media and 

educational messages provided to park 

visitors. Increased tribal involvement in 

interpretation would assist in educating 

the public about the significance of park 

resources in tribal history and 

contemporary cultural values and possibly 

result in decreasing direct impacts to 

archeological sites. 

Within Tonto Basin, improved highways 

and recreational and commercial facilities 

have impacted individual archeological 

sites. As recreational users grow, impacts 

on surrounding U.S. Forest Service lands 

and resources would continue to increase, 

resulting in the possible degradation of 

ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion – Moderately beneficial longterm impacts would occur to ethnographic 

resources with increased tribal 

participation. Because there would be no 

major, adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

128

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s ethnographic 

resources. 

Effects of Alternative C 

Impact Analysis 

Same as Alternative B except that the new 

visitor/administrative facility and parking 

lot would be built outside the monument. 

Only the seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence would be built within the 

monument near the existing residences. 

This new facility would not be located on 

archeological sites nor would unduly affect 

the cultural landscape. Completed 

ethnographic surveys and assessments 

would identify the tribes culturally 

affiliated to the park. Improved 

interpretive media and educational 

messages would have a positive effect on 

the cultural values associated with 

ethnographic resources by increasing 

tribal participation in telling the stories of 

their own histories and relationships to 

park resources. Increased education about 

the cultural values associated with 

ethnographic resources would help 

minimize some of the potential negative 

effects to archeological sites due to 

inadvertent destructive activities or 

vandalism. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative B. 

Conclusion – Same as Alternatives B and 

D. Moderately beneficial long-term 

impacts would occur to ethnographic 

resources with increased tribal 

participation. Because there would be no 

major, adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s ethnographic 

resources. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

Same as Alternative B except that new 

construction would consist of an 

administrative facility, ATS staging area, 

and seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence. None of these facilities would 

be built on archeological sites, but would 

affect the cultural landscape. Completed 

ethnographic surveys and assessments 

would identify the tribes culturally 

affiliated to the park. Improved 

interpretive media and educational 

messages would have a positive effect on 

the cultural values associated with 

ethnographic resources by increasing 

tribal participation in telling the stories of 

their own histories and relationships to 

park resources. Increased education about 

the cultural values associated with 

ethnographic resources would help 

minimize some of the potential negative 

effects to archeological sites due to 

inadvertent destructive activities or 

vandalism. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative B. 

Conclusion – Same as Alternatives B and 

C. Moderately beneficial long-term 

impacts would occur to ethnographic 

resources with increased tribal 

participation. Because there would be no 

major, adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

129 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s ethnographic 

resources. 

Long-Term Integrity of Natural 

Systems and Processes (Soils, 

Vegetation, Wildlife, 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species, Water Resources) 

Methodology 

All available information on known 

natural resources was compiled. No 

research has been conducted on 

groundwater resources. Map locations of 

sensitive resources and wetlands were 

compared with locations of proposed 

developments and modifications to 

existing facilities to determine potential 

for impacts. Predictions about short- and 

long-term site impacts were based on these 

studies. Intensity of effects are defined 

below: 

Negligible – An action that may change a 

population or individuals of a species or a 

natural physical resource, but the change 

will be so small that it will not be of any 

measurable or perceptible consequence to 

the population. 

Minor – An action that may change a 

population or individuals of a species or a 

natural physical resource, but the change 

will be small and if it is measurable, it will 

be a small and localized consequence to 

the population. 

Moderate – An action that will have some 

change to a population or individuals of a 

species or a natural physical resource. The 

change will be measurable and will have a 

sufficient consequence to the population 

but is more localized. 

Major – An action that will have a 

noticeable change to a population or 

individuals of a species or a natural 

physical resource. The change will be 

measurable and will have a substantial and 

possible permanent consequence to the 

population. 

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – Populations of native 

plant and animal species function in as 

natural a condition as possible except 

where special management considerations 

are warranted. Federal-and state-listed 

threatened and endangered species and 

their habitats are sustained. 

Source – National Environmental Policy 

Act; Endangered Species Act; Executive 

Order 13112 Invasive Species; NPS Organic 

Act; NPS Management Policies. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Potential impacts to the long-term 

integrity of natural systems and processes 

would occur from existing facilities, their 

use, and adequate protection and 

management of natural resources. Under 

the no-action alternative, no new facilities 

would be built so no impacts would occur 

to natural resources from construction 

activities. 

The park’s diverse wildlife habitats and 

wetland have been left relatively 

undisturbed. Most development has 

occurred in a small section of the park 

along the entrance road. Visitor use is and 

would remain restricted to existing 

facilities, trails, and two cliff dwellings 

between 8:00am and 5:00pm, daily. All 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

130

other areas within the park are closed to 

visitor access. Allowing restricted use of 

the monument has and would help to 

protect the long-term integrity of natural 

systems and processes. However, 

enforcement of the closure is unreliable 

due to the lack of adequate staff to conduct 

routine patrols and monitoring programs. 

Past conservative management practices 

have impacted the long-term integrity of 

natural systems and processes. Insufficient 

staff has not and would not be available to 

conduct the monitoring activities and 

programs required to properly manage the 

natural resources. The park does not have 

adequate information on groundwater 

resources that describes its relationship to 

use from both within and outside the park 

or how this use affects the spring in Cave 

Canyon. 

Cumulative Effects 

Current use patterns and levels have had a 

negligible to minor negative impact to 

natural processes in the monument since 

its creation. The expected increase in 

visitor use levels would also have a 

negligible to minor negative impact on 

natural processes in the monument 

because all use is restricted to developed 

areas and the two cliff dwellings. 

No construction activities would occur to 

impact natural resources, but natural 

resources would be impacted from the lack 

of information, procedures, and proper 

management. Long-term monitoring, 

assessment, and management programs 

would not be conducted to properly care 

for and preserve the diverse habitats and 

water sources. Over the long-term, the 

lack of adequate protection and 

management actions would adversely 

affect natural resources. 

External activities outside park boundaries 

consist of camping, boating, picnicking, 

off-road vehicular activity, hunting, cattle 

grazing, prescribed fires, and other 

activities that threaten park resources. 

These activities pose a moderate threat to 

natural resources by affecting natural plant 

and animal processes. Activities located at 

the head of Cave Canyon may threaten the 

park’s downstream riparian area. The 

increased development and use of U.S. 

Forest Service facilities below the park 

may affect the park’s groundwater 

reservoir. Adequate staff does not exist to 

properly conduct routine boundary 

patrols and record impacts to park 

resources from these activities. 

Conclusion – The no-action alternative, 

with no new construction plus 

concentrated use in existing developed 

areas, would have a minor beneficial effect 

of preserving existing natural processes 

and systems. However, moderately 

adverse impacts would occur over the 

long-term without adequate information 

and programs to manage the park’s natural 

resources. Because there would be no 

major, adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s natural resources. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Potential impacts to the long-term 

integrity of natural systems and processes 

would occur from proposed development, 

their use, and increased protection and 

management programs. Land-use 

consumption would increase by about 

seven acres with the construction of the 

new visitor/administrative facility, 

associated parking lot, interpretive trail, 
LONG-TERM INTEGRITY OF NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 

131 

and seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence. Water and sewer systems would 

be expanded and human consumption of 

groundwater would increase. 

Construction of the new facilities and 

associated infrastructure would entail 

removal of vegetation and leveling of 

ground for site preparation thereby 

decreasing the amount of wildlife habitat 

available. Wildlife movement would be 

temporarily disrupted and some small 

animals may be killed, but this would not 

be expected to have any long-term adverse 

effect upon local populations. For T&E 

species, only the cactus ferruginous pygmy 

owl habitat would possibly be affected by 

new construction. The other Gila county 

listed species’ habitats do not occur in the 

proposed construction areas. Secondary 

effects to natural processes would include 

the spread of invasive weed species and 

long-term vegetation management to 

protect the structures. Concentration of 

new facilities near the entrance road 

would keep additional impacts to natural 

processes localized in this area. No 

facilities would be built in the wetland or 

floodplains. 

This new development would increase use 

levels and impacts to the Lowlands ROA. 

More natural resources would be 

subjected to visitation damage and 

increase the need for monitoring and 

mitigation of impacts. However, closure of 

the park between 5:00pm and 8:00am and 

limiting visitors to developed areas would 

continue to restrict visitor impacts on 

natural resources. The additional visitor 

center would create positive benefits from 

the public receiving more education and 

an enhanced appreciation of the natural 

resources. The new interpretive trail in an 

area where no public use exists would 

increase impacts to natural resources. 

Minor impacts would occur to wildlife 

from disruption of movement corridors 

over the long-term, but trail use would 

only be available during the park’s limited 

open hours. The trail would be hard 

surfaced to prevent soil compaction, 

erosion, and social trailing. There would 

be no measurable change from visitor 

impacts on existing conditions in other 

areas of the park because visitors are 

restricted to trails and facilities. 

This alternative would enhance the 

existing limited natural resource program 

by increasing staff levels. Vegetation 

programs, such as the control of nonnative plants and the rehabilitation of 

impacted areas, would help restore the 

natural environment. Completed 

inventory and ongoing monitoring 

programs would provide park 

management with information needed to 

properly mitigate and manage natural 

resources. Protection of the natural 

resources would also increase with 

additional staff. 

Cumulative Effects 

The addition of the new facilities and their 

use would result in moderate adverse 

impacts to natural resources in these areas. 

However, concentrating the new 

structures near existing facilities would 

keep these impacts localized. 

Any increased impacts would be offset to 

some extent by greater public awareness of 

resource issues and impacts acquired 

through participating in increased 

interpretive programs at expanded 

facilities. Overall, threats to the natural 

resources would diminish and moderate 

beneficial long-term impacts would occur 

through inventory, monitoring, 

assessment, and mitigation programs 

undertaken by increased staff levels. 

Protection of the natural resources would 

increase with additional staff providing a 

minor to moderate long-term beneficial 

impact. 

External activities along park boundaries 

consist of off-road driving, hunting, cattle 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

132

grazing, prescribed fires, and other 

activities that threaten park resources. 

These activities pose a moderate threat to 

natural resources by affecting natural plant 

and animal processes. Grazing cattle 

introduce new grass species and 

manipulate native vegetation that 

interferes with natural plant processes. 

Hunting affects animal populations and 

sometimes leads to illegal poaching of park 

wildlife. Off-road activities create new 

roads, compact soils, increase erosion and 

disrupt normal wildlife movements. The 

U.S. Forest Service’s Windy Hill 

recreational facilities may draw from the 

same groundwater reservoir that the 

monument uses. Under this alternative, 

adequate staff would be available to 

properly conduct routine boundary 

patrols and record impacts to park 

resources from these external activities. 

The park’s new facilities coupled with the 

additional U.S. Forest Service recreational 

facilities and their use would cause a minor 

to moderate adverse long-term impact to 

groundwater resources. 

Conclusion – Moderate adverse impacts 

from construction activities and the use of 

the additional facilities would be offset by 

positive benefits derived from the public 

receiving more education and an enhanced 

appreciation of the natural resources and 

increased protection of the park by 

additional staff. Overall, moderately 

beneficial long-term impacts to natural 

resources would occur from improved 

resource management, protection, and 

interpretive programs. Because there 

would be no major, adverse impacts to a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment of the monument’s 

natural resources. 

Effects of Alternative C 

Impact Analysis 

Similar to Alternative B except that less 

land would be disturbed and fewer 

demands would be placed on groundwater 

inside the park with construction of the 

new visitor/administrative facility and 

parking lot outside the monument. Only 

the seasonal employee/volunteer residence 

would be built within the monument. 

Improved interpretive media and 

educational messages would have a 

positive effect on natural resources by 

increasing educational opportunities. 

Protection and proper management of the 

natural resources would also increase with 

additional staff. 

Construction of the new facility outside 

the park would impact natural resources in 

that area unless an existing building is 

remodeled for use. 

Cumulative Effects 

Similar to Alternative B except the 

addition of fewer facilities within the park 

would have fewer adverse impacts to 

natural resources in these areas. However, 

placement of a new facility outside the 

park would increase demands on external 

natural resources. Cumulative effects of 

this alternative on natural resources would 

be moderately beneficial and long-term as 

a result of increased staff and programs to 

properly manage the resources. A 

moderately beneficial effect would also 

result from the improved interpretive 

media and educational messages provided 

to the public. 

Conclusion – Similar to Alternative B. 

Negligible adverse impacts from 

construction activities would be offset by 

positive benefits derived from the public 
LONG-TERM QUALITY OF AIR AND NATURAL QUIET 

133 

receiving more education and an enhanced 

appreciation of the natural resources and 

increased protection of the park by 

additional staff. Overall, moderately 

beneficial long-term impacts to natural 

resources would occur from improved 

resource management, protection, and 

interpretative programs. Because there 

would be no major, adverse impacts to a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment of the monument’s 

natural resources. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

Same as Alternative B except that new 

construction would consist of an 

administrative facility, ATS staging area, 

and seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence. Fewer resources would be 

impacted than in Alternative B, but more 

than in Alternative C. Placement of the 

new facilities near the existing 

maintenance/residential area would 

concentrate impacts to this already 

disturbed area. Connecting new utilities to 

the existing system would disturb fewer 

resources than in Alternative B. Improved 

interpretive media and educational 

messages would have a positive effect on 

the natural resources by increasing 

educational opportunities. Protection and 

proper management of the natural 

resources would also increase with 

additional staff. 

Cumulative Effects 

Similar to Alternative B except that the 

addition of fewer facilities inside the park 

would cause minor adverse impacts to 

natural resources in these areas. 

Cumulative effects of this alternative on 

natural resources would be moderately 

beneficial and long-term as a result of 

increased staff and programs to properly 

manage the resources. A moderately 

beneficial effect would also result from the 

improved interpretive media and 

educational messages provided to the 

public. 

Conclusion – Similar to Alternative B. 

Minor adverse impacts from construction 

activities would be offset by positive 

benefits derived from the public receiving 

more education and an enhanced 

appreciation of the natural resources and 

increased protection of the park by 

additional staff. Overall, moderately 

beneficial long-term impacts to natural 

resources would occur from improved 

resource management, protection, and 

interpretive programs. Because there 

would be no major, adverse impacts to a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment of the monument’s 

natural resources. 

Long-Term Quality of Air and 

Natural Quiet 

Methodology 

All available information on air quality and 

natural quiet was compiled. This 

information includes data gathered from 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

134

the air quality-monitoring program. No 

site-specific research has been conducted 

on natural quiet levels occurring both 

inside and outside the park. Noise and air 

pollution sources from proposed 

developments and modifications to 

existing facilities were compared with 

existing noise and pollution sources to 

determine potential for impacts. Intensity 

of effects are defined below: 

Negligible – The impact is at the lowest 

levels of detection. 

Minor – The impact is slight, but 

detectable. 

Moderate – The impact is readily apparent. 

Major – The impact is severe or of 

exceptional benefit. 

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – Air quality and natural 

quiet related values would be protected 

from sources emanating from within and 

outside park boundaries. 

Source – Clean Air Act; NPS Organic Act; 

NPS Management Policies. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Potential impacts to air quality and natural 

quiet would occur from existing 

development, visitor and employee use of 

these facilities, and existing management 

programs. Natural sounds particularly 

those of birds and wind generally 

predominate in the park. Under the noaction alternative, no new facilities would 

be built. Therefore, no impacts would 

occur to air quality or natural quiet from 

construction activities. Visitor and 

employee use would continue to generate 

noise at existing facilities, roads, and trails. 

Air quality would continue to be impacted 

from vehicle emissions along the park 

roads and parking areas. Natural sound 

and/or air quality would also be impacted 

from external sources such as traffic on 

State Route 188, recreational users at 

Roosevelt Lake, aircraft overflights, 

management practices at Tonto National 

Forest and tribal lands, Phoenix 

metropolitan area, and mining activity. 

The park does not have adequate 

information on noise and pollution 

sources occurring both within and outside 

the park to measure impacts and properly 

manage natural quiet and air quality. 

Cumulative Effects 

The no-action alternative would not 

contribute to cumulative effects on air 

quality and natural quiet. Current visitor 

and employee use patterns and levels 

would have a negligible impact on air 

quality and natural quiet in the monument. 

The expected increase in visitor use levels 

would have a negligible to minor negative 

impact on air quality and natural quiet in 

the monument. 

External activities from aircraft, boats, 

vehicles, and mines would continue to 

interrupt the level of natural quiet found in 

the park. Prescribed fires, mining activity, 

Phoenix metropolitan area, and vehicular 

traffic would continue to adversely impact 

Tonto Basin air quality. These activities 

pose a minor adverse threat to natural 

resources and visitor experiences by 

affecting air quality and natural quiet over 

the long term. 

Conclusion – The no-action alternative, 

which has no new development plus 

continued concentrated use in developed 

areas of the monument, would have a 

minor beneficial impact by not further 

degrading existing air quality and natural 

quiet levels. However, minor adverse 

impacts would occur over the long-term 

without adequate information on noise 

and pollution sources for proper program 
LONG-TERM QUALITY OF AIR AND NATURAL QUIET 

135 

management. Because there would be no 

major, adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s air quality and natural 

quiet. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Potential impacts to air quality and natural 

quiet would occur from proposed 

development and modifications, visitor 

and employee use of these facilities, and 

enhanced management programs. Visitor 

and staff use of the Lowlands ROA would 

increase with the added nature trail, 

visitor/administrative facility, and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence. 

Construction activities and traffic and use 

patterns at these new facilities would 

negatively impact air quality and natural 

quiet. However, use of the new 

visitor/administrative facility would only 

occur during the park’s limited daytime 

operating hours. The use of an alternative 

transportation system would reduce single 

vehicle emissions and noise levels along 

the entrance road. Proper documentation 

and monitoring of noise sources would 

occur with additional staff. 

Natural sound and/or air quality would 

also be impacted from external sources 

such as traffic on State Route 188, 

recreational users at Roosevelt Lake, 

aircraft overflights, management practices 

at Tonto National Forest and tribal lands, 

Phoenix metropolitan area, and mining 

activity. Expanded partnerships would 

work to reduce noise levels and improve 

air quality in Tonto Basin. 

Cumulative Effects 

Construction activities would cause 

moderate adverse, but short-term, impacts 

to air quality and natural quiet. New traffic 

and use patterns would increase the 

frequency and duration of noise levels and 

reduce air quality along the entrance road. 

Coupled with the increased U.S. Forest 

Service recreational facilities and use, a 

minor adverse long-term impact would 

occur to the basin’s air quality and natural 

quiet. However, the use of an alternative 

transportation system would provide a 

moderate beneficial improvement to air 

quality and natural quiet by reducing 

single vehicle emissions along the entrance 

road. Reducing single vehicle noise and 

activity would increase visitors’ ability to 

enjoy the natural sounds near the cliff 

dwellings and enhance opportunities to 

see and hear wildlife providing a major 

long-term beneficial impact for park 

visitors. Also, increased staff and programs 

to properly manage the resources would 

result in minor beneficial effects. 

Expanded partnerships would work to 

reduce noise levels and improve air quality 

thereby providing minor long-term 

beneficial impacts. 

Conclusion - There would be moderate 

adverse impacts to air quality and natural 

quiet from increased facilities and usage in 

the park as well as from neighboring U.S. 

Forest Service lands, but expanded staff 

and partnerships would provide minor 

long-term beneficial impacts by reducing 

noise levels and improving air quality. 

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

136

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s air quality and natural 

quiet. 

Effects of Alternative C 

Impact Analysis 

Similar to Alternative B except that the 

new visitor/administrative facility and 

parking lot would be built outside the 

monument. Only the seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence would be 

built within the park. Therefore, less 

demand would be placed on the park’s air 

quality and natural quiet, yet placement of 

the facility outside the park would increase 

impacts to that particular area. Proper 

documentation and monitoring of noise 

sources would occur with additional staff. 

Cumulative Effects 

Similar to Alternative B except that less 

demands would be placed on the park’s air 

quality and natural sound with the 

placement of the visitor/administrative 

facility outside the park. New traffic and 

use patterns would cause negative impacts 

to natural quiet and air quality outside the 

park at this new facility. A negligible 

adverse long-term impact would occur to 

the park’s air quality and natural quiet 

with the addition of a new seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence. 

Conclusion – Similar to Alternative B. 

There would be negligible adverse impacts 

to air quality and natural quiet from the 

increased facility and use in the park, but 

minor adverse impacts to the basin’s air 

quality and natural quiet. Expanded staff 

and partnerships would provide minor 

long-term beneficial impacts by reducing 

noise levels and improving air quality. 

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

of the monument’s air quality and natural 

quiet. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

Similar to Alternative B except that new 

construction would consist of an 

administrative facility, ATS staging area, 

and seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence. Construction activities and 

traffic and use patterns at these new 

facilities would negatively impact air 

quality and natural quiet. However, use of 

the new administrative facility would only 

occur during the park’s daytime operating 

hours. The ATS staging area would only be 

used when the existing visitor center 

parking area fills to capacity during the 

busy winter/spring season. The use of an 

alternative transportation system would 

reduce single vehicle emissions and noise 

levels along the entrance road. Proper 

documentation and monitoring of noise 

sources would occur with additional staff. 

Cumulative Effects 

Similar to Alternative B except that fewer 

developments would be constructed along 

the entrance road to impact air quality and 

natural sound. A minor adverse long-term 

impact would occur to air quality and 

natural quiet with the addition and use of 

the new facilities. Cumulative effects of 

this alternative on air quality and natural 

sound would be minor beneficial and longterm as a result of increased staff and 
ABILITY TO USE, EXPERIENCE, AND ACCESS PARK RESOURCES 

137 

programs to properly manage the 

resources. 

Conclusion – Similar to Alternative B. 

There would be a minor adverse impact to 

air quality and natural quiet from 

increased facilities and usage in the park as 

well as from neighboring U.S. Forest 

Service lands, but expanded staff and 

partnerships would provide minor longterm beneficial impacts by reducing noise 

levels and improving air quality. Because 

there would be no major, adverse impacts 

to a resource or value whose conservation 

is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment of the monument’s air 

quality and natural quiet. 

Ability to Use, Experience, and 

Access Park Resources 

Methodology 

This topic analyzes visitors’ ability to 

access, use, experience, and understand 

park and Tonto Basin resources. Visitor 

surveys, observations of visitation use 

patterns, and an assessment of existing 

facilities and programs available for 

visitors were used to estimate the effects 

from each alternative. A visitor survey was 

conducted March 2000 (University of 

Idaho) to gather visitor opinions about 

facilities, services, and recreational 

opportunities. The impact on the ability of 

the visitor to experience a full range of 

park resources was analyzed by examining 

resources mentioned in the park 

significance statement. Known public 

activities and facilities available at Tonto 

National Forest were considered in 

addition to visitor trends and plans for the 

monument to determine whether any of 

these, when considered as cumulative 

impacts, would significantly impact visitor 

experience. Intensity of effects are defined 

as follows: 

Negligible – The impact is barely 

detectable, and/or will affect few visitors. 

Minor – The impact is slight, but 

detectable, and/or will affect some visitors. 

Moderate – The impact is readily apparent 

and/or will affect many visitors. 

Major – The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or will affect 

the majority of visitors. 

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – To provide for public 

enjoyment while leaving resources 

unimpaired for future generations. 

Source – Americans with Disabilities Act; 

NPS Organic Act; NPS Management 

Policies. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Use - Under the no-action alternative, 

visitor opportunities to experience park 

resources would not change and would 

remain concentrated within a small section 

of the park. The types of experiences 

would be essentially the same as those that 

have been available for the past several 

decades. For the majority of visitors, a 

one- to two-hour stay incorporating the 

visitor center’s museum, theatre, and 

observation deck, lower cliff dwelling, and 

picnic area would continue to constitute 

the entire experience. (Length of stay 

increases during winter months when 

visitors attend upper cliff dwelling guided 

tours.) The average one- to two-hour 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

138

length of stay provides visitors only a 

glimpse of the total resources protected 

within the monument, although this fact 

may not be evident to them. The 

consolidated services at the visitor center 

would be easy for visitors to find and use. 

However, a full parking lot would 

discourage use of this area; the park’s 

primary facilities. 

Access - Only the two cliff dwellings can be 

visited, but because access to the cliff 

dwellings is moderately difficult, some 

visitors lack the opportunity to experience 

the dwellings themselves. Viewing the cliff 

dwellings from the parking areas does not 

provide the sense of what they or other 

archeological sites would be like. No 

equivalent experience is currently 

available. This is a major adverse impact 

for those who are physically unable to 

negotiate park trails and are therefore 

unable to experience any actual 

prehistoric structures. No other views or 

access to other archeological structure 

types are provided. 

Visitors with mobility disabilities have 

difficulty reaching a limited range of park 

facilities. The first floor of the visitor 

center is accessible and all visitors have 

access to the information desk for 

personal discussions with park staff, 

museum exhibits, publications sales area, 

and restrooms providing these areas aren’t 

crowded. However, aisles are barely 

adequate in the museum and sales area and 

sales items on top shelves aren’t reachable. 

No handicapped access is available to the 

second-floor theatre and observation 

deck. A few chairs and a small monitor 

have been squeezed into the museum to 

provide an accessible viewing area for 

audio/visual programs. 

Understanding - Museum exhibits, wayside 

signs along the Lower Cliff Dwelling and 

Cactus Patch trails, ranger-guided tours, 

brochures, and sales publications interpret 

various cultural and natural features, as 

well as the lifeways of the people who lived 

in the basin. However, the museum 

exhibits are outdated, inaccurate, and 

cannot be expanded because of limited 

space. The twenty-four-seat theatre is not 

large enough for rangers to present indoor 

interpretive programs to groups of visitors 

and/or school classes. The biodiversity of 

the monument is minimally interpreted 

along the Cactus Patch and Lower Cliff 

Dwelling trails, but not in the museum. 

Experience - The quality of the visitor 

experience is good, although limited by the 

area available for use. The inability to 

venture further away from the modern 

human environment inside the park 

represents a minor impact. 

It is often difficult to find solitude in the 

park for more than a few moments at a 

time. Facilities are concentrated in a 

relatively small area and, according to park 

staff, crowding is common during the busy 

spring months and when school classes 

visit the park. 

Visitor activities are fairly regimented, 

with use restricted to established roads 

and trails. Access to the upper cliff 

dwelling is limited to a few ranger-guided 

tours per week during the winter/spring 

months. Traditional interpretive services 

would continue as in the past, consisting 

primarily of self- and ranger-guided tours. 

Continuation of these activities would be 

of moderate to major importance to 

convey an understanding of Salado life to 

visitors and ensure preservation of the cliff 

dwellings. 

Cumulative Effects 

Although 98% of visitors surveyed in 

March 2000 expressed overall satisfaction 

with their visit, continued lack of access to 

a full range of resources presents a 

moderate adverse impact to the total 

visitor experience. The lack of 

handicapped access to the cliff dwellings is 
ABILITY TO USE, EXPERIENCE, AND ACCESS PARK RESOURCES 

139 

a major adverse impact for those who can’t 

hike to them. Impacts on visitors thus 

range from beneficial to adverse, 

depending upon individual abilities. The 

current lack of a complete and accurate 

interpretive story is a moderate adverse 

impact for park visitors. The perceiveduncrowded atmosphere is a major benefit 

for today’s visitors; deterioration of this 

quality would be a major adverse impact. A 

variety of less structured and more diverse 

opportunities exist immediately outside 

park boundaries providing moderate to 

major benefits for most visitors. 

Conclusion – Impacts to visitor use, 

experience, and accessibility would have a 

moderate adverse long-term effect without 

improved facilities, access, and programs. 

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

to visitor use of the monument. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Use - In this alternative, a new visitor 

center would be built near the park 

entrance and the existing visitor center 

would be remodeled. The new visitor 

center would provide space for new 

interpretive exhibits and display more 

artifacts. Educational programs would 

then be available at the remodeled visitor 

center. A more complete understanding of 

the kinds of archeological structures that 

make the park unique would be available 

to visitors from experiencing updated 

exhibits, displays, and interpretive 

programs. Visitors would have the 

additional opportunity to experience the 

natural habitat of the lowland community 

via the new nature trail. This new visitor 

center would require visitors to make an 

additional stop before reaching the cliff 

dwelling trails. Visitor services would not 

be consolidated in one area creating 

greater difficulty in use of the park. 

Access - This alternative is the only one 

that would expand access to the lowland 

environment by constructing an accessible 

nature trail in conjunction with the new 

visitor center. 

Remodeling the existing visitor center and 

construction of the new building would 

ensure full visitor accessibility to both 

structures. Exhibits and services would be 

designed for universal accessibility and 

would include equivalent experiences for 

the two cliff dwellings that would remain 

inaccessible, due to terrain. 

Understanding - The new visitor center 

would provide orientation information to 

visitors enhancing their ability to plan 

activities as they arrive. Space would be 

available for up-to-date museum exhibits, 

artifact displays, and educational 

programs for large groups. Interpretive 

programs would increase. The existing 

visitor center would provide in-depth 

learning opportunities in a more personal 

setting. The new visitor center would offer 

additional opportunities for visitor 

interactions with rangers. 

Experience – The opportunity for visitors 

to experience solitude would be enhanced 

in this alternative. Spreading out use 

through a larger area of the park would 

mean that encounters with other visitors 

would be lessened. The possibility of 

regulating numbers of visitors would 

ensure less crowded conditions in the park 

if/when faced with future visitation 

increases. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

140

Personal freedoms would be restricted at 

times, depending on the future need to 

regulate visitation numbers. Those visitors 

arriving at peak times would be unable to 

visit when they wished, or be required to 

arrive by some form of shuttle vehicle. 

The U.S. Forest Service, Arizona 

Department of Transportation, 

metropolitan Phoenix, and local residents 

may work in combination to increase total 

visitation to the park from the recent 

increase in recreational facilities, 

improved highways entering the basin, 

increased regional population, and 

improved commercial facilities. Increased 

visitation from any of these contributing 

factors would adversely impact 

uncrowded visitor experiences within the 

park. Increased visitation would also 

require an increased need for law 

enforcement patrols and emergency 

response. In this alternative, a moderate to 

major long-term benefit is expected from 

NPS actions. The increased length of stay 

by visitors because of the new facilities 

would increase their ability to understand 

park resources, since visitors would 

probably devote more time to exhibits, 

interpretive programs, or otherwise 

learning about the park. 

Cumulative Effects 

The expanded experiences would provide 

a major benefit affecting all visitors over 

the long-term. The changes in fixed 

interpretive services would be a major 

beneficial impact for visitors. Opening up 

the lowlands with an accessible nature trail 

would be a moderate beneficial impact. 

Providing full accessibility to both visitor 

centers would be a major beneficial 

impact. Adverse impacts would still exist, 

because not all natural and cultural 

resources would be visited, but these 

impacts would be mitigated by alternative 

experiences incorporated into new visitor 

center exhibits. Physical alterations of the 

existing visitor center building would 

result in moderate to major, but shortterm, adverse impacts for visitors present 

during the construction period. Most 

impacts would be mitigated by first 

ensuring completion of the new visitor 

center with interpretive exhibits. There 

would be a moderate to major beneficial 

impact to park visitors afforded a relatively 

uncrowded experience. Restricted 

freedoms would be a moderate to major 

adverse impact, but would be offset by the 

activities provided by the neighboring 

Tonto National Forest. 

Conclusion – This alternative would result 

in moderate adverse impacts to several 

aspects of visitor experiences during 

construction and remodeling, but these 

impacts would be short-term. The new 

visitor center and remodeled existing 

visitor center would provide space for new 

museum exhibits, artifact displays, and 

indoor interpretive programs for visitors 

and organized school classes. Access to the 

Sonoran desert would be increased via the 

additional self-guided nature trail 

providing a major beneficial long-term 

impact. The new visitor center and nature 

trail would be fully accessible to visitors 

and provide information on resources, 

which, because of rugged terrain, cannot 

be made accessible. More facilities would 

be accessible than in the other alternatives 

thereby providing major long-term 

benefits. Because there would be no major, 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

to visitor use of the monument. 
ABILITY TO USE, EXPERIENCE, AND ACCESS PARK RESOURCES 

141 

Effects of Alternative C 

Impact Analysis 

Same as Alternative B except that the new 

visitor/administrative facility would be 

built outside the monument and a new 

accessible nature trail would not be built. 

Placing the new visitor center outside the 

park would reach more people if it were 

easily found. But, if the new building were 

located in Globe or Payson, it would create 

confusion as to where the park is located 

and what is there. The new visitor center 

would be separate from the park thereby 

duplicating the need to repeat the park 

story and orientation information in both 

visitor centers and causing loss of 

continuity in the story-building process. 

Visitor services would not be consolidated 

in one area creating greater difficulty in 

use of the park. Access into the lowlands 

would not be provided without the new 

nature trail. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative B except that the 

lowlands would not be opened via an 

accessible nature trail. 

Conclusion – Same as Alternative B except 

that less of the Sonoran desert would be 

accessible without the self-guided nature 

trail in the lowlands. Because there would 

be no major, adverse impacts to a resource 

or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment to visitor use of the 

monument. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

Use - Similar to Alternative B except that a 

new visitor center would not be built; only 

the existing visitor center would be 

remodeled. Less space would be available 

for new interpretive exhibits and 

displaying more artifacts than in 

Alternatives B and C. Less information and 

interpretive programs would be available 

without a new visitor center. A more 

complete understanding of the kinds or 

archeological structures that make the 

park unique would be available to visitors 

from experiencing better exhibits, 

displays, and interpretive programs than 

what is presently available. The 

consolidated services at the visitor center 

would be easy for visitors to find and use. 

Access - A new nature trail would not be 

built to expand access into the lowland 

environment. Remodeling the existing 

visitor center would ensure full 

accessibility to the structure. The two cliff 

dwellings would remain inaccessible, due 

to terrain. 

Understanding – Remodeling the existing 

visitor center would provide more space 

for museum exhibits, artifact displays, and 

educational programs for large groups 

than what is now available, but less than 

would be provided in Alternatives B and C. 

Opportunities for in-depth interpretive 

and education presentations would 

increase but not as much without a new 

visitor center as proposed in Alternatives B 

and C. 

Experience – The opportunity for visitors 

to experience solitude would not be 

enhanced, because use of facilities would 

not be spread throughout a larger area of 

or outside the park. Encounters with other 

visitors would not be lessened unless the 

numbers of visitors were regulated if/when 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

142

the park is faced with future visitation 

increases. 

Cumulative Effects 

Similar to Alternative B except that a new 

visitor center would not be built and the 

lowlands would not be opened up via an 

accessible nature trail. The limited 

expanded experiences would provide a 

moderate benefit affecting visitors over the 

long-term. The changes in fixed 

interpretive services would be a moderate 

beneficial impact for park visitors. 

Providing full accessibility to the 

remodeled visitor center would be a major 

beneficial impact. Physical alterations of 

the existing visitor center building would 

result in major, but short-term, adverse 

impacts for visitors present during the 

construction period. There would be a 

moderate to major adverse impact to park 

visitors from a relatively crowded 

experience. 

Conclusion – Similar to Alternative B. 

Alternative D would result in moderate to 

major adverse impacts to several aspects of 

visitor experience during remodeling, but 

these impacts would be short-term. The 

remodeled existing visitor center would 

provide space for new museum exhibits, 

artifact displays, and indoor interpretive 

programs for visitors and organized school 

classes. These improved facilities would 

provide a moderately beneficial long-term 

impact. Because there would be no major, 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

to visitor use of the monument. 

Scenic Vistas, Viewsheds 

Methodology 

All information on scenic vista location 

points in the park and their commanding 

views into and out of the park was 

compiled. Locations of proposed modern 

developments and modifications to 

existing facilities were compared with 

existing development locations both 

within and outside the park to determine 

potential for impacts. Intensity of effects 

are defined below: 

Negligible – The impact is barely 

detectable, and/or will affect few 

viewsheds. 

Minor – The impact is slight, but 

detectable, and/or will affect some 

viewsheds. 

Moderate – The impact is readily apparent 

and/or will affect many viewsheds. 

Major – The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or will affect 

most viewsheds. 

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – Visual impacts on the 

natural and cultural setting are minimized 

to provide panoramic views of the park 

and Tonto Basin. 

Source – NPS Organic Act; NPS 

Management Policies. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Under the no-action alternative, no new 

facilities would be built. Therefore, no new 

impacts would occur to viewsheds from 

construction activities or new structures as 

would in the other alternatives. The view 

from the visitor center and two cliff 
SCENIC VISTAS, VIEWSHEDS 

143 

dwellings overwhelms. From here people 

can see across Roosevelt Lake to the Sierra 

Anchas Mountains. Looking at the scenery 

was rated ‘very good’ by 82% of the visitors 

during the survey. To many visitors, the 

desert environment appears natural and 

minimally altered despite many changes 

from modern development. The ability to 

experience this perceived cultural 

environment is a benefit for visitors. 

Cumulative Effects 

No additional development would 

preserve the existing viewscape in the park 

as seen from both inside and outside the 

park. External development would always 

pose a minor adverse threat to viewsheds 

as seen from inside the park. 

Conclusion - A minor beneficial long-term 

impact would occur to the park’s scenic 

vistas and viewsheds without additional 

facilities constructed. Because there would 

be no major, adverse impacts to a resource 

or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment to the monument’s 

scenic vistas and viewsheds. 

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

More structures would be visible within 

the monument from the addition of the 

visitor/administrative facility, associated 

parking lot, and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence. The new 

visitor/administrative facility and parking 

area would be located along and be visible 

from the entrance road. However, 

expanded partnerships with adjacent 

agencies would work to improve impacts 

to the scenic viewshed as seen from the 

monument caused by smoke from 

prescribed fires, development, and 

increased effects of visitation. 

Cumulative Effects 

The additional development would impact 

the existing viewscape in the park as seen 

from both inside and outside the park. 

External development would always pose a 

minor adverse threat to viewsheds as seen 

from inside the park. 

Conclusion – A major adverse impact 

would occur to scenic vistas during 

construction of the new facilities, but these 

impacts would be short-term. The 

additional facilities would cause a 

moderate adverse impact over the longterm to the park’s viewsheds. Because 

there would be no major, adverse impacts 

to a resource or value whose conservation 

is (1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment to the monument’s 

scenic vistas and viewsheds. 

Effects of Alternative C 

Impact Analysis 

Similar to Alternative B except that the 

new visitor/administrative facility and 

parking lot would be built outside the 

monument. Only the seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence would be 

built within the monument and would be 

placed in the housing area with the 

existing four residences. Therefore, fewer 

facilities would impact the park’s 

viewsheds than proposed in Alternatives B 

and D. However, the new 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

144

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

park would still impact the monument’s 

viewshed if it were constructed within 

sight of the park’s scenic vistas and would 

impact the scenic views of Tonto Basin. 

Cumulative Effects 

Similar to Alternative B. The additional 

residence would negligibly impact the 

existing viewscape in the park as seen from 

both inside and outside the park. The new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

park would increase external development 

in Tonto Basin posing a minor adverse 

threat to viewsheds as seen from inside 

and outside the park. 

Conclusion – Alternative C would result in 

a minor adverse impact during 

construction of the park’s new residence, 

but this impact would be short-term. A 

negligible adverse impact would occur to 

the park’s viewsheds from the new 

residence. A negligible to minor adverse 

impact would occur to the park’s and 

Tonto Basin’s viewsheds depending on the 

location of the new visitor/administrative 

facility. Because there would be no major, 

adverse impacts to a resource or value 

whose conservation is (1) necessary to 

fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

to the monument’s scenic vistas and 

viewsheds. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

Similar to Alternative B except that new 

construction would consist of an 

administrative facility, ATS staging area, 

and seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence. A new visitor center would not 

be constructed in the park and would not 

add a visual intrusion as in Alternative B. 

The new administrative facility and 

residence would be located near the 

existing maintenance/residential area to 

consolidate these visual intrusions in this 

one area. 

Cumulative Effects 

The additional development would impact 

the existing viewscape in the park as seen 

from both inside and outside the park. 

External development would always pose a 

minor adverse threat to viewsheds as seen 

from inside the park. 

Conclusion – The proposed alternative 

would result in major adverse impacts 

during construction of these new facilities, 

but these impacts would be short-term. 

The additional facilities would cause a 

minor adverse impact over the long-term 

to the park’s viewsheds. Because there 

would be no major, adverse impacts to a 

resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment to the monument’s 

scenic vistas and viewsheds. 

Impacts to Adjacent Lands and 

Economies of Gateway 

Communities 

Methodology 

Concerns covered by this section include 

effects on neighboring landowners’ 

property and operations from the park’s 

proposed physical and program changes. 
IMPACTS TO ADJACENT LANDS AND ECONOMIES OF GATEWAY COMMUNITIES 

145 

The park is completely surrounded by 

Tonto National Forest; the nearest private 

land is located in Roosevelt. Roosevelt, 

Tonto Basin, Globe, Payson, and Apache 

Junction are considered gateway 

communities. Tourism contributes partly 

to Gila County’s income. It’s not the intent 

of the park’s added developments to 

attract significantly greater numbers of 

visitors but rather to better serve visitors, 

improve operational efficiency, and 

increase protection and management of 

monument resources. Levels of intensity of 

impacts were defined as follows: 

Negligible – The impact on adjacent 

neighbors is not measurable or 

perceptible. 

Minor – The impact is slight, but 

detectable, and/or will affect neighbors. 

Moderate – The impact is readily apparent 

and will cause a change in the daily lives of 

neighbors. The change may be temporary 

but severe, or less severe but long-term. 

Major – The impact on neighbors is 

severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial. 

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – The park’s intent is 

not to attract more visitors but to better 

serve visitors, improve operational 

efficiency, and increase protection and 

management of park resources. 

Source – NPS Management Policies. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

The no-action alternative would not 

construct any new facilities. No impacts 

would occur to neighboring landowners 

from construction activities. The 

appearance of the basin would not change. 

No opportunities would exist for a limited 

number of landowners to benefit 

economically by selling or leasing land for 

new facilities. No new jobs would be 

created without construction projects for 

new facilities. Business opportunities 

would not increase at local commercial 

establishments. 

Resource protection, education for 

visitors, and renewed visitor appreciation 

of the resources would continue with 

existing partnerships formed with other 

agencies, tribes, educational institutions, 

and the private sector. Management of 

land surrounding the monument would 

continue to improve by encouraging 

adjacent and nearby land management 

agencies, tribes, and landowners to use 

sound ecological principles. The combined 

effects of the actions by all land and 

resource management agencies would 

result in impacts to one another and to 

park neighbors. 

Cumulative Effects 

Beneficial impacts would occur to the rural 

character of Tonto Basin because no new 

facilities would be built. Economic gain 

would be adversely impacted without 

construction of new facilities, and 

increased staff and operating budget. 

Existing partnerships with other agencies, 

tribes, and landowners would continue to 

impact their workloads, but the net result 

of these partnerships would have minor 

beneficial results for resource protection 

and visitor education. 

Conclusion – No construction activities 

would have a minor beneficial impact on 

Tonto Basin and nearby landowners. 

Impacts to gateway community economies 

would be negligibly adverse without 

construction activities and increased staff. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

146

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

This alternative would construct new 

facilities inside the monument. Impacts to 

nearby landowners from construction 

activities would range from beneficial to 

adverse depending upon individual 

feelings about this proposal. Locating 

these facilities inside the park would 

increase negative impacts on monument 

resources, but would not change the 

appearance of the basin outside the park. 

There would not be an opportunity for a 

limited number of landowners to benefit 

economically by selling or leasing land on 

which this facility would be built. 

However, a limited economical 

opportunity for landowners would exist by 

providing commercial shuttle services to 

the visiting public. During the actual 

construction phase, construction traffic 

would increase to the monument 

impacting neighbors. On the other hand, 

jobs created from and materials needed for 

construction projects coupled with the 

increase in staff levels and operating 

budget would provide employment 

opportunities for area residents and 

increase business opportunities for local 

venders. 

Resource protection, education for 

visitors, and renewed visitor appreciation 

of the resources would increase with 

expanded partnerships formed with other 

agencies, tribes, educational institutions, 

and the private sector. Management of 

land surrounding the monument would 

improve by encouraging adjacent and 

nearby land management agencies, tribes, 

and landowners to use sound ecological 

principles. The combined effects of the 

actions by all land and resource 

management agencies would result in 

impacts to one another and to park 

neighbors. 

Cumulative Effects 

Beneficial impacts would occur to the rural 

character of Tonto Basin by locating all 

new facilities within the monument. 

Economic gain would be beneficial but 

short-term during construction of the new 

facilities and for the long-term with 

additional staff levels and an increased 

operating budget. Expanded partnerships 

with other agencies, tribes, and 

landowners would increase their 

workloads causing an adverse impact, but 

the net result of increased partnerships 

would have moderately beneficial results 

for resource protection and visitor 

education. 

Conclusion – A moderately beneficial 

long-term impact would occur to adjacent 

land managers and partnerships. A 

negligible beneficial impact would occur to 

economies of gateway communities over 

the long-term. 

Effects of Alternative C 

Impact Analysis 

Alternative C would construct a new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument. This facility would include a 

visitor/administrative complex, parking 

lot, and shuttle service. Considerable 

activity would be associated with this 

complex such as vehicles entering and 

exiting, shuttle staging, departing, and 

arriving, and deliveries of supplies to 

support monument operations. Locating 

these types of activities outside the park 

would reduce their negative impacts on 

monument resources and visitor 

experiences, but would change the 

appearance and use of this mostly rural 

area. Impacts to nearby landowners would 

range from beneficial to adverse 

depending upon individual feelings about 

this proposal. There would be an 

opportunity for a limited number of 

landowners to benefit economically by 

selling or leasing land on which this facility 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

147 

would be built or by providing commercial 

shuttle services to the visiting public. 

However, during the actual building 

phase, construction activity and traffic 

would increase to impact neighbors. On 

the other hand, jobs created from the 

construction projects coupled with the 

increase in staff levels and operating 

budget would provide employment 

opportunities for area residents and 

increase business opportunities for 

commercial establishments. 

Resource protection, education for 

visitors, and renewed visitor appreciation 

of the resources would increase with 

expanded partnerships formed with other 

agencies, tribes, educational institutions, 

and the private sector especially with 

placement of the new 

visitor/administrative facility outside the 

monument. Management of land 

surrounding the monument would 

improve by encouraging adjacent and 

nearby land management agencies, tribes, 

and landowners to use sound ecological 

principles. The combined effects of the 

actions by all land and resource 

management agencies would result in 

impacts to one another and to park 

neighbors. 

Cumulative Effects 

Changes in the rural character of Tonto 

Basin have been restricted to the dam, 

marina area, Roosevelt Estates, Quail Run, 

Spring Creek Store, and Roosevelt Resort. 

The remainder of the area is encompassed 

in Tonto National Forest. Economic gain 

would be beneficial during short-term 

construction of the new facilities and for 

the long-term with additional staff levels 

and an increased operating budget. 

Alternative C, when added to previous 

developments, would have an impact that 

could be either beneficial, if economic gain 

were one result, or adverse if nearby 

landowners did not favor this change in 

the existing character of the immediate 

area. 

Expanded partnerships with other 

agencies, tribes, and landowners would 

increase their workloads causing an 

adverse impact, but the net result of 

increased partnerships would have 

moderately beneficial results for resource 

protection and visitor education. 

Conclusion – A consideration of impacts 

to adjacent landowners does not lend itself 

to analysis and definitive conclusions. 

There would be a potential for fairly 

significant (either beneficial or adverse) 

impacts to a relatively few neighbors and 

much smaller impacts to neighbors living 

further away. In fact, impacts may be 

arranged along a gradient from major to 

negligible as one moves away from the 

proposed construction site. A negligible 

beneficial impact would occur to 

economies of gateway communities over 

the long-term. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

The proposed alternative would construct 

new facilities within the monument. The 

impact analysis would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative B. 

Conclusion – Same as Alternative B. A 

moderate beneficial long-term impact 

would occur to adjacent land managers 

and partnerships. A negligible beneficial 

impact would occur to economies of 

gateway communities over the long-term. 

Operational Efficiency 

Methodology 

Operational efficiency, for the purpose of 

this analysis, refers to adequacy of the 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

148

staffing levels and quality and effectiveness 

of the infrastructure used in the operation 

of the park in order to adequately protect 

and preserve vital park resources. This 

analysis considers existing and needed 

staffing levels and the adequacy and 

effectiveness of the infrastructure used in 

park operations to provide adequate space 

for effective visitor experiences and staff 

needs. Facilities include housing for staff 

required to work and live in the park, 

visitor orientation facilities (visitor 

centers, interpretive trails), and the 

necessary administrative buildings (office 

and workspace for park staff) to support 

park operations. The presence and 

adequacy of water, sewer, electric, and 

telephone utilities needed to facilitate park 

operations was also analyzed. 

Discussion of impacts on park operations 

focuses on (1) ability to protect and 

preserve resources, (2) existing and needed 

staff members, (3) existing and needed 

facilities, (4) communication (telephones, 

radio, computers, etc), and (5) appropriate 

utilities (sewer, water, electric). Park staff 

knowledge was used to evaluate the 

impacts of each alternative based on the 

current description of park facilities and 

operational efficiency presented in the 

Affected Environment section of this 

document. Definitions for levels of 

impacts to operational efficiency are as 

follows: 

Negligible – An action that may change the 

park operation, but the change will be so 

small that it will not be of any measurable 

or perceptible consequence. 

Minor – An action that may change the 

park operation, but the change will be 

small and that if it is measurable, it will be 

a small and localized. 

Moderate – An action that will have some 

change to the park operation. The change 

will be measurable and will have a 

sufficient consequence. 

Major – An action that will have a 

noticeable change to the park operation. 

The change will be measurable and will 

have a substantial and possible permanent 

consequence. 

Regulations and Policies 

Current laws and policies require that the 

following conditions be achieved in the 

park: 

Desired Condition – The NPS will provide 

appropriate facilities and staff necessary 

for resource protection and visitor 

enjoyment. 

Source – NPS Management Policies. 

Effects of Alternative A – No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Under the no-action alternative, the 

existing facilities and staff levels would 

remain. 

Facilities - Implementation of the noaction alternative would impact the park’s 

facilities and their use by visitors and 

employees. The existing visitor center 

would remain inadequate because of the 

crowded conditions. Much-needed space 

would not be available to meet the needs of 

current and future staff and visitor levels. 

Existing exhibits would remain outdated 

and incorrect. No space would be available 

to conduct indoor interpretive programs. 

The association sales area would remain 

crowded. The library would remain 

disorganized and difficult to use. 

Management of the park’s cultural and 

natural resources would be impacted from 

the lack of adequate work and storage 

space. No handicapped accessible trails 

would be available for visitor use. The 

existing visitor center parking area would 

not accommodate current and future 

levels of visitors. The monument would 

not be able to obtain needed assistance 

(seasonal employees and volunteers) 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

149 

without sufficient park housing 

accommodations. 

Utilities – Existing restroom facilities 

would not accommodate visitors during 

the busiest times of the year. 

Staffing – Implementation of the no-action 

alternative would impact park 

management efforts. Given current 

staffing levels, a reasonable amount of 

efficiency has been maintained. However, 

there are serious limitations in the park’s 

ability to provide adequate and acceptable 

levels of resource protection, preservation, 

and visitor services. Monument staff 

would not be able to efficiently and 

effectively carry out long-term 

management goals to preserve and protect 

the cultural and natural resources 

entrusted to its care. Threats to the 

resources would continue without 

completed inventory, monitoring, 

assessment, mitigation, and management 

programs. Heightened protection of the 

monument’s facilities and resources would 

not occur without increased staffing. 

Visitor care and safety would continue at 

the existing level with current staffing and 

cooperating emergency services. 

Visitor Use – Under the no-action 

alternative, visitor use of the park would 

continue as it exists. The interpretive staff 

would provide the same level of 

educational experiences to visitors’ both 

inside and outside the monument. 

Interpretation and visitor orientation 

programs would remain less than desired. 

Increased growth of the Phoenix 

metropolitan area and improved facilities 

within Tonto Basin would increase interest 

in the park. The result would be an 

increase in the need for the monument’s 

visitor services and facilities, which would 

not be available under this alternative. 

Increased visitation would also increase 

interest and demand on U.S. Forest 

Service land surrounding the park. Since 

the two agencies have differing missions, 

the potential exists for inconsistent and 

incompatible uses to occur adjacent to the 

park boundaries. Unregulated and 

unauthorized access along park 

boundaries would result in intentional and 

unintentional impacts to park resources. 

Under Alternative A, sufficient law 

enforcement staff would not be available 

to patrol these areas. 

Cumulative Effects 

The no-action alternative would result in 

no changes to the park operation causing 

adverse effects. Current staff have 

achieved a certain level of efficiency; 

however the existing limited facilities and 

staff levels inhibit the park’s ability to 

provide adequate levels of resource 

protection, preservation, and visitor 

services. Additional facilities and staff 

would not be available to properly manage 

the monument’s resources and enhance 

visitor experiences. The existing staff 

levels would not be able to handle 

increased visitation and their impacts to 

park resources 

Conclusion – The no-action alternative 

would have a major long-term adverse 

effect on the overall management of the 

park and its unique resources without 

improved facilities and operations, and 

increased staff levels. Because there would 

be no major, adverse impacts to a resource 

or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of Tonto National 

Monument; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the monument or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the 

monument; or (3) identified as a goal in 

this plan or other relevant National Park 

Service planning documents, there would 

be no impairment to the monument’s 

resources or values. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

150

Effects of Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Under this alternative, a new 

visitor/administrative facility, parking lot, 

nature trail, and seasonal 

employee/volunteer residence would be 

built inside the park and the existing 

visitor center would be remodeled. 

Facilities - The additional facilities would 

beneficially impact visitor experiences and 

the management of the monument’s 

cultural and natural resources. However, 

the additional facilities would require 

increased cleaning and upkeep activities 

and costs. Much-needed space would 

finally be available to meet the needs of 

current and future staff and visitor levels. 

Orientation and educational programs 

would be more effective with the new and 

increased exhibits, displays, and indoor 

program areas. Dedicated space would 

house the library. The additional parking 

area would help to alleviate crowded 

conditions at the existing visitor center. 

The new nature trail would provide the 

only opportunity for physically challenged 

visitors to access the Sonoran desert. The 

seasonal employee/volunteer residence 

would finally provide sufficient 

accommodations and increase the 

monument’s ability to obtain seasonal 

employees and volunteers. 

Impacts associated with construction of 

the facilities would consist of compliance 

and mitigation of impacts to natural and 

cultural resources. There would be 

substantial costs for short-term 

construction and long-term maintenance 

needs. 

Utilities – Additional restroom facilities in 

the new visitor center would 

accommodate visitors during the busiest 

times of the year. 

Staffing - Staff levels would increase by 

eight FTEs. Monument staff would be 

more efficient and effective in carrying out 

long-term management goals to preserve 

and protect the cultural and natural 

resources entrusted to its care. Threats to 

the resources would diminish through 

completed inventory, monitoring, 

assessment, mitigation, and management 

programs. The interpretive staff would 

provide greatly increased educational 

experiences to visitors’ both inside and 

outside the monument enhancing 

understandings about the Salado culture 

and surrounding Sonoran desert 

environment. Protection of the 

monument’s facilities and resources and 

visitor care and safety would improve with 

additional staffing and locating all 

employees within the park. 

Demands on administrative staff would 

increase during the purchasing and 

contracting for supplies, materials, and 

services when construction and 

remodeling projects are occurring. 

Maintenance staff would have increased 

workloads to clean and maintain new 

facilities. Prior to construction, resource 

management staff would have increased 

workloads associated with consultation, 

compliance, and clearance for the 

proposed facilities. 

Visitor Use - The new accessible nature 

trail would provide increased 

opportunities for all visitors to experience 

the desert lowlands. 

Growth of the Phoenix metropolitan area 

and increased use of Tonto Basin would 

have a minor to moderate long-term effect 

on the park‘s operational efficiency. The 

most significant effect would be an 

increase in the number of visitors coming 

to the park and to the national forest 

surrounding the park. Since the two 

agencies have differing missions, the 

potential exists for inconsistent and 

incompatible uses to occur adjacent to and 

encroach on park boundaries. Such use 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

151 

would result in unregulated and 

unauthorized access in closed areas of the 

park resulting in intentional and 

unintentional impacts to park resources. 

This activity would have moderate to 

major long-term impacts to operational 

efficiency resulting in an increased need 

for law enforcement patrols to protect 

park resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

The additional facilities and staff levels 

proposed under this alternative would 

provide major and long-term beneficial 

management of the monument’s resources 

and enhance visitor experiences. Adverse 

impacts would occur as a result of the 

proposed construction of the new facilities 

and rehabilitation of the existing visitor 

center. However, these actions would be 

short-term. Once built and rehabilitated, 

these facilities would have long-term 

minor impacts in the form of increased 

maintenance and upkeep needs, but would 

provide long-term major beneficial 

impacts to the overall management and 

enjoyment of the park. 

Under this alternative, more staff would 

sufficiently handle increased visitation and 

their impacts to park resources by 

providing adequate levels of resource 

protection, preservation, and visitor 

services. Increased staff would provide 

major beneficial impacts to the long-term 

management goals of preserving and 

protecting the park’s cultural and natural 

resources. Major beneficial impacts would 

occur to visitor services with additional 

staffing to greatly enhance visitor 

protection and educational programs. 

Conclusion – This alternative would 

provide major long-term beneficial 

experiences for visitors and management 

of the monument’s cultural and natural 

resources from improved facilities and 

operations and increased staff levels. 

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

to the monument’s resources or values. 

Effects of Alternative C 

Impact Analysis 

Under Alternative C, a new 

visitor/administrative facility would be 

constructed outside the monument and 

the existing visitor center would be 

remodeled. 

Facilities – Same as Alternative B except 

that the new visitor center would be 

located outside the park. The additional 

parking facilities would be provided 

outside the park instead of inside the park 

where the need exists. Also, vehicles, 

supplies, personnel, and funds would 

increase with the shuttle system’s longer 

distance from the new visitor center to the 

park than in Alternatives B and D. 

Utilities – Additional restroom facilities 

would be provided outside the park in the 

new visitor center instead of inside the 

park where the need exists. 

Staffing – Similar to Alternative B except 

that staff levels would increase by nine 

FTEs. Even though the new facility would 

provide much-needed benefits to park 

operations, impacts would occur to 

communications, logistics, and costs 

incurred from the increased distance 

between the new facility and the 

monument. 

Visitor Use – Same as Alternative B except 

that visitors would not be able to 

experience the desert lowlands without a 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

152

new visitor center and nature trail built in 

that area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative B except that fewer 

adverse impacts would occur within the 

park with construction of the new visitor 

center outside the park. 

Conclusion – Similar to Alternative B. This 

alternative would have a moderate longterm beneficial effect on operational 

efficiency from improved facilities and 

operations and increased staff levels. 

Because there would be no major, adverse 

impacts to a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill 

specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

to the monument’s resources or values. 

Effects of Alternative D - NPS 

Preferred 

Impact Analysis 

Under alternative D, a new administrative 

facility, seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence, and ATS staging area would be 

constructed and the interior of the existing 

Mission 66-visitor center would be 

remodeled. 

Facilities - Less space than in Alternatives B 

and C would be available to meet the needs 

of current and future staff and visitor 

levels. However, less funds and time would 

be needed to build, clean, upkeep, and 

staff the new facility than in Alternatives B 

and C. The additional ATS staging area 

would help to alleviate crowded 

conditions at the existing visitor center. 

No new nature trail would be constructed 

to provide opportunities for physically 

handicapped visitors to access the Sonoran 

desert. The seasonal employee/volunteer 

residence would finally provide sufficient 

accommodations and increase the 

monument’s ability to obtain seasonal 

employees and volunteers. 

Utilities – Additional restroom facilities in 

the new administrative facility for 

employees and at the ATS staging area for 

visitors would help to alleviate demand on 

the visitor center restrooms during the 

busiest times of the year. 

Staffing - Staff levels would increase by six 

FTEs. Monument staff would be more 

efficient and effective than in Alternative A 

in carrying out long-term management 

goals to preserve and protect cultural and 

natural resources. Threats to the resources 

would diminish through completed 

inventory, monitoring, assessment, 

mitigation, and management programs. 

Interpretation and visitor orientation 

programs would be more effective than in 

Alternative A, but less effective than in 

Alternatives B and C with slightly 

expanded exhibits, displays, and indoor 

program areas. The interpretive staff 

would provide a few more educational 

experiences to visitors’ both inside and 

outside the monument enhancing 

understandings about the Salado culture 

and surrounding Sonoran desert 

environment. Protection of the 

monument’s facilities and visitor care and 

safety would improve with additional 

staffing and locating all employees within 

the park. 

Demands on administrative staff would 

increase over Alternative A, but would be 

less than Alternatives B and C during the 

purchasing and contracting for supplies, 

materials, and services when construction 

and remodeling projects are occurring. 

Maintenance staff would have more work 

to clean and maintain new facilities than in 

Alternative A, but these workloads would 
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 

153 

be less than in Alternatives B and C. Prior 

to construction, resource management 

staff would have increased workloads 

associated with consultation, compliance, 

and clearance for the proposed facilities, 

but these workloads would be less than in 

Alternatives B and C. 

Visitor Use - Increased growth of the 

Phoenix metropolitan area and improved 

facilities within Tonto Basin would 

increase interest in the park. The number 

of visitors coming to the park would 

increase. The result would be an increase 

in the need for the monument’s visitor 

services, which would not be solved with 

this alternative. Increased visitation would 

also increase interest and demand on U.S. 

Forest Service land surrounding the park. 

Since the two agencies have differing 

missions, the potential exists for 

inconsistent and incompatible uses to 

occur adjacent to the park boundaries. 

Unregulated and unauthorized access 

along park boundaries would result in 

intentional and unintentional impacts to 

park resources and increase the need for 

more law enforcement patrols by NPS 

staff. 

Cumulative Effects 

The additional facilities and staff would 

provide moderate and long-term 

beneficial management of the monument’s 

resources and enhance visitor experiences. 

There would be moderate adverse impacts 

as a result of the proposed rehabilitation of 

the existing visitor center and construction 

of the new administrative facility. 

However, these actions would be shortterm. Once constructed and rehabilitated, 

the facilities would require maintenance 

for the long-term, but less than is needed 

in Alternatives B and C, and would provide 

moderately beneficial impacts to the longterm management and enjoyment of the 

park. 

Under this alternative, more staff would 

sufficiently handle increased visitation and 

their impacts to park resources by 

providing adequate levels of resource 

protection, preservation, and visitor 

services. Increased staff would provide 

major beneficial impacts to the long-term 

management goals of preserving and 

protecting the park’s cultural and natural 

resources. Major beneficial impacts would 

occur to visitor services with additional 

staffing to greatly enhance visitor 

protection and educational programs. 

Conclusion – The proposed alternative 

would have a major long-term beneficial 

effect on visitor experiences and 

management of the monument’s cultural 

and natural resources from improved 

facilities and operations and increased 

staff levels. Because there would be no 

major, adverse impacts to a resource or 

value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the 

establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Tonto National Monument; (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the 

monument or to opportunities for 

enjoyment of the monument; or (3) 

identified as a goal in this plan or other 

relevant National Park Service planning 

documents, there would be no impairment 

to the monument’s resources or values. 

155 

CONSULTATION/COORDINATION

Public Involvement, Agencies 

Consulted 

The Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 1999. This thirty-day public 

review period was announced via an 

internet web site, newsletters, and press 

releases. Public workshops were also held 

in Tonto Basin, Roosevelt, and Globe, 

Arizona. This Environmental Impact 

Statement will be available for public 

review for a minimum of 60 days. 

The following agencies were contacted 

during preparation of the plan: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

Planning Team 

National Park Service 

Lee Baiza, Superintendent, Tonto NM – BS in 

Criminal Justice from New Mexico State 

University, 23 years NPS at four different NPS 

areas. Responsible for overall process, purpose 

and need, alternatives, facilities, operational 

efficiency, cumulative effects, partnerships, 

and final recommendation to Regional 

Director. 

Christopher Marvel, Team Captain/Lead 

Planner, Intermountain SO-Denver –

BLA/BS NYS College of Environmental 

Science and Forestry/Syracuse University, 23 

years Government (10 USFS, 12 NPS.) 

Responsible for general 

coordination/documentation, purpose and 

need, alternatives, tables, contract 

coordination, and economic contributions. 

Lori Kinser, Visual Information Specialist, 

Intermountain SO-Denver – 26 years as a 

primary provider of graphic support. 

Responsible for the production of Graphics. 

Shirley Hoh, Resource Manager, 

Tonto NM – BS in Natural Resources from The 

Ohio State University, 23 years NPS at 8 

different areas. Responsible for park 

coordination, mission statement, ROAs, 

management prescriptions, alternatives, 

affected environment, environmental 

consequences, bibliography, and 

consultation/coordination. 

Susan Hughes, Chief Ranger, Tonto NM – BS 

in Natural Resource Recreation from 

University of Arizona, 16 years NPS. 

Responsible for providing insight and 

reviewing visitor use/experience, 

interpretation, and visitor/resource protection. 

Eddie Colyott, Park Ranger, Tonto NM –

Certified Archeological Instructor with 

Eastern Arizona College for 7 years, 20 years 

NPS, 3 years USFS. Responsible for providing 

insight and reviewing cultural resources, 

visitor use/experience, interpretation, and 

visitor/resource protection. 

Dwayne Collier, Superintendent, Southern 

Arizona Office – BS in Wildlife Management 

from New Mexico State University, 31 years 

NPS at 7 NPS areas. Responsible for providing 

and managing professional and technical 

support to parks in Southern Arizona. 

Provided perspective on visitor use and 

visitor/resource protection components. 

Kathy Davis, formerNatural Resource 

Manager, Southern Arizona Office – Masters 

of Forestry from University of Montana, 21 

years NPS, 3 years USFS, 5 years CSIRO in 

Australia. Responsible for providing input for 

mission statement, management prescriptions, 

alternatives, affected environment, and 

environmental consequences. 

Lee Benson, former Wildlife Biologist, 

Southern Arizona Office – BS in Zoology from 

Colorado State University, 6 years NPS, 3 years 
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

156

BLM. Provided perspective and input on 

mission statement, management prescriptions, 

alternatives, affected environment, and 

environmental consequences. Responsible for 

GMP maps. 

Scott Travis, former Archeologist, Southern 

Arizona Office – MA in Anthropology and 

History from Northern Arizona University, BS 

in Anthropology and History from Northern 

Arizona University, 17 years NPS. Responsible 

for cultural resource components of the park’s 

mission goals, ROA‘s management 

prescriptions, and environmental 

consequences. 

Gregory L. Fox, former Archeologist, 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center – Ph.D. in Anthropology from 

University of Missouri-Columbia, MA in 

anthropology from University of NebraskaLincoln, 9 years NPS. Responsible for assessing 

effects of GMP on cultural resources. 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Bill Halvorson, Supervisory Research 

Ecologist, Sonoran Desert Field Station of 

the U.S. Geological Service Western 

Ecological Research Center – Ph.D. in Plant 

Ecology from Arizona State University, 5 years 

USGS, 3 years NBS, 12 years NPS, 2 years 

HCRS, 8 years University of Rhode Island. 

Responsible for assisting with ecological 

setting and scientific integrity. 

Contributors

Chris Hansen, Administrative Support Clerk, 

Tonto NM 

Miguel Estrada, Exhibit Specialist, Tonto NM 

Lupe Carrasco, Administrative Officer, Tonto 

NM

Ruben Avalos, Facility Manager, Tonto NM 

Janet Lenon, Park Guide, Tonto NM 

Stephen Rudolph, formerPark Guide, Tonto 

NM 

Jan Ryan, former Chief Ranger, Tonto NM 

Joel Straw, former Facility Manager, Tonto 

NM

Sam Henderson, Superintendent, Flagstaff 

Area Parks 

Frank Walker, former Superintendent, 

Saguaro NP 

Steve Whitesell, Superintendent, San Antonio 

Missions NHP 

Tara Travis, former Historian, Southern 

Arizona Office

Sara Quirarte, Personnel Management 

Specialist, Southern Arizona Office 

Phil Clark, former Engineer, Southern Arizona 

Office 

Jill Cowley, Landscape Architect, NPS 

Intermountain Support Office 

Stephanie Rodeffer, Chief Museum Collections 

Repository, Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center 

Trinkle Jones, Archeologist, Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center 

Jim Rancier, Lake Mead NRA 

Tina Terrell, Tonto National Forest 

Joe Sitarzewski, Tonto National Forest 

Don Goldman, NPS (retired) 

Joan Mitchel, NPS (retired) 

Catherine Colby, NPS (retired) 

List of Recipients 

Federal Government 

Karen Wade, Regional Director, NPS - 

Intermountain Region

Michael Snyder, Deputy Regional Director, 

NPS – Intermountain Region

Ernest Ortega, Superintendent, NPS – 

Intermountain Support Office 

Superintendent, Casa Grande Ruins NM

Superintendent, Chiricahua NM and Fort 

Bowie NHS 

Superintendent, Coronado NM

Superintendent, Montezuma Castle NM and 

Tuzigoot NM 

Superintendent, Organ Pipe Cactus NM
CONSULTATION/COORDINATION 

157 

Superintendent, Saguaro NP

Superintendent, Tumacacori NHP

Don Swann, Saguaro NP

Carol Kruse, Flagstaff Area Parks

Jim Rancier, Lake Mead NRA

David Roberts, Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

NP

Michael Stuckey, Petrified Forest NP

Jan Ryan, Tonto NM (retired) 

Beth Morgan, Tonto NM Volunteer 

Clark Franz, Tonto NM Volunteer 

Jim Vowels, Tonto NM Volunteer 

George Teague, Center Manager, Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center

Forest Supervisor, Tonto National Forest

District Ranger, Tonto Basin Ranger District, 

Tonto National Forest

District Ranger, Globe Ranger District, Tonto 

National Forest

Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

John McCain, United States Senator

Jon Kyl, United States Senator

J.D. Hayworth, United States Congressman

State Government 

Jim Garrison, State Historic Preservation 

Officer, Arizona State Historic Preservation 

Office

Local Government 

Mayor, Globe, Arizona

Mayor, Miami, Arizona

Mayor, Payson, Arizona

Executive Director, Globe/Miami Chamber of 

Commerce

Executive Director, Payson Chamber of 

Commerce

Executive Director, Apache Junction Chamber 

of Commerce

Tribal Government 

Chairman, Hopi Tribe

President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa

Chairman, San Carlos Apache Tribe

Chair, Tonto Apache Tribe

Chairman, White Mountain Apache Tribe 

Chairman, Yavapai Apache Tribe

President, Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe

Governor, Zuni Heritage and Historic 

Preservation Office 

Organizations 

David Simon, Executive Director, The National 

Park Foundation

Tim Priehs, Executive Director, Southwest 

Parks and Monument Association

159 

REFERENCES CITED 

Benson, Lee. 2001. Survey Results for 

Mexican spotted and cactus ferruginous 

pygmy owls. Correspondence available at 

Tonto National Monument. 

Brian, Nancy. 1991. Resurvey of 1961 line 

intercept transects at Tonto National 

Monument, Arizona. Technical Report No. 

38, Cooperative National Park Resources 

Studies Unit, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Arizona. 

Briceland, Richard. 1990. Money 

Generation Model. National Park Service, 

Statistical Office, Washington, DC. 

Burgess, Robert L. 1965. A checklist of the 

vascular flora of Tonto National 

Monument, Arizona. Journal of the 

Arizona Academy of Science, 3(4). 

Chronic, Halka. 1983. Roadside Geology of 

Arizona. Mountain Press Publishing 

Company, Missoula, Montana. 

Dean, Jeffrey S. 2000. Salado. University 

of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. 

Hiett, Katherine L. and W.L. Halvorson. 

1999. Inventory and Assessment of 

Avifauna and a Monitoring Protocol 

Proposal for Tonto National Monument, 

Arizona. Technical Report No. 62, 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University 

of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 

Jenkins, P., F. Reichenbacher, K. Johnson, 

and A. Gundor. 1991. Vegetation Inventory, 

Classification, and Monitoring for Tonto 

National Monument. Cooperative Parks 

Studies Unit Technical Report 95/50. 

Biological Resources Division, USGS. 

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 

King, Kenneth and E. King. 1998. Tonto 

National Monument Vibration 

Investigation. Southwest Parks and 

Monument Association Grant #98-13. 

Available at Tonto National Monument. 

Lindsay, Bruce A., D.G. Robinett, and F.R. 

Toupal. 1994. Soil Survey of Tonto 

National Monument. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 

Madrid, Christine L. The Emergence of the 

Mission 66 Visitor Centers. Masters thesis, 

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 

Virginia. 

Michigan State University. 2000. Money 

Generation Model Version 2 (MGM2), 

Estimating Regional Impacts of Park Visitor 

Spending. National Park Service, 

Michigan State University, Department of 

Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, 

Lansing, MI. 

Moore, Steven D. and J.L.Crowe. 1993. A 

Survey of Visitors in Four National 

Monuments in Central, Arizona. 

Cooperative National Park Resources 

Studies Unit, University of Arizona, 

Tucson, Arizona. 

National Park Service. 1964. Master Plan, 

Tonto National Monument. National Park 

Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, 

Colorado. 

National Park Service. 1990. National Park 

Service Properties in the National Register 

of Historic Places. National Park Service, 

Washington Office, Washington DC. 

National Park Service. 1993. Guiding 

Principles of Sustainable Design. National 

Park Service, Dept. of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

National Park Service. 1996. National Park 

Service Strategic Plan—Final Draft. 

National Park Service, Washington Office, 

Washington DC 
REFERENCES CITED 

160

National Park Service. 1997. Government 

Performance and Results Act, Strategic 

Plan and Annual Performance Plans, 

Tonto National Monument. Tonto 

National Monument, National Park 

Service. 

National Park Service. 1998. Planners’ 

Sourcebook. Director’s Order 2, Park 

Planning. National Park Service, 

Washington Office, Washington D. C. 

National Park Service. 2000. Management 

Polices 2001. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

2000. Summary Report 1997 National 

Resources Inventory. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

Phillips, Barbara G. 1992. Status of nonnative plant species, Tonto National 

Monument, Arizona. Technical Report 

No. 46, Cooperative national Park 

Resources Studies Unit, University of 

Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 

Pierson, L. M. 1952. Excavations at the 

Lower Ruin and Lower Ruin Annex, Tonto 

National Monument. In “Archeological 

Studies at Tonto National Monument, 

Arizona” edited by L. R. Caywood in 1962. 

Southwestern Monuments Association 

Technical Series 2. Southwest 

Archeological Center, Globe, Arizona. 

Price, Peter W. and S.M. Fondriest. 1995. 

Terrestrial Invertebrate Survey of Tonto 

National Monument, Arizona. Department 

of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona 

University, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

Raup, Robert B., Jr. 1959. Some Geologic 

Features of the Tonto National Monument, 

Gila, County, Arizona. MS, Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center, 

Tucson, Arizona. 

Steen, C. 1940. Excavations at the Upper 

ruin, Tonto National Monument. In “In 

“Archeological Studies at Tonto National 

Monument, Arizona” edited by L. R. 

Caywood in 1962. Southwestern 

Monuments Association Technical Series 

2. Southwest Archeological Center, Globe, 

Arizona. 

Strong, Charles W. 1962. Untitled report 

on vegetation survey. Unpublished report, 

available at Tonto National Monument. 

Swann, Don E., C.R. Schwalbe, R.C. 

Murray, and W.W. Shaw. 1996. An 

Inventory of the Terrestrial, Vertebrates at 

Tonto National Monument, Arizona. 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University 

of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 

Tagg, M. D. 1985. Tonto National 

Monument: an Archeological Survey. 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center, National Park Service, Publication 

in Anthropology No. 31. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. 

Correspondence. Available at Tonto 

National Monument. 

U.S. Forest Service. 1985. Environmental 

Impact Statement, Tonto National Forest 

Plan. Available at Tonto National Forest. 

University of Idaho. 2000. Tonto 

National Monument, 2000 Visitor Survey 

Card Data Report. Cooperative Park 

Studies Unit for the National Park Service, 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 
161 

APPENDIX 1: LEGISLATION 

TONTO NATIONAL MONUMENT 

Establishment: Proclamation (No. 787) of December 19, 1907 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION 

(No. 787-Dec. 19, 1907-35 Stat. 2168) 

 WHEREAS, two prehistoric ruins of ancient cliff dwellings situated upon public 

lands of the United States, and located in the region commonly known as the Tonto 

Drainage Basin, about two miles south of the Salt River Reservoir, Gila County, Arizona, are 

of great ethnologic, scientific and educational interest and it appears that the public 

interests would be promoted by reserving these relics of a vanished people as a National 

Monument with as much land as may be necessary for the proper protection thereof; 

 NOW, THEREFORE, I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the Untied States of 

America, by virtue of the power in me vested by section two of the Act of Congress 

approved June 8, 1906, entitled “An Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities,” do 

hereby set aside as the Tonto National Monument, subject to any valid interest or rights, the 

prehistoric cliff dwelling ruins and one section of land upon which same are located, 

situated in Gila County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows, to wit: 

 Section thirty-four, unsurveyed, in township four north, range twelve east of the 

Gila and Salt River Meridian, Arizona, as shown upon the diagram hereto attached and 

made a part of this Proclamation. 

 Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, 

excavate, injure or destroy any of the prehistoric ruins or remains thereof declared to be a 

National Monument, or to locate or settle upon any of the lands reserved and made a part of 

said Monument by this Proclamation. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the 

United States to be affixed. 

 DONE at the City of Washington this 19th day of December in the year of our Lord 

one thousand nine hundred and seven, and of the Independence of the United States the 

one hundred and thirty-second. 

Theodore Roosevelt 
APPENDIX 1: LEGISLATION 

162

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

A PROCLAMATION 

(No. 2230-Apr. 1, 1937-50 Stat. 1825) 

 WHEREAS, the area in the State of Arizona established as the Tonto National 

Monument by Proclamation of December 19, 1907, has situated thereon prehistoric ruins 

and ancient cliff dwellings which are of great ethnologic, scientific and educational interest 

to the public; and 

 WHEREAS, it appears that there are certain government-owned lands reserved by 

proclamation of January 13, 1908, as a part of the Tonto National Forest, adjacent to the 

boundaries of the said Monument, which are required for the proper care, management 

and protection of the said historic ruins and ancient cliff dwellings: 

 NOW, THEREFORE, I Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the Untied States of 

America, under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 1 of the act of June 4, 

1897, ch. 2, 30 Stat. 11, (U.S.C., title 16, sec. 473), and section 2 of the act of June 8, 1906, ch. 

3060, 34 Stat. 225 (U.S.C., title 16, sec. 431), do proclaim that, subject to all valid existing 

rights, the following-described lands in Arizona are hereby excluded from the Tonto 

National Forest and reserved from all forms of appropriation under the public-land laws 

and added to and made a part of the Tonto National Monument: 

T.4N., R.12E., sec. 26, SW1/4; sec. 27, SE1/4; sec. 35, NW1/4 (unsurveyed), containing 

approximately 480 acres. 

 Warning is hereby expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, 

injure, destroy, or remove any features of this monument and not to locate or settle upon 

any of the lands thereof. 

 The Director of the National Park Service, under the direction of the Secretary of 

the Interior, shall have the supervision, management, and control of this monument as 

provided in the act of Congress entitled “An Act to Establish a National Park Service, and 

for other purposes,” approved August 25, 1916 (ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, U.S.C., title 16, secs. 1 

and 2), and acts supplementary thereto or amendatory thereof; Provided, that the 

administration of the monument shall be subject to the withdrawal for the Salt River 

Irrigation project, Arizona. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the 

United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this first day of April in the year of our Lord 

nineteen hundred and thirty-seven and of the Independence of the United States the one 

hundred and sixty-first. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt 
163 

APPENDIX 2: FUTURE PLANS AND STUDIES 

Future plans and studies needed for TONTO NM include: 

• Fire management plan 

• Cultural landscape inventory and report 

• Historic resource study 

• Collections management plan 

• Artifact study with institutional involvement 

• Administrative history 

• Environmental condition action plan 

• Vegetation management plan 

• Water resource assessment 

• Historic structures preservation guide 

• Assessment and stabilization plan 

• Ethnographic Overview and Assessment and Ethnohistorical Studies 

• Development Concept Plan 

• Comprehensive interpretive plan 

• Viewshed analysis 

• Response need assessment (EMS/SAR) 

• Passive resource protection study 

• Security plan 

• VERP – visitor experience and resource protection plan 

• Alternative transportation system plan 

• Boundary study

165

APPENDIX 3: CULTURAL HISTORY

Rock shelters overlooking Tonto Basin 

shield adobe cliff dwellings that are nearly 

700 years old. They were home to the 

archeological phenomenon known as the 

Gila phase representing an element of the 

Salado culture. This culture has a 

widespread distribution in the Tonto Basin 

and was named by archeologists in the 

early 20th century for the Rio Salado that 

flows through the basin. The first 

permanent settlements date from the latter 

half of the 8th century A.D. Hohokam 

colonists, expanding their domain in what 

are now the lower Gila and Salt River 

valleys, moved into Tonto Basin. By A.D. 

850 the Hohokam were established in 

pithouse villages where they lived for a few 

hundred years. Through time several 

distinct changes in their way of life 

occurred. Pottery styles, construction 

methods, settlement patterns, and other 

traits indicated that by A.D. 1150, the 

inhabitants of the basin no longer followed 

the Hohokam traditions, or those of any 

other Southwestern group. Other cultures 

including the Mogollon located near the 

Little Colorado River may also have 

moved into the Tonto Basin. All of these 

various cultures may have combined to 

develop into the Salado culture. 

Like their predecessors, the Salado were 

farmers. Their pueblo villages dotted the 

riverside near irrigated fields of corn, 

beans, pumpkins, amaranth, and cotton. 

Groups ventured into the hills to hunt and 

gather plants. They exchanged surplus 

food and goods with neighbors, thus 

joining the trade network that reached 

from Colorado to Mexico, and to the Gulf 

of California. As the Salado prospered, 

their numbers increased. By the early 1300s 

some of them moved into the surrounding 

foothills, building single and two-story 

pueblo dwellings. The highlands offered a 

bounty of useful plants and animals. Steep 

slopes and rough terrain made farming 

difficult. 

The Salado culture was present in the 

Tonto Basin for about 300 years. Sometime 
APPENDIX 3: CULTURAL HISTORY 

166

between A.D. 1400 and 1450 they left the 

basin for reasons that are not apparent 

today. 

Prime resources at Tonto National 

Monument are the Annex, Lower Cliff 

Dwelling, Upper Cliff Dwelling, two 

smaller remote cliff dwellings, and one 

open site. All six of these sites are on the 

National Park Service List of Classified 

Structures. The Lower Cliff Dwelling has 

16 ground-floor rooms, three of which had 

a second story. Next to this is the 12-room 

Annex. The Upper Cliff Dwelling was 

much larger with 32 ground-floor rooms 

and eight on the second story. There are 

also 59 smaller sites: 12 rock shelters, 26 

field houses, 16 two-to-five room sites, 

three large pueblos (more than five 

rooms), three Apache or Yavapai wickiup 

sites, one historic site, and one large 

unknown rock pile (possibly a grave). The 

entire monument was placed on the 

National Register of Historic Places as an 

Archeological District in September 1966. 

Written history reveals some of the 

activities that transpired here after the 

Salado left. Literature (Pierson 1952, Steen 

1954, Tagg 1985) stated that early Spanish 

activity occurred in the Tonto Basin 

between 1539 and 1540. De 

Niza/Coronado’s expedition reportedly 

entered the basin while seeking the Seven 

Cities of Cibola. It would seem likely that 

they became aware of the cliff dwellings 

although no mention of them exists in 

their journals. 

In 1821 Mexico was declared independent 

of Spain. With this, Mexican occupation of 

the Southwest began. Tonto Basin was an 

active route for Mexican military 

operations, and the Tonto cliff dwellings 

may have been well known by soldiers and 

scouts at that time. 

Apache brownware ceramics found in the 

monument indicates an Apache/Yavapai 

presence in the monument. 

After the Mexican-American War of 1848 

the United States took possession of the 

Arizona Territory. Between 1850 and 1870 

feeble attempts at ranching in the basin 

were discouraged by constant raiding from 

the Tonto Apaches. In 1867 Fort Reno was 

established near what is now Punkin 

Center, Arizona, located 15 miles north of 

the cliff dwellings. Soldiers at Fort Reno 

staged military operations against the 

Tonto Apache. In 1872 the “Tonto 

Campaign” finally brought Apache raiding 

and warfare in the basin to an end. 

In 1875 European-American ranchers and 

settlers successfully inhabited the basin. 

Cowboys from the Hashknife Ranch were 

credited with the discovery of the cliff 

dwellings, but in reality they only served to 

promote interest in the cliff dwellings. 

Ranching and grazing activities during this 

time used the two springs in the 

monument as well as the vegetation. 

Explorer Adolph Bandelier visited the 

Tonto cliff dwellings in 1886. His journal, 

published in 1893, provided the first 

sketches and literary account of the cliff 

dwellings. 

Roosevelt Dam was constructed between 

1903 and 1911. Tours to the dam site were 

initiated by the Southern Pacific Railroad, 

and as part of the tour, people were 

brought to the cliff dwellings. This 

conceivably was the first 

commercialization of the cliff dwellings. In 

1907 due to growing impact and visitation, 

President Theodore Roosevelt signed a 

proclamation creating Tonto National 

Monument. Under authority of the USFS, 

the cliff dwellings experienced increased 

visitation and growing impacts and 

vandalism. Due to the continued 

destruction of the cliff dwellings, authority 

for their protection was transferred to the 

National Park Service in 1933.
167

APPENDIX 4: 

 PUBLIC COMMENTS & NPS RESPONSE 

This section outlines errata made to the 

draft EIS and incorporated into the final 

EIS. None of the changes modify any of 

the alternatives. Changes were necessary 

to clarify management prescriptions, 

improve document organization and 

bring EIS information in line with existing 

site conditions, some of which changed 

since the publication of the DEIS. 

NPS Responses To Substantive Comments 

In this section, the National Park Service 

has listed and responded to substantive 

comments received from the public about 

the draft General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

All public comments on the draft 

GMP/EIS were reviewed by park staff, but 

only those comments which where 

considered to be substantive have 

received responses in this section. 

Substantive comments, as defined by the 

Council on Environmental Quality and 

the National Park Service are comments 

which do one or more of the following: 

• Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy 

of information in the EIS. 

• Question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of environmental analysis.

• Present reasonable alternatives other than 

those presented in the EIS.

• Cause changes or revisions in the 

proposal.(NPS Director’s Order #12 Handbook, 

Public Comments 

Substantive comments are organized in 

the following table for convenience. The 

left column contains the question or 

comment with the person’s name who 

submitted the comment in brackets. The 

right column contains the National Park 

Service’s Reply. 

Comments are arranged alphabetically by 

sources identified in the brackets []. 

Agencies and organizations that are 

referenced in the Public Response Chart 

are identified below. Wherever 

amendments have been made to the draft 

plan, those changes also occur in the final 

plan. 

Abbreviations not depicted above for 

organizations and agencies include 

“GMP” for General Management Plan, 

“EIS” for Environmental Impact 

Statement, “DEIS” for Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, “FEIS” 

for Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, and for “FAA” Federal 

Aviation Administration. The term 

“monument” refers specifically to Tonto 

National Monument. “NPS” refers to the 

National Park Service, whose 

Superintendent at Tonto administers the 

national monument.
APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE 

168

COMMENT NPS RESPONSE 

[Arizona State Historic Preservation Office] 

The SHPO concurs from an archaeological point 

of view. 

[Tonto NM] NPS management appreciates 

your support of alternative D and its long-term 

beneficial effect on the management of the 

monument’s archaeological resources. 

[Jill Cowley] As far as addressing cultural 

landscape (CL) resources, it looks good. One 

minor comment – on page 83, first line under CL 

existing conditions, it says that cultural 

landscapes “inherently exhibit modification and 

use...”. This is misleading – cultural landscapes 

do not have to exhibit any human modifications 

or evidence of use – they can appear “natural”, 

and their cultural landscape values can derive 

from uses or values that do not involve physical 

manipulations. 

[Tonto NM] The cultural landscape reference 

on page 83 was modified. The first two 

sentences were changed to read as follows, “A 

cultural landscape is a geographic area that may 

exhibit modification and use by communities 

varying in size, complexity, and character. 

However, cultural landscapes do not have to 

exhibit any human modifications or evidence of 

use – they can appear natural and their values 

can derive from uses that do not involve 

physical manipulations.” 

[Kendrick Holder] ...you want more land to 

expand. That gives the U.S. Forest Service an 

excuse to remove more cattle. So does a 

drought. They have protected the brush and 

trees so long all it can do is burn. The 

environmentalists like all of this. Before the 

F.S., the weeds and brush burned but left the 

trees. Now it all goes up in smoke. As far as 

remodeling the monument, I think it is OK now. 

[Tonto NM] The primary mission of the NPS is 

to preserve and protect natural and cultural 

resources and to provide for the public 

enjoyment of these resources for present and 

future generations. One of the goals of the 

GMP is to complete a boundary study that 

would identify significant natural and/or 

cultural resources outside the park boundary 

that should also be protected. The GMP is a 

guide to ensure that the infrastructure of the 

park is able to meet the needs of present-day 

and future expected levels of increased 

visitation and provide for positive visitor 

experiences. Staff needs must also be met in 

order to ensure protection of the resources. The 

proposed alternative D best addresses these 

issues. 

[Hopi Tribe] The Hopi cultural Preservation 

Office has reviewed the draft EIS/GMP for Tonto 

NM. We support Alternative D-NPS Preferred, 

because the document demonstrates that thee 

proposed alternative would have a long-term 

beneficial effect on the management of the 

monuments cultural and natural resources, and 

there would be no major adverse impacts to the 

monument’s resources or values. 

[Tonto NM] NPS management appreciates 

your support of alternative D and its long-term 

beneficial effect on the management of the 

monument’s cultural and natural resources. 

[William P. O’Brien] Under the section on 

Mission 66 (page 85) the preferred alternative 

states that “only the interior of the building 

would be changed.” It would seem that after 

calling out the significance of the structure as 

illustrative of the Mission 66 history of the NPS 

and of architect Cecil Doty, that the present 

statement should be amplified. 

[Tonto NM] The following statements was 

added to page 86 under Impacts of Alternatives 

B, C, and D – NPS Preferred at the end of the 

first paragraph: “Any changes proposed for the 

interior of the building would respect the 

original design intent and building footprint. 

Both exterior and interior character defining 

features and treatments would also be 

retained.” 
APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE 

169

COMMENT NPS RESPONSE 

[Margaret J. Rasmussen] My inclination is to 

go with the NPS Preferred Alternative D. 

Alternative D would allow for better visitor 

experience and administration of the park. 

[Tonto NM] NPS management appreciates 

your support of alternative D and its long-term 

beneficial effect on the management of the 

monument’s cultural and natural resources and 

visitor experience. 

[Margaret J. Rasmussen] I am curious about 

the comprehensive IPM regarding combating 

Africanized bees (pg. 33). What precautions are 

being used should more aggressive Africanized 

bees swarm or attack visitors? 

[Tonto NM] The comprehensive IPM plan 

states that the monument will identify and 

monitor pests, their locations, populations, and 

threats, in this case, to employees and visitors. 

Once the threats have surpassed acceptable 

limits, control measures will be undertaken. 

[Jan Ryan] On page 5, at the top left, is the 

purpose statement for Tonto. The way it reads 

is that “Tonto National Monument educates 

prehistoric cliff dwellings,” which of course is an 

impossibility. 

[Tonto NM] The word “educates” was 

removed from this statement. 

[Jan Ryan] On page 31, under Cultural 

Resources Management, 3rd paragraph: the 

museum COLLECTIONS are not outdated, just 

the exhibits/facilities that house them. 

[Tonto NM] This sentence was changed to 

read, “The outdated museum displays would 

remain unchanged within existing limited 

space.” 

[Jan Ryan] I agree 100% that Alternative D is 

the best for Tonto, with alternative B as a close 

second, for a lot of reasons. 

[Tonto NM] NPS management appreciates your 

support of alternative D and its long-term 

beneficial effect on the management of the 

monument’s cultural and natural resources. 

[US Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA)] Surface Water and Ground Water 

Quality – On page 112, the FEIS should clarify 

the phrase “signs of overload,” specifically if 

human waste has been released into the 

environment, and potential effects associated 

with this. It also states that the two [septic] 

systems will be combined into a single system by 

2002, although it is unclear if the septic tanks’ 

consolidation is part of this project or a separate 

action (this should be clarified in the Final EIS). 

The FEIS should address if the NPS has evaluated 

the feasibility of methods to manage human 

waste other than a septic system such as a smallscale wastewater treatment plant. The Clean 

Water Act Section 402 permits are needed for 

construction activities disturbing five or more 

acres. 

[Tonto NM] No human wastes have been 

released into the environment from the visitor 

center leech field. The following sentences 

were changed in the paragraph on page 112 

regarding sewage systems to read. “This system 

is operating at its maximum design capacity 

during peak visitation periods although no 

leakage has occurred.” “To increase capacity 

and remove the need for the old visitor center 

leech field, these two sewage systems were 

combined into a new expanded system in 2002 

that included a new leech field and septic tank.” 

It is not feasible to construct a small-scale 

wastewater treatment plant within the 

monument. All construction projects identified 

in Alternative D would disturb less than five 

acres. Therefore, no Section 402 permits would 

be required. 

[USEPA] Hazardous Materials – The FEIS should 

address if remodeling work [in the existing 

visitor center] may disturb or require the 

removal of hazardous materials such as leadbased paint or asbestos-containing materials. 

[Tonto NM] Proper procedures for sampling 

and removing, if necessary, hazardous materials 

such as lead-based paint or asbestos-containing 

materials during the remodeling of the existing 

visitor center will be addressed during the 

planning and compliance phases of this project. 
APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE 

170

COMMENT NPS RESPONSE 

[USEPA] Pesticides – The DEIS does not address 

if products regulated under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA) are used at the monument. If FIFRAregulated products are used at the monument, 

the list of applicable requirements on page 6 

(“Servicewide Law and Policies”) should note 

that FIFRA is an applicable requirement. 

[Tonto NM] Even though FIFRA- regulated 

products may be used at the monument, it is 

not the intent of the GMP to list every 

applicable law and guideline that governs 

management of the monument. On page 6, the 

GMP lists the most applicable laws, regulations, 

policies, and guidelines that apply to this 

planning effort. 

[USEPA] Air Quality – The FEIS should address 

if emissions from construction machinery 

(including air toxic emissions) can be reduced 

during the project’s construction phase. A 

discussion of mitigation to reduce emissions 

from construction-related activities should be 

presented in the FEIS. 

[Tonto NM] The following statements were 

added to the mitigation for air quality for 

alternatives B, C, and D on page 97: 

“Construction–related emissions would be 

reduced when possible by properly maintaining 

and operating the equipment.” More detailed 

mitigation efforts will be addressed during 

preconstruction conferences for each 

development project undertaken. 

[USEPA] Noise – The DEIS indicates that planes 

and helicopters can fly too low or hover over 

the cliff dwellings, resulting in structural 

damage. The FEIS should address whether such 

actions are prohibited by law and subject to 

enforcement actions by the NPS and/or the FAA. 

The FEIS should address if noise or vibration 

from low-flying or hovering planes and 

helicopters has an adverse effect on wildlife. 

[Tonto NM] There are no FAA or NPS 

regulations to prohibit low-flying aircraft over 

the majority of NPS areas. That is why the 

monument relies solely on educational efforts 

to address this issue. The following statement 

was added to the end of the paragraph on 

aircraft monitoring on pages 38, 44, and 49: 

“The effects of these noise levels on wildlife 

would be determined.” 

[USEPA] Pollution Prevention and Mitigation – 

The FEIS should reference how the proposed 

project can meet the intent of guidance issued 

by the Council on Environmental Quality (CDQ) 

on integrating pollution prevention 

opportunities in National Environmental 

Protection Act planning, documents and 

decisions. We have attached pollution 

prevention checklists that can be utilized in 

developing the FEIS. 

[Tonto NM] The Environmental Consequences 

section of the GMP (pages 79 to 155) addresses 

the general effects of the planning document 

on the environment including pollution 

prevention. Prior to any new construction, a 

new NEPA document will be prepared that 

addresses the effects on the environment in 

more detail including items on the pollution 

prevention checklists. 

[USEPA] Applicable Requirements – Page 6 

identifies several Federal laws applicable to the 

planning effort. Page 11 indicates the need to 

maintain “an adequate supply of potable 

water,” regulated under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SWDA). The list on page 6 should 

include SDWA. Other applicable statures may 

include the FIFRA, Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act, and the 

Pollution Prevention Act. 

[Tonto NM] It is not the intent of the GMP to 

list every applicable law and guideline that 

governs management of the monument. On 

page 6, the GMP lists the most applicable laws, 

regulations, policies, and guidelines that apply 

to this planning effort. 
APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NPS RESPONSE 

171

COMMENT NPS RESPONSE 

[James Vowels] On page 13, I learned that 

there is legislative activity to change the name 

of the monument. 

[Tonto NM] To clarify, changing the name of 

the monument is listed as a mission goal; it is 

not underway at this time. 

[James Vowels] Throughout the plan, in 

reference to the visitor center building, it is 

consistently stated that the building is to be 

remodeled to provide “SLIGHTLY” increased 

visitor educational experiences. This is indeed 

unfortunate! Outreach and Interpretation 

(page 51), again it is stated that the visitor 

experience would SLIGHTLY increase. 

Unfortunate! Over the years more and more 

groups are coming to the monument for an 

enriching experience. 

[Tonto NM] Alternative D will provide more 

space in the visitor center for visitor educational 

experiences than what is now available. 

Building new visitor centers as recommended in 

Alternatives B and C would provide the most 

space, but would disturb more natural 

resources, be more visible from the cliff 

dwellings, require more staff to operate, and 

more funds to construct, operate, and maintain. 

The existing visitor center cannot be enlarged 

because of its potential historical significance 

and location. However, increased interpretive 

programming is not solely dependent on 

infrastructure space except during inclement 

weather. 

[James Vowels] I understand the impact that 

Mission 66 (page 85) has upon any major 

remodeling on the existing structure, but the 

visitor is going to see little increase in the 

display of museum exhibits (page 49). The vast 

majority of museum collections will continue to 

be stored at the Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center in Tucson, Arizona. 

[Tonto NM] By moving the administrative 

offices out of the visitor center, more space will 

be available for increased visitor educational 

experiences including museum displays. 

However, increasing exhibit space may not be 

necessary once the displays are redesigned and 

updated. Because of the visitor center’s limited 

space, it would be impossible to display all of 

the monument’s artifacts. 

[James Vowels] On page 100, it was great to 

see that a parking area is being constructed by 

the Arizona Department of Transportation on 

U.S. Forest Service land. Well done! 

[Tonto NM] NPS management appreciates your 

support of the new upper cliff dwelling vista 

site and its long-term beneficial effect on 

visitors’ experience of this cultural resource. The 

new vista site will include interpretive signs 

about the upper cliff dwelling as well as the rest 

of the monument and Tonto National Forest. 

This construction project began in 2002. 

[Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe] Please be 

advised that the Yavapai are a distinct language 

group and not related to the Apache. 

Therefore, we would appreciate it if you would 

not refer to them together as you do on page 

87, paragraph 4. 

[Tonto NM] The word “Yavapai” was removed 

from this sentence. 

NPS D-26a

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.